This anti-life newspaper has been misinforming its readers over abortion issue
Niamh Uí Bhriain of the Life Institute said that the paper, in its rush to defend the abortion legislation, would have caused huge hurt to women and was deliberately misleading its readers.
"From the details that have emerged it seems clear that this was not an abortion, but an intervention that was necessary to save a mother whose life was at risk from sepsis. The twin babies who were delivered were sadly too young to survive."
A hospital source confirmed that 'even before the passage of the legislation, Holles Street would have carried out terminations in cases like this, where the prognosis for the pregnancy was very poor', yet that detail was buried in the story and came after a most misleading headline, Ms Uí Bhriain pointed out.
"As the Irish Times reporter well knows, our most senior obstetricians, such as Dr Sam Coulter Smith, the Master of the Rotunda, have repeatedly stated that these interventions should not be described as abortions, since the intent is not to kill the baby," she said. The distinction was also highlighted in the guidelines of the Institute for Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
"The claim that such interventions are abortions are hugely upsetting to the mothers and families involved who are already grieving the loss of their babies, and should not be exploited by the Irish Times or abortion campaigners," she said.
The pro-life spokeswoman said that the Irish Times had also made another serious error in reporting since the Department of Health had since confirmed that the abortion legislation was not yet commenced.
"The Irish Times claims to support women's rights, yet it causes upset and hurt to women to have lost their children, and uses every opportunity possible to push for abortion," she said. "Little wonder that their have fallen yet another 9% in new figures released today."
Have you ever heard of post-birth abortion? I hadn’t up until recently. Two Dutch academics have published a paper on its supposed ethical legitimacy. It’s an attempted justification for being allowed to kill your baby after it has been born. As if partial-birth abortion wasn’t bad enough, or abortion in general for that matter, these guys have taken it to a level comparatively few other abortion advocates ever have (Peter Singer and Richard Dawkins being notable supporters). – See more at Youth Defence
Originally published at Life Institute on 23 August 2013. Used by permission. All other rights reserved.
If you’re reading this article, it’s thanks to the generosity of people like you, who have made Aleteia possible.
Here are some numbers:
- 20 million users around the world read Aleteia.org every month
- Aleteia is published every day in eight languages: English, French, Arabic, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Polish, and Slovenian
- Each month, readers view more than 50 million pages
- Nearly 4 million people follow Aleteia on social media
- Each month, we publish 2,450 articles and around 40 videos
- We have 60 full time staff and approximately 400 collaborators (writers, translators, photographers, etc.)
As you can imagine, these numbers represent a lot of work. We need you.
Support Aleteia with as little as $1. It only takes a minute. Thank you!