Its interesting isn't it. I really feel the tide is turning on this one. I found it interesting to compare the treatments of the abortion debates and SN other high profile Right to Die currently. That lady failed in her attempt for assisted suicide, due to the principle that no third party had the right over an other's life, and the normalisation effect, and the tacit expectation on vulnerable people that they shouldn't expect to 'put people out'. There are parallels. I'm a reluctant pro choicer (aren't we all, I suppose? )
I thought this might be of interest. It's a good sign that the debate has started off in a civilised manner, although as the article states that might change with the testimony of the pro-life/choice advocacy groups. It seems somewhat sad to admit it but I was also pleased that rather than a string of men giving their views on this subject, the major people mentioned were mainly women (the Master of Holles street, a female TD, and a professor of psychiatry). Perhaps it's sexist in a way but I would expect the main voices to be those of women in this debate. I don't think men shouldn't contribute but I would be very angry if the whole hearing involved male TDs and doctors sitting around discussing something that will never ever affect them in the same way that it affects a woman.