Abortions for only a select few, citizens assembly wide of mark

Hooks Golf Handicap

Turns out we're not quite there yet whatever the citizens assembly said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll-voters-would-pass-limited-abortion-but-block-full-liberalisation-1.3246138

Was this citizens assembly made up of UCD first year art students or something.

Seven out of ten voters (70 per cent) say they would vote in favour of limited access in a referendum, with 17 per cent against and 12 per cent saying they don’t know.
On a referendum providing for general access to abortion up to 22 weeks, just over a third of voters (35 per cent) say they would vote in favour, with 50 per cent saying they would vote against such a proposal. Don’t knows were at 15 per cent.

On another point, they'd want to get this referendum over & done long before the Pope's visit.
Once he appears in the debate & wags his finger it's another 10% gone.

As these divisive topics normally narrow I think the Repeal campaign should concentrate fully on the ffa/rape/mother's health route & abandon any chance of getting full abortion over the line.
Sure don't they still have the Irish solution of the 2 tablets from Holland or a weekends shopping in Liverpool, what's the problem like.

Nettle Soup

I get the strong impression that the Citizens Assembly is told exactly what to think.

tigger123

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I get the strong impression that the Citizens Assembly is told exactly what to think.

Where/why do you get that impression? Didn't they hear equal arguments from both sides?

frag420

tigger123 wrote: »

Where/why do you get that impression? Didn't they hear equal arguments from both sides?

Not according to either side...

Roger Hassenforder

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Turns out we're not quite there yet whatever the citizens assembly said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll-voters-would-pass-limited-abortion-but-block-full-liberalisation-1.3246138

Was this citizens assembly made up of UCD first year art students or something.



On another point, they'd want to get this referendum over & done long before the Pope's visit.
Once he appears in the debate & wags his finger it's another 10% gone.

As these divisive topics normally narrow I think the Repeal campaign should concentrate fully on the ffa/rape/mother's health route & abandon any chance of getting full abortion over the line.
Sure don't they still have the Irish solution of the 2 tablets from Holland or a weekends shopping in Liverpool, what's the problem like.

Not sure what exactly the Assemby are proposing, but the article just references their deliberations:

The poll suggests that the public is unlikely to back the suggestions in the report of the Citizens’ Assembly for a wide-ranging liberalisation of Ireland’s strict anti-abortion laws. This has also been the finding or previous Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI polls.

Looks like unlimited option is a dead duck

Grayson

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I get the strong impression that the Citizens Assembly is told exactly what to think given facts.

The difference between the assembly and your average joe is the amount of education the assembly have on the subject. It goes way beyond the catch phrases that float around. What the assembly proved is that when given the entire facts most people will end up pro choice.

seamus

The results of a public poll and the results out of the assembly are always going to be different because the assembly heard a structured set of arguments and discussions from across the spectrum. People specifically involved in campaigning were removed from the assembly and not invited to address it.

The public hasn't had that benefit, so are naturally going to trend towards whatever arguments they choose to listen to.

Any road, there won't be a question to the public about what kind of abortion will be allowed. Because that's making the same mistake again.

Hooks Golf Handicap

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Not sure what exactly the Assemby are proposing

From memory 65%+ of the assembly recommended full access to abortion.
But as other posters have said they got to study the facts in a non-polluted atmosphere.
We however will be subject to the barrage & use of extremes to carry their point.

Hooks Golf Handicap

seamus wrote: »

Any road, there won't be a question to the public about what kind of abortion will be allowed. Because that's making the same mistake again.

Do you reckon the referendum will only ask to repeal or keep ?
That means politicians will have to legislate to fill the void.

Ain't none of them wanna do that

Grayson

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Do you reckon the referendum will only ask to repeal or keep ?
That means politicians will have to legislate to fill the void.

Ain't none of them wanna do that

If they were smart they'd have two sections. One is repeal/keep and the other is what legislation it should be replaced with if it's repealed. They could even do what the UK did with Brexit and make it (the second part) non binding so they can weasel out of it involves them having to do something they don't want to do.

pilly

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Turns out we're not quite there yet whatever the citizens assembly said.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/poll-voters-would-pass-limited-abortion-but-block-full-liberalisation-1.3246138

Was this citizens assembly made up of UCD first year art students or something.



On another point, they'd want to get this referendum over & done long before the Pope's visit.
Once he appears in the debate & wags his finger it's another 10% gone.

As these divisive topics normally narrow I think the Repeal campaign should concentrate fully on the ffa/rape/mother's health route & abandon any chance of getting full abortion over the line.
Sure don't they still have the Irish solution of the 2 tablets from Holland or a weekends shopping in Liverpool, what's the problem like.

Not quite sure if you're being sarcastic here or not?

One eyed Jack

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

From memory 65%+ of the assembly recommended full access to abortion.
But as other posters have said they got to study the facts in a non-polluted atmosphere.
We however will be subject to the barrage & use of extremes to carry their point.

The 65% figure relates to the number who voted in favour of legislating for abortion with terms and conditions attached. 8% was the number who voted in favour of legislating for abortion without terms and conditions attached.

To be perfectly honest IMO the Citizens Assembly was just for show, it had no real consequences and people will have generally formed their opinions on abortion already, no matter what amount of testimony was given at the assembly from either side, and no matter what propaganda will be forthcoming in the coming months before, and years after a referendum.

Omackeral

I'm alright with abortions for some, as long as there are miniature American flags for others.

server down

Repeal the 8 is just about repealing the 8th. I would be dubious about late term abortions for instance, but the job on the 8th is to repeal a prohibition and leave the legislation to the legislators. The pro repeal movement need to point that out, and they probably need better PR.

osarusan

I thought the citizens assembly recommended abortion on request up to 14 or 16 weeks (can't remember which) as well as later times for other reasons (health, etc)

The IT is asking for opinions on abortions a time of up to 22 weeks.

The most debated issue is going to be where the limit sits for abortion on request. I'm happy with 14-16 weeks, but not happy with 24-26 weeks, for example, and I imagine that many people will feel the same - the later that limit goes, the more support will drop.

If and how the referendum (or accompanying legislation) deals with such limits will be crucial.

super_furry

This referendum is about scrapping the 8th amendment from the statute books. Once that’s done, then look at what replaces it.

meeeeh

Grayson wrote: »

The difference between the assembly and your average joe is the amount of education the assembly have on the subject. It goes way beyond the catch phrases that float around. What the assembly proved is that when given the entire facts most people will end up pro choice.

I think that's probably the closest to the truth but the problem is that general public doesn't spend that much time listening to arguments. I have experience of referendums in two different countries and was majority of them are absolute joke and usually decided by people who know very little or nothing on the subject.

pilly

Grayson wrote: »

If they were smart they'd have two sections. One is repeal/keep and the other is what legislation it should be replaced with if it's repealed. They could even do what the UK did with Brexit and make it (the second part) non binding so they can weasel out of it involves them having to do something they don't want to do.

Will that not make it hugely complicated though?

One eyed Jack

Grayson wrote: »

The difference between the assembly and your average joe is the amount of education the assembly have on the subject. It goes way beyond the catch phrases that float around. What the assembly proved is that when given the entire facts most people will end up pro choice.

You're assuming people weren't pro-choice in the first place, and secondly there's also the possibility that people weren't invested in something which had no consequences for them so they weren't ever likely to take it as seriously as a referendum (not that we tend to take referendums seriously in this country anyway, but that's for another thread).

VinLieger

This has always been my worry and I think the very vocal repeal crowd might be a bit blind and deaf to the realities of the country.

Im definitely pro repealing it but i really believe there is a silent majority who are going to be against any repeal of the 8th.
If the referendum does fail that means we are stuck with it for likely another 10 years at least.

As an aside I really have an issue with the likes of ROSA who are shoehorning in their socialist agenda on top of this issue.

Gunslinger92

server down wrote: »

Repeal the 8 is just about repealing the 8th. I would be dubious about late term abortions for instance, but the job on the 8th is to repeal a prohibition and leave the legislation to the legislators. The pro repeal movement need to point that out, and they probably need better PR.

Less than 1% of abortions are carried out in the third trimester and when they are, it's a wanted child and something has gone horribly wrong. Nobody is going to decide to just terminate their pregnancy with a few weeks left to go simply because of a change of mind! Vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester

One eyed Jack

pilly wrote: »

Will that not make it hugely complicated though?

They definitely won't offer any legislative options in a referendum anyway, that will only come afterwards, and will probably be dragged out for another few years before some legislation that nobody is satisfied with, is introduced.

server down

Grayson wrote: »

If they were smart they'd have two sections. One is repeal/keep and the other is what legislation it should be replaced with if it's repealed. They could even do what the UK did with Brexit and make it (the second part) non binding so they can weasel out of it involves them having to do something they don't want to do.

One would be a referendum on a constitution and the other a large opinion poll?

What the government should do is announce whatever legislation, or the general idea, before the repeal.

So.

What you're saying is abortions for some.

Miniature American Flags for others

osarusan

super_furry wrote: »

This referendum is about scrapping the 8th amendment from the statute books. Once that’s done, then look at what replaces it.

I get the impression that, rightly or wrongly, this is being viewed as a referendum on abortion on demand.

I don't know whether it is to the benefit of either campaign to embrace that perception of it or not, or to highlight that it is a much wider-ranging issue than just abortion.

The great fear of the pro-life campaign is that if and when it is removed from the constitution, future legislation will become more and more liberal, and they wonder where that will end up, in particular with regard time limits for abortion on demand. With the extremely conservative 2013 Act still in place - a piece of legislation that would be revised in the future - those fears would be well grounded.

Maybe it is better for the repeal campaigns to emphasise the existing 2013 Act and how conservative it is, or maybe it is better to look for replacement legislation that would deal with abortion on demand and put a limit of 14-16 weeks on it.

I don't know which is the better approach to allay the fears of some who are bothered mainly by the question of time limits for abortion on demand. There is no way to put a 'freeze' on future legislation, but if the new legislation is something that satisfies pro-choice campaigners, maybe that's better than the 2013 Act, which there is no doubt they would want to see revised.

blanch152

server down wrote: »

Repeal the 8 is just about repealing the 8th. I would be dubious about late term abortions for instance, but the job on the 8th is to repeal a prohibition and leave the legislation to the legislators. The pro repeal movement need to point that out, and they probably need better PR.

Exactly.

They are two separate and distinct issues. Whatever your views on abortion, the 8th Amendment is a legal mess. For that reason alone, whether you call yourself pro-life or you call yourself pro-choice, you should campaign for the 8th to be repealed.

There is a completely different debate required about what type of abortion laws (if any), we should have in Ireland. There are legitimate views on both sides, but also grey areas around viability, late-term abortion, lifestyle choice abortions etc. At the same time, there is a near universal view that what happened in a Galway hospital to that poor woman should never be allowed happen in Ireland again.

Where should the balance lie? That is a healthy debate, but nobody should vote no to Repeal the 8th purely on the basis they don't like what they think might happen afterwards.

c_man

super_furry wrote: »

This referendum is about scrapping the 8th amendment from the statute books. Once that’s done, then look at what replaces it.

From a purely legislative view, that's exactly why I voted against getting rid of the Seanad. Let's get rid of something and trust the politicians to follow up on it? No thanks, I'll need a bit more than that.

faceman

Grayson wrote:

The difference between the assembly and your average joe is the amount of education the assembly have on the subject. It goes way beyond the catch phrases that float around. What the assembly proved is that when given the entire facts most people will end up pro choice.

This by a billion.

seamus

Hooks Golf Handicap wrote: »

Do you reckon the referendum will only ask to repeal or keep ?
That means politicians will have to legislate to fill the void.

Ain't none of them wanna do that

The only reasonable option is to replace it with a section that empowers the Dail to legislate.

A straight repeal still leaves us in an uncertain place.
Keeping it leaves us in a ridiculous place.

Being explicit about what is and isn't allowed, is not practical in a constitution. There's a reason why most legislation is 10-20 pages long - because you need to be clear about what you're doing, how it's applied and how uncertainty should be handled.

You can't do that in a constitution. A constitution is broad statements of intent. Legislation then clarifies and empowers that intent.

The marriage equality referendum is a perfect example. A single statement of intent:

"Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex"

This statement didn't make same-sex marriage legal. It didn't specify how it was to take place, where when or under what circumstances.
Hundreds of pages of follow-up legislation did all that.

Likewise, something like,

"The state guarantees by its laws to defend and vindicate the right to bodily autonomy of a mother in pregnancy, as far as is practicable, while acknowledging the respect and dignity due to the unborn"

...provides a statement of intent without specifically allowing or disallowing abortion on any given grounds. In effect what it does is say, "The mother is a living person with rights, but even though it doesn't have the same rights, we have to be mindful of the unborn child too". It's clear that the intent of the statement is not to allow unlimited abortion at any time during the pregnancy, but to ensure that a woman's rights are duly protected.

Obviously this is not an iron-clad statement I've come up with, just an example. Don't waste your time picking holes in it or telling me why you disagree with it

Grayson

pilly wrote: »

Will that not make it hugely complicated though?

For us, it would be complicated but from a political perspective it makes it easier for the government to fudge what happens. The unfortunate thing is that abortion, especially in this country, is a political minefield. That means that any party which chooses to enact any legislation will always try to water it down and having a non binding vote makes it easier for them to do so.

One eyed Jack

osarusan wrote: »

Maybe it is better for the repeal campaigns to emphasise the existing 2013 Act and how conservative it is, or maybe it is better to look for replacement legislation that would deal with abortion on demand and put a limit of 14-16 weeks on it.

Then you're just back to a repeat of 1983 again when the 8th amendment was introduced, and there will still be women who are past whatever term limits are placed in legislation who will seek a termination of their pregnancy, whether that be by legal or illegal means regardless.

seamus

As others say here, the conversation needs to move away from this being a discussion about abortion.

The 8th amendment takes away women's rights. A pregnant woman has less right than the non-pregnant person beside them. Any decision she makes for herself effectively requires the state to approve it.

If she wants a medical procedure, the state will get involved. If she needs a medical procedure to improve her quality of life, the state is involved. If she is on death's door and requires a medical procedure that will save her life but kill the foetus, you bet your arse the state will be involved.

Ask any woman who has gone into a maternity hospital, and they will tell you the amount of times that hospital staff just did things to them without asking, or told them how things were going to be. Once you go in those doors, you become a ward of the hospital. Many choices are simply removed from you.

Whereas if I go into hospital requiring treatment, whether that be emergency, necessary or elective, at no stage will I have to go to court and ask the state if it's OK that I get it. And you can be damn sure that they will ask me, every single time, before they stick a needle in me or collect any samples.

That's the fundamental issue. It's not an abortion issue, it's a rights issue.

I agree with others that the conversation needs to be swung towards the real issue and be moved away from abortion.

blanch152

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then you're just back to a repeat of 1983 again when the 8th amendment was introduced, and there will still be women who are past whatever term limits are placed in legislation who will seek a termination of their pregnancy, whether that be by legal or illegal means regardless.

There will always be people who will want to break any law, that doesn't necessarily mean the law should be changed.

In this case, we need to legislate for what society wants, and we need to be able to amend that legislation if the courts find a problem or society evolves. That means it is a job for the Oireachtas to set our abortion laws, not for continuous referenda and not for the judiciary.

meeeeh

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then you're just back to a repeat of 1983 again when the 8th amendment was introduced, and there will still be women who are past whatever term limits are placed in legislation who will seek a termination of their pregnancy, whether that be by legal or illegal means regardless.

Wast majority of women terminate in first trimester. After that you can have abortion in certain circumstances and it has to be approved by group of doctors. I lived in a country with very similar system and there were no calls to liberalize it or any issues with it.

I think your argument is more used as an excuse to do nothing.

blanch152

seamus wrote: »

As others say here, the conversation needs to move away from this being a discussion about abortion.

The 8th amendment takes away women's rights. A pregnant woman has less right than the non-pregnant person beside them. Any decision she makes for herself effectively requires the state to approve it.

If she wants a medical procedure, the state will get involved. If she needs a medical procedure to improve her quality of life, the state is involved. If she is on death's door and requires a medical procedure that will save her life but kill the foetus, you bet your arse the state will be involved.

Ask any woman who has gone into a maternity hospital, and they will tell you the amount of times that hospital staff just did things to them without asking, or told them how things were going to be. Once you go in those doors, you become a ward of the hospital. Many choices are simply removed from you.

Whereas if I go into hospital requiring treatment, whether that be emergency, necessary or elective, at no stage will I have to go to court and ask the state if it's OK that I get it. And you can be damn sure that they will ask me, every single time, before they stick a needle in me or collect any samples.

That's the fundamental issue. It's not an abortion issue, it's a rights issue.

I agree with others that the conversation needs to be swung towards the real issue and be moved away from abortion.

That is just not true. If you go into hospital and ask them to remove your liver, they will refuse, because it would put your life in danger. So there are limits to what treatment you can seek, some of those limits are set by law, some of them are set by medical ethics.

Similarly, a woman doesn't or shouldn't have complete control over what she can do with her pregnancy. She shouldn't be allowed have an abortion of an otherwise viable fetus at 37 weeks, for example. That is horrific and abhorrent.

At the same time, the current position is untenable. Reasonable and timely access to abortion should be allowed, but there must be term-limits, possibly several term-limits. You could have a completely free access to abortion up to say 10-14 weeks (pick your limit) and a limited access thereafter (i.e. disability, danger to the woman's health etc.) up to 18-22 weeks.

Such arrangements would be a reasonable balance to the right to bodily integrity, the right to access to medical treatment, the right to health of the woman, the right to life of the unborn, and all of the other conflicting rights involved in this discussion. If you focus only on one right, or one aspect of one right, then you lose the ability to take a balanced approach.

One eyed Jack

seamus wrote: »

As others say here, the conversation needs to move away from this being a discussion about abortion.

The 8th amendment takes away women's rights. A pregnant woman has less right than the non-pregnant person beside them. Any decision she makes for herself effectively requires the state to approve it.

If she wants a medical procedure, the state will get involved. If she needs a medical procedure to improve her quality of life, the state is involved. If she is on death's door and requires a medical procedure that will save her life but kill the foetus, you bet your arse the state will be involved.

Whereas if I go into hospital requiring treatment, whether that be emergency, necessary or elective, at no stage will I have to go to court and ask the state if it's OK that I get it.

That's the fundamental issue. It's not an abortion issue, it's a rights issue.

I agree with others that the conversation needs to be swung towards the real issue and be moved away from abortion.

The State would be involved if you could get pregnant, so it's misleading to try and distract people from what the actual issue is which is that the 8th amendment protects the equal right to life of the unborn as the right to life of the mother and does all in it's power to vindicate that equal right to life by allowing for circumstances where the pregnant woman's life is at risk.

This isn't a question of rights plural, because there's only one right is relevant with regard to the 8th amendment - the right to life. If we're being asked in a referendum to repeal that amendment, then the right to life of the unborn is no longer equal to the right to life of the pregnant woman, and therefore it makes legislating to broaden our laws regarding abortion that much easier.

Outlaw Pete

Gunslinger92 wrote: »

Nobody is going to decide to just terminate their pregnancy with a few weeks left to go simply because of a change of mind!

That's inaccurate. Indeed many women have been jailed for doing so. Some abortionists too for providing them.

Vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester

Vast majority of murder victims (94%) are people under 49. Should we make it legal to kill people over 50?

Course not. Vast majority means feck all when it comes to what we should and should not legislate for.

Recently the rarity of suicide as a result of pregnancy from rape was cited on a thread and the (rightful) response was '1 is 1 too many' and so if 'rarity' is not considered a sufficient retort against the need for having legislation in place on one side of the argument..... then why should it be considered such on the other?

One eyed Jack

blanch152 wrote: »

There will always be people who will want to break any law, that doesn't necessarily mean the law should be changed.

In this case, we need to legislate for what society wants, and we need to be able to amend that legislation if the courts find a problem or society evolves. That means it is a job for the Oireachtas to set our abortion laws, not for continuous referenda and not for the judiciary.

That's exactly my point - aren't we being asked to change the law by having a referendum? The Oireachtas will then put forward more half measures proposals for changes in the law which will mean women will still be in limbo rather than making abortion safe, legal and rare.

SafeSurfer

super_furry wrote: »

This referendum is about scrapping the 8th amendment from the statute books. Once that’s done, then look at what replaces it.

Voters aren't going to take that leap of faith. Vote to scrap something without knowing what will replace it.

meeeeh

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's inaccurate. Indeed many women have been jailed for doing so. Some abortionists too for providing them.

Can you provide a bit more reliable statistical data than 'many'. And in how many cases mental issues were present.

I think some limits must be applied and they are usually around the time fetus can survive outside womb so the scaremongering around abortions in 40th week is pretty disingenuous.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That's inaccurate. Indeed many women have been jailed for doing so. Some abortionists too for providing them.

How "many" is "many" here and what data have you to back it up? Is there a point being made here other than a pedantic attack on someone thoughtlessly using the word "no one" when he likely means "next to no one"?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Vast majority of murder victims (94%) are people under 49. Should we make it legal to kill people over 50? Course not. Vast majority means feck all when it comes to what we should and should not legislate for.

It does and it doesn't. It means "feck all" to the morality of it for sure. One can either argue an act is moral or immoral...... the number of people doing it is probably nothing to do with that.

But when it comes to legislation it would be foolish not to legislate based on not just the moral and ethical positions, but based on what people actually want and need.

Since the VAST majority of abortions (well into the 90%s) appear to occur in or before week 16........ one could certainly put forward moral arguments as to why abortion up to week 24 is morally ok (which I have done in the past) but would it make any sense to do so, or to legislate for it, if it is entirely superfluous to requirements.

So in short I suspect the arguments around the ethics and morality of abortion itself........ and those around what we should actually legislate for and allow and provide........... are going to have stark differences between them.

meeeeh

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Voters aren't going to take that leap of faith. Vote to scrap something without knowing what will replace it.

I suspect this probably true but it shouldn't be. Abortion shouldn't be dealt with in constitution. People constantly vote without knowing what will happen in every general election.

SafeSurfer

We could have a situation next year where those who wish to create life will through IVF will be means tested but those who wish to destroy life will have abortion paid for entirety by the state.

If it's your body your choice don't expect me to pay.

SafeSurfer

meeeeh wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Voters aren't going to take that leap of faith. Vote to scrap something without knowing what will replace it.

I suspect this probably true but it shouldn't be. Abortion shouldn't be dealt with in constitution. People constantly vote without knowing what will happen in every general election.

Should fundamental rights not be included in the constitution? Should they be in the gift of short term politicians to remove or amend?

Hooks Golf Handicap

osarusan wrote: »

The most debated issue is going to be where the limit sits for abortion on request. I'm happy with 14-16 weeks, but not happy with 24-26 weeks, for example, and I imagine that many people will feel the same - the later that limit goes, the more support will drop.
.

Problem is in Ireland that many pregnant women don't receive their 12 week scan until week 14 or 15.
That leaves a very short time frame to make a life changing decision.

AustinLostin

SafeSurfer wrote: »

We could have a situation next year where those who wish to create life will through IVF will be means tested but those who wish to destroy life will have abortion paid for entirety by the state.

If it's your body your choice don't expect me to pay.

You realise you are already 'paying' for the choices of 1000s of Irish citizens treatment, as a result of choices which negatively impacted their health.

meeeeh

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Should fundamental rights not be included in the constitution? Should they be in the gift of short term politicians to remove or amend?

What fundamental rights? Rights of a cluster of cells? Un constantly points to violations of those rights by Irish constitution by forcing women to travel, refusing them treatment and so on. If you are worried about fundamental rights they are already violated by Irish constitution.

SafeSurfer

AustinLostin wrote: »

SafeSurfer wrote: »

We could have a situation next year where those who wish to create life will through IVF will be means tested but those who wish to destroy life will have abortion paid for entirety by the state.

If it's your body your choice don't expect me to pay.

You realise you are already 'paying' for the choices of 1000s of Irish citizens treatment, as a result of choices which negatively impacted their health.

I'm paying to prolong the life of people with lung cancer who chose to smoke or car crash victims who chose to speed. Not the choice of someone to kill their child.

A Little Pony

I will be taking the view of the Pope on this issue.

Charles Babbage

blanch152 wrote: »

Exactly.
There is a completely different debate required about what type of abortion laws (if any), we should have in Ireland. There are legitimate views on both sides, but also grey areas around viability, late-term abortion, lifestyle choice abortions etc. At the same time, there is a near universal view that what happened in a Galway hospital to that poor woman should never be allowed happen in Ireland again.

The best thing to ensure that what happened in a Galway hospital to that poor woman is never allowed happen in Ireland again would be an clause in the constitution requring the government to staff the health service properly. This might save other people too.

SafeSurfer

A Little Pony wrote: »

I will be taking the view of the Pope on this issue.

Well he is infallible you know :-)