Outlaw Pete wrote: » Nope. But I didn't expect one tbf as she never engages with people who disagree with her on Twitter. Mutes them usually.
kylith wrote: » They asked them to take down the banners because they were too graphic. If they're anything like the pictures YD used to have up when they were on College Green I can see why. Photos of stillborn foetuses are not appropriate for public display. There is nothing to stop them from using other banners.
_Whimsical_ wrote: » I agree with you in principle however in this instance the banners contained graphic and upsettng images. Personally I think that's too much for small kids or people feeling very sensitive about the issues of abortion or miscarriage. While I absolutely support their right to campaign and put their view forth I do understand why there's a problem with graphic pictures being displayed publicly where people don't have a choice to expose themselves to them or not.
Galwayguy35 wrote: » Who's this fool Laura Silver with her "Galway Police" drivel.
meeeeh wrote: » Well if they are not then they deserve the dignity of not being used as a cheap prop in advertising campaign. It might be also upsetting to someone who had miscarriage. However this would be beyond compassion, understanding or consideration of extreme pro life groups. Louise O'Neill is an idiot but extreme prolifers are much worse.
Jayop wrote: » It's a religious vs non-religious argument and sex has no bearing on whether you support it or not.
RobertKK wrote: » There should be a referendum and TV coverage should show all the facts including an actual abortion so people know exactly what they are voting for or against.
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » I understand & get some people will find those posters offensive, however that said I don,t think people have a right to be free from being offended, from looking at online footage from yesterday,s counter protest in the South east some people just looked the other way when they saw them as in Irnoreing them.
RobertKK wrote: » There should be a referendum and TV coverage should show all the facts including an actual abortion so people know exactly what they are voting for or against. A strike is an excuse for a day off work as it is not about work conditions. Clare Daly who is often on TV and radio talking about this, when asked about time limits, argues that there should be no time limits on abortion. The 24 weeks time limit in the UK is controversial in itself given babies born at 22 weeks can survive with the right care if born prematurely.
kylith wrote: » I agree that people don't have a right not to be offended but do you think that images of miscarried or stillborn fetuses* are OK to be shown on the street where children can see them? I was fcking traumatised as a child by the YD posters on College Green. Would you be saying the same if the Repeal side were showing pictures of women who died of septicaemia after a back street abortion? *Which is what YD's photos are of, but they pass them off as aborted because they're much later term and therefore more developed and upsetting to people.
Would you be saying the same if the Repeal side were showing pictures of women who died of septicaemia after a back street abortion?
whatever side the debate you re on ; I think people on both sides have a equal right to make & present their arguments .
Zaph wrote: » Fair enough, but why should the local Spar, for instance, be made pay for the government's inadequacies if all their staff decide to go on strike over something unrelated to their employment?
Dirty Dingus McGee wrote: » If people care so much about this then why don't they simply have a massive petition before every election pledging that the people who sign the petition will only vote for the party that promises to fix the issue.If parties see massive loss of votes because of something like this they'd act fairly quickly. We're great in this country for complaining afterwards about things but seem to be quite poor at using our vote for getting what we want.
Earthhorse wrote: » Ah, why should anyone anything? Why should women be made pay for the government's inadequacies by having to travel abroad for abortion?
thee glitz wrote: » The government isn't forcing anyone to pay to travel abroad for an abortion. If you just want one though, as opposed to having a serious need for one, you will have to travel abroad. There's no good enough reason why the government, ie every taxpayer, should subsidise that.
Earthhorse wrote: » So you'd be okay with abortion if women had to pay to get one here?
Tigger wrote: » I'd assume that unless you need rather than want (need and want being defined by i Donno ?; doctors) that you will have to pay for the procedure. The idea of A waiting list is horrible .
freshpopcorn wrote: » This is something I often wondered. If we did repeal the eighth amendment. Could the government make it harder than ever to get an abortion? If we left it up to the government to legislate for when the amendment was repealed. (I hope that makes scene)
ted1 wrote: » Because there's lot of issues that go on in the country and picking a government based on an abortion issue is about as daft as picking one based on water charges. As it means housing, health , welfare , taxes, defence, industry, agriculture etc all get kicked to the kerb and we all suffer.
mahamageehad wrote: » Theoretically yes. I would involve them updating or replacing the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act (which i'm just going to call the Act), but it could happen. It would be nonsensical though, there would be no benefit for them to do that. The Act is so restrictive currently that if any of the women allowed an abortion by its terms were refused an abortion, they would literally die. The Act only allows abortion when the other choice is death, and I'd wager that most civilised countries that don't allow abortion have some variation of the aforementioned Act. It also means however that the government could repeal the 8th, and not touch the Act. In that case, we'd have a nice expensive referendum with no tangible result. Repealing the 8th actually would put no obligation on the government to review, change or update the Act.
mahamageehad wrote: » Tigger wrote: » I'd assume that unless you need rather than want (need and want being defined by i Donno ?; doctors) that you will have to pay for the procedure. The idea of A waiting list is horrible . While the thought of a waiting list may be horrible, we're talking about a time sensitive procedure in most cases unfortunately. Clinics in the UK were turning Irish women away earlier this year because Jan and Feb are the busiest times for abortion. Source: https://www.her.ie/news/uk-abortion-clinics-will-begin-turn-away-irish-women-331776 The want/need issue is a more interesting topic to me. The pro-choice case argues that want and need are the same thing in the case of abortion, but most only support it until a certain time. Many pro-lifers would agree with abortion in a case where it's "needed" (usually when the mother's life is at risk) but would abhor the idea of someone "wanting" an abortion. Both sides have grey areas and in my experience, most people fall just left or right of the middle. Currently the possibility of an abortion comes down to two things, the 8th amendment and the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act. The 8th amendment puts the life of the foetus on par with the mother and therefore restricts what the legislation can allow for. The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act defines in what circumstances a woman in Ireland can get an abortion - life-threatening physical illness, medical emergency and suicide-risk. Two doctors need to certify that it's necessary. Unfortunately it doesn't cover every case, and that, for me, is the issue. What about the 14 year old that was raped, but she's not "quite" suicidal enough? What about the couple that have been trying for a baby, only to fall pregnant with a child that won't be able to survive outside the womb? There was also that disgusting case a while ago where they kept a brain-dead woman alive as a macabre human incubator. That was a direct result of the 8th amendment. Really, doctors and lawmakers and other educated, diverse people (men and women) should be arguing this out on moral, ethical and legal grounds. There are plenty of case studies from other countries. Why should something like this come down to popular vote? It seems almost disrespectful of the complexity of the situation. As long as the 8th amendment is in the constitution, it'll always be treated as a bargaining chip. In my opinion, the 8th should be repealed. The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act (which only allows for extremely limited abortion as above) would then become the legislation we rely on. It would allow us in time to open up the conversation to talk about rape victims, or fatal fetal abnormalities and more, without immediately phrasing it as allowing or banning abortion.
mahamageehad wrote: » While the thought of a waiting list may be horrible, we're talking about a time sensitive procedure in most cases unfortunately. Clinics in the UK were turning Irish women away earlier this year because Jan and Feb are the busiest times for abortion. Source: https://www.her.ie/news/uk-abortion-clinics-will-begin-turn-away-irish-women-331776 The want/need issue is a more interesting topic to me. The pro-choice case argues that want and need are the same thing in the case of abortion, but most only support it until a certain time. Many pro-lifers would agree with abortion in a case where it's "needed" (usually when the mother's life is at risk) but would abhor the idea of someone "wanting" an abortion. Both sides have grey areas and in my experience, most people fall just left or right of the middle. Currently the possibility of an abortion comes down to two things, the 8th amendment and the Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act. The 8th amendment puts the life of the foetus on par with the mother and therefore restricts what the legislation can allow for. The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act defines in what circumstances a woman in Ireland can get an abortion - life-threatening physical illness, medical emergency and suicide-risk. Two doctors need to certify that it's necessary. Unfortunately it doesn't cover every case, and that, for me, is the issue. What about the 14 year old that was raped, but she's not "quite" suicidal enough? What about the couple that have been trying for a baby, only to fall pregnant with a child that won't be able to survive outside the womb? There was also that disgusting case a while ago where they kept a brain-dead woman alive as a macabre human incubator. That was a direct result of the 8th amendment. Really, doctors and lawmakers and other educated, diverse people (men and women) should be arguing this out on moral, ethical and legal grounds. There are plenty of case studies from other countries. Why should something like this come down to popular vote? It seems almost disrespectful of the complexity of the situation. As long as the 8th amendment is in the constitution, it'll always be treated as a bargaining chip. In my opinion, the 8th should be repealed. The Protection of Life during Pregnancy Act (which only allows for extremely limited abortion as above) would then become the legislation we rely on. It would allow us in time to open up the conversation to talk about rape victims, or fatal fetal abnormalities and more, without immediately phrasing it as allowing or banning abortion.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/539351850a16f5f9c21e3ead71d5e342.svg)
