Virgil° wrote: » Why would the right to life of the unborn be lessened in the case of rape? Surely the child is not at fault?
Virgil° wrote: » I think abortion should be illegal at the point where the brain begins to develop the parts of it required for higher brain function and ergo the formation of consciousness. Aferwards i would err on the side of life in most cases. Barring perhaps rape and the mothers life being endangered.....
MightyMandarin wrote: » It most certainly is. If I told you that support for Repealing the 8th Amendment was purely down to the trendiness of the social media campaign and that one's decision to support it was made because of a couple of black jumpers and hastags, how would you react? It might seem crazy, but people can be opposed to all of those things, and not be catholic. Just be mindful of that.
MightyMandarin wrote: » The tone of your post is yet more confirmation to me why the repealthe8th campaign is losing vast amounts of support from the public. You may not tell me, or anyone else for that matter, what I can or can't believe in, and I will absolutely make exceptions on matters based entirely on my own personal convictions, and I hope others do the exact same. I don't give a **** if you think my reasoning just "doesn't cut it", you have no right to tell me that.
That said, the right of the unborn child is not any less in value than other children, in the case where the mother was raped; I just feel an exception must be allowed, because it is unconscionable to have a woman forced to give birth to a child conceived through unconsensual sex imo. You might not think that's not an adequate reason but in my books, it absolutely is.
The 8th Amendment is anything but stupid or unclear. The Constitution is not designed to deal with exceptions to certain rules or the logisitics involved in implenting them, that's what legislation is for, and that is what the 2013 bill does. If the repealthe8th camapaign wish to lobby for a bill which will provide exceptions to the 8th Amendment in the cases I mentioned, I will fully support them.
But I will not support any campaign to remove a constitutional amendment which protects the right to life for the unborn. It is far too important to be repealed.
mejulie805 wrote: » Amended by IThttp://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/thousands-march-against-eighth-amendment-in-dublin-1.3002375
Outlaw Pete wrote: » This always makes me laugh, whenever the pro-choice side of the debate attempt to turn rape exception around as if it was the pro-life that dragged rape victims into the debate. Historically though, it hasn't been, as it's very much been the pro-choice side of the discussion that have always sanctimoniously tried to use rape victims as pawns and so to imply that the pro-life care less about babies which are the result of rape is quite laughable.
In fact, you yourself back in the day even cited rape as an example of when you would be willing to see abortion go ahead at a stage of pregnancy which you'd be opposed to were the baby not the result of rape and so maybe it is YOU that should be telling us WHY a child conceived of rape is any less deserving of life than one that isn't. Or have you conveniently changed your mind since back then?
RobertKK wrote: » https://twitter.com/irishtimes/status/839493491797463040 Hundreds...
RobertKK wrote: » Self mutilation would have one locked away for their own safety.
kylith wrote: » Have you seen the cases in this country with people shaking hands with rapists?
MightyMandarin wrote: » But I will not support any campaign to remove a constitutional amendment which protects the right to life for the unborn. It is far too important to be repealed.
RobertKK wrote: » https://twitter.com/NicoleOConor/status/839515950688964608https://twitter.com/nora__claire/status/839516265345609728https://twitter.com/ZaraKing/status/839435333859176449 Quite crude.
MightyMandarin wrote: » This is why I can't, in good conscience, vote to allow abortion, except in cases of fatal fetal abnormality, rape and where the mother's life is at risk. I feel the arguments of weeks are just semantics; the real question is whether the right to life of an unborn child is any less than that of a child who's been born, and I just don't think it is. The arguments on the contrary are compelling, but at the end of the day, nothing has convinced me to change my opinion on the central point of the debate thus far.
MightyMandarin wrote: » It's a difficult question to answer, but I feel this debate is about a balancing of interests and rights of both the mother and child. I feel that in a case where the mother has been raped, some compromise has to be made in her interest and the pregnancy aborted if she desires.
Five men have been arrested in connection with a gang rape that happened in December.The men, who are aged between 17 and 20, were all arrested on Wednesday evening by detectives following an ongoing investigation.It's been reported that a 17-year-old woman was raped by five men in December. She was brought to a location in a vehicle by a man she knew and was raped by other men when she arrived.
" I had to wait for my baby to die inside me "
[Deleted User] wrote: » What's with the lightening strike? Are they trying to be Harry Potter or something?
jameorahiely wrote: » Does wanting "bodily autonomy " mean you support abortion up to 39 weeks? It kind of has to...
Zulu wrote: » This is very true. Another thing the citizen has to do is accept the voice of the majority. Which is why the sensible people in the Repeal crowd really need to get back behind the steering wheel. The middle ground is being lost, and where would a failed vote get us???
Richard Hillman wrote: » Just seen the pictures on the news. The crowd looked exactly like the type of people that would attend such a march. Not exactly a great advertisement.
Jayop wrote: » It's a religious vs non-religious argument and sex has no bearing on whether you support it or not.
Deleted User wrote: » What's the evening turnout like? With my Facebook echo chamber I was very surprised at the poor turnout today.