notjustsweet wrote: » You are saying they should have no choice and they should be forced to carry the baby of their attacker. That's very much the issue actually.
me_right_one wrote: » What are you on about? That isnt the issue. Of course the rape victim should be helped / supported / compensated. Nobody's saying they shouldnt
notjustsweet wrote: » Yet the other innocent victim is ignored, the one who is actually living, walking and talking and can think, breathe and isnt reliant on anyone else foreverythinh. She also had no choice and was violently attacked, stripped of her rights and dignity but all you see is an incubator? Pro life....but not for supporting those who are currently living.
me_right_one wrote: » ....and which they had no choice in.
AtomicHorror wrote: » The second ballot seemed to rule out repeal (triggering this thread) but the third ballot seems to indicate the CA will recommend something functionally the same as repeal. The Repeal movement wanted deletion of 40.3.3, which would by default mean the Oireachtas has to legislate on the rights of the unborn and abortion. The third ballot proposed replacing 40.3.3 with a statement that... the Oireachtas has to legislate on the rights of the unborn and abortion. The CA voted in favour of this. Am I missing something big here? Isn't this exactly what the Repeal movement wanted?
eviltwin wrote: » The repeal movement want the amendment removed. This is not just because of abortion but mainly because it impacts maternity care. The current development may pave the way for more access to abortion but won't address the maternity system which affects all women not just those in need of termination.
B_Wayne wrote: » They were spoken to by both sides. So it's dishonest to claim that only one side spoke. It's just indicative of one side not being very convincing.
infogiver wrote: » I don't want to either. It's tiresome and it just goes round in circles so as they say on Dragons Den, I'm out. Unfollowing.
Richard Bingham wrote: » I wouldn't get too excited about what was achieved yesterday. Convincing less than 100 people to vote a certain way, in a very controlled environment by exposing them to one side and refusing to grant proper access to the other side is no big feat. The bias, the ignorance of the truth, and the lies being told by the Pro-Choice side is staggering. For example, in the last few minutes on the Marian Finuncane Radio Show Marian was using the Savita Halappanavar case to justify abortion which is total rubbish as all three enquiries into that case found that it wasn't the absence of abortion that caused her death it was medical mismanagement. This was pointed out by a male guest and immediately afterwards a female guest on the show stated that it was the absence of clarity which was the problem. That is also rubbish. It's well known that her death had absolutely nothing to do with any absence of clarity. The medical team failed to monitor and diagnose her condition. According to the HIQA report, there were 13 different occasions on which a potentially life-saving intervention could have been made but it didn't happen because they didn't know she was seriously ill. The biggest indictment of abortion is that people who are in favour of it know it will never be legislated for unless they tell lies about it.
AtomicHorror wrote: It's already illegal in Ireland to traffic someone for FGM. As you say, enforcement is problematic. It's not illegal to travel for an abortion, so there's clearly a massive difference recognised by the state already.
PopePalpatine wrote: » I'm still waiting for an answer to this:
AtomicHorror wrote: me_right_one wrote: » me_right_one wrote: » Yea, but she doesnt have to kill it! Thats the point! Why are the only two options ever put forward either: A) full term pregnancy, or pull the live baby apart limb from limb while its screaming in pain? You do know we have the technology to implant the baby into another mother or even a test tube, right? No we don't. What are you talking about? me_right_one wrote: Yes we do! Since the seventies! They even do it with endangered animals FFS!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brown IVF. How does IVF help a woman with an unwanted pregnancy? me_right_one wrote: » The technology exists to remove the baby ALIVE, and let the person develop outside the womb. But sure its cheaper to whisk it to liquid while its heart is still beating. Seriously, that technology does not exist. This whole exchange undermines your opinion hugely tbh. me_right_one wrote: » Well educate yourself then. Its not impossible, its done on farms with purebred cattle all the time. This is literally life-and-death we're talking about here, its pretty important to know these things. IVF is used for animal breeding. An egg fertilised in a dish and then implanted. Never have I heard of an embryo or fetus being transferred out of one womb and into another, and if that technique existed it would be remarkably risky for mother and unborn both. Far more so than natural birth.
me_right_one wrote: » me_right_one wrote: » Yea, but she doesnt have to kill it! Thats the point! Why are the only two options ever put forward either: A) full term pregnancy, or pull the live baby apart limb from limb while its screaming in pain? You do know we have the technology to implant the baby into another mother or even a test tube, right? No we don't. What are you talking about? me_right_one wrote: Yes we do! Since the seventies! They even do it with endangered animals FFS!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brown IVF. How does IVF help a woman with an unwanted pregnancy? me_right_one wrote: » The technology exists to remove the baby ALIVE, and let the person develop outside the womb. But sure its cheaper to whisk it to liquid while its heart is still beating. Seriously, that technology does not exist.
me_right_one wrote: » Yea, but she doesnt have to kill it! Thats the point! Why are the only two options ever put forward either: A) full term pregnancy, or pull the live baby apart limb from limb while its screaming in pain? You do know we have the technology to implant the baby into another mother or even a test tube, right? No we don't. What are you talking about? me_right_one wrote: Yes we do! Since the seventies! They even do it with endangered animals FFS!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brown
me_right_one wrote: » Yea, but she doesnt have to kill it! Thats the point! Why are the only two options ever put forward either: A) full term pregnancy, or pull the live baby apart limb from limb while its screaming in pain? You do know we have the technology to implant the baby into another mother or even a test tube, right?
me_right_one wrote: Yes we do! Since the seventies! They even do it with endangered animals FFS!https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Brown
me_right_one wrote: » The technology exists to remove the baby ALIVE, and let the person develop outside the womb. But sure its cheaper to whisk it to liquid while its heart is still beating.
me_right_one wrote: » Well educate yourself then. Its not impossible, its done on farms with purebred cattle all the time. This is literally life-and-death we're talking about here, its pretty important to know these things.
Richard Bingham wrote: » I wouldn't get too excited about what was achieved yesterday. Convincing less than 100 people to vote a certain way, in a very controlled environment by exposing them to one side and refusing to grant proper access to the other side is no big feat.
JupiterKid wrote: » Actually as far as I'm aware in a couple of ultra-conservative Catholic countries like El Salvador the woman CAN technically be charged with murder of her "unborn child" if she loses it during pregnancy. Incredible, isn't it?
notjustsweet wrote: » Infogiver can you provide a link to that claim about planned parenthood please? You're supposed to back up claims and statistics.
pjohnson wrote: » Erm women and cattle are actually different spieces? You are aware of this right?
LexieOnRale wrote: » So let's say for example, a woman is 15 weeks pregnant. Something happens her, she's going through an incredibly stressful time and isn't looking after herself, or she's out running and falls, or she's speeding and crashes the car and ends up losing the pregnancy. Why isn't she charged with murder, or manslaughter? Why isn't there a death certificate provided for the unborn?
tomwaits48 wrote: » Thank God for the twitter mute function
AtomicHorror wrote: » Right, but the 8th amendment was the insertion of Article 40.3.3. The proposal is a replacement of 40.3.3 that removes the statement on the rights of the unborn and makes no reference whatsoever to abortion. The replacement essentially being "make the law and define the rights as you see fit at the time". What will actually remain of the original 40.3.3? Sounds like only the rights to travel and information would be retained. Those weren't part of the 8th anyway. What parts of 40.3.3 underpinned maternity care?
eviltwin wrote: » The repeal movement want the amendment removed.
eviltwin wrote: » This is not just because of abortion but mainly because it impacts maternity care. The current development may pave the way for more access to abortion but won't address the maternity system which affects all women not just those in need of termination.
judeboy101 wrote: » Including FGM, prostitution and womb renting?
pilly wrote: » I've never understood why abortion is not allowed in the North actually?
volchitsa wrote: » Not true, we did have that conversation about abortion, we had several. We had several constitutional amendments and we chose to allow women to travel abroad for their abortions. Compare that to Gail O'Rorke who was prevented from travelling to Switzerland to accompany a friend to commit suicide. So no, your belief that we just don't care enough to discuss it is silly and, dare I say it, dishonest. (The FGM argument is wrong too, for one thing any attempt to stop it would require forcible physical examination of the suspected victim. Legislating to do that risks causing mental trauma to children we supposedly want to help, many of whom may not even have been the victim of FGM. I suspect it's physical assault to do a gynaecological examination of someone against their will. It's a lot more complicated than you pretend.)
volchitsa wrote: » Any number of things don't result in a live baby, but if we thought a baby was being killed most of us would feel some responsibility to stop that happening. If I said that as a principle I didn't think someone who killed a child should even be prosecuted most people would think I was crazy, or evil. But with abortion even the most anti-abortion spokespeople aren't prepared to say they would want to see women prosecuted for having an abortion. That says to me that they know that most people don't believe that abortion is anything like killing a baby. They may even think it themselves.
