volchitsa wrote: » Sorry if that annoys you, it isn't meant to. Especially as I wasn't actually comparing the two actions, just suggesting that keeping the law that allows travel to commit something that is illegal here, once abortion itself is gone from the constitution, might possibly lead to the law being used to justify other illegal actions that are tolerated in other countries. Since abortion would no longer be the obvious reference.
AtomicHorror wrote: » I can't think of any possible negative, unintended consequence of leaving them in place.
The Oireachtas shall enact law addressing any rights of the unborn, and the lawful availability, in the State, of any services impacting the life and welfare of the unborn. This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
keano_afc wrote: » Yes it does.
keano_afc wrote: » I'm a citizen of Ireland. I can only influence what happens in my country.
January wrote: » But if you believe abortion is wrong, why aren't you campaigning to remove the right to travel for abortion?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Reread the sketch of the new article 40 including these clauses from upthread:What does the second paragraph refer to? It is literally saying that the Oireachteas shall enact law about the unborn and services affecting the unborn, and that law shall not affect freedom to travel.It is no longer about the right to life of the unborn, since we deleted that.It appears to be saying that no law which deals with the unborn or services for pregnant women can in any way can limit travel.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » So - here are a pregnant asylum seeker and a pregnant woman behind bars for murder. They apply to the courts for leave to travel abroad, because no law barring them from doing so is constitutional.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Are you sure that isn't what it means? Without consulting the Supreme Court?
Outlaw Pete wrote: » If you were in Holles St tomorrow (for whatever reason) and while sitting there shooting the breeze with some other lovely folk, spied a man walking over to an incubator, picking up a baby from within it (that had just recently been prematurely born at 23 weeks gestation) unhook it from it's tubes, hold it to his chest and then slit its throat throwing its remains on the floor.... you wouldn't think you had just seen a person murdered?? Come on now, of course you would and you'd be dialing 999 in a heartbeat. So why, pray tell, should a baby being aborted at that same gestational stage, be considered a non-person? It's location? Is that what makes the difference between them being considered a person or a mere 'blob of biological matter' which the killing of can be considered being aptly referred to as a "medical procedure"? Even when both the mother and the child were of good health? Nah. Both are the killing of a human being.
keano_afc wrote: » I believe drug use to be wrong. Should I be standing in Dublin airport preventing people boarding flights to Amsterdam?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Sorry, but fetusses are not people in law. Abortion is a crime with a serious punishment, but it is not the same crime as murder or manslaughter. It never has been, it isn't now, and it never will be.
Hellrazer wrote: » The whole premature baby thing shouldn't really be brought into the argument as long as the upper limit for an abortion is set below the lowest survival age for a premmie. I agree there has to be a limit to gestational age in order to make the whole abortion issue a bit more palatable for people. My daughter was born at 28 weeks (19 years ago) At the time 28 weeks was close to the lowest survival age for premmies. Today its down to around 21 weeks and thats with a whole lot of health problems. 18 weeks is where the bar should be set at unless the child that is born is completely unable to survive.And that fact is only found out in a later scan or test. Then later abortions should be allowed. The UK used to allow abortions up to 28 weeks,then it was reduced to 24 weeks and if Im not mistaken there was talk of reducing it to 20 weeks. Not sure its related but it looks like they are reducing abortion on demand gestational age in line with premature survival ages.
kunst nugget wrote: » Holland had a policy of not helping babies born before 25 weeks to survive because of the health problems and suffering that they would inevitably endure if they were kept alive. Is that policy still in place?
Hellrazer wrote: » That policy was in place here aswell 19 years ago.Not sure if its still in place though. One of the well known maternity hospitals wouldn't resuscitate before 25 weeks.My wifes waters went at 22 weeks. We were "advised" to go to the other well known maternity hospital through their A+E where there was no such rule in place. Had our baby been born at 22 weeks they would not have resuscitated and would have just been left to die.As it was she held out until 28 weeks.
Parchment wrote: » Im sorry for you and your wifes loss.
charlietheminxx wrote: » Does the endless pro-life v pro-choice debate not seem a bit pointless? You will generally never convince either side to be otherwise because their views on the topic are too radically different.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » But it goes to show what can happen when people approach a divisive issue like this in a rational way and consider the facts, rather than empty emotional arguments and pictures of miscarried foetuses.
thee glitz wrote: » What happens is you get people giving opinions on where cutoff limits should be.
A Little Pony wrote: » This debate is not like gay marriage debate, make no mistake about that. Its actually more serious than that.
A Little Pony wrote: » The child should not be murdered because a moron (in 'normal' abortions) didn't take precautions. Absolutely it should go ahead. It isn't the child's fault his/her mother is a complete idiot.
