The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ah yes, because obviously social welfare's entire goal is to subsidise abortions. You're stretching every sort of statement under the sun to justify yourself. You'd win gold in the Olympic if they had a category for mental gymnastics.

Consonata wrote: »

And you'd be the man moving the goalposts during the game :pac:

'Tis better than murdering the goalie :P

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

lol. What a nonsense argument.

Lots of dole money gets pissed up against the wall each and every week, so what... should that then mean that we just give anyone on the dole that wants beer a free crate of cans whenever they want one? By your logic it does.

I wasn't making an argument there

eviltwin wrote: »

I wasn't making an argument there

I meant to include two quotes in that post (which I've edited now and done so) but give me a break... you're not one bit "confused" as to which argument I was referring to.

Your comment was supporting the argument made by the poster which you quoted... the argument that abortion services are accessed using money women have received from social welfare.. remember now? Or are you still confused.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I meant to include two quotes in that post (which I've edited now and done so) but give me a break... you're not one bit "confused" as to which argument I was referring to.

Your comment was supporting the argument made by the poster which you quoted... the argument that abortion services are accessed using money women have received from social welfare.. remember now? Or are you still confused.

I wasn't making an argument. I was backing up another posters claim with my anecdotal experience. What any of that has to do with your subsequent post I don't know. Something to do with giving alcohol to people on welfare, no idea what it's got to do with anything.

eviltwin wrote: »

I wasn't making an argument. I was backing up another posters claim with my anecdotal experience.

By backing up the other user's claim with your 'anecdotal experience' you were in effect giving support to their argument... Jesus H Christ, are you really going to claim you weren't?

What any of that has to do with your subsequent post I don't know. Something to do with giving alcohol to people on welfare, no idea what it's got to do with anything.

'No idea' my arse. You know well the user made the argument that women have used social welfare money to fund abortions and that therefore arguing against the state paying for women to have abortions is pointless.... but the point is that people use dole money to fund all sorts of things: beer drinking, cigarette smoking, getting tattoos etc etc and so it's absurd to make an argument that 'Well, people spend their dole on x and so why doesn't the state officially fund x'.

You then chimed in with your "anecdotal experience" that yes, dole money does indeed fund abortions, rounding it off with the following comment:

Anyone who thinks tax payers money doesn't fund abortion is sadly wrong.

But yet you say you weren't making an argument? Ha.

Incidentally, you were making a strawman argument as the user you were alluding to never said (nor even implied) that money from the state has never been used to fund abortions... what they clearly had been saying was that they didn't believe the state should ever officially do so. Bit of a difference.

You see, the state may fund abortions unofficially but the state / tax payer funds many things unofficially...... all of which would equally as absurd were anyone to suggest the state should be funding on an official basis just because of that.

AnGaelach wrote: »

Abortion is allowed when there's a threat to the life of the mother - which I already understand and can agree with. Failing to understand nuance is your problem.

How do you feel about the State paying compensation and damages to women whose human rights have been breached by our abortion laws? Because that's happened twice so far; €15,000 for Ms C in the ACB v Ireland ECHR case, and €30,000 for Amanda Mellet in the UN Human Rights Commission case.

NuMarvel wrote: »

How do you feel about the State paying compensation and damages to women whose human rights have been breached by our abortion laws? Because that's happened twice so far; €15,000 for Ms C in the ACB v Ireland ECHR case, and €30,000 for Amanda Mellet in the UN Human Rights Commission case.

I think the Government should have refused to have let the ECHR interfere with our Constitution or public policy. We're the ones who define what our rights are, it's a power given to us by Bunreacht na hÉireann.

Consonata wrote: »

Without the ECHR, Homosexuality would still be a crime in Ireland.

That's unsubstantiated conjecture. Do you think it was the ECHR that made Irish people vote to support the gay marriage referendum?

B_Wayne wrote: »

It very much so had a major role in the decriminalization. The late 80s was a significantly different place to Ireland 2015. Hence the need for Norris v Ireland where we were found to breaching human rights. I'm entirely in favour of international bodies holding us to account for human rights violations.

I'm not saying the case wasn't important. I'm drawing issue with the claim that homosexuality would "still be a crime" if it wasn't for the ECHR. There's absolutely no proof that would be the case, it's completely unsubstantiated.