captbarnacles wrote: » It wouldn't be a travel ban though? surely it would be prosecution for Irish women who have an abortion abroad. So Eotr would you support that?
end of the road wrote: » in reality no . it would not be practical to prosecute someone for having an abortion abroad. the evidence couldn't be gathered to prove that such took place. so again this is another non-realistic question to ask, given that it cannot happen anyway.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » He wasnt quoting EOTR
end of the road wrote: » it is a contradiction in some people's view. the fact it may not really be in you or my view doesn't mean someone elses view on that issue isn't valid.
you don't know what the pro-life do or don't care about no more then i do, as we aren't going to know every single person in the country or their views whether pro-choice or pro-life.
but the unborn won't have protection before 12 weeks. i want it to remain to be the case that the unborn have protection before 12 weeks.
frag420 wrote: » So your putting practicalities above the life of the unborn? Which is something I believe the pro life lobby are accusing the pro choice side of doing?
mrkiscool2 wrote: » it's pro-birth. Unless you decide to take an interest in the children born due to your viewpoint, you are not pro-life, you are anti-choice and pro-birth. Nothing more
mrkiscool2 wrote: » No, a fetus that can't support itself outside the womb does not deserve equal rights to the mother. When it gets to a point life is viable, then it does.
NuMarvel wrote: » Thank you. Wasn't so hard, was it? I didn't ask you if you'd apply a travel ban. I asked if you'd repeal the constitutional protections for travel. A travel ban doesn't automatically follow repeal. As for the enforceability of bans or injunctions on travel, that question was put to rest by the Supreme Court back in 1992. Obviously you disagree, but I think they know more about this matter than you do. No one ever said it would. Yes it does, for reasons that have been stated by me and others numerous times. You can ignore that if you wish, but it doesn't make your statements true.
end of the road wrote: » it's pro-life. you are pro-life only. nothing more. there is nothing wrong with insuring the taking of the life of the unborn cannot be a choice within the irish state bar extreme circumstances.
it has to have, and it deserves equal rights from the start, as it will be a human being. where that isn't viable, it is already taken care of within the state.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » So, you are pro-life in the sense that you only care that a fetus is brought to term and born?
mrkiscool2 wrote: » If you were really pro-life, you wouldn't agree with the way some children are brought up in horrible foster care or are homeless.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » But nope, none of that matters, protecting a fetus is more important than making sure children who are suffering in our country don't suffer any more.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » How? Why? You are just making a claim and not backing it up. By the way, in the case of a mother having mental health issues and may take her life, nope, it's not taken care of.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » In terms of having a dead thing inside her, nope, it's not taken care of. By the way, that dead thing can lead to infection and an infection inside the body is harder to deal with to save the mother than just aborting a fetus that has no chance of surviving outside the womb or is already dead.
end of the road wrote: » nope. but you know that. of course it's much easier for you to twist what people say to suit your agenda then deal with the facts though.
well you will be glad to hear that i don't agree with the way some children are trated in ireland, or the conditions of some foster homes or the behaviour of some foster parents. however, it's not a justification for abortion. you can disagree with how children are treated but still disagree with abortion bar extreme circumstances.
children suffering is no justification for abortion in itself.
in what way isn't that being dealt with. her mental health issues can be dealt with, we have a mental health system. it's not perfect by any means i'd agree but we have such a system.
i have already stated that where the baby will not be able to be caried to term that abortion should be availible. but you know that.
end of the road wrote: » ................ the current system is ultimately stopping some abortions. therefore it is doing it's job in some form.......
Edward M wrote: » Just on the prosecution of abortion travellers, how could that be enforced anyway? I'm no legal expert, but how would it be possible to prosecute someone for an offence committed in a foreign state that isn't illegal in that other state anyway? That argument wouldn't stand up I'd say.
end of the road wrote: » the current system is ultimately stopping some abortions.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Okay, so what do you do when a mother, who doesn't want a child, is forced to have that child because of what you belief is just? How do you help those mothers and those kids? If you say nothing, you prove you are pro-birth and not pro-life.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » So, you admit there is a problem....but want to add to the problem but not allowing abortions? Do you not see that people like you cause the problems? There is more children in the foster system than couples looking to adopt!
mrkiscool2 wrote: » So, you have a fundamental lack of biology clearly. Our mental health system is awful, like, atrocious. They have literally asked people why they haven't killed themselves that's how bad it is. But, I digress
mrkiscool2 wrote: » When a woman is pregnant, her hormones are all over the shop. If she is already suffering with mental health issues before pregnancy, she is far more likely to either self-harm or attempt suicide. Which is a problem!
mrkiscool2 wrote: » No, you said if there was a risk to the mothers health, their are systems in place to deal with that. (Pro-tip, that law is extremely poorly written and worded and if a doctor refuses to provide an abortion, nothing would happen). I'm telling you cases in which the mother will be at risk and you just skirt over them. It's like you are putting your hands over your ears and just going. "LALALALALA, NOT LISTENING, LALALALALA"
Loafing Oaf wrote: » I will vote against a referendum to change the constitution unless it includes a clause stipulating that the constitution must remain exactly the same...
Consonata wrote: » I don't think Ireland is ready to pass an abortion law, bringing our legislation in line with the British. However a 12 week limit is probably the closest we can get to getting it past the electorate.
markodaly wrote: » Actually the law that is proposed is more open than that of the British system,the big difference is the time limit. Hence why I do not think it will pass unless there are strong guarantees to protect the unborn.
Consonata wrote: » Is the British system not 22 weeks? or is it 18
markodaly wrote: » Actually the law that is proposed is more open than that of the British system,the big difference is the time limit.
gctest50 wrote: » The only ones it is stopping are for those who are not wealthy enough
Consonata wrote: » If you are not prosecuting people who have abortions abroad, what is the point of the ban on abortion except being a giant facade of virtue signalling by the Irish Government?
end of the road wrote: » the point is that it does go some way to protecting the life of the unborn via not allowing abortions to be caried out within the state bar extreme circumstances. it is the state saying that while it cannot stop people from carying out the act elsewhere, such an act will not be able to be caried out within the state. virtue signalling is a myth.
Consonata wrote: » If there was a definition of virtue signalling that would be it. The state abdicates responsibility, and instead penalises those who are weakest in order to keep up appearances that they are actually doing something.
end of the road wrote: » no . the state is saying that while it cannot stop someone from going abroad to procure abortion, it does not condone the act and that it is not up to the irish state to provide access to it bar extreme circumstances. in my view the state is not penalising anyone by not providing access to abortion on demand, nor is it abdicating on any responsibility as it has no responsibility to provide abortion on demand. the state isn't keeping up appearances that it is doing something, it is actually doing something. it just isn't going to work in every case. we have laws for a number of things within the state, and while they won't always work, they do often work whether it be a big or small amount. we don't just abolish them because they don't work in every single case. in my view the protections that exist for the unborn are for the greater good and i support them remaining. even if they stop 1 abortion that's a good thing.
Consonata wrote: » If the state does not condone the act then why isn't it penalising people who have an abortion abroad.
Consonata wrote: » Being realistic there is no such thing as a legal barrier to abortion in Ireland, only a financial one. That has been clear to all ever since the X Case.
frag420 wrote: » Would you support a whistleblowing charter whereby people like yourself who know or suspect that their sister or mother or neighbour or aunt or colleague or even some stranger was going abroad to procure a termination and that you could call the abortion hotline ( don’t worry it will be a free line) so that they could be stopped from traveling to procure the termination?
