Edward M wrote: » OK, that's fair comment I think. Just thinking here though, they should be careful on the wording I feel, I'm probably wrong, but if they push for abortion for all without restriction it might fail this time, maybe block the whole repeal and set the process back by those good few years.
Da Boss wrote: » This report is a biased report published by a biased committee established with the pre-determined goal to repeal the 8th. Not a single reference is made to the unborn child , this alone highlighting what Mullen McGrath Fitzpatrick have been saying for quiet some time. There minority report highlights all the failings of the committee
Zubeneschamali wrote: » It might fail this time, but no way should we put another botched wording into the constitution. If it fails this time, it passes in 10 years time.
Edward M wrote: » OK, so if it take a couple of more mothers lives in the meantime to achieve it then so be it?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I am not saying we must keep going, I am saying we will keep going. This is a pattern, it's how things have gone all my life. The campaign against the 8th started in the 1980s, and it won't stop until the 8th is gone. By contrast, the campaign against divorce ended abruptly when divorce was allowed. The campaign against civil partnerships stopped as soon as they were introduced. In fact, many of those campaigners suddenly thought civil partnerships were the bees knees in their efforts to stop SSM. But that resistance vanished as soon as SSM was passed. The 8th is being propped up by reactionaries, people who imagine things were better in the 1950s. But they are conservative, resisting change, not actively trying to change us back. They are not campaigning to roll back SSM, civil partnerships or divorce, and once the 8th is gone, all but the lunatic fringe will lose interest, and society will, as usual, not go to the prophesied hell in a handbasket. Abortion will become a private matter between women and their doctors.
end of the road wrote: » there is a massive difference between ssm and divorce, and abortion on demand. the repeal the 8th referendum won't be a repeat of the ssm referendum, as it involves the allowing of abortion on demand within the state. if repeal does pass, it will quite likely be by a small majority.
end of the road wrote: » if repeal does pass, it will quite likely be by a small majority.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » I think a lot of pro-choice people see 'limited liberalisation' of abortion as scarcely worth bothering with and more trouble than it's worth. Katherine Zappone said something to this effect recently. So for them it's worth gambling on full liberalisation, even if there's only say a 50/50 chance it will pass...
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Yes, like divorce, which failed 36.5 to 63.5 in 1986, and only passed 50.3 to 49.7 in 1996. Yet the campaign to keep divorce unavailable evaporated on the spot. There has been no, zero effort to gin up a campaign to ban divorce again since that narrowest of margins allowed it. Exactly the same thing will happen if abortion is made available, even in a 50.1 to 49.9 squeaker - the pro-life campaign to keep an abortion ban in the Constitution will vanish.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » I think it wont be that small tbh.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Yes, like divorce, which failed 36.5 to 63.5 in 1986, and only passed 50.3 to 49.7 in 1996.
DublinWriter wrote: » Apples and oranges dude. The vast majority who opposed divorce did so on religious grounds. There's plenty of atheist humanists like myself who object to abortion when the life of the mother is not at risk.
end of the road wrote: » i and even if the 8th is repealed there will likely be protests and attempts to overthrow any such abortion legislation.
seamus wrote: » For the pro-choice lobby, the legislation that will come out after is somewhat irrelevant - once the 8th is removed, then there's no longer a requirement to convince the entire country to vote one way or another. Campaigning on specific issues can be more focussed at legislators, and legislators' hands are also freed up to respond more readily to things like the ECHR.
DublinWriter wrote: » There's plenty of atheist humanists like myself who object to abortion when the life of the mother is not at risk.
jackofalltrades wrote: » While I think complex issues like this should be addressed by legislation rather than clumsy constitutional amendments. I think having things in the constitution actually links our laws to the will of the people somewhat. I'm uncomfortable with issues like this being left up to TD's and the all too powerful groups that lobby them. And I'd apply that to both sides doing the lobbying. Has there been any polling to support this opinion though?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Yes, you should both be able to get a tv gig during the run up like that gay guy against ssm
frag420 wrote: » Welcome back EOTR, not sure if you missed my question a few days ago for you bit here is the link, would love to hear your thoughts! In case the link doesn’t work it was posted at 4:55 on Tue last...https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057732408/70/#post105600007
seamus wrote: » The lies and disinformation regurgitated straight from the Iona press office. Do you routinely not form your own opinions, or are you being paid to not have them?
uptherebels wrote: » I wouldn't hold your breath. He only answers questions he deems "relevant" i.e the not hard/ pretend I haven't dug myself in a hole ones.
Da Boss wrote: » Well if you want my opinions you can have them. Firstly I’m of the belief that abortion is the worst of all murders, killing a defenseless child in a womb and denying it of its basic human rights such as to walk talk LIVE. Abortion is murder, that’s not debatable, it’s fact. Mullen McGrath and Fitzpatrick are men who take heed thier conscience and i applaud them in there fight to safe lives of so many.
captbarnacles wrote: » Worse than the Hawe case for example? But it's not murder and has never been considered murder here.
monnies wrote: » how would you like to have been aborted yourself, i bet you wouldn't have liked it one little bit, so kindly verpiss dich
