The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

end of the road · 07-01-2018 07:38PM

volchitsa wrote: »

How can you steal from a dead person? It's not like they are going to donate their organs to their next of kin instead.

it's still their organs. theft is theft. they didn't give permission to take, therefore theft has taken place.

volchitsa wrote: »

In fact the forced use of someone's organs while they are still alive is a well known analogy for pregnancy (the "famous violinist" thought experiment), one which I've not seen convincingly debunked. After all, pregnancy does put a huge strain on a woman's organs, so she is temporarily donating the use of her organs. Which is why her ongoing consent is needed, IMO.

the unborn via having the right to life are automatically entitled to the support they need to survive so consent isn't needed in that instence. i have no doubt pregnancy puts a strain on a woman's organs but until such time as artificial hosts are the norm in hosting the baby then ultimately the mother is doing a good thing by hosting the unborn, the majority of who will become future contributers to society.

volchitsa wrote: »

Any evidence on this? I'd bet the exact opposite, and moreover I'm fairly sure I can provide more examples relative to population size, of the most unbelievable abuse of vulnerable children and adults being condoned in Ireland than in the UK. Have you forgotten the "Grace" episode already?

i haven't forgotten grace at all, i never stated abuses didn't
happen. i'd be the first to call out anyone who would deny abuses don't take place.

Da Boss · 07-01-2018 07:44PM

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Half? Where do you get your stats from?

I meant half drunken couples (and scuttered for that matter) not half of drunken couples,sorry wasn’t clear to be fair

Bannasidhe · 07-01-2018 07:45PM

end of the road wrote: »

it's still their organs. theft is theft. they didn't give permission to take, therefore theft has taken place.

the unborn via having the right to life are automatically entitled to the support they need to survive so consent isn't needed in that instence. i have no doubt pregnancy puts a strain on a woman's organs but until such time as artificial hosts are the norm in hosting the baby then ultimately the mother is doing a good thing by hosting the unborn, the majority of who will become future contributers to society.

i haven't forgotten grace at all, i never stated abuses didn't
happen. i'd be the first to call out anyone who would deny abuses don't take place.

Jayzus - first women were compared to internal combustion engines and now it's hosts until an artificial alternative becomes available.:rolleyes:

You do realise you are talking about actual living, breathing, human beings here. Not 'hosts' but actual people who should own their bodies and decide if they wish to be a 'host' or not.

kylith · 07-01-2018 07:49PM

Da Boss wrote: »

Yes that however doesn’t mean men shouldn’t have a say, this does affect men too as I previously highlighted!!! If took time to read what I typed I would not have to repeat the fact that the eighth does indeed affect men as even I myself was an “accident “ and I thank the eighth because without it I would not be here today!! That’s the importance of it in my life!

How does pregnancy affect men? Do they become incontinent? Do they suffer from pre-eclampsia? Do they have to go through labour? Please explain.

Da Boss wrote: »

I’m forcing no woman to be pregnant, play safe in the bed and there will be no problems, if a woman chooses not to, she must suffer the consequences. There is alternatives to abortion that don’t end life, it’s my belief these options should be explored and utilized

And if the contraception fails, no contraceptive being 100% effective? What then? What consequences should the man face, him being 50% of this equation? He can just walk away.

Da Boss wrote: »

Well I ask this question- if abortion is available in Ireland why bother with a condom and just have the real deal! Sher you could just go get an abortion, no big deal. I ASK ALL CONSIDERING VOTING PRO CHOICE, IS THIS THE IRELAND YOU WANT???

You have no idea of the physical reality of an abortion, do you? It's not a walk in the park by any means, even the MAP takes a huge physical toll.

end of the road wrote: »

because an opt out system effectively means the theft of organs. if people want to donate good on them but it should be up to the person to make that decisian not the state. but that's for another thread i guess.

How can you steal from the dead?

end of the road wrote: »

it's still their organs. theft is theft. they didn't give permission to take, therefore theft has taken place.

So, corpses get more say over what happens to their bodies than women do, and that's ok?

07-01-2018 07:54PM

end of the road wrote: »

the unborn via having the right to life are automatically entitled to the support they need to survive so consent isn't needed in that instence. i have no doubt pregnancy puts a strain on a woman's organs but until such time as artificial hosts are the norm in hosting the baby then ultimately the mother is doing a good thing by hosting the unborn, the majority of who will become future contributers to society.

If I have kidney failure and you are a match, can you be forced to donate a kidney to save my life? It won't kill you, just put your body under a bit of strain. But you have the right to refuse, and ultimately let me die. But what about my right to life?

It is immoral to suggest that a woman has no right to refuse use of her organs, then.

One eyed Jack · 07-01-2018 07:56PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Bit of an aside there, but whatever. As long as you don't think what happens after your death is relevant to pregnancy. Especially since you omit the fact that in countries where this is the norm, the family can generally (always?) oppose this if they feel strongly enough.

It wasn't an aside, I didn't introduce the whole kidney snatching in the first place, I just went with the bad analogy that bore no relation to reality already.

Okay. No idea what your point is, other than a quick rerun of the current legal situation, which I think we're all aware of already.

But perhaps I've missed something as I'm also doing other stuff here, preparing for kids going back to school and college tomorrow. If so I'm sure you'll let me know.

My point was that the State doesn't need a pregnant woman's consent to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn as far as is practicable.

Which is why the notion that this country considers the unborn to be the equal of a born person in terms of rights is a thin fiction. The idea that one could openly and legally take a child abroad to harm it, never mind kill it, is inconceivable.

But the State doesn't consider the unborn to be equal to a born person in terms of rights, it's just one right, the right to life, that the State considers the unborn has an equal right to as the right to life of the woman.

Yet not even the most pro-lifey of pro-lifers is prepared to stand up in public and say we should remove the the 13th and 14th amendments, never mind that we should try women for procuring illegal or legal abortions.

I don't know whether they mostly don't believe their own claims about what the unborn is, or whether they're being sneaky about where they would really like to see our legislation ending up.

Don't be giving them ideas :pac:

Well, as I say, it is legal for me to organize it all here, as long as i travel a few miles to carry it out. Which makes abortion more comparable to pot smoking than to harming children, yet the claim that it is indeed child-killing is the basis for the ban in the first place. A bit illogical to argue both sides of that coin at the same time I suspect.

The basis for the ban isn't at all that it is considered child killing. It's that nobody has the right to take it upon themselves to kill the unborn in this country.

This is not true, the Minister for Health confirmed not long ago that women needing health care including counseling after an abortion abroad were entitled to avail of it just like after a miscarriage.

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the fact that if a woman takes it upon herself to either perform an abortion, or procures an abortion, or provides an abortion, she could face criminal charges.

That seems to be some sort of crack at me, but I've no idea why.

I can't say I blame you for being cynical, but rest assured it was a compliment.

volchitsa · 07-01-2018 07:58PM

end of the road wrote: »

it's still their organs. theft is theft. they didn't give permission to take, therefore theft has taken place.

How would you ask a dead person for permission? Maybe they changed their mind at the last minute? And what if they've left no instructions for burial : is it abuse to cremate them without their express permission?

The dead are dead, you can't steal from them, we treat them with respect because of the living, and because they used to be alive. But they don't own anything once they die.

end of the road wrote: »

the unborn via having the right to life are automatically entitled to the support they need to survive so consent isn't needed in that instence. i have no doubt pregnancy puts a strain on a woman's organs but until such time as artificial hosts are the norm in hosting the baby then ultimately the mother is doing a good thing by hosting the unborn, the majority of who will become future contributers to society.

Back to explaining the law to us again, I see. If you can't explain why that should be the case, then it's not relevant to what we're suggesting the law should be.

Consent isn't needed for a child to be married off at 12 in some countries - that doesn't make it acceptable, does it? There are absolute rights and wrongs, no matter what the law in any given country may say.

end of the road wrote: »

i haven't forgotten grace at all, i never stated abuses didn't happen. i'd be the first to call out anyone who would deny abuses don't take place.

I was replying to a claim that there was less respect for life in the UK than in Ireland. I've not seen a single piece of evidence of that. I've provided evidence that the opposite is true since there is no equivalent case in the UK, and there are others in Ireland.

pilly · 07-01-2018 07:59PM

end of the road wrote:

both our opinions are equally important. the issue here is that my statement in relation to the unborn isn't simply an opinion, but an actual fact in this country. the reason we have such laws is that we recognise the right to life to be almost absolute so therefore we include the unborn within that as we recognise their right to life to be important. changing that means long term we devalue life as a whole, as shown from britain for example where life is slowly but surely being devalued.

Ah grand so when abortion comes into Ireland it will no longer be a fact but just your opinion. Problem solved.

That is all.

pilly · 07-01-2018 08:01PM

Da Boss wrote:

Well I ask this question- if abortion is available in Ireland why bother with a condom and just have the real deal! Sher you could just go get an abortion, no big deal. I ASK ALL CONSIDERING VOTING PRO CHOICE, IS THIS THE IRELAND YOU WANT???

Yep

Outlaw Pete · 07-01-2018 08:03PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It is immoral to suggest that a woman has no right to refuse use of her organs, then.

If you truly believed that then you would support abortion clinics being legally able to offer abortions at any stage of a pregnancy, even at 9 months.

But I'm sure you have a caveat.

volchitsa · 07-01-2018 08:08PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If you truly believed that then you would support abortion clinics being legally able to offer abortions at any stage of a pregnancy, even at 9 months.

But I'm sure you have a caveat.

Never heard of women choosing to be induced before term for non medical reasons then? I certainly have, in fact I did it myself.

SusieBlue · 07-01-2018 08:10PM

Da Boss wrote: »

I’m forcing no woman to be pregnant, play safe in the bed and there will be no problems, if a woman chooses not to, she must suffer the consequences. There is alternatives to abortion that don’t end life, it’s my belief these options should be explored and utilized

And what consequences are there for the man who lay with her?
As a precious poster said, I presume you are in support of the man in question also going through a life limiting state for 9 months, unable to drink alcohol or smoke, a restricted diet and be unable to fly? What consequences do you propose be inflicted on the man?

Contraception fails. It’s been explained to you again and again and you still don’t get it. Isn’t fool proof. It isn’t fair on the woman or the child to force motherhood on her simply because she got caught out and her contraception failed. It’s a barbaric punishment and has NO ONES best interests at heart, least of all the child’s.

As has already been posted numerous times, the support in this country for struggling women and for children in the care system is an absolute disgrace. It is nowhere near good enough.

Women’s rights are currently diminished with the 8th in place. Women’s bodily autonomy is threatened. Maternity care is extremely limited because of the 8th. Women currently don’t have the right to consent or withhold consent for ANY procedure a doctor may decide to carry out on her. This is nothing to do with abortion - this is women going for scans/in labor etc. They have no say in their medical care. Which is an absolute monstrosity of a disgrace in the 21st century mordern Ireland.

On one hand, your posts are frightening, that you spew such vitriol and have such little regard for the rights of women. Women who could be your mother, sister, aunt, friend, wife.

On the other hand you are doing nothing but showing the Pro-Birth side for what they are. You don’t even fully understand the implications of the 8th yet you continue to argue. It’s bizarre.

pilly · 07-01-2018 08:11PM

end of the road wrote:

the unborn via having the right to life are automatically entitled to the support they need to survive so consent isn't needed in that instence. i have no doubt pregnancy puts a strain on a woman's organs but until such time as artificial hosts are the norm in hosting the baby then ultimately the mother is doing a good thing by hosting the unborn, the majority of who will become future contributers to society.

A person dying for lack of a kidney has a right to life too but you're happy denying them that, Why?

07-01-2018 08:12PM

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

If you truly believed that then you would support abortion clinics being legally able to offer abortions at any stage of a pregnancy, even at 9 months.

But I'm sure you have a caveat.

Its well before 9 months that life can be sustained outside the womb.

end of the road · 07-01-2018 08:14PM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Jayzus - first women were compared to internal combustion engines and now it's hosts until an artificial alternative becomes available.

You do realise you are talking about actual living, breathing, human beings here. Not 'hosts' but actual people who should own their bodies and decide if they wish to be a 'host' or not.

of course i'm aware i'm talking about other human beings. i wasn't trying to state otherwise, however given the debate sometimes clynical terms such as host will be used. i will try to avoid using such terms where possible but sometimes it won't be avoidible.
women do own their bodies however correctly, they cannot kill the unborn within the state and that is fair.

kylith wrote: »

How does pregnancy affect men? Do they become incontinent? Do they suffer from pre-eclampsia? Do they have to go through labour? Please explain.

And if the contraception fails, no contraceptive being 100% effective? What then? What consequences should the man face, him being 50% of this equation? He can just walk away.

You have no idea of the physical reality of an abortion, do you? It's not a walk in the park by any means, even the MAP takes a huge physical toll.

How can you steal from the dead?

So, corpses get more say over what happens to their bodies than women do, and that's ok?

if we were simply talking about a woman having full rights over her body there would be no debate to be had. on those grounds a yes vote for repeal would be at 100%
however we are talking about the killing of the unborn for effectively lifestyle reasons, which there is no such right and there is large scale disagreement with such an act.

Deleted User wrote: »

If I have kidney failure and you are a match, can you be forced to donate a kidney to save my life? It won't kill you, just put your body under a bit of strain. But you have the right to refuse, and ultimately let me die. But what about my right to life?

It is immoral to suggest that a woman has no right to refuse use of her organs, then.

if you are in a position where carying the baby is a threat to your life abortion is facilitated within the state. i agree with the availability in such a case.

frag420 · 07-01-2018 08:19PM

If any of you pro lifers found out your 12yr old sister was pregnant and wanted an abortion...what would you do to stop her going abroad? Say your mother agreed with your sister that an abortion was best...what would you do to stop it happening?

Report them?

Lock them in their room for 9 months?

Other?

pilly · 07-01-2018 08:19PM

I don't agree with some on here that men shouldn't have a say on this matter. All citizens have a right to vote and that's the way it should be.

I also have the utmost of faith in Irish men anyway. Every man I know will either vote to repeal or not vote at all.

My own father who disagrees with abortion has stated he won't vote because he doesn't feel the need to impose his view on every woman in the country.

He accepts that he will never have to make such a decision so it won't affect him.

In fact his exact words have been "I care about women more than I do embyros".

People on here may feel scared about the male vote because apart from Jack they are completely irrational and nasty in fact.

I exclude Jack because I think he takes the trouble to enter into discussion and I respect that.

In my view this thread is not reprentative of society in general.

rainbow kirby · 07-01-2018 08:19PM

Da Boss wrote: »

Well I ask this question- if abortion is available in Ireland why bother with a condom and just have the real deal! Sher you could just go get an abortion, no big deal. I ASK ALL CONSIDERING VOTING PRO CHOICE, IS THIS THE IRELAND YOU WANT???

You're absolutely deluded if you genuinely think that people choose not to use easily available forms of contraception just because they can end a pregnancy later.

It's a huge issue in Ireland as well that the upfront costs of the most reliable methods of contraception are so high.

The Ireland I'd like to see makes all contraception (from condoms to the Mirena IUS to emergency contraception) completely free, provides free, safe and legal abortion services where needed and proper prenatal care - offer proper prenatal testing and scans at 12 and 20 weeks as a bare minimum and remove the specific exclusion for pregnant women in the national consent policy to start with.

Bannasidhe · 07-01-2018 08:21PM

end of the road wrote: »

of course i'm aware i'm talking about other human beings. i wasn't trying to state otherwise, however given the debate sometimes clynical terms such as host will be used. i will try to avoid using such terms where possible but sometimes it won't be avoidible.
women do own their bodies however correctly, they cannot kill the unborn within the state and that is fair.

A person either has bodily autonomy or they do not. If they do then they get to decide what happens to that body.

A pregnant woman no longer has bodily autonomy. In some cases she is forced into sharing the right to her body often to the detriment of her health. Therefore she does not own her own body.

Spanish Eyes · 07-01-2018 08:23PM

It really is such a pity that anti choicers do not argue for, support and demand funding for the little children that ARE born and have special needs.

Disabled children have a tough time here.

In the past whether disabled or not they were incarcerated and often done away with in the orphanages. Tuam for example. Surely it is much worse to end a living child's life like that.

Now I know we have moved on a lot, but it is still not great here for kids with special needs is it? So who on the anti choice side is speaking for kids ALREADY BORN, you know those who were NOT aborted, and their parents have such a difficult time getting them the supports they need.

That is a question that must be answered by them. All good and fine to be anti choice, but the consequences of that must be followed through and argued.

end of the road · 07-01-2018 08:25PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It isn’t fair on the woman or the child to force motherhood on her simply because she got caught out and her contraception failed. It’s a barbaric punishment and has NO ONES best interests at heart, least of all the child’s.

it's a million times more unfair to allow the killing of the unborn. that's a barbaric punishment. being pregnant while it may be inconvenient is nothing in terms of barbarity compared to abortion, unless it's a case where the mother's life is under threat, or another extreme reason where abortion would be necessary.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

As has already been posted numerous times, the support in this country for struggling women and for children in the care system is an absolute disgrace. It is nowhere near good enough.

we all agree. however those issues do not justify abortion being availible outside extreme circumstances. it's availability would mean the state would have no incentive to sort out the issues and abortion will be the go to solution.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Women’s rights are currently diminished with the 8th in place. Women’s bodily autonomy is threatened. Maternity care is extremely limited because of the 8th. Women currently don’t have the right to consent or withhold consent for ANY procedure a doctor may decide to carry out on her. This is nothing to do with abortion - this is women going for scans/in labor etc. They have no say in their medical care. Which is an absolute monstrosity of a disgrace in the 21st century mordern Ireland.

and again we all agree on this, and if this is what we were voting on only then the repeal vote would be at 100% . however as abortion on demand would be legislated for then there are many of us who cannot vote yes as much as we would like to.

pilly wrote: »

A person dying for lack of a kidney has a right to life too but you're happy denying them that, Why?

i'm not denying them anything nor am i happy to deny them anything. however, people have to choose whether they wish to donate or not, the decisian to donate has to be on the person.

eviltwin · 07-01-2018 08:25PM

frag420 wrote: »

If any of you pro lifers found out your 12yr old sister was pregnant and wanted an abortion...what would you do to stop her going abroad? Say your mother agreed with your sister that an abortion was best...what would you do to stop it happening?

Report them?

Lock them in their room for 9 months?

Other?

Good luck getting a coherent answer from anyone on that.

volchitsa · 07-01-2018 08:27PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It wasn't an aside, I didn't introduce the whole kidney snatching in the first place, I just went with the bad analogy that bore no relation to reality already.

So how is removing a kidney from a dead person relevant to the question of whether consent is needed from a live person to use their organs?

A better comparison would be that we don't even take blood from someone without their permission, no matter how urgently it might be needed for someone bleeding out beside you.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point was that the State doesn't need a pregnant woman's consent to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn as far as is practicable.

Hmm. The question is why that situation should be allowed to persist though, and I don't see any attempt at an explanation for that.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But the State doesn't consider the unborn to be equal to a born person in terms of rights, it's just one right, the right to life, that the State considers the unborn has an equal right to as the right to life of the woman.

Again, why? How can a human being have fewer rights than another? Surely the only sensible position is that either the fetus is equal to the woman or else it has no rights that can override any of hers. But there is no such thing, legally, as a part-person with a percentage of rights. Except the fetus - and that ambiguous status comes straight from the failed attempt in 1983 to put religious law into the constitution.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Don't be giving them ideas :pac:

The basis for the ban isn't at all that it is considered child killing. It's that nobody has the right to take it upon themselves to kill the unborn in this country.

Yeah. Care to explain why that should be though, rather than what?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's not what I was referring to. I was referring to the fact that if a woman takes it upon herself to either perform an abortion, or procures an abortion, or provides an abortion, she could face criminal charges.

A law - whatever the subject - which everyone, even those pushing for it, is at pains to say they intend to ignore is not a good law. It discredits the whole justice system IMO.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can't say I blame you for being cynical, but rest assured it was a compliment.

Well thank you then.

frag420 · 07-01-2018 08:34PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Good luck getting a coherent answer from anyone on that.

I know, I’ve tried before several times. EOTR has to wait for someone else to step in to answer for him before he attempts to answer!

The reality is that people like Da Boss and EOTR are pussies and would not have the balls to even attempt to stop someone going abroad to have an abortion. They talk about how it’s impossible to stop all Irish women travelling, when it’s their own flesh and blood and within their own household they cant/won’t do anything because they don’t have the balls to do it for fear people would find out what they did. Proof they care more about what people think of them than they do about the potential babies they tell us they care about!!

Lastly please excuse the childish name calling, I’m willing to take the punishment for this from the mods but I think I and the vast majority of people debating here are tired of the crap non sensical babble coming from some people and it’s time they were called out for the weak ball-less frauds that they are!!

frag420 · 07-01-2018 08:37PM

eviltwin wrote: »

Good luck getting a coherent answer from anyone on that.

I know, I’ve tried before several times. EOTR has to wait for someone else to step in to answer for him before he attempts to answer!

The reality is that people like Da Boss and EOTR are pussies and would not have the balls to even attempt to stop someone going abroad to have an abortion. They talk about how it’s impossible to stop all Irish women travelling, when it’s their own flesh and blood and within their own household they cant/won’t do anything because they don’t have the balls to do it for fear people would find out what they did. Proof they care more about what people think of them than they do about the potential babies they tell us they care about!!

Lastly please excuse the childish name calling, I’m willing to take the punishment for this from the mods but I think I and the vast majority of people debating here are tired of the crap non sensical babble coming from some people and it’s time they were called out for the weak ball-less frauds that they are!!

pilly · 07-01-2018 08:38PM

frag420 wrote:

Lastly please excuse the childish name calling, Iâ€™m willing to take the punishment for this from the mods but I think I and the vast majority of people debating here are tired of the crap non sensical babble coming from some people and itâ€™s time they were called out for the weak ball-less frauds that they are!!

I agree. So repetitive and boring.

applehunter · 07-01-2018 08:39PM

frag420 wrote: »

I know, I’ve tried before several times. EOTR has to wait for someone else to step in to answer for him before he attempts to answer!

The reality is that people like Da Boss and EOTR are pussies and would not have the balls to even attempt to stop someone going abroad to have an abortion. They talk about how it’s impossible to stop all Irish women travelling, when it’s their own flesh and blood and within their own household they cant/won’t do anything because they don’t have the balls to do it for fear people would find out what they did. Proof they care more about what people think of them than they do about the potential babies they tell us they care about!!

Lastly please excuse the childish name calling:pac:, I’m willing to take the punishment for this from the mods but I think I and the vast majority of people debating here are tired of the crap non sensical babble coming from some people and it’s time they were called out for the weak ball-less frauds that they are!!

frag420 · 07-01-2018 08:40PM

applehunter wrote: »

I call it how I see it...

One eyed Jack · 07-01-2018 08:47PM

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

It really is such a pity that anti choicers do not argue for, support and demand funding for the little children that ARE born and have special needs.

Disabled children have a tough time here.

In the past whether disabled or not they were incarcerated and often done away with in the orphanages. Tuam for example. Surely it is much worse to end a living child's life like that.

Now I know we have moved on a lot, but it is still not great here for kids with special needs is it? So who on the anti choice side is speaking for kids ALREADY BORN, you know those who were NOT aborted, and their parents have such a difficult time getting them the supports they need.

That is a question that must be answered by them. All good and fine to be anti choice, but the consequences of that must be followed through and argued.

Erm, it's specifically because I've spent half my life already working with both children and adults with special needs (though personally I've never normally used the term 'special' needs, as we all have needs, no matter what they are, and people with disabilities are no different IMO), that I object to the idea of abortion ever being touted as a 'solution' to a society where people have hang-ups about people with disabilities, and even as I'm typing this I'm leaning on a zimmer frame having had a hip replacement procedure done yesterday to fix a click hip that should have been routinely detected at birth, but wasn't, and because my parents always thought I was putting it on, they never did anything about it, until I was 20 and my old man finally acknowledged in conversation with my mother "Y'know, he does walk a bit funny, doesn't he?" :pac:

What consequences would you like to be followed through on exactly? I'll be the first person to tell you nobody likes a pity party!

Da Boss · 07-01-2018 08:49PM

WhiteRoses wrote: »

And what consequences are there for the man who lay with her?
As a precious poster said, I presume you are in support of the man in question also going through a life limiting state for 9 months, unable to drink alcohol or smoke, a restricted diet and be unable to fly? What consequences do you propose be inflicted on the man?

Contraception fails. It’s been explained to you again and again and you still don’t get it. Isn’t fool proof. It isn’t fair on the woman or the child to force motherhood on her simply because she got caught out and her contraception failed. It’s a barbaric punishment and has NO ONES best interests at heart, least of all the child’s.

As has already been posted numerous times, the support in this country for struggling women and for children in the care system is an absolute disgrace. It is nowhere near good enough.

Women’s rights are currently diminished with the 8th in place. Women’s bodily autonomy is threatened. Maternity care is extremely limited because of the 8th. Women currently don’t have the right to consent or withhold consent for ANY procedure a doctor may decide to carry out on her. This is nothing to do with abortion - this is women going for scans/in labor etc. They have no say in their medical care. Which is an absolute monstrosity of a disgrace in the 21st century mordern Ireland.

On one hand, your posts are frightening, that you spew such vitriol and have such little regard for the rights of women. Women who could be your mother, sister, aunt, friend, wife.

On the other hand you are doing nothing but showing the Pro-Birth side for what they are. You don’t even fully understand the implications of the 8th yet you continue to argue. It’s bizarre.

Having a child isn’t a “punishment “ it’s human nature, it’s humans way of reproduction . Nature has made it so that it’s the woman who carries the child, don’t ask me why I dunno. Women aren’t being punished when they have a child. And nobody has any right what so ever to end the life of another, including the unborn! Well ms white roses I ask me since you tell me I don’t have a clue about the 8th amendment maybe you can enlighten me and maybe that if what you say is true I’ll change my opinion on the 8th

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments