end of the road wrote: » most people who are against abortion on demand are concerned for both. that is why we support abortion when necessary but don't when it isn't, meaning that where the baby does have a genuine effect on the mother it's life can be terminated. it doesn't mean we agree with the act, but we understand it's necessary as it would cause an unacceptible outcome in the form of death or permanent disability.
end of the road wrote: » i haven't dodged anything.
end of the road wrote: » in the future, the human being unborn life will be sentient and have experience
end of the road wrote: » if there was no chance of abortion on demand being legislated for, there would have been huge support from the pro-life movement.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » So even with an unworkable wording for FFA, rape and incest only, the Pro-Life movement would have fought it tooth and nail, just as they wanted to keep travel and information illegal, just as they tried to remove the suicide exception, twice.
thee glitz wrote: » I guess they'd be fairly against opening up the possibility of abortion on demand any time soon. Or is there anything to be said for polling the people?
thee glitz wrote: » I guess they'd be fairly against opening up the possibility of abortion on demand any time soon.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Or we could have a Referendum....
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Or any other kind of abortion. That is kind of their thing.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » I notice as well now EOTR supports abortion where there in the case the child may be disabled.
end of the road wrote: » no, i don't. i was referring to the case where carying the baby to term may cause permanent disability to the mother, something i have been clear about throughout the thread.
Bannasidhe wrote: » This reads to me that essentially you believe that those already born, breathing, living, women who are impacted - in some cases dying - because of the 8th are merely collateral damage in some ethical battle to 'save' potential living, breathing, people. Any women (or girl) who is 'of child bearing age' in Ireland could be the next victim but that is a necessary step... That is awful.
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » but in reality would rather detain women and chain them up, forcing them to have their babies. they are happy to take a deeply hypocritical stance
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Indeed. You continuously opine about how you support abortion in extreme circumstances. At the end of the day though you don't because you continuously put fetuss before womens lives.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » I think Bannasidhe really summed up your stance quite well when referring to another poster.
end of the road wrote: » i support abortion in extreme circumstances. i have been clear and consistent about it in the thread. that means ultimately that i don't put the unborn before women's lives, given that the threat to the mother's life is one such case where i support abortion. no, no she didn't.
pitifulgod wrote: » Do you view mental health grounds to be legitimate grounds for an abortion out of interest?
end of the road wrote: » i support abortion in extreme circumstances.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » But you dont really because you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary in order to prevent so called "abortion on demand". Collateral damage.
end of the road wrote: » because as said by me, there are many who disagree with abortion on demand, and on the grounds of it being likely that it would be legislated for, we wouldn't vote to repeal. if there is enough of us and the vote is caried then the problems still exist. however if there was no chance of abortion on demand being legislated for, there would have been huge support from the pro-life movement.
end of the road wrote: » that is why we support abortion when necessary but don't when it isn't dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » Except that's not what you do. You support abortion for medical reasons
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » Except that's not what you do. You support abortion for medical reasons
end of the road wrote: » i was referring to the case where carying the baby to term may cause permanent disability to the mother, something i have been clear about throughout the thread. Joeytheparrot wrote: » You continuously opine about how you support abortion in extreme circumstances. At the end of the day though you don't because you continuously put fetuss before womens lives.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » You continuously opine about how you support abortion in extreme circumstances. At the end of the day though you don't because you continuously put fetuss before womens lives.
end of the road wrote: » i support abortion in extreme circumstances. Joeytheparrot wrote: » But you dont really because you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary
Joeytheparrot wrote: » But you dont really because you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary
Joeytheparrot wrote: » But you dont really
Joeytheparrot wrote: » you view preventing abortion in extreme circumstances as necessary in order to prevent so called "abortion on demand". Collateral damage.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Extreme circumstances which are hard to really define.
thee glitz wrote: » There are none so blind as those who will not see, or am I missing something?
Bannasidhe wrote: » I watched the whole vote. It was very clear. Each proposal was clearly made, any clarifications sought were provided, then the vote on that particular proposal was not only taken - they had a vote as to whether they would vote. No apparent discrepancy at all - the resulting report reflected the vote. Glad to clear that up.
thee glitz wrote: would you accept the possibility of legislating for abortion on demand being kicked 10 years down the road if it meant an end to women dying due the 8th? Bannasidhe wrote: And what?
Bannasidhe wrote: And what?
NuMarvel wrote: » The risks you referred to as being present in the current situation minus whatever ones might be mitigated by the alternative you'd propose in lieu of the Committee's recommendations.
thee glitz wrote: » I guess reference could be made to burden imposed by the continued protection of life.
thee glitz wrote: » How would you feel if Leo said that the legislation that would follow repealing the 8th would allow abortion on demand up to 26 weeks?
Joeytheparrot wrote: » What I am saying is that EOTR prioritises banning abortion "on demand" over and above all else.
The result of that support of banning abortion "on demand" means that abortion in various extreme circumstances cannot be legislated for.
So saying he supports abortion in extreme circumstances is completely hollow words.
thee glitz wrote: » What I said was
thee glitz wrote: » I don't see any replies to this either
NuMarvel wrote: » What you said was that not repealing the 8th puts women's live in danger. It follows that a proposal that would maintain some or many of the effects of the 8th would carry more risks than a proposal that would carry none of the effects of the 8th.
I missed it, so I'm happy to answer it now; I wouldn't have a problem with that. The majority of women who access abortion do it within the first trimester (92% in Britain, higher in other European countries), so in effect, there would be little or no difference to the current proposal of up to 12 weeks.
thee glitz wrote: » Removing the protection afforded by the 8th completely would carry huge risks for the unborn.
thee glitz wrote: » The risks I'd allow run are those posed by the unavailability of abortion on demand, whatever they are... not recognising the supposed risk of suicide as sufficient.
thee glitz wrote: » I appreciate your reply, but what I asked was about the proposal to implement such legislation, not the implication of doing so. A proposal to legislate for later availability would bring a greater risk of none at all.
thee glitz wrote: » Nothing wrong with that - a position that will save many lives.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » And yet the reality is womens lives are endangered by it. But as Bannasidhe said earlier women are just collateral damage to save fetuss
dr.fuzzenstein wrote: » So business as usual. The no side is perfectly OK with women traveling for abortions, they just don't want to sully this green isle with this dirty business. So they can export the problem, whilst sitting smug on their moral high horse. The hypocrisy of it all stinks to high heaven, because it is pretty clear that they don't give a flying fcuk about those women and their deafing silence on these points speaks volumes. Your time to stick your head in the sand is over and you know it's over. This is your last hurrah, soon sense will prevail, it is only a matter of time.
end of the road wrote: » i don't as we have abortion in extreme circumstances availible in ireland already.
