Zubeneschamali wrote: » But you want pro-choice people to lie and pretend we don't think the Canadian system is best, and we shouldn't explain why, and pretend it is all about rape or whatever, at least until the referendum fails?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » The UK law does not technically allow abortion on demand. You have to get a doctor to say you need an abortion under paragraphs a, b, c or d. Turns out, lots of doctors are OK saying that, even for Irish women they never met before. So, you can introduce a 12 week limit on abortion on request if you like, or a 2 week one - as long as there is an unlimited clause for rape, incest, and my GP says so.
freshpopcorn wrote: » No, I was able to answer there questions with fact and kind of put it in real life terms to them.
drkpower wrote: » Sorry, I don't really follow your post/line of reasoning.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Did you lie to those people?
freshpopcorn wrote: » If nobody reached out to them and showed them that it wasn't a big bad scary thing. They'd probably have voted no. All these people helped to get the marriage referendum to pass.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Well, [sigh] if you must. But then we get the UK regime, where there is no, absolutely no way they have abortion on demand, the law says a doctor must say there is a reason. Yet we all know that there really is abortion on demand, feck's sake, we outsource our abortion on demand to them. The doctors just ignore the spirit of the law, and no-one cares. So, if you must, bring in some law with a 12 weeks hard limit, or 10, or 1 if you like, and exceptions only when a doctor says it is necessary. I mean, that rules out tons of cases where the doctor thinks he is performing an unnecessary late abortion, right?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » No, the repeal campaign is roughly 2:1 ahead because repeal is popular. They should ignore concern trolls trying to get them to aim low or water down their message. And if they don't win, well, we have abortion on demand in England anyhow. In the Constitution, even. It is awful for the women in direct provision, prison or mental hospitals who cannot travel, and tough for women who struggle to afford the trip, bu, you know what? Your bullsh!t half-way appease-the-hyper-catholics-who'll-oppose-it-anyhow amendment wouldn't help any of those women in any case.
drkpower wrote: » 1. That does not mean the law shouldn't address that situation.
david75 wrote: » The question is left hanging is this entire debate and issues at hand above the heads of many being asked to and entitled to vote on it.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » As i said, no evidence that TD's support abortion at all/any stages of pregnancy.
freshpopcorn wrote: » The repeal campaign need to target those on the fence voters now or those who are a little nervous about the matter.
Billy86 wrote: » And I thank you for backing up your statement with something concrete. I would not however be overly concerned about PBP given that they make up 6 of the 158 seats in the Dail (and 0 of 60 in the Seanad).
drkpower wrote: » That took me 90 seconds. Would,you not have been better having a quick search yourself?https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/abortion-legislation-party-positions-448614.html BP-Solidarity: Pro-choice, saying it is a woman’s decision. Abortions as early as possible and as late as necessary, but no specified circumstances Leader Eamon Ryan says abortions should be decided between a doctor and women and not specified for in legislation
freshpopcorn wrote: » You no perfectly well there isn't evidence and that's it's just my opinion but in my opinion they are TD's out there with this view and they are fairly easy to pick out. I am not going to name names because I'd just be told I'm slanderous/etc. If these people state that in the future that they are will support abortion with no limit or choice. I think they could damage the campaign. The same goes for anybody involved in the campaign that might say they support abortion with no limit. The no side will essential say on that day in May when you vote to all abortion up to twelve weeks in years to come they could be no time limit. This will make a lot of on the fence voters uncomfortable. I don't understand why you can't understand this?
freshpopcorn wrote: » Thanks for sharing drkpower. It was TD's connected to those parties I had my doubts about.(I couldn't find the article) It's just my opinion that if people from the above parties are given to much air time especially on TV. It could damage the repeal campaign. The repeal campaign need to target those on the fence voters now or those who are a little nervous about the matter.
drkpower wrote: » Look up billy; those politicians exist. There is logic to their argument but their argument may actually harm the repeal side.
Water John wrote: » As I propositioned, 12 weeks will be the very most, that has a possibility of getting a Dail majority, possibly a tighter regime.
Billy86 wrote: » In other words "I think politicians who I won't name, saying things that I won't say nor elaborate on whatsoever, will try to take advantage of this for the reasons that I have not given." That's a weak line of argument at the very best.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » This is not news, and not some baby-murdering collective of Satanists. It is a common sense way to get the law out of the way of doctors treating pregnant women. What possible good can emerge from a doctor deciding a woman needs an abortion in week X, and the hospital saying "whoa, let's call in a few dozen lawyers and get a court order". Whatever value of X you pick, no. Just no.
freshpopcorn wrote: » I've stated my opinion on the matter and you can accept it if you want. It there in the posts.
drkpower wrote: » Leader Eamon Ryan says abortions should be decided between a doctor and women and not specified for in legislation
drkpower wrote: » Hardly ridiculous claims. PBP/solidarity (and possibly the greens) are on record as favouring a Canadian model/no restrictions/decision entirely between patient and doctor.
