WhiteRoses wrote: » Scaremongering at its finest. There is no such agenda to do that. It’s taken us what, 30 years? to even organize a referendum to repeal this stupid and barbaric amendment. If you really believe this would happen then you are delusional.
pilly wrote: » You really need to educate yourself on this issue before you continue on making a fool of yourself son.
J C wrote: » Why will the abortion laws in this country not be quickly and exactly matched with those of England ... when the main reason for repealing the 8th is to eliminate the reasons for women travelling to England for abortions? One can just hear it now ... "Why did this woman still have to travel to England to abort her child with a cleft palate at 8 months?"
WhiteRoses wrote: » FFA are usually diagnosed at the anamoly scan which normally occurs around 20 weeks.FFA cannot be detected at 12 weeks so anyone aborting on or before then would not be doing so because of FFA. I have no problem with this.
NuMarvel wrote: » Incorrect. Repeal is removing a constitutional provision that doesn't work, and will allow legislation that grants women the right to bodily autonomy early in the pregnancy. After that point, she will have her rights to life and to be free of cruel and unusual treatment protected, as well as the right to her health up to whatever term limits the legislation sets out.
NuMarvel wrote: » The legislation will similarly protect the unborn's rights, because doctors who carry out abortions outside the law will face sanctions. Most importantly, repeal does not infringe the unborn's human rights, because it has never been found that access to abortion breaches those rights.
end of the road wrote: » ireland can remedy the human rights breaches in relation to abortion (which relates to medically necessary abortions only) via the existing legislation that allows abortion in medically necessary circumstances.
end of the road wrote: » not providing abortion on demand is not a breach of human rights. the unborn must be protected and to do that, the only option because of the government's proposals is to vote no to repeal to protect their right to life, life being a human right.
Bob_Marley wrote: » So in other words if that's the case as you claim, this proposed new legislation won't deal with FFA ?
J C wrote: » ... so doing the decent thing, that the vast majority of women do anyway ... and bringing your child safely to term is 'cruel and unusual treatment' in the land of the extreme femininst ... eh ???
NuMarvel wrote: » It will deal with FFA, which as WR has pointed out is usually diagnosed much later on in a pregnancy.
Bob_Marley wrote: » so how exactly will 12 week no restriction abortion of unborn children deal with FFA if it can't be reliably diagnosed, or are you claiming there will be abortion of unborn children permitted after 12 weeks ?
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » You can't abort at 8 months
NuMarvel wrote: » You make Ronán Mullen look caring and compassionate...
Bob_Marley wrote: » and what restrictions will be in place for no restriction abortion ?
J C wrote: » How does a perfectly healthy woman responsibly bringing her child safely to term constitute 'cruel and unusual treatment' ??? ... a term that is normally reserved for where extreme torture is used on somebody, often leading to the death of the victim.
WhiteRoses wrote: » If you truly believe women will abort at 8 months for a reason such as that, it says a lot about your opinion of women. Perhaps that’s the kind of company you keep but I certainly don’t know anyone who would abort for such a reason (or any reason actually) at such a late stage of pregnancy.
NuMarvel wrote: » I referenced earlier the other grounds being recommended for the post repeal law. Maybe you should read through the Oireachtas Committee's recommendations to catch up on what the proposed legislation will be based on. The main body of the report is only 10 pages, so it'll be an easy enough read.
pilly wrote: » Well now, all of that is clearly lies but do carry on. The more of this rubbish spouted the better for the repeal side.
pilly wrote: » 100% lies
NuMarvel wrote: » The human rights breaches were both due to cases of FFA, but proposed legislation to include FFA in the current laws was rejected because the advice of the Attorney General was that it would be unconstitutional. And while the Attorney General is by no means infallible, I'll take their legal opinion over yours any day of the week. A Yes vote won't breach anyone's human rights. A No vote will. It's as simple as that.
J C wrote: » Nothing to do with my opinion of women, for whom I have the highest regard. Quote:- "Lord Alton, an independent crossbench peer, said of the figures: 'Aborting a baby with a cleft palate should be unconscionable. For the law to allow this up to birth should be unthinkable.' Church of England curate, the Reverend Joanna Jepson, who was born with a jaw deformity, said: 'That this kind of discrimination is on the rise shows just how far we are from being the humane and tolerant society we claim to be.' Ms Jepson rose to prominence by speaking out against abortions when babies have a cleft palate after a case in 2003 where a baby with one was terminated at 28 weeks. She called for the doctor responsible to be prosecuted."http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3761905/Fury-number-abortions-cleft-lip-babies-rises-new-womb-tests-offered.html Quote:- "Twenty-six pregnancies have been aborted in the past nine years because babies would have been born with cleft lips or palates, according to figures released yesterday after a High Court ruling. The abortions, which included one foetus terminated after the 24-week legal limit, were described as “appalling” by pro-life campaigners, who said disabled babies should be afforded the same right to life as others. The Department of Health statistics, which go back almost a decade, were released after a six-year legal battle. They reveal that between 2002 and 2010 there were 17,983 terminations on the grounds that there was a “substantial risk” that the babies would be “seriously handicapped” — known as Ground E abortions. Of these, 1,189 were aborted after 24 weeks, after which there must be such a serious risk for an abortion to be legal if the mother is not in danger. Last year 147 foetuses were aborted after 24 weeks, a rise of 29 per cent since 2002.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/8616978/Twenty-six-babies-aborted-for-cleft-lips-or-palates.html
Bob_Marley wrote: » But what is your understanding of how 12 week no restriction abortion of unborn children deals with a supposed FFA if it can't be reliably diagnosed at 12 weeks as is now being claimed, and what additional further abortions of unborn children will be permitted after 12 weeks that are not already ?
J C wrote: » ... I guess there will be no restrictions.
J C wrote: » Quote from the Oireactas Committee:- "The Citizens Assembly recommended that termination of pregnancy should be lawful, up to 22 weeks gestation, in cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth without gestational limit. The Committee, while noting the burden placed on the woman and the family in such situations, does not accept that these are sufficient grounds for termination. The Committee therefore does not accept this recommendation of the Citizens Assembly. 2.35. The Committee recommends that the law should not provide for the termination of pregnancy on the ground that the unborn child has a significant foetal abnormality where such abnormality is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth." While 12 weeks is the current proposed limit for abortion on demand ... the Citizens Assembly recommendations (that is referred to in the Oirechtas Report), provides a 'roadmap' for the expansion of this limit to 22 weeks for normal pregnancies and with no gestational limit for cases of foetal abnormality that is not likely to result in death before or shortly after birth i.e. anything from Downs Syndrome to cleft palate, similar to English abortion law.
Bob_Marley wrote: » So in other words up to 12 weeks, you'll be able to terminate the life of any 'undesirable' unborn child for any reason you want, for the crime of perhaps being female instead of male, or having special needs. A backwards step in the evolution of human society. Pretty barbaric and medieval being dressed up in newspeak as progress.https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fetal-sex/blood-test-tells-fetal-sex-in-early-pregnancy-idUSTRE60H4CW20100118http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=8487
Bob_Marley wrote: » No wonder the question was dodged.
J C wrote: » Its likely to be a lot worse than that. Having special needs is likely to be a reason to be aborted with no gestational limit, in line with the recommendation of the Citizen's assembly (and current English abortion law).Aborting an unborn child for being female, or any other reason (because it's unrestricted abortion) will be allowed up to 12 weeks initially ... but this is likely to be expanded to 22 weeks in line with the Citizens Assembly (and the likely reduction in the English abortion law limit from 24 weeks to 22). There is something very ironic (and deeply sad) about feminists who campaign for equality for all females ... and then campaign for the right to kill unborn children, including unborn female children. You just couldn't make it up ... and if you did, nobody would believe you !! Truth is often stranger than fiction.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » You cannot tell the sex of a foetus at 12 weeks so there you go again telling more lies in a lame attempt to score emotional points.
J C wrote: Why is it lies ... where is the protection from gender-specific abortion, for example, where abortion is available on demand?
J C wrote: » How about the basic Human right to life of the unborn child? ... and so-called 'full bodily autonomy' is just an obvious immoral 'fig leaf' for an utterly selfish decision to kill an innocent unborn child ... when both the mother and child are perfectly healthy.
'Full bodily autonomy' ends at the point where the exercise of such autonomy interferes with the rights of others ... and especially the right to life of others.
... otherwise, every rapist would just say, in his defense ... ' I was just exercising my full bodily autonomy, judge' ... and be released to go forth to further exercise the said 'bodily autonomy', as he sees fit !!!
J C wrote: » A one-sided Human Right giving 100% rights to women and 0% to their unborn child is a perversion of 'equality' ... and it doesn't matter how many so-called 'experts' have concocted it ... it's still a perversion of equality ... that should be rejected by all right thinking people.
In the 'la la land' of the extreme femininst, that may be the perception ... but in the real world that everyone else lives in, the stripping away of all constitutional protection for the unborn right up to birth, does breach the human right to life of the unborn ... and puts them at imminent risk of death by abortion.
J C wrote: » That could be resolved by extending the time for on-demand abortion to 24 weeks ... and for disability up to 9 months ... as is currently the case in England. ... there will be nothing to stop this barbarity from happening ... if the 8th is repealed.
As it stands, the 8th definitively states that abortion (other than in cases of extremis) most certainly does infringe the constitutionally guaranteed right to life of the unborn in Ireland.
J C wrote: » One can just hear it now ... "Why did this woman still have to travel to England to abort her child with a cleft palate at 8 months?"
