Bob_Marley wrote: » Why should human life not have constitutional protection ?
uptherebels wrote: » It is ok with both you and the state for irish women to have abortions.They must just pass a geographical boundary. You can deny it all you want. You posting history shows the truth
uptherebels wrote: » im talking about the right to travel for an abortion.
end of the road wrote: » it doesn't show the truth as it's not the truth. we are not okay with people traveling to kill the unborn but the state can do very little if anything to stop them.
uptherebels wrote: » despite giving constitutional protection to such acts? please tell us your plans on removing the right to travel or even the availability of information? wouldn't want people to think your a hypocrite now.
end of the road wrote: » the constitutional protection is for the right to travel. in this day and age one cannot stop information from being availible or saught due to the international and non-jurisdiction of the internet.
uptherebels wrote: » So you have no plans then:rolleyes: nimbyism at its finest.
uptherebels wrote: » So you have no plans then nimbyism at its finest. Women can freely obtain information on obtaining abortions and travel freely for such because the people of ireland decided that abortion was only bad inside state borders
uptherebels wrote: » So you have no plans then:rolleyes: nimbyism at its finest. Women can freely obtain information on obtaining abortions and travel freely for such because the people of ireland decided that abortion was only bad inside state borders
J C wrote: » The Irish people can only legally control what happens inside the Irish state's borders. Other countries are starting to roll back some of the abortion excesses in their countries ... but this is entirely up to them.https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ohio-gov-john-kasich-signs-down-syndrome-abortion-ban-n832336
Delirium wrote: » And yet you only recently said that societies only loosen abortion and never the opposite. You even went so far as to suggest people are gullible to consider abortion laws being made more restrictive was a possibility.
J C wrote: » It can go both ways ... but Ireland is showing every sign of liberalising abortion laws ... and that is the stated purpose of repealing the 8th, after all. Of course, if the Irish people sensibly decide to retain the 8th, then we won't significantly loosen abortion law in this country. ... and your theory will be proven correct.
Delirium wrote: » My theory, as you put it, was that Ireland could loosen or strengthen abortions post repeal of the 8th at some stage. You rejected that possibility and threw the word gullible around. But rather than complain you're late to the party, we'll be happy you showed up.
Bob_Marley wrote: » How will removing the human life rights of unborn children from the constitution strengthen their protection ? - This will be an interesting newspeak spin . . .
end of the road wrote: » perhapse he wasn't aware that Ohio was going to make such a sensible decisian when he posted his point about society only loosening abortion law. so his original point is just as valid as his new one given the intervening time frame and the changing face of ohio's stance in relation to abortions of ds babys.
Delirium wrote: » Yes, it would if that's what i said. For those trying to keep up, JC claimed that should the repeal happen Ireland would only ever loosen abortion laws. E.g 12 weeks becomes 22 week limit. I suggested that at some point in the future the law could be tightened by a government. JC rejected this possibility. He now seems to considering it could happen. At no point did I suggest that repeal would strengthen protection for the unborn. Hope that clears up your confusion.
PopePalpatine wrote: » I wonder what extra funding the Ohio Republicans will provide for services needed by the disabled. I'd say Sweet Fanny Adams is the heavy favourite.
J C wrote: » I don't reject the idea that abortion law can be tightened as well as loosened. The passing of the 8th in 1983 was a tightening of abortion law, at the time. However, the current argument for repealing the 8th is to ensure that no woman has to travel to England for an abortion ... and if this is to be fully achieved, then Ireland's abortion laws will have to be loosened out dramatically to fully match English abortion law. ... i.e. well beyond the current proposal of 12 weeks ... and more like the CA proposal of 22 weeks.
Delirium wrote: » Equally there will be nothing stopping the government from introducing stricter abortion laws should the laws be revisited.
J C wrote: » ... but that is not how it will play out if the 8th is repealed. It is as certain as night follows day that the government will revisit the CA recommendartions, if the 8th is repealed ... and they will implement all of the CA recommendations. The reason for this is that the CA recommendations are practically identical to the current English abortion law ... and the cry that no woman should have to go to England for an abortion, will logically lead to the complete harmonisation of Irish abortion law with English abortion law, if the 8th is repealed. Otherwise women will still have to go to England for abortions outside 12 weeks ... and that will become politically impossible to resist if the 8th is repealed. The question will be asked as to why women still have to go to England for abortions after the 8th has been repealed ... and the answer will very quickly be the complete harmonisation of Irish abortion law with English law. The CA recommendations provide a 'roadmap' and 'political cover' for doing precisely this. ... and you would need to be extremely gullible to believe otherwise, if the 8th is repealed. ... whichever side of the abortion issue, you stand on.
Delirium wrote: » At no point did I suggest that repeal would strengthen protection for the unborn. Hope that clears up your confusion.
Bob_Marley wrote: » I'm not confused at all - I'm not the one advocating the removal of their rights from the constitution and thinking it's ok to take their life.
Delirium wrote: » Really? At this stage, I don't know if this is a communication breakdown or you're being dishonest as I've posted the above which contradicts your statement. I said that laws could be tightened if revisited and you said " It is as certain as night follows day that the government will revisit the CA recommendartions, if the 8th is repealed ... and they will implement all of the CA recommendations. " That clearly rejects the notion that things could go either way. Hopefully it's a communication breakdown rather than the alternative.
J C wrote: » The current proposals are one way ... the repeal of the 8th and the installation of 12 week abortion on demand. The only way that abortion will not be 'loosened' is if people vote 'no' to repealing the 8th. Hopefully they will do so and prove you correct.
Delirium wrote: » And this is why things are confused. I'm well aware of the current situation. I'm also aware that not repealing the 8th gives more protection to the unborn than repeal does. I asked if repeal happens, do you accept that the laws could be tightened at some stage down the line? Yes or no?
J C wrote: » What has that got to do with banning the killing unborn children with disabilities? Extra funding has been provided for disabled services in every country over the past number of years. The paralympics and the special olympics also celebrate and recognise extraordinary achievements by disabled and special needs people.
Delirium wrote: » your unintended misrepresentation of my post says otherwise. I'm familiar with my position on allowing women make informed consensual decisions about their pregnancy.
