J C wrote: » Please cite the law under which she was detained.
Gail O’Rorke has spoken about the moment two gardaí approached her as she was about to book flights to Switzerland so friend Bernadette Forde could end her life.
J C wrote: » Please cite these laws.
72 Offences outside the United Kingdom [F2(1)If— (a) a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and (b) the act, if done in England and Wales, would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies, the United Kingdom national is guilty in England and Wales of that sexual offence.
J C wrote: » We can't ... and repeating it doesn't make it true.
end of the road wrote: » no we only allowed them to travel. the current situation while not ideal as abortions are happening, is a deterrent to some, and is an expence for those who wish to have it, meaning things are made difficult for them.
Delirium wrote: » Ignoring that your post clearly shows you didn't grasp it, please explain how society can meet its moral responsibility while allowing, for example, murder to be legal?
volchitsa wrote: » Why? Are you suggesting it didnt happen? Because it did. Or that there is a reason why this could not be done to women attempting to travel to the UK? Because we know the ansswer to that : the people voted to allow them to travel for abortions, when they voted the 13th amendment. And we could be having a referendum to remove it, in May, instead of the one that is planned. But nobody wants to remove it. Not even pro-life. Or not that they are prepared to admit anyway. Why? So you can waste my time instead of having to admit you were wrong? The laws exist. Here's just one, the UK one, Section 72 of the 2003 sexual offences act :https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/72 Sex tourists face UK prosecution over abuse abroad So now you know that we can, because we stopped Gail O'Rorke travelling for assisted suicide, and because other countries do the same for illegal actions like child sex abuse and FGM abroad, you need to explain why exactly you think Ireland couldn't rescind the 13th and have the ability to prevent women from travelling if there is a suspicion they may be looking for an abortion, ame punish any that have one and then come back. After all, this is an action that is so serious that the need to preserve a woman's health cannot be taken into account even when the woman is miscarrying and the baby cannot be saved. So it's really rather odd that people who are pro-life are so very determined to claim that they couldnt possibly do anything to prevent this!
end of the road wrote: » as explained, to implament this would require innocent pregnant women being effect, dispite not traveling for an abortion. so the innocent would be effected for the non-innocent who wish to kill their unborn for lifestyle, convenience and contraceptive reasons.
end of the road wrote: » it clearly can't, hence we have laws against murder. the same as society cannot meet it's moral responsibility while allowing the killing of the unborn to be legal. currently, it is meeting it's moral responsibility by having the killing of the unborn as an offence in ireland. if the 8th is repealed, it will no longer be meeting it's moral responsibility to protect the unborn. as explained, to implament this would require innocent pregnant women being effect, dispite not traveling for an abortion. so the innocent would be effected for the non-innocent who wish to kill their unborn for lifestyle, convenience and contraceptive reasons.
david75 wrote: » You are talking about women in terms of innocent and non innocent. Seriously? It’s exactly that archaic redundant and self defeating nonsense that will lose you and pro life this referendum.
end of the road wrote: » again with the wishful thinking with no basis in fact or reality. the only thing that will lose pro-life the referendum is the numbers. the same with pro-choice if they lose and we win. there is nothing archaic redundant and self defeating about describing women who don't have an abortion on demand as innocent, and women who have abortions on demand as non-innocent, due to the fact they have killed their unborn child, for reasons other then medical necessity. they may not be criminally guilty but they are moraly guilty of the worst act known to man.
david75 wrote: » Copy and pasting response. Again. Where are you going to go at the end of your road. You’re calling women who have abortions guilty. Guilty of what exactly? And do you not see how that language is self destructive to your agenda?? I know that you don’t so I’m not worried about you guys winning because your agenda is so flawed. In fact I’m enjoying it if I’m honest
david75 wrote: » You didn’t grasp the fact that you’re copy and pasting from the same threadbare tired hymn sheet. You are having a totally different debate from the rest of the entire country. We’re talking about women and their rights to bodily autonomy. That’s what this referendum is actually about. You’re calling a foetus a child. Youre wrong and nobody calls a zygote or foetus, a child. They are not a child neither of them. You did say unborn. That’s a step in the right direction.
end of the road wrote: » i am having the exact same debate as everyone else. the debate is about repealing the 8th and the introduction of abortion on demand, aka the killing of the unborn on demand, without restriction or good reason, up to 12 weeks. only some are talking about women and their rights to bodily autonomy, because they believe such rights should extend to being able to kill other human beings. the rest of us don't need to have that debate, because none of our rights to bodily autonomy, extend to being able to commit acts that harm others. i'm not calling a fetus a child. i'm calling it a human being/unborn baby. those are factually correct and i'm therefore right on that score.
david75 wrote: » And none of your rights moral or physical extend to determine or supercede what choices other people get to decide for their own.
david75 wrote: » This is the part you’re not getting. That’s my point. That’s the power by you’re unwilling to accept. You don’t get to have a say over someone else’s medical choices. No matter what.
end of the road wrote: » it clearly can't, hence we have laws against murder. the same as society cannot meet it's moral responsibility while allowing the killing of the unborn to be legal. currently, it is meeting it's moral responsibility by having the killing of the unborn as an offence in ireland. if the 8th is repealed, it will no longer be meeting it's moral responsibility to protect the unborn.
end of the road wrote: » they may not be criminally guilty but they are moraly guilty of the worst act known to man.
end of the road wrote: » currently, it is meeting it's moral responsibility by having the killing of the unborn as an offence in ireland.
end of the road wrote: » again with the wishful thinking with no basis in fact or reality.
NuMarvel wrote: » That proverb about stones and glasshouses comes to mind. EOTR: Abortion is the worst act known to man!! Also EOTR: I'm not going to stop anyone travelling for an abortion because it might inconvenience other people.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Yep, that's the same poster who once said the guards should baton charge women and children if they tried to prevent a Garth Brooks concert from going ahead! The moral compass is spinning like a windmill for that poster.
NuMarvel wrote: » Yeahbuhwhatnow?? :eek::eek:
Delirium wrote: » Latest on case that was before supreme court today:https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/971338864127348736
Nick Park wrote: » That certainly clarifies what we will be voting on in the Referendum, doesn't it? The case before the Supreme Court referred to an unborn child that was due to be born in three weeks time. The Supreme court has determined that such a child, 35 weeks into the pregnancy, has no Constitutional rights outside of the Eighth Amendment.So we can forget all this talk about 12 weeks. We will be voting as to whether all unborn child, right up to the point of birth, should have the right to be born.
Nick Park wrote: » That certainly clarifies what we will be voting on in the Referendum, doesn't it? The case before the Supreme Court referred to an unborn child that was due to be born in three weeks time. The Supreme court has determined that such a child, 35 weeks into the pregnancy, has no Constitutional rights outside of the Eighth Amendment. So we can forget all this talk about 12 weeks. We will be voting as to whether all unborn child, right up to the point of birth, should have the right to be born.
Delirium wrote: » If that's true then we'll be implementing a more restrictive abortion policy if repeal fails? Women won't be allowed an abortion even when their life is in danger? Right to travel will be revoked to stop any women who are attempting to travel for an abortion?
Nick Park wrote: » My bad. What I meant to say was that we will be voting whether to remove the only Constitutional right to life of all children - right up to the point of birth.
