J C wrote: » The decision of the Supreme Court today brings clarity to the extreme vulnerablity that unborn children find themselves in, right up to birth, if the 8th is repealed. The court has confirmed that the only constitutional right unborn children have, is the right to life guaranteed by the 8th and this is so, right up to birth. People back in 1983 were scoffed at when they said that the 8th was necessary to protect unborn Human life in Ireland ... and they were told that they were alarmist when they cited Roe v Wade (which introduced unlimited abortion on demand, into the US overnight, by striking down all state anti-abortion laws. We faced the exact same constitutional scenario in 1983 ... and we will face it again, if the 8th is repealed. In a 'nutshell' Roe v Wade was a case made on the basis that the mother had a right to privacy (amongst many other rights) ... and as the unborn had no constitutional rights in the US ... all anti-abortion laws were declared unconstitutional, as a result ... leading to a total free for all, when it came to abortion. A similar legal situation currently exists in Canada following the Canadian Supreme Court striking down their Abortion Law as unconstitutional. Quote:- "Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy, and is governed by the Canada Health Act. While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion. Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces. Prior to 1969, all abortion was illegal in Canada. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69 introduced by Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government legalized abortion, as long as a committee of doctors signed off that it was necessary for the physical or mental well-being of the mother. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgentaler that the existing laws were unconstitutional, and struck down the 1969 law. The then-governing Progressive Conservatives attempted, but failed, to pass a new abortion law, and since then Canada has had no criminal laws governing the subject, and abortion is a decision made by a woman with her doctor. "
david75 wrote: » Oh look. A terminally ill woman dying of cancer having to travel for abortion. If she only had been able to access the care she needed here in her own country. State settled with cancer patient The State has paid substantial compensation to a woman who was forced to travel to Britain for an abortion despite being terminally ill In 2010, after she became unintentionally pregnant while suffering from a malignant melanoma, doctors at Cork University Hospital advised her to terminate her pregnancy because of the risk to her health. Mr Boylan said her obstetrician was willing to perform a termination but was “hamstrung” by legal issues. The issue was referred to the hospital’s “ad hoc” ethics committee.https://www.irishtimes.com/news/state-settled-with-cancer-patient-1.555035
end of the road wrote: » they are facts. you are either living in an alternative reality or determined to keep spreading fake news. looking at all possibilities regardless of how remote does not make one have "an abysmally poor view of Women" . there is no evidence a government in the future wouldn't completely liberalise our abortion law to allow abortion right up to birth. it's likely a very very remote possibility, but it is there, and that is why we have to insure it double definitely can't happen by voting no to repeal of the 8th and continue to protect the unborn.
end of the road wrote: » there is no hysterical hyperbolic scaremongering from any of the pro-life posters on this or the other abortion threads.
end of the road wrote: » there is no evidence a government in the future wouldn't completely liberalise our abortion law to allow abortion right up to birth. it's likely a very very remote possibility, but it is there,
end of the road wrote: » this never happenedFake news.
NuMarvel wrote: » I couldn't agree more, which is why I support repeal of the 8th and not its retention. Repeal means women can be treated equally when it comes to decisions on medical care and bodily autonomy. There is no instance of a constitutional provision impeding these rights for men, even if it impacts on the rights of others, so to deliver equality for women we need to remove the 8th. Retention means supporting a status quo where women are discriminated against, in particular women who are unable to travel abroad for an abortion for legal or financial reasons. On the other hand it's unreasonable to advocate support for one groups' rights and ignore the effects on the rights of another group. As you did in your earlier post when you spoke about the effect repeal would have on the unborn and failed to mention the woman who is also, inextricably, involved.
david75 wrote: » ‘there is no evidence a government in the future wouldn’t completely liberalise our abortion law to allow abortion right up to birth.‘ Then you go on to accuse me of fake news. Seriously?? You’re dealing in the most hysterical hyperbolic scaremongering possible and talking about a future that will not happen, so you can keep your fake news nonsense because it’s exactly what you’re pedalling and nobody is buying.
Nick Park wrote: » I fully support for all citizens, men and women alike, to retain their rights under the Constitution. There should be absolute equality between men and woman in that regard.
Nick Park wrote: » It is perfectly reasonable to support one group's rights without advocating the removal of another group's rights.
david75 wrote: » Not a single one of those are facts. You are either living in an alternative reality or determined to keep spreading this hysterical hyperbolic nonsense.
david75 wrote: » Trying to imagine the world you live in where you think a woman is going through the 9 month difficult ordeal of pregnancy and all its pains trials and tribulations only the week or day before she’s due to give birth she decides to have an abortion. That’s truly a twisted warped disturbing line of thinking. Weirder yet you think our government would legislate to allow for that. They never would. What you’re saying is ‘we have to stop this referendum in case that happens!! The door is open for them to do it!’ You have an abysmally poor view of people. Women in particular. Ps- there isn’t a doctor in the state that would take part in such a procedure either at That stage. They just wouldn’t.
recedite wrote: » No, that is not a fact. It is makey-uppey nonsense. Any fool can see straight through a claim that all abortions after 12 weeks are always for FFA. That's a terrible thing to say. No empathy or compassion for the other poster at all. He simply related a personal story. There was nothing about telling other families what to do in the post.
Nick Park wrote: » No, that one does not say anything remotely like what you tried to ascribe to me. It states simple facts. 1. The Referendum will not mention 12 weeks anywhere. 2. There will (according to government sources) be an insertion that makes no mention of any gestational limits but says that provision may be made by law for the termination of pregnancies. 3. A politicians' promise is considerably less cast-iron than a Constitutional guarantee. 4. Such a repeal and replace opens the door for any government, present or future, to introduce subsequent abortion legislation (something many Repeal campaigners are already demanding) without any constitutional hindrance. All four points are factual, and none of them claim that we are "voting on abortion up until birth" or say that such is likely to happen. Come on, either substantiate your accusation against me or be man enough to admit you were wrong and apologise. I'm asking you again
david75 wrote: » 92% of all abortions happen before the 12th week. The other 8% are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth. Those are facts. Why are thes people so allergic to facts and addicted to hysteria?
....... wrote: » I really cant see why your personal tragedy should be used to tell other families why they should not abort. You made a choice. Other people want to be able to make a choice for their own families. Coming out with statements such as the above is really scraping the barrel in order to further your agenda.
Nick Park wrote: » I fully support for all citizens, men and women alike, to retain their rights under the Constitution. There should be absolute equality between men and woman in that regard. It is perfectly reasonable to support one group's rights without advocating the removal of another group's rights.
NuMarvel wrote: » I notice that you don't mention the woman's rights at all even though those will also be affected by the outcome of the referendum.
david75 wrote: » Like this one right here?
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
david75 wrote: » Thank you. He’s been at it consistently and now completely back pedalling.
Nick Park wrote: » Actually, it isn't likely to state any such thing at all. All the reports and indications are that there will be nothing whatsoever in the Referendum wording about 12 weeks. The referendum will ask us to delete the clause in our Constitution that affords the right to life to unborn children, and to replace it with a clause saying "Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancies." No gestation limit there. The government says it initially only intends to introduce legislation pertaining to 12 weeks - but that is a politician's promise, not a Constitutional guarantee. And, of course, the door is then open for this, or any other government, to introduce any further abortion legislation whatsoever with no Constitutional hindrances.
Nick Park wrote: » What I have said about the referendum is that, based on the government's own press releases and reports, we will be voting on whether to remove the Constitutional right to life for all unborn children right up to the point of birth. I have also said that we will be voting to authorise the Oireachtas to legislate whatever it wants about abortion in the future (which, by definition, includes authorising them to legislate up to birth if they choose to do so).
....... wrote: » Nick you are word salading here. You keep insinuating that we are voting on allowing abortion up to birth.
david75 wrote: » Can you provide any factual evidence or statistics showing that we are voting on abortion up to birth? I have asked you repeatedly now and you’ve yet to answer or provide any evidence?
Nick Park wrote: » No, I try to fact-check my statements carefully, so I wouldn't say such a thing unless I could provide evidence. You know, like the evidence you couldn't provide about those Mormons that die because they won't accept blood transfusions. :pac: Can you point to, or quote verbatim, where it says in that link that the other 8% are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth?
david75 wrote: » ‘Ninety-two percent of abortions were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation and 81 percent at under ten weeks.’ Stats for 2016https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf These are facts nick. Actual facts and verified statistics. You’ll be saying the UK government made them up next.
