....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
david75 wrote: » You’re ignoring what is being said by our government yet you were posting quotes from Leo only a while back. Odd that.
volchitsa wrote: » What is your point about feticide, J_C? These are not healthy babies being killed, you do get that, don't you? These are severely disabled fetuses that are almost at term, and so may be born alive, but those that do survive birth will die within minutes or at most, hours or days after that. Feticide is proposed purely to avoid the trauma of the baby dying shortly after its birth, possibly in significant pain. Not to kill a healthy baby. Those are grounds E, which is why they may be past the 24 week limit, but they are not healthy babies.
david75 wrote: » Well done! You read actual facts! Now read my last post where our government is limiting it to 12 weeks! Yay!
volchitsa wrote: » No, it doesn't have to be illegal abroad (the bit in bold). Where is the article of law that says anything about what the foreign law says in that link I gave you? (Ans: Nowhere) Maybe I should explain, you seem to be finding this challenging. A British man goes to Seoul and has sex with a 14 year old prostitute. He has committed a crime because even though the age of consent is 13 in SK he is guilty of child abuse under section 72 of the Sex Crimes Act in the UK as though he had committed the same act in the UK. It doesn't matter that the act was legal in Seoul, it is illegal for him. It's as simple as that. They brought that law in to stop British men going to countries to abuse children in places where there may be no age of consent, so child abuse would be legal. The parents would sell the child's services, as they had a right to. In Ireland, OTOH, we brought in a law to allow Irish people to go to other countries to abort pregnancies, because it seemed to be illegal and we didn't want that. That was a choice the country made. You can deny it all you want, those are the facts.
J C wrote: » Some notable statistics allright:- Quote:- "For abortions at 22 weeks or beyond, feticide is recommended by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists prior to the evacuation of the uterus to stop the fetal heart. In 2016, of the 1,508 abortions performed at 22 weeks and over, 48% were reported as preceded by a feticide and a further 45% were performed by a method whereby the fetal heart is stopped as part of the procedure. Eleven (0.7%) of abortions at 22 weeks or beyond were confirmed as having no feticide. For the remaining 89 cases (6%), at the time of publication, the Department of Heath had not been able to confirm whether feticide had been performed." "Congenital malformations were reported as the principal medical condition in nearly half (46%; 1,471) of the 3,208 cases undertaken under ground E. The most commonly reported malformations were of the nervous system (21% of all ground E cases; 680) and the cardiovascular system (9%; 288). Chromosomal abnormalities were reported as the principal medical condition for just over a third (37%; 1,187) of ground E cases. Down’s syndrome was the most commonly reported chromosomal abnormality (22%; 706). Other conditions account for 17% of ground E abortions, this includes cases where the fetus was affected by maternal factors, hydrops fetalis, family history of heritable disorders, and Cystic Hygroma."
Nick Park wrote: » There's just one problem here. That pdf does not, anywhere, support your untruthful claim that all abortions after the twelfth week "are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth." We can all see that isn't true. Stevie Wonder could see it isn't true. You obviously can't cite anywhere in that PDF that supports such an obviously untruthful claim. It is a fact that the Referendum question will not contain any reference to 12 weeks. Every political commentators knows that to be the truth. If you think otherwise, then please cite one reputable source that says the that the Referendum question will mention 12 weeks. Just one, that's all.
david75 wrote: » Here ye the facts he’s asked for in his post. It’s my third time posting them. It’s getting repetitivehttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf
J C wrote: » Paedophile sex tourists are engaged in an activity that is illegal in all juristictions ... and the 2003 Act in the UK was amended after enactment to avoid predators escaping on a technicality in relation to the exact legality, locally of what they got up to while abroad. The standard is now correctly set at what is illegal in Britain, in regard to sex crimes comitted abroad. There is no legal comparison between sex crime anywhere ... and abortion that is freely and legally available in Europe ... and therefore a legal service under the laws of many countries. European law allows free movement of people to avail of lawful services within the EU (and abortion is such as service) ... European Law doesn't allow people to engage in criminality, like child abuse, or other sex crime anywhere. ... so your post is a complete legal 'red herring' .... because your suggested criminalistion of women who have abortions abroad, would be totally illegal under European Law ... as well as being totally unjust ... by criminalising somebody for doing something that is legally allowed (by statute law no less) in the country being visited while abroad. Sex crimes aren't legally allowed by statute law anywhere? You're 'grasping at straws' on this one, I'm afraid.
Here you are again stating things as facts. But you then go on to say it’s ‘telegraphing’?? It can’t be both Nick. Which is it??
J C wrote: » Why is embolding (and italics and underlining) available for use with posts? They are obviously there to be used for emphasis and to aid clarity ... and that is how I use them. The fact that I'm effectivley making my points may be 'getting up your nose' ... but this is no reason to condemn me for it. You'll be accusing me next, of 'using big words that you can't understand' ... if you keep on going down this route!!
end of the road wrote: » you provided no facts. you made allegations against a poster, and when he challenged you and proved your allegations false, you kept, and keep making the claims. he even gave you the opportunity to prove your claims to be correct, and you were unable to do so. the only one losing anything here is you with your false allegations.
david75 wrote: » JC has been asked by a mod twice AFAIR To stop with the bolding
david75 wrote: » The melodrama and self importance dripping off that entire post. I provided facts and you disregarded them. You are talking absolute nonsense and consistently inferring and insinuating we are voting for unlimited abortion.its been pointed out to you several times by several posters and yet you continue. As you just have once again here. Can you please tell us where the impetus or need for any Irish government would be to introduce abortion on demand? You seem to have a crystal ball or have been to the future and come back and want to protect us all from something (that will never happen) Can you point to where this abortion on demand legislation is being proposed? As I have often said you and your pals are having a totally different debate to everyone here in the real world (and this timeline). And that’s why you’re losing and the PLC looks like outdated shrieking throwbacks. You’re looking to win a point against *future possible legislation* while ignoring the legislation we’re talking about here and now. FYI. You have no idea at all what will happen in the future. The 8th could be maintained and still further referenda, abolishments and workarounds could be implemented. You’re literally against the 8th bein repealed *incase of future legislation*. We passed marref. Nobody is marrying their sisters or mothers or dogs as your pals suggested. We aren’t adopting kids to abuse them. Etc etc etc This is the same nas nonsense were seeing here now from you. This level of whatabottery and fear mongering is off the scale and is completely off putting to all. As well as baseless transparent and laughable.
Nick Park wrote: » You haven't provided facts. You repeatedly make untrue statements, and, despite being asked repeatedly, neither provide evidence for your falsehoods or withdraw them. You are not alone in this. But you certainly elevate it to an art form. Never mind ad hominem attacks about self-importance or melodrama. Give us evidence. At least address the evidence I have posted which directly contradicts your untruthful statements. No, I have not inferred or insinuated any such thing. I have detailed my position very clearly, and I have asked you to provide quotes as to where I have inferred or insinuated any such thing. You have failed to provide any such support for your unwarranted accusation. Why is that not surprising?
david75 wrote: » Can you please tell us where the impetus or need for any Irish government would be to introduce abortion on demand? You seem to have a crystal ball or have been to the future and come back and want to protect us all from something (that will never happen) Can you point to where this abortion on demand legislation is being proposed?
david75 wrote: » You seem to have a crystal ball or have been to the future and come back and want to protect us all from something (that will never happen) Can you point to where this abortion on demand legislation is being proposed?
david75 wrote: » The melodrama and self importance dripping off that entire post. I provided facts and you disregarded them. .
You are talking absolute nonsense and consistently inferring and insinuating we are voting for unlimited abortion.
Nick Park wrote: » I don't remember a front-seat mod asking him any such thing? But I'm open to correction and will happily admit my error if someone can point to such a request.
Nick Park wrote: » You should be disgusted with yourself. Primarily for posting things that are untrue, and then continuing, in a Trumpish fashion, to insist they are true even when you can't produce a scrap of evidence to support your claims. Where is your evidence that Mormons die because of refusing blood transfusions? After all, if it were true all you would have to do is Google it and there would be plenty of results you could cite. You were obviously confusing Mormons with Jehovah's Witnesses. But when this understandable mistake was pointed out to you, you just denied that you were confusing them, yet failed to produce evidence for your claim, even when repeatedly requested. Where is your evidence that allabortkions occurring after the twelfth week "are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth."? When challenged on this obvious howler, you link to a document that says no such thing. Here's what a real piece of evidence looks like:https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/83-irish-women-ended-pregnancy-over-down-syndrome-36554914.html The salient points are in the following quotes: Will you now stop this nonsense? It is obvious to anyone that can read that your claim is false. Meanwhile you have made a claim about me that you cannot substantiate. When challenged to do so, you posted a quote of mine that does not come remotely close to the comments you untruthfully ascribed to me. I pointed this glaring fact out to you. And explained that my quote simply offered four very simple facts. Your response? So let's look at these facts.FACTS 1 & 2. 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.https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0307/945745-eighth-amendment-timeline/ This link contains the following quote, citing what has been telegraphed by the Cabinet and by virtually every news report on the subject for weeks: So, come on David. Please produce one single piece of evidence to disprove these two facts. Demonstrate to us that the Referendum question is going to mention 12 weeks, or that RTE and I are wrong about an insertion that makes no mention of any gestational limits but says that provision may be made by law for the termination of pregnancies.Fact 3 A politicians' promise is considerably less cast-iron than a Constitutional guarantee. David, you have claimed that this is not a fact. I'm really, really, looking forward to your evidence to demonstrate that a politicians' promise is, in fact, as cast-iron as a guarantee written into our nation's Constitution. Please, please, do try to argue this one.Fact 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. David, please tell us, if the Eighth Amendment is repealed, which article in the Constitution would hinder a present or future government from introducing subsequent abortion legislation? The finest Constitutional lawyers in the land are totally unaware of any such hindrance, so this is your golden opportunity to make a name for yourself.
NuMarvel wrote: » Off topic, haven't you been asked to lay off the bolding?
david75 wrote: » We are neither under US or Canadian jurisdiction. Posts and examples like these are kind of pointless.
david75 wrote: » I’m actually disgusted with myself. I responded to someone that used the words ‘fake news’ with a straight face as a response in an actual discussion. Try harder in future there EOTR. ‘Fake news’ isn’t a response worthy of reply.
"More than 80 Irish women had abortions in two years on the grounds their unborn baby would have Down syndrome. Another six abortions were carried out after a pregnant woman was told her baby would have spina bifida." "The Institute of Obstetricians has said that while women have access to a screening test to indicate the chances of their baby having Down syndrome within 12 weeks, it is not definitive. It would be 14 weeks into the pregnancy before a diagnosis would be available. Institute chairman Dr Peter Boylan said he never had a patient who had an abortion based on a screening test alone."
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.
A special Cabinet meeting will take place tomorrow, when ministers will be asked to approve the final wording of the referendum that will be put to the people, most likely before the end of May. This is likely to mirror closely the draft wording previously agreed in which it was decided that the people would be asked to delete Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and insert the following wording: "That provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy."
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. "
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/72Sex tourists face UK prosecution over abuse abroad
end of the road wrote: » to deliver equality for all however, we need to keep the 8th and push for better proposals that can deliver even more equality, without abortion on demand.
