end of the road wrote: » yes i would be against it. being able to predict something doesn't guarantee it being the case. even if it could be guaranteed there is always that chance of the prediction being wrong. if someone commits a crime, we have a justice system.
frag420 wrote: » EOTR and similar... Ok we get it that you are against abortion. It has been brought up numerous times in this and other threads about you and are being against people aborting fetuses based on disabilities such as Downs Syndrome etc. Now from what I can gather you are completely against this for numerous reasons...innocent child, viability outside the womb etc etc etc Now say in the next 20-30 yrs that scientists have found a gene or a DNA sequence or whatever that is unique to lunatics, basically scientists can predict if someone is going to be a maniac in the vein of Hitler, Pol Pot, Jeffey Dahmer or we can predict they are very likely to be a rapist or murderer when they get older etc...essentially scientists can prove that they are going to cause the deaths of others similar to how scientists can currently prove that a fetus will have a disability... Would you be against a termination in this instance in order to save the lives of people already living?! Now I know its a hypothetical but hey, being able to predict diseases was a hypothetical back in the day...
pleas advice wrote: » *unfollow
end of the road wrote: » yes i'm well aware they happen. however, as much as they are wrong and will never be right to kill their unborn child, there is consolation in the fact that they have to travel abroad at their expence and not at the tax payer's expence and they have to sort themselves out. that in turn likely does deter some from procuring abortions, which is also a consolation. it doesn't justify abortion on demand being availible in ireland, it's just not required and something else will probably have to have a funding cut to pay for it assuming it's free or subsidized/discounted. most of all, ireland is all the better of a country for not allowing the killing of the unborn just because. it's more modern and progressive then the rest of the world in a way because of it.
Mark Hamill wrote: » OK end of the road, how about this question: Do you accept, even with abortion restricted the way it is in our constitution, that abortions (for what you might deem as non-necessary reasons) still happen in the 100s if not 1000s* every year? *Going by reported numbers of abortions in the uk using Irish address.
end of the road wrote: » hospitals either owned or fully funded by the state.
end of the road wrote: » because we have hospitals which can do it.
end of the road wrote: » .... ....... abortions of necessity
gctest50 wrote: » Why should : if say they only performed ? .
end of the road wrote: » ........... in terms of abortions of necessity, state hospitals should be the only facility allowed to perform such abortions.abortion clinics should be prohibited.
end of the road wrote: » abortion clinics should be prohibited.
end of the road wrote: » abortions of necessity
aloyisious wrote: » Would you care to list the state hospitals here that fit your biil to perform abortions of necessity?
end of the road wrote: » in terms of abortion on demand it's both. no clinics or hospitals allowed to perform abortions for non-medical reasons and laws which would prohibit such abortions from being procured or caried out legally in ireland. in terms of abortions of necessity, state hospitals should be the only facility allowed to perform such abortions. abortion clinics should be prohibited.
end of the road wrote: » i tried and i will be prowd of the fact i tried to keep the protection for the unborn's right to life in the constitution where it rightfully is, and where it rightfully must and should remain.
aloyisious wrote: » In regard to state hospitals and abortions, are you aware that the National Maternity Hospital, Holles St, has performed abortions legally allowed here AND it is NOT a state hospital. It is run by a charity, the NMH foundation and the head of it's board of governance is the Catholic Archbishop of Dublin.
aloyisious wrote: » Mindful of all those facts, and your position on non-state hospitals NOT being allowed to perform abortions, do you think your vote would have any effect on the policy of that hospital and it's board of governance?
end of the road wrote: » i have given my basis to oppose non-necessary abortion.
end of the road wrote: » there isn't going to be investigations of every miscarriage.
King Mob wrote: » Bully for you. So why do you believe that life begins at implantation? Why should miscarriages not be investigated or treated like other cases of sudden death? Why are you ignoring these questions when it makes it look like you have no answer to them? If you have no basis for which to oppose abortion all of those conditions you are outlining are a bit pointless.
aloyisious wrote: » When you mention facility in respect of abortion here, do you mean a physical structure as in a hospital or clinic, or further legislation on abortion? I'm mindful that there is at least one such facility/structure here in Dublin where abortions have taken place since 2015. I haven't, til now, included the word facility in any of my posts in the thread.
end of the road wrote: » i am aware of how abortion is currently procured in ireland where it is required and even if that still remains with any new legislation, it won't ultimately change that it will be effectively abortion on demand that is availible should the 8th be repealed. the reasons will be for non-medical reasons in a lot of if not most cases and i will vote to try to insure that a facility to allow those abortions to take place aren't availible in ireland. it's not about my personal criteria as to where abortion should be availible, it's about the only criteria for where abortion is actually required to be availible. sometimes what the majority may want cannot be given to them for the greater good of society and this is a perfect example of where this is the case.
aloyisious wrote: » So the basic foundation of your argument against any change to abortion law here is that, in your opinion, the changed law will allow for abortion on demand. That would be irrespective of any hoops the women will have to go through with their REQUESTS for abortions. You are aware that women, at the moment, have to ask for abortions here and have to satisfy 2 [two] members of the medical profession first as to whether she satisfies the criteria laid down in POLDPA. You, if you have been reading the papers and listening to Simon Harris, will be aware that similar measures will be in the new legislation AND that there will be a 3 [three] day cooling-off period as well included in the new legislation. There will be no abortion on demand given to women here under the new legislation. There will be no "one for everyone in the audience" procedure to go through. What you object to is the greater availbility of abortions yet you are prepared to allow for a greater range of reasons than the the present POLDPA legislation allows for because you see it as fit. You don't like the idea of women being able to access abortion here unless they satisfy your personal criteria for abortion, and not that thought satisfactory by a majority of the other voters in our country, because it is your stated belief that women would be availing of abortions as a convenience or lifestyle choice. Just on that repeated aspect of your belief, can you describe what sort of "convenience and lifestyle" living you believe the women would be leading is for them to be demanding abortions?
end of the road wrote: » i will be voting no on the basis of not wanting abortion on demand in my country, on the basis of keeping the protection of the unborn's right to life within the constitution, and preventing such an issue to be left to the whim of the politicians. i would certainly try and advise the woman in such a situation where her life needed to be saved to have the abortion even though i would disagree with abortion, as i would not want for her to die. ultimately i can't force her to have it or not to have it however. the law however can prevent abortions from being availible within the state where the reasons are not justifiable, such as not wanting to be pregnant among other examples. i already explained that i'm not willing to vote to repeal and allow abortion on demand just to have abortion availible in the cases where i believe it should be availible.
end of the road wrote: » this doesn't happen. this is more made up nonsense. my position is clear and always has been. i don't ignore anything that isn't relevant, i will ignore stuff that isn't.
aloyisious wrote: » So, you will vote against deletion of the 8th and what would replace it on the basis that, in your opinion, abortion in itself is wrong. If the woman should choose NOT to have an abortion of medical necessity, would you applaud her choice not to have an abortion [EDIT] IF she had the same opinion on abortion as you, or would you say to her "you must have the abortion"? It seem's that ["you must have the abortion"] would be your position in such a case to save her life, regardless of her choice. As for your "it's abortion for no reasons up all be it up to 12 weeks that is proposed", amongst the women any new legislation will cover will be the women you would approve for abortion. So it would NOT simply be for "NO REASONS". If you would have your way in blocking such a new law on abortion after the referendum, then the end result would be NO ABORTIONS at all for women. You wouldn't be able to cherrypick what women should, and should not, have the right to request an abortion, - and I'm not saying that you should be given any such ability. In effect, the women you would personally approve of having abortions on grounds of medical necessaity may probably die due to a lack of legislation on abortion. Doctors would be legally unable to perform any such operations.
end of the road wrote: » i don't ignore anything that isn't relevant, i will ignore stuff that isn't.
end of the road wrote: » it's not that i'm giving those women a choice, it's recognition that it's of medical necessity that they have the abortion. even then that abortion is still ultimately wrong, it's simply a case of extreme necessity. but i would not vote to allow it when it means abortion on demand will be brought in . for me stopping abortion on demand is more important. and i don't agree there is anything wrong with calling it abortion on demand, it's abortion for no reasons up all be it up to 12 weeks that is proposed. yes it will. and chances are the term limit will have to rise long term to satisfy those complaining about still having to travel to england. that is why i'm voting no, and am prowd to do so given the unfortunate proposals put forward by the government. even if repeal wins, i know i will have done my bit and tried to keep abortion on demand out of ireland and i will be prowd to have tried.
david75 wrote: » You love talking in extremes that are never going to happen EOTR, so I’ll reply in kind. The youngest pregnancy on record In Ireland I could find was a 12 year old girl. So if you vote against repealing the 8th, you’re effectively forcing a child to give birth, should this happen again. And it seems to from time to time. Don’t know how you can in good conscience support forcing a child that young to carry a baby(as you so often insist it is) to term.
david75 wrote: » The poster in questions position lurches wildly and inconsistently depending on his mood it seems. Ignoring well made arguments and Contradicting his own position when he does decide to reply. This will be no different.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
