nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK

The citizens assembly voted to replace or amend the 8th amendment.

50% voted to replace or amend
44% voted to repeal
Rest preferred to not state an opinion

Now deciding how it will be replaced or amended
: Let the Dail legislate on the rights of the unborn
: Amend the provision in the constitution.

Meltdown on twitter by Repealthe8th people.

Mod- This thread has descended in to petty name calling. We've tried to let this thread run without too much mod interference but now it's on our radar we will be watching. From here on the name calling stops. If you can't debate civilly we will remove your right to post.

__________________

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

JDD

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Technically my parents are still married, because the cost of divorce is too high...they live in different countys with their respective partners...stats would have them in the successful marriage column

True. And there’s probably similar couples both in Ireland and the UK in similar circumstances. I think the percentage rates of people in those situations would probably cancel each other out.

splinter65

david75 wrote: »

To be fair a few more recent posters to the thread are pouring judgement on people just for having sex lives. These last few pages has stuff that reads like it’s from a very different time in Ireland. Long ago.
Surprised anyone’s even responding to these sorts of posts tbh.

You should really report the posts you think are outside the charter.
You’re judging those posters, and the posters who respond to them.
Lot of judging going on there Dav.

david75

splinter65 wrote: »

You should really report the posts you think are outside the charter.
You’re judging those posters, and the posters who respond to them.
Lot of judging going on there Dav.

There was one a few pages back ‘keep your legs closed’. That seemed to start a load of it.
On a thread where one side of the argument is literally involving themselves in women’s wombs, it’s to be expected I guess.
But women shouldnt have to explain why they can’t use certain contraceptives or don’t want to, and there’s been loads of that here as well.

c.p.w.g.w

JDD wrote: »

True. And there’s probably similar couples both in Ireland and the UK in similar circumstances. I think the percentage rates of people in those situations would probably cancel each other out.

I understand, but divorce seems a bit more straight forward in the UK and in Ireland there's a lot of catholic guilt

splinter65

david75 wrote: »

There was one a few pages back ‘keep your legs closed’. That seemed to start a load of it.
On a thread where one side of the argument is literally involving themselves in women’s wombs, it’s to be expected I guess.
But women shouldnt have to explain why they can’t use certain contraceptives or don’t want to, and there’s been loads of that here as well.

This isn’t a court. Nobody is being cross examined by a barrister.
Posts demanding personal information in a hectoring manner are against the charter and should be reported, never mind responded too.
This is not real life here. It’s a corner of cyberspace. There are no consequences to posting here.

Zubeneschamali

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Technically my parents are still married, because the cost of divorce is too high..

There is also the fact that you have to be separated for 5 years here before you can divorce.

Can all the people saying "Ooh, just amend the Constitution for Rape and FFA, it'll pass easily" please note that this condition was inserted into the Constitution to make the Amendment easier to pass, and now 20 years later we are stuck with it, and looking at another referendum to fix it.

kumate_champ07

if 2 people have a heated argument, and there is no possible resolution, they engage in mutual combat with the understanding that one or possibly both of them will die. this is against the law. but we accept this as legal on a larger scale and call it war

if a person slips off the edge of a cliff and i grab hold of their hand, but their mass is slowly pulling me down with them , if i let go they die, if i hold on we both die...

if a woman decides to end the human life growing inside her we need to be very careful where we draw the line.

January

Ajsoprano wrote: »

I’m trying to find the actual referendum question but not finding it. Is it yes to 12 weeks , yes in medical reasons or no?

Or is it yes to 12 weeks or no?

Its neither. The question will be something similar to 'do you wish to Repeal the 8th amendment and replace with the wording' the Oireachtas will have provision to legislate with regard to access to terminations'

We will not be voting on anything regarding time limits.

Ajsoprano

January wrote: »

Its neither. The question will be something similar to 'do you wish to Repeal the 8th amendment and replace with the wording' the Oireachtas will have provision to legislate with regard to access to terminations'

We will not be voting on anything regarding time limits.

Do you agree to let us do what we wanna do but we haven’t decided what we wanna do yet?

January

Ajsoprano wrote: »

Do you agree to let us do what we wanna do but we haven’t decided what we wanna do yet?

Well no they have the proposed legislation written up and are going to be debating it. I've already posted too but I'll copy and paste because it seems like you can't go back and look for some reason.

The short policy paper, which the minister published today affirms the following:

That termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health (which would include risk to the life) of a pregnant woman would be provided for in the General Scheme.

That there will be distinction between a risk to the physical or mental health of a woman.

That two medical practitioners will be required to assess access to termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a risk to the health of a pregnant woman.

One medical practitioner can permit to terminate a pregnancy where an emergency risk to health arises.

That termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a fetal condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth would be provided for

That two medical practitioners would be required to enable access to termination of pregnancy on the grounds of a fetal condition which is likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth.

That termination of pregnancy up to 12 weeks of pregnancy without specific indication will be permitted

That a time period would be required to elapse between the initial assessment by a medical practitioner and the a termination of pregnancy being carried out.

That termination of pregnancy for a fetal condition likely to lead to death before or shortly after birth or for maternal health should not have a gestational limit in the General Scheme.

That the definition of appropriate medical practitioners in the legislation would include all registered medical practitioners on the Medical Council register.

The legislation will require that a termination of pregnancy should be certified by the appropriate medical practitioner(s) in all cases.

The General Scheme will require that the termination of pregnancy be notified to the Minister for Health by the appropriate medical practitioner.

The law will include provision for a formal review process for a woman in certain defined circumstances. It is noted that Section 10 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 established a formal mechanism whereby a woman can seek a review of the clinical assessment made by the original treating medical practitioner or team where their assessment is that the woman does not require a termination, or when the woman has been unable to obtain an opinion in this regard.

Conscientious objection in line with that provided for in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 will be allowed so as to provide a right to conscientious objection for medical and nursing personnel.

A clause confirming that nothing in the legislation would limit or interfere with the right to travel or to information will be included.

That termination of pregnancy would be lawful in the circumstances set out in the grounds provided for in the new legislation, but it will retain the offence of intentional destruction of the unborn in defined circumstances.

A woman who procures or seeks to procure a termination of pregnancy for herself would not be guilty of an offence.

That the Minister for Health will publish an annual report of terminations of pregnancy in the preceding year

The HSE must also be prepared to report each year of reviews undertaken in the preceding year in defined circumstances, and will include the number of reviews carried out and the outcomes of the reviews. These reports will be submitted to the Minister for Health for publication.

That provision for consent similar to that contained in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 would be provided in the new legislation.

That the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 would be repealed in full.

Zubeneschamali

Ajsoprano wrote: »

Do you agree to let us do what we wanna do but we haven’t decided what we wanna do yet?

The "we" in your attempt at wit are the elected representatives of the people, so yes, this is exactly what we should do.

Let them legislate. It's what we pay them to do.

Edward M

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well because one is accurate and the other is not, that is why. In the context of abortion you ARE anti choice. However I am not "pro abortion". As I said in the post you seemingly decided to ignore..... people on BOTH sides of this issue want little or no abortions to be happening ideally. That is the opposite of pro abortion.

So no you are not fighting fire with fire. You are flailing at an accurate term with an inaccurate one. A difference worth learning.

Except again in the post you seemingly have decided to duck, dodge, and ignore I told you how the OPPOSITE is in fact true and I not only know what it superficially looks like, but I know all the intricate details of the entire gestation process.

I wonder if part of the reason you have decided to ignore and dodge my post is that I do not fit the straw man mould of a pro-choice voter that you have invented in your own imagination.

Or is it that you can not answer the questions I asked about that fetus, and what aspect of it you feel should be triggering our moral and ethical concerns about it's supposed right to life?

Except no contraception, even multiple ones, "ensure" any such thing. Each contraception, especially used in combination, cause massive decreases in the % probability of becoming pregnant. But even combining the pill with condoms for example does NOT push that % to zero.

That is a crass distortion of the reality of the pro choice narrative I am afraid. The reality is that pro-choice people, myself included, campaign for contraception use, cheaper and better access to it, and more education about it. But again you would know that if you had not decided to simply ignore my last post.

No abortion is not "the answer" to "effort". Abortion is a CHOICE people can make when, despite the effort, women find themselves pregnant against their will. And choice is all it is or is being sold as by anyone except YOUR ilk with phrases like "pro abortion" that pretend otherwise.

And how many people do you think are having sex? How many times do you think they do it? "Close to 100%" means not 100%. What is it then? 99%?

1% of a large number is still a large number. Even a 99% effective contraception regime will STILL result in many unplanned and often unwanted pregnancies.

Do the math.

And yet I did NONE of that myself and what did you do? You simply dodged and ignored my post. Which tells me you simply see what you want to see, and pick up on only the posts and posters you imagine fit the profile you have invented. Ignore those who do not fit it, because they will not fill out your agenda and profiling.

"To me" being the important words in that sentence, because what you certainly have not done is offered a single piece of argument, evidence, data OR reasoning to establish a 12 week gestated fetus as a "person". So "To me it is a person" means nothing more to me than "To me Elvis is still alive". Fantasy is as fantasy does.

Now if you want to actually present any of the above as part of debate rather than preaching I am more than all ears.

Glad you asked. There is no reason in science or philosophy on offer to "care" (or as I put it, to have moral and ethical concern for) an entity that not just slightly but ENTIRELY lacks the faculty of consciousness or sentience.

The fetus when it is generally aborted (the near totality of choice based abortions happen before week 16 almost consistently in EVERY country that has choice based abortion) not just slightly, but ENTIRELY lacks the faculty of consciousness and sentience. In fact it also lacks many of the pre-requisites for it too.

What point do we, or at least should we, start to care about it? At the point when ANY significant level of doubt comes into play that that faculty may have formed.

Spoiler alert: There is not a shred of concern at 0-16 weeks.

It is alive. It is human. In taxonomy. It is not a Human Person. And it has no attributes upon which to afford it moral and ethical concern. And this is demonstrable because all the attributes you just listed ALSO exist in other "Life" we kill all the time.

The last burger you or someone you know ate? Yep it had a heartbeat, response to stimulus, limbs, brain synapses and the whole lot. And yet to happily kill it by the millions. That last anti bacterial you took? Yes even a bacteria can respond to stimulus.

So when you write "I think I have caught you lot out on this point" the reality is you have caught YOURSELF out. Because you have just listed a string of attributes that DEMONSTRABLY do not mediate a "right to life" in our general ethics and morality.

So having shot yourself in the foot, limp over to the armchair and sit down and listen to the simple next step in that mental process. Ask yourself if those attributes DO NOT mediate our moral and ethical concerns, what attributes actually do.

And you will then, like me, likely find that the answer you come up with for that question is PRECISELY the attributes the fetus being aborted lacks. Not just partially lacks, but ENTIRELY lacks.

And having had that revelation you will then suddenly, and completely, understand one clear and concise pro choice position. Yay you!

But if you need further introspection on the matter then have a little thought experiment. Imagine our technology..... and there are people who believe we are not too many generations from this...... reaches the point that we can map your consciousness into a computer and keep you alive after your body is dead. Imagine then I do this and install your consciousness into the equivalent of a toaster. No limbs. No heart beat. No flesh and blood. Just silicon and software.

Should I be allowed torture you, kill you, or have my way with you because you have NONE of the attributes you just listed a 12 week old fetus having. OR would your awareness sitting inside this toaster like box have something to which I should show moral and ethical concern. If so..... why do you think that is. What does that toaster have that should concern me? And do you notice your answer to that question is PERCISELY what the fetus does not have, never has had, and is a way off having.

We turn life support off all the time. So I am not sure what your point here is. In fact I am not even convinced at this moment that YOU know what your point here is.

But the distinction you are missing here is that a coma patient HAS the faculty of consciousness and sentience. It might not be operating entirely, but it still has it. This is distinct from the fetus which A) Does not have it and Never has had it.

Did you ever think of applying for a job as a miscarriage Councillor?
I m sure you'd be a big hit.

Ismisejack

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

January

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

We don't have to come up with an excuse because we don't believe that it is killing anything. Killing is taking a life, a fetus isn't a life it has the potential to become a life. We simply believe that a woman's choice to either continue or end the pregnancy be her own and nobody but her should be able to make that decision.

So you can keep shouting all you like about the right to life of the unborn but the supreme Court has ruled that outside of the 8th the unborn has no other rights and the government are currently bringing forward as referendum to Repeal that amendment. If its repealed a woman will have choice which is a huge step forward in this country and if its not repealed then sure we will shout louder and hopefully it won't take another 30 odd years before a government has the balls to tackle the issue again.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

Did you ever think of applying for a job as a miscarriage Councillor? I m sure you'd be a big hit.

Perhaps you have not been reading my posts all that closely, but did I not already mention in at least three posts that I have actually worked with women on that very thing?

But seriously given the amount of posts and questions from me you have simply outright dodged and ignored.... what favors do you think you are doing with this snidery?

nice_guy80

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

so you see a foetus in a woman's womb as a nuisance? nice
how are your attitudes towards women generally

the pro life default position always seems to be.... MURDER!

nozzferrahhtoo

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable

Well you see we live in a society based on the concept of "innocent until proven guilty". What that means is that something is not "inexcusable" just because you personally shout that word at it.

It is you have "has yet to come up with an" argument as to what the moral and ethical issues are with the termination of a 12 week old fetus. You simply screech words like "unborn" at it in the hope people will accept your position as default, and when that fails you simply start threads on how the liberal agenda is victimizing you.

Ismisejack wrote: »

So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!!

I have been active on this thread since the first post. I do not know how many people have read EVERY post on this thread, but I have. And not one single post on this thread that I can recall has anyone pretending the unborn does not exist. Perhaps you could cite the posts I have forgotten? Or are you simply making stuff up again?

What I have seen however is a multitude of posts that do not buy into the concepts of what YOU think the unborn is, and what moral and ethical implications it's existence has on us.

Ismisejack wrote: »

they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn

The issue there is that you have not offered a shred of argument, evidence, data or reasoning on the subject of why a 12 week old fetus should have any rights at all. It is no, as you simply pretend here, that we do not CARE about those rights. We just do not see them as being there TO care about in the first place.

Until you show THAT then you might as well invent an imaginary friend and ask us why we do not love him.

NuMarvel

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s the 12 weeks that’s going to save the 8th.

So, you don't think voters will be convinced to keep the 8th on its own merits. On that I think nearly everyone can agree.

Hannibal_Smith

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

There is no need to think of an excuse. Instead, there are explanations and reasoning.

Pushing what agenda? The right of the woman to chose what happens to her body is being discussed. More of it I say!

Beta Ray Bill

pilly wrote: »

Here we go, another one.

pilly wrote: »

No another one pretending to be pro choice but doing nothing but throw in anti choice arguments.

Seems to be a regular tactic now. Don't know why anyone would think it will work but there go. Desperate times I suppose call for desperate measures.

Here's an interesting thing:
Despite me saying that I am Pro-Choice, All posts have been argued against by other Pro-Choicers
#9453 zedhead
#9450 swampgas
#9429 swampgas
#9466 pilly
#9468 pilly

I talked with my mother about the Referendum and she feels there should be abortion.
She's never steered me wrong so that's what I'll be voting for.

It seems though Pro-Choicers still view people that are sitting on the bench as the Pro-Lifers.
IE if you're not with us you're against us.
Any politician will tell you that, in a Democracy, that is the absolute worst position to take as you automatically alienate people that haven't decided.

splinter65 wrote: »

It’s the 12 weeks that’s going to save the 8th.

I think you are correct on that.
And there is a reason the powers that be recommended 12 weeks.
It's clear the "Institution" is Pro-Life, but they cannot ignore the voices of so many. 12 weeks is clearly the tipping point in many peoples opinions, including my own.
Pro-Life has a way better chance at winning if it's 12 weeks than it would if say it were 10 weeks.

Ave Sodalis

grahambo wrote:

It seems though Pro-Choicers still view people that are sitting on the bench as the Pro-Lifers. IE if you're not with us you're against us. Any politician will tell you that, in a Democracy, that is the absolute worst position to take as you automatically alienate people that haven't decided.

I think this is more to do with the many people (both reregs and long term posters) coming onto the thread claimimg to be pro-choice but doing nothing but arguing against pro-choice, whilst not picking up on any of the pro-life stances. It gets a bit repetitive after a while so it's probably not surprising that posters stop believing people.

grahambo wrote:

I think you are correct on that. And there is a reason the powers that be recommended 12 weeks. It's clear the "Institution" is Pro-Life, but they cannot ignore the voices of so many. 12 weeks is clearly the tipping point in many peoples opinions, including my own. Pro-Life has a way better chance at winning if it's 12 weeks than it would if say it were 10 weeks.

If it was 10 weeks, people would be saying that pro-life would have a better chance of winning than it would be at 8 weeks, and so on.

baylah17

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

You are argument is a fallacy as there is no excuse needed for a woman to have the right to regulate her own body and the idea that women having such a right is "inexcusable" says a lot about your view of women!

baylah17

Ismisejack wrote: »

the pro choice side , all they are concerned of is the rights and dignity of women

There, fixed your post so that it more accurately describes those that your childish bile was aimed at.

nozzferrahhtoo

grahambo wrote: »

Despite me saying that I am Pro-Choice, All posts have been argued against by other Pro-Choicers

I would not view every interaction with you as arguing against you though. Rather people see in what you have been saying the seeds of the arguments that tend to blossom into the anti choice arguments. And so they wish to pre-empt that for you.

Also you genuinely seem concerned about certain things, and arguing that there is no reason to be concerned about those things, is not an argument against YOU. It is an attempt to alleviate you of that suffering of doubt.

For example in your first post on the thread this week you expressed a concern that abortion would become a mainstream form of birth control. We are not arguing against YOU to point out this is tosh. We are attempting to alleviate you of that concern. The number of women who seek more than one abortion is statistically low. The number doing so multiple times to a significant degree is a statistical non-entity.

This is not an argument against you, I repeat. It is merely a statement to show you that the concern you appear to hold, likely for some good and well meant reasons coupled with some bad ones (your apparent low opinion of the Irish being one of them), is simply not a valid concern.

Further when we look around the world at abortion, in a multitude of countries, we see that there is generally an overarching responsibility with it's use. The vast near total majority of women are not having it multiple times. The vast near total majority of women are having their abortions in or before week 12.

Your concerns seem to be simply invalid therefore. But the source of some of the more strident replies to your concerns probably also lies in those concerns being expressed also by people who are ENTIRELY anti choice on abortion. So they simply respond to the same concerns, the same way, blind to the source of the concern itself.

grahambo wrote: »

It seems though Pro-Choicers still view people that are sitting on the bench as the Pro-Lifers. IE if you're not with us you're against us. Any politician will tell you that, in a Democracy, that is the absolute worst position to take as you automatically alienate people that haven't decided.

I agree with you mostly here but it is worth pointing out that there does seem to be valid reasoning for what you observe. We do seem to have a kind of pattern here of people who SEEM to be trying to "poe" the pro choice position. That is by coming here pretending to be pro choice and either then:

1) Arguing that position remarkably badly, crassly or horrifically..... such as one user who has SUDDENLY become anti choice when the referendum was announced but for months before that was espousing disgusting extremist pro-choice positions that we should be able to off the baby at ANY point in the pregnancy (even in the week of due birth) and claiming that babies have no rights AT ALL until they travel the length of the birth canal.

2) Espousing one single reason for being pro-repeal but then offering nothing but arguments AGAINST that reason. For example the user who claims to be voting for it purely for the health benefits to women, but then goes around threads posting suggestive links to "Maternal deaths per country per 100,000 live births" and claiming that since countries without the 8th have the same Maternal Death Rates as our country WITH the 8th, the 8th must be having no real effect in the first place.

And those people often try to portray this image of someone deeply struggling with the issue and really trying to decide what is right, before making it damn clear to us that have long decided on this and are just acting.

So it is very likely people are taking you up wrong, and you rightly feel badly done by for this. But recognize too there is precedent here that you are the victim of, and not merely an "us against them" narrative of hate. And it is unfortunate if/when someone who really is being genuine fits the form mold of those who blatantly are not.

Zubeneschamali

Ismisejack wrote: »

The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

I still only have a copy of the homosexual agenda from last time, where do I get my new agenda?

NuMarvel

grahambo wrote: »

I think you are correct on that.
And there is a reason the powers that be recommended 12 weeks.
It's clear the "Institution" is Pro-Life, but they cannot ignore the voices of so many. 12 weeks is clearly the tipping point in many peoples opinions, including my own.
Pro-Life has a way better chance at winning if it's 12 weeks than it would if say it were 10 weeks.

Whether the proposed timeframe was 12, 10, or even 8 weeks, the anti-repeal side would be saying the same things. In fact, 10 or 8 weeks give them another argument because they'd claim the government was intentionally using a shorter timeframe to make sure the referendum passed and it would be increased soon afterwards.

By going with 12 weeks, they're a) using a timeframe first recommended by the Citizens Assembly, i.e. non-politicians, b) using the timeframe that's most common throughout Europe, and c) being clear about what the timeframe will be for the foreseeable future.

I can appreciate why people might have reservations about the 12 week timeframe. But the only realistic alternative is the status quo, which nearly nobody supports in its own right. This or future governments aren't going to be in any rush to hold another referendum, which means women will continue to travel for abortions or have illegal abortions here; the majority of which will be within the first 12 weeks anyway.

Zubeneschamali

grahambo wrote: »

And there is a reason the powers that be recommended 12 weeks.

Yes, the reasons are in the report.

Which I'm sure you have read, right?

.......

This post has been deleted.

robarmstrong

Ismisejack wrote: »

The pro choice contingent have yet to come up with an “excuse “ for the inexcusable, that is the murdering of the innocent unborn. So far, all they have done is try claim the unborn doesn’t exist. It does!! The unborn is little more than a nuisance to the pro choice side and they couldn’t care less about the right of the unborn, all they are concerned of is pushing their agenda

A nuisance, really?

As someone who's suffered miscarriages with my current partner I feel that I'm clued in enough to weigh in on this debate. I don't believe in abortion, I'm fully against it, nothing can ever change my mind on it.

However my baby girl is due in July and I want to give her the right that so many women in Ireland were chased out of the country for. I'm not having her shamed out of her own place of birth because of cretins with out-dated ideologies full of hypocrisy at every turn.

Are you trying to tell me that if (hopefully this never happens) you have a daughter who unfortunately due to circumstances out of her control falls pregnant (due to any amount of reasons!) and cannot go through with the pregnancy, you wouldn't still love and support her? Or would you force her to keep the baby because ah sure look she can just give it up for adoption!!

splinter65

grahambo wrote: »

Here's an interesting thing:
Despite me saying that I am Pro-Choice, All posts have been argued against by other Pro-Choicers
#9453 zedhead
#9450 swampgas
#9429 swampgas
#9466 pilly
#9468 pilly

I talked with my mother about the Referendum and she feels there should be abortion.
She's never steered me wrong so that's what I'll be voting for.

It seems though Pro-Choicers still view people that are sitting on the bench as the Pro-Lifers.
IE if you're not with us you're against us.
Any politician will tell you that, in a Democracy, that is the absolute worst position to take as you automatically alienate people that haven't decided.

I think you are correct on that.
And there is a reason the powers that be recommended 12 weeks.
It's clear the "Institution" is Pro-Life, but they cannot ignore the voices of so many. 12 weeks is clearly the tipping point in many peoples opinions, including my own.
Pro-Life has a way better chance at winning if it's 12 weeks than it would if say it were 10 weeks.

You could be right there.