The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

RobertKK wrote: »

Rape is used as a hard case when in fact a huge majority of abortions have nothing to do with rape.
The proposed legislation is for extreme no reason abortions up to 12 weeks and then longer for other reasons.
It goes far beyond hard cases and asks people to trust politicians...who say they will not respect the vote if retain the 8th win and will rerun the referendum.
It is in the Irish times today that the proposed abortion legislation is causing problems for the repeal campaigners as it goes way beyond the hard cases.

NO REASON???
I am someone who thinks that abortions sought after rape make up only a small percentage of the abortions sought by Irish women in the UK so you don't need to tell me about it.
Any woman's reason for having an abortion should never be anybody else's business, ever.

Like Shoesdayschild, I have been advised against having a child because of problems with my health and all of the medication I'm on being contraindicated in pregnancy. My sister suffers from serious problems with her mental health and has been advised it wouldn't be in her best interests to have a child.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm taking over this thread but something else just occurred to me about my situation when I was a child. My brother sexually abused me, my mother had (and still has) SEVERE mental health issues with very staunch anti choice views and my dad was (and still is) an alcoholic. The thought that I may have ended up pregnant when I was a child in a seriously dangerous family situation actually scares me.
Imagine me pregnant with my brother's baby and my psychotic mother forcing me to continue with the pregnancy and probably hiding me away and telling everyone I was away on holiday somewhere because she was always so concerned with what the neighbours thought and then I give birth to a baby, who probably has lots of health problems because he/she was born of incest. My mind is running away with me here but the thought is actually scary.

Call me Al wrote: »

No no you really didn't answer my question. Not even that yes or no.
Unless you're sticking to your point that you don't have to answer what you don't want to. But please be honest about your double standards.


"Do you hold only certain posters on here responsible for Tuam? While others can absolve themselves, when in fact nobody here is ikely anyway responsible and it's no relevant to this vote."

'With regard to Tuam I hold the church, now active within the pro-life campaign, responsible for what went on there. And I feel that their moral authority to advise and guide anyone on how to vote on matters of family planning and women's reproduction is non-existent as a result of this and so many many other crimes against their parishoners, my fellow-citizens.

Yes yes I did, and I've told you twice now I did, but you want it your way don't you. It was a one word amswer also, just as you requested, but after I answered. Its not far back post 9898 if your having difficulty.

And you have not answered my question with a yes or no but deflected to the church again.

People came on here accusing anyone pro life of responsible for Tuam and this is what I defended.

Do you think posters here are responsible for Tuam? Pro life is not the church!

I am an neither of these either, as I have made clear on this thread previously