Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

J C · 30-03-2018 07:45PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You really have gone off on your own tangent with insults. I repeat, all I said was that I do not respect opinions. I respect the substantiation behind them. You seem to be replying to someone or something in your own head, not me.

Yeah I have a personal rule to only reply to threads if I have read every post on them. But roll back a bit. You claimed "arguments have been presented". So I am asking you for nothing more than a thread, and a user, so I can check for myself. Which I would. You then also claimed my side need to back stuff up so I named a thread and a user for you to check for yourself. Seemingly you will not.

Two differences between us there worth noting I feel.

Could I suggest that you respect all opinions ... but question the substance behind them.

I have found that I learn the most from this approach myself ... and it also works wonders at retaining friends and influencing opponents.

Most people love to answer questions about their opinions ... because by asking questions, you are respecting them and their opinions.

... and it is a learning experience for everyone involved.

Please share in the love ... and the respect.:)

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-03-2018 07:48PM

You could suggest it but I do not really see the purpose of suggesting something about me different to what I have already explained about me. I know me, you do not.

But that said you are not a million miles off saying the same thing as me, just with different words. When I say I do not respect opinions, but the arguments, evidence, data or reasoning behind them.... that is pretty similar to what you are suggesting above. The user I was originally replying to seemed to be suggesting that "respect" for opinions means I should somehow keep quiet. Not happening.

The problem here with the fetus at 12 weeks is I do not GET the answers when I ask for them. Which you have demonstrated pretty well yourself. You said "arguments have been presented" and I asked you by who and in what thread. No answer.

J C · 30-03-2018 07:52PM

Nettle Soup wrote: »

I think you've met your match now J C

I always assume that I have met my match when I meet everyone.

I treat them and their opinions as at the same level as myself and my own ... that is what respect is ... looking people in the eye and listening respectfully to what they have to say ... before responding respectfully to them.

I always learn something ... often many things, from the people I engage with.

... anyway, enough about establishing good personal relations ... lets get back to abortion.

J C · 30-03-2018 08:00PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But that said you are not a million miles off saying the same thing as me, just with different words. When I say I do not respect opinions, but the arguments, evidence, data or reasoning behind them.... that is pretty similar to what you are suggesting above. The user I was originally replying to seemed to be suggesting that "respect" for opinions means I should somehow keep quiet. Not happening.

Fair enough. We may be at cross purposes on this.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The problem here with the fetus at 12 weeks is I do not GET the answers when I ask for them. Which you have demonstrated pretty well yourself. You said "arguments have been presented" and I asked you by who and in what thread. No answer.

There is a thread over on the Christianity Forum, where the humanity of a 12 week old unborn child has been intensively discussed ... but I don't think that the boards rules would allow a link ... I'm open to guidance on this from the mods.

... alternatively if you have a post on this thread addressing the issue, I'd be happy to respond.

nozzferrahhtoo · 30-03-2018 08:03PM

As I said, you need only read my posts from this thread and you will get an overall picture of my position on it. There is no one post to link to, my thinking is outlined over many. But by all means respond.

I have given you a thread AND a user. Now can you mention a user on the thread you have and I will consider all his/her posts on the matter and write a response here to the general ideas in it.

I am not asking you for any more than I have offered myself. But I am not accepting less.

Kunkka · 30-03-2018 09:54PM

J C wrote: »

I don't think that Kunkka is saying that ... s/he is saying that people should express their views ... but in a respectful manner.
To effectively communicate and persuade requires our target audience to listen to us and evaluate what we are saying ... and our audience will not do this, if we personally insult them. Indeed common human decency requires everyone to treat everyone else as they would like to be treated themselves.

Yes, this is exactly what I was saying. I just don’t want to see any abuse on other side. I am able to hold a conversation with someone on this topic and have a completely different opinion, but I can respect their viewpoint. People on both sides should put their cases forward in a respectful way, getting emotive about anything normally leads to a dysfunctional debate and we can’t have that with an issue as important as this.

J C · 31-03-2018 08:24AM

Kunkka wrote: »

Yes, this is exactly what I was saying. I just don’t want to see any abuse on other side. I am able to hold a conversation with someone on this topic and have a completely different opinion, but I can respect their viewpoint. People on both sides should put their cases forward in a respectful way, getting emotive about anything normally leads to a dysfunctional debate and we can’t have that with an issue as important as this.

Agree 100% ... that its entirely possible to disagree totally with another viewpoint ... but to respect the person and the viewpoint.
Indeed that is how debate on any thread/topic should be conducted ... but unfortunately this often isn't the case.

J C · 31-03-2018 08:39AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is happening already, but apparently it is ok because it happens abroad or from the internet. Hypocrisy most high.

Yes, we know that Irish women are having abortions in Britain ... and this is something that also needs to be addressed ... for the welfare of both the women and the unborn children involved.
As a society and irrespective of the referendum result, we need to continue to reduce unplanned/unwanted pregnancies ... as well as convincing women in this situation, to not go ahead with abortion by providing full support for them.

FrancieBrady · 31-03-2018 09:36AM

J C wrote: »

Yes, we know that Irish women are having abortions in Britain ... and this is something that also needs to be addressed ... for the welfare of both the women and the unborn children involved.
As a society and irrespective of the referendum result, we need to continue to reduce unplanned/unwanted pregnancies ... as well as convincing women in this situation, to not go ahead with abortion by providing full support for them.

By first prohibiting their choice? Good luck with that. As usual it is shutting the stable door too late.

SusieBlue · 31-03-2018 02:46PM

J C wrote: »

Yes, we know that Irish women are having abortions in Britain ... and this is something that also needs to be addressed ... for the welfare of both the women and the unborn children involved.
As a society and irrespective of the referendum result, we need to continue to reduce unplanned/unwanted pregnancies ... as well as convincing women in this situation, to not go ahead with abortion by providing full support for them.

JC, 35 years have passed since the 8th was put in place.
The support still isn’t there. Ample time has been allowed for an improvement in services.
It hasn’t happened.
Women are just left to make the best of it, aka struggle and suffer through life.
So really this just proves the point that those who vote No are pro birth and not pro life.
Because time and time again, you prove that you don’t give a monkeys about what happens these children and their mothers when they’re born, you only care about making the woman follow through with the pregnancy against her wishes.
It’s blatantly obviously for all to see and it’s disgusting.

end of the road · 31-03-2018 03:13PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

JC, 35 years have passed since the 8th was put in place.
The support still isn’t there. Ample time has been allowed for an improvement in services.
It hasn’t happened.
Women are just left to make the best of it, aka struggle and suffer through life.
So really this just proves the point that those who vote No are pro birth and not pro life.
Because time and time again, you prove that you don’t give a monkeys about what happens these children and their mothers when they’re born, you only care about making the woman follow through with the pregnancy against her wishes.
It’s blatantly obviously for all to see and it’s disgusting.

the lack of supports does not prove that those who vote no are pro-birth rather then pro-life, or any of the other claims you make, given many will be against those supports not being up to scratch, and given those who vote for the main 2 political parties who have governed this republic since it's foundation are across both groups. there are a number of pro-life people who are involved in many different campaigns and issues alongside a number who would be on the pro-choice side, just like there will be individuals on both sides who are involved in nothing before, and will be involved in nothing after this campaign is over. the same in terms of voting, some of us on the pro-life side would not vote for the main 2 parties as they do not insure all supports are up to scratch, where as some on the pro-choice side will vote for them, as is their democratic right.

J C · 01-04-2018 06:29PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

JC, 35 years have passed since the 8th was put in place.
The support still isn’t there. Ample time has been allowed for an improvement in services.
It hasn’t happened.

... but most women and their partners go through with their pregnancies and rear their children successfully.
More can always be done ... and should be done. The biggest reason for abortion is because the pregnancy is unwanted. Modern contraception should help with this ... and I do think that more options around adoption and fosterage would also help.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Women are just left to make the best of it, aka struggle and suffer through life.

Not true ... more can be done alright ... but many women who abort aren't alone or abandoned ... they are married or with a partner.

SusieBlue wrote: »

So really this just proves the point that those who vote No are pro birth and not pro life.

I'm not pro-birth, because there are enough people in the World already ... and I have no issue, for example, where somebody decides to never have children ... but I am pro-life in that once a Human Being is conceived it shouldn't be killed IMO, except for very serious reasons. We shouldn't solve over-population by killing Human Beings.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Because time and time again, you prove that you don’t give a monkeys about what happens these children and their mothers when they’re born, you only care about making the woman follow through with the pregnancy against her wishes.

I am concerned equally about the mother and her child ... but, like everyone else, I don't have endless resources of time or money to spend on other people ... who are just as capable as me of looking after themselves anyway, in most cases. Charity begins at home ... and I've looked after my own family ... and my wife and my children have wanted for nothing.
If every father did this ... there would be a lot less misery ... and abortion in the World.

SusieBlue wrote: »

It’s blatantly obviously for all to see and it’s disgusting.

It's none of these things ... and I would ask you to please stop making unfounded personal remarks ... that add nothing to the debate ... and are particularly inflammatory, given the sensitive subject under discussion.

J C · 01-04-2018 06:37PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

By first prohibiting their choice? Good luck with that. As usual it is shutting the stable door too late.

Laws always prohibit and /or limit our choices ... to do things that are wrong.

... and it is patently wrong to kill Human Beings who are peacefully living and threatening nobody ... whether in utero or outside.

Moonmumbler · 01-04-2018 10:32PM

J C wrote: »

Laws always prohibit and /or limit our choices ... to do things that are wrong.

... and it is patently wrong to kill Human Beings who are peacefully living and threatening nobody ... whether in utero or outside.

Unfortunately none of what you say makes any difference. Women will always have crisis pregnancies and it all boils down to whether you think it's right to inhibit her choice over her own body or not by keeping the status quo here.

Ultimately, regardless of your theoretical sensibilities about the unborn, it doesn't affect you at all and I can't believe you are shedding many tears about the abortions that occur across the globe any more than you are crying about children starving to death in Yemen currently, for example.

J C · 02-04-2018 11:44AM

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Unfortunately none of what you say makes any difference. Women will always have crisis pregnancies and it all boils down to whether you think it's right to inhibit her choice over her own body or not by keeping the status quo here.

It boils down to whether you think that killing an unborn child is the right answer for an unwanted pregnancy. The overwhelming majority of abortions are carried out because of an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy where both the mother and her child are perfectly healthy.
I can see why an unwanted pregnancy could be a major crisis for a woman and her partner ... the most significant issue being the parenting of a child for up to 25 years after the birth. I think that adoption and fosterage are very viable options ... and certainly a more ethical alternative to abortion. More needs to be done to promote these options. The reverse has been the case, over the past twenty years, with the continuous publicity around the Magdalene laundries and other such homes ... which quite obviously weren't the way to manage adoption. This has given adoption, in particular, an undeserved bad name - and its time to re-focus on adoption as part of the solution to unwanted pregnancies.

Moonmumbler wrote: »

Ultimately, regardless of your theoretical sensibilities about the unborn, it doesn't affect you at all and I can't believe you are shedding many tears about the abortions that occur across the globe any more than you are crying about children starving to death in Yemen currently, for example.

... I am not directly impacted by many wrongs being done elsewhere ... but this doesn't make the wrongs right ... and it certainly doesn't mean that we should change the laws and incentives helping to prevent the wrongs.

volchitsa · 02-04-2018 11:57AM

J C wrote: »

It boils down to whether you think that killing the unborn child is the right answer for an unwanted pregnancy. I can see why an unwanted pregnancy could be a major crisis for a woman and her partner ... the most significant issue being the parenting of a child for up to 25 years. I think that adoption and fosterage are very viable options ... and certainly a more ethical alternative to abortion.

... I am not directly impacted by many wrongs being done everywhere ... but this doesn't make the wrongs right ... and it certainly doesn't mean that we should change the laws preventing the wrongs.

But our law doesnt prevent those wrongs, or not abortion anyway, seeing as we voted to put a clause into the constitution to allow just about every adult woman legally present in the country to have an abortion up to 24 weeks for any reason she finds convincing.

I'm not sure how a law that only targets the most vulnerable like underage children or asylum seekers can be seen as a good thing.

J C · 02-04-2018 12:19PM

volchitsa wrote: »

But our law doesnt prevent those wrongs, or not abortion anyway, seeing as we voted to put a clause into the constitution to allow just about every adult woman legally present in the country to have an abortion up to 24 weeks for any reason she finds convincing.

Our laws clearly prevent abortion ... otherwise, why do the pro-abortion lobby want the 8th repealed?
As for freedom to travel for pregnant women, this is a basic human right that every pregnant woman should enjoy ... just like everyone else. If somebody chooses to use their freedom of travel to go and get an abortion (or any other service that is illegal in Ireland and legal elsewhere in Europe) ... then so be it ... that's how the European Common Market works.

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm not sure how a law that only targets the most vulnerable like underage children or asylum seekers can be seen as a good thing.

It depends on what it is targeting them for.
If it's something negative, it doesn't sound like a good thing to me either.

FutureGuy · 02-04-2018 12:21PM

J C wrote: »

Our laws clearly prevent abortion ... otherwise, why do the pro-abortion lobby want the 8th repealed?
As for freedom to travel for pregnant women, this is a basic human right that every pregnant woman should enjoy ... just like everyone else. If somebody chooses to use their freedom of travel to go and get an abortion (or any other service that is illegal in Ireland and legal elsewhere in Europe) ... then so be it ... that's how the European Common Market works.

It depends on what it is targeting them for.
If it's something negative, it doesn't sound like a good thing to me either.

You'd swear that it was some sort of holiday they were taking.

VonZan · 02-04-2018 12:52PM

J C wrote: »

Yes, we know that Irish women are having abortions in Britain ... and this is something that also needs to be addressed ... for the welfare of both the women and the unborn children involved.
As a society and irrespective of the referendum result, we need to continue to reduce unplanned/unwanted pregnancies ... as well as convincing women in this situation, to not go ahead with abortion by providing full support for them.

What gives you the moral authority to make decisions for others? Whatever your personal beliefs it takes a real sense of entitlement to think you can remove the choice from other people.

What difference to you does it make if someone goes to Liverpool or Dublin for an abortion? Absolutely none. Why try and create real barriers for people for some artificial moral entitlement for everyone to abide by your beliefs despite the fact that it has no impact on you.

J C · 02-04-2018 01:20PM

FutureGuy wrote: »

You'd swear that it was some sort of holiday they were taking.

Who said anything about a holiday?
Nobody is saying that its not a serious issue for the women involved (and their partners/family) ... but it is none the less deadly for the unborn child, when they are aborted.

volchitsa · 02-04-2018 01:26PM

J C wrote: »

Our laws clearly prevent abortion ... otherwise, why do the pro-abortion lobby want the 8th repealed?

Because it affects women's healthcare in many other ways, such as women suffering miscarriages and women giving birth, whose rights are reduced by the 8th amendment.

This has all been discussed at length here, so I can't really believe you don't already know this.

As for freedom to travel for pregnant women, this is a basic human right that every pregnant woman should enjoy ... just like everyone else. If somebody chooses to use their freedom of travel to go and get an abortion (or any other service that is illegal in Ireland and legal elsewhere in Europe) ... then so be it ... that's how the European Common Market works.

Assisted suicide? Gail O'Rorke was prevented from traveling, in fact she was hauled up in court for trying to travel in that case.

It depends on what it is targeting them for.
If it's something negative, it doesn't sound like a good thing to me either.

We had a child put in a mental hospital against her and her mother's will recently, for asking for an abortion under the relevant section of POLDP.

J C · 02-04-2018 01:27PM

VonZan wrote: »

What gives you the moral authority to make decisions for others? Whatever your personal beliefs it takes a real sense of entitlement to think you can remove the choice from other people.

Society has every right to make laws that prevent wrong ... and killing an unborn child (when there are viable alternatives) is objectively wrong.

VonZan wrote: »

What difference to you does it make if someone goes to Liverpool or Dublin for an abortion?

The same difference that somebody injuring or killing somebody else in Ireland makes to me.

VonZan wrote: »

Why try and create real barriers for people for some artificial moral entitlement for everyone to abide by your beliefs despite the fact that it has no impact on you.

People aren't allowed to do as they please with their born children ... so why should they be allowed to kill their unborn children on demand?

J C · 02-04-2018 01:33PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Because it affects women's healthcare in many other ways, such as women suffering miscarriages and women giving birth, whose rights are reduced by the 8th amendment.

Miscarriage has nothing to do with procured abortion ... and the 8th has no effect on how it is treated.
Women who give birth aren't aborting ... so the 8th has no effect on them either.

volchitsa wrote: »

Assisted suicide? Gail O'Rorke was prevented from traveling, in fact she was hauled up in court for trying to travel in that case.

... links please.

volchitsa wrote: »

We had a child put in a mental hospital against her and her mother's will recently, for asking for an abortion under the relevant section of POLDP.

Sectioning is used to manage mental illness ... 99% of the time the person sectioned isn't pregnant.
Do you believe that sectioning shouldn't occur where it's determined by medical professionals that the person is a danger to themselves or others (whether they are pregnant or not)?

volchitsa · 02-04-2018 01:40PM

J C wrote: »

Society has every right to make laws that prevent wrong ... and killing an unborn child (when there are viable alternatives) is objectively wrong.

The same difference that somebody injuring or killing somebody else makes to me.

Killing a person is objectively wrong - that's why we have trials when someone is kills somebody else. It is not enough just to tick a set of boxes on a list.

So if you are correct that killing an unborn child is wrong for the same reasons, why shouldn't there be a trial as there would be for a person?

Or are you using a variable set of measures here : a person when it suits your argument, and not a person when it doesn't?

People aren't allowed to do as they please with their born children ... so why should they be allowed to kill their unborn children on demand?

If a person showed signs of wanting to harm or kill their child, you agree that the child would not be returned without question a few weeks or months later?

So should a person who considers an abortion but is prevented from doing do by the law, then expect have the child removed from their care when it is born?

J C · 02-04-2018 01:47PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Killing a person is objectively wrong - that's why we have trials when someone is kills somebody else. It is not enough just to tick a set of boxes on a list.

So if you are correct that killing an unborn child is wrong for the same reasons, why shouldn't there be a trial as there would be for a person?

Or are you using a variable set of measures here : a person when it suits your argument, and not a person when it doesn't?

Procuring an abortion in Ireland is a criminal offense ... so there would be a trial to determine guilt, if an abortion was performed in Ireland (outside the POLDPA) ... and in other countries outside their abortion laws.
Why do you under line the word 'person' ?
The current maximum sentence for procured abortion in Ireland are on a par with manslaughter ... and abortion is proscribed by the Offenses Against the Person Act.

volchitsa wrote: »

If a person showed signs of wanting to harm or kill their child, you agree that the child would not be returned without question a few weeks or months later?

So should a person who considers an abortion but is prevented from doing do by the law, then expect have the child removed from their care when it is born?

It would all depend on whether they are showing signs of wanting to harm or kill their child, after its born - probably very few, if any.
I'd go as far as saying that people who abort are probably no greater risk to their born children, than people who don't abort. Do you have evidence one way or the other on this?

volchitsa · 02-04-2018 02:00PM

J C wrote: »

Miscarriage has nothing to do with procured abortion ... and the 8th has no effect on how it is treated.
Women who give birth aren't aborting ... so the 8th has no effect on them either.

... links please.

It's been done here before, and is all available on here, but for example there's this : AIMS Ireland National Maternity Strategy/

Or this

While it is common knowledge about the restrictions on abortion which are as a result of the 8th’s stranglehold on the Irish medical system, the Maternity Strategy document is quite informative as to the more hidden effects of the 8th. Of particular interest is the section on consent, which can leave the reader under no illusions as to the impact of the 8th on consent in maternity care in Ireland.

“it is also more legally complex, as Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution recognises the right to life of the unborn, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother” (National Maternity Strategy, p77/78).

One such example in the public domain is the case of Mother A. In 2013 an application was made to the High Court by Waterford Regional Hospital to carry out a caesarean section on a mother against her consent, where there was no evidence of risk to the foetus. How many more women are being bullied to give their consent that don’t actually reach the courts? A 2014 survey commissioned by AIMS Ireland reported that less than half of all women questioned said they were given the opportunity to refuse consent to tests, procedures and treatments.

This is the culture of “consent” in our maternity services. Women want what is best for their babies, and for their own bodies. Women do their research and know what is acceptable to them in their care. Routinely, procedures and processes such as active management of labour, artificial rupture of membranes, episiotomy among others are carried out in Irish hospitals, often without giving the full risks and benefits to the mother before carrying them out, if consent is sought at all.

Women know these procedures are not international best practice, yet the consent policy states that should the hospital insist, women can be bullied using the threat of legal action into consenting to these procedures. That is not consent, it is coercion. It gives a very distressing message to the pregnant woman, that they cannot be trusted to make their own decisions about their bodies and their babies, once pregnant in Ireland with Article 40.3.3 on the books. Women are effectively in chains, handing over the keys to the State as soon as the blue lines appear on the pregnancy test.

Or look up Ciara Hamilton vs the HSE (she lost her case for malpractice even though the midwife nearly killed her and her baby by practicing a procedure called ARM during labour, precisely because her consent was not "really" necessary. Thanks to 40.3.3, as the NMS mentioned above sets out.)

J C wrote: »

Sectioning is used to manage mental illness ... 99% of the time the person sectioned isn't pregnant.
Do you believe that sectioning shouldn't occur where it's determined by medical professionals that the person is a danger to themselves or others?

Except that the Mental Health Act is the only procedure for legally sectioning someone, and it wasn't used in this case, either because the doctor is a dangerous incompetent or because it didn't apply.

So instead, POLDP was used to put someone in a psychiatric ward, completely outside of the legal framework for doing so.

volchitsa · 02-04-2018 02:09PM

J C wrote: »

Procuring an abortion in Ireland is a criminal offense ... so there would be a trial to determine guilt, if an abortion was performed in Ireland (outside the POLDPA) ... and in other countries outside their abortion laws.
Why do you under line the word 'person' ?
The current maximum sentence for procured abortion in Ireland are on a par with manslaughter ... and abortion is proscribed by the Offenses Against the Person Act.

It would all depend on whether they are showing signs of wanting to harm or kill their child, after its born - probably very few, if any.
I'd go as far as saying that people who abort are probably no greater risk to their born children, than people who don't abort. Do you have evidence one way or the other on this?

So you are indeed considering the unborn as a person when it suits you (when you assert that it is objectively wrong to kill it for example) but you pretend not to notice the logical consequences of that claim whenever it doesn't suit you.

J C · 02-04-2018 02:14PM

volchitsa wrote: »

It's been done here before, and is all available on here, but for example there's this : AIMS Ireland National Maternity Strategy/

If the document is about what it says on the cover ... 'Making a better Future Together' i.e. for both the mother and her child then the 8th will have no effect on it ... and I would welcome any initiatives that make a better future together for mothers (and fathers) and their children in Ireland.

volchitsa wrote: »

Except that the Mental Health Act is the only procedure for legally sectioning someone, and it wasn't used in this case, either because the doctor is a dangerous incompetent or because it didn't apply.

So instead, POLDP was used to put someone in a psychiatric ward, completely outside of the legal framework for doing so.

The question remains whether you believe that somebody who is determined by mental health professionals to be a substantive danger to themselves or others (whether pregnant of not) should be sectioned?
... and I note that you haven't answered this question.

J C · 02-04-2018 02:24PM

volchitsa wrote: »

So you are indeed considering the unborn as a person when it suits you (when you assert that it is objectively wrong to kill it for example) but you pretend not to notice the logical consequences of that claim whenever it doesn't suit you.

I believe in the personhood of unborn human beings ... we don't magically become persons when we are born ... and are 'non-persons' before birth.

The fact that jurisdictions that allow legal abortion create a legal fiction that the unborn are non-persons, in order to legally facilitate abortions, doesn't mean that they aren't actually persons.

The Offenses Against the Person Act proscribes procured abortion in Ireland ... and the 'person' protected from being aborted in the Act is the unborn child.

J C · 02-04-2018 02:29PM

volchitsa wrote: »

So you are indeed considering the unborn as a person when it suits you (when you assert that it is objectively wrong to kill it for example) but you pretend not to notice the logical consequences of that claim whenever it doesn't suit you.

Where do I not notice the logical consequences of the person-hood of the unborn, whenever it doesn't suit me?

Abortion - Report of the Joint Committee on the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution

Comments