The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

horseburger · 14-04-2018 01:34AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Can you answer my questions now?

Remind me again what you asked

Ave Sodalis · 14-04-2018 01:38AM

horseburger wrote: »

Remind me again what you asked

These:

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Alters their routine and financial circumstances, yes. They aren't rights though. As it stands, the 8th means a woman is not given the right to be free from suffering. The woman is not given the right to life, despite what the 2013 Act says. The woman is not given the right to medical treatment. They are not given the right to bodily autonomy.

Heck, so long as the 8th is in place, even the foetus and subsequent baby are okay to suffer and die a preventable and painful death because, regardless of whether or not you agree with abortion for FFA, the 8th prevents it.

The funny (not really) thing is is that if the child needs an organ donation or a blood donation to save its life after it's born, you cannot take the organ or blood from the mother without her permission. Even if the baby will die without it.

Are you telling me you'd be quite happy to stand in front of Susan Hodger's family, in front of Savita Halappanavar's family, in front of Anne Lovett's family... and tell them that their family member would have lost rights when the baby was born anyway so don't worry about them.

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

I know this has been asked a million times but if this was true, why isn't a miscarriage manslaughter? Why isn't drinking when pregnant considering negligence. Why is travelling for an abortion allowed?

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Even if the miscarriage was caused by drink etc.? It's not an abortion if it was accidental.

Do you mind answering the rest of those questions? And the post before that?

Trasna1 · 14-04-2018 01:40AM

horseburger wrote: »

No matter how one sided a vox pop is edited, the people vox popped could not have been recorded saying what they said, unless they said what they said.

In a group of 100, there will always be at least 10 morons, and a few more who cannot perform when put on the spot. It reflects poorly on the individuals but the implied leap is that the protesters generally are witless sheep following the flow is a constructed narrative and nowhere near reality

horseburger · 14-04-2018 01:41AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

These:

I answered that already

horseburger · 14-04-2018 01:43AM

Trasna1 wrote: »

In a group of 100, there will always be at least 10 morons, and a few more who cannot perform when put on the spot. It reflects poorly on the individuals but the implied leap is that the protesters generally are witless sheep following the flow is a constructed narrative and nowhere near reality

Morons or not, they weren't forced to say what they said.

Ave Sodalis · 14-04-2018 01:43AM

horseburger wrote: »

I answered that already

No you didn't. You gave a brief over view of what was said way before I joined the conversation which was not in any way relevant to the questions. You also said that you hadn't made any references to miscarriage, to which I replied that that was the point.

horseburger · 14-04-2018 01:45AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

No you didn't. You gave a brief over view of what was said way before I joined the conversation which was not in any way relevant to the questions. You also said that you hadn't made any references to miscarriage, to which I replied that that was the point.

What are you asking then?

I didn't bring up the issue of miscarriage, someone else did and I responded by suggesting that miscarriages are an unfortunate natural occurrence.

If you want to suggest that miscarriages occur othwrwise, answer your own question as to whether miscarriages should be investigated.

Ave Sodalis · 14-04-2018 01:52AM

horseburger wrote: »

What are you asking then?

Exactly what I did ask.

1) In response to you saying that you parents lose their rights anyway (which they don't) so you don't see the difference in a pregnant woman's rights, I asked if you would be willing to tell that to the families of Susan Hodgers, Savita Halappanavar, and Anne Lovett and tell them not to worry because their family member would have lost some rights anyway.

2) If human life begins at conception, as the article you quoted was saying, then why wasn't miscarriage (even those accidentally caused by drink, falls etc) considered manslaughter?

3) If human life begins at conception, why isn't drinking and drug use not considered as, and charged as being negligent.

4) If human life begins at conception, why is it legal to travel for an abortion?

Trasna1 · 14-04-2018 01:53AM

horseburger wrote: »

Morons or not, they weren't forced to say what they said.

Indeed, and as I said it reflects badly on the individuals - but these individuals were put on the spot. If any of the campaign spokespeople has given such rubbish answers then I'd be asking questions alright
The purpose of the video was to present an untrue narrative that the protesters were a cohort of easily led fools who didn't understand the issue but going with the flow.

What is telling us that when you exclude the bits where he is ****eing on he had three mins of footage with a handful of individuals from a rally that took half a day and had thousands of people at it.

14-04-2018 02:01AM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

By that standard whether we terminate or not is all based on beliefs and personal decision?

I have no personal ethos on terminations bar that for healthy babies there should be a limit.

Abortion in ireland was not something that was offered to me. It did not inform doctors practice on how my case was dealt with at a time when I was at my most vulnerable. Had I have been in England and based on how fetal medicine there had pushed reccomendation for termination- I would have grabbed it with both hands . When you are told your baby is one if only 4 cases ever to be born alive then you can't tell me that the 8th didn't have an impact on my outcome. Simlarily like how I can't tell other women that the 8th didn't impact negatively on them. It seems that this group will pledge undying faith and will not question the stories that support their narrative. '
The depts of despair is all I can describe what we went through.
I know that women also mention that having full bodily autonomy in maternity care is also an issue related to the 8th. That interventions are carried out against their will.
I didn't want my birth to go the way it did, my baby was being born earlier than I wanted and fear and panic took over for me. If intervening in the way they did to save both my life and my childs then yes the 8th saved him. I didn't want the level of intervention I received but we are here.

Until you hear a doctor telling you that your baby has no chance of life, that death is certain that termination would be easier on you, that you can try again -all while not being able to do anything about it then you can tell me that I'm wrong.

The biggest travesty of these issues are public couselling waiting lists meant I suffered immensely because of it...... or maybe I didn't shout the loudest.

Leaving this thread now before I'm asked to produce my CVS and Amniocenthese reports

First off as said earlier I'm glad that your child was OK and was delivered safely.

Secondly the medical care you received would be the same in the cases where FFA was not incorrectly diagnosed, meaning as how things stand a woman who does not wish to continue with their pregnancy but cannot travel will endure the same treatment as you did due to the eight but unfortunately they won't have the happy outcome you did of having their child live. But if repeal is successful a woman who wishes to continue with their pregnancy in such a case still will have that option and receive the same treatment.

Thirdly personal beliefs do have a factor in determining if a person chooses to have an abortion or not. The same personal beliefs also can spill out into trying to decide for other people as well as in the case with the 8th as it stands and for most of the save the 8th side of the argument.

Finally as purposed the legislation is for 12 weeks unrestricted access. others maybe able to state if FFA can be determined by this time or not as I don't have the answer yet, but there are other valid reasons to request a termination that loved ones of mine have experienced that do not lessen their reasons to request a termination if needed to or they had so wished to, and the counciling services for what they went through are not as widely available as they should be either. Also I see your still posting and thanking posts so I hope you have decided not to leave the discussion as you stated.

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 02:02AM

RobertKK wrote: »

It is happening in the UK in minority communities.
There is now a blood test that can tell if a woman is having a boy or girl at 9 weeks gestation. So technically this would allow sex select abortions to happen in Ireland.

I know this is an old post but is called the Harmony test. Its NIPNT and is screening rather than diagnostic. It can be done from ten weeks. You can get results in about 4 days but generally 7 -10 days.

There is a thread on it here. I really don't see sex selection being an issue here though

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057594346

gctest50 · 14-04-2018 02:23AM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

RobertKK wrote: »

POST #32

It is happening in the UK in minority communities.
There is now a blood test that can tell if a woman is having a boy or girl at 9 weeks gestation. So technically this would allow sex select abortions to happen in Ireland.

I know this is an old post but is called the Harmony test. Its NIPNT and is screening rather than diagnostic. It can be done from ten weeks. You can get results in about 4 days but generally 7 -10 days.
There is a thread on it here. I really don't see sex selection being an issue here though

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057594346

What is wrong with your internet ?

If you read down a few posts, you'd see this :

January wrote: »

POST #36

You're wrong. You're talking about the harmony test which can only be performed after 10 weeks and takes approx two weeks to come back. With the current proposal the cut off for abortion on request is 12 weeks. So that won't happen here.

Not to mention its prohibitivley expensive for a lot of people so they just can't afford it.

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 02:30AM

gctest50 wrote: »

What is wrong with your internet ?

If you read down a few posts, you'd see this :

You really are the salt of the earth.

I did see her comment but its 4-7 day turn around not 2weeks as stated.

Pretty pointless responding for the sole purpose of trying to be an ****

horseburger · 14-04-2018 02:41AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Exactly what I did ask.

1) In response to you saying that you parents lose their rights anyway (which they don't) so you don't see the difference in a pregnant woman's rights, I asked if you would be willing to tell that to the families of Susan Hodgers, Savita Halappanavar, and Anne Lovett and tell them not to worry because their family member would have lost some rights anyway.

2) If human life begins at conception, as the article you quoted was saying, then why wasn't miscarriage (even those accidentally caused by drink, falls etc) considered manslaughter?

3) If human life begins at conception, why isn't drinking and drug use not considered as, and charged as being negligent.

4) If human life begins at conception, why is it legal to travel for an abortion?

I never said anything about parents losing rights.

I asked a question related to a central question about abortion, which is the issue of whether or not it is justifiable to end a human life.

I asked this in relation to the issue that a human growing during pregnancy is a separate being to the mother.

Eamon OCuiv asked a question on this issue last year and Ruth Coppinger interrupted him by stating that a pregnant woman is not a mother until the baby is born.

You can well imagine that if Ronan Mullen, Mattie McGrath, Danny Healy Rae or Peter Fitzpatrick had made that remark, that they would be accused of sexism, belittling women and devaluing the role of mothers with regard to the nuture and care they give to the human/child/ human foetus/ baby that is growing in the womb during pregnancy.

What exactly do you expect me to say about the issue of it being legal to travel for an abortion?

I never said anyone should be prevented from travelling for an abortion.

I don't know why miscarriages are not considered manslaughter. Maybe because miscarriages are an unfortunate, very sad, unplanned occurrence?

I do not know whether or not if it is currently the case that drinking and drug use, are considered offences, worthy of being charging a person with neglect.

Is it covered under the Public Health Alcohol Bill?

http://alcoholireland.ie/what-is-the-public-health-alcohol-bill/

This next item includes the following text:

"Although not often visible in public, alcohol’s harm to others within the family can have very serious consequences for the safety and well-being of family members, with children the most vulnerable. Life-long damage, through foetal development disorders, can also be caused to the unborn child by alcohol consumption during pregnancy.".

http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

Senator Frances Black is working on highlighting the issue of excessive alcohol use.

Have you contacted any TDs or Senators to highlight your concerns?

None of the things you are asking me prohibits the issues relating to the arguments for or against abortion, from being debated and discussed.

What did you reckon of the address to the Citizens Assembly by Dr Anthony Levatino?

horseburger · 14-04-2018 02:44AM

Trasna1 wrote: »

Indeed, and as I said it reflects badly on the individuals - but these individuals were put on the spot. If any of the campaign spokespeople has given such rubbish answers then I'd be asking questions alright
The purpose of the video was to present an untrue narrative that the protesters were a cohort of easily led fools who didn't understand the issue but going with the flow.

What is telling us that when you exclude the bits where he is ****eing on he had three mins of footage with a handful of individuals from a rally that took half a day and had thousands of people at it.

I did not avoid anything. I clearly wrote that the interviewer was one sided and being provocative in the way he asked the questions of the interviewees.

They weren't forced to say what they said.

JDD · 14-04-2018 02:50AM

Hi Robert KK and horse-burger. I’ve posted the below question before to pro-lifers on this thread, to Bertieinexile and pleas advise. Bertieinexile has neglected to answer (even though he/she said they were trying to get the time to answer in between posting other detailed posts). Pleas advise said the he/she would be happy for me to import the termination pill and was against me being criminalized for it - but was still going to vote no.

I’d appreciate your honest view. Please don’t make me constantly check your profiles to see if you’ve posted elsewhere while completely ignoring my question.

Previous post:

During my last pregnancy it was suspected I had placenta accretia (google it). Very luckily, in the end, I did not. However, I was informed that should I get pregnant again, I would have a 70% chance of it occurring.

Statistics on placenta accretia are hard to come by as it is historically a rare complication latterly on the rise. From my own research and from the discussions with my consultant I was told the condition has a 7% mortality rate, a 30% chance of permanent injury to my non-uterus internal organs and an 80% chance I would lose my uterus.

As a result I had a tubal ligation. But no contraceptive is a fail safe. What do YOU advise as my current course of action:

A. Refrain from having sex with my husband until go through the menopause;

B. Have sex with my husband but, should my contraception fail, accept that I would have a 1 in 20 chance of dying, and a 1 in 5 chance of suffering a serious life debititating injury should I bring the pregnancy to full term.

Bear in mind that I have three young children who would be left without a mother if the 1 in 20 chance came to pass.

Your beliefs mean my choice has to be A or B.

gctest50 · 14-04-2018 02:50AM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

You really are the salt of the earth.

I did see her comment but its 4-7 day turn around not 2weeks as stated.

Pretty pointless responding for the sole purpose of trying to be an ****

petalgumdrops wrote: »

....

I did see her comment but its 4-7 day turn around not 2weeks as stated.

This little post here didn't make it clear that was your point ? :

petalgumdrops wrote: »

I know this is an old post but is called the Harmony test. Its NIPNT and is screening rather than diagnostic. It can be done from ten weeks. You can get results in about 4 days but generally 7 -10 days.

There is a thread on it here. I really don't see sex selection being an issue here though

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057594346

Seems to be a recurring thing, that vagueness, then pulling up on the reply post

Wouldn't be some form of say ...... trying to get posters a little antagonised

ShooterSF · 14-04-2018 02:55AM

horseburger wrote: »

What exactly do you expect me to say about the issue of it being legal to travel for an abortion?

I never said anyone should be prevented from travelling for an abortion.

People have been arrested for helping others travel for assisted suicide. Why should murder abroad, if it is a baby, be ok?

petalgumdrops · 14-04-2018 03:04AM

gctest50 wrote: »

This little post here didn't make it clear that was your point ? :

Seems to be a recurring thing, that vagueness, then pulling up on the reply post

Wouldn't be some form of say ...... trying to get posters a little antagonised

I have no idea whay you are smoking! I was reading from the start a thread that has 398 pages. Not eveything is a conspiracy.

gctest50 · 14-04-2018 03:04AM

http://crowdfund.togetherforyes.ie/

€510,514

,

Madscientist30 · 14-04-2018 07:06AM

horseburger wrote: »

DubInMeath wrote: »

I and others answered you already on this. If you want I'll just reply neigh to your posting the same question as you don't like to answer people's questions when it doesn't suit you and that will lead to either you or I or both being thread banned. But since I'm here to discuss I'll probably just ignore you in most cases as its clear your not here for discussion.

Your answer was to suggest that a foetus doesn't have the right to be recognized as human, even though a foetus comes into being through two other human beings.

A foetus is biologically human, that has already been said numerous times throughout the thread. It is not, though, a human being. A human being is defined as a man, woman or child. A foetus does not become a child until it is born. I'm not sure why you keep mentioning this "human" thing. Can you explain why you feel it is so important to continue to develop non-sentient human foetuses to ensure they are born, against the will of the woman carrying the foetud and regardless of the consequences? Do you have any proposals to alleviate the suffering and misery this would cause for many many people? Or do we not need to consider that because.....ehhhh.....it's human like. There is nothing at all behind your argument. Not one pro-lifer here has STILL ever answered the question about the fertility clinic on fire. Will you answer it?

erica74 · 14-04-2018 07:52AM

I sit here baffled by the utter rubbish that comes out of the mouths of antichoice people. Some TD just said on the radio "The right to life is primary and the right to quality of life is secondary and you can't enjoy your secondary right without your primary right." WTF does that even mean?? Of course an unborn baby can't enjoy that "secondary right" without that "primary right", if they're not born, they have no interest or knowledge of quality of life. He also forecasted women will use abortion as contraception. Another idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Everytime I hear an antichoice person speak, I think they must be doing their "side" no favours with the absolute nonsense that comes out of their mouth?

Repeal the 8th.
Trust girls and women to do what we have already been doing for years but give us the protection of full medical care and social support during the process, from start to finish and beyond.

Madscientist30 · 14-04-2018 08:05AM

erica74 wrote: »

I sit here baffled by the utter rubbish that comes out of the mouths of antichoice people. Some TD just said on the radio "The right to life is primary and the right to quality of life is secondary and you can't enjoy your secondary right without your primary right." WTF does that even mean?? Of course an unborn baby can't enjoy that "secondary right" without that "primary right", if they're not born, they have no interest or knowledge of quality of life. He also forecasted women will use abortion as contraception. Another idiot who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Everytime I hear an antichoice person speak, I think they must be doing their "side" no favours with the absolute nonsense that comes out of their mouth?

Repeal the 8th.
Trust girls and women to do what we have already been doing for years but give us the protection of full medical care and social support during the process, from start to finish and beyond.

Ehhh, that TD might want to check the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No human rights hierarchy there. No hierarchy ever defined or agreed since. But some random TD has just now created one for us all to live by, so that's grand then

erica74 · 14-04-2018 08:10AM

Madscientist30 wrote: »

Ehhh, that TD might want to check the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No human rights hierarchy there. No hierarchy ever defined or agreed since. But some random TD has just now created one for us all to live by, so that's grand then

Yeah I can't remember his full name, Quinn or Quinlan, something like that. He's probably a TD from the South East because I was listening to Beatfm.
I was bamboozled by what he was saying. I do not understand how anyone can support antichoice when they have no real facts to back up what they're saying, other than BS about inflicting their moral compass on others.

I honestly feel how dare anyone say these things about women, that we'll use abortion for contraception, do antichoice people have such a low opinion of women? It's 2018 and people still don't understand the vast and varied reasons why a woman might seek an abortion. I

Repeal the 8th.

pjohnson · 14-04-2018 08:35AM

Ave Sodalis wrote: »

Or corpses of women. Or the courier deliveries of FFA who were terminated in the UK. Or women sitting on an airplane toilet as the cramps take over. Or pregnant children. How about a rotting corpse on a hospital bed? No?

This would be fine I guess since anything goes. Also not made up so bonus.

14-04-2018 08:52AM

petalgumdrops wrote: »

January I think I actually spoke.privately to you about this in the pregnancy forum 2 years ago when it was diagnosed.

Intially something was detected as being not right at 12 week scan. High NT, shortening of nasal bone which they said could suggest DS.
CVS FISH result for 12, 18, 21 came back clear but was called in and told Trisomy (ill pm you the number as my case is only one of 11 so it will identify me) confirmed on CVS. So rare that they couldn't tell impact except it was very bad. Fetal medicine in london lab suggested termination. Geneticist in crumlin took on my case and for complete clarity an amino was done but as with how rare the case was I would have to wait weeks rather than the 10/12 days some people waited. Waiting period between results of CVS and Amnio was obviously horrific as I needed to ne at least 15/16 weeks for amnio.

You might remember talking to me before

You may need to clarify for me,if you don't mind?
Did you get a ffa diagnosis at 12 weeks & had to wait until 16weeks to find out everything was OK? Or did you have to wait till birth?

nozzferrahhtoo · 14-04-2018 09:05AM

horseburger wrote: »

It is still the ending of a life, at any stage of its development.

You are simply repeating points I already dealt with. Do you even read the posts you hit "reply" on? You are not actually here for discussion are you? You have two of three mantras you want to recite, and you continue to recite them and refuse to engage in any rebuttal of them.

And up there with the three outright lies I caught you out on this is GREAT stuff. So keep it up. I want everyone on both sides of this issue to see the depths of dishonesty and distortion the anti abortion anti repeal side are required to tow the line of.

horseburger wrote: »

Not everyone supports your view.

And water is wet. Why are we now stating the absolute bleeding obvious at each other again? Do you think some aspect of my narrative requires everyone support my view?

The point is that aside from SAYING you disagree with my views, you and your cohort appear to be not just slightly but ENTIRELY unable to rebut any of them.

horseburger wrote: »

The issue is the human aspect of the abortion debate.

Sure, but the human aspect in terms of personhood and humanity, not in terms of biological taxonomy like you keep pretending it is.

horseburger wrote: »

If the human aspect of the debate wasn't central to the issue, the word foetus wouldn't be used as frequently, in arguments for abortion.

The word is used because it is accurate. If you have a conversation about gardening you will find people there calling a spade a spade too. Does the ACCURATE use of terminology bother you? IF so, you might want to ask yourself why that is. I suspect I already know the answer as to why it is. I suspect deep down you do too.

horseburger wrote: »

Your answer was to suggest that a foetus doesn't have the right to be recognized as human

No, the answer you have been given time and time again, and you ignore it and dodge it every time, is that the fetus should have no right to be recognised as a human PERSON.

A fetus at 12/16 weeks is the sentience and consciousness equivalent of a table leg or a mannequin or an amoeba. There is simple nothing going on in such a fetus upon which to hang our concepts of person hood, humanity, and rights.

So all you and your cohort can do is conflate ALL the various meanings of the word "human" together into a lump and hope the word "human" alone will do the job you have been unable to do yourself.

horseburger wrote: »

I asked a question related to a central question about abortion, which is the issue of whether or not it is justifiable to end a human life.

And you have been answered. You disliked the answer and could not rebut it, so you ignored the answer and just moved on to keep asking the question again and again and again.

You do realize not liking an answer does not mean none was given right?

horseburger wrote: »

I did not avoid anything.

This is the 4th outright and demonstrable lie you have told since yesterday. You have been avoiding things since around your third post, including answers to questions you did not like the answer to, and direct questions asked to and of you.

Sofiztikated · 14-04-2018 09:25AM

Bertie must have had a couple of days off from the office, and horseburger is covering his workload.

NuMarvel · 14-04-2018 10:09AM

Trasna1 wrote: »

The law would be challenged on the basis of incompatibility with the Constitution, it would look to precedent with regards to bodily integrity.

And when you look to precedent with regards to bodily integrity, what you find is that the right to bodily integrity isn't absolute. This is obvious from the Ryan case, which established the right to bodily integrity, because the woman that brought the case lost it.

A person wishing to bring a successful challenge against any new laws would not only have to show that their right to bodily integrity is being infringed by the law, but that the law has a disproportionate effect on the person's right to bodily integrity and that the appropriate remedy is to remove all term limits in regards to accessing abortion. They may be able to argue the first point, I think they'd struggle to argue the second point, and I don't think they have any chance of the third.

Trasna1 wrote: »

The very blog you linked earlier suggested strongly that significant provisions in 2013 act would be found unconstitutional following repeal of the 8th.

Which is a far cry from what you are saying.

They're saying that without the 8th parts of the current law could be found unconstitutional, with the courts allowing abortion in circumstances like risk to health or FFA.

You're saying that without the 8th, the proposed law which would include abortion on grounds of FFA or risk to health, would be entirely unconstitutional and would allow abortion without term limits.

Ave Sodalis · 14-04-2018 10:45AM

horseburger wrote: »

I never said anything about parents losing rights.

I asked a question related to a central question about abortion, which is the issue of whether or not it is justifiable to end a human life.

I asked this in relation to the issue that a human growing during pregnancy is a separate being to the mother.

Eamon OCuiv asked a question on this issue last year and Ruth Coppinger interrupted him by stating that a pregnant woman is not a mother until the baby is born.

You can well imagine that if Ronan Mullen, Mattie McGrath, Danny Healy Rae or Peter Fitzpatrick had made that remark, that they would be accused of sexism, belittling women and devaluing the role of mothers with regard to the nuture and care they give to the human/child/ human foetus/ baby that is growing in the womb during pregnancy.

Never?

horseburger wrote: »

Doesn't a born child also impact on the rights of someone who is living, breathing and feeling?

You then went on to try and justify that so don't tell me it was just a question and so you still have to answer my question.

That last part is just distraction and in no way relevant.

What exactly do you expect me to say about the issue of it being legal to travel for an abortion?

I never said anyone should be prevented from travelling for an abortion.

And I am asking you why not?

I don't know why miscarriages are not considered manslaughter. Maybe because miscarriages are an unfortunate, very sad, unplanned occurrence?

As is manslaughter. And yet, there would be at least a criminal investigation if a mothers actions led to the accidental death of a born child.

I do not know whether or not if it is currently the case that drinking and drug use, are considered offences, worthy of being charging a person with neglect.

Is it covered under the Public Health Alcohol Bill?

http://alcoholireland.ie/what-is-the-public-health-alcohol-bill/

This next item includes the following text:

"Although not often visible in public, alcohol’s harm to others within the family can have very serious consequences for the safety and well-being of family members, with children the most vulnerable. Life-long damage, through foetal development disorders, can also be caused to the unborn child by alcohol consumption during pregnancy.".

http://alcoholireland.ie/facts/alcohol-related-harm-facts-and-statistics/

Senator Frances Black is working on highlighting the issue of excessive alcohol use.

I am asking you. Why do YOU think it's not considered negligence when it's a human being affected.

Have you contacted any TDs or Senators to highlight your concerns?

No, because I know the answers. The answer is because a foetus is not considered a person. It's not considered a human.

None of the things you are asking me prohibits the issues relating to the arguments for or against abortion, from being debated and discussed.

Not one single time did I say that you cannot discuss the arguments for or against abortion. Not once.

What did you reckon of the address to the Citizens Assembly by Dr Anthony Levatino?

[/QUOTE]

First of all, he's American.

Second of all, he's talking about 20 weeks pregnancy which is NOT relevant. It is NOT suction. It is a pill.

Thirdly, he completely disregards the women who want an abortion and are happy with that decision. He has a complete disregard for genuine reasons for having an abortion.

He is not a balanced pro-life advocate when he completely ignores what's actually going to happen and talks about stuff that isn't going to happen in order to scare people. Funny enough, most of the pro-life campaign is like that.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments