The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Ave Sodalis · 19-04-2018 10:00PM

Grayson wrote: »

Also he said "Also speaking at the event, Prof Eamon McGuinness, a former chairman of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child."

That doesn't say it's legal. Or that there are no other occasions here a termination is necessary.

It's also ignoring the fact that the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology's official stance is pro-repeal so using them to further a pro-life argument is a bit moot.

BarleySweets · 19-04-2018 10:28PM

horseburger wrote: »

I never made any comment defending campaigners of the "pro-life campaign".

There are numerous different groups campaigning on both sides of the argument.

I asked questions in relation to arguments for and against abortion.

I posted items to back up points I was making. I got criticized for posting videos, many of which were debates which included speakers representing both sides of the issue of abortion.

Humorously enough, I got criticized for including video links of debates which included speakers for and against.

Those criticizing me didn't even notice that many of the videos I referenced included arguments for abortion. You can't have a debate without the views of both sides being outlined.

One poster who would agree with Patricia Lohr's stance on abortion said that they "didn't know or care" who she was.

Anyone who has been reading up in the debate on the referendum, would know who she is, since she addressed both the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee.

Doesn't the fact that this poster, didn't know who Patricia Lohr is, suggest that that poster hasn't spent too much time considering arguments for and against?

Then a poster moaned and argued that Patricia Lohr is from the UK, and that I should not have referenced what she said, because in this poster's view, Patricia Lohr of BPAS, is irrelevant to Ireland's abortion laws.

This poster obviously doesn't know that BPAS registered the www.abortion.ie website, that links to www.bpas.co.uk.

It certainly seems clear to me that BPAS has a business interest in the repealing of the 8th amendment, and subsequent legislation in Ireland.

Despite arguments for abortion being expressed in videos of the debates that I included in my posts, with spokespersons arguing for, and against abortion, posters advocating repeal of the 8th amendment still moaned that they wouldn't watch the videos.

Some moaned on the basis that they read the thread on their phones. What am I supposed to do about the fact that they decide to use a phone, instead of something else with a wider screen?

Since the vast majority of the comments in the thread are pro repeal, it is obvious that there will be more pro repeal comments made, so as a result, more questions that can be asked of posters who advocate repeal of the 8th amendment.

One of these questions I asked was about the contradiction in claims by Ivana Bacik, that abortion will not be approved for cases of Down's Syndrome, compared to what Patricia Lohr - who is endorsed by Ivan Bacik in the way that Ivana Bacik included a video on youtube of Patricia Lohr at the Oirechtas Committee, but omitted the question answer session invlusing Peter Fitzpatrick's questions - stated, with regard to cases of abortion on the original ground of sex selection, being carried out under another ground. Maria Steen stated that in Germany, abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, are approved under mental health grounds.

I never mentioned anything in defence of groups that are campaigning for a no vote.

I asked questions, in relation to the fact that the Oireachtas Committee has stated, that it cannot be certain that the recommendations in the Committee Report will be implemented verbatim.

Considering that, we cannot be sure, of the grounds, under which abortion will be approved, in legislation enacted following the referendum, if there is a yes vote.

You just assumed, by the way you claimed that I don't mention "shortcomings" of the "pro-life campaign" that I agreed with everything stated by the various groups that argue for a no vote.

I wouldn't have bothered including videos of debates on abortion, that include speakers from both sides of the argument, if I was as intolerant of one side in the debate, as you suggest.

You are muddying the waters by mixing concerns about the current issue, to repeal the 8th or not, with hypotheticals and worrying about the legislative process. Legislation on abortion is way down the line and has absolutely nothing to do with this referendum.

reubenreuben · 19-04-2018 10:31PM

horseburger wrote: »

I never made any comment defending campaigners of the "pro-life campaign".

There are numerous different groups campaigning on both sides of the argument.

I asked questions in relation to arguments for and against abortion.

I posted items to back up points I was making. I got criticized for posting videos, many of which were debates which included speakers representing both sides of the issue of abortion.

Humorously enough, I got criticized for including video links of debates which included speakers for and against.

Those criticizing me didn't even notice that many of the videos I referenced included arguments for abortion. You can't have a debate without the views of both sides being outlined.

One poster who would agree with Patricia Lohr's stance on abortion said that they "didn't know or care" who she was.

Anyone who has been reading up in the debate on the referendum, would know who she is, since she addressed both the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee.

Doesn't the fact that this poster, didn't know who Patricia Lohr is, suggest that that poster hasn't spent too much time considering arguments for and against?

Then a poster moaned and argued that Patricia Lohr is from the UK, and that I should not have referenced what she said, because in this poster's view, Patricia Lohr of BPAS, is irrelevant to Ireland's abortion laws.

This poster obviously doesn't know that BPAS registered the www.abortion.ie website, that links to www.bpas.co.uk.

It certainly seems clear to me that BPAS has a business interest in the repealing of the 8th amendment, and subsequent legislation in Ireland.

Despite arguments for abortion being expressed in videos of the debates that I included in my posts, with spokespersons arguing for, and against abortion, posters advocating repeal of the 8th amendment still moaned that they wouldn't watch the videos.

Some moaned on the basis that they read the thread on their phones. What am I supposed to do about the fact that they decide to use a phone, instead of something else with a wider screen?

Since the vast majority of the comments in the thread are pro repeal, it is obvious that there will be more pro repeal comments made, so as a result, more questions that can be asked of posters who advocate repeal of the 8th amendment.

One of these questions I asked was about the contradiction in claims by Ivana Bacik, that abortion will not be approved for cases of Down's Syndrome, compared to what Patricia Lohr - who is endorsed by Ivan Bacik in the way that Ivana Bacik included a video on youtube of Patricia Lohr at the Oirechtas Committee, but omitted the question answer session invlusing Peter Fitzpatrick's questions - stated, with regard to cases of abortion on the original ground of sex selection, being carried out under another ground. Maria Steen stated that in Germany, abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, are approved under mental health grounds.

I never mentioned anything in defence of groups that are campaigning for a no vote.

I asked questions, in relation to the fact that the Oireachtas Committee has stated, that it cannot be certain that the recommendations in the Committee Report will be implemented verbatim.

Considering that, we cannot be sure, of the grounds, under which abortion will be approved, in legislation enacted following the referendum, if there is a yes vote.

You just assumed, by the way you claimed that I don't mention "shortcomings" of the "pro-life campaign" that I agreed with everything stated by the various groups that argue for a no vote.

I wouldn't have bothered including videos of debates on abortion, that include speakers from both sides of the argument, if I was as intolerant of one side in the debate, as you suggest.

What does the above actually mean?

RobertKK · 19-04-2018 10:38PM

Grayson wrote: »

Also he said "Also speaking at the event, Prof Eamon McGuinness, a former chairman of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child."

That doesn't say it's legal. Or that there are no other occasions here a termination is necessary.

Of course it is legal, how many cases have doctors being charged with for working to save the life of the mother where the unborn died?

thee glitz · 19-04-2018 10:44PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

AnneFrank wrote: »

I do take your point, but i won't be lobbying it's just not something i would do personally, but if it was tweaked i would vote yes.

Myself, two weeks ago:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Thee Glitz and lots of other prolifers just like to sound reasonable by saying "I'd love to vote Repeal but...". No matter what is proposed, there will always be a "....but ... so I have to vote the way the Bishop says." at the end.

It's like all the "I have no problems with the Gays, some of my friends own pink shirts, but..." people in the SSM referendum, who were always voting No to SSM regardless, because the Vatican said it was "a defeat for Humanity".

People reasoning why they intend to vote No, due to the proposed legislation, proclaiming to recognise some merit in going Yes - can't be legit! You appear to be fairly knowledgeable on matters of interest, so why resort to arguments based on 'well the Bishop says' when there's no evidence of it being an influential factor and makes you look a clown?

19-04-2018 10:45PM

reubenreuben wrote: »

What does the above actually mean?

I'm on the fence on how I will vote but constantly posting stuff against repeal and dodging answering questions.

volchitsa · 19-04-2018 10:46PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Of course it is legal, how many cases have doctors being charged with for working to save the life of the mother where the unborn died?

No idea why you think that proves anything : how many people have been charged importing and/or using abortion pills in Ireland? Something we know is illegal. But not even women who have brought them in publicly have been questioned never mind charged.

19-04-2018 10:51PM

volchitsa wrote: »

No idea why you think that proves anything : how many people have been charged importing and/or using abortion pills in Ireland? Something we know is illegal. But not even women who have brought them in publicly have been questioned never mind charged.

Not here but in the six counties there have been two cases recently.

volchitsa · 19-04-2018 11:02PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Not here but in the six counties there have been two cases recently.

I know. It can be done, if there is any appetite for it. (They've decided there is no appetite in Northern Ireland either, BTW, and have suspended the 2nd case indefinitely. Or may have dropped it quietly since.)

But the claim was that something to do with abortion was legal because nobody had been charged with it - that is the most arrant nonsense.

There is no wish for embarrassing trials that will call attention to Ireland's very dubious treatment of women, because prolife know that such a trial would only hasten the end of the law, not strengthen it. Doesn't mean it would actually be legal for doctors to act in the way it is claimed they did though.

horseburger · 19-04-2018 11:10PM

BarleySweets wrote: »

You are muddying the waters by mixing concerns about the current issue, to repeal the 8th or not, with hypotheticals and worrying about the legislative process. Legislation on abortion is way down the line and has absolutely nothing to do with this referendum.

I am making the point that we don't know what will be covered in legislation, if there is a majority yes vote, since the Oireachtas Committee has stated that it cannot ensure that its recommendations are implemented exactly as stated in its report.

I think the exchange between Patricia Lohr and Peter Fitzpatrick discussing grounds for approval of abortion, is very relevant to this issue, of not knowing what will be covered under new legislation.

Cabaal · 19-04-2018 11:18PM

DubInMeath wrote: »

Not here but in the six counties there have been two cases recently.

Which is a different country so it doesn't matter as it has different laws, in the Republic nobody has been charged will illegal import and use.

Even when women took pills in front of the media nobody was even stopped by gardai.

You'll notice the pro life groups remain silent too. Why? Because they know a legal case against women would put the nail in the coffin for the 8th and there would be massive public support to remove it.

So until its removal they are happy to claim Ireland is abortion free when it is anything but and women continue to take risks , incur high financial costs wait longer for abortions.

Triceratops Ballet · 19-04-2018 11:21PM

horseburger wrote:

I think the exchange between Patricia Lohr and Peter Fitzpatrick discussing grounds for approval of abortion, is very relevant to this issue, of not knowing what will be covered under new legislation.

I can't speak for everyone but since I don't oppose access to abortion on any grounds and fully support the right to choose, discussion of the grounds for approval of abortion are not a priority of mine which is why I don't feel the need to discuss them, maybe there are others that feel that way, you can't expect everyone to engage with the topic on your terms.

kneemos · 19-04-2018 11:25PM

Mary Loo,s election poster s.https://www.newstalk.com/Sinn-Fin-launches-campaign-calling-for-Yes-vote-in-Eighth-Amendment-referendum

Cabaal · 19-04-2018 11:25PM

horseburger wrote: »

I am making the point that we don't know what will be covered in legislation, if there is a majority yes vote, since the Oireachtas Committee has stated that it cannot ensure that its recommendations are implemented exactly as stated in its report.

I think the exchange between Patricia Lohr and Peter Fitzpatrick discussing grounds for approval of abortion, is very relevant to this issue, of not knowing what will be covered under new legislation.

At the end of the day NOTHING changes without the 8th being removed. If its not removed we continue to put women at risk, punishment rape victims, punishment women with a FFA etc.

If you're not happy with legislation then lobby your TDs, that's what they are for.

But voting no only punishes women who need proper medical care.

NuMarvel · 19-04-2018 11:26PM

horseburger wrote: »

I am making the point that we don't know what will be covered in legislation, if there is a majority yes vote, since the Oireachtas Committee has stated that it cannot ensure that its recommendations are implemented exactly as stated in its report.

I think the exchange between Patricia Lohr and Peter Fitzpatrick discussing grounds for approval of abortion, is very relevant to this issue, of not knowing what will be covered under new legislation.

By this logic, you must vote No in every referendum. :rolleyes:

horseburger · 19-04-2018 11:29PM

BarleySweets wrote: »

It’s a bunch of “he said, she said” for the most part. I think the crux of his issue is that he’s afraid that abortions will be allowed for Down syndrome babies. Germany allows this but Bacik said Ireland wouldn’t, but she didn’t condemn Germany’s laws sufficiently enough to impress him which makes him worry that she’s being insincere. So he’s trying to conflate that with pro-choice supporters being barbarians. As if any of that has anything to do with the referendum.

On the episode of Prime Time on 18th January 2018, Maria Steen states that Germany doesn't allow for abortion in the case of Down's Syndrome or other disabilities, but abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, is occurring in Germany under a different ground - under the ground of mental health.

Maria Steen in the Prime Time debate on 18th January 2018, stated that abortions in the case of Down's Syndrome are occurring in Germany under mental health grounds.

Ivana Bacik did not challenge this in the Prime Time debate.

It is clear that Ivana Bacik endorses the stance of Dr Patricia Lohr Medical Director of BPAS, because Ivana Bacik posted, on youtube, the video of the address to the Oireachtas Committee, by Patricia Lohr.

I am relating this to Patricia Lohr of BPAS stating clearly, at the Oireachtas Committee on 22nd November 2017, that a case of abortion for "foetal sex" reasons - sex selection - where the woman does not want a boy or girl, would be would be permitted under another ground.

It is detailed in the Oireachtas video of that days proceedings and in the transcript for that day.

Peter Fitzpatrick TD spoke at the 1 hour 58 minute mark.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=37332&&CatID=127&StartDate=01 January 2017&OrderAscending=0

https://media.heanet.ie/p/20171122+Joint+Committee+on+Eighth+Amendment+of+the+Constitution/HbnSmB

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002#N240

swampgas · 19-04-2018 11:31PM

I suspect the Pro-Life crew are afraid that they might be outnumbered by what they consider to be an immoral majority.

If the 8th is repealed, they fear, the same voters that voted to repeal the 8th would be likely to support "liberal" abortion legislation. They really don't care about democracy when it comes to abortion, in their minds it's just wrong wrong wrong no matter how many other people think it should be allowed.

And so they will fight tooth and nail, with every dirty trick in the book, to block repeal. Because they feel they are fighting the good fight, the fight to "save the lives of babies". And no amount of logic, or persuasion, or evidence, will change them. It's like arguing with religious fundamentalists.

Almost every anti-repeal poster here (not all, but most) is operating dishonestly. They know they can't win by being honest, because they know their true motivations for being against repealing the 8th are wildly unpopular. I would find it refreshing if at least one of the persistent "I'm on the fence, no really, now here's a load of vile pro-life propaganda" people would just spell out what they really think. My guess is many of them are either religiously motivated or deeply misogynistic. Some of them I feel are just irrational and (to be blunt) too stupid to grasp the arguments.

But they won't dare admit it. They will just keep on lying and spinning and wriggling and nit-picking, because their true feelings, their true beliefs, are just too repellent to the rest of us. And they know it.

Cabaal · 19-04-2018 11:31PM

kneemos wrote: »

Mary Loo,s election poster s.https://www.newstalk.com/Sinn-Fin-launches-campaign-calling-for-Yes-vote-in-Eighth-Amendment-referendum

Poster design is odd alright , but I suppose at least she's willing to put her name/face on the line for the issue. FF and FG aren't doing any posters afaik.

I say the above as somebody who doesn't support any specific party

kneemos · 19-04-2018 11:34PM

Cabaal wrote: »

Poster design is odd alright , but I suppose at least she's willing to put her name/face on the line for the issue. FF and FG aren't doing any posters afaik.

I say the above as somebody who doesn't support any specific party

It's not a political issue.

Edward M · 19-04-2018 11:38PM

kneemos wrote: »

It's not a political issue.

Of course it is!

blanch152 · 19-04-2018 11:39PM

horseburger wrote: »

I never made any comment defending campaigners of the "pro-life campaign".

There are numerous different groups campaigning on both sides of the argument.

I asked questions in relation to arguments for and against abortion.

I posted items to back up points I was making. I got criticized for posting videos, many of which were debates which included speakers representing both sides of the issue of abortion.

Humorously enough, I got criticized for including video links of debates which included speakers for and against.

Those criticizing me didn't even notice that many of the videos I referenced included arguments for abortion. You can't have a debate without the views of both sides being outlined.

One poster who would agree with Patricia Lohr's stance on abortion said that they "didn't know or care" who she was.

Anyone who has been reading up in the debate on the referendum, would know who she is, since she addressed both the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee.

Doesn't the fact that this poster, didn't know who Patricia Lohr is, suggest that that poster hasn't spent too much time considering arguments for and against?

Then a poster moaned and argued that Patricia Lohr is from the UK, and that I should not have referenced what she said, because in this poster's view, Patricia Lohr of BPAS, is irrelevant to Ireland's abortion laws.

This poster obviously doesn't know that BPAS registered the www.abortion.ie website, that links to www.bpas.co.uk.

It certainly seems clear to me that BPAS has a business interest in the repealing of the 8th amendment, and subsequent legislation in Ireland.

Despite arguments for abortion being expressed in videos of the debates that I included in my posts, with spokespersons arguing for, and against abortion, posters advocating repeal of the 8th amendment still moaned that they wouldn't watch the videos.

Some moaned on the basis that they read the thread on their phones. What am I supposed to do about the fact that they decide to use a phone, instead of something else with a wider screen?

Since the vast majority of the comments in the thread are pro repeal, it is obvious that there will be more pro repeal comments made, so as a result, more questions that can be asked of posters who advocate repeal of the 8th amendment.

One of these questions I asked was about the contradiction in claims by Ivana Bacik, that abortion will not be approved for cases of Down's Syndrome, compared to what Patricia Lohr - who is endorsed by Ivan Bacik in the way that Ivana Bacik included a video on youtube of Patricia Lohr at the Oirechtas Committee, but omitted the question answer session invlusing Peter Fitzpatrick's questions - stated, with regard to cases of abortion on the original ground of sex selection, being carried out under another ground. Maria Steen stated that in Germany, abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, are approved under mental health grounds.

I never mentioned anything in defence of groups that are campaigning for a no vote.

I asked questions, in relation to the fact that the Oireachtas Committee has stated, that it cannot be certain that the recommendations in the Committee Report will be implemented verbatim.

Considering that, we cannot be sure, of the grounds, under which abortion will be approved, in legislation enacted following the referendum, if there is a yes vote.

You just assumed, by the way you claimed that I don't mention "shortcomings" of the "pro-life campaign" that I agreed with everything stated by the various groups that argue for a no vote.

I wouldn't have bothered including videos of debates on abortion, that include speakers from both sides of the argument, if I was as intolerant of one side in the debate, as you suggest.

The great thing about the issues you raise with the legislation, is that if those fears (although they appear completely irrational to me) come to pass, the Oireachtas will be swiftly able to correct them. So if DS babies are being aborted at 24 weeks, we can change the law very easily.

Isn't that a great thing about the repeal that we both support.

19-04-2018 11:39PM

volchitsa wrote: »

I know. It can be done, if there is any appetite for it. (They've decided there is no appetite in Northern Ireland either, BTW, and have suspended the 2nd case indefinitely. Or may have dropped it quietly since.)

But the claim was that something to do with abortion was legal because nobody had been charged with it - that is the most arrant nonsense.

There is no wish for embarrassing trials that will call attention to Ireland's very dubious treatment of women, because prolife know that such a trial would only hasten the end of the law, not strengthen it. Doesn't mean it would actually be legal for doctors to act in the way it is claimed they did though.

Agree that the post you were responding to was as you put it nonsense, I'd use strong language to describe it.
I did listen to the piece on Matthew coopers show about it, where he asked a lawyer for life member if they believed if women in the republic who were found to be purchasing such pills should be charged, he tried to avoid answering the question but eventually said no.
At this time during the debate and being close to the vote, they are no going to come out and say yes and they do not wish to highlight such a case. But what if repeal is not successful, given attitudes and the laws in the north and the republic are pretty similar, who is to say what their attitude will then if/when someone is caught.
It took 35 years, numerous court cases and deaths to get a vote on repeal of the 8th if it fails this time round, it might be a while before we get another vote, so I don't think that the pro life side would care if such a case occurred if repeal failed, they don't really care what the rest of the world think of us in that sense.

kneemos · 19-04-2018 11:42PM

Edward M wrote: »

Of course it is!

No idea how it could possibly be construed as political.

Bannasidhe · 19-04-2018 11:46PM

horseburger wrote: »

On the episode of Prime Time on 18th January 2018, Maria Steen states that Germany doesn't allow for abortion in the case of Down's Syndrome or other disabilities, but abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome. is occurring in Germany under a different ground - under the ground of mental health.

Maria Steen in the Prime Time debate on 18th January 2018, stated that abortions in the case of Down's Syndrome are occurring in Germany under mental health grounds.

Ivana Bacik did not challenge this in the Prime Time debate.

It is clear that Ivana Bacik endorses the stance of Patricia Lohr of BPAS, because Ivana Bacik posted, on youtube, the video of the address to the Oireachtas Committee, of Patricia Lohr.

I am relating this to Patricia Lohr of BPAS stating clearly, at the Oireachtas Committee on 22nd November 2017, that a case of abortion for "foetal sex" reasons - sex selection - where the woman does not want a boy or girl, would be would be permitted under another ground.

It is detailed in the Oireachtas video of that days proceedings and in the transcript for that day.

Peter Fitzpatrick TD spoke at the 1 hour 58 minute mark.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=37332&&CatID=127&StartDate=01 January 2017&OrderAscending=0

https://media.heanet.ie/p/20171122+Joint+Committee+on+Eighth+Amendment+of+the+Constitution/HbnSmB

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002#N240

As an aside, If I ever had the misfortune to correct a dissertation you had written I would be employing the ol green pen a great deal to draw lines through your endless quotes and video links and asking you to tell me in your own words what exactly your opinion as I can read/see for myself what *insert name here* says/thinks should I wish to know their opinion/position.

You'd be lucky to get a pass tbh.

horseburger · 20-04-2018 12:01AM

blanch152 wrote: »

The great thing about the issues you raise with the legislation, is that if those fears (although they appear completely irrational to me) come to pass, the Oireachtas will be swiftly able to correct them. So if DS babies are being aborted at 24 weeks, we can change the law very easily.

Isn't that a great thing about the repeal that we both support.

You are missing the point.

In Germany, it is not permitted to approve of abortions in cases of disabilities like Down's Syndrome, but abortions are being approved of, in Germany, in cases of Down's Syndrome, under mental health grounds.

The issue, as a result of that is, that if an abortion sought, is not permitted on the ground originally sought, that the abortion can be approved of, under another ground.

Therefore there is no certainty that an abortion - that is sought for a reason not permitted in legislation as a ground for abortion - isn't occurring under another ground for abortion.

Dr Patricia Lohr Medical Director of BPAS, stated at the Oireachtas Committee meeting on 22nd November 2017, that if an abortion - that is sought on the basis of not wanting to continue the pregnancy, on the basis of whether the "foetal sex" is male or female - is not permitted on the ground sought, of sex selection, or as phrased by Dr Patricia Lohr "foetal sex", that the abortion can be permitted under another ground.

horseburger · 20-04-2018 12:02AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

As an aside, If I ever had the misfortune to correct a dissertation you had written I would be employing the ol green pen a great deal to draw lines through your endless quotes and video links and asking you to tell me in your own words what exactly your opinion as I can read/see for myself what *insert name here* says/thinks should I wish to know their opinion/position.

You'd be lucky to get a pass tbh.

Thanks for that worthwhile contribution and attempt to avoid the issue I am highlighting.

Bannasidhe · 20-04-2018 12:05AM

horseburger wrote: »

Thanks for that worthwhile contribution and attempt to avoid the issue I am highlighting.

You are not highlighting.
You are regurgitating.

horseburger · 20-04-2018 12:07AM

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You are not highlighting.
You are regurgitating.

I responded to someone who mistakenly thought that Germany allows for abortion on the ground of Down's Syndrome.

It isn't my fault they misread what I wrote.

gctest50 · 20-04-2018 12:17AM

horseburger wrote: »

......

I am relating this to Patricia Lohr of BPAS stating clearly, at the Oireachtas Committee on 22nd November 2017, that a case of abortion for "foetal sex" reasons - sex selection - where the woman does not want a boy or girl, would be would be permitted under another ground.......

FUD yet again

If a woman in Ireland wants to select gender, and she has the money and can travel, she can do it right now

Bannasidhe · 20-04-2018 12:29AM

horseburger wrote: »

I responded to someone who mistakenly thought that Germany allows for abortion on the ground of Down's Syndrome.

It isn't my fault they misread what I wrote.

I was referring to your endless stream of this person said blah blah... then later this other person said yada yada... and now here are some you tube clips.

That is not discussing. It's regurgitating.

You, personally, are saying little and most of that is waffle. Or off topic as it is not relevant to Ireland, republic of.

I reckon you're looking at a grade of about 45% - and I'm grading on the curve so your mark is generous only because there have been some truly dire and off topic posts.

The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Comments