The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

DOS wrote: »

seamus wrote: »

There is no way to allow termination in the case of rape without repealing the eighth.

If you support the eighth, then you support forcing rape victims to carry their rapist's child.

It's that black-and-white. Even if it only occurred once a decade, it's sick, and it's unacceptable.

The rapist should be dealt with. Not an innocent life taken.

I am sick to the teeth of prolifers wailing about this.

Rapists don't get dealt with because the nature of the crime is such that the reasonable doubt bar is a very high one to pass. A shockingly low number of complaints result in actual convictions and unless you want to change the innocent until _proven_ guilty doctrine which I would generally advise against that is not going to change.

Meanwhile woman's life is still utterly screwed up. I don't they should be compelled to comply with your moral code on this if they don't agree and are 12 weeks or less into their pregnancy. Going after the rapist is entirely separate.

He didn’t answer it, again.

DOS wrote: »

Simon Harris speaks effeminately. There you go. It's neither bad nor good but he's no Sean Connery.

Why exactly is that a bad thing?

Must all men be like Sean Connery to gain your approval?

You really don't seem to have gotten the hang of the non-judgemental love thing tbh.

This barrister seems to be the only one with a brain in his head.

Says clauses could have been added to the eighth cover FFA and rape.

Simi wrote: »

Charisma might be a poor word choice. But she is definitely their strongest card.

Which is why I was surprised to hear she pulled out of the debate tomorrow. Her Vs Colm O'Gorman wasn't a pretty thought...