Graces7 wrote: » Not true. The only losers in all this are the babies being deprived of life itself , and all those who enable that .
Wrongway1985 wrote: » Down here?? Where do you think you are? many miles away is it? The problems with the healthcare system are irrelevant to the issue, they need to be alleviated in time sure (not Shur btw :pac:) but using that as an excuse to block services to block a portion of women just because they live up the road is of low mentality. Our countries women were given help in other countries for years and one of your ideas is to ensure our country denies other women? Bizarre.
JRant wrote: » We most certainly shouldn't be blocking anyone from using the services but they should pay for the costs involved. The health system is most certainly pertinent to the discussion whether you like it or not. It cannot provide this service free of charge to all and sundry. If it's a medical emergency/FFA/exceptional circumstances then absolutely the State should support it but for the rest it needs to be paid for by the end user.
Shurimgreat wrote: » A walkover? 66.4% of a 64% turnout. Nearly 60% of the electorate didn't support repeal or the legislation to follow it. Of the 64% who voted, nearly 50% don't support unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. So something like 67% or 2/3rds of the registered electorate do not support unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks. Only 1/3rd support unrestricted abortion. Doesn't sound over-whelming to me! So the stats can be used in many ways to look at the result. Either way the mandate for unrestricted abortion is weak to say the least.
Hammer Archer wrote: » By your logic, the mandate to enact the 8th back in 1983 was even weaker. 65% of the electorate didn't support it given the 53.7% turnout.
Barbara Melted Bassoon wrote: » I'm getting sick to death of the attitude of many No voters. I admit to voting No myself, for reasons that are irrelevant here. But these No voters going on about a sizeable minority are delusional and I wonder what they define a landslide result as. Then they are trumpeting about protests at clinics etc. Well how dare they protest with holy rosaries in front of people who may be going through turmoil.
AllForIt wrote: » What boils my nut about this hysterial spinning is that she thinks us lay ppl are so stupid that we are going to swallow her garbage talk.
iguana wrote: » Why are they getting the platform they are getting? Why is it that the handful of people that are so desperately trying to hold Ireland back getting so much airtime and column inches? Why are Breda O'Brien, Cora Sherlock, David Quinn, Ronan Mullens and Maria Steen all so, so prominent? Obviously they push for those positions of authority for themselves but why the hell are the media not just promoting their nonsense but paying them for it?
It wasnt me123 wrote: » Boo feckin Hoo Cry me a river, build a bridge and get over yourself. Even some of the God botherers voted Yes. Pity you aren't so bothered about the 800 babies thrown into a septic tank in Tuam. So you force women to carry a baby to 9 months, then feck it in a sess pit once its born. Theres compassion for you, RCC style.
AllForIt wrote: » After the gay marraige ref results were confirmed I will never forget Breda O'Brien of IONA being asked on a RTE panel discussion for her reaction and I paraphrase "It is now time to listen to the 700,000 odd people who voted No. WHAT? After they had their way for so long and were outnumbered 2/1 roughly. In her latest IT commentary her headline goes "Referendum result does not override conscience - Anti-abortion medics feel threatened and fearful in a newly intolerant Ireland"What boils my nut about this hysterial spinning is that she thinks us lay ppl are so stupid that we are going to swallow her garbage talk.
retro:electro wrote: » What about the babies deprived of live who were thrown in a septic tank. The ones sold to wealthy Americans and still search high and low to this very day for their birth certs? The babies who were trusted in the care of the church only for that trust to be abused as they were raped and abused. What about those babies? And all those who enabled it? You don’t give a flying fiddly fcuk about babies once they’re born and can be manipulated and molded by your toxic practises.
AllForIt wrote: » After the gay marraige ref results were confirmed I will never forget Breda O'Brien of IONA being asked on a RTE panel discussion for her reaction and I paraphrase "It is now time to listen to the 700,000 odd people who voted No. WHAT? After they had their way for so long and were outnumbered 2/1 roughly. In her latest IT commentary her headline goes "Referendum result does not override conscience - Anti-abortion medics feel threatened and fearful in a newly intolerant Ireland" What boils my nut about this hysterial spinning is that she thinks us lay ppl are so stupid that we are going to swallow her garbage talk.
Shurimgreat wrote: » Do you accept that if the Tuam babies were conceived today many if not most would be aborted? Would you consider this a more humane outcome for them? Most aborted babies via abortion pills also end up in septic tanks. Sorry to be graphic about it but thats the truth. Tuam babies in septic tanks bad. Aborted foetuses in septic tanks good. Such is modern Ireland.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » Yes, aborting a foetus is a significantly better option than killing a living baby. Are you seriously asking this?
Shurimgreat wrote: » No side does not equal Iona Institute. Its the equivalent of saying white america equals KKK are something like that. Its really not that difficult.
end of the road wrote: » what makes you bothered about the babies in tuam and graces7 not bothered about them? because you voted the "correct" way? graces7's posts on the issue (which i have read) show the complete opposite to what you claim.
Phoebas wrote: » During the campaign the No side chose Iona institute people to represent them in various of the debates, so it's not so easy to disown them now. If you don't want to be associated with the KKK, don't put the KKK forward to represent you on Prime Time.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » I'll take your word for it, you seem to be an expert.
spookwoman wrote: » Do you think this is acceptable instead? "In 2014 it was revealed in a report compiled by Michael Dwyer of Cork University’s School of History 2,051 children from state-run homes were used as medical guinea pigs for the pharma giant Burroughs Wellcome during the 1930s. " or this "Before Dwyer’s 2012 report, a damning report by the Irish government’s Health Service Executive (HSE) found that the Irish Catholic mother and child homes had an infant mortality rate of 68% in 1943. The report shows that, according to the Register of Deaths, Bessborough Mother and Baby home during certain months in the 1940s the death rate among children living in the home amounted to a child dying roughly every second day." or this "More than 80 of the 472 infant deaths have malnutrition listed as the cause of death."
Shurimgreat wrote: » Can anyone post links to articles or speeches pre the referendum where prominent leaders of the Yes campaign advocated free no fee abortions in Ireland for non hard cases? It would have been nice if they were more up front about it. I don't recall Simon Harris mentioning it in the debates or other yes debaters. Something they held back it seems.
end of the road wrote: » agreed, however it wasn't the ordinary no voters who nominateed them. so we aren't associated with them in any way.
