Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Options
1…275276278280281…334

Comments

  • Options
    #8312
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,285 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    What would be the point of such protests from the pro-life POV anyway though? Presumably to actually deter the GP clinic in question from distributing the abortion pill.

    GPs just prescribe though.

    I wouldn't be too surprised if they tried going after pharmacies in small towns.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #8313
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    eviltwin wrote: »
    Funny that pro life groups see an issue with forcing a doctor to do their job but no issue with forcing a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy.

    The absolute lack of acknowledgement shown towards the woman in these scenarios is genuinely disturbing.

    "protect the unborn! no abortions at all costs! no abortions whatsoever!"

    *8th gets repealed*

    "protect the doctors and their right to conscientiously object!!"

    At what point does the pregnant woman's wants, needs and necessities tie into this? At what point will the woman no longer be ignored?

    Would it not be more constructive to yano, focus on the woman now that the 8th is done? She has a pro-life GP who objects? That's fine, let's all work together in helping her as she is the one who requires assistance, care and support and come up with a system so that the pro-life GP's rights are not infringed yet this hypothetical woman can still have access made available to her outlining her options/requested assistance.


  • Options
    #8314
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,285 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    What was their slogan again, "Its too extreme, vote No and demand a better solution from the government".

    Some people seem to have short memories.

    The slogan they came up with in the last week or so of the campaign when they knew it was lost! Nobody believed them, of course.

    They had 35 years to come up with alternatives, to provide compassion to women carrying fatal foetal abnormalities, etc. etc. they did precisely fcuk-all to help women. Blocked information via the courts until we had a referendum to stop them. Tried to roll back the right to travel twice by referendum. Objected to POLDPA which was literally the bare minimum legislation to try to stop pregnant women from dying.

    They don't give a damn about women, that much should be obvious by now.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #8315
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Most abortions are not undertaken because women don't wish to go through pregnancy; they're undertaken because they don't wish to go through motherhood.
    Have you got the numbers for the euro-millions there?

    Just asking because you quite clearly seem to have some insight into the unknown unless of course this is an absolutely ridiculous, ignorant and downright moronic claim.

    https://www.bpas.org/about-our-charity/press-office/press-releases/abortion-statistics-show-increase-in-abortions-to-older-women-mothers-and-those-in-relationships/
    17 May 2016

    Abortion statistics show increase in abortions to older women, mothers, and those in relationships

    • Over past decade, abortion rates among younger age groups has decreased, but increased among over 30s.
    • Increase in proportion of women having abortions who are with a partner or already married, from 48% in 2005 to 70% in 2015.
    • Majority (54%) of women ending a pregnancy were already mothers.
    • Barriers to contraceptive services and misleading warnings about fertility may contribute to increasing abortion rate among older women.

    Just to follow up, there's evidence to refute your claim, I really think you should apologize for making such a crass generalization of why women seek abortions.


  • Options
    #8316
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    GPs just prescribe though.

    I wouldn't be too surprised if they tried going after pharmacies in small towns.

    AFAIK the pill will be prescribed and supplied via gp services under the current proposals. Pharmacy issues may arise in hospitals where the pill is used.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8317
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    Igotadose wrote: »
    But they'll be sowing doubt via media coverage, which is what they want. Need to nip this in the bud - legislation should include criminal penalties and some certainty of incarceration, none of the endless 'dozens of convictions but never spent time in jail' stuff that's pervasive in Ireland.


    the thing is jail is unlikely to stop the type of people who would be willing to protest outside a gp, from doing so. they would simply see jail as a part of the cause. the existing laws i think, do the job quite well in relation to the issues some protesters may cause.
    eviltwin wrote: »
    Funny that pro life groups see an issue with forcing a doctor to do their job but no issue with forcing a woman to endure an unwanted pregnancy.

    we have no issue with a doctor being forced to do their job. we have an issue with a doctor being forced to have a part in taking the life of an unborn human being. we have no issue with insuring an unborn life can't be taken because they have a right to life as far as we are concerned.
    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    The slogan they came up with in the last week or so of the campaign when they knew it was lost! Nobody believed them, of course.

    They had 35 years to come up with alternatives, to provide compassion to women carrying fatal foetal abnormalities, etc. etc. they did precisely fcuk-all to help women. Blocked information via the courts until we had a referendum to stop them. Tried to roll back the right to travel twice by referendum. Objected to POLDPA which was literally the bare minimum legislation to try to stop pregnant women from dying.

    They don't give a damn about women, that much should be obvious by now.

    the opposition didn't exactly do much about the same issues either. in fact, a number of them, would like to see the end of the likes of the wellfare state.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #8318
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,285 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Really? AFAIK GPs don't keep a stock of drugs apart from what they might have in their emergency bag or whatever (if they still have those things. 35-40 years ago our GP used to do house calls with his big leather satchel full of who knows what... and if you were lucky he'd have a couple of doses of what you needed on him to keep you going until you could get to a chemist) and given that someone calculated that each GP will probably only see a few abortion cases a year, is each GP really going to keep a stock of in-date abortion pills in stock?

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #8319
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,285 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    end of the road wrote: »
    the opposition didn't exactly do much about the same issues either. in fact, a number of them, would like to see the end of the likes of the wellfare state.

    The opposition? The opposition to the 8th amendment could do little while it was still in place - but they did campaign for information and travel rights - offer post abortion counselling - offer assistance via the Abortion Support Network, and try to build support for change.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #8320
    Loafing Oaf
    Registered Users Posts: 16,123 ✭✭✭✭Loafing Oaf


    end of the road wrote: »
    the thing is jail is unlikely to stop the type of people who would be willing to protest outside a gp, from doing so. they would simply see jail as a part of the cause.

    Hmm I'd still say there's fairly big leap in commitment level between "prepared to protest outside a GP" and "prepared to go to prison," particularly among the conservative middle-class types who make up the backbone of the pro-life movement.

    I'd say almost as big a disincentive to these type of protests is the threat of making yourself a pariah in your community. If you're outside your local GP in a small town, or even a fairly large town, screaming in people's faces, blocking them from going in and out, you're going to make yourself a lot of enemies, even among people who would be broadly sympathetic to the pro-life movement.


  • Options
    #8321
    lazygal
    Registered Users Posts: 12,644 ✭✭✭✭lazygal


    Hotblack Desiato wrote: »
    Really? AFAIK GPs don't keep a stock of drugs apart from what they might have in their emergency bag or whatever (if they still have those things. 35-40 years ago our GP used to do house calls with his big leather satchel full of who knows what... and if you were lucky he'd have a couple of doses of what you needed on him to keep you going until you could get to a chemist) and given that someone calculated that each GP will probably only see a few abortion cases a year, is each GP really going to keep a stock of in-date abortion pills in stock?

    My GP practice would have vaccines in stock, and if we requested one not on the schedule it'd be ordered by the practice and we'd pay for it. The pills could be ordered within the three day waiting period.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8322
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    end of the road wrote: »
    i think the majority of protesters outside the clinics are there just to provide information providing alternatives to abortion.
    You might provide some evidence to support that assertion - there are plenty of videos around the place posted by all kinds of people documenting the harassment and intimidation of women attending women's health clinics.


  • Options
    #8323
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    robindch wrote: »
    You might provide some evidence to support that assertion - there are plenty of videos around the place posted by all kinds of people documenting the harassment and intimidation of women attending women's health clinics.


    i did look for some but nothing is turning up via google so far. have you any ideas as to what i should specifically look for?

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #8324
    uptherebels
    Registered Users Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭uptherebels


    end of the road wrote: »
    i did look for some but nothing is turning up via google so far. have you any ideas as to what i should specifically look for?

    Is that what happened all those other times you refused to provide evidence of your claims?
    Usually the idea is to have the evidence beforehand so as to use it to form an opinion - instead of making it up and looking for evidence after being called on it


  • Options
    #8325
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    end of the road wrote: »


    i did look for some but nothing is turning up via google so far. have you any ideas as to what i should specifically look for?
    Evidence for the problems that abortion cause would be great while you're at it


  • Options
    #8326
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,403 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    end of the road wrote: »
    i did look for some but nothing is turning up via google so far. have you any ideas as to what i should specifically look for?
    Any evidence which supports your ludicrous claim that the majority of people who hang around women's medical clinics harassing and intimidating people are there because they're kind, caring and civil individuals.


  • Options
    #8327
    Igotadose
    Registered Users Posts: 13,119 ✭✭✭✭Igotadose


    Loafing Oaf wrote: »
    Hmm I'd still say there's fairly big leap in commitment level between "prepared to protest outside a GP" and "prepared to go to prison," particularly among the conservative middle-class types who make up the backbone of the pro-life movement.

    I'd say almost as big a disincentive to these type of protests is the threat of making yourself a pariah in your community. If you're outside your local GP in a small town, or even a fairly large town, screaming in people's faces, blocking them from going in and out, you're going to make yourself a lot of enemies, even among people who would be broadly sympathetic to the pro-life movement.
    And... where do you think they'll come from? Like the pro-life foot soldiers during the referendum, paid antagonists from the US or the UK. Iona'll probably book their plane tickets for 'em.


  • Options
    #8328
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,340 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    end of the road wrote: »
    murder is killing. the difference between murder and other forms of killing is that murder is deliberate, and can be pre-meditated.

    So it seems your entire "abortion is murder" schtick which you hold until people point it out, at which point you deny ever using the word, is based on nothing more than you having YOUR OWN definition of the word "murder" and the difference between it and the word "killing" that in no way reflects the meaning most people, and most dictionaries, use for it.

    Because in general, and in dictionaries, the distinction between "murder" and "killing" is not at all based on premeditation or deliberation. The real distinction is based on it being "unlawful" for example. You can in fact, contrary to your own invented definition, engage in a completely premeditated and completely planned and completely intentional "killing" that is in no way "murder".

    The likely source of your lack of understanding of the word is that premeditation is indeed one of the prerequisites of "murder" in many definitions. But it is not the distinction between it and "killing". If you ask google to "define murder" for example it will tell you "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another." and "kill (someone) unlawfully and with premeditation."

    So to dumb it down a little for you the distinction between murder and killing is not premeditation. The distinction is that while both are ending a life, there is a difference in the level of justification or legality or in fact the very concept that you have to justify it at all in the first place... which people like yourself tend to just assume we have to do. Abortion is simply not murder if it is justified and/or legal. The word murder simply does not apply. Though given the negative connotations of the word murder, and the lack of arguments against abortion you and your cohort have, I can very much sympathize with your emotional need for such a word to be relevant. It would import a negativity around the subject that does not actually exist in rational argument.

    The rest of us however realize that there are MANY reasons to value human life, but none of those reasons apply to the fetus at 0-12 weeks when the near totality of elective abortions occur. So we have people like yourself using emotive words like "Murder" or people like Pete using emotive imagery like waggling tongues.... none of which are in any way relevant to the actual ethical and moral questions around abortion and hence did not stay the hand of the significant majority who voted against you in the recent referendum.
    end of the road wrote: »
    we have no issue with a doctor being forced to do their job. we have an issue with a doctor being forced to have a part in taking the life of an unborn human being.

    They aren't. That is just the narrative YOU and your ilk wish to put on it. The doctors job should be seen as nothing more than to assess a patients compatibility with a certain treatment. To assess a drug, to assess a patient, and to decide if one fits the other and if so to sign off on their right to access that treatment.

    It is the patients choice, upon receiving the rubber stamp of eligibility, what to then do with that. The doctor is not being "forced" to take part in anything at all. They are solely being asked to asses the patient, the drug, and whether there is any reason in their medical opinion why the specific patient should not take that drug.

    This is why I have little or no sympathy for the "conscience" excuse of allowing doctors not to do their job in a given scenario. The doctor is NOT being asked to assess the morality or ethics behind any given treatment. They are ONLY being asked to asses whether the drug will do what the patient requires of it, and whether the drug for any reason should be precluded a specific patient in specific cases.

    Put short, a doctors job should be to mediate knowledge of a drug, its effects and its side effects. Not to mediate the morality of the decisions involved in actually taking it.
    end of the road wrote: »
    we have no issue with insuring an unborn life can't be taken because they have a right to life as far as we are concerned.

    Which is well phrased. As far as YOU are concerned. But your personal beliefs are just that, personal. They are not represented in law, nor should they be. They are not represented in the result of the last referendum, nor did anyone but you expect them to be. And they should not impact the role of a doctor, or the obligations incumbent upon someone who our society licenses with that title. As far as your own personal beliefs are concerned you really need to design a bridge, build it, and get over it. Because they simply are not relevant to reality outside your head at this time. Better luck in the next referendum/vote I guess. But at this time we should be discussing the doctors role in relation to the reality before us, rather than the reality you would prefer.
    end of the road wrote: »
    the opposition didn't exactly do much about the same issues either. in fact, a number of them, would like to see the end of the likes of the wellfare state.

    I have no idea who those people are. The only person I can think of who is described by that is the local "poe" catholic poster on the subject of abortion who presented himself as entirely pro choice.... extremely so, even advocating abortion up until birth....... pretty much up to the time the referendum was announced at which point he suddenly conveniently switched to his actual real extreme anti abortion position almost over night.

    Since then he was advocating not only a removal of all social welfare, specifically support for single mothers as it happens, but also the concept that pregnancy was the only motivation for lower class women to better themselves and so abortion was a form of oppressing the poor by forcing them to remain unmotivated! A real Anjezë Gonxhe Bojaxhiu position of worshiping poverty by presenting it as a positive motivator on the basis that enforcing suffering on people is a way to compel them to excel or improve. Horrific stuff!

    Other than the class hated and the extreme misogyny inherent in that frankly disgusting position, I am not really seeing anyone of note conflating abortion with social welfare issues. Perhaps you have a few names you can list off, but I doubt it is a significant number of people in general.


  • Options
    #8329
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    robindch wrote: »
    Any evidence which supports your ludicrous claim that the majority of people who hang around women's medical clinics harassing and intimidating people are there because they're kind, caring and civil individuals.

    to be fair, i never stated that the majority of people who are protesting outside abortion clinics with sinister intentions are kind caring and civil individuals. if i had made such a claim, then i would agree that it would be ludicrous.
    what i stated, and it's an opinion rather then a claim, is that the majority of people who are protesting outside the clinics are there simply to protest and hand out information, and are not there to harass or intimidate, or for any other sinister intentions. there is nothing documented that i can find that could be considered proof that it is the case, but on a personal level i would find it hard to believe most people would intentionally engage in such tactics. some would and i have never denied that fact.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #8330
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    to be fair, i never stated that the majority of people who are protesting outside abortion clinics with sinister intentions are kind caring and civil individuals. if i had made such a claim, then i would agree that it would be ludicrous.
    what i stated, and it's an opinion rather then a claim, is that the majority of people who are protesting outside the clinics are there simply to protest and hand out information, and are not there to harass or intimidate, or for any other sinister intentions. there is nothing documented that i can find that could be considered proof that it is the case, but on a personal level i would find it hard to believe most people would intentionally engage in such tactics. some would and i have never denied that fact.

    Well if its merely your opinion, you need to stop passing it off as an actual fact then.


  • Options
    #8331
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,285 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    It's also clearly nonsense. Harassment and intimidation are their intention.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8332
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    end of the road wrote: »
    what i stated, and it's an opinion rather then a claim, is that the majority of people who are protesting outside the clinics are there simply to protest and hand out information
    And can we assume that it's also your opinion that abortion will cause problems for society, thus can dismiss it as equally misinformed and willfully ignorant?

    Cause you haven't provided evidence for this, nevermind actually outlined what those problems actually are.


  • Options
    #8333
    Calina
    Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭Calina


    end of the road wrote: »
    lazygal wrote: »
    All pregnancy involves serious medical matters. Pregnancy takes an enormous toll on the body. No one should be denied any care they need, be it abortion, C section or home birth.

    abortion on demand should be denied as it's unnecessary. where there is a serious issue which involves a threat to the life of the mother then absolutely it shouldn't be denied.

    All abortions are on demand including the few cases you might deign to consider necessary.

    What matters is who gets to make the final decision in each individual case. I contend that it should be the pregnant women herself because to be honest unlike you, she probably has all the required information to make such a decision.


  • Options
    #8334
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,286 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    end of the road wrote: »
    i did look for some but nothing is turning up via google so far. have you any ideas as to what i should specifically look for?

    Isn't it standard practice to have evidence for a claim BEFORE making it rather than making a claim and trying to find the evidence afterwards?


  • Options
    #8335
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,286 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    end of the road wrote: »
    to be fair, i never stated that the majority of people who are protesting outside abortion clinics with sinister intentions are kind caring and civil individuals. if i had made such a claim, then i would agree that it would be ludicrous.
    what i stated, and it's an opinion rather then a claim, is that the majority of people who are protesting outside the clinics are there simply to protest and hand out information, and are not there to harass or intimidate, or for any other sinister intentions. there is nothing documented that i can find that could be considered proof that it is the case, but on a personal level i would find it hard to believe most people would intentionally engage in such tactics. some would and i have never denied that fact.

    argument from incredulity is not an argument


  • Options
    #8336
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    end of the road wrote: »
    what i stated, and it's an opinion rather then a claim, is that the majority of people who are protesting outside the clinics are there simply to protest and hand out information, and are not there to harass or intimidate, or for any other sinister intentions. there is nothing documented that i can find that could be considered proof that it is the case, but on a personal level i would find it hard to believe most people would intentionally engage in such tactics. some would and i have never denied that fact.

    I just remembered a previous statement you made on this:
    end of the road wrote: »
    the difference is abortion workers are engaging in, or taking part in some way, in the act of killing. therefore i won't have a huge amount of sympathy for them, unless they are the victim of something serious such as assault or death threats or violent crime, of which the law will punish.
    if they are just being called names as is mostly what happens, then to me it's not really different to say, insulting clampers.

    You have deliberately changed your position so you could play dumb.
    You are a liar and you are not engaging on good faith.


  • Options
    #8337
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,001 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    King Mob wrote: »
    I just remembered a previous statement you made on this:


    You have deliberately changed your position so you could play dumb.
    You are a liar and you are not engaging on good faith.

    i haven't changed my position, i can hold both of those views and i believe they don't cancel each other out.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #8338
    King Mob
    Registered Users Posts: 25,229 ✭✭✭✭King Mob


    end of the road wrote: »
    i haven't changed my position, i can hold both of those views and i believe they don't cancel each other out.
    Ahh... So people are there to mostly insult people and mostly hand out information? Right...

    Also your constant ignoring of questions and points also shows your dishonesty and your bad faith style of debate.


  • Options
    #8339
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,567 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    end of the road wrote: »
    to be fair, i never stated that the majority of people who are protesting outside abortion clinics with sinister intentions are kind caring and civil individuals. if i had made such a claim, then i would agree that it would be ludicrous.
    what i stated, and it's an opinion rather then a claim, is that the majority of people who are protesting outside the clinics are there simply to protest and hand out information, and are not there to harass or intimidate, or for any other sinister intentions. there is nothing documented that i can find that could be considered proof that it is the case, but on a personal level i would find it hard to believe most people would intentionally engage in such tactics. some would and i have never denied that fact.

    Well that's a way of stating an opinion that there may well be sinister-minded anti-abortion protestors amongst the majority of anti-abortion protestors outside abortion clinics who would have sinister intentions in respect to others attending such clinics.

    One thing is that we don't have abortion clinics here. We do have advice centres and a maternity hospital outside which there were anti abortion protests.

    Now that you've raised the spectre of there being anti-abortion protesors with sinister intentions here being a fact, what do you intend doing about those anti-abortion protestors and their sinister intentions?


  • Options
    #8340
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,567 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    On one European's view of abortion, it seems that our decision on the 8th amendment referendum vote was discussed in Poland in May and one woman there [Kaja Godek] representing the anti-abortion campaign thinks it is monstrous that Ireland should be defined as a catholic country. Kaja [who describes herself as Pro-life & Pro family] included that as part of her opinion that the Prime Minister [Leo Varadkar] flaunted his bizarre perversion [homosexualty] to the people. Referring to the LGBT rainbow flag, she's upset that it has had the colour blue removed from it as it's the colour of the Virgin Mary.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #8341
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,732 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    aloyisious wrote: »
    On one European's view of abortion, it seems that our decision on the 8th amendment referendum vote was discussed in Poland in May and one woman there [Kaja Godek] representing the anti-abortion campaign thinks it is monstrous that Ireland should be defined as a catholic country. Kaja [who describes herself as Pro-life & Pro family] included that as part of her opinion that the Prime Minister [Leo Varadkar] flaunted his bizarre perversion [homosexualty] to the people. Referring to the LGBT rainbow flag, she's upset that it has had the colour blue removed from it as it's the colour of the Virgin Mary.

    Did I hear somewhere that she's been called to task on the statement about Leo and he's to be called as a witness? Radio snippet maybe, I'll see if I can find the reference.

    Edit: Covered in the IT here
    A leading anti-abortion campaigner in Poland says she will not apologise for referring to Taoiseach Leo Varadkar’s homosexuality as perversion, even if ordered to do so by a Warsaw court.

    On Thursday Kaja Godek was sued by 16 members of Poland’s lesbian and gay community for television remarks last May, repeated in recent days, that she viewed Mr Varadkar’s homosexuality as a “perversion”.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement