A_Lost_Man wrote: » abortion is necessary because someday the world is going to die due to over population. In past religious leaders ban abortion because of less population and due to non availability of psy. But know there is psy everwhere.
A_Lost_Man wrote: » Actually i was referring to "pussy". My point was in past due to non availibility of females for marriages (fvking ceremonies) church needed to increase their strength and they ban abortion and there was a problem with church it thought the human population is very less and to increase their followers they ban abortion for their personal beneift but know it is not a issue.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/election-2020-abortion-no-longer-an-issue-on-most-doorsteps-1.4164000 TDs saying the issue is not coming up on the doorsteps...
PopePalpatine wrote: » I'm honestly considering giving low preferences to the FG trio just to put a dent in Toibin's chances.
smacl wrote: » I suspect we're going to end up with a rainbow coalition of some sort, with all the variety and appeal of a pavement pizza after a night on the lash, which will last six months tops. Toibin would fit right in. It is a sad state of affairs where your candidate selection runs from least worst to totally abhorrent.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » "I have had people from the pro-choice side say they are giving me their vote simply because in Irish politics so many people stick their finger in the air to see what way the wind is blowing, and people see politicians as flip-floppy and careerists and doing what they need to do to keep their seats,” Mr Tóibín said. yeah right, if he told me it was going to rain tomorrow I wouldn't believe him... As for being an opportunist on abortion, surely that applies to him, it was his chance to make a name for himself, Lucinda tried the same thing and it worked out great for her :pac:
Bannasidhe wrote: » I'm lucky - I have 2 candidates who I would vote for anyway. Mind you - only one of them has even the slightest chance of being elected it would be frankly amazing if they ended up within an asses roar of being in govt. But I can write 1 and 2 with a clear conscience.
smacl wrote: » A friend of mine's voting technique is to select your candidates from 1 to 9 in order of number of slaps you'd like to give them. Works for me
Peregrinus wrote: » But what if there is no candidate with whom you feel you could confine yourself to just the one slap?
A couple in Ireland who had a serious foetal diagnosis but – and you know this is coming – not serious enough for Ireland to perform the abortion. What struck us about this case was something we’ve seen happen with two other clients. They are given a foetal diagnosis, told the diagnosis is bad but not bad enough to get treatment in Ireland, and that there is nothing the hospital can do other than advise them to travel to England for a termination. All that is frustrating, but understandable given Ireland’s law. But. But. What we’ve been hearing about are doctors who make the process more difficult and shaming by telling these parents that they “need to wait” before travelling to England until more tests are done. The phrase used is “You will feel better about the termination if you know everything that is wrong with the baby.” In this and the two other cases, the doctors have been clear that the test results have no chance of either showing no abnormality or showing that the issue will be serious enough to enable termination in Ireland. They are simply trying to make people in this situation delay travelling, and trying to use guilt and shame to do so.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » From the Abortion Support Network's recent newsletter: Absolutely scummy, unethical and unprofessional behaviour. Of course the later an abortion happens, the more traumatic and expensive it is, the fewer places which can perform it, and even in the UK there are term limits.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » There was a safe areas measure in the bill, but they removed it
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » I don't give a toss about them or their reasons, people have a right to access healthcare facilities without being harassed.
end of the road wrote: » harassment is already illegal. already covered and dealt with by existing law. protesting is perfectly legal, and if anyone does go over board the law is already perfectly capable of dealing with it. so you have no complaint, apart from the fact people have a different view to you, for which i'm afraid you are going to just have to deal with as the rest of us do on a daily basis.
end of the road wrote: » in certain circumstances as long as it is non-violent, i think i likely would think it may be a proportionate responce, but it should be done after all other protest mechanisms have been tried with no result. a private home is not comparable to a building however in my view.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Tell me, do you think it is reasonable for people to 'protest' outside a politicians home?
Bannasidhe wrote: » But why should a politician's neighbours, children etc be subject to the disruption of a protest outside their private residence? Do people not have the right to go about their private lives in peace - especially had no input into/influence over whatever is being protested?
