nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

RBG, abortion and Ireland

8kczg9v0swrydm

The death of RBG and the fight over the US Supreme Court got me thinking. It is clear that the new nomination is so fiercely contested because of abortion. In a way, the US Supreme Court is the guarantor of abortion - if the judge-made law of Roe v Wade was not in place, it is likely that Trump and Congress would make abortion a thing of the past.

The way I see it, Roe v Wade was foisted upon the American people. Abortion was a "value" of the liberal elites, who constituted a large part the court, but it was not a value for the majority of American citizens. The American population began to further recoil from it with the discovery of ultrasound scans, which clearly showed that the fetus very early on developed a head, limbs and a heartbeat; that it was a little human being. The stance on abortion is now one of the key factors in US elections and appointments.

The liberal-controlled mainstream media is doubling down on it's attack on Trump and populism, a movement which is seeking to stand up for the interests of the people against the liberal elites. Another pro-life judge in the US Supreme Court could mean the end of their cherished abortion project. They are going all-out.

Ireland, on the other hand, seems completely different. We brought in abortion after ultrasound images became available. What the American people are fighting tooth and nail to free themselves from, what had to be imposed on them by the courts because it would never be legal otherwise, we have foisted upon ourselves through a popular referendum.

I struggle to understand it.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

nolivesmatter

Deleted User wrote: »

G'way you chancer. The majority of conservatives are pro-war. Not too fond of poor people either. Tend to begrudge refugees some refuge in large numbers too.

Take your valuing of all life elsewhere as it won't wash in here.

As George Carlin succinctly put it...

"Once you leave the womb, conservatives don't care about you until you reach military age. Then you're just what they're looking for. Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers."

That's a terrible quote for you to reference. It acknowledges the life that is aborted as a baby, something most pro-choice people try to deny ("it's just a clump of cells" kind of argument). It's also another broad sweeping statement about people who are pro-life. And even if it was accurate it's basically saying "Conservatives want live babies so they can raise them to be dead soldiers. But don't worry, liberals will abort babies so that can't happen.".

[Deleted User]

Bonniedog wrote: »

They based Roe v Wade judgement on a "right to privacy" that is a pretty strange interpretation of the 14th Amendment which nowhere mentions any "right to privacy."

But of course you don't know that

The ruling was based on the 9th Amendment.

Bonniedog wrote: »

This is what passes for leftie "intellectual" argument is it?

Would you not be better off reading a few books?

As for the war thing, Trump the "war monger" has not started any new war. He did clean up the mess left by the Clinton/Obama gang. Vietnam US involvement was begun by JFK and continued by Johnson. They were Democrats by the way.

It was ended by Nixon. He was a conservative.

I could not give the remotest of cares about the Democrats. I despise them.

Whatever I may be, I'm certainly more clued in than yourself.

[Deleted User]

bfa1509 wrote: »

The amount of ignorance in this post is eye-watering. What manipulative underhanded tactics were used by the no side? The yes side used the plight of a minority (the threat to the mothers health and unviable or malformed fetus) knowing full well that the majority of abortions would be on healthy mothers and fetuses.

Pretending a cleaner was a nurse, images that served to distress rather than inform. Those are two I can think of offhand.

SusieBlue

bfa1509 wrote: »

The amount of ignorance in this post is eye-watering. What manipulative underhanded tactics were used by the no side? The yes side used the plight of a minority (the threat to the mothers health and unviable or malformed fetus) knowing full well that the majority of abortions would be on healthy mothers and fetuses.

Do you think a woman can't be supported unless you give an abortion?

Bizarrely, you go into societal and poverty issues as a reason to get an abortion. Is abortion your solution to every problem? Take black children, many of them are born into household poverty and neighborhoods with societal issues. Should we abort the majority of these black children? The line is blurring everyday from an abortion debate to one of eugenics.

Dear me, where do I even begin? There is so much to choose from.

- They advertised fake statistics on their posters about babies with Downs Syndrome, even though Downs Syndrome Ireland specifically asked both sides of the campaign to leave people with DS out of the debate (the yes vote obliged). They exploited children with this disability to manipulate people.
- They chose to advertise their massive graphic posters outside maternity hospitals and deliberately targeted women & couples going in and out for appointments with no consideration for the personal circumstances of those people.
- Their poster campaign was designed to shock & cause distress, they weren’t factual and included claims that abortion up until birth would be allowed, that people with disabilities would be exterminated, and that most women regretted their choice, which is all fake news.
- The LoveBoth campaign hired the same company that managed the pro Brexit campaign to manage their online marketing, they also accepted €€€€€€€€€€€ of foreign donations from other countries to fund their campaign, which should never have happened.
- They had so many foreign investors paying for ads on FB, Twitter and google that in the end all 3 had to ban any advertisements regarding the referendum - on the contrary, the TogetherForYes campaign was completely funded by donations from the people of Ireland.!
- They handed out plastic baby fetuses at the ploughing championships to school aged children, advising them to tell their parents to vote no.
- They encouraged their campaigners to outright lie about their qualifications, many were caught out pretending to be doctors and nurses in order to give more weight to their positions.
- They lied and said that the POLDPA act was adequate protection for women, even though they vehemently opposed that legislation at all costs too.
- They flat out denied that the 8th had a hand in the death and suffering of many women including Savita Halappanavar, which was totally insulting.

I could think of many other underhanded and manipulative tactics they used, but those are just the ones that spring to mind off the top of my head.

The Yes vote were very clear from day one that they were in favour of allowing women access to abortion on request for any reason up till 12 weeks gestation.
Yes, the hard cases were discussed and rightly so because it showed that abortion effects all different kinds of women and couples from all different kinds of circumstances and backgrounds.
They asked us to trust women with decisions about their own bodies and futures, and we did.

I’m not even entertaining your hyperbolic analogy about black children, abortion is not a solution, it was never presented as a solution, it’s simply a choice. Trust people and let them choose for themselves.
Hence the whole concept of being pro-choice.

bfa1509

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Do you honestly think that’s not common knowledge?

It clearly isn't. Most democrats either don't know or deny the reality.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Dear me, where do I even begin? There is so much to choose from.

- They advertised fake statistics on their posters about babies with Downs Syndrome, even though Downs Syndrome Ireland specifically asked both sides of the campaign to leave people with DS out of the debate (the yes vote obliged). They exploited children with this disability to manipulate people.
- They chose to advertise their massive graphic posters outside maternity hospitals and deliberately targeted women & couples going in and out for appointments with no consideration for the personal circumstances of those people.
- Their poster campaign was designed to shock & cause distress, they weren’t factual and included claims that abortion up until birth would be allowed, that people with disabilities would be exterminated, and that most women regretted their choice, which is all fake news.
- The LoveBoth campaign hired the same company that managed the pro Brexit campaign to manage their online marketing, they also accepted €€€€€€€€€€€ of foreign donations from other countries to fund their campaign, which should never have happened.
- They had so many foreign investors paying for ads on FB, Twitter and google that in the end all 3 had to ban any advertisements regarding the referendum - on the contrary, the TogetherForYes campaign was completely funded by donations from the people of Ireland.!
- They handed out plastic baby fetuses at the ploughing championships to school aged children, advising them to tell their parents to vote no.
- They encouraged their campaigners to outright lie about their qualifications, many were caught out pretending to be doctors and nurses in order to give more weight to their positions.
- They lied and said that the POLDPA act was adequate protection for women, even though they vehemently opposed that legislation at all costs too.
- They flat out denied that the 8th had a hand in the death and suffering of many women including Savita Halappanavar, which was totally insulting.

I could think of many other underhanded and manipulative tactics they used, but those are just the ones that spring to mind off the top of my head.

The Yes vote were very clear from day one that they were in favour of allowing women access to abortion on request for any reason up till 12 weeks gestation.
Yes, the hard cases were discussed and rightly so because it showed that abortion effects all different kinds of women and couples from all different kinds of circumstances and backgrounds.
They asked us to trust women with decisions about their own bodies and futures, and we did.

I’m not even entertaining your hyperbolic analogy about black children, abortion is not a solution, it was never presented as a solution, it’s simply a choice. Trust people and let them choose for themselves.
Hence the whole concept of being pro-choice.

Most no voters did not support the groups you mentioned and they served little more than to damage the no vote in the end.

On the other side it was the government, who introduced the referendum, who peddled the campaign to have unrestricted access to abortion available using the hard cases as their marketing strategy. This was completely underhanded.

It was the reluctant yes cohort that got the referendum through in the end.

SusieBlue

bfa1509 wrote: »

It clearly isn't. Most democrats either don't know or deny the reality.

Most no voters did not support the groups you mentioned and they served little more than to damage the no vote in the end.

On the other side it was the government, who introduced the referendum, who peddled the campaign to have unrestricted access to abortion available using the hard cases as their marketing strategy. This was completely underhanded.

It was the reluctant yes cohort that got the referendum through in the end.

In that case then ‘most of the No voters’ should have organised to front their own campaign to advertise their own views instead of letting LoveBoth represent them.
The TogetherForYes campaign was started by the people for the people, whereas LoveBoth was started by the Iona Institute and the Youth Defence, and that says it all really.

You have no idea why people voted yes. Saying it was a reluctant yes is a total assumption on your part that you cannot prove, particularly when the Yes side won by a landslide.

The hard cases deserved their air time, and you have to remember that the No side had pushed the narrative that abortion was about irresponsible young ones going for terminations on their lunch break cause they decided they wanted to go on the lash at the weekend.
It was important to show that it effected a completely different demographic way more than that, and that the narrative they were pushing was false.
Showing couples and women going through heartbreaking circumstances opened up our eyes to the true reality of what we were doing to our people.
As well as that, any of us could experience a ‘hard case’ ourselves in our own family and it made people consider if they’d like to have a choice, or a choice for their daughter/wife/sister.
Turns out they did.
Compassion in a crisis and turning abortion into a private matter between a woman and her doctor won in the end.

Quantum Erasure

We weren't voting for abortion on demand... until we did

Outlaw Pete

SusieBlue wrote: »

- They advertised fake statistics on their posters about babies with Downs Syndrome, even though Downs Syndrome Ireland specifically asked both sides of the campaign to leave people with DS out of the debate (the yes vote obliged). They exploited children with this disability to manipulate people.

The Yes vote obliged ?? Ah come on:

https://www.togetherforyes.ie/the-facts/your-questions-on-the-referendum/down-syndrome-and-abortion/

Some of us just don't want to live in a world where stilling the heartbeats of unborn DS babies becomes the norm, as is the case in certain parts of the world:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

- The LoveBoth campaign hired the same company that managed the pro Brexit campaign to manage their online marketing.

So what? You say that as if they hired a company that worked for MS13 or something.

- They flat out denied that the 8th had a hand in the death and suffering of many women including Savita Halappanavar, which was totally insulting.

ProChoicers used Savita and disrespected her memory to get what they wanted. I don't believe many of them cared too much about her really as if they did they would have wanted to highlight ALL of the things which led to her death and they didn't. All they wanted to talk about was abortion and not that there was a number of missed opportunities which, had they been identified and acted upon, would have saved her life.

There was no proper follow up on blood tests. Her vital signs were not checked for more than nine hours, in breach of hospital guidelines. Savita also had a 160 pulse with a fever and a foul smelling discharge, all of which was not relayed to Savita’s consultant and even though all this medical misadventure was known about, it was all ignored and instead the narrative was that Savita died because of the 8th.

- I could think of many other underhanded and manipulative tactics they used, but those are just the ones that spring to mind off the top of my head.

Oh come on. You speak as if butter wouldn't melt in a prochoicer's mouth. There were lots of underhandedness and manipulative nonsense going on from that side of the aisle. Telling the public all abortions under 12 weeks would be by way of pills, that a fetus at 10 weeks is just a zygote (and you yourself said that on Boards multiple times - dehumanizing developing fetuses is quite common for prochoicers) and telling the country that diagnosing Down Syndrome via NIPT wasn't possible below 12 weeks too. Peter Boylan was fond of that lie.

https://evie.ie/care/once-off-services/harmony-nipt/

A recent report of the International Bioethics Committee of the United Nations Educational, Social, and Cultural Organisation pointed out, "the potential ethical disadvantages of NIPT can be summarised as routinisation and institutionalisation of the choice of not giving birth to an ill or disabled child”.

They asked us to trust women with decisions about their own bodies and futures, and we did.

We were asked to 'Trust' women but not with a decision solely about their bodies as there is always another human being's life involved.

If there wasn't, there would be no need to ask for trust.

suicide_circus

It's pointless Pete - people don't believe it's "another human being's life involved" until it has passed through the birth canal, been slapped on the back and started crying. At all stages before that it's basically a parasite, even if it could survive outside the womb.

Igotadose

bfa1509 wrote: »

You view all conservatives as gun-toting southern americans. Little do you know it was the democrats who were pro-slavery and most of the wars started or entered by the US were supported by both parties.

You understand nothing of US politics. Do you think pro-slavery types were 'liberals?'

As was posted, conservatives (nowadays, mostly tGOP in the US) care nothing about the fetus once it's born. If they did, they'd be more in favor of policies to raise better educated, healthier, better fed humans.

But no, everything now is 'what's in it for me' and 'I got mine, too bad for you.'

Igotadose

Quantum Erasure wrote: »

We weren't voting for abortion on demand... until we did

Ireland doesn't have abortion on demand. Thanks for round two of anti-choice bingo. The card's filling up.

Gervais08

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Pretending a cleaner was a nurse, images that served to distress rather than inform. Those are two I can think of offhand.

There is a medical school near me, they had posters of “babies killed at 9 weeks” - one of the surgeons argued that the photo was of a baby that was 26 weeks plus at least and was from a foetal medicine textbook.

They screamed baby killer at him. Turns out he wrote the textbook or came from.

Igotadose

Bonniedog wrote: »

This is what passes for leftie "intellectual" argument is it?

Would you not be better off reading a few books?

As for the war thing, Trump the "war monger" has not started any new war. He did clean up the mess left by the Clinton/Obama gang. Vietnam US involvement was begun by JFK and continued by Johnson. They were Democrats by the way.

It was ended by Nixon. He was a conservative.

If you want to have an intellectual argument about the 'mess' the #IMPOTUS has done very little about, you might want to read a few books. Ones that mention George W. Bush's administration and its role in the middle east conflicts.

Vietnam started with Eisenhower, too. Nixon could've ended Vietnam prior to the 1972 election (how interesting it ended soon after that.)

Is this what passes for conservative intellectual debate? SAD!

Eduard Khil

American politics is a strange and consistent war within itself a two party system with little or no room for comprising, the Simpsons Kang and Kodos Clinton Vs Bob Dole episode explained it perfectly,

Abortions for all, BOOOOOO
Abortions for none, BOOOOOOO
Abortions for some, Miniature American Flags for all, YAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

Cody montana

Colton Odd Strife wrote: »

The death of RBG and the fight over the US Supreme Court got me thinking. It is clear that the new nomination is so fiercely contested because of abortion. In a way, the US Supreme Court is the guarantor of abortion - if the judge-made law of Roe v Wade was not in place, it is likely that Trump and Congress would make abortion a thing of the past.

The way I see it, Roe v Wade was foisted upon the American people. Abortion was a "value" of the liberal elites, who constituted a large part the court, but it was not a value for the majority of American citizens. The American population began to further recoil from it with the discovery of ultrasound scans, which clearly showed that the fetus very early on developed a head, limbs and a heartbeat; that it was a little human being. The stance on abortion is now one of the key factors in US elections and appointments.

The liberal-controlled mainstream media is doubling down on it's attack on Trump and populism, a movement which is seeking to stand up for the interests of the people against the liberal elites. Another pro-life judge in the US Supreme Court could mean the end of their cherished abortion project. They are going all-out.

Ireland, on the other hand, seems completely different. We brought in abortion after ultrasound images became available. What the American people are fighting tooth and nail to free themselves from, what had to be imposed on them by the courts because it would never be legal otherwise, we have foisted upon ourselves through a popular referendum.

I struggle to understand it.

Well that’s ridiculous.
If RvW was overturned then it would revert back to the individual states to decide abortion law.
Abortion will never be a thing of the past.

Also the majority of Americans support abortion, even more so than Ireland.

Igotadose

Cody montana wrote: »

Well that’s ridiculous.
If RvW was overturned then it would revert back to the individual states to decide abortion law.
Abortion will never be a thing of the past.

Also the majority of Americans support abortion, even more so than Ireland.

It's just troll food to try and re-litigate the 8th repeal. The usual whinery has opened up and the old tired false arguments being rehashed. Slow day. There's also been at least 1 reference to Hillary Clinton so the trumplodytes are here in force, too.

Cody montana

Igotadose wrote: »

It's just troll food to try and re-litigate the 8th repeal. The usual whinery has opened up and the old tired false arguments being rehashed. Slow day. There's also been at least 1 reference to Hillary Clinton so the trumplodytes are here in force, too.

If they don’t accept democracy, they are free to leave.
It’s settled law here.

[Deleted User]

Igotadose wrote: »

If you want to have an intellectual argument about the 'mess' the #IMPOTUS has done very little about, you might want to read a few books. Ones that mention George W. Bush's administration and its role in the middle east conflicts.

Vietnam started with Eisenhower, too. Nixon could've ended Vietnam prior to the 1972 election (how interesting it ended soon after that.)

Is this what passes for conservative intellectual debate? SAD!

Nixon actually compromised an attempt at a peace accord in 1968, by committing actions that at the time would have been chargeable as treason. It's one of the many failings of the LBJ as a president that he didn't release the evidence of this.

As per the actual thread which contains the usual ramblings about mainstream media, not knowing what we were voting for etc, that would normally be associated with conspiracy theorists and the usual national party shills on here.
I find it sort of amusing that people who are apparently so pro life have no issues also starting on this site that people should be left drown at sea because their immigrants, routinely support civilian ****knuckles in the U.S. shooting dead other U.S. citizens and the other mental gymnastics that appear to be the representation of conservative opinion.

Eduard Khil

It all depends on the choice of words used most Americans who support pro choice support a woman's right to choose.

If you lead with these people are pro abortion that change of word would change some minds of people it's why the Pro life folks are so liberal with the word abortion.

Buford T. Justice XIX

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Well, I should hope she isn’t still one. :eek: :pac:

It's America, you can never be certain;)

Bonniedog

Pherekydes wrote: »

Heh, it was ended by the Vietnamese.

Americans could, and some would argue, should have stayed. There would have been no mass murders when North Vietnamese took over, no labour camps, no millions trying to flee (you might remember the Boat People?), and no Pol Pot.

War was ended by Paris Peace Accord, not by Vietnamese winning. If there had been a pro Nazi "anti war" movement in 1941, US would not have helped to defeat the Germans, and you would be marching around in leather strides

uptherebels

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Some of us just don't want to live in a world where stilling the heartbeats of unborn DS babies becomes the norm, as is the case in certain parts of the world:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

.

Come on now pete, I can't believe you are still peddling that nonsense. A population the size of Iceland would be expecting 5/6 down syndrome births a year on average. so an activist claiming there is only 2/3 a year isn't the slaughter you lot try to paint it as.

uptherebels

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

We were asked to 'Trust' women but not with a decision solely about their bodies as there is always another human being's life involved.

If there wasn't, there would be no need to ask for trust.

There is only one person involved, you can keep your head in the sand about that, the days of you being able to force you views on others is thankfully long gone.

suicide_circus

uptherebels wrote: »

There is only one person involved, you can keep your head in the sand about that, the days of you being able to force you views on others is thankfully long gone.

Those days have gone nowhere, on this issue maybe but on others not so much.

[Deleted User]

Bonniedog wrote: »

Americans could, and some would argue, should have stayed. There would have been no mass murders when North Vietnamese took over, no labour camps, no millions trying to flee (you might remember the Boat People?), and no Pol Pot.

War was ended by Paris Peace Accord, not by Vietnamese winning. If there had been a pro Nazi "anti war" movement in 1941, US would not have helped to defeat the Germans, and you would be marching around in leather strides

The Paris peace accord wasn't ratified by the U.S. Senate and essentially was America admitting defeat and pulling out military personnel. It didn't end the war that had already been fought before they involved themselves in it.

There were pro nazi rallies in the U.S. in the early 40s, just as their were pro war rallies to rival peace rallies. But two slightly differences to your scenario exist between ww2 and Vietnam.

Firstly, at the time of the pearl harbor attacks, FDR was able to declare war on Japan due to their attack. He wasn't able to declare war on Germany due to lack of what he believed popular support.for doing so, despite his belief that Germany was the greater threat, but Hitler took care of this problem by declaring war on America.
In all the military actions that the U.S. has been involved in since WW2, they haven't actually issued a formal declaration of war.

Secondly public opinion was strongly for the war, especially against the Japanese, and there was evidence of German aggression against multiple countries and some evidence of the atrocities they were committing, the U.S. were going to be the good guys. In Vietnam atrocities like My Lai and the handling of the outcome politically showed that the U.S. weren't exactly living up to their good guy image to a lot of the citizens and increased calls for withdrawal.

ceadaoin.

uptherebels wrote: »

There is only one person involved, you can keep your head in the sand about that, the days of you being able to force you views on others is thankfully long gone.

Exactly. I've had an unplanned pregnancy. My choice was to continue with that pregnancy. Others might choose otherwise and I fully respect that too. I wouldnt presume to think that my personal beliefs should be imposed on others. Bizarre how when it comes to this subject, so many do, especially among those who will never be faced with such a choice because of biology.

Gervais08

ceadaoin. wrote: »

Exactly. I've had an unplanned pregnancy. My choice was to continue with that pregnancy. Others might choose otherwise and I fully respect that too. I wouldnt presume to think that my personal beliefs should be imposed on others. Bizarre how when it comes to this subject, so many do, especially those who will never be faced with such a choice.

I applaud you - but I would applaud you either way as you made the best choice for you. That’s all the Repeal vote was - choice.

I doubt I would have ever had an abortion in my youth, likely not. Do I like that it happens ? No.

Did I vote yes? 100% yes.

Who am I to tell others what to do ???

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Buford T. Justice XIX wrote: »

It's America, you can never be certain;)

I liked Ginsburg but the notion of the zombie RBG is frankly terrifying. :pac:

SusieBlue

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The Yes vote obliged ?? Ah come on:

https://www.togetherforyes.ie/the-facts/your-questions-on-the-referendum/down-syndrome-and-abortion/

Some of us just don't want to live in a world where stilling the heartbeats of unborn DS babies becomes the norm, as is the case in certain parts of the world:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/down-syndrome-iceland/

TogetherForYes didn’t include anything to do with Down’s syndrome in their poster campaign at the request of Downs Syndrome Ireland, and actually had to provide that factual information on their website as a result of the complete hyperbole being advertised by LoveBoth.

I’m not even going there with your link about Iceland, it’s long been proven to be non factual and I have no interest in engaging in a back and forth argument about it. It’s been done to death already.

ProChoicers used Savita and disrespected her memory to get what they wanted. I don't believe many of them cared too much about her really as if they did they would have wanted to highlight ALL of the things which led to her death and they didn't. All they wanted to talk about was abortion and not that there was a number of missed opportunities which, had they been identified and acted upon, would have saved her life.

There was no proper follow up on blood tests. Her vital signs were not checked for more than nine hours, in breach of hospital guidelines. Savita also had a 160 pulse with a fever and a foul smelling discharge, all of which was not relayed to Savita’s consultant and even though all this medical misadventure was known about, it was all ignored and instead the narrative was that Savita died because of the 8th.

Savita’s story was shared at the request and with the full permission of Savita’s husband and family, who all believe the 8th was to blame for her losing her life.
They believed this because the independent consultant tasked with investigating her death for the inquest concluded that had she been granted an abortion when she first requested one, the chain of events that led to her death couldn’t have occurred and she would never have died.
You can deny it all you want, you’re the one insulting her memory, not me.

Oh come on. You speak as if butter wouldn't melt in a prochoicer's mouth. There were lots of underhandedness and manipulative nonsense going on from that side of the aisle. Telling the public all abortions under 12 weeks would be by way of pills, that a fetus at 10 weeks is just a zygote (and you yourself said that on Boards multiple times - dehumanizing developing fetuses is quite common for prochoicers) and telling the country that diagnosing Down Syndrome via NIPT wasn't possible below 12 weeks too. Peter Boylan was fond of that lie.

https://evie.ie/care/once-off-services/harmony-nipt/

Statistically most abortions do occur before before the 12 week mark, and they are handled with pills that induce a miscarriage. The pro choice position has always been that women could request an abortion for any reason in the first 12 weeks, including if she managed to get the results of her Harmony tests in that time. I don’t think that was ever denied.
I still don’t believe that an embryo should be held to the same level of importance as a grown woman, in fact I think it’s quite dehumanising to women to equate them to the same worth as embryo.

We were asked to 'Trust' women but not with a decision solely about their bodies as there is always another human being's life involved.

If there wasn't, there would be no need to ask for trust.

We were asked to trust women and we as a country agreed to do that. If you don’t agree, you don’t have to trust them but you don’t get to impose your opinion on them either.
We agreed that it’s a private matter between a woman and her doctor so unfortunately your unwanted opinion on her choice is irrelevant.

Interesting to note that you have no defence against the fact that LoveBoth aggressively targeted maternity hospitals with their graphic ad campaign, that their posters were full of fake news, that they encouraged their campaigners to lie about being doctors and nurses, that they handed out plastic fetuses to young children, and that they received an untold amount of foreign donations from America, but then again there is no defence to any of that.
It was despicable.

Anyway I was asked to give examples of the underhanded and manipulative tactics employed by the No campaign and I have done that, I have no intention of getting into yet another multi quote battle with you when the referendum is long over and the people have spoken.

Quantum Erasure

Igotadose wrote: »

Ireland doesn't have abortion on demand. Thanks for round two of anti-choice bingo. The card's filling up.

With 6,666 abortions in Ireland in 2019 we kinda do though, you're welcome.

on demand up to 12 weeks, it is what it is...