Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.
Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth
Comments
-
"Whatever about opposition to abortion, the current basis for their absolutism in opposing it - the belief that life begins at conception - is quite recent for the RCC (19th century)."
It's quite recent for everybody. Nobody believed this until after the invention of the microscope.
In other words, this is an example of Catholic teaching being informed by the insights of science.
0 -
They've stopped maintaining that the sun goes around the earth, too 👍️
Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Hmmm, invention of the modern microscope is attributed to Galileo Galilei in 1609, who was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy", forced to recant, had publication of his works banned and spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Not sure I'd refer to this as 'informed by science' so much as actively seeking to repress it. ;)
0 -
His views on heliocentrism were - ahem - not initially well-received, but his invention of the microscope, and the insights that were acquired by its use, were never problematic and were accepted without demur.
We call it the nuanced approach, smacl. 😀
[More seriously — yeah, the whole business with Galileo was a disgrace, but what's often overlooked is that the church did learn a lesson they needed to learn, which is what a very bad idea this approach to science is. Nothing like this ever happened again. In the seventeenth and eighteenth century there's lots of incidences of scientific understandings being received and accepted into theological insights (life from conception is just one). And when we get to the late nineteenth century, and the famous stoush between Darwin and his Christian opponents, the Catholic church is conspicuously absent from the fray. Then and since, it's almost entirely Protestants who Fight The Good Fight against Darwinism and the conclusions that flow from it.
It's almost as though the Catholic church learned, from its bruising encounter with Galileo, what a really bad idea it is to appeal to a simplistic literalist reading of scripture to reject empirically observable truth.]
Post edited by Peregrinus on0 -
Seriously?
Do you not know that many people are vegan as they do not condone life being taken from one living thing to benefit another?
Or as my niece puts it "I will never eat or wear anything that once had a face". And she hasn't. Ever. She's 35.
If a person it utterly opposed to the idea that one living thing must die to benefit another than abortion is an ethical conundrum.
If one is a committed pacifist who would rather die than take the life on another than abortion is an ethical conundrum.
No all pro-life positions are religious.
5 -
Advertisement
-
Do you not know that many people are vegan as they do not condone life being taken from one living thing to benefit another?
Somewhat off topic, but the above proposition seems specious for anyone who has ever availed of modern medicine, or lived in any modern man-made environment built in place of a pre-existing natural habitat. The Vegan society has a get out clause in their definition to cover this, see below. I'd guess many would not advocate abortion where practicable alternatives were available, but what is practicable very much comes down to individual circumstances.
"Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
While I'm all for massively reduced meat consumption in sympathy with a sustainable environment, I find veganism is commonly as extreme in its dogma as much religion.
1 -
Not being a vegan, or even a vegetarian I am not going to argue the pros and cons. I will say I'm primarily not a vegetarian as I have 5 dogs who eat a raw diet and I'm not so hypocritical that I'd claim to not eat meat while I have a freezer full of it for the mutts.
In terms of this thread I have over the course of my 35 years raging against the 8th discussed this with many vegans, and all expressed having an ethical dilemma.
If one is trying to live a life that avoids any product that required a life to be taken - and there are people who genuinely go to quite extreme lengths which while I may not agree with them I do admire their commitment to their core beliefs - than abortion can be such an ethical issue. One which is not based on religion.
I'm not saying there are many who hold that view ( most vegans I know now are from an animal welfare background who personally won't eat meat but realise cats have to), but they do exist and their uneasy with abortion does not stem from a religious belief.
Dismissing their beliefs as akin to religious dogma is not something I am comfortable with tbh. There is no deity, there are no tenets. There is the belief that all living things have an equal right to life and a, granted sometimes over zealous, attempt to live by that belief.
Yes, some vegans are an utter pain in the whole, but I find golfers bang on and on an on even more but I'm not calling their obsession with how many times they had to hit a small ball akin to religious dogma.
1 -
Their dogma is extreme but they have a get-out clause? Make up your mind, smacl!
The vegans of my acquaintance are perfectly aware that perfection is unattainable. Crop production, for example, frequently involves techniques for killing pests; granaries are patrolled by cats who kill rats who would otherwise eat the grain; etc. And there is indirect killing; putting land to arable use denies it to animal species that might otherwise thrive there, and perhaps did before it was cleared, ploughed and sown. Etc, etc.
But it would be absurd (and, yes, extremist) of you to suggest that, then any objection to any killing is futile, hypocritical, silly or "extremist". And, as you concede yourself, generally vegans don't adopt that stance; they seek to avoid animal exploitation, cruelty and destruction as far as possible and practical, but that necessarily involves balancing that value against other important values. So where's the extremism?
When it comes to abortion, I've long held the view that both sides in this debate tend to extremist positions. "Right to life" and "right to choose" both draw on the language of fundamental human rights where compromise is conceptually difficult. We might compromise on judgments about the best way to organise the economy so as to maximise prosperity, or the balance to be struck between product safety and over-regulation of manufacturing, say. But compromise on questions of fundamental human rights? How could we look at ourselves in the mirror if we did that? So you get this shrill discourse where both sides blare absolutes past one another, and anyone who deviates from an extreme position is a traitor to the cause. Suggest that abortion should be allowed in case of rape, and you are denying the right to life. Suggest that the abortion rate is unhealthily high and we should consider policies that would reduce it, and you are denying the right to choose. And so it goes.
You suggest that vegans "would not advocate abortion where practical alternatives were available". Very few people will admit to advocating abortion where practical alternatives are available; I suggest the real difference lies in what they consider to be "practical alternatives". The more you think that abortion is ethically problematic, the more likely you are to think that practical alternatives include taking more steps, and more effective steps, to prevent people from becoming pregnant when they don't want to be, for instance. Or, in a personal decision, the more likely you are to think that, hey, maybe having a baby, even though it wasn't what I planned, is a practical alternative. And that, I suspect, is the space in which people like Bannasidhe's atheist vegan friends are moving. It's as lot more appealing to me than the extremist absolutes.
Post edited by Peregrinus on1 -
Yes, some vegans are an utter pain in the whole, but I find golfers bang on and on an on even more but I'm not calling their obsession with how many times they had to hit a small ball akin to religious dogma.
Not really comparable though. Being boorish about a sport or pastime is not the same as holding to a philosophy which, in many cases, would make demands of others that do not subscribe to that philosophy. I would consider veganism dogmatic as it espouses a philosophical position that is, by and large, not open to compromise while being highly questionable. e.g. being against consuming insects while consuming produce necessitating use of insecticide, while at the same time consuming said insects may prove a far more environmentally sustainable result.
0 -
But it would be absurd (and, yes, extremist) of you to suggest that, then any objection to any killing is futile, hypocritical, silly or "extremist". And, as you concede yourself, generally vegans don't adopt that stance; they seek to avoid animal exploitation, cruelty and destruction as far as possible and practical, but that necessarily involves balancing that value against other important values. So where's the extremism?
The hypocrisy exists in that anything we do that damages the environment and reduces biodiversity destroys orders of magnitude more life when amortized over time than any killing which can be directly attributed to us though a short series of linked events such as eating an omelette. Yet most of what we consume has a negative environmental impact regardless of whether animal products are a direct ingredient. Each of us has a negative ecological footprint and our very existence will necessitate a large amount of other animals to be killed over our lifetime. Much more so in wealtht countries such as Ireland.
You suggest that vegans "would not advocate abortion where practical alternatives were available". Very few people will admit to advocating abortion where practical alternatives are available; I suggest the real difference lies in what they consider to be "practical alternatives". The more you think that abortion is ethically problematic, the more likely you are to think that practical alternatives include taking more steps, and more effective steps, to prevent people from becoming pregnant when they don't want to be, for instance. Or, in a personal decision, the more likely you are to think that, hey, maybe having a baby, even though it wasn't what I planned, is a practical alternative. And that, I suspect, is the space in which people like Bannasidhe's atheist vegan friends are moving. It's as lot more appealing to me than the extremist absolutes.
I consider the vegan ethical question with respect to protecting unborn life to be wrongfooted as bringing a new person into the world will inevitably lead to considerable destruction of other life. We do not exist in a vacuum, we are merely part of a larger connected ecosystem. I would argue that it is that ecosystem we need to protect first and foremost. Should we eat much less meat? Absolutely. Should we plan when to have children? Also, yes.
As for extremism, there does seem to be a rise in militant veganism, though it seems to be as much of a problem for mainstream veganism as anyone else.
I agree that extremist absolutes have no appeal, among those absolutes I would consider the Catholic church's stance on both contraception and abortion to be among the major offenders.
1 -
Advertisement
-
Suggest that abortion should be allowed in case of rape, and you are denying the right to life.
But that is the logical end result of the absolutist "a zygote is a human being same as any other" stance such as the RCC's. Yes a microscope can tell us when fertilization has occurred - it can't answer the philosophical, moral or ethical question as to what rights an embryo, zygote or foetus should have and when.
Suggest that the abortion rate is unhealthily high and we should consider policies that would reduce it, and you are denying the right to choose. And so it goes.
Provided those policies are evidence-based i.e. NOT abstinence-only sex "education" or other similar female-shaming wheezes, I'd be all for it. Fewer crisis pregnancies can only be a good thing. Pro-choice groups started campaigning on sex education and free contraception once the 8th was repealed.
The more you think that abortion is ethically problematic, the more likely you are to think that practical alternatives include taking more steps, and more effective steps, to prevent people from becoming pregnant when they don't want to be, for instance.
It is most ironic that the RCC does and did all it could to prevent access to contraceptives and evidence-based sex education. Few enough listen to them in relation to the former any more, but in relation to the latter they still have major influence in 89% of primary schools and leaving it until secondary as we used to do is simply too late (and of course many secondaries, whether explicitly RCC or not, just bring Accord in)
In reality it wasn't vegans or secularists who brought about the 8th amendment and campaigned vigorously to keep it in place for 35 years - it was and is in the vast majority of cases highly conservative Catholic or other Christian groups.
Life ain't always empty.
2 -
Have to admit I didn't think that one through, so thanks.
I'll attribute it to covid brain fog 😷
Life ain't always empty.
2 -
Separately to the review of the operation of abortion legislation, the Oireachtas Health Committee has been hearing calls for the scope of the legislation to be extended:
Family doctors say that "the threat of anti-abortion activities" is a major factor in deciding not to provide abortion services, an Oireachtas committee has heard.
The Joint Committee on Health heard that there is an "urgent need for safe access-zone legislation" to ensure that healthcare staff are "protected from harassment and intimidation".
Orla O'Connor, Director of the National Women's Council of Ireland, also revealed that only one in 10 GPs currently provide abortion services.
In 13 counties, fewer than 10 GPs are offering these services, she said.
Pointing to new figures from the HSE, Ms O'Connor revealed that "only four counties have a well-developed community network of providers", namely Dublin, Cork, Galway and Wicklow.
Social Democrats co-leader Róisín Shortall said she agreed that the review "won't count for anything" if it fails to address "the shortcomings in the legislation", and not just how it operates.
She said that it was "completely unacceptable" that "just over half of maternity hospitals" are providing abortion services.
Ms Shortall said that the recent commitment from the HSE that the National Maternity Hospital will provide "clinically appropriate" services means clinicians will decide, rather than women, which is "potentially very dangerous".
Ms O'Connor said that the wording "absolutely raises concern", and "it's absolutely an issue that the minister needs to address".
She said that the law has created a two-tier system, where for every three women who qualify for care in Ireland, "two women have to travel to the UK".
Abortion should "be available on request up to viability, to ensure that no woman or pregnant person is forced to travel abroad for essential reproductive healthcare", the NWCI believes.
The two organisations want an end to the mandatory three-day waiting period, a widening of the 12-week gestational limit, and the removal of the 28-day mortality clause for fatal foetal abnormalities.
That clause only permits abortions in cases where doctors are certain that a foetus will survive less than one month.
"This is critical", Ms O'Connor said. "This is a real cause for concern".
No-one in those circumstances should have to endure the trauma and heartbreak of having to travel abroad to get an abortion, she said.
She said people thought this "would be solved by the referendum".
Life ain't always empty.
1 -
Seems to be some basis in the leaked rumour that Roe v Wade will shortly be over-turned by the US Supreme Court.
1 -
There is already another thread about this
0 -
The thread in Current Affairs? SCOTUS to overturn Roe vs Wade — boards.ie - Now Ye're Talkin'
To be honest I don't see that the presence of a CA thread means it's not valid to post/discuss it here. We've discussed abortion in Poland, South America and indeed Ireland whilst other threads existed elsewhere on the site.
I'm slightly torn on this potential Roe v Wade overturn. In Ireland I was happy that abortion was being taken out of the constitution and being made a purely legislative issue. Let the people be careful about who they vote for. So in theory I should be content that a similar situation might soon exist in the USA. However one can't help worrying just how far legislation could go with such a flawed and dysfunctional political system.
2 -
Definitely valid for discussion in this thread. Interesting the language used in the RTE commentary is now 'pro-choice' and 'anti-choice'. The gulf between the conservative right and more liberal centre in the states seems to be widening.
4 -
Our current law here in Ireland is actually significantly more restrictive than some of the proposed US states' laws.
Problem is, without Roe v. Wade there is nothing to stop a state like Texas or Kentucky implementing a complete or near-complete ban and this will cost women their lives.
No constitutional protection for abortion rights means no constitutional protection for a pregnant woman's right to life. We have the ECHR to protect against legislative over-reach but the US doesn't.
Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Irish Times letters from Saturday:
The National Maternity Hospital – a question of ownership
Sir, – The Religious Sisters of Charity are the latest of the Irish religious orders to depart direct involvement in healthcare, following the Sisters of Mercy in 2016, the Bon Secours Sisters in 2017, and the St John of God Brothers in 2019 (“Religious order exits healthcare as part of deal paving way for NMH to proceed”, News, April 29th).
The establishment of Vatican-approved lay successor Catholic sponsorship arrangements is a global trend in consequence of the ageing and dwindling numbers of the Catholic religious themselves.
Following the canon law process for their ownership transfer to St Vincent’s Holdings, the RSC have appointed three people to own St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (SVHG). These are Prof Michael Keane, Dr David Brophy and Sharen McCabe, all former members of the SVHG board. Prof Keane and Dr Brophy are clinicians at St Vincent’s.
While the RSC are entitled to make whatever arrangements they wish for their own hospitals, I do not see what qualifies a respiratory physician, a radiologist and the managing director of a pharmacy chain to own the planned €1 billion publicly-funded new National Maternity Hospital in place of the 100 governors who currently own it in trust.
For reasons of transparency relating to concerns about Catholic ethos at a relocated NMH, Prof Keane, Dr Brophy and Ms McCabe must now publish the full correspondence between the Vatican and the RSC relating to the establishment of St Vincent’s Holdings and their appointment as its directors and owners.
It is a matter of record that as directors of St Vincent’s Holdings they are committed to upholding “the values and vision of Mother Mary Aikenhead”, the RSC founder. Prof Keane Dr Brophy and Ms McCabe must now state explicitly how they intend to put this commitment into action in their SVHG hospitals and in the future NMH, should the relocation go ahead.
They must further explain why the core values of the Religious Sisters of Charity have been included unchanged in the constitution of St Vincent’s Holdings despite a commitment by Sister Patricia Lenihan in May 2017 that these would be “amended and replaced.”
I note that the press release issued by the Sisters values SVHG at €204 million.
Yet in 2018 the group was valued at €661 million, begging the question as to what has happened to the €457 million difference.
There remain many outstanding concerns and issues to be resolved before there should be any further progress with the NMH relocation. – Yours, etc,
Dr PETER BOYLAN,
Dublin 6.
Sir, – The bottom line is that the Sisters of Charity will continue to own the site on which the hospital is to be built.This is an organisation that has presided over some of the most oppressive institutions in the history of the State. It has subsequently refused to pay its fair share under the joint government and religious orders redress scheme. In addition to which it reports to the Vatican, a vastly wealthy foreign power shrouded in secrecy.
The Vatican, while overseeing a protracted and convoluted process that will see the Catholic Church’s continued involvement in a major State-run hospital, has done nothing to ensure the Sisters of Charity honour its obligations under the redress scheme. This self-serving approach to how it handles its affairs should raise numerous red flags.
We have achieved much in shaking off the shackles of our repressed past and in becoming a liberated outward-looking country, so why is the Government still tolerating church interference in the affairs of State? Would it tolerate the same level of interference from any other multinational organisation? If this really is the best that can be achieved in this dire situation, it is a sad legacy for the victims of institutional abuse in this country and a dark day for democracy. – Yours, etc,
SHEILA GRACE,
Shankill,
Dublin 18.
Sir, – You report that the transfer of their shares in the St Vincent’s Healthcare Group by the Sisters of Charity to a successor private Catholic charity now clears the way for the new National Maternity Hospital to be built. It should do nothing of the sort.
Are we seriously expected to accept guarantees that a new Catholic charity approved by the Vatican will help promote the provision to women of legal healthcare services that contradict the charity’s “Catholic values”? Currently, their colleagues in St Vincent’s Hospital don’t appear to offer such legal services, so why should we expect that the new hospital would do so?
But for many of us who object to the current plans for the new National Maternity Hospital, our objection is even more fundamental. As we struggle to undo the historical legacy of Catholic control of health services, we should not be further embedding private charities, Catholic or otherwise, into our health system.
It’s really very simple. Our new State-funded National Maternity Hospital should be completely State-owned. No amount of questionable guarantees about what healthcare services may be provided will address that fundamental issue. – Yours, etc,
SÉAMUS WHITE,
Stoneybatter,
Dublin 7.
Sir, – Dr Peter Boylan in his letter (April 26th) states that the HSE board “has erred” by failing to secure an express commitment that the relocated National Maternity Hospital can, among other treatments, provide IVF.
IVF should undoubtedly be provided in any modern maternity hospital. The doctor’s concern is curious though, considering that the NMH in its current location does not offer IVF.
For that “high-tech” service, one is referred elsewhere, including to the private clinic right next door. – Yours, etc,
SHARON O’BRIEN,
Dublin 5.
Sir, – If the Sisters want to continue their interest in the arena of our reproductive rights and maternity care, then it is entirely unacceptable that they are not engaging publicly on this matter. It is incumbent on them to stand up, hold themselves accountable, and participate in this conversation. These are issues that will affect Irish people. We cannot tolerate anything less than full transparency when it comes to our reproductive healthcare and the use of taxpayers’ money.
The Sisters need to make public any documents from the Archbishop of Dublin and the Vatican which state that they are permitting the site at Elm Park to be used to provide specific reproductive services such as abortion, IVF and elective sterilisation.
If these documents do not give specific permission, then the constitution of the National Maternity Hospital will be interpreted entirely differently, as its core values are those of Sister Mary Aikenhead.
Has Minister for Health Stephen Donnelly or any of our Government Ministers, or the HSE, seen or even requested these documents? The public needs direct answers on this.
This is where accountability begins. Who actually believes that the Vatican is about to permit abortion, IVF or sterilisation on their land, when they will not permit them anywhere else in Ireland, or the world? This will be internationally groundbreaking for the Catholic Church if they do. I look forward to the news headlines if they do. – Yours, etc,
DEIRDRE FITZGERALD,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Life ain't always empty.
2 -
Could anyone direct me to the template email to send to td's re the NMH? Im told its on Twitter but I cant find it now.
TY
0 -
Advertisement
-
Make our National Maternity Hospital Public and Secular
#MakeNMHOurs
Saturday 14th May 2pm - Rally at the Dail
Life ain't always empty.
0 -
Their Twitter handle is @OurMatHosp so try asking on there.
Life ain't always empty.
1 -
Letter in yesterday's IT:
Sir, – I am not terribly concerned that the State does not own the site for the new National Maternity Hospital but I am concerned that the hospital may become de facto Catholic, even to the extent of deterring people from seeking employment or treatment. I need further assurances, some of which can be provided by amending the draft constitution of the new NMH.
The draft (which is available on the HSE website) states in article three of the memorandum of association that “all clinically appropriate and legally permissible healthcare services” will be provided and this has been approved with the same wording by St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (article 14.7). The question is who decides what is and what is not “clinically appropriate”. The word “clinically” implies that the decision is taken by a doctor or doctors (or perhaps by a medical ethics committee), and we can safely assume that this is what is intended. This qualification on what kind of services are provided in particular cases has serious implications.
Consider a healthy pregnant woman seeking an abortion, as is her right under law, when “the pregnancy concerned has not exceeded 12 weeks”. The only role for the doctor envisaged by the Termination of Pregnancy Act is to decide on the age of the pregnancy. But under the draft constitution a doctor might quite reasonably decide that an abortion would not be clinically appropriate, if it has no specific clinical objective.
The same question might arise when a patient seeks sterilisation, or family planning advice, genetic counselling or IVF. The draft constitution makes it clear that the doctor has the right to decide that these may not be “clinically appropriate”.
Such procedures are often sought by patients for social or personal reasons. The draft constitution should be amended to read “all clinically, socially or personally appropriate and legally permissible healthcare services”.
The constitution does not mention the words “patient” or “ethics”. It is as if a patient has no rights, for example, to request services that are not clinically appropriate (but are legal under the Termination of Pregnancy Act). Nor is there any mention of the central principle of modern medicine, the confidentiality of the doctor-patient relationship. Nor is there any mention of the position of doctors who, under freedom of conscience, may not want to give advice or medical care that is contrary to particular medical ethics, who should be required to explain this to patients and to refer them to colleagues who are not so constrained. The constitution does not make any mention of medical ethics and I am left wondering whether the NMH will be governed by the traditionally religious medical ethics of St Vincent’s Hospital.
Finally, we need more specific assurances than are provided for in article 4.1.2 as to how the board of the NMH will ensure there are a sufficient number of doctors, nurses and other staff who do not have conscientious objections to carrying out medical procedures or giving medical, social or personal advice that are prohibited by Catholic medical ethics.
DAVID McCONNELL,
Honorary President,
The Humanist Association
of Ireland,
Caherdaniel,
Co Kerry.
........
"Conscientious objection" is a huge barrier to accessing abortion in Italy, but the majority of doctors and other medical staff exercising this right there are not so much in fear of their eternal souls but their careers, given how many hospitals there are controlled by the RCC.
Really I think the only way out of this mess is full State ownership of all hospitals newly built or rebuilt using State money from now on. We've already done this with schools, only a few years ago but better late than never.
Life ain't always empty.
1 -
The Spanish government has unveiled a reform which seeks to loosen existing abortion restrictions and provide paid leave for women who suffer severe period pain.
Equality minister Irene Montero said the Bill guaranteed women’s sexual and reproductive rights, which she described as “a barometer of the democratic quality of a country”.
“We are making a law to guarantee that women can live better and can develop their lives with total freedom,” she said on presenting details of the law.
Among the proposals in the leftist coalition’s reform is the removal of the requirement for girls aged 16-17 to obtain parental consent before having an abortion. Also, a mandatory three-day “period of reflection”, to reconsider the decision ahead of the procedure, is eliminated.
The new legislation also seeks to make abortion more available in public clinics, where currently many doctors refuse to perform the operation, so that women do not have to travel long distances or pay for the procedure in private centres. In 2020, the most recent year with data available, there were 88,269 abortions in Spain, 85 per cent of which took place in private clinics.
Abortion in certain circumstances was decriminalised in 1985. The last overarching abortion reform was by a socialist administration in 2010, making terminations available on demand up to week 14 of a pregnancy. However, the conservative Popular Party (PP) filed an appeal against that law and the constitutional court is still yet to rule on it.
It's a strange form of democracy where a law can be passed by the parliament 12 years ago yet still be held up in the courts. Either it's constitutional or it's not so make a ruling on it ffs.
Life ain't always empty.
0 -
RTE has just reported that Brandon Lewis has removed the issue of abortion provision from the NI Dept of Health because of its inability [my term to describe it not been able to ensure the provision of abortion to women and girls due to a certain body of people stopping the provision] to ensure the provision of abortion goes ahead as legally provided for by the UK Govt and UK parliament acts.
0 -
Jeffrey Donaldson, who's been successful in some quarters in playing up his manufactured grievances about how much damage an "Irish Sea Border" would do to trade, now fully supports the idea of an "Irish Sea Border" when it comes to abortion.
3 -
Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,459 Mod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 26380
Shocked, I am shocked I tell you.
1 -
That leaves me wondering what the his thoughts are of the North/South land border when it comes to medical practices he doesn't approve of being performed in Ulster?
0 -
Ugh. Please don't give credence to their false use of the 9-county entity which is Ulster to name their sectarian little statelet.
Life ain't always empty.
2 -
Advertisement
-
(deleted)
Post edited by Hotblack Desiato onLife ain't always empty.
0
