stinkle wrote: » No one is using their wealth to evade the law, there's nothing to evade.
stinkle wrote: » They're taking advantage of the amendment to the constitution that was voted in by the people. No one is evading anything, nothing is stopping them except circumstances and that shouldn't be.
stinkle wrote: » It's just an inconvenient truth that there IS abortion in Ireland, lots of it according to the stats. It just doesn't actually take place on the island, except for those who ordered pills that got through customs. It;s not like anyone thinks "oh the 8th amendment exists, therefore I'd best sit tight and not have an abortion". It just exports the issue for those that have the luxury of time/money/personal support and that is shameful.
lazygal wrote: » I'm open about how I feel about abortion. Any comments on legitimate rape and pregnancy? Do you think its only rape if it's a stranger in a dark alley and extraneous violence is involved?
ABC101 wrote: » While of course rape is wrong, murdering a baby human is a greater wrong in my perspective. Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?
ABC101 wrote: » In fairness to you Lazygal, you have been open about your experiences, and you deserve to be recognised for that. However TBH i am horrified at what you have admitted to in the past, that is nothing to be proud of. I never gave a definition of rape, and I don't understand what you mean by 'legitimate rape', is that not a contradiction in terms? While of course rape is wrong, murdering a baby human is a greater wrong in my perspective. Two wrongs don't make a right, do they?
Absolam wrote: » I think if it were simply a referendum to flatly repeal the 8th, it would probably fail. If it were a referendum to retain but modify it, it might pass depending on what the modifications were. I suspect you're not just asking as a matter of interest though... is there a follow on question in the offing?
robdonn wrote: » Even though opinion polls show that the majority of decided people are in favour of repealing the 8th?
stinkle wrote: » Irish people voted in referenda for the right to travel and the right to have information. Nothing illegal there. Nothing to evade.
stinkle wrote: » No one is stopping anyone at airports or ferryports on the way out or into the country, and interestingly there's no furore from anyone with respect to couriering of the ashes from the likes of Liverpool either. It's an Irish solution to an Irish problem.
stinkle wrote: » There's plenty of abortion in the country, the fact that the procedure itself takes place elsewhere isn't relevant.
stinkle wrote: » Irish women get info here, make arrangements, travel, have abortions and return, usually soon after. often too soon. Get over it. There are groups in Ireland that provide financial assistance and emotional support pre and post, as well as the necessary medical support. It's all completely legal too, as voted by the electorate.
robdonn wrote: » In Ireland murder is the intentional killing, or intentional attempt at killing, one person by another. While our constitution grants the right to life to the unborn, it does not grant them personhood.
Absolam wrote: » Even so; I've offered my opinion of the polls you've put forward before, but in short I think straight repeal would fail because there is not majority support for abortion on demand, and that is how repeal would be presented in the debate.
Absolam wrote: » I'd say different; the right to life is enumerated as a personal right, and the Supreme Court has referred to the unborn as a person on more than one occasion. It has been well covered on the thread before though, so it might help to review the points if you feel it's worth debating.
JPNelsforearm wrote: » Do you agree that people should be given the option? What does either side have to lose, especially if you are confident in a result. It would put the issue to bed for at least another two/three terms of government.
eviltwin wrote: » His point still stands though....abortion is not murder. We've already seen women prosecuted for having abortions here, they were not charged with murder. Morally, ethically most people don't see it as such. If I kill someone in a foreign land people will be upset by that as much as if I killed someone here. Having an abortion however...I find most people are quite meh about it, they don't see it as a big deal and barely care.
robdonn wrote: » While our constitution grants the right to life to the unborn, it does not grant them personhood.
robdonn wrote: » But straight repeal wouldn't legalise abortion on demand, would it? I thought that if the 8th was repealed then POLDP would still apply, restricting abortions to the situations it defines? I could be wrong but I think I remember you making that argument before.
Absolam wrote: » Well, the pro life side has the 8th Amendment to lose; the pro choice side has noting to lose. So, regardless of confidence, only one side seems to have something to gain, so why would the other side favour a referendum? Sure it would put the issue to bed for as long as it took to work up the appetite for another referendum; we're 33 years and counting now, so who would want to wait another 33 years to have abortion law changed again? Especially when we could keep it as it is for another 33 years... So no, I think the only people who agree people should be given the option are those who stand a chance of gaining what they want from the result.
Absolam wrote: » No, it wouldn't (though it would make it possible to do so) but if there were a campaign for straight repeal, the obvious answering campaign would be that it will lead to abortion on demand; without Constitutional protection laws can be changed at the whim of politicians, precedents and rights can be established or eroded by Courts, and there is no guarantee that we wouldn't have abortion on demand in months, in fact with our effective tax haven status we could become the abortion tourist destination of Europe within a year, Ireland would be awash with Turkish junkies and German prostitutes availing of our generous healthcare system, dogs would run away with spoons etc etc and all your pensions would be gone*. Far more imaginative people than me would be paid handsomely to construct far better and scary arguments if it came to it. Arguments that, I think, would be likely to sway the vote; people won't vote for uncertainty. *For the benefit of lazier, or more volatile, thinkers amongst us... this is not an argument I'm putting forward. I'm saying all manner of dooms will be put forward as reasons to vote no, on the basis that if even one strikes a chord with voters, it will be worth it.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » The 'pro life' side have nothing to loose either! The way some people go on you would think that the repeal of the 8th will lead to a legal obligation to have abortions. Those who are 'pro life' will maintain their right to continue with pregnancies that are unwanted/doomed/the result of sexual assault, it's just that the rest of us will have the choice not to. What exactly will they be 'loosing'? Foetuses belonging to other people?
robdonn wrote: » OK, now you're just being ridiculous! Dogs have absolutely no interest in ... oh wait, is this going to be the campaign image for the Pro-Life side?
aloyisious wrote: » @Absolom: ta for the info on Excommunication latae sententiae on the other thread and it's automatic self-imposition by virtue of deed done, differing from the imposition of excommunication after a formal hearing on an accusation or admittance of an offence against canon law.
Absolam wrote: » That's more than a tad different to what I said about excommunication latae sententiae to Freshpopcorn and Cabaal on that thread... but surely your post would be more relevant on the thread you're referring to?
aloyisious wrote: » I googled the term - excommunication latae sententiae - and two separate items referring to excommunication popped up. That's why I wrote mentioning both the automatic excommunication due to offence and the more formal hearing. As for getting involved and writing in another thread, I decided not to bother when I was merely thanking you for a good titbit. TTFN.
aloyisious wrote: » I can see it now, a dog is for life.......
ABC101 wrote: » In fairness to you Lazygal, you have been open about your experiences, and you deserve to be recognised for that. However TBH i am horrified at what you have admitted to in the past, that is nothing to be proud of.
oscarBravo wrote: » It's a medical procedure. It's neither something to be proud of, nor something to be ashamed of. I had a trabeculectomy a few years ago. I can't say it ever crossed my mind to be proud of it.
Absolam wrote: » FGM is a medical procedure too, but I'm not sure everyone would agree it's neither something to be proud of, nor something to be ashamed of. Heck, the same could be said of breast augmentation, or sterilisation, or circumcision, or rhinoplasty. Perhaps it depends on the purpose of the medical procedure, rather then the fact that it's a medical procedure?
MrPudding wrote: » Hmmm, perhaps I am odd, but holding down a small girl and either cutting off her cliitoris or sewing up her vagina is not something I would consider to be a medical procedure. A medical procedure is, I believe, something carried out for the health of the person it is carried out on. MrP
MrPudding wrote: » Hmmm, perhaps I am odd, but holding down a small girl and either cutting off her cliitoris or sewing up her vagina is not something I would consider to be a medical procedure. A medical procedure is, I believe, something carried out for the health of the person it is carried out on.
