Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Igotadose · 18-09-2018 4:26pm

The fact that the damned amendment hasn't been removed from the Constitution by now is really annoying. The Dail should be taking that up this week ffs.

Hotblack Desiato · 18-09-2018 5:15pm

The Dail did their bit way back when the referendum bill was passed. It doesn't go back before them again (what if they voted against ratifying an amendment the people had passed?)

lazygal · 18-09-2018 6:21pm

The vellum is on the way to the president for signature.

aloyisious · 18-09-2018 7:04pm

Just on RTE 1 Radio, Michael D has signed the 36th amendment into law. The 8th amendment is now gone into history.

Igotadose · 18-09-2018 7:12pm

Yes! A GREAT day for Ireland!

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0918/994438-cabinet/

:):) Yay!

Hotblack Desiato · 18-09-2018 10:15pm

Disappointing that that crap lasted 35 years, but thank feck it's finally gone.

Cabaal · 19-09-2018 6:28am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Disappointing that that crap lasted 35 years, but thank feck it's finally gone.

Now the fun begins with legislation,
just watch the no side restart their PR machine,

Loafing Oaf · 19-09-2018 10:59am

Cabaal wrote: »

Now the fun begins with legislation,
just watch the no side restart their PR machine,

Nothing of substance they can do about the legislation. Vast majority of TDs are committed to supporting the proposals set out by Simon Harris before the referendum. I suspect they'll barely even bother lobbying.

volchitsa · 19-09-2018 11:12am

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Nothing of substance they can do about the legislation. Vast majority of TDs are committed to supporting the proposals set out by Simon Harris before the referendum. I suspect they'll barely even bother lobbying.

I expect that, as ever, they'll quietly move their previously unassailable barriers of what they are actually opposed to, and just set them up again a little further back and act as though that's what they were fighting against all along.

IOW their new battle will be all about conscientious objection.

Loafing Oaf · 19-09-2018 11:25am

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The waiting period is a farce and should be removed.

Seems like you're not the only one thinking this way
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/doctor-fears-on-abortion-pause-37332018.html

I reckon the waiting period was part of the broader 'don't frighten the horses' approach that (reasonably at the time) thought necessary to getting repeal past 'middle Ireland.' If they knew the referendum result was such a foregone conclusion I doubt it would have been proposed but it looks like they're stuck with it now...

An_Toirpin · 19-09-2018 11:30am

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Seems like you're not the only one thinking this way
https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/doctor-fears-on-abortion-pause-37332018.html

I reckon the waiting period was part of the broader 'don't frighten the horses' approach that (reasonably at the time) thought necessary to getting repeal past 'middle Ireland.' If they knew the referendum result was such a foregone conclusion I doubt it would have been proposed but it looks like they're stuck with it now...

The waiting period may save many lives. I think we should be very grateful for it.

volchitsa · 19-09-2018 11:47am

volchitsa wrote: »

I expect that, as ever, they'll quietly move their previously unassailable barriers of what they are actually opposed to, and just set them up again a little further back and act as though that's what they were fighting against all along.

IOW their new battle will be all about conscientious objection.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The waiting period may save many lives. I think we should be very grateful for it.

QED.

eviltwin · 19-09-2018 11:49am

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The waiting period may save many lives. I think we should be very grateful for it.

I think the time it takes for a woman to make the decision to have an abortion is enough waiting. Making her hang on another 3 days is an insult to her intelligence and just makes her vulnerable to pro life bullies.

Under His Eye · 19-09-2018 11:50am

Pickets on abortion clinics and the harassment of the people attending/working at said clinics will be the no sides next move.

An_Toirpin · 19-09-2018 11:51am

volchitsa wrote: »

QED.

Or maybe it will be fighting pushes to normalise post birth abortion ie legal child enthusiasm like they they have in the Netherlands.

An_Toirpin · 19-09-2018 11:53am

eviltwin wrote: »

I think the time it takes for a woman to make the decision to have an abortion is enough waiting. Making her hang on another 3 days is an insult to her intelligence and just makes her vulnerable to pro life bullies.

Two year waiting list for urgent cataract surgery is ok in Ireland, but a three day wait for elective abortion taking anyway someones life is an insult :pac: :pac::pac:

volchitsa · 19-09-2018 11:58am

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Or maybe it will be fighting pushes to normalise post birth abortion ie legal child enthusiasm like they they have in the Netherlands.

The euthanasia debate is completely unrelated to abortion.

Not only did those countries with child euthanasia laws bring them in as extensions of their euthanasia laws not abortion laws but it would be perfectly possible for Ireland to bring in similar laws on child euthanasia with the 8th still in existence.

Because they are based on relieving unbearable pain for children with a hopeless prognosis, not on a woman's right not to be pregnant.

SusieBlue · 19-09-2018 12:05pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Or maybe it will be fighting pushes to normalise post birth abortion ie legal child enthusiasm like they they have in the Netherlands.

Sorry, what exactly is a post birth abortion? Or did you just make up a hyperbolic term to create a reaction?

You lost. Get over it.

Loafing Oaf · 19-09-2018 12:16pm

Under His Eye wrote: »

Pickets on abortion clinics and the harassment of the people attending/working at said clinics will be the no sides next move.

Well it might be if there were going to be any 'abortion clinics'...

An_Toirpin · 19-09-2018 12:16pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

Sorry, what exactly is a post birth abortion? Or did you just make up a hyperbolic term to create a reaction?

You lost. Get over it.

eh it exists. Do your research.

Cabaal · 19-09-2018 12:19pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Nothing of substance they can do about the legislation. Vast majority of TDs are committed to supporting the proposals set out by Simon Harris before the referendum. I suspect they'll barely even bother lobbying.

They've already been busy sending leaflets/letters out since the ref outcome

Under His Eye wrote: »

Pickets on abortion clinics and the harassment of the people attending/working at said clinics will be the no sides next move.

way to tackle that is have the procedures in normal hospitals, are they going to picket every hospital...unlikely.

Of course if they do try say picket the big one's in Dublin then exclusion zones will need to be put in place

volchitsa · 19-09-2018 12:20pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

eh it exists. Do your research.

No it doesn't. Putting words together doesn't make something a thing.

Those invisible pink unicorns are there to prove my point.

An_Toirpin · 19-09-2018 12:21pm

volchitsa wrote: »

The euthanasia debate is completely unrelated to abortion.

Not only did those countries with child euthanasia laws bring them in as extensions of their euthanasia laws not abortion laws but it would be perfectly possible for Ireland to bring in similar laws on child euthanasia with the 8th still in existence.

Because they are based on relieving unbearable pain for children with a hopeless prognosis, not on a woman's right not to be pregnant.

I didn't say the Eight Amendment gave protections to born kids. First it was about choice. Then about 'relieving suffering'.

volchitsa wrote: »

not on a woman's right not to be pregnant.

There is no right for a parent to cease being a parent. Ludicrous. Tragically there will be a law permitting killing of unborn kids. But not a right for parents not to be parents.

Cabaal · 19-09-2018 12:21pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

eh it exists. Do your research.

You made the claim, its your job to prove its not false.

Now back it up with proper verified data from a reliable none bias source.
Of course, if you refuse to do this or don't provide a reliable source then we can all agree you just made a false claim....otherwise known as a lie

An_Toirpin · 19-09-2018 12:23pm

volchitsa wrote: »

No it doesn't. Putting words together doesn't make something a thing.

Those invisible pink unicorns are there to prove my point.

I repeat there are circumstances where killing an infant in the Netherlands is legally permitted. You can apologise now for mocking.

It is tiring how many times the pro aborts get their facts mixed up.

Loafing Oaf · 19-09-2018 12:24pm

Cabaal wrote: »

You made the claim, its your job to prove its not false.

Now back it up with proper verified data from a reliable none bias source.

Or else it's another one for this list:

SusieBlue · 19-09-2018 12:24pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

eh it exists. Do your research.

Please back your claim up with a link or I'm afraid you are telling lies.

You're flogging a dead horse anyway. The majority of the country agreed the 8th needed to go. Its now gone. Lamenting about alleged "post birth abortions" is pointless.

volchitsa · 19-09-2018 12:27pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

I didn't say the Eight Amendment gave protections to born kids. First it was about choice. Then about 'relieving suffering'.

Nope, you're conflating two different things. It's simple really. No law on euthanasia anywhere in the world is based on a right to abortion.

You may as well say giving women the right to vote has led them to want a right to abortion. Actually you'd have a better argument linking those two than abortion and euthanasia.

An_Toirpin wrote: »

There is no right for a parent to cease being a parent. Ludicrous. Tragically there will be a law permitting killing of unborn kids. But not a right for parents not to be parents.

What do you think adoption is, if not a right not to be a parent?

An_Toirpin · 19-09-2018 12:28pm

Cabaal wrote: »

You made the claim, its your job to prove its not false.

Now back it up with proper verified data from a reliable none bias source.
Of course, if you refuse to do this or don't provide a reliable source then we can all agree you just made a false claim....otherwise known as a lie

Jotkowitz, Alan B., and Shimon Glick. "The Groningen protocol: another perspective." Journal of medical ethics 32.3 (2006): 157

There you have it. An example of why we must not lose track of individualism. A commitment to individualism is the foundation of my pro life values.

Cabaal · 19-09-2018 12:28pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

Please back your claim up with a link or I'm afraid you are telling lies.

You're flogging a dead horse anyway. The majority of the country agreed the 8th needed to go. Its now gone. Lamenting about alleged "post birth abortions" is pointless.

ah now Susieblue, you are forgetting a few important things.

First off, whataboutery is very important and An_Toirpin is doing that perfectly. Next off, killing, murdering and stuff like that. So you are wrong.

An_Toirpin is right because they said so, no need for any evidence to backup anything they say.

:pac::pac:

SusieBlue · 19-09-2018 12:28pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

I repeat there are circumstances where killing an infant in the Netherlands is legally permitted. You can apologise now for mocking.

It is tiring how many times the pro aborts get their facts mixed up.

That isn't a post birth abortion. You are calling it that does not make it so. Using emotive language to manipulate a reaction does not make your point more valid or pertinent.

You are exploiting tragic circumstances in a different country to suit your viewpoint.

Healthy, fully formed, fully functioning infants are not aborted "post birth" in the Netherlands. Stop telling lies.

volchitsa · 19-09-2018 12:31pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

I repeat there are circumstances where killing an infant in the Netherlands is legally permitted. You can apologise now for mocking.

There are, and they are unrelated to the abortion debate, and are based solely on an extension of euthanasia laws for the terminally ill.

It is tiring how many times the pro aborts get their facts mixed up.

I'm not mixed up at all. I'm right and you are either wrong or lying.
Not that child euthanasia doesn't exist, I know it does, but in linking it to abortion - that's a lie.

An_Toirpin · 19-09-2018 12:32pm

volchitsa wrote: »

Nope, you're conflating two different things. It's simple really. No law on euthanasia anywhere in the world is based on a right to abortion.

You may as well say giving women the right to vote has led them to want a right to abortion. Actually you'd have a better argument linking those two than abortion and euthanasia.

What do you think adoption is, if not a right not to be a parent?

You are just repeating you own misunderstanding. I didn't say that euthanasia that. I said that fighting euthanasia, especially forced euthanasia will be featuring in the prolifes movement future.

Arguing that women's right to vote led to legal abortion is a farce of an argument. The prolife moment is dominated by women. All of the peer review study of abortion views shows that gender has no bearing on what people people choose to align with.

Loafing Oaf · 19-09-2018 12:32pm

Cabaal wrote: »

They've already been busy sending leaflets/letters out since the ref outcome

I find that a bit surprising, but I guess it doesn't take much effort to send a boilerplate leaflet to a mailing list of TDs, including Ruth Coppinger, Brid Smith etc.

SusieBlue · 19-09-2018 12:33pm

Its extremely amusing to see the same scaremongering shock tactics being used again. Nobody believed them the first time round in the lead up to the referendum, no one is going to believe them now.

robindch · 19-09-2018 12:35pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

[...] legal child enthusiasm like they they have in the Netherlands.

I'm not sure whether you mean legalized pedophilia or legalized child euthanasia.

In any case, both topics are unrelated to abortion - if you'd like to open up a thread on whatever it is you're talking about, please feel free to go ahead. Note that you will be expected to back up assertions you make in that thread, just as you are in this one.

An_Toirpin · 19-09-2018 12:36pm

SusieBlue wrote: »

That isn't a post birth abortion. You are calling it that does not make it so. Using emotive language to manipulate a reaction does not make your point more valid or pertinent.

You are exploiting tragic circumstances in a different country to suit your viewpoint.

Healthy, fully formed, fully functioning infants are not aborted "post birth" in the Netherlands. Stop telling lies.

LOL. Nice changing the goal posts with the insertion of 'Healthy, fully formed, fully functioning. '

Abort means to end. Abortion is a vague term that mean many things in the medical context and to apply pedantic meaning to it is pointless and false.

SusieBlue · 19-09-2018 12:39pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

LOL. Nice changing the goal posts with the insertion of 'Healthy, fully formed, fully functioning. '

Abort means to end. Abortion is a vague term that mean many things in the medical context and to apply pedantic meaning to it is pointless and false.

You're the one shifting goal posts.

To clarify, are you suggesting that its legal for healthy women who give birth to healthy, full term babies to enuthanise/"abort" their children post birth, just because they feel like it?
If that isn't what you are saying, you are being deliberately misleading in order to make your point. You are telling lies.

eviltwin · 19-09-2018 12:46pm

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Two year waiting list for urgent cataract surgery is ok in Ireland, but a three day wait for elective abortion taking anyway someones life is an insult :pac: :pac::pac:

Oh I know all about waiting lists believe me but they tend to be because of financial reasons, lack of staff and services

Not because we need to patronise women by making them wait just in case they don't really know their own mind.

You're condescending response kinda just proves my point.

Calina · 19-09-2018 12:57pm

An Toirpin is at liberty not to have an abortion but until they and their ilk are busily campaigning for women to be fairly compensated for the contribution to society they make in having children and enabled to raise their children outside poverty, by which i mean a minimum income of at least 45ke net a year, they care neither about women nor about children. They do care about control, however.

end of the road · 19-09-2018 1:00pm

eviltwin wrote: »

I think the time it takes for a woman to make the decision to have an abortion is enough waiting. Making her hang on another 3 days is an insult to her intelligence and just makes her vulnerable to pro life bullies.

not at all. it's 3 days, hardly the end of the world. it's perfectly fine and is a non-issue. it might help some. won't help everyone.

Under His Eye wrote: »

Pickets on abortion clinics and the harassment of the people attending/working at said clinics will be the no sides next move.

well, assuming the government are stupid enough to allow such clinics in ireland rather then go with a gp service as was proposed, then they have only themselves to blame.
a gp lead service = no protests as nobody knows who is going in for what.

SusieBlue wrote: »

Sorry, what exactly is a post birth abortion? Or did you just make up a hyperbolic term to create a reaction?

You lost. Get over it.

irrelevant. not get over it.

Cabaal wrote: »

They've already been busy sending leaflets/letters out since the ref outcome

way to tackle that is have the procedures in normal hospitals, are they going to picket every hospital...unlikely.

Of course if they do try say picket the big one's in Dublin then exclusion zones will need to be put in place

exclusion zones won't work. they will just be a money sink and won't stop such pickets. even over in britain the government have said they won't implement such zones nationally, i'm assuming because they know it would be a lost cause. i have a feeling they may move away from the clinic model long term anyway.

Igotadose · 19-09-2018 1:06pm

Dr. Peter Boylan is against the waiting period. Good for him.

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2018/0919/994727-abortion/

"
"While there will be mixed views, but a lot of doctors feel, it's not necessary and should be dropped," he said."
---
Good to see the process moving along, the Taoiseach has said the program'll be in place at the start of 2019

eviltwin · 19-09-2018 1:13pm

end of the road wrote: »

not at all. it's 3 days, hardly the end of the world. it's perfectly fine and is a non-issue. it might help some. won't help everyone.

It might be a non issue for you but don't assume making two trips to a doctor in the space of a week is an easy feat for everyone.

And why should they wait? If I go to a doctor to be seen I expect to be treated that day if the doctor has the ability to do so. I don't expect to be told to go home and have a think about it when presumably, if I'm seeking an abortion in the first place, I've already done that.

You really think women are so flaky that "I want an abortion" actually means "convince me not to have an abortion"?

All this does is show how little value you place on a woman's ability to make a sound decision. You basically don't think she can and that she's fair game for anyone who may want to coerce her into changing her mind. Which is insulting to all women and especially cruel to the woman with the unwanted pregnancy.

Proving, as always, that you don't give a damn about women at all.

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-09-2018 1:15pm

end of the road wrote: »

not at all. it's 3 days, hardly the end of the world. it's perfectly fine and is a non-issue. it might help some. won't help everyone.

If waiting 3 days is helpful for someone, then they are perfectly capable of waiting 3 days. That is pretty much all that saying "it might help some" tells me.

When we want to implement a system that ENFORCES a 3 day wait on everyone however then "it might help some" is far from justification for that decision. To justify that decision the speaker would have to:

1) Show that it will help them in a way that they themselves choosing to wait three days of their own volition would not and

2) show that it does actually help in some way in the first place and

3) be less vague about "some" and show exactly how many people this "some" is likely to be. 2 People? 2% of people? 20%? How many are we talking here given any figure over 1 person is "some" and

4) given the people who might be helped by waiting three days can THEMSELVES choose to wait three days, then show that forcing EVERYONE to wait 3 days is a justifiable approach to affording this vague unqualified and unqantified "some" this wait.

5) show that there is no detrimental effect to their policy to make everyone wait three days or that they have at least attempted to ascertain this themselves.

6) show how this fits into the overall dynamic of patient decision in medical contexts. Where else for example do we give the patient a decision to opt for a medical procedure, or drug, and having made their decision we enforce a wait upon them? How do people advocating a waiting period in THIS context compare that to those situations? Where and why do they feel it fits into the hierarchy of other examples they have found, and can offer, for where such waiting periods exist?

7) Be less vague about what "help" might actually accrue. Implementing policy, especially policy that will hinder the majority for no good reason based on "might help" without discussing of showing how it might help ANYONE, is not really a good move in my view. We should base our policy based on some substantiated reason to think we know how many people it will help, and what form that "help" or benefit might actually take.

I have seen none of this done by people who advocate an enforced waiting period. Least of all yourself. A vague "some" and "help" thrown out without ANY indication of how many this "some" is and what form this "help" might take gives us nothing. At all.

end of the road · 19-09-2018 1:17pm

Calina wrote: »

An Toirpin is at liberty not to have an abortion but until they and their ilk are busily campaigning for women to be fairly compensated for the contribution to society they make in having children and enabled to raise their children outside poverty, by which i mean a minimum income of at least 45ke net a year, they care neither about women nor about children. They do care about control, however.

and maybe if a number of those who want abortion to be availible stopped supporting, and voting for, people who implement stuff that cause women not to be compensated for the contribution they make to society by having and raising children, and prevent those women from raising their children outside poverty, we'd go a lot further as a society.
instead they will continuously vote in the same politicians who deliver more of the same, and will complain about pro-life not doing anything about the issues when in fact, they are trying to, and will tell us all how apparently pro-life don't care, when it is in fact they who come across as uncaring, if i'm honest. if you have an issue with something, do something about it. don't be expecting everyone else to do the work for you.

King Mob · 19-09-2018 1:25pm

end of the road wrote: »

well, assuming the government are stupid enough to allow such clinics in ireland rather then go with a gp service as was proposed, then they have only themselves to blame.
a gp lead service = no protests as nobody knows who is going in for what.

Well they can blame the ghouls who are harassing women when they are going in for health services...
Just a thought...

end of the road · 19-09-2018 1:35pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If waiting 3 days is helpful for someone, then they are perfectly capable of waiting 3 days. That is pretty much all that saying "it might help some" tells me.

When we want to implement a system that ENFORCES a 3 day wait on everyone however then "it might help some" is far from justification for that decision. To justify that decision the speaker would have to:

1) Show that it will help them in a way that they themselves choosing to wait three days of their own volition would not and

2) show that it does actually help in some way in the first place and

3) be less vague about "some" and show exactly how many people this "some" is likely to be. 2 People? 2% of people? 20%? How many are we talking here given any figure over 1 person is "some" and

4) given the people who might be helped by waiting three days can THEMSELVES choose to wait three days, then show that forcing EVERYONE to wait 3 days is a justifiable approach to affording this vague unqualified and unqantified "some" this wait.

5) show that there is no detrimental effect to their policy to make everyone wait three days or that they have at least attempted to ascertain this themselves.

6) show how this fits into the overall dynamic of patient decision in medical contexts. Where else for example do we give the patient a decision to opt for a medical procedure, or drug, and having made their decision we enforce a wait upon them? How do people advocating a waiting period in THIS context compare that to those situations? Where and why do they feel it fits into the hierarchy of other examples they have found, and can offer, for where such waiting periods exist?

7) Be less vague about what "help" might actually accrue. Implementing policy, especially policy that will hinder the majority for no good reason based on "might help" without discussing of showing how it might help ANYONE, is not really a good move in my view. We should base our policy based on some substantiated reason to think we know how many people it will help, and what form that "help" or benefit might actually take.

I have seen none of this done by people who advocate an enforced waiting period. Least of all yourself. A vague "some" and "help" thrown out without ANY indication of how many this "some" is and what form this "help" might take gives us nothing. At all.

it's likely the government will have looked at all of that before implementing the waiting period. i know the government we have aren't exactly competent but if there was no point in this then they wouldn't have implemented it as part of the legislation.

eviltwin wrote: »

It might be a non issue for you but don't assume making two trips to a doctor in the space of a week is an easy feat for everyone.

And why should they wait? If I go to a doctor to be seen I expect to be treated that day if the doctor has the ability to do so. I don't expect to be told to go home and have a think about it when presumably, if I'm seeking an abortion in the first place, I've already done that.

You really think women are so flaky that "I want an abortion" actually means "convince me not to have an abortion"?

All this does is show how little value you place on a woman's ability to make a sound decision. You basically don't think she can and that she's fair game for anyone who may want to coerce her into changing her mind. Which is insulting to all women and especially cruel to the woman with the unwanted pregnancy.

Proving, as always, that you don't give a damn about women at all.

it doesn't show anything and does not prove what you claim, because for it to do so, i would have had to have stated that i believe what you are claiming i believe, which i don't. if i believed what you claim i believe then i would state it but as i don't believe what you claim i believe then i'm not going to say i believe such when i don't.
i simply believe the waiting period may give people time to think. it's not going to be the case for everyone and i haven't claimed that it would be but if it does help some then it's worth it.

King Mob wrote: »

Well they can blame the ghouls who are harassing women when they are going in for health services...
Just a thought...

in this speculative sannario the government would have allowed the opening of facilities that attract protest when there are other options availible, so that is why i would hold them more responsible for protests happening, because they would have had an option to insure they don't happen without having to spend extra money and use extra resources, via operating a non-clinic model as proposed.

King Mob · 19-09-2018 1:42pm

end of the road wrote: »

i simply believe the waiting period may give people time to think

Because women wouldn't think about it before they went into the doctor?
Or they would be unable to go into the doctor and perhaps ask for a few days to think about it?
What benefit does enforcing a waiting period give?

end of the road wrote: »

in this speculative sannario the government would have allowed the opening of facilities that attract protest when there are other options availible, so that is why i would hold them more responsible for protests happening, because they would have had an option to insure they don't happen without having to spend extra money and use extra resources, via operating a non-clinic model as proposed.

Or... Just maybe... Your side shouldn't harass women when they are going in for medical treatment.
Again, they're the ones who should get the blame here.

But I suppose, they are blameless just like they don't lie?

nozzferrahhtoo · 19-09-2018 1:42pm

end of the road wrote: »

if there was no point in this then they wouldn't have implemented it as part of the legislation.

Your naivety is sweet. As if any government would ever implement a policy for no reason, for vested interests, or as a knee jerk reaction. Sure that NEVER happens does it.

But yea basically you just confirmed what I knew already. That you, and likely other people advocating for this pointless hurdle, have no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer to support this.

You. Got. Nothing.

Again.

end of the road wrote: »

i simply believe the waiting period may give people time to think.

But they already have time to think.

Enforcing a thinking period does not GIVE people a thinking period. There is a massive difference, both linguistically and actually, between giving people X and enforcing X on people.

Do not pretend, as you do here, that the latter is in any way the former. It is not. Even a little bit.

end of the road wrote: »

it's not going to be the case for everyone and i haven't claimed that it would be but if it does help some then it's worth it.

Again however it is dangerously naive to base policy that is enforced on the totality of a group based on a vague "if" that has not just little, but no substance behind it. You appear to have no idea whatsoever how many people this "some" even is, or what form this "help" or benefit could or might take.

And that is a very dangerous and naive way to promote or form policy. Almost as dangerous and naive as a policy of the form "sure if the government are doing it, they must have a decent reason to be doing it, and that's good enough for me". A policy that I feel is a pretty damn sure safe bet you do NOT take when they are implementing policy you do NOT agree with.

Cabaal · 19-09-2018 1:52pm

I'm still waiting to clarify if abortion is murder, end of the road can you help clarify?
You seem like a person in the know, I've heard so much conflicting info, for example claims that the term murder has never been used by anyone on the no side.

Can you help clarify?

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Comments