Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

SusieBlue

tretorn wrote: »

Abortions being carried out for medical reasons are completely different to abortions being carried out because you are having a boy and you wanted a girl. Your reply is nonsensical, abortions have always been carried out in maternity hospitals to save womens lives, hence Savita should not have died and she wouldnt have if staff had realised her life was in danger.

You can get an abortion now when the gender of your baby is confirmed, you can claim you are suicidal because of being pregnant and demand an abortion. This is the legislation we voted for, our abortion Law is very liberal.

You are spouting this nonsense about gender all over Boards when it won’t be legal to have an abortion under such circumstances in this country.

There are TWO grounds in which an abortion can legally take place after 12 weeks in Ireland, risk to the life of the mother and FFA.

Gender determination typically occurs at the anamoly scan, which takes place between weeks 20-23.
So IF (and it’s a big if here) a doctor agreed that a woman was at risk of committing suicide because of the gender of her baby, the baby would be around the point of viability.
So as I have now said to you on about three different threads, there would be NO abortion.
They are a termination of pregnancy aka an early birth.

The woman would be induced, the baby would be born and given medical care, and then handed over to social services.

I have actually heard of several cases in the UK where the woman requested a termination on the grounds of mental health, and after receiving medical opinions and counseling almost all of them waited 6-8 weeks until they were circa 32 weeks pregnant (minimum) to give the baby more chance of surviving the early birth.
Some of them even regained custody of their babies after a period of time, when they were more mentally well.
People with such severe mental health issues that they cannot stay pregnant are not the vicious monsters you are trying to make them out to be.

There will be no euthanizing healthy babies who are developed enough to be born alive. It just simply won’t be happening.
Maybe in the past in other jurisdictions that happened, but it doesn’t happen any more.

It’s also extremely disengeneous that you keep saying gender abortions will be happening when there is no evidence that this is even an issue.

If you could stop spreading hyperbole and fake news it would be much appreciated, unless you can of course prove that doctors routinely euthanize fully formed babies in utero on the grounds of gender on a regular basis, either here or in the UK.
I know that this is a problem in Asia but it isn’t here, so I suspect you are being manipulating a problem another culture has for your own gain.

end of the road

Odhinn wrote: »

...but it does force her to remain pregnant, thus under mining her bodily autonomy in the most intrusive manner possible. What part of that do you have problems understanding?

i don't believe there is any forcing to remain pregnant, or undermining of bodily autonomy by preventing the killing of the unborn for social, lifestyle and convenience reasons. if we were talking about preventing medical abortions such as where the mother's life is under threat then by all means i would agree with you.

King Mob

splinter65 wrote: »

No I asked you what you thought.
I’ll tell you why I think they’re not having it. It’s a mixture of MOSTLY
1.having too much to do/too many complex patients/too much pressure and not enough money/support from the Department of Health/health minister already.
2. Wreaking the disapproval/disappointment of quite a large amount of patients who either voted no but would have voted no had they been bothered to vote at all. (700,000 is a good few all the same).
3. Possibly being conscientious objectors to some degree.

I agree with those mostly, though I don't think option 3 is a particularly large number.
I'm still unsure of your point?

splinter65 wrote: »

Stop shouting and fighting. You’ve won. I’ve never in my life cane across such bad winners. You guys leave Australian cricket fans in the halfpenny place.

Again, we still have people claiming stuff like the anti-abortion side is claiming here.
This must be countered.

Also, who is shouting and who is fighting?
What are you referring to exactly?

Again, you ignore several of my points.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe there is any forcing to remain pregnant, or undermining of bodily autonomy by preventing the killing of the unborn for social, lifestyle and convenience reasons. if we were talking about preventing medical abortions such as where the mother's life is under threat then by all means i would agree with you.

You are in no position to be determining that on behalf of anyone else.

If you are denying someone an abortion, you ARE forcing someone to stay pregnant.
Stop word salading and at least admit your position. It can’t possibly mean anything else.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

i don't believe there is any forcing to remain pregnant, or undermining of bodily autonomy by preventing the killing of the unborn for social, lifestyle and convenience reasons. if we were talking about preventing medical abortions such as where the mother's life is under threat then by all means i would agree with you.

Have you really forgotten the HSE's application to the courts to be allowed to physically restrain Ms Y?

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

they can and will once they get out however, and they won't be in jail for very long.
i'm afraid that ultimately this is 1 situation where we would be flushing money down the toilet for nothing in return, spending money for the sake of spending it.

And then they get lifted a second time for longer and longer etc.
Spending money so people can freely access legal healthcare is not just spending money for the sake of it.

Loafing Oaf

splinter65 wrote: »

I don’t think there’s much fear of the protestors really. What are they going to do? Put a spell on you?

Create a massive disruption outside their practice, waving placards and screaming in people's faces like you see at abortion clinics in america. I never believed this stuff would happen in Ireland but I don't think it's unreasonable for GPs to fear it.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

You are in no position to be determining that on behalf of anyone else.

If you are denying someone an abortion, you ARE forcing someone to stay pregnant.
Stop word salading and at least admit your position. It can’t possibly mean anything else.

my position is actually what i stated in the post you quoted. there is no word salading happening from me.

volchitsa wrote: »

Have you really forgotten the HSE's application to the courts to be allowed to physically restrain Ms Y?

i haven't forgotten it, i just don't believe it's relevant to what i stated.

uptherebels wrote: »

And then they get lifted a second time for longer and longer etc.
Spending money so people can freely access legal healthcare is not just spending money for the sake of it.

given that people with lots of previous convictions don't end up with sentences that increase in number each time, i see no reason why people more or less (when we get things down to the basic form) convicted of protesting would have such happen.
given that people can already freely access actual health care and the non-health care that is AOD, the money that would be spent on exclusion zones is only being spent on implementing a protest bann which isn't going to stop any protests if any more happen, so is therefore flushing money we haven't got down the toilet and is not spending money so people can freely access AOD.

tretorn

You cant prevent people protesting wherever they like.
To do this requires another constitutional amendment.
The legislation susieblue provides for termination of pregnancy at any stage in the pregnancy if the mothers health is at risk, risk is to her mental health as well as her physical. The legislation is about sbortion and not early delivery, read the legislation in its entirety particularly section five.
If a woman isnt carrying a baby of the gender she wants she csn clsim the pregnancy is causing her mental stress, she can be pressurised by her partner to terminate the baby if a certain culture prefers males over females.
We will haveabortion for gender reasons here within ten years, there are a lot of abortions at over twenty three weeks in the UK and many are for gender reasons though that wont be officially noted, the records will state the abortion is required for mental health reasons.
The abortion rate in many countries is one in four pregnancies, God bless your naivety if you think Ireland will be any different but we will need Marie Stopes clinics ASAP.

King Mob

tretorn wrote: »

We will haveabortion for gender reasons here within ten years, there are a lot of abortions at over twenty three weeks in the UK and many are for gender reasons though that wont be officially noted, the records will state the abortion is required for mental health reasons.

Source please.
Also source for your previous claims.

Claiming more things on top of previous unsourced claims doesn't make them more true.

end of the road

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Create a massive disruption outside their practice, waving placards and screaming in people's faces like you see at abortion clinics in america. I never believed this stuff would happen in Ireland but I don't think it's unreasonable for GPs to fear it.

the only way you will see american type protests is if we actually have abortion clinics. any gp protests would be 1 or 2 individuals and won't be effective anyway. the logistics of protesting outside gps make large scale protesting unviable.

King Mob

end of the road wrote: »

my position is actually what i stated in the post you quoted. there is no word salading happening from me.


i haven't forgotten it

End, you seem to have again missed my post:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109125819&postcount=9183

What specific benefit does protesting at a small GP or abortion clinic have over protesting on the high street or in front of government offices?

You may add this to the long long list of questions you've dodged and will be answering in your next post.
Thanks.

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

the only way you will see american type protests is if we actually have abortion clinics. any gp protests would be 1 or 2 individuals and won't be effective anyway. the logistics of protesting outside gps make large scale protesting unviable.

As I said, I know this is very unlikely to happen but I believe the fear of it among GPs is genuine and the main reason why 'only' 200-odd of them have signed up for the abortion scheme.

splinter65

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Create a massive disruption outside their practice, waving placards and screaming in people's faces like you see at abortion clinics in america. I never believed this stuff would happen in Ireland but I don't think it's unreasonable for GPs to fear it.

The group outside the clinic in Galway. 4 people outside Holles st. Some nuisance phone calls to a clinic in Kilkenny. I agree. utterly terrifying stuff. It’s like the riots in Venezuela.....

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

The group outside the clinic in Galway. 4 people outside Holles st. Some nuisance phone calls to a clinic in Kilkenny. I agree. utterly terrifying stuff. It’s like the riots in Venezuela.....

For the sake of comparison, have a few groups stand outside the local churches on a Sunday with placards of babies in septic tanks, pictures of priests that were convicted of child abuse etc

Be interesting to see the results

Igotadose

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

As I said, I know this is very unlikely to happen but I believe the fear of it among GPs is genuine and the main reason why 'only' 200-odd of them have signed up for the abortion scheme.

I don't think we can make that connection yet. It's been barely 2 months since the law was finally passed. Further, GP's are overloaded in this country. The nonsense spouted by the anti-choice side seems to be the 'perfect is the enemy of the good' game, to wit:
1. One of the protestors in the picture outside the Drogheda hospital was that nitwit piano teacher who brought frivolous lawsuits to the supreme court (or at least attempted to), which delayed the legislative effort by months.
2. Nitwit TD's (good riddance, Peadar Toibin) and Seanad members delayed the legislation again and again, going over issues resolved in the citizens assembly. Again, pushing the law out. Kudos to the Taoiseach holding the Dail's feet to the fire on this, otherwise they'd be debating for the next 100 years.
3. The law becomes final in December. Nitwit GP's opposed to the referendum *again* try to obstruct implementation and training for GP's by holding bogus emergency meetings (again, delaying GP's) where they claim a dozen or so GP's "conscientiously objecting" are actually 50 or 100 GP's and that they've note been heard. Again, just a delay. but the calendar's against them and the government and pro-human right GP's push hard to get the helpline going and the service deployed. 200 GP's sign up (this largely since December - it's January and much of Ireland closed down between mid-December and January)
4. January 1 rolls around, the helpline is up and a couple hundred GP's signed up despite all the obstacles put in their way, but it's not 100% available in all counties.

It's January 13th. As Nozz and others have said, let's see where it is, in a year, and fix the deployment problems then.

The rest of this thread's discussion is responding to the anti-human rights trolls who are trying *so* hard to revisit the referendum debate.

If we want *more* GP's to provide the service, my suggestion is, compile a list of those that won't, or have them put signs up in their practices. Customers will vote with their feet. Further, the government should follow up with those GP's that did not sign up and get them to say why, that information should be made public as well.

Avoid implementing abortion clinics. That's just a way to put abortion provision into the same targetable-through-violence setup as it is in the US. No surprise the anti-human-rights types on this board are in favor of it.

Loafing Oaf

splinter65 wrote: »

The group outside the clinic in Galway. 4 people outside Holles st. Some nuisance phone calls to a clinic in Kilkenny. I agree. utterly terrifying stuff. It’s like the riots in Venezuela.....

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/essential-british-english/fear_1
Fear: noun: definition
a strong, bad feeling that you get when you think that something bad might happen

King Mob

Igotadose wrote: »

If we want *more* GP's to provide the service, my suggestion is, compile a list of those that won't, or have them put signs up in their practices. Customers will vote with their feet. Further, the government should follow up with those GP's that did not sign up and get them to say why, that information should be made public as well.

And would any of the anti-choicers care to remind us why they were opposed to that?
Something about protecting people from harassment?

Bredabe

splinter65 wrote: »

The group outside the clinic in Galway. 4 people outside Holles st. Some nuisance phone calls to a clinic in Kilkenny. I agree. utterly terrifying stuff. It’s like the riots in Venezuela.....

Terrified old ppl scared of the ppl standing outside of their dr's offices in two counties and at least one other dr's offices disrupted for days due to callers on a loop objecting to the clinic being on 'my options'.

Not one of these ppl I mention have anything to do with the clinic's decision but still negatively impacted by these actions.

Not the riots in Venezuela as you say but still impacting on ppl who should not be involved in this at all. Just because YOU dont think its scary doesn't mean it isn't.

Bredabe

Bredabe wrote: »

Terrified old ppl scared of the ppl standing outside of their dr's offices in two counties and at least one other dr's offices disrupted for days due to callers on a loop objecting to the clinic being on 'my options'.

Not one of these ppl I mention have anything to do with the clinic's decision but still negatively impacted by these actions.

Not the riots in Venezuela as you say but still impacting on ppl who should not be involved in this at all. Just because YOU dont think its scary doesn't mean it isn't.

Just wait until one of them (protesters) gets a smack from someone coming out of a practice and the outcry about their rights will be all we'll hear about.

nozzferrahhtoo

splinter65 wrote: »

Nozz you seem to want to go back to discussing wether or not abortion is right or wrong. I’m not interested in that argument here any more.

And yet when you smuggle in snide barely concealed commentary on that exact topic, then expect to be called on it. When you trot out the abject emotive linguistic nonsense of claiming that abortion kills women.... you are pretty much the only one dragging the topic back into the rights and wrongs of abortion. Own it, and stop pretending like this is a move I am making. It is all you.

splinter65 wrote: »

You have made your argument for abortion many many times and others have made the argument against it many many times in response[/QOUTE]

Nah they haven't really. We have one user who just invented the "right to become sentient" and then literally ran away when asked to defend it. We have another user who is obsessed with fetal tongue movements because it makes him think of talking humans. And we have another user who thinks abortion is a bad thing for working class women because things like abortion, and single parent allowance, and social welfare stop them from wanting to better themselves.

Describing that cohort as having argued against my position on abortion is a real joke. Comedy gold in fact.

splinter65 wrote: »

I’d hoped that we could move the conversation on to why you and the other abortion stalwarts here think that the GPs don’t seem to want to be part of it and why you want to keep angrily arguing in an argument you already won.

Firstly, you will gain nothing but a further loss of credibility by assigning tones and emotions to met hat I do not actually display or hold. There is nothing "angry" about anything I have said or written, nor how I say it and write it.

Secondly however I have already discussed this very thing in the post you just replied to, but you appear not to have acknowledged that. As I said it is a controversial topic and if I were a GP in the first 10 days of the new process I would probably hold back and observe what others were doing, and what effects it has, too. This is, after all, their livelihood at stake.

However, again as I already said in the post above, this is almost the very definition of the phrase "Early Days". I am not going to read much into, let alone create whole weird narratives, early figures after 14 days. After 1 YEAR and 14 days lets look at the figures and see what we can do to improve them. Because then we have real data to work with. Real data being much better that someone telling me "I live in a town I will not name, where there is X number of doctors I also will not name, and they are not providing the service for reasons I do not know". I can not work with that. No one can.

splinter65 wrote: »

But I see your satisfied

If you say so. I certainly did not. In fact I said the opposite. I pointed out figures I would like to see change. I pointed out that the ultimate ideal to keep working towards is ZERO abortions actually ever happening. And more. I have been very clear and open about what I am not happy with and what I still think needs work. So where you suddenly and magically "see I am satisfied" is opaque to me and, if you were honest, I expect to you too.

nozzferrahhtoo

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And yet when you smuggle in snide barely concealed commentary on that exact topic, then expect to be called on it. When you trot out the abject emotive linguistic nonsense of claiming that abortion kills women.... you are pretty much the only one dragging the topic back into the rights and wrongs of abortion. Own it, and stop pretending like this is a move I am making. It is all you.

splinter65 wrote: »

You have made your argument for abortion many many times and others have made the argument against it many many times in response[/QOUTE]

Nah they haven't really. We have one user who just invented the "right to become sentient" and then literally ran away when asked to defend it. We have another user who is obsessed with fetal tongue movements because it makes him think of talking humans. And we have another user who thinks abortion is a bad thing for working class women because things like abortion, and single parent allowance, and social welfare stop them from wanting to better themselves.

Describing that cohort as having argued against my position on abortion is a real joke. Comedy gold in fact.



Firstly, you will gain nothing but a further loss of credibility by assigning tones and emotions to met hat I do not actually display or hold. There is nothing "angry" about anything I have said or written, nor how I say it and write it.

Secondly however I have already discussed this very thing in the post you just replied to, but you appear not to have acknowledged that. As I said it is a controversial topic and if I were a GP in the first 10 days of the new process I would probably hold back and observe what others were doing, and what effects it has, too. This is, after all, their livelihood at stake.

However, again as I already said in the post above, this is almost the very definition of the phrase "Early Days". I am not going to read much into, let alone create whole weird narratives, early figures after 14 days. After 1 YEAR and 14 days lets look at the figures and see what we can do to improve them. Because then we have real data to work with. Real data being much better that someone telling me "I live in a town I will not name, where there is X number of doctors I also will not name, and they are not providing the service for reasons I do not know". I can not work with that. No one can.



If you say so. I certainly did not. In fact I said the opposite. I pointed out figures I would like to see change. I pointed out that the ultimate ideal to keep working towards is ZERO abortions actually ever happening. And more. I have been very clear and open about what I am not happy with and what I still think needs work. So where you suddenly and magically "see I am satisfied" is opaque to me and, if you were honest, I expect to you too.

Splinter has a habit of trying the mock outrage when called on her posts, which in this topic included the fact that they want people on social welfare to be sterilized so their taxes aren't spent on children's allowance for such people, but they are fine with their taxes being spent on mother and baby homes because nothing bad happened in them.
Basically expect a response denying that they said what they said.

robindch

tretorn wrote: »

Dont be silly, this is a chat board and not a Court of Law. I dont need to supply any evidence to you.

This is not a court of law, but it is boards' Atheism and Agnosticism forum.

And A+A is one of those rare places on the internet where - and I realize that this might sound out of place in 2019 - the general rules of polite discussion are enforced to some degree according to the forum charter. So, if you are asked to provide evidence to back up a claim, then you are required either to provide it, or the claim will be deemed to have lapsed.

Where it's not clear whether the claim has lapsed owing to the lack of evidence, or the quality of evidence, your friendly moderators will be happy to step in and adjudicate one way or the other.

I hope this is clear as you will recall that you were asked to provide evidence to a recent claim and you were unable to provide it, so your claim that time has lapsed.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

my position is actually what i stated in the post you quoted. there is no word salading happening from me.

You are saying you aren’t forcing anyone to stay pregnant, just stopping them from having an abortion.

Stopping someone from having an abortion IS forcing someone to stay pregnant.
I can’t believe this even needs to be explained to you??????

tretorn

Igotadose wrote: »

I don't think we can make that connection yet. It's been barely 2 months since the law was finally passed. Further, GP's are overloaded in this country. The nonsense spouted by the anti-choice side seems to be the 'perfect is the enemy of the good' game, to wit:
1. One of the protestors in the picture outside the Drogheda hospital was that nitwit piano teacher who brought frivolous lawsuits to the supreme court (or at least attempted to), which delayed the legislative effort by months.
2. Nitwit TD's (good riddance, Peadar Toibin) and Seanad members delayed the legislation again and again, going over issues resolved in the citizens assembly. Again, pushing the law out. Kudos to the Taoiseach holding the Dail's feet to the fire on this, otherwise they'd be debating for the next 100 years.
3. The law becomes final in December. Nitwit GP's opposed to the referendum *again* try to obstruct implementation and training for GP's by holding bogus emergency meetings (again, delaying GP's) where they claim a dozen or so GP's "conscientiously objecting" are actually 50 or 100 GP's and that they've note been heard. Again, just a delay. but the calendar's against them and the government and pro-human right GP's push hard to get the helpline going and the service deployed. 200 GP's sign up (this largely since December - it's January and much of Ireland closed down between mid-December and January)
4. January 1 rolls around, the helpline is up and a couple hundred GP's signed up despite all the obstacles put in their way, but it's not 100% available in all counties.

It's January 13th. As Nozz and others have said, let's see where it is, in a year, and fix the deployment problems then.

The rest of this thread's discussion is responding to the anti-human rights trolls who are trying *so* hard to revisit the referendum debate.

If we want *more* GP's to provide the service, my suggestion is, compile a list of those that won't, or have them put signs up in their practices. Customers will vote with their feet. Further, the government should follow up with those GP's that did not sign up and get them to say why, that information should be made public as well.

Avoid implementing abortion clinics. That's just a way to put abortion provision into the same targetable-through-violence setup as it is in the US. No surprise the anti-human-rights types on this board are in favor of it.

So the people opposed to abortion are anti choicers but Gps who want to work according to their conscience cant do this in private but should be named and shamed, yeah, ok if you say so.

People have the right to protest wherever the like and the right to free association. Doctors have the right to abide by the Hippocratic oath, Do no Harm and if their name is put on any website publicly declaring they are refusing to participate in abortion they will go to the High Court. They have rights when it comes to the work they do and rights to freedom of conscience and rights to their privacy.

The last time I checked we lived in a democracy, you are proposing a communist dictatorship, not possible I am afraid under the terms of Bunreacht na Heireann. I suggest moving to China for the type of society you want but dont forget that abortion will be forced on you there if you dare to have more than one baby, hence entire villages where no little girls exist.

40.4.1 – “No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.” – You are not breaking a law peacefully assembling and so should not be arrested.

40.6.1.i – “The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.”

King Mob

tretorn wrote: »

So the people opposed to abortion are anti choicers but Gps who want to work according to their conscience cant do this in private but should be named and shamed, yeah, ok if you say so.

Again, why would they be opposed to being named?

Are they afraid of getting protesters or something?

Or are you just trying to restrict people's freedom to protest these guys?

tretorn

Why should they be named.

The Government assured the people of Ireland( before they voted) that medical professionals would not be forced to participate in abortion against their free will. Professionals cannot be rostered to work in abortion settings. Simon Harris categorically stated this and the medical unions wont countenance any of their members being bullied by the pro abortion lobby on this matter. Many medical professionals would rather resign than actively participate in abortion and there is already not enough nurses and midwives so if there is mass resignations from maternity hospitals because of abortion the general public will be very angry.

Simon Harris wont go there, he is a Minister for Health and not a dictator.

He has probably been advised already that there isnt a whole lot he can do about people holding peaceful assemblies. He will have to insert a clause in the Constitution barring peaceful assemblies in named places but a referendum will need to be called before he can alter a fundamental right for people to gather peacefully.

nozzferrahhtoo

tretorn wrote: »

So the people opposed to abortion are anti choicers but Gps who want to work according to their conscience cant do this in private but should be named and shamed, yeah, ok if you say so.

Not sure I see the issue here. ANYONE going into business providing a product or service to the public should be evaluated by that public in this way. I see outing a doctor as not providing a service X as no different to me going onto tripadvisor.com and explaining how awful a particular hotel, their staff, or their service was.

I do not care WHY a person is providing a bad service, or withholding a service. Be it financial reasons, bigotry reasons, personal conscience reasons, I simply do not give a toss. I evaluate their quality of service, and inform others of their quality of service. That is all.

Appeals to privacy are irrelevant here. A person working in providing a product or service to the public does, and should, give up certain aspects of privacy related to that work, product or service. Privacy is no more a reason to not name a doctor failing to provide this service, than it is to name a restaurant who under cook their food.

tretorn wrote: »

Doctors have the right to abide by the Hippocratic oath Do no Harm

Aside from the fact that "do no harm" is not really in the Oath, do you find many doctors abiding by an oath few even actually take? Where is this idea coming from that I hear every so often that they swear it?

King Mob

tretorn wrote: »

Why should they be named.

So people can exercise their right to protest outside their clinics. (Your argument btw.)

They have no right to not be named. (Again, another of your arguments.)

Why would they be afraid to be named?
Please be specific here. Don't deflect the question with another question. It doesn't help you.

ohnonotgmail

tretorn wrote: »

So the people opposed to abortion are anti choicers but Gps who want to work according to their conscience cant do this in private but should be named and shamed, yeah, ok if you say so.

People have the right to protest wherever the like and the right to free association. Doctors have the right to abide by the Hippocratic oath, Do no Harm and if their name is put on any website publicly declaring they are refusing to participate in abortion they will go to the High Court. They have rights when it comes to the work they do and rights to freedom of conscience and rights to their privacy.

The last time I checked we lived in a democracy, you are proposing a communist dictatorship, not possible I am afraid under the terms of Bunreacht na Heireann. I suggest moving to China for the type of society you want but dont forget that abortion will be forced on you there if you dare to have more than one baby, hence entire villages where no little girls exist.

40.4.1 – “No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law.” – You are not breaking a law peacefully assembling and so should not be arrested.

40.6.1.i – “The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.”

I cant believe people like you are still trotting out this nonsense.