The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Edward M

ForestFire wrote: »

Totally agree

I have openly stated before, I am likley to vote repeal, but I will question mostly this side as I still have many questions.

I also believe we should vote with all the open information of our choice and it's implications.

This means recognizing that we are not merely talking about a clump of cells at 12 weeks. We should not hide or try to hide pictures of 12 week fetus and any other factually information, behind some veil of insensitivity.

This is the essence of what we are voting on, it is a sensitive issue to all of us for different reasons, and we are all adults, so let's not hide it, as that's what it looks like, hide and conceals and dimiss the other side of the debate.

I have no problem with the arguments on sentience, MAP, current option in the UK, womens autonomy, women's health care and past comications and deaths of some woman.

The latest now is we must be shills and trolls for having questions and being openly undecided, which seems like another attempt to say stop posting, or don't listen to them, there must be some hidden agenda. None of this helps.

When I vote I want to ensure I know exactly what I am voting for, and be personnel resonsible for the vote whichever way I choose, so If I decide to ask some hard hitting questions you can ignore, or as some have done, respond with factual information, which is appreciated.

Very valid post FF.
The eighth is a dangerous part of the constitution and voting against repeal is endangering women's health and lives.
Because of the thirteenth amendment abortions are going to happen anyway, voting against repeal won't stop that and with pills available online it is happening here too as well.
I would just wish that the potential value of the life to be aborted would be given its true consideration before that abortion happens, not just thinking on it as having as little value as swatting a fly for instance.
I do trust women to make their decisions based on necessity rather than convenience and do trust govts to be sensible how far they go on time allowed to abort.
In general I would be pro life, I suspect most people are really, in the sense that abortion is a last resort for most having taken everything in to consideration.
While in a ideal world there shouldn't be a need for it, that isn't always the case and forcing the necessary abroad is a joke really.

kylith

ForestFire wrote: »

This means recognizing that we are not merely talking about a clump of cells at 12 weeks. We should not hide or try to hide pictures of 12 week fetus and any other factually information, behind some veil of insensitivity.

I understand your feelings, but to some people it is a clump of cells; some for reasons of self preservation. I know one or two people who had multiple miscarriages before 12 weeks, and for them thinking of it as a baby would have made the repeated losses unbearable.

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

And religious people could start talking about the penal laws.

. .but why does any of this whataboutery make it ok to terminate a human life though ? A person does not have to be religious in any way to respect the equal right to human life. Or are you claiming that they do ?

If you had read the post I was actually responding to and quoting, I was replying to the notion that the Ireland of yesterday was a more moral and better place to live.
I was responding directly to that point that in my opinion, the Ireland of yesteryear treated its vulnerable citizens extremely poorly and I’m glad that as a society we no longer do that.

In no part of my post did I mention equal rights to human life, or my opinion abortion at all, so I have no idea where you pulled that from.
I was speaking specifically of the past of our country.

Bob_Marley

WhiteRoses wrote: »

If you had read the post I was actually responding to and quoting, I was replying to the notion that the Ireland of yesterday was a more moral and better place to live.
I was responding directly to that point that in my opinion, the Ireland of yesteryear treated its vulnerable citizens extremely poorly and I’m glad that as a society we no longer do that.

In no part of my post did I mention equal rights to human life, or my opinion abortion at all, so I have no idea where you pulled that from.
I was speaking specifically of the past of our country.

Sorry, my mistake, thought it was a thread about the 8th amendment and abortion . . carry on.

Bannasidhe

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Sorry, my mistake, thought it was a thread about the 8th amendment and abortion . . carry on.

Perhaps your sarcasm would be better directed that the person extolling the past as some moral nirvana or does the fact that they share your views prevent that so instead you have a go at the person who responded to their nonsense?

SusieBlue

Bob_Marley wrote: »

Sorry, my mistake, thought it was a thread about the 8th amendment and abortion . . carry on.

Passive aggressive or what...No need to be a smart ass.
I was responding to someone else’s post so if you have a problem with it being brought into the conversation, take it up with the person that brought it up.

ForestFire

kylith wrote: »

I understand your feelings, but to some people it is a clump of cells; some for reasons of self preservation. I know one or two people who had multiple miscarriages before 12 weeks, and for them thinking of it as a baby would have made the repeated losses unbearable.

Scientifically it is a highly complex set of cells, with many features and fuctions and we should not hide this.

Yes you can say it has no sentience, functions not developed fully or even started and is still not advanced enough to be considered human.

And equally for others that believe it is much more than a clump of cells, dismissing it as such, could be very hurtful to them also, if they have also lost and mourn this loss.

As I said it is sensitive on both sides and people should expect that in these debates.

Bob_Marley

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps your sarcasm would be better directed that the person extolling the past as some moral nirvana or does the fact that they share your views prevent that so instead you have a go at the person who responded to their nonsense?

I'm only interested in points not posters.
I think if have to resort to having a go at the poster as you propose instead of the argument and points, it pretty much proves you've lost it.
Feel free to answer the actual questions asked though.

volchitsa

realitykeeper wrote: »

Everything. The "new morality" you seem to favour is an epiphany of hell. The tough love of yesteryear was the right way. Abandoning the old morals will have devastating repercussions.

But that has nothing to do with what I asked. You are telling me I think something I have never said, instead of replying to my point.

If we can go back to what was actually said, the Irish may have raped and murdered people (your claim) but only the Catholic church used its supposed unique understanding of morality to 1) attribute itself the right to teach everyone else about this morality and 2) use this supposed morality as an alibi that allowed them to rape children with impunity.

Telling me my morality (about which you know nothing) is worse than that is pretty shocking really. I can assure you that my morality does not allow me to cover up child rape.

Call me Al

Edward M wrote: »

....
I would just wish that the potential value of the life to be aborted would be given its true consideration before that abortion happens, not just thinking on it as having as little value as swatting a fly for instance..

What do you mean by this? How do you envision this works? What does this "giving consideration" consist if?
Who are you asking to do make these considerations, in light if the fact that you go on to say you trust women to make their own based on necessity rather than convenience?

Edward M

Call me Al wrote: »

What do you mean by this? How do you envision thus works? What does this "giving consideration" consist if?
Who are you asking to do make these considerations, in light if the fact that you go on to say you respect women to make their own decisions?

I think the post is pretty self explanatory.
It involves a woman with a brain giving consideration to the decision she is making based on the value of what she is aborting in terms of its humanity rather than just dismissing it as a clump of cells or perhaps having only the same value as a fly. A necessity, not just an inconvenience to be dismissed.
Your necessity might not be mine, but that might not mean it is any less significant.

dudara

Edward M wrote: »

I would just wish that the potential value of the life to be aborted would be given its true consideration before that abortion happens, not just thinking on it as having as little value as swatting a fly for instance.

This will have to remain a wish on your part, and trust me, I can understand where you’re coming from. But short of thought policing women to make sure that they have given “due consideration” and that they comply with your moral code, how else is this possible or even desirable?

To be honest I think that the amount of women who will give an abortion a lot of thought before proceeding will vastly outweigh those that won’t.

I do trust women to make their decisions based on necessity rather than convenience and do trust govts to be sensible how far they go on time allowed to abort.

This is contradictory with the statement above IMO. It appears you’ll only trust women once they’ve met the moral standard.

captbarnacles

Edward M wrote: »

Very valid post FF.
The eighth is a dangerous part of the constitution and voting against repeal is endangering women's health and lives.
Because of the thirteenth amendment abortions are going to happen anyway, voting against repeal won't stop that and with pills available online it is happening here too as well.
I would just wish that the potential value of the life to be aborted would be given its true consideration before that abortion happens, not just thinking on it as having as little value as swatting a fly for instance.
I do trust women to make their decisions based on necessity rather than convenience and do trust govts to be sensible how far they go on time allowed to abort.
In general I would be pro life, I suspect most people are really, in the sense that abortion is a last resort for most having taken everything in to consideration.
While in a ideal world there shouldn't be a need for it, that isn't always the case and forcing the necessary abroad is a joke really.

You wish all pregnant women have the same consideration according to you?

I don't believe you are on the fence at all Edward and statements like "given its true consideration' show what you really think.

Edward M

dudara wrote: »

This will have to remain a wish on your part, and trust me, I can understand where you’re coming from. But short of thought policing women to make sure that they have given “due consideration” and that they comply with your moral code, how else is this possible or even desirable?

To be honest I think that the amount of women who will give an abortion a lot of thought before proceeding will vastly outweigh those that won’t.



This is contradictory with the statement above IMO. It appears you’ll only trust women once they’ve met the moral standard.

My moral standard is mine, several times I have said I don't judge others on mine.
Their morals are their own business really.
In earlier posts I stated the reasons for my doubts on repeal possibly failing and why I'd find it hard to vote against repeal was that I felt I was being asked to vote in favour of abortion on demand, which I had a hard job reconciling with in my mind. I feel I have overcome that now.
I have no doubt that some will use abortion on demand out of convenience rather than necessity, but that's the case anyway.
In that context I made that other post, I'm satisfied that in the vast majority of cases that won't be the truth of it.

Edward M

captbarnacles wrote: »

You wish all pregnant women have the same consideration according to you?

I don't believe you are on the fence at all Edward and statements like "given its true consideration' show what you really think.

And what's that?

applehunter

I was at Legion of Mary meeting this evening. Average age must have been 60+ including 2 nuns and a priest.

All would have been pro life back in in the day but are now all very much in the repeal camp.

There was a still a few in the pro life camp but I showed them this video and they came around.

Annasopra

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Like how are you supposed to check all the precautions she rook

Annasopra

JDD wrote: »

True. But people do tend to get more conservative as they get older. I wager a 25 year old in 1983, who would be 60 now, probably believes "young people" these days are taking too many risks sexually and probably have a different view on unrestricted terminations than they may have done in their youth.

Ah I dunno. I hace come across a few older people who voted for the 8th and who will now vote repeal. I ahave met a number of people who were heavily involved in campaigning against the 8th and they are very much repeal supporters. The only one I have seen move considerably more conservative is Mary Kenny.

Annasopra

Charmeleon wrote: »

The computer says no?

It’s a genuine, moderate position, between the hardliner, extreme positions that the foetus has a ‘soul’ and killing it is not justified in any circumstances and the equally extreme position that the unborn are not worthy of any consideration or protection.

I know it seems weird and fake when you hear opinions that don’t match with either of the extreme ideologies but I would think it applies to the majority of people out there. If the extreme positions were correct then it’s either a 50/50 decision on which life to save in an emergency or, there is no moral difference in having three abortions per year as compared with three tooth extractions per year. I don’t think the majority of people agree with either of these extremes. They don’t have a place in the debate trenches though, because ‘if you’re not repeating scripture, you’re just evil’.

It seems sudden as if some trainibg has been offered on tactics. "Ebter in, state you are pro choice, then find some reasons why you should really be pro life" - its an interesting tactic

Ismisejack

Abortion is a barbaric practice and inhumane and has no place in a progressive 21st century Ireland. With the 8th amendment in place Ireland can lead the way with improved pregnancy services and have best care for both mother and unborn in the world

tonymontanavu

Ismisejack wrote: »

Abortion is a barbaric practice and inhumane and has no place in a progressive 21st century Ireland. With the 8th amendment in place Ireland can lead the way with improved pregnancy services and have best care for both mother and unborn in the world

I think you have that backwards. In a progressive society women wouldn't be endangered to preserve the right to life of her unborn child. That child is special and deserves respect and consideration but it's secondary to the mothers welfare for very practical reasons.

amdublin

Ismisejack wrote: »

Abortion is a barbaric practice and inhumane and has no place in a progressive 21st century Ireland. With the 8th amendment in place Ireland can lead the way with improved pregnancy services and have best care for both mother and unborn in the world

At the moment it feels like we are leading in abortion export. Irish abortions take place every day - either abroad in the UK or in Ireland via pills ordered on the internet. The 8th amendment does not stop abortions.

nice_guy80

Ismisejack wrote: »

Abortion is a barbaric practice and inhumane and has no place in a progressive 21st century Ireland. With the 8th amendment in place Ireland can lead the way with improved pregnancy services and have best care for both mother and unborn in the world

what about all the other progressive countries who allow abortion?

tonymontanavu

nice_guy80 wrote: »

what about all the other progressive countries who allow abortion?

What diffrence do that make? The only diffrence is that our closest neighbour allows it because of the access to it.
We can't make decisions and refer to what's allowed elsewhere (and not everywhere deemed progressive)

pitifulgod

applehunter wrote: »

I was at Legion of Mary meeting this evening. Average age must have been 60+ including 2 nuns and a priest.

All would have been pro life back in in the day but are now all very much in the repeal camp.

There was a still a few in the pro life camp but I showed them this video and they came around.

I can confidently say that I don't believe a word you just said.

nozzferrahhtoo

ForestFire wrote: »

And equally for others that believe it is much more than a clump of cells, dismissing it as such, could be very hurtful to them also, if they have also lost and mourn this loss.

Actually as someone who has worked through miscarriage with women the exact opposite of what you suggest here is true. MUCH benefit can be attained from bringing a woman mourning such a loss to a point where she sees the fetus for what it is, rather than what she had invested in it.

Now of course this does not entail marching up to such a woman and declaring to her "Get over yourself, all you lost was a relatively complex but otherwise barely differentiated clump of cells". There is a process of care and empathy in divesting people of the narratives that are causing them to needlessly suffer.

But the overall goal, and benefits, are derived very much in such cases from essentially getting to them to the point you describe, even if we do not describe it to them as crassly as you do here.

Edward M wrote: »

I would just wish that the potential value of the life to be aborted would be given its true consideration before that abortion happens, not just thinking on it as having as little value as swatting a fly for instance.

The problem with your rhetoric here however is the assumption that such consideration has NOT been taken/given. It has. The reason you pretend it has not is that the RESULTS of that consideration by people like myself have not produced the result YOU want. So I guess it is easier to imagine no consideration was taken, than to accept the fact it WAS taken and it did not go where YOU want.

I have consider at length, we are talking a length of time measurable in decades here, the value and basis for value inherent in our moral and ethical systems. I have considered at length what it is we value, why, and on what basis. I have considered even what it means TO value anything in the first place. And of course, what such values are in the business of doing day to day. What their goal and agenda and purpose even is.

And the result of ALL of that leaves me in a place that when I turn to look at the subject and context of a fetus at 12 weeks (by which time the vast and overwhelming majority of abortions have already occurred) I see nothing there TO value all that much. Least of all do I see any basis to allocate rights, or moral and ethical concern, to such an entity.

Now you are welcome to engage me on such views (or, seemingly, not) as you like....... but no pretense shall be brooked that no consideration was even given.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

but you see that was the purpose of my previous post. Those of us who were brought up with the faith of our fathers, were given the gift of that faith.

I struggle to see lying to children as giving them a "gift" but again you appear to be contriving not to actually reply to my point. I have no idea what your issue with communisim is, or what you think it has to do with me, but you appear to be using it to talk past me to dodge what I actually said.

All I ACTUALLY said was that if you want to build a moral system based on fear of a god, or put forward points about abortion based on fear of a god......... then there is a onus of evidence on you to start by showing there even IS a god in the first place.

The linguistic acrobatics you are engaging in to dodge that point is really quite remarkable, but you seem to think that if you can smuggle words like "Liberal" and "communisim" into your reply then you do not actually HAVE to reply to anything a user said. You just have to bash the drum of the label YOU introduced with the drumstick in your other hand and hope that if you do so loudly enough, it will drown out the actual conversation you entered.

realitykeeper wrote: »

The moral systems you refer to are the same as those of the old USSR and misery will be the consequence.

By all means engage with me on the moral systems I espouse and adumbrate for me the pathway you see from them to misery. Vague references to people who hold an entirely different world view to me is not really going to achieve that however.

tonymontanavu wrote: »

I made two points; don't reduce the fetus to nothing to aid the argument

I am not sure anyone here IS reducing the fetus to nothing. Or even reducing it at all. What they ARE doing is realizing that the discourse on abortion requires us to be more specific than normal about what the fetus actually is, and on what basis we should (or should not) have any moral or ethical concern towards it's well being or rights.

What has happened is historically we have not really needed to be that specific and clear. So a lot of narratives and ideas have evolved into that space which we are now required to address in THIS context.

We are not reducing or removing anything from the fetus so much as we are now recognizing that the things previously allocated to it explicitly or implicitly were simply never warranted in the first place.

And doing this is a GOOD thing in every way I have viewed it.

Ismisejack wrote: »

Abortion is a barbaric practice and inhumane

I am hesitant to ask, because I feel I know the answer already, but have you got any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you can offer to actually back up extreme assertions of this manner?

My doubts that you do are mostly based on the similarly "hit and run" posts Da Boss has been making on the thread (actually he is due another one soon) who also refuses to back up pretty much the same assertions you are making here.

But I could be pleasantly surprised, so I thought I would try.

kylith

Ismisejack wrote: »

Abortion is a barbaric practice and inhumane and has no place in a progressive 21st century Ireland. With the 8th amendment in place Ireland can lead the way with improved pregnancy services and have best care for both mother and unborn in the world

It’s a barbaric practise to allow women to have a say in their healthcare while they’re pregnant?

January

The 8th needs to be repealed because on days like today at least 10 women can now not travel as flights are cancelled. Its not easy to rearrange flights hotels etc.

Zubeneschamali

realitykeeper wrote: »

The "new morality" you seem to favour is an epiphany of hell. The tough love of yesteryear was the right way. Abandoning the old morals will have devastating repercussions.

Ladies and gentlemen: please welcome the Save the 8th Campaign!

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

I think the post is pretty self explanatory.
It involves a woman with a brain giving consideration to the decision she is making based on the value of what she is aborting in terms of its humanity rather than just dismissing it as a clump of cells or perhaps having only the same value as a fly. A necessity, not just an inconvenience to be dismissed.
Your necessity might not be mine, but that might not mean it is any less significant.

But what does that mean for the 8th amendment? Repeal? Replace?

If you are just telling women to consider stuff, why are you doing it in this thread?

.......

This post has been deleted.

Edward M

....... wrote: »

A woman with a brain?

Careful now, youre starting to show what you really think of women.

Ah I know I have a bad way of saying things perhaps, I don't mean that the way you make it sound.
I'm not a great orator at conveying my feelings at times, maybe all the time even.
If you're critical of any point I make that's fine too, and if you make a judgement of me based on it that's fine too.
I'm glad when its commented on it gives at least a chance to explain, even if that itself is not accepted.

volchitsa

Edward M wrote: »

Ah I know I have a bad way of saying things perhaps, I don't mean that the way you make it sound.
I'm not a great orator at conveying my feelings at times, maybe all the time even.
If you're critical of any point I make that's fine too, and if you make a judgement of me based on it that's fine too.
I'm glad when its commented on it gives at least a chance to explain, even if that itself is not accepted.

I notice you haven't tried to explain it though.

Because from where I'm standing, as a woman, hopefully with a brain, who's had an abortion, I don't think I needed a random man coming along and helping me to think these things through. I did that at the time, and I'm still certain it was the right decision.

And what's more, I think women who terminate pregnancies do think these things through, and that nobody thinks it's like killing a fly.

To be blunt about it, the mindset behind such a comment is the typical male "women are silly idiots who need to be told what and how to think" stuff.

Martina1991

Ismisejack wrote:

Abortion is a barbaric practice and inhumane and has no place in a progressive 21st century Ireland. With the 8th amendment in place Ireland can lead the way with improved pregnancy services and have best care for both mother and unborn in the world

There are countless stories of women's maternity health being affected by the 8th amendment. How is keeping it going to improve their health service?

You say abortion has no place in a "progressive" Ireland. Irish women have abortions every day. They seek them abroad. You can't stop that.

Can you not see we are just moving Irish abortions somewhere else. You and the 8th amendment are not protecting anything.

realitykeeper

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The Ireland of yesteryear was a terrifying place.

Women were treated as second class citizens, children were treated appallingly, ‘promiscuous’ women were sentenced to the laundries where their children were robbed from them and sold to the highest bidder.
‘Illigitimate’ children were treated worse than vermin, many of whom ended up in septic tanks and unmarked graves.
Child abuse by the catholic clergy was rampant, poverty was rife, it was still legal to rape your own wife and government assistance for those on the breadline was non existent.
Women couldn’t work as soon as they wed, no contraception, no option to divorce an abusive partner or even just a marriage you no longer wanted to be in.

People made the best of the circumstances they had but it’s certainly not a time period to look back on with rose tinted glasses, nor should we aspire as a society to ever treat our most vulnerable citizens in such a disgusting way.

blah, blah, blah. A clout from a Christian Brother never did anyone a bit of harm and all this nonsense about abuses by the Catholic Church is just an excuse not to get up on a Sunday morning and go to mass. Is it any wonder that the slothful are the poorest in society.

.......

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

realitykeeper wrote: »

blah, blah, blah. A clout from a Christian Brother never did anyone a bit of harm and all this nonsense about abuses by the Catholic Church is just an excuse not to get up on a Sunday morning and go to mass. Is it any wonder that the slothful are the poorest in society.

No the problem is that people are sick of being preached to by a bunch of hypocrites.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Zubeneschamali

realitykeeper wrote: »

blah, blah, blah. A clout from a Christian Brother never did anyone a bit of harm and all this nonsense about abuses by the Catholic Church is just an excuse not to get up on a Sunday morning and go to mass. Is it any wonder that the slothful are the poorest in society.

Poe's law is an adage of Internet culture stating that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

blah, blah, blah.

Very mature. We can see right here just what level you intend to engage with conversation at.

realitykeeper wrote: »

A clout from a Christian Brother never did anyone a bit of harm

On what basis do you say this? There have been PLENTY of studies on the effects of the use of violence as a disciplinary measure against children, especially when it comes from a figure otherwise an authority or trusted, and in fact harm has been shown.

realitykeeper wrote: »

all this nonsense about abuses by the Catholic Church is just an excuse not to get up on a Sunday morning

No. It really is not. And that you dismiss the genuine horror and concern of people so simply just shows how little empathy you have for those people, or the actual victims, or the moral stand point of a society that decries those crimes today.

Nor is it "nonsense". They were genuine crimes that have been verified as having occurred. What exactly do you think is nonsense about it?? Or is that another question you intend to dodge behind some label you will drum on instead?

Nor, I must add, does anyone need to have an "excuse" not to go to a church. Who do you imagine they are excusing themselves to? You??? No one has to justify their PERSONAL religious choices to ANYONE. Least of all you on your high horse.

But were a reason required as you pretend, the fact that the stories sold by such churches are unsubstantiated nonsense, and the church appears to be in the business of selling lies for profit..... that is reason enough. You can keep your hobby. No one needs an excuse NOT to go to such churches. You need to provide reasons and excuses as to why we SHOULD. Which, as with everything else, I doubt you will attempt to do when challenged.

realitykeeper

volchitsa wrote: »

But that has nothing to do with what I asked. You are telling me I think something I have never said, instead of replying to my point.

If we can go back to what was actually said, the Irish may have raped and murdered people (your claim) but only the Catholic church used its supposed unique understanding of morality to 1) attribute itself the right to teach everyone else about this morality and 2) use this supposed morality as an alibi that allowed them to rape children with impunity.

Telling me my morality (about which you know nothing) is worse than that is pretty shocking really. I can assure you that my morality does not allow me to cover up child rape.

Time and again, the courts show up families which have harboured a pedophile for decades while all the time pretending to pillars of the community. Instances of wrongdoing within the Catholic Church are no more part of the Catholic Church than finding a fly in a packet of soup from Tesco. Tesco do not have a policy of adding flies to their soup even if you found one there.

Billy86

realitykeeper wrote: »

Instances of wrongdoing within the Catholic Church are no more part of the Catholic Church than finding a fly in a packet of soup from Tesco. Tesco do not have a policy of adding flies to their soup even if you found one there.

Do Tesco have a policy of knowingly harboring multiple pedophiles in their staff and moving them from location to location across the country to avoid them getting caught?

If they do it's certainly news to me.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

Time and again, the courts show up families which have harboured a pedophile for decades while all the time pretending to pillars of the community.

Time and again eh? Then you should have no problem naming many examples? How many can you name? Not merely a family that has or had a pedo in it, because that is not what you just said. But one that knowingly harboured one and concealed it under a veil of pretense.

Lets see your citations and naming of it. Lets see how often this actually happens "time and again" eh?

realitykeeper wrote: »

Instances of wrongdoing within the Catholic Church are no more part of the Catholic Church than finding a fly in a packet of soup from Tesco. Tesco do not have a policy of adding flies to their soup even if you found one there.

But do they have a policy of covering it up when it is found, belittling it (like you do here) when covering it up does not work, then harassing and manipulating the customer who was a victim of it, including refusing to pay compensation to that customer when the courts demand it, and then not only not taking the product off their shelves but moving the product to another store where other customer could be victims of it? While all the while pretending to preach how to be good producers of such a product, and how it is to live a moral and ethical life in food production?

Otherwise perhaps you are contriving quite willfully to not compare like with like here. Because THAT is what Tesco would need to be doing before your analogy could be taken even remotely seriously.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: realitykeeper, don't post in this thread again. Reason: poor attempt at trolling.



Edited -> On 2nd thoughts, upgraded to a ban. Still threadbanned upon their return.

Billy86

Nevermind, troll got called for what he was. That was one of the more disgusting posts I've read on AH in a while.

professore

Just listening to Niall Boylan on 4FM on the topic of intolerance of both sides. Very interesting.

Also is it the case that it will be a straight vote to repeal? In that case I will have to vote no, even though I would be in favour of abortion in certain circumstances - for example 12 weeks for any reason I would vote yes - I would struggle with it but it would be a yes. Fatal fetal abnormalities would have no issue either.

I don't believe this is a topic that should be legislated on the whims of politicians, rather whatever is decided should be enshrined in the Constitution.

For an extreme example if the 8th is repealed, abortion of otherwise healthy 8 month old fetuses becomes a possibility. I can't have that on my conscience. I'm not religious in the least by the way. My wife and daughter both think like this too - and I believe everyone is entitled to their own opinions - we certainly wouldn't fall out over it, as we strongly disagree on other topics - we have had no heated debates about this just rational discussions.

Some other guy seems to think that anyone who voted Yes in the gay marriage referendum will also vote to repeal. Completely different things I'm afraid. I voted Yes for gay marriage.

Billy86

Eight months would be 34-35 weeks... apart from North Korea and China (with their 'unique' history when it comes to abortion), is there any country in the world that allows that late?

Annasopra

tonymontanavu wrote: »

What diffrence do that make? The only diffrence is that our closest neighbour allows it because of the access to it.
We can't make decisions and refer to what's allowed elsewhere (and not everywhere deemed progressive)

What happens post Brexit then?

professore

Billy86 wrote: »

Eight months would be 34-35 weeks... apart from North Korea and China (with their 'unique' history when it comes to abortion), is there any country in the world that allows that late?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/06/18/us/politics/abortion-restrictions.html

9 states and DC have no restrictions in the US alone.

I am actually in favour myself in the case of non viable fetuses at any stage of pregnancy. I'm not talking about these cases.

Legal restrictions
As of 1998, among the 152 most populous countries, 54 either banned abortion entirely or permitted it only to save the life of the pregnant woman.[22]

In addition, 49 of the 152 most populous countries were without restriction as to reason, but 44 of these imposed limits after a particular gestational age:[22]

12 weeks (Albania, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cuba, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Georgia, Greece, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Rep., Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Norway, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Ukraine, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan)
13 weeks (Italy)
14 weeks (Austria, Cambodia, Germany, Hungary, and Romania)
18 weeks (Sweden)
24 weeks (Singapore)
no limit (Canada, China, and North Korea)
viability (Netherlands and to some extent the United States)