The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Strazdas

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Your problem is with democracy then. Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents.

Not really. Governments are meant to govern and make all the key decisions, even if they are unpopular - the electorate don't run the country or make the laws, they merely send people to the Dáil to govern on their behalf.

freshpopcorn

captbarnacles wrote: »

55+

I felt a bit sorry for them as they said they were being told to f**k off at most doors.

My brother campaigned for the Yes campaign in the marriage referendum and lots of people said this to them!

Sheeps

January wrote: »

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms_Y

And only recently another young girl was held against her will in a mental health facility after first being led to believe she was being granted an abortion but then being told she wasn't suicidal enough.

These are well publicised cases. Don't tell me you don't know about them.

But in that case Ms Y didn't go to jail.

mahamageehad

Tigger wrote: »

permutations are what id like to dscuss
but theres a lot of allthe repeal going on
fcuk it i dont vote sobwho cares
im kinda nervous when i take tests

6 options being discussed:

- Simple repeal, just take it out. Then PLPA2013 would be the relevant legislation and more could come later.
- Repeal based on legislation entrenched in the constitution. Would possibly mean future referendums down the road.
- Repeal based on legislation published in tandem with a referendum. Most people like this coz they know what they're voting for, but no guarantee legislation is implemented.
- Repeal and replace on specific grounds (likely to be rape, incest, FFA etc)
- Repeal and replace on broad grounds or with rebalancing of rights (no idea how this would work)
- Repeal and replace with a provision giving exclusive power to Oireachtas to regulate

It'll probo be a yes/no vote but there's some moves towards a preferendum which would give choices. And I'm sure you're good with tests! :P

Dotsie~tmp

Strazdas wrote: »

Not really. Governments are meant to govern and make all the key decisions, even if they are unpopular - the electorate don't run the country or make the laws, they merely send people to the Dáil to govern on their behalf.

Thats an oligarchy. Not very nice places to live by all accounts. They tend do do a line in post birth terminations. By the thousand/million with wrongthinkers.

Dotsie~tmp

mahamageehad wrote: »

6 options being discussed:

- Simple repeal, just take it out. Then PLPA2013 would be the relevant legislation and more could come later.
- Repeal based on legislation entrenched in the constitution. Would possibly mean future referendums down the road.
- Repeal based on legislation published in tandem with a referendum. Most people like this coz they know what they're voting for, but no guarantee legislation is implemented.
- Repeal and replace on specific grounds (likely to be rape, incest, FFA etc)
- Repeal and replace on broad grounds or with rebalancing of rights (no idea how this would work)
- Repeal and replace with a provision giving exclusive power to Oireachtas to regulate

It'll probo be a yes/no vote but there's some moves towards a preferendum which would give choices. And I'm sure you're good with tests! :P

4 Might have a chance. Others. I doubt. Especially 1 and 2.

mahamageehad

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

4 Might have a chance. Others. I doubt. Especially 1 and 2.

Each option has pros and cons. 1 I believe is one of the most popular choices right now, but I agree that people will want reassurance on what's to come so I think 3 is more likely. Time is a factor though.

Outlaw Pete

January wrote: »

And only recently another young girl was held against her will in a mental health facility after first being led to believe she was being granted an abortion but then being told she wasn't suicidal enough.

Why are you (along with almost all of the Irish/UK media) only telling half the story?

Abortion order teenager gives birth at seven months

A suicidal girl gave birth to a baby three weeks after a legal order to terminate her seven-month pregnancy.

The distressed 16-year-old was put in a psychiatric hospital when she was seeking an abortion. She was later discharged as it was determined she had no mental health disorder - just three days after being legally granted a termination on "suicide" grounds.

The girl developed a close bond with the doctor who delivered the child seven months into the pregnancy.

The case came to attention recently when details emerged about her committal, prompting debate about the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.

However, the case also highlights issues about the existing abortion legislation and the resourcing of mental health services for children.

A panel of experts, convened under the abortion legislation, concluded the teenager should have a termination as she was suicidal. At that point, she was almost 25 weeks pregnant. This is beyond the time limit for abortions in Britain.

Within days, two other psychiatrists who assessed the girl's detention in psychiatric hospital concluded she was not suicidal.

She was assessed by at least five psychiatrists over 12 days.

The baby was born seven months into the pregnancy and is now living with the girl and her mother.

The obstetrician who delivered the baby and handled the termination order has been praised for handling the case sensibly and compassionately.

Now, considering the media feasted on this story to begin with (both here and in the UK) why then was it that the outcome of the case was only reported in one paper? Didn't the rest feel that their readership would like to know that the girl went on to gave birth to a healthy baby? Surely that was newsworthy, no?

Or maybe a happy ending was somewhat ideologically inconvenient for the prochoice biased media perhaps. Once they could no longer sanctimonious use the girl (and her situation) to further their agenda.... they moved on as if she never existed. Colour me surprised.

Tigger

mahamageehad wrote: »

6 options being discussed:

- Simple repeal, just take it out. Then PLPA2013 would be the relevant legislation and more could come later.
- Repeal based on legislation entrenched in the constitution. Would possibly mean future referendums down the road.
- Repeal based on legislation published in tandem with a referendum. Most people like this coz they know what they're voting for, but no guarantee legislation is implemented.
- Repeal and replace on specific grounds (likely to be rape, incest, FFA etc)
- Repeal and replace on broad grounds or with rebalancing of rights (no idea how this would work)
- Repeal and replace with a provision giving exclusive power to Oireachtas to regulate

It'll probo be a yes/no vote but there's some moves towards a preferendum which would give choices. And I'm sure you're good with tests! :P

sales pitch sounds great
covers all my moderste thinking but is that really whatvthe repeall means
20 wek babies are viable 21 bistorucaly but the toming is discussed
this means to me that 12 weeks should be the lockdown margin if error and all that
put thta in fhe pioe and id smoke it
i like tests
but i love babies.
not being smart not a religious just love the little yokes
so i like the idea of 12 weeks gives my philosophy a margin of error

rainbow kirby

20 weeks is simply not viable considering the fact that the record earliest gestation that a baby survived being born at was 21+5. Even at 23 weeks the chance of survival is of the order of 10-20% with the majority of those babies suffering from lifelong disability.

Considering the fact that births at extremely early gestation are almost always wanted pregnancies that went wrong for whatever reason and abortions at 20+ weeks are almost always for medical reasons this is a bit of a red herring anyway.

eviltwin

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why are you (along with almost all of the Irish/UK media) only telling half the story?




Now, considering the media feasted on this story to begin with (both here and in the UK) why then was it that the outcome of the case was only reported in one paper? Didn't the rest feel that their readership would like to know that the girl went on to gave birth to a healthy baby? Surely that was newsworthy, no?

Or maybe a happy ending was somewhat ideologically inconvenient for the prochoice biased media perhaps. Once they could no longer sanctimonious use the girl (and her situation) to further their agenda.... they moved on as if she never existed. Colour me surprised.

Does the ending justify her treatment? Its great its worked out for her but I would be wary of assuming all women in a similar situation would have a similar outcome.

nozzferrahhtoo

freshpopcorn wrote: »

What will happen if the repeal campaign fails?

The same thing as I HOPE happens if it succeeds. That we as a society will not consider ANY result as set in stone for all time, and will revisit it again in the future when there might be new data, arguments, and conditions to consider.

The joy of living in a discourse based democracy is that NO result is, or should be, final. Moral and ethical discourse should not be a set of laws written in stone, but an ongoing, iterative, and never ending conversation from all sides.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Once they could no longer sanctimonious use the girl (and her situation) to further their agenda....

Just like YOU are doing here and now you mean? At least I can hold my hands up and honestly claim that I never used her case then OR now to lord it over the other side. You are. For shame.

That said however, since you are bringing up the case as if it is some kind of success story......... in a country that offers choice based abortion services up until, lets say, 16 weeks, the girl in question might have had choices open to her that meant she never entered into the string of stress and evaluation and committal and confusion and so forth that she did. Both in terms of the stresses of her actual cases, and the stresses of her falling under the media eye and social media judgements of the mob.

She could have instead happily ambled up to a clinic and CHOSEN to have an abortion without having to prove herself to be suicidal to do it.

What worries me, much like the Blasphemy law incentivises offence, if people seeking abortion have to present as suicidal to access one....... this potentially incentivises being suicidal.

Is that a good thing? And if people are not convinced you are suicidal enough what do you do? Stage a suicide attempt maybe? Not a great idea given some people who only wanted to STAGE an attempt, have actually managed to erroneously achieve one.

Billy86

Tigger wrote: »

the ssm was obvious
everyone deserves to get married ots a social contract between adults

Abortion is a more complicated issue (I'm not for 'abortions on demand' so to speak personally), but I do believe getting rid of the 8th as it stands is pretty obvious in all. The same people who are at the centre of being against this are the same people who were at the centre of being against SSM, and the same lines were trotted out for SSM yet it won in all but perhaps the most rural/conservative constituency in the country (and only lost there by 48.5% to 51.5%).

It's not one I buy into, to be honest. People will make their minds up based on the information available to them and their own feelings about it in terms of morals etc. On the whole we've actually proven to be quite a good bunch when it comes to observing the actual information available to us on such matters I think as well as the state itself in terms of running a well organised and informed referendum, compared for example with what we've seen across the water.

January

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Why are you (along with almost all of the Irish/UK media) only telling half the story?




Now, considering the media feasted on this story to begin with (both here and in the UK) why then was it that the outcome of the case was only reported in one paper? Didn't the rest feel that their readership would like to know that the girl went on to gave birth to a healthy baby? Surely that was newsworthy, no?

Or maybe a happy ending was somewhat ideologically inconvenient for the prochoice biased media perhaps. Once they could no longer sanctimonious use the girl (and her situation) to further their agenda.... they moved on as if she never existed. Colour me surprised.

I'm sorry, how do you, I, or anyone else except the girl and her mother know how this story has turned out? Your perceived 'happy ending' could be very far from the truth. Just because the baby has remained in the care of the young girl and her family, does not mean that it's a happy ending for anyone involved in what happened here.

I'm not saying that the baby isn't loved btw, just that it could be very different from the happy ending you're painting here.

eviltwin

January wrote: »

I'm sorry, how do you, I, or anyone else except the girl and her mother know how this story has turned out? Your perceived 'happy ending' could be very far from the truth. Just because the baby has remained in the care of the young girl and her family, does not mean that it's a happy ending for anyone involved in what happened here.

I'm not saying that the baby isn't loved btw, just that it could be very different from the happy ending you're painting here.

'Happy endings' are often just people making the best of a bad situation.

Zubeneschamali

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Any opinions on how the Ref might play out? Looks like a difficult one for repeal if question is overly liberal.

The Citizens Assembly recommended removing the 8th completely and replacing it with an explicit statement that the Oireachteas may legislate in this area. That's what we should be voting on.

And I think it will lose, and we will have to try again in 10 years.

But replacing the ridiculous 8th amendment with another stupid amendment about abortion which will generate hard cases where women die and folks trot off to the Supreme court and we end up having another campaign to amend it again in 20 years is pointless.

Zubeneschamali

mahamageehad wrote: »

Each option has pros and cons. 1 I believe is one of the most popular choices right now,

1 was my preference until the Citizen's Assembly report, now I like 6, their recommendation.

eviltwin

Peter Boylan made a good point about the availability of abortion in the UK and how things would be much more dire here if that avenue wasn't available.

I wonder post Brexit what that will mean for women here if things don't change.

Akrasia

I'm sure all the pro-life people who are delighted with her happy ending will also be happy that she might never get to go to college now, might never get to pursue her dreams and might end up as a single mother receiving welfare until the child is old enough that she can get part time work and eek out a survival that way.

I don't know anything about this girl, I wish her the best, I hope she has the support of her family and community and can access the state resources required to allow her to complete her education and access the workplace, but being a single parent is very hard, and a lot of the same people who oppose abortion also oppose services and supports for one parent families and look down on these people

Dotsie~tmp

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm sure all the pro-life people who are delighted with her happy ending will also be happy that she might never get to go to college now, might never get to pursue her dreams and might end up as a single mother receiving welfare until the child is old enough that she can get part time work and eek out a survival that way.

Or she might just end up loving the child to bit as most mothers do? Wild speculation here.

...a lot of the same people who oppose abortion also oppose services and supports for one parent families and look down on these people

More wild assertion without proof.

seamus

mahamageehad wrote: »

It'll probo be a yes/no vote but there's some moves towards a preferendum which would give choices. And I'm sure you're good with tests! :P

There is no provision in law or the constitution for a "preferendum", it's not legally possible to do.

At best you could hold a non-binding plebiscite to ask the public which wording they would prefer to then have a referendum on. But that seems wasteful - especially when the government could just ignore the outcome and choose their own wording.
The citizen's assembly has already done the selection of the wording by proxy, and that's the way it should go really.

It probably will - when you have a committee where all of the experts are on one side making the same recommendation and the only committee members proposing anything else are two religious ignoramuses with no expertise in the area, it's clear what needs to be done.

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm sure all the pro-life people who are delighted with her happy ending will also be happy that she might never get to go to college now, might never get to pursue her dreams and might end up as a single mother receiving welfare until the child is old enough that she can get part time work and eek out a survival that way.

Sadly, many of them really will be delighted if that this is her fate. They would love that to happen to all unmarried pregnant people.

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sadly, many of them really will be delighted if that this is her fate. They would love that to happen to all unmarried pregnant people.

Well, typically they would prefer that she didn't receive welfare. Usually a strong correlation between being pro-life and anti-welfare. Many are driven less by concern for the unborn and more by the belief that people should be punished for mistakes as fully as possible.

cnocbui

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The Citizens Assembly recommended removing the 8th completely and replacing it with an explicit statement that the Oireachteas may legislate in this area. That's what we should be voting on.

And I think it will lose, and we will have to try again in 10 years.

But replacing the ridiculous 8th amendment with another stupid amendment about abortion which will generate hard cases where women die and folks trot off to the Supreme court and we end up having another campaign to amend it again in 20 years is pointless.

It is completely retarded for a country to even mention abortion in it's constitution.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Or she might just end up loving the child to bit as most mothers do? Wild speculation here.

What is with the "or" there though? Nothing in the text you quoted is mutually exclusive with what you said. She could end up loving the child as much as any mother does, and STILL all the things the user above wrote could be true. She might just as easily, for example, have pursued all her career dreams, and then ended up loving the child she had when SHE chose to have one and when SHE felt in an emotional and financial place to have a child with the partner SHE chose to have a child with.

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

More wild assertion without proof.

Perhaps, I can not speak to that users comment. But anecdotally (and anecdote is not evidence, so take it as such) I have run into a LOT of people against abortion choice who are also against all the things many pro choice people campaign for to reduce abortions.

Some of them are opposed to contraception for example. Some of them are against the idea of better and MUCH earlier sexual education of our children (under the cop out canard of claiming to want to maintain childhood innocence). Some of them have been opposed to modifications that would support single parent families.

I will not go through the full list, but my experience has surprised me that so many people against abortions also seem to be against the very things that would reduce the number of abortions. Even the catholic church for example, opposed to abortion as they are, were for many many years an opponent of contraception.

Dotsie~tmp

Dont do anecdotes.

nozzferrahhtoo

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Dont do anecdotes.

Or replies it seems. But I think you will notice I did not limit myself to anecdotes, but also gave other examples like the Catholic Church being both against abortion and historically against the very thing that would reduce them.

Martina1991

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Or she might just end up loving the child to bit as most mothers do? Wild speculation here.

Suicidal thought don't just disappear either. She is now a 16/17 year old girl with severe mental health issues and an infant.

keano_afc

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sadly, many of them really will be delighted if that this is her fate. They would love that to happen to all unmarried pregnant people.

Much like most pro-choice people will love it if she commits suicide to prove their point.

Your turn. I like this game where we throw wild accusations and assumptions around.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Martina1991

keano_afc wrote: »

Much like most pro-choice people will love it if she commits suicide to prove their point.
Your turn. I like this game where we throw wild accusations and assumptions around.

I used to be pro-life and now consider myself pro-choice.

I, nor anyone else would wish the suicide of anyone else. What is wrong with you?

I came around to the decision of pro-choice because who the fvck am I to tell my sister/ cousin/ friend/ neighbor/ teacher/ boss what to do with THEIR body.

Terminations happen every day. A sad reality for pro-life supporters but it is a fact.

They will continue to happen. Irish women will continue to go abroad to have them when they feel they have no other option.

Legalising abortion, either entirely or on medical grounds is a right that is already available elsewhere and should be available here.

keano_afc

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Sadly, many of them really will be delighted if that this is her fate. They would love that to happen to all unmarried pregnant people.

keano_afc wrote: »

Much like most pro-choice people will love it if she commits suicide to prove their point.

Your turn. I like this game where we throw wild accusations and assumptions around.

We're playing a game where you make a ridiculous assumption and then counteract it with one of your own.

.......

This post has been deleted.

keano_afc

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

"Sadly, many of them really will be delighted if that this is her fate. They would love that to happen to all unmarried pregnant people".

Thats not fact, thats a biased assumption based on the poster's personal opinion of pro-life supporters.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Outlaw Pete

January wrote: »

I'm sorry, how do you, I, or anyone else except the girl and her mother know how this story has turned out? Your perceived 'happy ending' could be very far from the truth. Just because the baby has remained in the care of the young girl and her family, does not mean that it's a happy ending for anyone involved in what happened here.

I'm not saying that the baby isn't loved btw, just that it could be very different from the happy ending you're painting here.

Of course it's a happy ending. Both human beings involved are alive. We can work from there. If two people were in a car crash and both were saved and someone said that was a happy ending, wouldn't you think it bizarre for someone to suggest it may not be a happy ending?

eviltwin

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course it's a happy ending. Both human beings involved are alive. We can work from there. If two people were in a car crash and both were saved and someone said that was a happy ending, wouldn't you think it bizarre for someone to suggest it may not be a happy ending?

I wonder does the girl involved share your opinion.

Martina1991

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course it's a happy ending. Both human beings involved are alive. We can work from there. If two people were in a car crash and both were saved and someone said that was a happy ending, wouldn't you think it bizarre for someone to suggest it may not be a happy ending?

We? Society? The state?
The state let this girl down by not providing the mental health support she needed before this pregnancy. It fails people every day.

Someone very dear to me suffers from mental health issues. They admit and seek help when they they feel worse but the buck stops when they see a doctor. "Take these sleeping tablets and be on your way".

Many people survive car crashes but many then have permanent physical and mental disabilities from them. They do not have the life they had before the crash. Everything has changed.

Everything has changed for that young girl and she had no say in it. That was her car crash.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course it's a happy ending. Both human beings involved are alive.

If that is your ONLY criteria for "Happy ending" then sure, you got what YOU wanted. She probably didn't though.

And I, unlike others, am not about to make those assumptions in her absence, on her behalf. Because from what little I know so far, she did not want to be a mother. Just like many women and girls do not want to form and mother a child that is a daily reminder of how they were raped, used, and impregnated against their will.

And I would prefer to judge the "happy ending" based on HER situation and what SHE wants / wanted. You appear to be basing it on what YOU wanted to happen. Which is a level of selfishness I am afraid I can not employ.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

She could have instead happily ambled up to a clinic and CHOSEN to have an abortion without having to prove herself to be suicidal to do it.

"Happily ambled" up suicidal?? Wtf. That's prochoice logic right there, folks.

Anyway, she was 25 weeks pregnant. Even your 'fuzzy moral regard' for devolving human babies kicks in before then.

I mean, aren't you on record as saying you'd support laws that would make procuring non-therapeutic abortions at that stage of a pregnancy illegal? So in the context of this particular case you are not prochoice at all, are you? Assuming rape, ffa mother's health etc are not factors of course.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

"Happily ambled" up suicidal?? Wtf. That's prochoice logic right there, folks.

Wow that was quite a distance you just missed the point by. For example would she have been suicidal IF she had had the OPTION to amble up and obtain an abortion at will? Or was her suicidal status caused or compounded by the pointless red tape she had to crash through to get even close to where she probably wanted to be?

You are trying to PRETEND I was putting "happily" and "suicidal" in the same person at the same time or something? Your desperation if fetid. No, I was suggesting one might not have been as bad, or not been there at all, had she had the other option.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Anyway, she was 25 weeks pregnant. Even your 'fuzzy moral regard' for devolving human babies kicks in before then.

Nothing fuzzy about my position save for your understanding of it it seems. But she was 25 weeks at the point in question. I am suggesting that it is possible, in a country where she had a choice up to 12 or 16 weeks, that she never would have reached the point she was at at 25 weeks..... having to present as suicidal, get multiple evaluations, fall into the media eye, and more.

Do not pretend she just suddenly materialized out of thin air, at 25 weeks, with no back story or narrative that led up to that point. A narrative that potentially could have been HEAVILY altered in the context of a society with choice based term limited abortion.

rainbow kirby

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This. The 8th is an extremely blunt instrument and doesn't take into considering a multitude of grey areas, even in wanted, planned pregnancies. Having a very slow miscarriage? Let's just wait even longer rather than performing that D&C. Feck the risks, as long as there's the tiniest of foetal heart tone detectable we won't finish out the inevitable. Suffer a complication which permanently affects your health but probably won't kill you? Tough, the Irish system doesn't care about the effect that it might have on your existing family and on your overall health. Serious mental health difficulties? We'll just lock you up and use delaying tactics, we might even force feed you if you go on hunger strike because the system has screwed you over already.

There is no regard for women and their wishes in the Irish system. While the 8th is in place the law treats us as mere vessels.

Outlaw Pete

Akrasia wrote: »

I'm sure all the pro-life people who are delighted with her happy ending will also be happy that she might never get to go to college now, might never get to pursue her dreams and might end up as a single mother receiving welfare until the child is old enough that she can get part time work and eek out a survival that way.

What pathetic nonsense. Lots of young single mothers get to do those things. I went to school with a few. I see their children regularly. Now adults. This is not Sub Saharan Africa. We have help in place for young pregnant mothers and if we need more, lets get more. I fail to see how killing a healthy baby solves anything.

seamus wrote: »

Well, typically they would prefer that she didn't receive welfare. Usually a strong correlation between being pro-life and anti-welfare. Many are driven less by concern for the unborn and more by the belief that people should be punished for mistakes as fully as possible.

More drivel. Only the other day I was highlighting on a thread in AH how people on welfare / disability live on less than people think given that a large chunk of it goes towards paying undeclared rents (given that the caps are so low). To suggest people who are against abortion (be that always, just late stage or only when they are carried out for non-therapeutic reasons) would typically "prefer that she didn't receive welfare" is a ridiculous agenda saturated rubbish.

A few of you are showing your true colours with these statements. What's wrong? Your arguments not holding up to much scrutiny and so you have to start attacking and discrediting those who disagree with you? I guess so.

cnocbui

The only sensible proposition would be to just remove any mention of abortion from the constitution whatsoever. Fealty to the Catholic Church also, while you're at it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What pathetic nonsense.

Except it is really not. YOU are declaring it to be a happy ending SOLELY because two people are alive. Nothing else.

Think of the potential other narratives beside your own so limited one.

She has been made suicidal, become the mother to a child she did not want, she might have to alter her entire life plan, she now has to face the struggles of finding a partner in life as a single parent, and much more. Not to mention having to parent a child created in circumstances we will not go into here.

The child is the child of a single parent, one that is potentially suicidal, starting life as entirely unwanted, and with a father that a relationship with is likely to be..... dubious.

They could potentially BOTH be very very miserable for the rest of whatever their lives are to be. But sure they are both alive so at least YOU are happy huh? That's all that matters really. To you at least.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I fail to see how killing a healthy baby solves anything.

Had she been living in a country with choice based abortion with term limits she would not have "killed a healthy baby". She would have terminated a fetus before it formed into what can meaningfully be described as a healthy baby.

Tearing up a blue print is very different to knocking down a house.

.......

This post has been deleted.

January

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course it's a happy ending. Both human beings involved are alive. We can work from there. If two people were in a car crash and both were saved and someone said that was a happy ending, wouldn't you think it bizarre for someone to suggest it may not be a happy ending?

Ah, forced birth at its finest.

Outlaw Pete

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

10 thanks this post got (and counting). Sums this thread up.

Go and read the user's post again, particularly the line you didn't quote:

keano_afc wrote: »

Your turn. I like this game where we throw wild accusations and assumptions around.

You see? They didn't get it anyway. It was a DELIBERATE "wild accusation".