The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

nozzferrahhtoo

thee glitz wrote: »

Whether I would or not make a certain choice is hypothetical. Actually in that situation, I'd be subject to the same laws.

Hypothetical or not, defining "taking responsibility" as "not having abortions", which many people here do, is not people taking responsibility, but the speaker doing so for them.

Giving people options, and allowing them to choose the best one for them, is giving people the responsibility to take themselves. Not making, or unmaking, their choices for them.

If one wants to moan at people about personal responsibility, then GIVE Them the responsibility in the first place would be my thinking on it.

sbsquarepants

NuMarvel wrote: »

You need to read the constitution, because you're wrong on both counts. A woman's freedom to travel has greater status than her right to bodily autonomy during pregnancy. And last year at least 3265 women made a decision that affected the unborn's rights, and the constitution makes sure the 8th can't interfere in that.

As I said before, the unborn's right to life is already subject to exceptions. I see no reason why bodily autonomy early in a pregnancy can't be another one.

As far as I can see basically any Irish woman who wants an abortion, whether that reason is the often quoted fatal foetal abnormality, rape / incest or she just doesn't fancy the idea of stretchmarks or would rather go backpacking for a year than sit in minding a baby, she already gets that abortion. All this pointless amendment does is make it a more arduous and expensive undertaking.

The number of abortions prevented is likely negligible and those kids are likely born in to the worst possible scenarios, the poorest, the most abusive, the least capable of looking after them. Anyone with a bit of freedom and a few spare quid just jumps on a plane and gets the job done.

A lot of pro lifers tend to stop giving a rats arse about what happens to the lives they "save" once they are actually born. Sure isn't a life of misery better than no life at all!

Shenshen

end of the road wrote: »

the life of the unborn has to be protected. i believe that is right and just.
if i vote yes to repeal then i would be completely endorsing the taking of the life of the unborn regardless of circumstances. i'm not going to do that as i don't agree with it.
if repealing the 8th didn't bring abortion on demand to ireland then i would vote to repeal it.

Well, not by your answers - you said you're borderline about the girl who didn't know about contraception, for example, and in the case of the woman in the abusive relationship.
Why would in those cases the life of the unborn be less deserving of protection?

Zubeneschamali

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A lot of pro lifers tend to stop giving a rats arse about what happens to the lives they "save" once they are actually born. Sure isn't a life of misery better than no life at all!

The whole Irish pro-life thing has its roots in old-fashioned Catholic theology. It was important to deliver each baby alive so that they could be baptized and saved from Limbo. This was more important than saving the mothers life (since she was already baptized and could go to heaven).

Loafing Oaf

markodaly wrote: »

Been thinking of this more and to be honest I am going to be voting no if the proposal in its current form goes before us, unless there are constitutional safegards put in place to protect the life of the unborn.

I will vote against a referendum to change the constitution unless it includes a clause stipulating that the constitution must remain exactly the same...

jimmycrackcorm

Zubeneschamali wrote:

The whole Irish pro-life thing has its roots in old-fashioned Catholic theology. It was important to deliver each baby alive so that they could be baptized and saved from Limbo. This was more important than saving the mothers life (since she was already baptized and could go to heaven).

I don't think that's correct. For a start Irish families were traditionally very large because more children meant better chances surviving old age by having kids to support their parents.

The religious stuff is incidental and that argument is always pushed to try to make it only a religious choice.

Many of not most pro life people consider that they were also once a fetus and are therefore distinctly attuned to the idea that killing a fetus is killing a person.

Zubeneschamali

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think that's correct.

Look up the ethos of the Rotunda vs. Holles street back in the day. Rotunda, Protestant, save the mother. Holles St., Catholic, save the baby.

It is a religious difference and it is based in theology.

Which is why the Catholic Church was the only Irish Christian Church arguing for the 8th back in 1983 - the Church of Ireland were against it (although still anti-abortion).

NuMarvel

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think that's correct. For a start Irish families were traditionally very large because more children meant better chances surviving old age by having kids to support their parents.

I think Irish family sizes had more to do with the lack of easy access to contraception more than anything else. And that lack of access was driven by Catholic church teachings on sex and contraception.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The religious stuff is incidental and that argument is always pushed to try to make it only a religious choice.

It's not really incidental though. Especially when you look at the main people opposed to repeal; Ronán Mullen, David Quinn of the Iona Institute, Cora Sherlock of the Pro Life Campaign. All have strong religious connections, especially Mullen and Quinn.

I'm not saying that alone is reason to dismiss their arguments, but it can't be dismissed out of hand either.

Odhinn

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

I don't think that's correct. For a start Irish families were traditionally very large because more children meant better chances surviving old age by having kids to support their parents.

The religious stuff is incidental and that argument is always pushed to try to make it only a religious choice.

While that bit about the families is true, catholicism is noted for its insistence that sex without reproduction (with a few caveats) is sinful.

eviltwin

I've decided I'm not debating this issue anymore. I've been debating it for 25 years, I'm done. I know we have long way to go but we are finally getting a referendum and I trust the Irish people to make the right choice. I've seen a real change in attitude in this country since marriage equality, people are no longer afraid of change and there seems to be a desire to take control of our society and make it what we want it to be, not what we are told it should be.

I'm going to vote for repeal because I think Irish women deserve better. I'm going to vote with compassion and empathy, not judgement and condescension. I hope everyone can think of their sisters or daughters and what they would feel if she told them she was considering an abortion and what choice she should have. I don't believe there are many who would force her to continue a pregnancy against her will.

January

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm going to vote for repeal because I think Irish women deserve better. I'm going to vote with compassion and empathy, not judgement and condescension. I hope everyone can think of their sisters or daughters and what they would feel if she told them she was considering an abortion and what choice she should have. I don't believe there are many who would force her to continue a pregnancy against her will.

This. In a nutshell.

applehunter

eviltwin wrote: »

I've decided I'm not debating this issue anymore. I've been debating it for 25 years, I'm done. I know we have long way to go but we are finally getting a referendum and I trust the Irish people to make the right choice. I've seen a real change in attitude in this country since marriage equality, people are no longer afraid of change and there seems to be a desire to take control of our society and make it what we want it to be, not what we are told it should be.

I'm going to vote for repeal because I think Irish women deserve better. I'm going to vote with compassion and empathy, not judgement and condescension. I hope everyone can think of their sisters or daughters and what they would feel if she told them she was considering an abortion and what choice she should have. I don't believe there are many who would force her to continue a pregnancy against her will.

So you have debating 25 years and we finally get to the point where your debating may make a difference and you quit.

Brilliant.

eviltwin

applehunter wrote: »

So you have debating 25 years and we finally get to the point where your debating may make a difference and you quit.

Brilliant.

I will discuss, not debate. There is no point trying to change a person who is deeply pro life, look at this thread for example - it's a rehash of every other abortion thread with the same people over and over again. What's the point?

I am more than willing to discuss the issue with anyone not sure of how to vote or who needs more clarification on various things.

But I'm not going to debate with people who just want to sling misinformation and insults.

sbsquarepants

eviltwin wrote: »

. I don't believe there are many who would force her to continue a pregnancy against her will.

There are plenty who would do just that unfortunately.

nozzferrahhtoo

eviltwin wrote: »

it's a rehash of every other abortion thread with the same people over and over again. What's the point?

I know that was a rhetorical question but allow me to answer it all the same.

Yes abortion threads seem for the most part to be the same arguments, and often with the same people, as you say.

But the people READING those threads, rather than those posting on them, seems to change all the time. And I have been told quite often, both in threads and in private messages that I have indeed changed minds.

Politics is discourse, and even if it does not feel like it.... every one of us who calmly enters that discourse and makes our points clearly, and with decorum, influences others. Whether they contact you to tell you so, or not.

SusieBlue

eviltwin wrote: »

I've decided I'm not debating this issue anymore. I've been debating it for 25 years, I'm done. I know we have long way to go but we are finally getting a referendum and I trust the Irish people to make the right choice. I've seen a real change in attitude in this country since marriage equality, people are no longer afraid of change and there seems to be a desire to take control of our society and make it what we want it to be, not what we are told it should be.

I'm going to vote for repeal because I think Irish women deserve better. I'm going to vote with compassion and empathy, not judgement and condescension. I hope everyone can think of their sisters or daughters and what they would feel if she told them she was considering an abortion and what choice she should have. I don't believe there are many who would force her to continue a pregnancy against her will.

Have followed this thread without posting, as I feel I've said as much as I can on previous threads and didn't want to become an echo chamber.

I couldn't agree with this any more if I tried. I support every Irish woman in her decision without judgement and can only hope my fellow citizens will do the same.
We should each be the master of our own fate, in every possible way. I want every woman to have a choice, whatever that choice may be.
With each passing referendum, Ireland is getting closer to the 21st century, and thank goodness for that.

freshpopcorn

Do people here think that everybody has almost made up their minds on the matter once they know what their voting on?
Most people I know who'd go out and vote seem to have their minds made up now once they know it's abortion up to 12 weeks and no amount of debating will change it.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

it's actually not fine, but we have to be realistic. people can't be stopped from traveling abroad.

Of course they can. Ms X was stopped. Many migrants cannot travel because of their visa conditions. As I said the line - "oh well they can travel" is hypocrysy

Annasopra

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I will vote against a referendum to change the constitution unless it includes a clause stipulating that the constitution must remain exactly the same...

That is impossible

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Do people here think that everybody has almost made up their minds on the matter once they know what their voting on?
Most people I know who'd go out and vote seem to have their minds made up now once they know it's abortion up to 12 weeks and no amount of debating will change it.

No

I would probably guess 20-30% are convinced pro life and 20-30% are convinced pro choice and that there is about 40-60% who can be swayed

c_man

sbsquarepants wrote: »

A lot of pro lifers tend to stop giving a rats arse about what happens to the lives they "save" once they are actually born.

it's really cringe-worthy to see people re-hashing imported nonsense statements from the states.

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

So in summary: you're against abortion on demand but you're not against abortion on demand, and you're not against the freedom to travel but we must protect the unborn even if it only works in one case, except in that one case where stopping someone travelling worked because we can't stop people travelling even when we did and something something something abortion on demand!!!

Here's a simple yes or no question: Would you vote Yes or No in a referendum to repeal the constitutional protection of the freedom to travel for an abortion?

i'm against abortion. however there are some circumstances where it is necessary whether i agree with it or not. such as the threat of life or where the baby is unable to be caried to full term. i also recognise that i cannot stop someone leaving the country to procure an abortion. i can however vote to keep what protections the irish state has in the knowledge that they protect some unborn babies.
there are going to be variables on the pro-life side as well, variables aren't something that isn't only availible to those who are in favour of abortion on demand, but are also availible to those of us who are pro-life as well, whether those in favour of abortion on demand like it or not.

ohnonotgmail

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That is impossible

i think they were being sarcastic.

freshpopcorn

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

I would probably guess 20-30% are convinced pro life and 20-30% are convinced pro choice and that there is about 40-60% who can be swayed

That's interesting to know most people I know are one way or the other or simply don't care.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

i'm against abortion. however there are some circumstances where it is necessary whether i agree with it or not. such as the threat of life or where the baby is unable to be caried to full term. i also recognise that i cannot stop someone leaving the country to procure an abortion. i can however vote to keep what protections the irish state has in the knowledge that they protect some unborn babies.
there are going to be variables on the pro-life side as well, variables aren't something that isn't only availible to those who are in favour of abortion on demand, but are also availible to those of us who are pro-life as well, whether those in favour of abortion on demand like it or not.

So would you vote Yes or No if there was a referendum to repeal the constitutional protection of the freedom to travel for an abortion? A 1 word reply will be sufficient.

freshpopcorn

If Ireland did reject the repeal could an argument be made to repeal the right to travel/information?

NuMarvel

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

No

I would probably guess 20-30% are convinced pro life and 20-30% are convinced pro choice and that there is about 40-60% who can be swayed

There was an Irish Times article that said pretty much this; it put convinced repealers at "somewhat greater than 30%" and committed anti-abortion voters at being "perhaps greater than 20%, but not by much". The rest lean toward repeal, but it wouldn't be a hard Yes at this point.

end of the road

NuMarvel wrote: »

So would you vote Yes or No if there was a referendum to repeal the constitutional protection of the freedom to travel for an abortion? A 1 word reply will be sufficient.

i would vote no . a travel bann just wouldn't be enforcible over all without banning all pregnant women from traveling which is impossible and unreasonable.
it does not change my view on the act of abortion. it does not make the protections for the life of the unborn that the irish state have invalid.

applehunter

eviltwin wrote: »

I will discuss, not debate. There is no point trying to change a person who is deeply pro life, look at this thread for example - it's a rehash of every other abortion thread with the same people over and over again. What's the point?

I am more than willing to discuss the issue with anyone not sure of how to vote or who needs more clarification on various things.

But I'm not going to debate with people who just want to sling misinformation and insults.

Discuss/Debate

Both involve the exchange of ideas.

Classic sophistry from an abortion advocate.

c_man

NuMarvel wrote: »

So would you vote Yes or No if there was a referendum to repeal the constitutional protection of the freedom to travel for an abortion? A 1 word reply will be sufficient.

What on Earth makes you think you should be giving out guidelines as to how people post? Is that kinda crap actually allowed here?

SusieBlue

c_man wrote: »

What on Earth makes you think you should be giving out guidelines as to how people post? Is that kinda crap actually allowed here?

EOTR is incapable of giving a solid answer to anything he's asked to clarify about his opinion, he almost talks in riddles. I've often seem him asked for one word answers just to make things very clear, and he'll still reply with a whole paragraph of contradictions.

c_man

WhiteRoses wrote: »

EOTR is incapable of giving a solid answer to anything he's asked to clarify about his opinion, he almost talks in riddles. I've often seem him asked for one word answers just to make things very clear, and he'll still reply with a whole paragraph of contradictions.

How dare he not follow the directions of random posters!

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

i would vote no .

Thank you. Wasn't so hard, was it?

end of the road wrote: »

a travel bann just wouldn't be enforcible over all without banning all pregnant women from traveling which is impossible and unreasonable.

I didn't ask you if you'd apply a travel ban. I asked if you'd repeal the constitutional protections for travel. A travel ban doesn't automatically follow repeal.

As for the enforceability of bans or injunctions on travel, that question was put to rest by the Supreme Court back in 1992. Obviously you disagree, but I think they know more about this matter than you do.

end of the road wrote: »

it does not change my view on the act of abortion.

No one ever said it would.

end of the road wrote: »

it does not make the protections for the life of the unborn that the irish state have invalid.

Yes it does, for reasons that have been stated by me and others numerous times. You can ignore that if you wish, but it doesn't make your statements true.

SusieBlue

c_man wrote: »

How dare he not follow the directions of random posters!

Well no, its actually just really difficult to debate with someone who constantly contradicts themselves. It gets extremely confusing, so I can see why someone might suggest he answer just just a yes or no to confirm what he's trying to get at.

NuMarvel

c_man wrote: »

What on Earth makes you think you should be giving out guidelines as to how people post? Is that kinda crap actually allowed here?

If you think I've breached a site rule, then you're free to use the Report function.

Personally I think asking a poster to give a clear answer to a simple question he's previously ignored isn't "direction" or "guideline", but your mileage may vary.

Loafing Oaf

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

That is impossible

I know. I was parodying/paraphrasing this post:

Been thinking of this more and to be honest I am going to be voting no if the proposal in its current form goes before us, unless there are constitutional safegards put in place to protect the life of the unborn.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

EOTR is incapable of giving a solid answer to anything he's asked to clarify about his opinion, he almost talks in riddles. I've often seem him asked for one word answers just to make things very clear, and he'll still reply with a whole paragraph of contradictions.

i answer all questions put to me where relevant in terms of the context of the thread. if the questions are not relevant to the thread they will not be answered.
the abortion issue as a whole will be a contradiction on everyone's part as there will be a multitude of differing viewpoints in terms of both sides of the argument.
some for example will see the pro-choice view of only abortion up to 12 weeks as contradictory, as they believe that being pro-choice means you must not interfere in when people should and shouldn't have an abortion.
others will see the pro-life view of only protecting the life of the unborn as much as is practical to be contradictory, as they believe that if you are in favour of protection of the unborn, you must be in favour of it at any cost.
both are valid views, just the same as mine and many others.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Yes it does, for reasons that have been stated by me and others numerous times. You can ignore that if you wish, but it doesn't make your statements true.

it really doesn't. the fact is the irish state still has some protections for the life of the unborn. however they can only go so far whether i agree with the act of abortion or not.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Well no, its actually just really difficult to debate with someone who constantly contradicts themselves. It gets extremely confusing, so I can see why someone might suggest he answer just just a yes or no to confirm what he's trying to get at.

i don't contradict myself. it has never happened. however in relation to a topic like abortion, one must be realistic in terms of what is achievible.

mrkiscool2

Let's wade back in. Really don't know why I engage some people here, but anyway, let's dive in

end of the road wrote: »

i answer all questions put to me where relevant in terms of the context of the thread. if the questions are not relevant to the thread they will not be answered.
the abortion issue as a whole will be a contradiction on everyone's part as there will be a multitude of differing viewpoints in terms of both sides of the argument.
some for example will see the pro-choice view of only abortion up to 12 weeks as contradictory, as they believe that being pro-choice means you must not interfere in when people should and shouldn't have an abortion.

No, it's not a contradiction at all. Most people don't support abortion until full-term. While I think 12 weeks is a little short, I also recognise it's perhaps the best way to get the referendum passed. I personally think up to 20 weeks (as, like I have stated before, the fetus can't survive before 17 weeks and has less than 5% chance at 20 weeks of surviving outside the womb). At some point, there has to a recognition that the fetus is viable and is therefore life. Some say 24 weeks, others say 16, whatever. It's not a contradiction, even scientists have a hard time pin-pointing when the fetus is viable.

others will see the pro-life view of only protecting the life of the unborn as much as is practical to be contradictory, as they believe that if you are in favour of protection of the unborn, you must be in favour of it at any cost.
both are valid views, just the same as mine and many others.

Actually, no, I don't know any people who say this. And, if people do say this, they are morons. My issue with anti-choice (not pro-life) is that they don't care what happens the fetus once it is born and is a child. They are pro-birth, not pro-life. That's the contradiction, not that they can agree that if the mother's life is in danger, an abortion is fine.

it really doesn't. the fact is the irish state still has some protections for the life of the unborn. however they can only go so far whether i agree with the act of abortion or not.

Yes, and it will continue to have after this referendum. After 12 weeks, apart from certain situations, the unborn will still be protected by the state. In most countries where abortion is until a certain period of pregnancy, the unborn fetus has rights after that point. You're just ignoring that.

i don't contradict myself. it has never happened. however in relation to a topic like abortion, one must be realistic in terms of what is achievible.

Man, as I pointed out above, you clearly contradict yourself. You couldn't give a sh1t about the fetus once it's born, so your unjust morally outrage against abortions makes little sense. It's a contradiction at best and I don't want to say what it is at worst.

end of the road

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

No, it's not a contradiction at all. Most people don't support abortion until full-term. While I think 12 weeks is a little short, I also recognise it's perhaps the best way to get the referendum passed. I personally think up to 20 weeks (as, like I have stated before, the fetus can't survive before 17 weeks and has less than 5% chance at 20 weeks of surviving outside the womb). At some point, there has to a recognition that the fetus is viable and is therefore life. Some say 24 weeks, others say 16, whatever. It's not a contradiction, even scientists have a hard time pin-pointing when the fetus is viable.

it is a contradiction in some people's view. the fact it may not really be in you or my view doesn't mean someone elses view on that issue isn't valid.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Actually, no, I don't know any people who say this. And, if people do say this, they are morons. My issue with anti-choice (not pro-life) is that they don't care what happens the fetus once it is born and is a child. They are pro-birth, not pro-life. That's the contradiction, not that they can agree that if the mother's life is in danger, an abortion is fine.

you don't know what the pro-life do or don't care about no more then i do, as we aren't going to know every single person in the country or their views whether pro-choice or pro-life.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Yes, and it will continue to have after this referendum. After 12 weeks, apart from certain situations, the unborn will still be protected by the state. In most countries where abortion is until a certain period of pregnancy, the unborn fetus has rights after that point. You're just ignoring that.

but the unborn won't have protection before 12 weeks. i want it to remain to be the case that the unborn have protection before 12 weeks.

Annasopra

freshpopcorn wrote: »

If Ireland did reject the repeal could an argument be made to repeal the right to travel/information?

On what basis?

Annasopra

WhiteRoses wrote: »

EOTR is incapable of giving a solid answer to anything he's asked to clarify about his opinion, he almost talks in riddles. I've often seem him asked for one word answers just to make things very clear, and he'll still reply with a whole paragraph of contradictions.

He wasnt quoting EOTR

captbarnacles

It wouldn't be a travel ban though? surely it would be prosecution for Irish women who have an abortion abroad.

So Eotr would you support that?

frag420

EOTR, do you know what contradictory means?

Genuinely curious?

end of the road

captbarnacles wrote: »

It wouldn't be a travel ban though? surely it would be prosecution for Irish women who have an abortion abroad.

So Eotr would you support that?

in reality no . it would not be practical to prosecute someone for having an abortion abroad. the evidence couldn't be gathered to prove that such took place. so again this is another non-realistic question to ask, given that it cannot happen anyway.

frag420

end of the road wrote: »

in reality no . it would not be practical to prosecute someone for having an abortion abroad. the evidence couldn't be gathered to prove that such took place. so again this is another non-realistic question to ask, given that it cannot happen anyway.

So your putting practicalities above the life of the unborn?

Which is something I believe the pro life lobby are accusing the pro choice side of doing?

Again do you know what contradictory means?

SusieBlue

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

He wasnt quoting EOTR

NuMarvel asked EOTR to give a one word answer to a question.
C_man asked why he felt entitled to say someone should give a one word answer.
I explained that EOTR regularly contradicts himself and it's sometimes hard to figure out the point he's making, and that's why NuMarvel was asking for a one word answer.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

it is a contradiction in some people's view. the fact it may not really be in you or my view doesn't mean someone elses view on that issue isn't valid.

Well, actually, it does. If you say something is true, you have to prove that. So, yes, someone's else view is not valid if they can't prove something. I find the idea that a fetus is an unborn life when it can't survive outside the womb is a bad view to have.

you don't know what the pro-life do or don't care about no more then i do, as we aren't going to know every single person in the country or their views whether pro-choice or pro-life.

Alright, can you back up how I don't know what "pro-life" is? No? Thought as much. And again, it's pro-birth. Unless you decide to take an interest in the children born due to your viewpoint, you are not pro-life, you are anti-choice and pro-birth. Nothing more

but the unborn won't have protection before 12 weeks. i want it to remain to be the case that the unborn have protection before 12 weeks.

I frankly don't care. You made a point, I refuted it and then you try and change the goal posts to "actually, this is what I meant. Haha pro-choicer, I got you!" No, a fetus that can't support itself outside the womb does not deserve equal rights to the mother. When it gets to a point life is viable, then it does.

end of the road

frag420 wrote: »

So your putting practicalities above the life of the unborn?

Which is something I believe the pro life lobby are accusing the pro choice side of doing?

anyone can only work within practicality and reality. it doesn't mean that the supported aim isn't being done as much as is possible. the current system is ultimately stopping some abortions. therefore it is doing it's job in some form.
however, it can only do so much, and as much as i don't agree with abortion, there are some circumstances where the life of the unborn can't ultimately be protected as it's not practical to do so.
i believe that the recognised instances where the unborn's life can't be protected and abortion is availible, are mostly catered for within the irish state. however there are a couple of extensions such as FFA which should be incorporated into the law. but other then issues which threaten the life of the mother, or which cause the baby to be unable to be carried to term, then abortion should not be availible in this state.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

it's pro-birth. Unless you decide to take an interest in the children born due to your viewpoint, you are not pro-life, you are anti-choice and pro-birth. Nothing more

it's pro-life. you are pro-life only. nothing more. there is nothing wrong with insuring the taking of the life of the unborn cannot be a choice within the irish state bar extreme circumstances.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

No, a fetus that can't support itself outside the womb does not deserve equal rights to the mother. When it gets to a point life is viable, then it does.

it has to have, and it deserves equal rights from the start, as it will be a human being. where that isn't viable, it is already taken care of within the state.

Edward M

NuMarvel wrote: »

Thank you. Wasn't so hard, was it?



I didn't ask you if you'd apply a travel ban. I asked if you'd repeal the constitutional protections for travel. A travel ban doesn't automatically follow repeal.

As for the enforceability of bans or injunctions on travel, that question was put to rest by the Supreme Court back in 1992. Obviously you disagree, but I think they know more about this matter than you do.



No one ever said it would.



Yes it does, for reasons that have been stated by me and others numerous times. You can ignore that if you wish, but it doesn't make your statements true.

Just on the prosecution of abortion travellers, how could that be enforced anyway?
I'm no legal expert, but how would it be possible to prosecute someone for an offence committed in a foreign state that isn't illegal in that other state anyway?
That argument wouldn't stand up I'd say.

mrkiscool2

end of the road wrote: »

it's pro-life. you are pro-life only. nothing more. there is nothing wrong with insuring the taking of the life of the unborn cannot be a choice within the irish state bar extreme circumstances.

So, you are pro-life in the sense that you only care that a fetus is brought to term and born? How is that pro-life, and not anti-choice/pro-birth exactly? If you were really pro-life, you wouldn't agree with the way some children are brought up in horrible foster care or are homeless. But nope, none of that matters, protecting a fetus is more important than making sure children who are suffering in our country don't suffer any more.

it has to have, and it deserves equal rights from the start, as it will be a human being. where that isn't viable, it is already taken care of within the state.

How? Why? You are just making a claim and not backing it up. By the way, in the case of a mother having mental health issues and may take her life, nope, it's not taken care of. In terms of having a dead thing inside her, nope, it's not taken care of. By the way, that dead thing can lead to infection and an infection inside the body is harder to deal with to save the mother than just aborting a fetus that has no chance of surviving outside the womb or is already dead.