The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

seamus

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I see Mullen wants another Citizen's Assembly - the last one evidently got their homework wrong, and it needs to be done over until they agree with him.

No doubt he will say that they should be recruited solely from church congregations "to avoid bias". :rolleyes:

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

Just reading you're last two posts, seems they are of the same mindset as Mullen! We must keep going till we get what you want?

I am not saying we must keep going, I am saying we will keep going. This is a pattern, it's how things have gone all my life.

The campaign against the 8th started in the 1980s, and it won't stop until the 8th is gone. By contrast, the campaign against divorce ended abruptly when divorce was allowed. The campaign against civil partnerships stopped as soon as they were introduced. In fact, many of those campaigners suddenly thought civil partnerships were the bees knees in their efforts to stop SSM. But that resistance vanished as soon as SSM was passed.

The 8th is being propped up by reactionaries, people who imagine things were better in the 1950s. But they are conservative, resisting change, not actively trying to change us back. They are not campaigning to roll back SSM, civil partnerships or divorce, and once the 8th is gone, all but the lunatic fringe will lose interest, and society will, as usual, not go to the prophesied hell in a handbasket.

Abortion will become a private matter between women and their doctors.

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am not saying we must keep going, I am saying we will keep going. This is a pattern, it's how things have gone all my life.

The campaign against the 8th started in the 1980s, and it won't stop until the 8th is gone. By contrast, the campaign against divorce ended abruptly when divorce was allowed. The campaign against civil partnerships stopped as soon as they were introduced. In fact, many of those campaigners suddenly thought civil partnerships were the bees knees in their efforts to stop SSM. But that resistance vanished as soon as SSM was passed.

The 8th is being propped up by reactionaries, people who imagine things were better in the 1950s. But they are conservative, resisting change, not actively trying to change us back. They are not campaigning to roll back SSM, civil partnerships or divorce, and once the 8th is gone, all but the lunatic fringe will lose interest, and society will, as usual, not go to the prophesied hell in a handbasket.

Abortion will become a private matter between women and their doctors.

OK, that's fair comment I think.
Just thinking here though, they should be careful on the wording I feel, I'm probably wrong, but if they push for abortion for all without restriction it might fail this time, maybe block the whole repeal and set the process back by those good few years.
I'm a democrat and would abide by whatever decision is voted on, but there are activists on both sides that will never stop, there will be protests if it fails, there will be protests if it wins, but my thinking would be it may fail if too much change at once is sought.

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

OK, that's fair comment I think.
Just thinking here though, they should be careful on the wording I feel, I'm probably wrong, but if they push for abortion for all without restriction it might fail this time, maybe block the whole repeal and set the process back by those good few years.

It might fail this time, but no way should we put another botched wording into the constitution. If it fails this time, it passes in 10 years time.

uptherebels

Da Boss wrote: »

This report is a biased report published by a biased committee established with the pre-determined goal to repeal the 8th. Not a single reference is made to the unborn child , this alone highlighting what Mullen McGrath Fitzpatrick have been saying for quiet some time. There minority report highlights all the failings of the committee

That you Ronan?

Edward M

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It might fail this time, but no way should we put another botched wording into the constitution. If it fails this time, it passes in 10 years time.

OK, so if it take a couple of more mothers lives in the meantime to achieve it then so be it?

Zubeneschamali

Edward M wrote: »

OK, so if it take a couple of more mothers lives in the meantime to achieve it then so be it?

Whatever new botch they put in the constitution will kill people, too.

Loafing Oaf

Edward M wrote: »

OK, that's fair comment I think.
Just thinking here though, they should be careful on the wording I feel, I'm probably wrong, but if they push for abortion for all without restriction it might fail this time, maybe block the whole repeal and set the process back by those good few years.

I think a lot of pro-choice people see 'limited liberalisation' of abortion as scarcely worth bothering with and more trouble than it's worth. Katherine Zappone said something to this effect recently. So for them it's worth gambling on full liberalisation, even if there's only say a 50/50 chance it will pass...

end of the road

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I am not saying we must keep going, I am saying we will keep going. This is a pattern, it's how things have gone all my life.

The campaign against the 8th started in the 1980s, and it won't stop until the 8th is gone. By contrast, the campaign against divorce ended abruptly when divorce was allowed. The campaign against civil partnerships stopped as soon as they were introduced. In fact, many of those campaigners suddenly thought civil partnerships were the bees knees in their efforts to stop SSM. But that resistance vanished as soon as SSM was passed.

The 8th is being propped up by reactionaries, people who imagine things were better in the 1950s. But they are conservative, resisting change, not actively trying to change us back. They are not campaigning to roll back SSM, civil partnerships or divorce, and once the 8th is gone, all but the lunatic fringe will lose interest, and society will, as usual, not go to the prophesied hell in a handbasket.

Abortion will become a private matter between women and their doctors.

there is a massive difference between ssm and divorce, and abortion on demand. the repeal the 8th referendum won't be a repeat of the ssm referendum, as it involves the allowing of abortion on demand within the state. if repeal does pass, it will quite likely be by a small majority.

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

there is a massive difference between ssm and divorce, and abortion on demand. the repeal the 8th referendum won't be a repeat of the ssm referendum, as it involves the allowing of abortion on demand within the state. if repeal does pass, it will quite likely be by a small majority.

Be a tight margin indeed if it's a smaller majority than Divorce II. And that issue was basically dropped and forgotten the day after the referendum...

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

if repeal does pass, it will quite likely be by a small majority.

Yes, like divorce, which failed 36.5 to 63.5 in 1986, and only passed 50.3 to 49.7 in 1996.

Yet the campaign to keep divorce unavailable evaporated on the spot. There has been no, zero effort to gin up a campaign to ban divorce again since that narrowest of margins allowed it.

Exactly the same thing will happen if abortion is made available, even in a 50.1 to 49.9 squeaker - the pro-life campaign to keep an abortion ban in the Constitution will vanish.

seamus

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I think a lot of pro-choice people see 'limited liberalisation' of abortion as scarcely worth bothering with and more trouble than it's worth. Katherine Zappone said something to this effect recently. So for them it's worth gambling on full liberalisation, even if there's only say a 50/50 chance it will pass...

Ultimately the eighth amendment is the big barrier standing in the way. All hands are tied so long as that exists.

For the pro-choice lobby, the legislation that will come out after is somewhat irrelevant - once the 8th is removed, then there's no longer a requirement to convince the entire country to vote one way or another.
Campaigning on specific issues can be more focussed at legislators, and legislators' hands are also freed up to respond more readily to things like the ECHR.

For most, the repeal of the eighth is the big battle; the beginning of the end. Even if legislation were to become more restrictive after a repeal, pushing that back is a relatively smaller matter.

Of course, repealing the eighth would also allow for a more restrictive abortion regime to be put in place, but the pro-life lobby won't allow that to happen. They would rather compromise their principles and keep the gate closed than fight for what they truly believe in. Because, as Zubeneschamali points out, once the 8th is repealed, there will be no campaign to bring it back and any support for that campaign will vanish.

Those pulling the string of the campaign in Iona HQ are fighting for relevance. They don't really care about abortion. Why aren't they campaigning to remove SSM from the constitution? Because they never really cared about anything but their own relevance. Once the 8th is repealed they'll move onto resisting the next progressive change, probably assisted suicide.

Zubeneschamali

The Divorce referendum is an example putting crap into the Constitution to placate the No voters. They settled on 4 out of 5 years of separation being necessary for a divorce to placate people afraid we'd turn into Las Vegas overnight, put that in the Constitution, and now we are stuck with it.

Annasopra

end of the road wrote: »

there is a massive difference between ssm and divorce, and abortion on demand. the repeal the 8th referendum won't be a repeat of the ssm referendum, as it involves the allowing of abortion on demand within the state. if repeal does pass, it will quite likely be by a small majority.

I think it wont be that small tbh.

end of the road

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, like divorce, which failed 36.5 to 63.5 in 1986, and only passed 50.3 to 49.7 in 1996.

Yet the campaign to keep divorce unavailable evaporated on the spot. There has been no, zero effort to gin up a campaign to ban divorce again since that narrowest of margins allowed it.

Exactly the same thing will happen if abortion is made available, even in a 50.1 to 49.9 squeaker - the pro-life campaign to keep an abortion ban in the Constitution will vanish.

i think you are very mistaken on that one. time will tell but there are a lot of people who disagree with abortion on demand, and even if the 8th is repealed there will likely be protests and attempts to overthrow any such abortion legislation. remember there are a lot in the north as well who are against abortion, and who would be willing to help support their southern counterparts in the aim of trying to keep abortion on demand out of ireland.
it would be in their interests to do so to stop people coming south to avail of it.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think it wont be that small tbh.

i guess time will tell but i don't think it's going to be a replay of the ssm referendum like some seem to be expecting.

Hotblack Desiato

Under the committee's proposals, women are still going to have to travel to Britain for abortions - fewer than now, but this doesn't go nearly far enough.

Once repeal happens and the bare minimum legislation is passed, the vast majority of politicians will not want to have anything to do with the issue for many years. They're cowards and will reinsert their heads in the sand as quickly as possible.

It's deeply unimpressive that 12 ministers are refusing to state a position - yes the report is only just out, but the report is in line with the majority position on the committee going back weeks now and came as no surprise to anyone.

frag420

Welcome back EOTR, not sure if you missed my question a few days ago for you bit here is the link, would love to hear your thoughts! In case the link doesn’t work it was posted at 4:55 on Tue last...

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057732408/70/#post105600007

DublinWriter

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, like divorce, which failed 36.5 to 63.5 in 1986, and only passed 50.3 to 49.7 in 1996.

Apples and oranges dude.

The vast majority who opposed divorce did so on religious grounds.

There's plenty of atheist humanists like myself who object to abortion when the life of the mother is not at risk.

Edward M

DublinWriter wrote: »

Apples and oranges dude.

The vast majority who opposed divorce did so on religious grounds.

There's plenty of atheist humanists like myself who object to abortion when the life of the mother is not at risk.

But the church of whatever must be to blame for your beliefs, pro choice won't believe anyone can form that opinion on their own!

Loafing Oaf

end of the road wrote: »

i and even if the 8th is repealed there will likely be protests and attempts to overthrow any such abortion legislation.

Politicians' attitude to 'protests' like the 'Day for Life'



What sort of "attempts to overthrow any such abortion legislation"? Assuming the referendum passes and the successor legislation is deemed to be sound legally and constitutionally (and you'd have to assume it'll be proofed like no legislation has ever been before), then such challenges can only come about through the Dail. And with pretty much the entire left solidly in favour of 'liberal abortion', along with significant cohorts in Fiaana Fail and Fine Gael, I see no hope for their success.

jackofalltrades

seamus wrote: »

For the pro-choice lobby, the legislation that will come out after is somewhat irrelevant - once the 8th is removed, then there's no longer a requirement to convince the entire country to vote one way or another.
Campaigning on specific issues can be more focussed at legislators, and legislators' hands are also freed up to respond more readily to things like the ECHR.

While I think complex issues like this should be addressed by legislation rather than clumsy constitutional amendments.
I think having things in the constitution actually links our laws to the will of the people somewhat.
I'm uncomfortable with issues like this being left up to TD's and the all too powerful groups that lobby them.
And I'd apply that to both sides doing the lobbying.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

I think it wont be that small tbh.

Has there been any polling to support this opinion though?

Loafing Oaf

DublinWriter wrote: »

There's plenty of atheist humanists like myself who object to abortion when the life of the mother is not at risk.

And yet no-one can ever name a single genuine Irish example. Funny that...

Zubeneschamali

DublinWriter wrote: »

There's plenty of atheist humanists like myself who object to abortion when the life of the mother is not at risk.

Yes, you should both be able to get a tv gig during the run up like that gay guy against ssm

Loafing Oaf

jackofalltrades wrote: »

While I think complex issues like this should be addressed by legislation rather than clumsy constitutional amendments.
I think having things in the constitution actually links our laws to the will of the people somewhat.
I'm uncomfortable with issues like this being left up to TD's and the all too powerful groups that lobby them.
And I'd apply that to both sides doing the lobbying.
Has there been any polling to support this opinion though?

http://www.newstalk.com/Poll-finds-majority-support-for-abortion-on-request

Yes I know it's an Amnesty poll, could be an outlier etc. but you did ask.

end of the road

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Yes, you should both be able to get a tv gig during the run up like that gay guy against ssm

believe it or not gay people will have a different opinion to each other. including on topics like gay marriage. strange, i know. but there you go.

uptherebels

frag420 wrote: »

Welcome back EOTR, not sure if you missed my question a few days ago for you bit here is the link, would love to hear your thoughts! In case the link doesn’t work it was posted at 4:55 on Tue last...

https://touch.boards.ie/thread/2057732408/70/#post105600007

I wouldn't hold your breath. He only answers questions he deems "relevant" i.e the not hard/ pretend I haven't dug myself in a hole ones.

Da Boss

seamus wrote: »

The lies and disinformation regurgitated straight from the Iona press office.

Do you routinely not form your own opinions, or are you being paid to not have them?

Well if you want my opinions you can have them. Firstly I’m of the belief that abortion is the worst of all murders, killing a defenseless child in a womb and denying it of its basic human rights such as to walk talk LIVE. Abortion is murder, that’s not debatable, it’s fact. Mullen McGrath and Fitzpatrick are men who take heed thier conscience and i applaud them in there fight to safe lives of so many.

monnies

uptherebels wrote: »

I wouldn't hold your breath. He only answers questions he deems "relevant" i.e the not hard/ pretend I haven't dug myself in a hole ones.

how would you like to have been aborted yourself, i bet you wouldn't have liked it one little bit, so kindly verpiss dich

Da Boss

Edward M wrote: »

OK, so if it take a couple of more mothers lives in the meantime to achieve it then so be it?

What about the authorized killing of the unborn?

captbarnacles

Da Boss wrote: »

Well if you want my opinions you can have them. Firstly I’m of the belief that abortion is the worst of all murders, killing a defenseless child in a womb and denying it of its basic human rights such as to walk talk LIVE. Abortion is murder, that’s not debatable, it’s fact. Mullen McGrath and Fitzpatrick are men who take heed thier conscience and i applaud them in there fight to safe lives of so many.

Worse than the Hawe case for example?

But it's not murder and has never been considered murder here.

Da Boss

captbarnacles wrote: »

Worse than the Hawe case for example?

But it's not murder and has never been considered murder here.

Yes, the Hawe situation is deeply regrettable and wrong, commiserations to the family, but yeah abortion is similar as it also involves the murder of innocent defenseless children. Murder- the act of killing someone , precisely what abortion is, simple truth

captbarnacles

monnies wrote: »

how would you like to have been aborted yourself, i bet you wouldn't have liked it one little bit, so kindly verpiss dich

Wouldn't exist so wouldn't care one way or the other.

ohnonotgmail

monnies wrote: »

how would you like to have been aborted yourself, i bet you wouldn't have liked it one little bit, so kindly verpiss dich

Probably the most stupid post on this thread.

end of the road

captbarnacles wrote: »

Worse than the Hawe case for example?

But it's not murder and has never been considered murder here.

thankfully however the state doesn't allow it's practice within it bar extreme circumstances.

SusieBlue

Da Boss wrote: »

Well if you want my opinions you can have them. Firstly I’m of the belief that abortion is the worst of all murders, killing a defenseless child in a womb and denying it of its basic human rights such as to walk talk LIVE. Abortion is murder, that’s not debatable, it’s fact. Mullen McGrath and Fitzpatrick are men who take heed thier conscience and i applaud them in there fight to safe lives of so many.

If that's how you feel, then feel free to never have one yourself.
However, don't assume to believe you can dictate the choices another person makes about their own life. It's the height of arrogance to believe you opinion is so superior it should be applied to the whole country.

It is none of your business what decisions another woman makes for her body, her life, her family, her future, her self. Absolutely none.

NuMarvel

end of the road wrote: »

thankfully however the state doesn't allow it's practice within it bar extreme circumstances.

Gee, that's the first time I've ever seen you say that

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

If that's how you feel, then feel free to never have one yourself.
However, don't assume to believe you can dictate the choices another person makes about their own life. It's the height of arrogance to believe you opinion is so superior it should be applied to the whole country.

when it involves someone harming someone else or a would be someone else, we have a right as a society to dictate that such should not be allowed to happen in our country unless it's absolutely necessary, AKA that someone is under threat of death. so when a woman wants to kill her unborn baby, we have to insure that does not happen within the state unless absolutely necessary, as in she is under threat or the baby is going to pass away. society has a duty to stand up for the moral good and the opinion that the unborn shouldn't be killed unless there is a danger to life is a superior opinion to those who want abortion on demand. sorry but it is

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It is none of your business what decisions another woman makes for her body, her life, her family, her future, her self. Absolutely none.

agreed. however when she is harming someone else or a would be someone else such as the unborn, it very much is society's business, especially as we are being asked to vote on this, which has made it our business. we have a duty to insure the state doesn't allow abortion on demand to happen within it. that is why repeal will hopefully fail, because while it's repealing would sort other issues that do need to be sorted, it cannot be at the expence of removing protection for the unborn.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

when it involves someone harming someone else or a would be someone else, we have a right as a society to dictate that such should not be allowed to happen in our country unless it's absolutely necessary, AKA that someone is under threat of death. so when a woman wants to kill her unborn baby, we have to insure that does not happen within the state unless absolutely necessary, as in she is under threat or the baby is going to pass away. society has a duty to stand up for the moral good and the opinion that the unborn shouldn't be killed unless there is a danger to life is a superior opinion to those who want abortion on demand. sorry but it is



agreed. however when she is harming someone else or a would be someone else such as the unborn, it very much is society's business, especially as we are being asked to vote on this, which has made it our business. we have a duty to insure the state doesn't allow abortion on demand to happen within it. that is why repeal will hopefully fail, because while it's repealing would sort other issues that do need to be sorted, it cannot be at the expence of removing protection for the unborn.

Sorry, I refuse to engage you any more. You are like a broken record at this stage. Your opinion on abortion is not supriour to another woman's rights and bodily autonomy. Nothing you say will change my mind on that.

Doctor Jimbob

Da Boss wrote: »

Well if you want my opinions you can have them. Firstly I’m of the belief that abortion is the worst of all murders, killing a defenseless child in a womb and denying it of its basic human rights such as to walk talk LIVE. Abortion is murder, that’s not debatable, it’s fact. Mullen McGrath and Fitzpatrick are men who take heed thier conscience and i applaud them in there fight to safe lives of so many.

Funny how so many of those most vocal against abortion are men, isn't it? I wonder if they'd be singing the same tune if they had to deal with pregnancy themselves.

I'm not saying men shouldn't have a voice in this debate, of course they should, and I'm a man myself. Does it not strike you as a bit odd though that those most vocal about the subject are those who can literally just run away from a pregnancy if it suits them?

Loafing Oaf

WhiteRoses wrote: »

It is none of your business what decisions another woman makes for her body, her life, her family, her future, her self. Absolutely none.

I beg to differ. He/she is DA BOSS!

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sorry, I refuse to engage you any more.

because you cannot argue against what has been said. you know abortion on demand is wrong. i know it is wrong. everyone knows it is wrong. refusing to debate me won't change that fact.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You are like a broken record at this stage.

i'm really not. i have throughout given my viewpoint on the topic from a number of sides. however ultimately it will come back to insuring that protections for the unborn remain, as i believe that is the right thing to do.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Your opinion on abortion is not supriour to another woman's rights and bodily autonomy.

i never once said it was, i said it was superior to the view that abortion on demand should be allowed within the irish state. which it is .
abortion on demand is not a right and the state refusing to provide it does not go against a woman's bodily autonomy or her rights. refusing to provide it where there is a threat to her life would go against her right to live and that is why i am accepting of such provision.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Nothing you say will change my mind on that.

i'm not here to change minds. i know i'm not going to change minds. however, i do want to remind people or try to get them to see that the unborn have rights, and that removing those rights would be damaging to society. the unborn have a right to be protected as much as everyone else, and that abortion on demand not being provided within the irish state is a good thing for society and does not go against one's rights. one does not have a right to kill the unborn bar very extreme circumstances.
not legislating for abortion on demand would go a huge way to insuring the 8th could be repealed, as there are many like me who would vote repeal if abortion on demand wouldn't happen.

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Funny how so many of those most vocal against abortion are men, isn't it? I wonder if they'd be singing the same tune if they had to deal with pregnancy themselves.

I'm not saying men shouldn't have a voice in this debate, of course they should, and I'm a man myself. Does it not strike you as a bit odd though that those most vocal about the subject are those who can literally just run away from a pregnancy if it suits them?

the vast majority of those men likely have children, or want to have children, and do not wish to allow a situation where they are at greater risk of having that child aborted in the future. granted they can't stop their partner going to england, but there is always that chance of an abortion not being proceeded with while the current system exists.

eviltwin

Da Boss wrote: »

Yes, the Hawe situation is deeply regrettable and wrong, commiserations to the family, but yeah abortion is similar as it also involves the murder of innocent defenseless children. Murder- the act of killing someone , precisely what abortion is, simple truth

I had an abortion. Do I deserve to be in prison?.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

Sofiztikated

monnies wrote: »

how would you like to have been aborted yourself, i bet you wouldn't have liked it one little bit, so kindly verpiss dich

I've got a medical condition, that usually presents along with spina bifida, but didn't, in my case. I've had 15 + corrective surgeries. I have scar tissue from above my bellybutton (which I don't actually have) to the base of my penis. When I was 15 I underwent a surgery that, at the time, was longer than open heart surgery, and one of the first properly successful ones conducted in Ireland.

One night a while ago, my 75 year old mother admitted that if she had known about the condition, she would have considered an abortion. As it happened, it wasn't spotted until birth.

I'm perfectly ok with the fact that I could have been aborted. She's been through more stress and worry, sleepless nights, working night shifts so she could be there for me during the day, fighting with a health system that didn't understand my condition, fighting with a school system that didn't understand the condition. This comes after her dealing with a society that wanted to take her first child of her because she had the absolute gaul to get pregnant out of wedlock, 2 miscarriages, 7 other healthy children.

She's a brilliant, strong woman, who would have made a hard decision. And I ****ing respect her decision.

Doctor Jimbob

end of the road wrote: »

the vast majority of those men likely have children, or want to have children, and do not wish to allow a situation where they are at greater risk of having that child aborted in the future. granted they can't stop their partner going to england, but there is always that chance of an abortion not being proceeded with while the current system exists.

Any relationship where a woman is running off and having an abortion without consulting their partner is a problematic one to begin with. Your argument is a great argument for being more responsible about birth control, but I don't think it stands up as an argument for having the pro life stance enshrined in our constitution.

TheQuietFella

Geuze wrote: »

Do we all have the right to do what we like with our bodies?

Should we?

If I walk into the hospital and ask for my leg to be cut off, should that be done?

The rules though in every sense do not apply to women!

MrPudding

Edward M wrote: »

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.

NuMarvel wrote: »

As you say, we can't criminalise an act that takes place outside our jurisdiction...

The bit in bold simply isn't true. Not sure if there is any equivalent in Ireland but the UK, also a common law country with a very similar legal system has at least two laws like this. The Bribery Act 2010 makes it a criminal offence, prosecutable in the uk, for any British person, or any person involved in a company that operates in the UK, to pay a bribe to any person, in any country, even if the particular act is not a crime in the country where it took place.

The UK can also prosecute people for having sex with minors abroad. Again, I believe this is irrespective of the age of consent in the country where the act took place.

If there was a will to do it, it could be done. But there isn't, so it won't.

Da Boss wrote: »

Abortion is murder, that’s not debatable, it’s fact.

Three assertions in one sentence and you only managed to get one right. Abortion is not murder, nor is that a fact. You are however right that it is not debatable, except that it is not debatable that it is murder.

You might believe really, really hard that it is murder, but that does not make it so. I am sure you are aware, and presumably delighted, that a woman that procures an abortion can be prosecuted.

What is such a woman procedures for? Is it murder? I will give you a clue. No. It isn't. And that kind of defeats your two assertions. If a woman has an illegal abortion and does not get charged with murder, then an abortion is not murder. Fact.

MrP

Da Boss

WhiteRoses wrote: »

If that's how you feel, then feel free to never have one yourself.
However, don't assume to believe you can dictate the choices another person makes about their OWN life. It's the height of arrogance to believe you opinion is so superior it should be applied to the whole country.

It is none of your business what decisions another woman makes for her body, her life, her family, her future, her self. Absolutely none.

Abortion affects more than just the woman, as it end the life of another , a child. I’m not against personal liberty but it CANNOT result I’m the looks of precious life that occurs in abortion, denying defenseless children their most basic right. .The right to life

Da Boss

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Sorry, I refuse to engage you any more. You are like a broken record at this stage. Your opinion on abortion is not supriour to another woman's rights and bodily autonomy. Nothing you say will change my mind on that.

You can’t face the facts , that’s your problem, unable to admit you condone MURDER , The KILLINGS of defenseless unborn . The 8th amendment is about so much more than woman’s freedom, it’s about SAVING LIVES OF THOUSANDS, legalized abortion cos cause more loss of life than English colonization ever did on this island

January

eviltwin wrote: »

I had an abortion. Do I deserve to be in prison?.

I did too. Do I deserve to be in prison?