The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

pilly

end of the road wrote:

it's not other people's job to do your work for you. if you believe i'm wrong, tell me yourself.

Okay you're wrong.

Annasopra

January wrote: »

It's very obvious that the majority (possibly even all except one) of anti choice voices on this thread are men.

Its quite telling.

As I said earlier I find it quite fascinating.

Da Boss

The hypocrisy of the so-called pro choice contingent baffles me to say the least. If they were really pro choice why is it they are denying babies right to a life, surely if they pro choice they’d allow the baby enter this world and make the choice themselves????

Da Boss

And the tactics and stunts From the so called pro choice side and rotten and stink to the core. Anybody with a pro life view is ridiculed, mocked, silenced ,and intimidated . They are trying to silence all pro lifers and trying to associate them
With the Catholic Church, labeling them
As backwards country fools to try trick them into in voting pro choice as if it’s the “cool” thing to do

frag420

Da Boss wrote: »

The hypocrisy of the so-called pro choice contingent baffles me to say the least. If they were really pro choice why is it they are denying babies right to a life, surely if they pro choice they’d allow the baby enter this world and make the choice themselves????

Wait, did I read that right? You want to deny a woman choice over her bodyily autonomy so that she can have a baby and then you are going to offer choice to the baby if it wants to live or not?

So tell me oh knowledgeable one, how are you going to know what the baby wants? You can’t ask it questions becaise it’s a new born baby and it can’t think for itself, talk or indeed understand a word your saying!? What do you propose, if it cries it wants to live perhaps?

Perhaps someone like yourself could take care of the child until it’s in a position to make such a decision as you seem to want all the babies to be born regardless of if it’s into poverty, abuse etc, so long as it’s born?!

Akrasia

Da Boss wrote: »

The hypocrisy of the so-called pro choice contingent baffles me to say the least. If they were really pro choice why is it they are denying babies right to a life, surely if they pro choice they’d allow the baby enter this world and make the choice themselves????

What? So when the baby is born, we ask it if it wants to be aborted before it became a baby?

You don't have a clue what you're talking about

frag420

Da Boss wrote: »

And the tactics and stunts From the so called pro choice side and rotten and stink to the core. Anybody with a pro life view is ridiculed, mocked, silenced ,and intimidated . They are trying to silence all pro lifers and trying to associate them
With the Catholic Church, labeling them
As backwards country fools to try trick them into in voting pro choice as if it’s the “cool” thing to do

Well if you really believe in your stance as pro life then stop being a wuss as the babies need real men to fight for their lives, not people who moan about how they are being labelled or how people rightly view them as backward!

The very fact you think you’re fellow pro lifers can be tricked into being pro choice based on how they perceive others see them is pathetic and shows how weak you and your arguments really are!! You have no confidence in yourself or your fellow pro lifers....sad really!!

Annasopra

January wrote: »

The loudest voices in the Irish abortion debate seem to be being shipped in from America... There was a campaign during the summer last year for families to host' pro life' visitors so they could campaign door to door. It's no wonder the debate here mirrors the states if thats the tactics they're using.

Yeah and lots and lots of American dollars will be spent on pro life advertising on facebook and twitter. Of course the pro life campaign wont object to that at all. Its only when they dont like what the message funds they complain.

Annasopra

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll agree with that alright, but I would also point out the tactics of Amnesty Ireland in refusing to hand back funding they received from George Soros. At least the ARC did hand back any funding they received. I wouldn't just look at one side and say "look what they're doing", both sides of the issue are playing politics in an attempt to influence Irish society.

The pro life campaigners in Ireland wont even take money. They will get the Americans to fund direct campaigning in order to circumvent the law.

One eyed Jack

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

As I said earlier I find it quite fascinating.

Genuine question, given this is actually what you said earlier -

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

It fascinates me how much men on both sides feel they must have a say.

Why would you find it fascinating at all no matter how many men on either side felt they must have a say in a Constitutional issue which will not only affect women, but it will affect men and children and future generations of Irish society too?

I just don't get why you'd imagine anyone shouldn't be interested in an issue which directly influences their lives and the lives of their children and future generations.

Doctor Jimbob

Da Boss wrote: »

And the tactics and stunts From the so called pro choice side and rotten and stink to the core. Anybody with a pro life view is ridiculed, mocked, silenced ,and intimidated . They are trying to silence all pro lifers and trying to associate them
With the Catholic Church, labeling them
As backwards country fools to try trick them into in voting pro choice as if it’s the “cool” thing to do

How do you feel about the tactics and stunts from the pro-life side? Telling people they're baby killers and should be going to jail, never mind the fact that plenty of the people you lot say that to are already traumatised enough.

Da Boss

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

How do you feel about the tactics and stunts from the pro-life side? Telling people they're baby killers and should be going to jail, never mind the fact that plenty of the people you lot say that to are already traumatised enough.

The truth hurts sometimes

Da Boss

Akrasia wrote: »

What? So when the baby is born, we ask it if it wants to be aborted before it became a baby?

You don't have a clue what you're talking about

Well yee pro choicers are denying the baby it’s right to life, not giving it the option to live the one life they have on this earth

Doctor Jimbob

Da Boss wrote: »

The truth hurts sometimes

Like the truth you can't kill something that hasn't been born?

volchitsa

Da Boss wrote: »

Well yee pro choicers are denying the baby it’s right to life, not giving it the option to live the one life they have on this earth

That's equally true every time someone has sex using contraceptives. So what?
Uncontrolled reproduction isn't actually a good thing, despite what the bible tells man to do.

Da Boss

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Like the truth you can't kill something that hasn't been born?[/QUOTE. To kill(verb)- the act of ending ones life. I’m pretty sure abortion does that so yes it’s killing, it’s murder, and that’s the truth

Hannibal_Smith

Da Boss wrote: »

The hypocrisy of the so-called pro choice contingent baffles me to say the least. If they were really pro choice why is it they are denying babies right to a life, surely if they pro choice they’d allow the baby enter this world and make the choice themselves????

You would ask a baby whether they want to be aborted? How would the baby communicate their decision to you?. And in the intervening period the woman is forced to be an incubator against her wishes.

Da Boss

volchitsa wrote: »

That's equally true every time someone has sex using contraceptives. So what?
Uncontrolled reproduction isn't actually a good thing, despite what the bible tells man to do.

No it’s not and you know that well. The baby is not yet conceived so no it not ending a life

Da Boss

Da Boss wrote: »

To kill(verb)- the act of ending ones life. I’m pretty sure abortion does that so yes it’s killing, it’s murder, and that’s the truth

You do realise the law disagrees with you right?

NuMarvel

Da Boss wrote: »

The hypocrisy of the so-called pro choice contingent baffles me to say the least.

I'm not surprised that the pro choice position baffles you. You have absolutely no intention of understanding it; your whole stance is based on not understanding it or even giving it a fair hearing. Instead, you spend your time on the thread being intentionally provocative and disruptive by shouting about murder and killing, and so on.

If you truly want to comprehend the repeal point of view, try engaging constructively with other posters and listening to what they have to say. I don't expect that you'll do this, but who knows, maybe you'll surprise us.

volchitsa

Da Boss wrote: »

No it’s not and you know that well. The baby is not yet conceived so no it not ending a life

You're preventing a unique person from coming into the world all the same.

If you want to claim that the difference is because you think there's a baby there from the moment of conception then there are all sorts of problems with that, like why it's legal to destroy IVF embryos, or why we don't have official inquests into miscarriages, or why we don't sue women whose babies are born with fetal alcohol syndrome etc etc.

Quite clearly the law doesn't consider that there is an actual baby present. And nor should it IMO. Because there isn't, for a large part of the pregnancy.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah I too would see protesters as extremists and I would support any action being taken against them, as I don't believe anyone should be intimidated and harassed no matter whether or not I agree or disagree with their decision that they've made for themselves.

I remember one council, I think it was Ealing, taking legal action to have protesters barred from protesting outside clinics -


Ban on protests outside abortion clinic gets backing from MPs


I could imagine the same would eventually have to happen here if the 8th were repealed.

wouldn't work though. any protest banns are usually defied, and tbh rightly so. as much as intimidation is wrong, any protest banns are against democracy and must be defied at any cost.

eviltwin

end of the road wrote: »

wouldn't work though. any protest banns are usually defied, and tbh rightly so. as much as intimidation is wrong, any protest banns are against democracy and must be defied at any cost.

They will have nowhere to protest unless you think they are going to bother standing outside maternity hospitals and GP clinics. They will soon get tired of that. It won't change anything anyway.

SusieBlue

Da Boss wrote: »

The truth hurts sometimes

This is now the 3rd time I’ve asked you, but you keep ignoring my posts and skirting around the issue.

Bar forcing women who don’t want to be pregnant to be pregnant, what is your solution to all of this?

And what are your opinions on how the 8th affects maternity care and the concept of consent?

If you choose not to reply to this I have no choice to believe that you don’t have an answer and don’t even understand the full implications of the 8th. You are arguing for a cause you aren’t even fully aware of.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

If I were on the fence I can certainly say this thread would persuade me in favour of repealing the 8th.

But you weren't on the fence in the first place so that comment, much like the rest of your post, makes absolutely no sense!

One eyed Jack

end of the road wrote: »

wouldn't work though. any protest banns are usually defied, and tbh rightly so. as much as intimidation is wrong, any protest banns are against democracy and must be defied at any cost.

With all due respect though EOTR, I don't think intimidation and harassment (which is what those protesters are doing) is in any way democratic. There is such a thing of course as legitimate protests (though I don't have much time for them personally either tbh), but targeting individuals like that, from any side of any argument, for any reason, should never be tolerated.

They are the antithesis of democracy in a civilised society.

Loafing Oaf

eviltwin wrote: »

end of the road wrote: »

wouldn't work though. any protest banns are usually defied, and tbh rightly so. as much as intimidation is wrong, any protest banns are against democracy and must be defied at any cost.

They will have nowhere to protest unless you think they are going to bother standing outside maternity hospitals and GP clinics. They will soon get tired of that. It won't change anything anyway.

Plus it’s hard to think of a surer way Of alienating the soft pro-life element among our senior citizens...

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Im sorry you dont understand the concept of a conditional verb, the modh coinníollach must have stumped you in school.

Id be delighted if you could show the points I made that made no sense Jack?

I was neither stumped by your use of the conditional tense, nor was I stumped in school by the modh coinníolach. It was your selection bias I was pointing out, and as I explained to you yesterday - of course you're going to think an argument is successful if you already agree with it in the first place!

Yours is an entirely egotistical point of view when you imagine yourself to be informed, educated and your opinions to be valid, so that when other people express a point of view which you already agree with, they too must be as informed, educated, and their opinions are valid, because you already agree with their opinions!

Anyone whose opinion you disagree with, is then of course not making any kind of intelligent argument, don't seem to know what they're arguing about, ignorant shoutery, and suffering from such a level of ignorance that thankfully they are in a minority.

Logically then, not only have your arguments not been successful in changing anyone's opinion, but you then go on to assert that if you didn't agree with yourself already, you would agree with yourself...

That's why your comment made absolutely no sense.

Im still waiting on you to give us:

(a) evidence to show that the 8th Amendment should be kept in place due to positive outcomes and

(b) an argument to show that a fetus should have more rights than a living sentient woman.

My answer today is the same answer I gave you yesterday -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I won't elucidate any such thing, because that would be tacit acknowledgement that I have to frame my arguments in such a way as to acknowledge that I have to kowtow to your authority. That would be like me asking you to frame your arguments according to existing laws in this country. I don't expect you to btw, but you don't get to tell me how I should make my arguments either.

The 8th has never suggested that the unborn has more rights than the woman btw, but you knew that already, it's just the facts and evidence don't suit your argument.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Da Boss

WhiteRoses wrote: »

This is now the 3rd time I’ve asked you, but you keep ignoring my posts and skirting around the issue.

Bar forcing women who don’t want to be pregnant to be pregnant, what is your solution to all of this?

And what are your opinions on how the 8th affects maternity care and the concept of consent?

If you choose not to reply to this I have no choice to believe that you don’t have an answer and don’t even understand the full implications of the 8th. You are arguing for a cause you aren’t even fully aware of.

I’m forcing no woman to be pregnant, play safe in the bed and there will be no problems, if a woman chooses not to, she must suffer the consequences. There is alternatives to abortion that don’t end life, it’s my belief these options should be explored and utilized

January

Da Boss wrote: »

I’m forcing no woman to be pregnant, play safe in the bed and there will be no problems, if a woman chooses not to, she must suffer the consequences. There is alternatives to abortion that don’t end life, it’s my belief these options should be explored and utilized

Contraception fails.

Da Boss

January wrote: »

Contraception fails.

As a result of negligence

pitifulgod

Da Boss wrote: »

As a result of negligence

Nope, that can be part of the reason but no contraceptive is a 100% effective regardless.

volchitsa

Da Boss wrote: »

As a result of negligence

And if there's negligence by someone other than the woman who gets pregnant, why should she suffer the consequences?

For instance, some of the more recent very low-dose contraceptive pills (hoping to reduce cardiovascular
risks) have turned out not to be strong enough for some women, particularly young women at the height of their fertility. They didn't choose what pills to take, and initially it was always assumed that they were just lying about not having forgotten to take the pills (I know someone this happened to) and it was only after some years that this other possible explanation began to circulate.

So since you want to punish women for being careless, how do you suggest we punish doctors for being careless - make them responsible for child support?

Or is it only ever the woman herself who requires punishing?

January

Da Boss wrote: »

As a result of negligence

You haven't a clue so. Even with perfect use contraception is not 100% effective.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

how am i proving a point about something i never engaged in? i must be a miracle maker surely?

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

he has given you the answers. the unborn doesn't have more rights then the woman. it has equal rights bar extreme circumstances. i understand you may not like the answers given but that doesn't make them the wrong answers.

volchitsa wrote: »

And if there's negligence by someone other than the woman who gets pregnant, why should she suffer the consequences?

For instance, some of the more recent very low-dose contraceptive pills (hoping to reduce cardiovascular
risks) have turned out not to be strong enough for some women, particularly young women at the height of their fertility. They didn't choose what pills to take, and initially it was always assumed that they were just lying about not having forgotten to take the pills (I know someone this happened to) and it was only after some years that this other possible explanation began to circulate.

So since you want to punish women for being careless, how do you suggest we punish doctors for being careless - make them responsible for child support?

Or is it only ever the woman herself who requires punishing?

nobody requires punishing. one just has to accept they cannot kill the unborn within the state of ireland, and that they don't have a right to expect the state to provide lifestyle abortion. that is all.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

he has given you the answers. the unborn doesn't have more rights then the woman. it has equal rights bar extreme circumstances. i understand you may not like the answers given but that doesn't make them the wrong answers.

Why though? Even "in extreme circumstances" I can't take your blood or a kidney without your consent. Because you are my equal all the time, not just when it suits me.

So the unborn is either equal to the woman or it's not. And if it's not equal-equal, then where does it get any rights at all over her body without her consent?

end of the road wrote: »

nobody requires punishing.

I was replying to someone who was in effect making that point though, because if the rights of the unborn depend on whether or not the woman had sex willingly, then the life of the unborn is basically being used as a way of punishing the woman for having been careless.

end of the road wrote: »

one just has to accept they cannot kill the unborn within the state of ireland, and that they don't have a right to expect the state to provide lifestyle abortion. that is all.

Why though? Isn't my opinion as important as yours? And I don't accept it.
So unless you can convince me that I should, I intend to continue arguing that you are wrong. No "that is all" about it, AFAIAC.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

Why though? Even "in extreme circumstances" I can't take your blood or a kidney without your consent. Because you are my equal all the time, not just when it suits me.

So the unborn is either equal to the woman or it's not. And if it's not equal-equal, then where does it get any rights at all over her body without her consent?




I was replying to someone who was in effect making that point though, because if the rights of the unborn depend on whether or not the woman had sex willingly, then the life of the unborn is basically being used as a way of punishing the woman for having been careless.



Why though? Isn't my opinion as important as yours? And I don't accept it.
So unless you can convince me that I should, I intend to continue arguing that you are wrong. No "that is all" about it, AFAIAC.

both our opinions are equally important. the issue here is that my statement in relation to the unborn isn't simply an opinion, but an actual fact in this country. the reason we have such laws is that we recognise the right to life to be almost absolute so therefore we include the unborn within that as we recognise their right to life to be important. changing that means long term we devalue life as a whole, as shown from britain for example where life is slowly but surely being devalued.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Why though? Even "in extreme circumstances" I can't take your blood or a kidney without your consent. Because you are my equal all the time, not just when it suits me.

So the unborn is either equal to the woman or it's not. And if it's not equal-equal, then where does it get any rights at all over her body without her consent?

You can't take my kidney, but there are measures being touted which would make it perfectly legal for my kidneys to be taken upon my death, or any other organ for that matter, unless I specifically do not opt out. They haven't been introduced yet, and I hope they're not introduced, because any donation should be voluntary.

Now, having said that, pregnancy presents a completely different set of circumstances, in which the right to life is the only consideration, and the the State acknowledges that it has an obligation to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn as far as is practicable. It's aspirational at best to suggest that the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of the woman are ever equal, if there is a threat to the life of the mother where her life is then put above that of the unborn. The unborn isn't claiming any more rights than that which has already been acknowledged by the State, and it's the State which acknowledges the woman's right to life and the many more rights she has than the foetus. The State in that case doesn't need her consent.

There's a better example what little rights anyone has over their own body when it was determined already by the Courts, that although we all have the right to life, the right to die does not exist in this country at least, which is why Marie Flemming for example, her perceived right to die, was not recognised by the State, because no such right exists in this country. Obviously anyone can take their own life as suicide was decriminalised, but nobody has the right to assist anyone in taking their own life.

Why though? Isn't my opinion as important as yours? And I don't accept it.
So unless you can convince me that I should, I intend to continue arguing that you are wrong. No "that is all" about it, AFAIAC.

I'll put it to you this way - I'd place far more value in your opinion than I would a lot of other people's opinions on this thread. I may not always agree with you (I do... sometimes! ), but at least I can acknowledge that you know far more about this issue than I ever will.

I'm not even going to attempt to argue that anyone should ever just 'accept' anything, but we both know that currently, it is illegal for you to have an elective abortion in this country. That is a fact. You don't have to accept it, but just because you don't accept it doesn't give you any right to commit a criminal act.

You can still do it of course, but then you are choosing to forego the protection of the State, which I suppose is fair enough if you don't actually need the protection of the State in those circumstances.

Or, you can do like you're doing now and actually inform people through having a reasonable discussion and getting the information out there, rather than descending into a condescending, petty, point scoring match that wouldn't look out of place in a televised political 'debate'.

pitifulgod

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can't take my kidney, but there are measures being touted which would make it perfectly legal for my kidneys to be taken upon my death, or any other organ for that matter, unless I specifically do not opt out. They haven't been introduced yet, and I hope they're not introduced, because any donation should be voluntary.

I'm genuinely amazed that there's anybody who's annoyed by an opt out policy rather than opt in. It will save many lives by doing so. Fascinates me that there are people who want to be the lives of the unborn first but in the event of an organ donation opt-out policy, that's too far.... :rolleyes:

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

both our opinions are equally important. the issue here is that my statement in relation to the unborn isn't simply an opinion, but an actual fact in this country. the reason we have such laws is that we recognise the right to life to be almost absolute so therefore we include the unborn within that as we recognise their right to life to be important. changing that means long term we devalue life as a whole, as shown from britain for example where life is slowly but surely being devalued.

I don't think anyone here is unaware of what the law says, so when you say people just have to accept that, what exactly do you mean? You can't imagine that we don't already know, clearly, so you seem to be saying people "should" accept it.

What evidence do you have that life is being devalued in Britain more than in Ireland, and how is this a result of their abortion laws?

Do you think the disabled, for instance, are treated worse now than they were in the past, and that they are better treated in Ireland?

Because your post above comes across as nothing more than fact free wishful thinking.

end of the road

pitifulgod wrote: »

I'm genuinely amazed that there's anybody who's annoyed by an opt out policy rather than opt in. It will save many lives by doing so. Fascinates me that there are people who want to be the lives of the unborn first but in the event of an organ donation opt-out policy, that's too far....

because an opt out system effectively means the theft of organs. if people want to donate good on them but it should be up to the person to make that decisian not the state. but that's for another thread i guess.

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think anyone here is unaware of what the law says, so when you say people just have to accept that, what exactly do you mean? You can't imagine that we don't already know, clearly, so you seem to be saying people "should" accept it.

What evidence do you have that life is being devalued in Britain more than in Ireland, and how is this a result of their abortion laws?

Do you think the disabled, for instance, are treated worse now than they were in the past, and that they are better treated in Ireland?

Because your post above comes across as nothing more than fact free wishful thinking.

the disabled in britain are going back to being treated as bad as they were. things improved for a while but it's quickly going backwards. ireland does need to improve it's system but i think in some ways we do treat people a bit better then britain. everything needs improving but i'd bet a disabled person would rather ireland then modern britain?

Da Boss

Well I ask this question- if abortion is available in Ireland why bother with a condom and just have the real deal! Sher you could just go get an abortion, no big deal. I ASK ALL CONSIDERING VOTING PRO CHOICE, IS THIS THE IRELAND YOU WANT???

ohnonotgmail

Da Boss wrote: »

Well I ask this question- if abortion is available in why bother with a condom and just have the real deal! Sher you could just go get an abortion, no big deal. I ASK ALL CONSIDERING VOTING PRO CHOICE, IS THIS THE YOU WANT???

your knowledge of what is involved in even a medical abortion is just frightening. I thought sex education was poor in my day but things seems to have regressed rapidly. The ignorance in your post is staggering.

eviltwin

Da Boss wrote: »

Well I ask this question- if abortion is available in Ireland why bother with a condom and just have the real deal! Sher you could just go get an abortion, no big deal. I ASK ALL CONSIDERING VOTING PRO CHOICE, IS THIS THE IRELAND YOU WANT???

Well done, the more you post the more ridiculous and uneducated about this issue you appear. Do you really think abortion makes condoms redundant? Really?

Hannibal_Smith

Da Boss wrote: »

Well I ask this question- if abortion is available in Ireland why bother with a condom and just have the real deal! Sher you could just go get an abortion, no big deal. I ASK ALL CONSIDERING VOTING PRO CHOICE, IS THIS THE IRELAND YOU WANT???

Condoms offer protection against STIs. So if you are sexually active it's always best to use protection. Chances of pregnancy aside.

I would imagine abortions are hard core on the body, if miscarriage is anything to go by. So I'd rather avoid that and try and prevent pregnancy in the first place.

Pro choice is the Ireland I want.

Da Boss

Well one can be sure that half drunken couples won’t be worrying about the In and outs of an abortion, all they will be thinking of is of having a good night. The baby that may result is a problem for another day

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can't take my kidney, but there are measures being touted which would make it perfectly legal for my kidneys to be taken upon my death, or any other organ for that matter, unless I specifically do not opt out. They haven't been introduced yet, and I hope they're not introduced, because any donation should be voluntary.

Bit of an aside there, but whatever. As long as you don't think what happens after your death is relevant to pregnancy. Especially since you omit the fact that in countries where this is the norm, the family can generally (always?) oppose this if they feel strongly enough.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now, having said that, pregnancy presents a completely different set of circumstances, in which the right to life is the only consideration, and the the State acknowledges that it has an obligation to protect and vindicate the right to life of the unborn as far as is practicable. It's aspirational at best to suggest that the right to life of the unborn and the right to life of the woman are ever equal, if there is a threat to the life of the mother where her life is then put above that of the unborn. The unborn isn't claiming any more rights than that which has already been acknowledged by the State, and it's the State which acknowledges the woman's right to life and the many more rights she has than the foetus. The State in that case doesn't need her consent.

Okay. No idea what your point is, other than a quick rerun of the current legal situation, which I think we're all aware of already.

But perhaps I've missed something as I'm also doing other stuff here, preparing for kids going back to school and college tomorrow. If so I'm sure you'll let me know.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There's a better example what little rights anyone has over their own body when it was determined already by the Courts, that although we all have the right to life, the right to die does not exist in this country at least, which is why Marie Flemming for example, her perceived right to die, was not recognised by the State, because no such right exists in this country. Obviously anyone can take their own life as suicide was decriminalised, but nobody has the right to assist anyone in taking their own life.

Which is why the notion that this country considers the unborn to be the equal of a born person in terms of rights is a thin fiction. The idea that one could openly and legally take a child abroad to harm it, never mind kill it, is inconceivable.

Yet not even the most pro-lifey of pro-lifers is prepared to stand up in public and say we should remove the the 13th and 14th amendments, never mind that we should try women for procuring illegal or legal abortions.

I don't know whether they mostly don't believe their own claims about what the unborn is, or whether they're being sneaky about where they would really like to see our legislation ending up.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'll put it to you this way - I'd place far more value in your opinion than I would a lot of other people's opinions on this thread. I may not always agree with you (I do... sometimes! ), but at least I can acknowledge that you know far more about this issue than I ever will.

I'm not even going to attempt to argue that anyone should ever just 'accept' anything, but we both know that currently, it is illegal for you to have an elective abortion in this country. That is a fact. You don't have to accept it, but just because you don't accept it doesn't give you any right to commit a criminal act.

Well, as I say, it is legal for me to organize it all here, as long as i travel a few miles to carry it out. Which makes abortion more comparable to pot smoking than to harming children, yet the claim that it is indeed child-killing is the basis for the ban in the first place. A bit illogical to argue both sides of that coin at the same time I suspect.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You can still do it of course, but then you are choosing to forego the protection of the State, which I suppose is fair enough if you don't actually need the protection of the State in those circumstances.

This is not true, the Minister for Health confirmed not long ago that women needing health care including counseling after an abortion abroad were entitled to avail of it just like after a miscarriage.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Or, you can do like you're doing now and actually inform people through having a reasonable discussion and getting the information out there, rather than descending into a condescending, petty, point scoring match that wouldn't look out of place in a televised political 'debate'.

That seems to be some sort of crack at me, but I've no idea why.