The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

None of the links you posted actually contradict what I said

You said:

"You could have the most comprehensive sex ed you like in schools, and it won't make one iota of a difference outside of the school classroom. "

and I showed many links showing that the most comprehensive sex ed in schools has a LOT of effect and makes a LOT of difference outside the classroom.

And you think that does not contradict what you said??? It is the exact opposite of what you said. It could not possibly be MORE of a contradiction of the unsubstantiated assertion you just offered here.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's pretty much what I said?

No, you said that comprehensive sex ed in schools does not have an iota of effect outside the classroom. That was an egregiously unsubstantiated and false statement you made. Feel free to retract it.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You said:

"You could have the most comprehensive sex ed you like in schools, and it won't make one iota of a difference outside of the school classroom. "

and I showed many links showing that the most comprehensive sex ed in schools has a LOT of effect and makes a LOT of difference outside the classroom.

And you think that does not contradict what you said??? It is the exact opposite of what you said. It could not possibly be MORE of a contradiction of the unsubstantiated assertion you just offered here.



No, you said that comprehensive sex ed in schools does not have an iota of effect outside the classroom. That was an egregiously unsubstantiated and false statement you made. Feel free to retract it.

I won't retract it because the links you posted suggested that there was more to any of the programmes than just what could be covered in a 40 minute sex ed class in the school environment. They appear to have taken as you said a more holistic approach to the issue than just simply... well, blasting children with information :pac:

One only has to look at more developed societies as opposed to developing societies to see that numerous factors contribute to a reduction in underage sex and all the implications of it, and that applies to both boys and girls alike, as opposed to some sex education programmes I've seen solely targeted at making girls responsible for their sexual health. The ideal is of course prevention rather than cure.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I won't retract it because the links you posted suggested that there was more to any of the programmes than just what could be covered in a 40 minute sex ed class in the school environment.

Of course there is more to it. I said that already. But the fact is that claiming a comprehensive sex education will have no effect outside the classroom, as you did, is demonstrably a false statement.

That other things ALSO have an effect, and work in interplay with such education, does not change the falsehood of your statement. No matter how desperately you want it to.

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Of course there is more to it. I said that already. But the fact is that claiming a comprehensive sex education will have no effect outside the classroom, as you did, is demonstrably a false statement.

That other things ALSO have an effect, and work in interplay with such education, does not change the falsehood of your statement. No matter how desperately you want it to.

When I spoke of comprehensive sex education in the classroom, I was thinking of things that could be taught to children in that setting. That's what I meant by saying comprehensive in that context. A comprehensive sex education programme itself is something else entirely different from just what could be taught in a classroom setting in any given 40 minute period.

I hope that clears up any misunderstanding.

nozzferrahhtoo

Nope it really does not. You are just word dancing out of your falsehood by pretending you have a different definition of "comprehensive sex education" than everyone else does.

You claimed such an education has no effect outside the classroom. It has an effect outside the class room, measurable in rates of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

What part of that sexual education do you feel can (or has) NOT be offered in the context of a school classroom "setting"?

One eyed Jack

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nope it really does not.

Oh whatever dude, this is why most of the time I simply can't be arsed entertaining you, you're not here to add anything substantial to the discussion, you're just here to nit-pick. I've been civil, now I just can't be arsed. Have it your way.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh whatever dude, this is why most of the time I simply can't be arsed entertaining you, you're not here to add anything substantial to the discussion, you're just here to nit-pick. I've been civil, now I just can't be arsed. Have it your way.

So pointing out a blatantly false statement is blatantly false is "nitpicking" now is it? And something I uniquely do compared to others you talk with, as if it is not happening all over the forum all the time by pretty much every user engaged in ANY debate?

Pull the other one.

The simple fact is that sexual education, in the context of the classroom setting, has a demonstrable effect on pregnancy and abortion rates outside the class room.

YOU claimed that such an education in the setting of the classroom will not have an "iota" of effect outside the classroom.

That is not picking. That is correcting an egregiously and ENTIRELY false statement. Dude.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

No one said anything about your preference. Stop moving the goal posts again.

Indeed you offered an unsubstantiated suggestion about something that you think (some) pro choice clinics do and it was countered with substantiated evidence of what (some) pro life clinics actually do.

You only felt the information offered was warped when the substantiated shoe was on the other foot.

I think you need to go back and read Bannsidhe's post. It was directly suggested that I would prefer the opposite. Why that is a reasonable assumption in anyone's mind is a question known only to them, and certainly not one I would consider worth entertaining. If someone thinks like that, they're going to think like that regardless, and it's best IMO simply to let them off rather than entertain them.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

In news related to the 8th:

The Supreme Court has agreed to urgently hear next month the State’s appeal against a significant finding the word “unborn” in the Constitution means a “child” with constitutional protection beyond the 8th amendment.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/supreme-court-to-hear-appeal-on-rights-of-unborn-in-february-1.3351800

This arises from a High Court ruling in 2016 in a deportation case, which made the finding above. The partner of the man at the centre of the case was pregnant at the time, and the judge found that the family rights of the unborn weren't considered when the deportation order was made. I'm guessing that means cases where the deportee has children can be treated differently.

thee glitz

NuMarvel wrote: »

I think you've missed my point. The Constitution might be an appropriate place for an absolute ban on abortion, but it becomes a field of landmines when you start adding qualifications.

There is little point changing the constitution for purely popular purposes. Constitutional provisions must be effective and fit for purpose. Because of the relatively static nature of constitutions, they must be ones that will have relevance over the course of decades. None of these criteria could be applied to a provision about complex clinical and ethical matters.

No matter how popular it might be, changing the 8th to allow "some change" just means more court cases and more referendums. And I don't see that benefiting anyone in the long run.

Do you mean no point in changing the constitution because it would be popular to do so? There would be no need to add anything about complex clinical matters into it.

Amending it to allow for abortion in some cases (as it does already) should be possible. Not that it would be perfect, and that there wouldn't be court cases (will there ever not be?), but it would help in bringing about the availability of abortion in some of those 'hard cases'.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Any "hard cases only" amendment would exclude some women who regard their own case as hard (and that woman could be your wife or daughter someday).

And 99.999+% of the time it won't be, it doesn't matter anyway. I don't think considering you own case as hard to be the basis for writing legislation, and you can't nor shouldn't try to cover ever conceivable situation in doing so.

It would also put us back in the position of putting badly understood language with unknown implications into the Constitution. Unless you can list, for example, every FFA condition and the diagnostic markers sufficient to qualify in legal terms? No? Neither can anyone else.

I don't think that kind of language needs to be in the constitution. We've enough of a way with words here that someone could come up with a suitable amendment quite succinctly. If there was a will (and I feel there is), there would be a way.

ohnonotgmail

thee glitz wrote: »

Do you mean no point in changing the constitution because it would be popular to do so? There would be no need to add anything about complex clinical matters into it.

Amending it to allow for abortion in some cases (as it does already) should be possible. Not that it would be perfect, and that there wouldn't be court cases (will there ever not be?), but it would help in bringing about the availability of abortion in some of those 'hard cases'.



And 99.999+% of the time it won't be, it doesn't matter anyway. I don't think considering you own case as hard to be the basis for writing legislation, and you can't nor shouldn't try to cover ever conceivable situation in doing so.




I don't think that kind of language needs to be in the constitution. We've enough of a way with words here that someone could come up with a suitable amendment quite succinctly. If there was a will (and I feel there is), there would be a way.

you mean like they did when writing the 8th amendment?

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Oh I see - you mean where you were ASKED if you would prefer the opposite?



Asking =/= suggesting you hold the opinion you know?

Bannsidhe had already assumed I held the opinion she was suggesting. Stop being coy. It wasn't the benign question you're making it out to be at all.

But incidentally, you seem to have no comment to make on the fact that you offered an unsubstantiated story and then a substantiated story was offered to you that was in direction opposition to your tale "from experience".

Interesting that.

It's not all that interesting really. That's abhorrent. That's all there is to it. I don't see how it relates to what I actually posted though at all. In case it wasn't obvious, the point I was making is that when any young girl is seeking advice to continue her pregnancy, the point I would have thought of any independent family planning agency would be to give her advice that would allow her to do just that. The circumstances where a young girl is seeking advice to discontinue her pregnancy, the point I would have thought of any independent family planning agency would be to give her advice that would allow her to do just that.

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer that they are two completely different circumstances that could be handled by the same independent family planning agency.

Of course I think any of those fake abortion clinics or fake family planning agencies are an absolute curse, but I hadn't assumed that actually needed to be said, because that's assuming the worst of somebody, which I generally don't tend to do, and if others do, then that's on them, not me, and I feel no need to legitimise that sort of malicious interpretation.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Bannsidhe had already assumed I held the opinion she was suggesting. Stop being coy. It wasn't the benign question you're making it out to be at all.





It's not all that interesting really. That's abhorrent. That's all there is to it. I don't see how it relates to what I actually posted though at all. In case it wasn't obvious, the point I was making is that when any young girl is seeking advice to continue her pregnancy, the point I would have thought of any independent family planning agency would be to give her advice that would allow her to do just that. The circumstances where a young girl is seeking advice to discontinue her pregnancy, the point I would have thought of any independent family planning agency would be to give her advice that would allow her to do just that.

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer that they are two completely different circumstances that could be handled by the same independent family planning agency.

Of course I think any of those fake abortion clinics or fake family planning agencies are an absolute curse, but I hadn't assumed that actually needed to be said, because that's assuming the worst of somebody, which I generally don't tend to do, and if others do, then that's on them, not me, and I feel no need to legitimise that sort of malicious interpretation.

it still remains that your story is unsubstantiated.

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

it still remains that your story is unsubstantiated.

So? I'm ok with that.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would have thought of any independent family planning agency would be to give her advice that would allow her to do just that. The circumstances where a young girl is seeking advice to discontinue her pregnancy, the point I would have thought of any independent family planning agency would be to give her advice that would allow her to do just that.

I hope if choice based abortion comes into our country, that they do NOT operate like your describe. Only explaining to them the options that they showed up looking for.

I would prefer to live in a society that informs people of ALL their options in a given context, regardless of whether it was the options they actually showed up to inquire about or not.

Not least because when we go looking for information on options A B and/or C, we do not always know there even IS an option D, E, or F. Or we may know about D, E and F but be ill informed about them and we are not considering them because of that false information.

For example I have met people who think abortion is always a surgical scraping intervention. They did not know that it can be achieved with a simple pill at certain stages of gestation. Such people could rule out abortion as an option because they lacked that information.

Similarly in the opposite direction I can imagine scenarios where people show up looking for information about abortion, abortion they might not seek or have if they were informed of other options they did not know about, or had false information about.

No, I would be abundantly happen to have such family planning support groups give ALL the information possible on ALL options possible, as context demands.

NuMarvel

thee glitz wrote: »

Do you mean no point in changing the constitution because it would be popular to do so?

I mean there's no point changing the constitution just because it might be popular, but nice try in twisting my words to mean something other than what it plainly said (I'm guessing pro lifers get classes in that or something).

thee glitz wrote: »

There would be no need to add anything about complex clinical matters into it.

Amending it to allow for abortion in some cases (as it does already) should be possible.

Exception-based abortion is a complex clinical matter so good luck if you think you can add something that's about complex clinical matters that doesn't actually refer to those matters.

Just because you think it's possible, doesn't mean it is. Some of us have explained why we don't think it is, so rather than simply repeating yourself, why not point out the flaws in our logic?

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't think that kind of language needs to be in the constitution. We've enough of a way with words here that someone could come up with a suitable amendment quite succinctly. If there was a will (and I feel there is), there would be a way.

Well, why not start the ball rolling? Give us a rough idea of text you think can go into the constitution without creating more problems.

sondagefaux

end of the road wrote: »

Oldtree wrote: »

So you would agree then that if a woman (having full control) decides it isn't a viable situation, it isn't a viable situation?

no . a couple of examples of non-viable situations would be. FFA, threat to the mother's life, threat of permanent disability to the mother.

In Ireland, it's legally impossible to get an abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality (FFA) or where continuing a pregnancy threatens causing permanent disability to a pregnant woman.

The only way to change this is to either amend or repeal the existing constitutional provisions about abortion.

It seems that you do want to see abortion available in Ireland after all.

sondagefaux

NuMarvel wrote: »

thee glitz wrote: »

Do you mean no point in changing the constitution because it would be popular to do so?

I mean there's no point changing the constitution just because it might be popular, but nice try in twisting my words to mean something other than what it plainly said (I'm guessing pro lifers get classes in that or something).

thee glitz wrote: »

There would be no need to add anything about complex clinical matters into it.

Amending it to allow for abortion in some cases (as it does already) should be possible.

Exception-based abortion is a complex clinical matter so good luck if you think you can add something that's about complex clinical matters that doesn't actually refer to those matters.

Just because you think it's possible, doesn't mean it is. Some of us have explained why we don't think it is, so rather than simply repeating yourself, why not point out the flaws in our logic?

thee glitz wrote: »

I don't think that kind of language needs to be in the constitution. We've enough of a way with words here that someone could come up with a suitable amendment quite succinctly. If there was a will (and I feel there is), there would be a way.

Well, why not start the ball rolling? Give us a rough idea of text you think can go into the constitution without creating more problems.

The 1983 text was intended by its supporters to make it explicit that abortion was ruled out in Ireland in all circumstances.

Instead it ended up being the basis for the constitutional right to abortion in the circumstances in which it's now available.

As unintended consequences go, that's about 100 out of 10.

kylith

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You've read the original post, twisted it, then quoted it again, you're not dense so I know you're quite capable of reading it as it was intended.

If someone you admit is not dense cannot work out what you are getting at perhaps you could state it again in plain English.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's entirely one possibility, not the only one, which is why I didn't specify gender but rather referred to anyone who would exploit someone in that situation for their own benefit. I'm aware of it happening where young women experiencing crisis pregnancies have approached family planning clinics for advice regarding their pregnancy only to be advised that they might be better off having an abortion. That's not the kind of advice they had in mind.

Ok, so you think that counselling services will push women toward abortions, despite offering no evidence of that, and there being hard evidence of the exact opposite. I have copypasted an article from the times below so no-one will have to deal with the paywall:
TLDR: Crisis pregnany ‘counsellor’ tells woman that abortion will give her cancer, turn her into an abuser, lies about abortifactant pill, shows pictures of 20 week termination.

A Dublin-based pregnancy counselling centre has been secretly recorded advising that abortions cause breast cancer and can turn women into child abusers.
A counsellor at the clinic, which is unregulated under Irish law, was filmed giving advice to an undercover Times reporter that was described as dangerous, outrageous and inaccurate by the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.
h
Undercover footage shows techniques to pressure women out of having an abortion
The Women’s Centre on Berkeley Street in Dublin 7 advertises itself as an impartial source of advice for women who want to travel to the UK to access an abortion but has direct links to a Catholic anti-abortion group. It claims to have clinics in Cork, Galway, Sligo, London and Bristol.
The reporter was shown pictures of aborted foetuses and had her mental state questioned when she indicated that she wanted an abortion.
A woman working at the clinic, who claimed to be a counsellor, told her that breasts and ovaries were connected and that when a pregnancy ended unexpectedly a woman’s reproductive system could be damaged, causing breast cancer.
The counsellor, who said that she had been working with clinics for 18 years, also told the reporter that abortion could lead to women abusing their children in the future.
“That doesn’t mean that women get their kids and knock the head off them. It means that they have been known to neglect their children or over-protect them. It’s a psychological thing. Like a bereavement,” she said.
She said that it was too late at six weeks’ gestation to terminate with mifepristone and misoprostol, pills that induce miscarriage. The pills can, in fact, be safely used to end a pregnancy up to ten weeks’ gestation.
The counsellor also discussed what she said were the consequences of terminating a pregnancy.
“Now, the first side-effect is death,” she said.
The vast majority of women experience no complications after accessing a legal termination, and the mortality rate for abortion is similar to other elective procedures at 1 in every 10,000.
The Times was shown pictures of aborted foetuses at eight and 20 weeks’ gestation.
“What you see there is the placenta. The other part that you can make that out there, they are body parts,” the counsellor said.
The reporter was asked what pregnancy was, what abortion was and if she thought it was fair on the foetus to have an abortion.
“So what I have to ask myself is: could you be a psychological risk for the way you answered [those] questions? Do you know what I mean? You’re 26, which is quite young. This is the blueprint for the rest of your reproductive time in the future,” the counsellor said.
“If you’re going to have children in the future, it’ll all rest on this. If you get breast cancer, you’re a beautiful 26 year old, quite intelligent, your whole life ahead of you, if you make a mistake, you know . . . ”
The reporter said that she did not want to tell her parents about the abortion.
“What do you tell your parents if something physical happens to you? If you got one or all of those side-effects. You really need to look at this a bit more,” the counsellor said.
The reporter was advised to go to the centre’s clinic in London and was told that other UK abortion clinics could give her an infection.
Peter Boylan, head of the Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said that the counsellor’s assertions about the risk of breast cancer were “absolutely incorrect”.
“That is outrageous. That is just not true at all. That would mean that any woman who experienced a stillbirth or whose baby died in the womb would be at an increased risk of breast cancer too”, he said.
Mr Boylan said that the side-effects of abortion could include a very small risk to a woman’s fertility and future pregnancies but in only a minority of cases.
“The majority of women experience absolutely no complications,” he said.
He added that there was no evidence that women who had abortions went on to abuse children. “That is also outrageous,” he said.
The reporter was told that the Women’s Centre in Dublin was used by a high number of migrant women. The clinic is connected to the same London address and phone number as the Good Counsel Network, which has compared abortion to terrorism and has defended the Magdalene laundries.
Another service in London, also called the Women’s Centre and registered at another address connected to the Good Counsel Network, has been censored by UK advertising standards for falsely claiming to run an abortion clinic when it would not refer women for terminations.
The Good Counsel Network claims to run what it describes as a “mother and baby” home in the UK, in which women who have been talked out of abortions now live. It holds “vigils” outside Marie Stopes clinics in the UK and has boasted on its website that it has reduced the opening hours of British abortion services by staging such demonstrations.
There are no laws regulating independent crisis pregnancy agencies in Ireland and the HSE has no power to investigate agencies such as the Women’s Centre. A small number of state-funded organisations are subject to the Regulation of Information Act, which restricts how much information about abortion can be given to women.
The reporter was given literature that claimed abortion by pill might not be successful after seven weeks. It said that terminating a pregnancy could lead to side-effects such as suicidal impulses, an intense interest in babies, constant sighing, guilt, crying, swallowing, a preoccupation with death, a loss of interest in sex, a coma, loss of organs, a desire to end relationships, a loss of maternal instincts and lower self esteem.
The reporter was instructed to come back the following week for an ultrasound scan, which was performed at the Berkeley Street clinic by a woman who said that she was a nurse working at a Dublin hospital. The nurse identified that the undercover reporter was not pregnant.
A spokesman for the Women’s Centre declined to respond to questions and made a series of claims about The Times’s motivations and its fear of “the truth”.
He added that the centre had “thousands of happy customers whom we have helped over 20 years”.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not necessarily, the 8th only comes into play when there is a risk to the right to life of the unborn. In cases where a pregnant woman wants to continue her pregnancy and give birth and raise the child, the 8th isn't any obstruction to that.

Untrue. Because of the 8th a pregnant woman can have procedures such as episiotomies and c-sections performed without their consent. They can have their membranes ruptured, which is against medical best practise, to speed labour. If they try to refuse they can be brought to court.
Pregnant women who are diagnosed with cancer can have treatment delayed until the cancer has spread sufficiently to be a risk to her life. Women who need medication to stay healthy may be denied that medication if they become pregnant.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know, 'Duh', because the far more reasonable assumption is that pregnant women don't want to have abortions, and yet you assume that they are going to happen anyway, and the question I simply asked is why would you assume they would still want an abortion if they didn't feel they had to have to have one? I think we can take it from your response that they wouldn't.

No-one wants to have an abortion because it’s a terribly unpleasant procedure. No-one wants to have a root canal or a double bypass either, but if they feel that they need it they will have it.
Before Irish women could travel to the UK they threw themselves down stairs, gave themselves alcohol poisoning, took scalding baths, and ruptured membranes with knitting needles. Abortion not being legal does not stop women from getting abortions, it makes abortions less safe.
Since abortions being illegal doesn’t stop women having abortions wouldn’t it be better if those abortions could be done safely and legally, so that those women can get proper aftercare should anything go wrong, without having to fear legal issues?[

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The reason I'm against such a move is because you don't give people independence from the State and teach them to generate their own wealth by making them more dependent upon the State for their income.

So, you want to make women have children they can’t afford, when they don’t want to have them, but you’re also against giving them enough money that they can feel that abortion isn’t the only option for a pregnancy they can’t afford?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Now you're talking, but that's not the monumental social and cultural shift you make it out to be, and there are a growing number of employers who recognise the value in recognising that their employees families are important, and have all sorts of initiatives in place to attract top talent with a focus on recognising the importance to them of their families. I'm very fortunate that my employer not only offers but actually actively encourages that sort of flexibility.

That’s good, not all do. And it’s a common remark on threads here about the wages gap that of course women shouldn’t expect to earn as much as men if they’re going to take all that time off to have children.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's a social and cultural shift that would need to take place within not just in Ireland, but internationally, so to try and tie it in with the repeal of the 8th amendment is at best a stretch.

It’s still relevant to this debate. Women who never want to have children cannot be electively sterilised, and are then denied abortion in Ireland if their contraception fails.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You could have the most comprehensive sex ed you like in schools, and it won't make one iota of a difference outside of the school classroom. If the issue were truly influenced by what you consider a lack of adequate sex education, then we would expect the number of crisis pregnancies to be much higher than it actually is.

Studies, which have already been quoted, show that more and better sex ed is linked to lower teenage pregnancy.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Consider for example a number of girls whom you would have went to school with, all received the same quality sex education (on the assumption that their parents agreed to allow their children to participate). Some of those girls will have experienced crisis pregnancies, and some of them won't, therefore it's reasonable to assume another external factor influences behaviour than just sex education or indeed lack thereof. Numerous studies have shown that the most influential factor as a predictor of attitudes to sex and sexuality and pregnancy and family and so on, is indeed the family, and not the school.

And if that education is lacking in the family where can they get it except school?
Currently a lot of schools draft in Accord, a Catholic agency, to do sex education. Getting a religious group in to do this is patently ridiculous.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are some forms of long-term contraception available on the medical card already, and there are numerous places where condoms at least are available free of charge. I can guarantee you the decrease in the abortion rate wasn't solely as a result of the increased availability of contraception, but more likely due to encouraging people to be responsible for their own sexual health.

Which is easier to do when contraception is very cheap or free.

Where are condoms available free of charge? I have never seen this outside of one free one at college rag week.
And for women who don’t qualify for a medical card things like the pill, coil, or implant is quite expensive.

sondagefaux

Peregrinus wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

It will develop or it might develop? It's not certain that every conception results in the live birth of a viable child. Far from it: between 10% and 20% of known pregnancies end in miscarriages, although the real figure is likely to be far higher as many miscarriages occur so early that women never knew they were pregnant.

It has the potential to develop, in a way that neither the sperm nor the egg do. More, it's oriented towards development; development will happen unless Something Goes Wrong. Of its nature, it's constantly developing towards maturity, and the only way this will stop is if something happens to bring about its death.

So, yeah, it's fundamentally different from the sperm or the egg in that respect, neither of which will develop at all unless a particular contingency - fertilisation - occurs.

What the moral or ethical implications of this difference are is another matter, of course. But that the difference exists is not really open to question.

Well it is open to question since you're choosing to assert that potential only exists once certain conditions have been met, ignoring that others have different opinions about when the potential begins.

For example, the Catholic Church opposes 'artificial' contraception because it believes that prevention of sperm meeting egg is the destruction of the potential to create life.

The Irish Supreme Court ruled that only embryos implanted in the womb can be considered the 'unborn' (with potential for life) and thus does not agree that potential human life begins at the moment of conception.

In the early Christian tradition, there was disagreement at what point a foetus became a potential human being. Some argued it began at the moment of conception, some argued it began at the end of the first trimester, when the foetus 'quickened' and gained a soul (ensoulmemt).

Yours assertion that it's a matter of fact as to when potential human life begins is not supported by the evidence.

At what stage potential human life exists or has developed has been a matter of debate for centuries.

Zubeneschamali

sondagefaux wrote: »

As unintended consequences go, that's about 100 out of 10.

Indeed, and Alan Shatter, who has some legal training, explicitly pointed this out in the Dáil, that the pro-life campaign were about to make abortion legal, and they didn't listen.

And for all the youngsters who weren't around: no, this was not the plan, and as soon as the ruling came down, the prolifers immediately tried to remove suicide as a reason for abortion, and to keep travel illegal. Twice on the suicide thing, in fact, 10 years apart.

They failed each time.

NuMarvel

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And for all the youngsters who weren't around: no, this was not the plan, and as soon as the ruling came down, the prolifers immediately tried to remove suicide as a reason for abortion, and to keep travel illegal. Twice on the suicide thing, in fact, 10 years apart.

Some of them, eg Lucinda Creighton, suggested a third referendum on the suicide aspect back in 2012 when it looked like we might be finally legislating for the X Case.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Bannsidhe had already assumed I held the opinion she was suggesting. Stop being coy. It wasn't the benign question you're making it out to be at all.

If Bannasidhe assumed you held the opinion that was ok then Bannasidhe would have written "I assume to are ok with...", but I didn't.

I asked if you prefer the fact that there are co-called family planning clinic blatantly telling women and girls who are in crises (as evidenced by the fact that these clinics names pop up first on a google search for abortion advice) scaremongering lies.

It was a question.
Not a statement.

A question prompted by your faux outrage that actual family planning clinics could, allegedly, be suggesting abortion might be the best option to a woman/girl who has provided information we are not privy too.

You really shouldn't assume that other people are making assumptions.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

Sperm and eggs are also pre-babies. So they need protecting too?

no, not in themselves. you know exactly what i do mean, of course.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

ofll I consider the arguments on the pro life side progress.
Decades and centuries ago masturbation was considered a sin. Also frivolous sex and after that birth control became the next Great Evil and the argument was always the same.
Every Sperm is Sacred!
So now after decades of bitterly fighting tooth and nail for every fraction of an inch, anyone who still says masturbation, sex and birth control are a Sin Unto the Lord sounds like a complete nutter and the anti choice brigade is very carefully steering away from the Bible basher image.
After the above conceded retreats, the battle line has now moved into sperm and egg combining to form a zygote, or fully functioning and sentient human being as the anti side will have it.
Feel free to say "no it isn't" and discredit your entire argument.

I'm not a fan of abortion, but sticking your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALAAAA!!!! I I CAN'T HEAR IT, IT DOESN'T EXIST!!!" is not the answer.
In the end it will be the majority that decides and you will have to concede this battle line as well.

your point isn't relevant in terms of this conversation, given that pro-life doesn't equal being religious. yes some pro-life individuals are religious but many aren't. it's essentially just having a go at religious and pro-life people by trying to equate the 2, and making out that they have the same views as a whole. we don't. because most of us agree masturbation, contraception and birth control or "frivolous sex" are not evil. far from it.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

And for 2 of those 3, we must repeal the 8th.

Good to have you on board.

unfortunately i'm not on board given that should the 8th be repealed it is likely that abortion will be availible on demand rather then (for example) the extreme circumstances i listed.
if that problem didn't exist i would be fully on board.

sondagefaux wrote: »

In Ireland, it's legally impossible to get an abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality (FFA) or where continuing a pregnancy threatens causing permanent disability to a pregnant woman.

The only way to change this is to either amend or repeal the existing constitutional provisions about abortion.

It seems that you do want to see abortion available in Ireland after all.

i'm well aware that in ireland it is legally impossible in cases of FFA or cases where pregnancy could lead to permanent disability to get an abortion. i'm also aware that the only way to allow for that would be to amend/repeal the constitutional provisions about abortion.
if we were voting on the basis that only cases like FFA and so on would be the cases where abortion would be legal, then i would happily vote repeal.
however, it looks like that won't be the case, that abortion will be availible on demand, and will be allowed just because the mother wants the abortion. i disagree that abortion should be availible in such circumstances and therefore cannot vote repeal given those grounds.
i have been clear throughout this thread that abortion should be availible in limited/extreme circumstances, including FFA, a threat to the life of the mother or a threat of permanent disability. so you are stating nothing new and haven't made some great revelation like you may think you have.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

my argument has never been that an abortion bann stops abortion full stop. my argument has been and is, that the current system does stop some abortions from happening, and that article doesn't disprove this IMO.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the media can only do so much given that these days it's effectiveness in terms of this country is not as great as it once was.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i don't support abortion on demand. however, it is not realistic to be able to stop someone going abroad to procure it. no amount of rhetoric and twisting will change the reality of my actual view, which i have made clear a plenty in this and other abortion threads. it's very simple to understand, and no amount of your lies will change reality.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

if some pro-life clynics are telling lies to people then it stands to reason some pro-choice clynics also tell lies. the reality is some people tell lies.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When it comes to a fetus at 16 weeks of before I struggle to see it in terms of "removing the rights of the unborn" so much as I notice no one, least of all yourself, has ever explained to me one single basis for why such a fetus should have rights in the first place.

Hard to see the "removal" of something I see no basis for being there in the first place. It just doesn't parse for me. Sure current law may have such protections, but I genuinely see no basis for that state of affairs.

i explained why such protections should be there. the unborn doesn't magically appear at 16 weeks, it has to develop to that stage. therefore (bar extreme circumstances) the protections give legal guarantees in terms of the state that such development cannot be stopped via medical means. if the unborn are to be protected then it is best they are protected from the start of their development.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Firstly there is no "will" here. A rather significantly high proportion of pregnancies miscarry in this period. Your certainty about their fate is imagination based only.

Secondly when you are saying here is that it is NOT A BABY now. The moment you say "X becomes Y" you are saying "X is NOT Y". So thanks for making our point for us!

i haven't made any point for you. the fact is the baby has to develop, so it has to be given protection from implantation to insure that bar extreme circumstances, it's rights to grow and develop are upheld and it is not terminated via medical means.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then lock all men up because they are all potential rapists. Prosecuting them when they BECOME rapists is clearly not enough. That is the kind of nonsense that comes from basing rights in the present on potentials from the future.

a nonsense argument that has no basis in terms of this discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Someone or something either has rights, or it does not. Aside from asserting that we should do it, you have given no basis AT ALL at ANY TIME for why we should manifest rights in the present based on what something MIGHT be in the future.

Let alone why we should do so at the expense of the rights, well being, and free choices of someone (the pregnant woman) who actually is a sentient being with rights in the here and now. So double fail from you on that score.

no fail from me at all, i have given reasons why the unborn must receive protection bar extreme circumstances. i have given reasons why that should be at the expence of the wishes for a woman to abort it just because they want to, and have stated that it it should not be at the expence of the actual rights of the woman. there is no right to abortion on demand in this state nor should there. i have been clear that where pregnancy effects the rights of the woman, as in to life and so on abortion should be availible. but because she doesn't want the baby is not recognised as a right and i have saw no justification as to why it should be. sentients isn't the only level on which we judge life in ireland, we recognise the rights of the would be sentient as well, to insure it can become sentient.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why? You assert this time and time again and every time you are asked to substantiate it you.... well... quite simply run away and ignore the post.

I repeat my thought experiment from before. Imagine I build a gAI that will not just be conscious and sentient when I turn it on, but will in fact be capable of levels of consciousness and sentience beyond anything you and I are capable of.

All that stops it reaching that potential is me flicking the on switch. Why is/should there be ANY moral onus on me to flick that switch rather than, say, dismantle the entire machine and build toasters and waffle makers out of it?

your thought experiment is nonsense and has no validity, hence rightly it is ignored.

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

end of the road wrote: »

if some pro-life clynics are telling lies to people then it stands to reason some pro-choice clynics also tell lies. the reality is some people tell lies.

How does it 'stand to reason' do you have any evidence of this at all? Any?

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it doesn't differ at all as i have been clear on both points and how they relate to each other. the idea that it's about stopping women from getting what they want is laughable nonsense, which has no basis in validity. what is happening is yourself and others are twisting people's post to mean something else completely different.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

the article cannot ultimately substantiate that the current system doesn't prevent some irish women from procuring abortions. what it says is that an abortion bann doesn't stop abortion happening full stop, something i have never stated otherwise or argued against. it does not say that an abortion bann doesn't stop some abortions.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

and for every such article there is plenty more of the opposite.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i haven't said anything of the sort. you are simply twisting what i have said to make out that i said such.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

in that case we can throw out the logic that some pro-life clynics are telling people they will develop cancer or will die or will become child abusers. however to do that would be stupid given we have proof of it happening, just like it would be stupid to suggest some pro-choice clynics aren't engaging in lying.

frag420

end of the road wrote: »

i don't support abortion on demand. however, it is not realistic to be able to stop someone going abroad to procure it. no amount of rhetoric and twisting will change the reality of my actual view, which i have made clear a plenty in this and other abortion threads. it's very simple to understand, and no amount of your lies will change reality..

But I have asked you on several occasions what you would do to save the life of the unborn if your partner decided that she wanted an abortion, she was adamant she was travelling to the UK tomorrow to have an abortion!

Now what in this instance is the life of the unborn worth to you? What would you do to stop her travelling to abort your child?

Now before you reply you have stated previously that its not practical to man the airports and ports to stop people travelling for abortions however you're now in a position to do something about it as she is your partner and you live under the same roof!!

WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO PROTECT THE LIFE OF THE UNBORN IN THIS INSTANCE??

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

i explained why such protections should be there. the unborn doesn't magically appear at 16 weeks, it has to develop to that stage.

Nope. You have asserted they should be there. You have not yet even once explained why this should be so. If you can find a post from you on this thread where you do not just say they should have such protections, but actually give the reasons WHY they should have such protections..... link me to it. If you find a post where you explain why we should give rights to a POTENTIAL sentient rather than an ACTUAL sentient, rather than just assert we should..... link me to that too.

But I am not aware of a single post where you have done that. So help me out. You merely tell us, over and over again, that the fetus must be allowed reach this potential. Like here for example.......

end of the road wrote: »

if the unborn are to be protected then it is best they are protected from the start of their development.

..... you merely assert this is "best". You have not offered a single argument why though.

end of the road wrote: »

i haven't made any point for you. the fact is the baby has to develop, so it has to be given protection from implantation to insure that bar extreme circumstances, it's rights to grow and develop are upheld and it is not terminated via medical means.

That you do not understand the point does not mean you did not make it for me. The fact remains it is a fetus not a "Baby" and the fact you say it will BECOME a baby, makes that point for me. Whether you like, or realize, it or not.

Again with your assertions however. It HAS to be given protection. Yes you say this over and over and over and over. But not once have you yet told us WHY it HAS to be so. You just declare it to be thus, and then claim falsely you have explained that position. When you seriously have not. You have just asserted that position. Nothing more.

end of the road wrote: »

a nonsense argument that has no basis in terms of this discussion.

My point exactly, thank you for making yet another one of them for me. It is indeed a nonsense argument to mediate rights NOW based on future POTENTIAL. Glad you agree. We are making progress.

end of the road wrote: »

no fail from me at all, i have given reasons why the unborn must receive protection bar extreme circumstances.

No fail except the two I pointed out. You have not given the "reasons" at all. You have merely asserted that it "must" receive this protection. Not a single shred of a reason why it "must" be so. You are so used to asserting your position I am not sure you even understand what it would mean to actually explain or substantiate it. Which is why you, quite falsely, think you have. Triple fail rather than double from you I guess.

end of the road wrote: »

there is no right to abortion on demand in this state nor should there.

Except yes there should. It is her body and the fetus inside her is a totally non-sentient blob with no basis for affording it rights. Her well being, free choice, and health should not just be paramount, it should be 100% because (see how I put a because after my assertions rather than stopping at mere assertion like you do?) she is the only sentient agent in play, and therefore the only agent for whom we can validly hold moral and ethical concern.

end of the road wrote: »

sentients isn't the only level on which we judge life in ireland, we recognise the rights of the would be sentient as well, to insure it can become sentient.

I am as aware, if not more so, of the current state of the law and constitution and so forth. I am discussing what we SHOULD be doing and how what we CURRENTLY do has no valid basis intellectually or philosophically. Appeals to the status quo are just attempts to talk past the points I am making, and you are failing to address.

end of the road wrote: »

your thought experiment is nonsense and has no validity, hence rightly it is ignored.

Except it does, and your pretense it does not is just your cop out excuse for ignoring it. That you can not answer it or address it is the sole reason you are ignoring it. Everything else is just your excuse making and cop out canards.

.......

This post has been deleted.

kylith

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Oh, I know. I'm just not going to let him slide on it.

Hey EOTR: That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Just so you know.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And supporter (by being almost the only person thanking all/any of them) of the posts of the only user on the thread I am aware of who believes women should be allowed terminate their pregnancy at ANY stage at ANY time for ANY reason without ANY limits.

Which is more than a little odd.

One eyed Jack

kylith wrote: »

If someone you admit is not dense cannot work out what you are getting at perhaps you could state it again in plain English.

I think I was clear enough the first time. It's your reinterpretation made a complete balls of what I said. I'm not responsible for that.

Ok, so you think that counselling services will push women toward abortions, despite offering no evidence of that, and there being hard evidence of the exact opposite. I have copypasted an article from the times below so no-one will have to deal with the paywall:
TLDR: Crisis pregnany ‘counsellor’ tells woman that abortion will give her cancer, turn her into an abuser, lies about abortifactant pill, shows pictures of 20 week termination.

I offered evidence of it. You don't accept my word is good enough and that's fair enough. I didn't question a single person who gave their accounts of their experiences because I would see that as disrespectful and I'm willing to take them at their word. Different standards I suppose, I can accept that our standards aren't the same.

Untrue. Because of the 8th a pregnant woman can have procedures such as episiotomies and c-sections performed without their consent. They can have their membranes ruptured, which is against medical best practise, to speed labour. If they try to refuse they can be brought to court.
Pregnant women who are diagnosed with cancer can have treatment delayed until the cancer has spread sufficiently to be a risk to her life. Women who need medication to stay healthy may be denied that medication if they become pregnant.

And that's why I preceded what I said with 'not necessarily', because generally the 8th isn't an obstruction to the vast, vast majority of women who are pregnant and want to continue their pregnancy and give birth and want to raise a child. That's one of the reasons I think at least from my experiences of talking to women and young girls about these issues that they simply can't relate to some of the issues raised by the existence of the 8th amendment - because it's never been an issue that they have personally been affected by, so they aren't aware of the potential issues for others. They can go all the way through pregnancy and never have to even think about the 8th amendment. I'm not going to say whether that's right or wrong, I'm just going to say I'm not in the business of scaremongering people.

No-one wants to have an abortion because it’s a terribly unpleasant procedure. No-one wants to have a root canal or a double bypass either, but if they feel that they need it they will have it.
Before Irish women could travel to the UK they threw themselves down stairs, gave themselves alcohol poisoning, took scalding baths, and ruptured membranes with knitting needles. Abortion not being legal does not stop women from getting abortions, it makes abortions less safe.
Since abortions being illegal doesn’t stop women having abortions wouldn’t it be better if those abortions could be done safely and legally, so that those women can get proper aftercare should anything go wrong, without having to fear legal issues?

Plenty of women still can't go to the UK and we don't hear of women doing any of the things you mention above? It appears that abortion being illegal does in fact tend to put women off the idea of considering abortion, and making it legal would then naturally of course mean that women would consider it.

Of course none of that is particularly of any consequence in terms of whether or not women choose to avail of abortion through other means either by travelling or availing of buying pills online, and of course it would be ideal if they were able to avail of abortion legally and safely and get proper aftercare without having to fear legal issues, but that's the choice they're willing to make, knowing the potential consequences of their actions, and so I would be more in favour of a system that provides intervention and support long before any woman would ever get to that point, before they ever even were to become pregnant in the first place.

So, you want to make women have children they can’t afford, when they don’t want to have them, but you’re also against giving them enough money that they can feel that abortion isn’t the only option for a pregnancy they can’t afford?

Stall on there, I don't want to make women do anything. Each and every woman has a mind of their own, and I would want each and every woman to have the freedom and the resources to decide for themselves, what is best for themselves, and support them in acting in what they believe is acting in their best interests. To that end, no, I don't believe that just giving anyone money is actually helping them. In case it hasn't been made clear already and as January has been at pains to point out - child benefit of what is it now €140, or a tax free allowance of €30 per month is a mere pittance, as are any of the other welfare payments from the State such as OFPA, DCA, etc, the list goes on. Suffice to say - they don't actually teach anyone that they are perfectly capable of generating and maintaining their own wealth and therefore not being dependent upon the State.

Again though - that starts before a woman is ever pregnant, and doesn't just apply to pregnant women either. There are a number of men, albeit thankfully a minority, who claim that because they cannot afford to support their children that they should either be absolved of any financial responsibility, or imagine that the State should provide for their children. They too, should be taught how to generate wealth so that should they ever find themselves in a position where they have fathered a child, they don't immediately assume that responsibility for their child is entirely either the mothers responsibility, or the responsibility of the State.

That’s good, not all do. And it’s a common remark on threads here about the wages gap that of course women shouldn’t expect to earn as much as men if they’re going to take all that time off to have children.

Erra look, I'm sick to my back teeth of hearing about the wages gap and all the rest of that nonsense. Of course if a woman takes time out of her career to raise a family, society should appreciate that, and we should show our appreciation for that by not as you pointed out earlier, surreptitiously penalising women who choose to raise a family and maintain their careers. It doesn't need to be one or the other, and it shouldn't be. Women who choose to work in the home should be as appreciated and rewarded for their contribution to society the same as any man who puts down however many hours in his chosen career to contribute to society.

They're slowly cottoning onto that idea in the States whereas in Ireland where we are about 20 years behind the social curve, there's now talks of introducing tax relief for hiring child minders while both parents go out to work to try and ease the financial burden of childcare. Both my parents worked and we were all practically raised by our neighbour who never took a penny from my parents, but who managed to take care of all seven of us on a State pension! Of course with every generation, expectations rise, and it would be nothing short of a miraculous achievement were a pensioner able to do that today :pac:

It’s still relevant to this debate. Women who never want to have children cannot be electively sterilised, and are then denied abortion in Ireland if their contraception fails.

Fair enough. Although personally I'm still struggling to see how an amendment which protects the right to life of the unborn could actually be applied in the context of women who want to be sterilised but their GP's are reluctant to perform the procedure and that's why they feel patronised. I can't either agree or disagree with whether it's relevant or not but if you feel it is, then fair enough.

Studies, which have already been quoted, show that more and better sex ed is linked to lower teenage pregnancy.

Yeah that last exchange with nozz was just painful, and given I'm half-baked on painkillers right now I'd rather we didn't have to nit-pick through all that again. Suffice to say we obviously had different ideas in mind there.

And if that education is lacking in the family where can they get it except school?

If you feel the education you'd prefer for children is lacking in the family, then I'd respectfully suggest there's not a whole lot you're going to be able to do about that, because the family is recognised by the Irish Constitution at least as the primary and natural educators of children, and it is the values within that family will have more of an influence on children's education and personal development than any amount of sex education in a school environment will do.

Currently a lot of schools draft in Accord, a Catholic agency, to do sex education. Getting a religious group in to do this is patently ridiculous.

Meh, could go on for a long time on that one, but I'll simplify it by saying I understand where you're coming from, but in a Catholic ethos school, I really wouldn't expect they'll be inviting anyone other than a religious group in to give talks on relationships and sex education. Decisions like that are generally up to the Board of Management of the school and their individual policy on sex education whether they decide to keep it in-house so to speak and have the curriculum delivered by teachers, most of whom would really rather be doing something else, or outsource it to an outside agency.

Personally, I would suggest it's best left to the parents. I know you may disagree with that and say parents aren't informed enough and all the rest of it, but at the end of the day it's in the parents own best interests and the best interests of their children that sex education and the families values around sex and sexuality be imparted to their children as part of a broader, ongoing conversation rather than a "there's nothing on tv, let's sit down and I'll tell you about when you were conceived" kind of conversation...

Poor child would be put off sex for life :pac:

Where are condoms available free of charge? I have never seen this outside of one free one at college rag week.

Health clinics up and down the country! Geez I even used work in a place where we used give out free condoms, and that was a long, long time ago now! I can walk into loads of clinics and I'll be given a bunch of condoms! I do believe you when you say you weren't aware of this because it's come as a shock (no pun intended ) to loads of people I know who weren't previously aware of it. Granted it's not particularly advertised, but then it shouldn't need to be as people should make it their business to find out about these things for themselves!

Even at that, nobody should ever be so strapped that they can afford to have sex but they can't afford at least a minimum means to protect both themselves and the person (or persons!), they're choosing to have sex with!

And for women who don’t qualify for a medical card things like the pill, coil, or implant is quite expensive.

Not so prohibitively expensive that if they really wanted to avail of those options they couldn't afford to save up for them. That's only looking for excuses when you start pointing out that affordability of contraception is ever a legitimate reason for why any woman (or man for that matter) isn't able to afford to be responsible for themselves and their sexual health, not to mention the responsibility and duty of care they have towards others.

.......

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack

....... wrote: »

Jack - just to say that your mysterious experience does not = evidence.

You still havent even told us about this unlikely experience that gives you so much exposure to crisis pregnancies yet leaves you so ignorant on then negative effects of the 8th Amendment.

And as I said to ohnonotgmail earlier -


So? I'm ok with that.

You can take it or leave it as you wish, and as I also pointed out to kylith - I haven't once questioned anyone here on their experiences or asked them to provide evidence of their experiences. I'm willing to take them at their word. That's good enough for me. If that's not good enough for you, then that's your problem, not mine.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's entirely one possibility, not the only one, which is why I didn't specify gender but rather referred to anyone who would exploit someone in that situation for their own benefit. I'm aware of it happening where young women experiencing crisis pregnancies have approached family planning clinics for advice regarding their pregnancy only to be advised that they might be better off having an abortion. That's not the kind of advice they had in mind.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I offered evidence of it.

No. You didn't.
You said "I am aware of..."
That's not evidence. That is unsubstantiated hearsay.

Then you claimed that because anti-abortionist 'clinics' tell lies then obvs actual family planning clinics advise abortions.

Well, yes they do - as an option.

.......

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

again this is inaccurate. i'm not a Supporter of Abortions For Women Who Can Afford To Travel For Them, i'm against abortion on demand yet recognise the realities that people can and will travel to procure them.
i have read the article you have provided and have never argued against it's statement, that an abortion bann doesn't stop abortions full stop. of course it doesn't, just like any law we have doesn't completely stop the acts it was designed to prevent
what i have stated and i don't believe the article sufficiently disproves it, is that the system we have in ireland does stop some abortions from happening.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

which is completely different to what you claimed i said.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i can very much read yes . i have read the article, and i'm not satisfied that it can ultimately prove that our system does not reduce the amount of terminations.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

no, i haven't said this at all.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

no, i'd suspect very much that i'm not wrong. as if i'm wrong, then it would be safe to say that the odd pro-life clynic would never do what you and others are claiming they do. the reality is you will get the odd one who have an agenda beyond their simple remit.
i have made plenty of valid points and have refuted plenty of points. just because you don't agree with what is said doesn't ultimately change that fact.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

No. You didn't.
You said "I am aware of..."
That's not evidence. That is unsubstantiated hearsay.

Then you claimed that because anti-abortionist 'clinics' tell lies then obvs actual family planning clinics advise abortions.

Well, yes they do - as an option.

No I didn't? I offered that as evidence before you ever posted about fake abortion clinics! I was making the point in relation to young women who went to family planning clinics looking for advice about continuing their pregnancy, not looking for advice about abortion. In case it isn't yet clear - that's not the kind of advice they went there looking for, and that's not the kind of advice they wanted.

Geez, plain english, it really isn't that hard, and it shouldn't be this tedious.

.......

This post has been deleted.