The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

....... · 15-01-2018 1:28pm

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-01-2018 1:31pm

Thanks for proving my point about your MO again for me by the way. Ignoring the posts I write to you, waiting some hours or days, then taking pot shots at posts I write to someone else. It is a rather clockwork cycle at this point.

end of the road wrote: »

it's not viable to operate on the basis of sentients only.

Can you back up that assertion in any way, or will you merely be asserting it? As usual?

end of the road wrote: »

the pre-sentient, as in the unborn, who will (unless circumstances prevent it) will become sentient, have to be given protection, to insure their right to become sentient is upheld as much is practically possible.

What right to become sentient? You are making up that right. Aside from.... you guessed it once again.... mere assertion you have not shown that right exists, should exist, or is in any way required.

You dodged it a few times already by means of mere dismiss and retreat, but I repeat the thought experiment I offered to you earlier. If I build an GAI tomorrow, that is every bit (maybe even more so) as sentient and conscious as you....... and the only thing stopping it realizing that potential is the one switch........ then why would I have any moral obligation to flick that switch?

If a machine with no sentience, but the full potential for it, does not have a "right to become sentience" then why does a biological machine have it? Aside from the fact one is a machine made of silicon and the other a machine made of meat........... where does your imagined moral obligation suddenly manifest from? You have not grounded it in ANYTHING so far. Ever.

end of the road wrote: »

systems are not improved and in fact get a lot worse as there is no incentive to improve them.

My point exactly, thanks. I just said that. The difference between the fact THAT abortion is introduced and HOW it is introduced is a massive one. Not just in abortion. The same issues come up in threads on, say, legalized prostitution. People against prostitution rush to point to jurisdictions where the introduction of it had bad effects. But what they fail to do is show that the introduction of prostitution caused the detrimental effect. It was HOW it was introduced that did it.

So you would get little fight from me there! Should you lose all the votes and so forth to prevent abortion-by-choice reaching Ireland........... You would in fact find me standing beside you on the front lines fighting TOGETHER to ensure abortion is introduced in such a way as to avoid such things happen. Both in terms of introducing it correctly, and ensuring that it's introduction is not used to take AWAY from initiatives and procedures and resources that otherwise are a benefit to society.

But it is baby and bath water stuff. That the poor introduction of a new resource or service can have bad effects is not, and never should be, an argument for not introducing that resource or service AT ALL. And you would do well not to lose sight of the common ground that lies under both you and yours, and me and mine, when it comes to abortion.

But you are..... willfully I suspect........ rather vague about what "systems" got worse and why in your rhetoric here. Feel free to expand on it with actual specifics, rather than doomsayer hand waving.

end of the road wrote: »

the incentive to even attempt to improve will be gone.

Speak for yourself I guess. You certainly are not describing me or anyone I know with this assertion. Everyone I know, myself included, pursue the ideal of not just having abortion by choice.... but having any and all initiatives possible to reduce (to zero preferably and ideally) the number of people who ever seek to have one!

But I do not buy the narrative that the introduction of a new service kills the incentive to improve. We have over the years invented many medical treatments for poor health. Heart Bypass surgery jumps to mind. But there are still many people working on improving standards of health and fitness and living and well being so as to reduce the number of people who ever have to have one. Many do not sit back and say "Ah no need to improve the health of the nation, sure they can just have surgery if they need it".

SusieBlue · 15-01-2018 1:33pm

end of the road wrote: »

it's not viable to operate on the basis of sentients only. the pre-sentient, as in the unborn, who will (unless circumstances prevent it) will become sentient, have to be given protection, to insure their right to become sentient is upheld as much is practically possible.
the reality in relation to abortion on demand, is that when it is legislated for (at least in terms of countries like britain) and ireland should we legislate for it, is that systems are not improved and in fact get a lot worse as there is no incentive to improve them. while ireland isn't great at implementing fully functional systems as it is, should abortion on demand be legislated for then the incentive to even attempt to improve will be gone. that is why, along with many other reasons, there is no grounds to legislate for abortion on demand. abortion on demand isn't needed, but abortion in extreme circumstances is . the state refusing to provide abortion on demand and fund it does not go against bodily autonomy. currently ireland isn't doing anything wrong by not legislating for abortion on demand, it is by not insuring all extreme circumstances where it would actually be necessary such as FFA aren't covered by what legislation exists.

Never in my days have I seen any law or legal writing that could interpret that the pre-sentient have the right to be protected in order to become sentient. Never. You literally just made that up.

Of course, if you posted that in your opinion, the pre-sentient should be protected, that's a different matter. However you are stating it to be legal fact, when it isn't.

15-01-2018 2:33pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But at a societal level there is the question of what sort of a society would I want for my grandchildren,

I can only assume you would wish for a society that treats your granddaughter, your living breathing granddaughter, as more important than a 6 week old embryo.
A society that allows healthcare to be determined on what your granddaughter requires, not dependant on whether she is pregnant or not.

end of the road · 15-01-2018 2:42pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Thanks for proving my point about your MO again for me by the way. Ignoring the posts I write to you, waiting some hours or days, then taking pot shots at posts I write to someone else. It is a rather clockwork cycle at this point.

this has never happened, i have only left 1 post of yours a long while before replying to it, and that's because i forgot about it, i replied to it when you reminded me of it. and i have proven none of your points.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You dodged it a few times already by means of mere dismiss and retreat, but I repeat the thought experiment I offered to you earlier. If I build an GAI tomorrow, that is every bit (maybe even more so) as sentient and conscious as you....... and the only thing stopping it realizing that potential is the one switch........ then why would I have any moral obligation to flick that switch?

If a machine with no sentience, but the full potential for it, does not have a "right to become sentience" then why does a biological machine have it? Aside from the fact one is a machine made of silicon and the other a machine made of meat........... where does your imagined moral obligation suddenly manifest from? You have not grounded it in ANYTHING so far. Ever.

i dodged nothing. your comparison isn't viable or valid given that a machine is not living and artificial intelegence is just that. a human being on the other hand is living and alive, and a human person will develop from the embryo. therefore to insure the human person has the best chance of developing from the embryo, we give the embryo protection as much as is practical.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My point exactly, thanks. I just said that. The difference between the fact THAT abortion is introduced and HOW it is introduced is a massive one. Not just in abortion. The same issues come up in threads on, say, legalized prostitution. People against prostitution rush to point to jurisdictions where the introduction of it had bad effects. But what they fail to do is show that the introduction of prostitution caused the detrimental effect. It was HOW it was introduced that did it.

So you would get little fight from me there! Should you lose all the votes and so forth to prevent abortion-by-choice reaching Ireland........... You would in fact find me standing beside you on the front lines fighting TOGETHER to ensure abortion is introduced in such a way as to avoid such things happen. Both in terms of introducing it correctly, and ensuring that it's introduction is not used to take AWAY from initiatives and procedures and resources that otherwise are a benefit to society.

But it is baby and bath water stuff. That the poor introduction of a new resource or service can have bad effects is not, and never should be, an argument for not introducing that resource or service AT ALL. And you would do well not to lose sight of the common ground that lies under both you and yours, and me and mine, when it comes to abortion.

But you are..... willfully I suspect........ rather vague about what "systems" got worse and why in your rhetoric here. Feel free to expand on it with actual specifics, rather than doomsayer hand waving.

the reality is that british and irish political culture does not allow for abortion on demand and a better system. they are just not compatible. such political culture barely allows for any sort of a decent system, hence we don't have it. however with abortion on demand our system would get worse and britain's systems in many cases have got worse as it's assumed people will just have abortions.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Speak for yourself I guess. You certainly are not describing me or anyone I know with this assertion. Everyone I know, myself included, pursue the ideal of not just having abortion by choice.... but having any and all initiatives possible to reduce (to zero preferably and ideally) the number of people who ever seek to have one!

But I do not buy the narrative that the introduction of a new service kills the incentive to improve. We have over the years invented many medical treatments for poor health. Heart Bypass surgery jumps to mind. But there are still many people working on improving standards of health and fitness and living and well being so as to reduce the number of people who ever have to have one. Many do not sit back and say "Ah no need to improve the health of the nation, sure they can just have surgery if they need it".

again the political culture.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Never in my days have I seen any law or legal writing that could interpret that the pre-sentient have the right to be protected in order to become sentient. Never. You literally just made that up.

Of course, if you posted that in your opinion, the pre-sentient should be protected, that's a different matter. However you are stating it to be legal fact, when it isn't.

no, i made nothing up. the reality is the irish constitution gives protection to the unborn "as much as is practical" therefore defacto it has a right to become sentient and to live, unless there are extreme circumstances which mean it should not.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-01-2018 2:52pm

end of the road wrote: »

this has never happened, i have only left 1 post of yours a long while before replying to it, and that's because i forgot about it, i replied to it when you reminded me of it.

No. You did not. You still have not replied to it at all. I can identify a number of posts where this is simply a lie too. If you want me to do this, just ask. Happy to do it for you. I can list all the posts that prove the lie you have just told here that you replied to them all. Call me on it. I dare you.

end of the road wrote: »

i dodged nothing.

Nothing except the things I listed that you did. You dodge the question about the GAI for one. You simply did not answer it then, just like you are not answering it now.

end of the road wrote: »

your comparison isn't viable or valid given that a machine is not living and artificial intelegence is just that.

What has "living" got to do with it. Nothing in science or philosophy suggests that GAI is not possible or that it can only run on a system that is "living". The idea that something needs to be "living" to be sentient is a fantasy you have just made up, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence for it.

And the reason you are making it up is clear, to dodge the question again. Because you know as well as I do that the concept something capable of sentience has a right to become sentient is similarly made up. Nothing has the rights to become sentient, nor should it based on any argument you have ever offered.

end of the road wrote: »

the reality is that british and irish political culture does not allow for abortion on demand and a better system. they are just not compatible

You really are trotting out the assertions today, none of them backed up by anything. There is nothing to say a better system and abortion by choice are not compatible. You are, once again, making it up.

It is perfectly possible to allow for abortion, while also supporting and improving every possible initiative that reduces the requirement to ever seek one. Improving the quality and range of contraception is one. Improving sex education in the schools and offering it EARLIER is another. I personally think contraception should be a VAT free item. The social structures around parenthood could be improved too. Compare Germany to Ireland for examples of systematic changes that could be distilled out to massively improve things.

The list goes on of things we could do to improve the system and, outside your active fantasy world, NONE of them would be in any way hampered or curtailed by having an all access abortion service in our country.

end of the road wrote: »

however with abortion on demand our system would get worse and britain's systems in many cases have got worse as it's assumed people will just have abortions.

I just addressed that, but thanks for ignoring my points again. I recognize there is a difference between the fact of abortion being implemented, and the quality of HOW it is implemented. You believe it can not be introduced in a good way. But aside from assertion of that fantasy, you have not offered a SHRED of backup for it. Anywhere. At all. Ever.

end of the road wrote: »

no, i made nothing up.

Nothing except all the things I pointed out that you did. I am not sure anyone is buying this Trumpesque fake news approach of simply describing reality as the opposite of what it is. Things you made up are there in black and white, but you claim not to have done it. Multiple posts are there that you demonstrably did not reply to, yet you claim to have replied to them all. There is a litany of simple distortions of reality in your posts where you claim the EXACT opposite of what black and white evidence shows to be true. And this is not healthy.

end of the road wrote: »

the reality is the irish constitution gives protection to the unborn "as much as is practical" therefore defacto it has a right to become sentient and to live, unless there are extreme circumstances which mean it should not.

Ehhhh, do keep up. We are on a thread discussing CHANGING That constitution remember. Last time I checked I was discussing what the constitution and society in my view should be saying and doing. Telling me what you think it CURRENTLY is saying and doing is somewhat talking past me therefore.

SusieBlue · 15-01-2018 3:08pm

end of the road wrote: »

no, i made nothing up. the reality is the irish constitution gives protection to the unborn "as much as is practical" therefore defacto it has a right to become sentient and to live, unless there are extreme circumstances which mean it should not.

Please quote exactly where in the constitution it says specifically that the pre-sentient have the right to be protected in order to become sentient. I want to see the exact writing.

Because as I said previously, the bolded is your intepretation, not the actual reality/law/fact.

If you cannot quote a piece of law stating that specifically, we'll have to agree that you just made it up, and its actually just your interpretation/opinion.

One eyed Jack · 15-01-2018 3:14pm

bubblypop wrote: »

I can only assume you would wish for a society that treats your granddaughter, your living breathing granddaughter, as more important than a 6 week old embryo.

I can understand why you would assume that from your perspective, but if you were actually really to look at things from my perspective, you wouldn't have come to that conclusion. I would wish for a society that would value them both equally, and as eviltwin points out - that's a utopian ideal, but that shouldn't mean I should just give up on working towards that goal. To that end, obviously you and I are going to have different values that we instill in our children and would hope to be around long enough to instill in our grandchildren. Hell for reasons that aren't particularly relevant here, at one point I didn't even imagine I would be alive to see my own child grow up, let alone entertain the possibility that one day I might meet my grandchildren.

A society that allows healthcare to be determined on what your granddaughter requires, not dependant on whether she is pregnant or not.

I would wish for a society in which a system of healthcare existed which at it's core was the principle of determining not just what my granddaughter would require, but what I believe is required to benefit society as a whole, not just the individual, whether they are pregnant or not. So I wonder about things for example like what if my granddaughter were disabled in some way, would she be given the opportunities that would allow her to fully participate in and contribute to society, or would she be institutionalised because the argument being that she never should have been born in the first place? Would she be prohibited from reproducing if she were known to be a carrier of the gene for Cystic Fibrosis for example?

I agree with people when they say the 8th amendment has far more reaching consequences for women, but I don't believe that applies just to women, I believe it applies to society as a whole, and I have so, so many moral and ethical questions and conflicts that I have to try and find answers for. You can't answer these questions for me, nobody can answer these questions for anyone else but themselves, and then it is up to each of us to act according to the best answers our conscience can provide, because nobody else but us as individuals will have to live with the consequences of our decisions, and only at some point in the future can we answer the question as to whether we were right or wrong to make the decisions we did, and whether or not we can continue to live with the consequences.

I won't be backed into a corner, or made to feel guilty for that, or shamed or guilt tripped for what decisions I make, either by you or anyone else, either on this thread or offline, I can tell you now that because I'm not an immature teenager, your efforts simply won't work. You and others can continue to pick holes and nit-pick at what I've said all you want, but none of that will change the fact that at least I know what I meant, and I will continue to work towards that goal, regardless of the outcome of any referendum on the 8th amendment.

end of the road · 15-01-2018 3:19pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No. You did not. You still have not replied to it at all. I can identify a number of posts where this is simply a lie too. If you want me to do this, just ask. Happy to do it for you. I can list all the posts that prove the lie you have just told here that you replied to them all. Call me on it. I dare you.

i have never told a lie on this site in my years here. so i will thank you not to accuse me of doing so. i replied to your posts.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nothing except the things I listed that you did. You dodge the question about the GAI for one. You simply did not answer it then, just like you are not answering it now.

i didn't dodge it, it's simply not relevant.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

What has "living" got to do with it. Nothing in science or philosophy suggests that GAI is not possible or that it can only run on a system that is "living". The idea that something needs to be "living" to be sentient is a fantasy you have just made up, and there is absolutely ZERO evidence for it.

And the reason you are making it up is clear, to dodge the question again. Because you know as well as I do that the concept something capable of sentience has a right to become sentient is similarly made up. Nothing has the rights to become sentient, nor should it based on any argument you have ever offered.

i haven't made anything up. the unborn have a right to life in this country whether you agree with it or not.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You really are trotting out the assertions today, none of them backed up by anything. There is nothing to say a better system and abortion by choice are not compatible. You are, once again, making it up.

It is perfectly possible to allow for abortion, while also supporting and improving every possible initiative that reduces the requirement to ever seek one. Improving the quality and range of contraception is one. Improving sex education in the schools and offering it EARLIER is another. I personally think contraception should be a VAT free item. The social structures around parenthood could be improved too. Compare Germany to Ireland for examples of systematic changes that could be distilled out to massively improve things.

The list goes on of things we could do to improve the system and, outside your active fantasy world, NONE of them would be in any way hampered or curtailed by having an all access abortion service in our country.

the political culture of ireland means that legislating for abortion and improving the systems are not compatible as the government grudgingly spend money on systems as it is . with abortion on demand they can just sweep the issues under the carpet as their stanc will be "shur they can have an abortion" . an all access abortion on demand service isn't viable for the state and therefore extending the extreme circumstances by where abortion is necessary is the best way forward to insure necessary abortions are able to be had, and non-necessary ones won't be provided or funded within the state.

end of the road · 15-01-2018 3:25pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I just addressed that, but thanks for ignoring my points again. I recognize there is a difference between the fact of abortion being implemented, and the quality of HOW it is implemented. You believe it can not be introduced in a good way. But aside from assertion of that fantasy, you have not offered a SHRED of backup for it. Anywhere. At all. Ever.

i have offered plenty of it throughout the thread when the specific issue has arisen.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Nothing except all the things I pointed out that you did. I am not sure anyone is buying this Trumpesque fake news approach of simply describing reality as the opposite of what it is. Things you made up are there in black and white, but you claim not to have done it. Multiple posts are there that you demonstrably did not reply to, yet you claim to have replied to them all. There is a litany of simple distortions of reality in your posts where you claim the EXACT opposite of what black and white evidence shows to be true. And this is not healthy.

i have never engaged in any of what you claim. i have done nothing but debate in good faith.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Ehhhh, do keep up. We are on a thread discussing CHANGING That constitution remember. Last time I checked I was discussing what the constitution and society in my view should be saying and doing. Telling me what you think it CURRENTLY is saying and doing is somewhat talking past me therefore.

i disagree.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Please quote exactly where in the constitution it says specifically that the pre-sentient have the right to be protected in order to become sentient. I want to see the exact writing.

Because as I said previously, the bolded is your intepretation, not the actual reality/law/fact.

If you cannot quote a piece of law stating that specifically, we'll have to agree that you just made it up, and its actually just your interpretation/opinion.

for you to agree that i made it up, i would have had to have made it up, or claimed it. the fact is the right to become sentient is a defacto right rather then a specific right, given that the unborn have a right to be protected as per the constitution.

SusieBlue · 15-01-2018 3:27pm

end of the road wrote: »

for you to agree that i made it up, i would have had to have made it up, or claimed it. the fact is the right to become sentient is a defacto right rather then a specific right, given that the unborn have a right to be protected as per the constitution.

Ok, please quote where exactly the constitution clarifies between the pre-sentient and sentient and the bit about the right to protection in order to become sentient?

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-01-2018 3:34pm

end of the road wrote: »

i have offered plenty of it throughout the thread when the specific issue has arisen. i have never engaged in any of what you claim. i have done nothing but debate in good faith.

end of the road wrote: »

i have never told a lie on this site in my years here. so i will thank you not to accuse me of doing so. i replied to your posts.

No. You did not. You seem to be lying again. But let us check shall we? Accusations of dishonesty are baseless insults unless they are backed up with fact. And I like to back my claims up with fact.

Lets see what a mere 300 seconds on the search utility can throw up. Shall we? I did this quick so maybe one or two errors on my part which I apologize for but lets check them anyway.........

Where are your replies to #2369 #2519 #2583?

Then after taking shots at some posts to other people where is your reply to my #4060? #4239? #4409?

I am not seeing them. Direct me to them please. Because while I acknowledge no one on this forum is forced or obliged to respond to anyone, I am noticing a rather rude MO from you here where you open conversation, ignore the reply, wait a few hours or days, then open a new conversation containing ALL THE SAME assertions that were rebutted in the previous reply you ignored.

Conversation can not work like that.

end of the road wrote: »

i didn't dodge it, it's simply not relevant.

You are dodging it by merely asserting it is not relevant without A) answering the question asked or

explaining how it is not relevant.

A machine, biological or artificial, that is capable of sentience are both machines capable of sentience. Yet you claim, it seems, that one has a right to become sentient but the other does not. So:

A) What makes you think it has this right except mere assertion it has this right?

What gives one that right but not the other. Why does "alive" have anything to do with it if both are sentient, or capable of being sentient?

end of the road wrote: »

the political culture of ireland means that legislating for abortion and improving the systems are not compatible as the government grudgingly spend money on systems as it is.

I asked you to back up the assertion, not repeat it at me. You do know the difference right, between backing up a claim and merely repeating the same claim again? I do hope so.

However if there is a problem (real or imagined) with the political climate, then work to improve the political climate. Simples.

But the economics at play here are likely much more complicated than you might want to pretend. For example what are the relative costs between giving 10,000 women the abortion they seek, or helping at a state level to support those 10,000 women in the financial burdens of raising the unwanted child?

Something tells me one is FAR cheaper than the other, and would free up resources to improve the political climate you are imagining.

end of the road wrote: »

with abortion on demand they can just sweep the issues under the carpet as their stanc will be

And that is lazy and intellectually bankrupt thinking by you. Doing the right thing should be done even if it leads to people doing OTHER things bad. If doing X means the government will attempt to sweep Y and Z under the carpet, then it is up to us the electorate to not LET them sweep Y and Z under the carpet.

Simple as that.

But on top of that the simple fact is that allowing many women the abortion they desire will target and eliminate some of the problems you think are being swept under the carpet. That does not mean those problems go away, and can be ignored. But it is a step to addressing many of them in a powerful and useful way.

eviltwin · 15-01-2018 3:35pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I can understand why you would assume that from your perspective, but if you were actually really to look at things from my perspective, you wouldn't have come to that conclusion. I would wish for a society that would value them both equally, and as eviltwin points out - that's a utopian ideal, but that shouldn't mean I should just give up on working towards that goal. To that end, obviously you and I are going to have different values that we instill in our children and would hope to be around long enough to instill in our grandchildren. Hell for reasons that aren't particularly relevant here, at one point I didn't even imagine I would be alive to see my own child grow up, let alone entertain the possibility that one day I might meet my grandchildren.

I would wish for a society in which a system of healthcare existed which at it's core was the principle of determining not just what my granddaughter would require, but what I believe is required to benefit society as a whole, not just the individual, whether they are pregnant or not. So I wonder about things for example like what if my granddaughter were disabled in some way, would she be given the opportunities that would allow her to fully participate in and contribute to society, or would she be institutionalised because the argument being that she never should have been born in the first place? Would she be prohibited from reproducing if she were known to be a carrier of the gene for Cystic Fibrosis for example?

I agree with people when they say the 8th amendment has far more reaching consequences for women, but I don't believe that applies just to women, I believe it applies to society as a whole, and I have so, so many moral and ethical questions and conflicts that I have to try and find answers for. You can't answer these questions for me, nobody can answer these questions for anyone else but themselves, and then it is up to each of us to act according to the best answers our conscience can provide, because nobody else but us as individuals will have to live with the consequences of our decisions, and only at some point in the future can we answer the question as to whether we were right or wrong to make the decisions we did, and whether or not we can continue to live with the consequences.

I won't be backed into a corner, or made to feel guilty for that, or shamed or guilt tripped for what decisions I make, either by you or anyone else, either on this thread or offline, I can tell you now that because I'm not an immature teenager, your efforts simply won't work. You and others can continue to pick holes and nit-pick at what I've said all you want, but none of that will change the fact that at least I know what I meant, and I will continue to work towards that goal, regardless of the outcome of any referendum on the 8th amendment.

And what if your granddaughter just doesn't want to be pregnant? What then?

15-01-2018 3:37pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I agree with people when they say the 8th amendment has far more reaching consequences for women, but I don't believe that applies just to women, I believe it applies to society as a whole

The only way I can see that it applies to society as a whole is that it allows women to be treated as second class citizens in our society.

end of the road · 15-01-2018 3:46pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I asked you to back up the assertion, not repeat it at me. You do know the difference right, between backing up a claim and merely repeating the same claim again? I do hope so.

However if there is a problem (real or imagined) with the political climate, then work to improve the political climate. Simples.

But the economics at play here are likely much more complicated than you might want to pretend. For example what are the relative costs between giving 10,000 women the abortion they seek, or helping at a state level to support those 10,000 women in the financial burdens of raising the unwanted child?

Something tells me one is FAR cheaper than the other, and would free up resources to improve the political climate you are imagining.

And that is lazy and intellectually bankrupt thinking by you. Doing the right thing should be done even if it leads to people doing OTHER things bad. If doing X means the government will attempt to sweep Y and Z under the carpet, then it is up to us the electorate to not LET them sweep Y and Z under the carpet.

Simple as that.

But on top of that the simple fact is that allowing many women the abortion they desire will target and eliminate some of the problems you think are being swept under the carpet. That does not mean those problems go away, and can be ignored. But it is a step to addressing many of them in a powerful and useful way.

abortion on demand is not a solution to target and eliminate problems, it is likely to cause them. abortion on demand is a solution looking for problems.

eviltwin wrote: »

And what if your granddaughter just doesn't want to be pregnant? What then?

she will either have to go to a state which does offer abortion on demand, or if not then wait until the child is born and put it up for adoption. at the end of the day, we all want things in life that sometimes we just can't have. either because we can't afford it, or because giving it to us would effect society. i understand that stance sounds a bit unfair, but unfortunately the issue of abortion on demand in general is by it's nature unfair.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-01-2018 3:50pm

Ignoring the first half of my post and most of the rest of it then? You claimed to have replied to my posts, and took exception when I called that claim a lie. Can you please direct me to the replies you JUST claimed right now you wrote? To posts #2369 #2519 #2583 #4060 #4239 #4409?

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand is not a solution to target and eliminate problems

Except yes it is. It is not THE solution to those problems. It is A solution to them. It should not and can not be the exclusive one. But it is an option in what should be a suite of options for people experiencing an unwanted/crisis pregnancy.

There is no reason on offer on this thread for why it should not be a solution or option other than your fantastical invention of the "Right to become sentient" which you are engaging in any number of linguistic acrobatics to dodge supporting or substantiating in even the smallest way.

....... · 15-01-2018 3:51pm

This post has been deleted.

eviltwin · 15-01-2018 3:53pm

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand is not a solution to target and eliminate problems, it is likely to cause them. abortion on demand is a solution looking for problems.

she will either have to go to a state which does offer abortion on demand, or if not then wait until the child is born and put it up for adoption. at the end of the day, we all want things in life that sometimes we just can't have. either because we can't afford it, or because giving it to us would effect society. i understand that stance sounds a bit unfair, but unfortunately the issue of abortion on demand in general is by it's nature unfair.

We all know what you think and we all know the disgusting comments you make when you lose the argument. I would like to know jacks answer to the question. I asked him.

pilly · 15-01-2018 3:54pm

It's hilarious that EOTR can answer the questions put to other posters.

Martina1991 · 15-01-2018 3:55pm

end of the road wrote: »

abortion on demand is not a solution to target and eliminate problems, it is likely to cause them. abortion on demand is a solution looking for problems.

Tell us Mystic Meg, what kind of problems do you foresee?

Possible reduced birth rates- Not a bad thing in an overpopulated world.
Possible educed number of families and single mothers claiming benefits from the state.
Possible reduced number of children put into care.
Possible reduced strain on maternity and health care services.

What problems does offering abortion as a choice cause?

SusieBlue · 15-01-2018 3:57pm

I'm still waiting to see a source for the piece of the constitution he's talking about. I presume the delay in his reply is because it simply doesn't exist.

end of the road · 15-01-2018 4:15pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except yes it is. It is not THE solution to those problems. It is A solution to them. It should not and can not be the exclusive one. But it is an option in what should be a suite of options for people experiencing an unwanted/crisis pregnancy.

There is no reason on offer on this thread for why it should not be a solution or option other than your fantastical invention of the "Right to become sentient" which you are engaging in any number of linguistic acrobatics to dodge supporting or substantiating in even the smallest way.

there is no reason for an abortion on demand to be a right or to be offered as a solution to problems within this state, when there are far better ways to solve that problem. abortion on demand isn't needed in ireland and is a solution looking for a problem.
we can have a suite of options for people experiencing an unwanted/crisis pregnancy without offering the killing of the unborn as part of it.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

abortion on demand is never okay. but the reality is people will travel abroad to procure it, and it isn't viable to stop them, given that the burdin of proof expected would go beyond that, of which it is reasonable to expect the authorities to provide, due to the evidence being hard to get.

eviltwin wrote: »

We all know what you think and we all know the disgusting comments you make when you lose the argument.

no, you know what you want my points to say and are unhahppy that they don't say what you want them to say. the reality is that the 2 choices are allow for the killing of the unborn outside extreme and necessary circumstances, or have someone cary the child. if there was an option where someone didn't have to cary the child and the unborn didn't have to be killed, that would be the best outcome.
not allowing the killing of the unborn on demand maybe "disgusting" to you, but killing the unborn outside extreme circumstances is disgusting to me. ultimately i have to make the choice i believe to be best for society long term, and that is grudgingly voting no to repeal on the grounds that i believe legislating for abortion on demand to be the wrong option for ireland. if the government were to extend the current legislation that allows abortion in limited circumstances to cover any other extreme and necessary circumstance with no legislation for abortion on demand, then i would gladly vote repeal.

pilly wrote: »

It's hilarious that EOTR can answer the questions put to other posters.

i have answered those put to me as well.

....... · 15-01-2018 4:20pm

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 15-01-2018 4:22pm

Martina1991 wrote: »

Possible reduced birth rates- Not a bad thing in an overpopulated world.

the over-population argument is a bit of a red herring really as parts of the world are actually becoming under-populated, and it's not viable to simply bring people from the populated parts to those parts that are under-populated.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Possible educed number of families and single mothers claiming benefits from the state.

could be done by encouraging greater job opportunities and investment, which would actually bring benefits to society.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Possible reduced number of children put into care.

not a valid reason for abortion on demand. essentially saying "it's aweful we have children in care so lets kill them before they are born instead"
of course it's aweful that we have children in care, but simply killing them off before they are born isn't the answer to that problem. looking at the reasons they are in care and dealing with those is the better option.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Possible reduced strain on maternity and health care services.

again abortion on demand isn't the solution to that, given that with people coming to ireland, we may end up with more birthrates anyway.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-01-2018 4:23pm

Still Ignoring then? You claimed to have replied to my posts, and took exception when I called that claim a lie. Can you please direct me to the replies you JUST claimed right now you wrote? To posts #2369 #2519 #2583 #4060 #4239 #4409?

end of the road wrote: »

there is no reason for an abortion on demand to be a right or to be offered as a solution to problems within this state

Except all the reasons people have listed throughout the thread. Especially the fact that a sentient agent, for whole we should have moral and ethical concern, should not have their rights curtailed by a blob of non sentient matter inside their own body.

And the ONLY rebuttal you have for that fact is to invent a "right to become sentient which you are engaging in any number of linguistic acrobatics to dodge supporting or substantiating in even the smallest way.

end of the road wrote: »

when there are far better ways to solve that problem

Aside from abortion what "better ways" exist to allow a woman who does not want to be pregnant, to not be pregnant? I can not wait to hear these better ways, especially as they are "far better" according to you. List them please.

It seems "far better" means far better for YOU not for them. And I doubt they, or I, should be judging what is better for THEM, based on what is nice for YOU.

One eyed Jack · 15-01-2018 4:26pm

eviltwin wrote: »

And what if your granddaughter just doesn't want to be pregnant? What then?

Then as I said earlier I would help her in any way I could.

Because I understand though that these situations don't simply arise out of nothing, I would have already attempted to work towards a society where she would never find herself in that position in the first place. Idealistic? Absolutely. Impossible? Certainly not.

bubblypop wrote: »

The only way I can see that it applies to society as a whole is that it allows women to be treated as second class citizens in our society.

Ohh far, far, faaaaar from it bubblypop, and this is exactly what I mean when other posters here have implied that I don't care about women.

Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth, and that's why I don't like this argument either that assumes that because a young girl may currently be in a position where she feels she is unable to care for a child, and the further assumption that both she and her child would be a burden on the State - in my experience at least, that simply isn't true, and when young women are given the opportunity, not only are they incredibly resourceful, but they are more than capable not only of creating opportunities for themselves, but they are more than capable of raising children who themselves in turn also contribute greatly to society, and are not seen as the 'second class citizens', or the burden on the State that some people see them as or make them out to be to bolster their arguments as to why those women shouldn't have children.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-01-2018 4:29pm

Everything, that is, except for allowing them the option they actually seek. Which is to take a non-sentient piece of biology out of their own bodies as should be their right. All on the notion that such a blob should have a right to life for no other reason that the Feelz of it.

Just because some single women can make it on their own in such situations, through ingenuity or resourcefulness does not mean A) They all do

That their own hopes and dreams and life plans have been curtailed or destroyed or C) that they should be expected to just because someone else did/could.

....... · 15-01-2018 4:32pm

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 15-01-2018 4:33pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

because from what i understand, the person admitted to procuring an abortion.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

of course not, but the evidence for an average murder is possible to get, unlike that for an abortion, which is hugely difficult to get and to prove such that a successful prosecution could take place.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

a urine test alone would not constitute sufficient evidence.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

but it would have been impossible to bring about a successful prosecution anyway, given that the evidence would not be sufficient.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-01-2018 4:35pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed, there does seem to be an error going around that it means financial. There is a whole swath of meaning hidden behind "socio-economic".

Worse there seems to be an assumption that the ones that ARE "financial" in nature automatically means they are financially challenged.

This is not always the case. There are motivations from the other end of the financial spectrum, which would cause a woman to seek an abortion. They may be in an incredibly well paid job, their commitment and dedication to which precludes having and/or wanting a family.

There is a LOT more going on behind the term "socio-economic" than some seem to want to pretend.

....... · 15-01-2018 4:38pm

This post has been deleted.

kylith · 15-01-2018 4:39pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then as I said earlier I would help her in any way I could.

So, you offer to help her any way you can and she asks you to loan her the money to go to the UK for a termination because she does not want to be pregnant. What then?

Martina1991 · 15-01-2018 4:43pm

end of the road wrote: »

not a valid reason for abortion on demand. essentially saying "it's aweful we have children in care so lets kill them before they are born instead"
of course it's aweful that we have children in care, but simply killing them off before they are born isn't the answer to that problem. looking at the reasons they are in care and dealing with those is the better option.

again abortion on demand isn't the solution to that, given that with people coming to ireland, we may end up with more birthrates anyway.

I am not talking about "killing" children. I'm talking about terminating a <12 week old fetus, as a last resort for the mother.

Your argument about looking at the reasons children are in care is just diverting the problem. Why not treat the cause rather than the effect.

Your last point is pure speculation. People immigrate and emigrate all the time. The population still continues to rise.

What problems do you see occurring if the 8th amendment is repealed?

15-01-2018 4:46pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then as I said earlier I would help her in any way I could.

Because I understand though that these situations don't simply arise out of nothing, I would have already attempted to work towards a society where she would never find herself in that position in the first place. Idealistic? Absolutely. Impossible? Certainly not.

Ohh far, far, faaaaar from it bubblypop, and this is exactly what I mean when other posters here have implied that I don't care about women.

Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth, and that's why I don't like this argument either that assumes that because a young girl may currently be in a position where she feels she is unable to care for a child, and the further assumption that both she and her child would be a burden on the State - in my experience at least, that simply isn't true, and when young women are given the opportunity, not only are they incredibly resourceful, but they are more than capable not only of creating opportunities for themselves, but they are more than capable of raising children who themselves in turn also contribute greatly to society, and are not seen as the 'second class citizens', or the burden on the State that some people see them as or make them out to be to bolster their arguments as to why those women shouldn't have children.

They are second class citizens when it comes to their own healthcare & their own choices about their own body.
I never for a second said or insinuated that single mothers were second class citizens.
Rather ALL women are second class citizens, when a 6 week old embryo has an affect on their healthcare.

One eyed Jack · 15-01-2018 4:47pm

....... wrote: »

But the above assumes that such a young women might want a child if things were different.

What about women like me who never want to have children, ever, at all?

Or what about women who have already got children and do not want more, not out of a financial constraint, but because their family is big enough and they feel they have completed it.

What about women who have a high chance of passing on a genetic abnormality (this affects a member of my own extended family), who does not want to bear another child because of it - they already had one "accident" and although their child is unaffected, he is now a carrier and will have some tough decisions himself to make later on about whether or not it is ethical to have children.

Basically Jack - your utopia seems to only consider one type of woman, but the variety of reasons why women choose abortions is far beyond that. I know you have incorrectly interpreted "socio-economic reasons" as financial only, but reality is much more varied.

I know women who had abortions because of timing/finance/stage in life, but I also know women who had them because they already had children and didnt want more. I am someone who never wants children and I have described the situation of an extended family member above - there are many more and varied reasons that can easily be lumped under "socio-economic".

You appear to have missed both my reply to eviltwin in that same post, and my reply to WhiteRoses earlier, and not only that but for the second time now you have accused me of incorrectly interpreting socioeconomic reasons as financial only when I never made any such insinuation.

I'm not in the business of repeating myself for your benefit when you clearly indicate that you have no interest in what I've said many times already, and you still persist in claiming I've said things I haven't, or I've given you indications of things I haven't.

You obviously have a mental Wicker-man in your head that you feel needs burning badly, and you appear to have chosen me to represent said Wicker-man. I'm not in a position to be able to help you with that and quite frankly given your attitude, I don't wish I was either.

One eyed Jack · 15-01-2018 4:49pm

bubblypop wrote: »

They are second class citizens when it comes to their own healthcare & their own choices about their own body.
I never for a second said or insinuated that single mothers were second class citizens.
Rather ALL women are second class citizens, when a 6 week old embryo has an affect on their healthcare.

bubblypop I can see it from your perspective, but I don't agree with it, so I'll respectfully leave it there. I don't wish to get into an argument with you.

end of the road · 15-01-2018 4:54pm

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except all the reasons people have listed throughout the thread. Especially the fact that a sentient agent, for whole we should have moral and ethical concern, should not have their rights curtailed by a blob of non sentient matter inside their own body.

those reasons don't stack up in terms of allowing abortion on demand. a couple of them stack up in terms of extending the legislation that allows abortion in limited circumstances. the reality is that nobody's rights are being curtailed by not allowing abortion on demand, given that the unborn's right to life has some protection within the irish constitution, and there is no right to have an abortion on demand. + as stated, we cannot judge things on sentients alone, as sometimes that just isn't valid. this case being one of such, as it involves something that is likely to become sentient.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Aside from abortion what "better ways" exist to allow a woman who does not want to be pregnant, to not be pregnant? I can not wait to hear these better ways, especially as they are "far better" according to you. List them please.

It seems "far better" means far better for YOU not for them. And I doubt they, or I, should be judging what is better for THEM, based on what is nice for YOU.

it's not about me, it's about society, and the reality is that allowing the killing of the unborn without question or reason is not good for society, as over time it leads to a slow devaluation of other lives.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Everything, that is, except for allowing them the option they actually seek. Which is to take a non-sentient piece of biology out of their own bodies as should be their right. All on the notion that such a blob should have a right to life for no other reason that the Feelz of it.

Just because some single women can make it on their own in such situations, through ingenuity or resourcefulness does not mean A) They all do That their own hopes and dreams and life plans have been curtailed or destroyed or C) that they should be expected to just because someone else did/could.

because some people's hopes and dreams and life plans haven't gone to plan, does not mean we should give the unnecessary right to kill the unborn without question and without reason. it is possible that sadly even if these women didn't have a child, their plans would have not come to fruition anyway.

SusieBlue · 15-01-2018 4:56pm

end of the road wrote: »

for you to agree that i made it up, i would have had to have made it up, or claimed it. the fact is the right to become sentient is a defacto right rather then a specific right, given that the unborn have a right to be protected as per the constitution.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Ok, please quote where exactly the constitution clarifies between the pre-sentient and sentient and the bit about the right to protection in order to become sentient?

Still waiting on a reply to this, EOTR.

....... · 15-01-2018 4:57pm

This post has been deleted.

One eyed Jack · 15-01-2018 4:57pm

kylith wrote: »

So, you offer to help her any way you can and she asks you to loan her the money to go to the UK for a termination because she does not want to be pregnant. What then?

Then not only will I give her the money but I'll make sure she has access to the best of treatment and care and aftercare with people I know and would trust with my own life, and I don't ask any questions, and I don't want to be paid back. I'd have thought that was an obvious conclusion from my replies to both WhiteRoses and eviltwin earlier. This really isn't as difficult to understand as some people are making it out to be at all at all.

....... · 15-01-2018 4:58pm

This post has been deleted.

end of the road · 15-01-2018 4:58pm

Martina1991 wrote: »

I am not talking about "killing" children. I'm talking about terminating a <12 week old fetus, as a last resort for the mother.

i know that, hence i said "unborn" rather then children. we rightly don't kill children because they end up in the care system, so to me, killing the unborn because a couple of them may end up in the care system, is not an exceptible outcome either.

Martina1991 wrote: »

Your argument about looking at the reasons children are in care is just diverting the problem. Why not treat the cause rather than the effect.

that's what looking at the issues that cause children to end up in care would do, treat the cause.

Martina1991 wrote: »

What problems do you see occurring if the 8th amendment is repealed?

abortion on demand is the issue i have with repealing the 8th. if that issue is not there, then i would gladly vote repeal.

end of the road · 15-01-2018 5:02pm

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it is not rubbish and i have not said that we don't do it because it's not viable. yes we voted not to do it, but the reality is even if we didn't, there could not be sufficient evidence gathered to bring about a prosecution for having an abortion. the burdin of proof within our court system is quite high for a start, and neither side could ultimately prove anything sufficiently.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Still waiting on a reply to this, EOTR.

i gave you a reply. it's a defacto right, rather then a constitutional right. the constitutional right is that the unborn have a right to have their lives protected as much as is practical, therefore defacto, they have a right to become sentient.

kylith · 15-01-2018 5:04pm

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Then not only will I give her the money but I'll make sure she has access to the best of treatment and care and aftercare with people I know and would trust with my own life, and I don't ask any questions, and I don't want to be paid back. I'd have thought that was an obvious conclusion from my replies to both WhiteRoses and eviltwin earlier. This really isn't as difficult to understand as some people are making it out to be at all at all.

So your position is not about stopping abortions or saving the 'lives' of the unborn. It's about making sure that women have to travel to a foreign country to have them.

Glad to clear that up.

nozzferrahhtoo · 15-01-2018 5:04pm

Still Ignoring then and dodging then? Something you claimed you never do?

AGAIN: You claimed to have replied to my posts, and took exception when I called that claim a lie. Can you please direct me to the replies you JUST explicitly claimed you wrote? To posts #2369 #2519 #2583 #4060 #4239 #4409?

end of the road wrote: »

those reasons don't stack up in terms of allowing abortion on demand.

More assertion then? You never back any of this up. This is not logical. That does not stack up. That is not right. This has to be done. This should be this way. Assertion after assertion with never a single "because" following it.

The simple fact is you have not a SHRED of argument to offer as to why the rights, choices and well being of a sentient agent should be curtailed by something that simply is not. To get there you merely INVENT a "right to become sentient" and then engage in linguistic acrobatics to dodge defending the claim for such a right.

What is more when I compare a sentient machine, not yet on, with a fetus, and ask why one has the "right to be sentient" and the other does not, you simply run away and dodge the question. Dodge. Duck. Ignore. run. What an MO you are building.

end of the road wrote: »

the reality is that nobody's rights are being curtailed by not allowing abortion on demand

But I did not say "rights" did I? I said "Rights, well being and choices". You ignore entire posts sometimes, but then ignore parts of sentences the rest of the time.

end of the road wrote: »

given that the unborn's right to life has some protection within the irish constitution

Do keep up, we are talking about CHANGING that constitution. I am aware of what he constitution says NOW thanks. I do not need a lesser understanding of it offered to replace my own. What I am discussing is what changes SHOULD be made and more importantly WHY they should be made..... rather than simply asserting things that should change or should not change like you do and then running away.

end of the road wrote: »

we cannot judge things on sentients alone, as sometimes that just isn't valid.

Why cant we? And when is it not valid? And not just when but WHY? Merely saying "now" as part of your assert-athon is not answering the question. Even a little.

end of the road wrote: »

this case being one of such, as it involves something that is likely to become sentient.

And why should the likelyhood to become sentient be of moral or ethical concern other than your assertion that it should? Have you any arguments, other than repetition of the claim, to support the claim?

end of the road wrote: »

it's not about me, it's about society

My point exactly, thanks. So when you claim something is "far better" you need to explain why it is "far better" other than what is "far better" for YOU. Merely asserting it is "far better" for society without engaging in any argument as to why it is so..... is dodging the question/challenge.

end of the road wrote: »

the reality is that allowing the killing of the unborn without question or reason is not good for society, as over time it leads to a slow devaluation of other lives.

No. It does not. It allows us to VALUE life by specifying exactly what it is we value. After all we kill cow after cow without ever "devaluing life". We chop down tree after tree without "devaluing life".

What we should do is talk about what IS of value. Clearly it is not just "life" as we end life all the time. So there must be something more about "human life" that makes us value it. And that "something more" I feel is the faculty of consciousness and sentience. A faculty that, bully for you, the fetus simply lacks. But rather than acknowledge that you simply assert that the potential to be sentient is of value. But despite MULTIPLE attempts I have not yet gotten you to defend or support that position. Nor, I suspect, will I.

end of the road wrote: »

it is possible that sadly even if these women didn't have a child, their plans would have not come to fruition anyway.

Of course it is. But that is their journey to find out. Their journey to find that out one way or the other, should not be curtailed by a blob of non-sentient matter inside THEIR body that they don't want in there.

SusieBlue · 15-01-2018 5:13pm

end of the road wrote: »

i gave you a reply. it's a defacto right, rather then a constitutional right. the constitutional right is that the unborn have a right to have their lives protected as much as is practical, therefore defacto, they have a right to become sentient.

No, sorry, that's your interpretation of the constitution. The constitution doesn't actually specifically say that, at all.

You seem to have a massive issue with distinguishing the difference between your opinion and facts.

The reality is the constitution says sweet f all about sentience and pre-sentience and defacto rights, and you made that up to support your argument.
FYI, this is why people don't take you seriously in these threads.

pilly · 15-01-2018 5:20pm

end of the road wrote: »

i know that, hence i said "unborn" rather then children. we rightly don't kill children because they end up in the care system, so to me, killing the unborn because a couple of them may end up in the care system, is not an exceptible outcome either.

that's what looking at the issues that cause children to end up in care would do, treat the cause.

abortion on demand is the issue i have with repealing the 8th. if that issue is not there, then i would gladly vote repeal.

My New Years wish for you EOTR is that you will learn two things this year:

1. How to use capital letters.
2. To state something as an opinion rather than fact.

Just because you believe something that does not mean it's a fact, understand?

One eyed Jack · 15-01-2018 5:25pm

kylith wrote: »

So your position is not about stopping abortions or saving the 'lives' of the unborn. It's about making sure that women have to travel to a foreign country to have them.

Glad to clear that up.

You do know that instead of assuming my position on things, you could just ask?

No? No? I guess not then.

Well whatever that cleared up for you I guess as long as you're happy we're all good.

Loafing Oaf · 15-01-2018 5:28pm

Varadkar says accepting recommendations on Eighth a ‘strong option’
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-says-accepting-recommendations-on-eighth-a-strong-option-1.3356004?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fvaradkar-says-accepting-recommendations-on-eighth-a-strong-option-1.3356004

Ooh Leo you tease...

ohnonotgmail · 15-01-2018 5:31pm

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Varadkar says accepting recommendations on Eighth a ‘strong option’
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/varadkar-says-accepting-recommendations-on-eighth-a-strong-option-1.3356004?mode=sample&auth-failed=1&pw-origin=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fvaradkar-says-accepting-recommendations-on-eighth-a-strong-option-1.3356004

Ooh Leo you tease...

that man talks out of both sides of his mouth.

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments