The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

Achasanai

Martina1991 wrote: »

That woman was 22 weeks pregnant.
The proposed legislation here is termination up to 12 weeks, preventing the need for surgery in many cases.

That woman decided to have an abortion. She went to England to have it. The 8th amendment here didn't stop her.

And may have actually led to a later abortion than if she had been able to obtain one here.

captbarnacles

horseburger wrote: »

robarmstrong wrote: »

Because others have already engaged with your "points".

It's funny how all of your "points" are negatively geared towards the pro-choice but you never have anything to mention about the pro-life side from a negative standpoint, why is that?

You've been asked in this thread, numerous times for your opinion on the pro life campaign and each and every single time you've deflected or ignored it.

Answer it.

You don't seem to think - by the way you dismiss what I said, by insinuating that it isn't a relevant to consider the exchange between Peter Fitzpatrick and Patricia Lohr, and the interview with Maria Steen and Ivana Bacik - that it is an important issue.

If you dismiss me in that way, as you have done now, and earlier in the thread, I feel no inclination to engage with you.

Remember though, if you're canvassing, that your apparent dislike-ability might not do you any favours.

Still waiting on you to answer questions I've asked you.

dudara

garbo speaks wrote: »

Soon, having an abortion will be a must have like the latest handbag or fashion accessory. Shame on these people.

Wow, I’ve nearly reached the merry old age of 40 and I’ve never had an abortion. Must put that on the bucket list.

Cop yourself on. I’m immensely thankful that I’ve never found myself in that situation, having to make that choice. I wouldn’t envy anyone who found themselves trying to make such a big decision.

Ave Sodalis

captbarnacles wrote:

Still waiting on you to answer questions I've asked you.

Good luck, I never did get my answers. Just more dodging and deflecting, and eventual personal abuse until I stopped bothering. His lack of an answer told me all I needed to know.

horseburger

robarmstrong wrote: »

Nah, sick of the deflection. You've been dismissing people left right and centre, sure you only done it a few moments ago to someone else, you aren't getting away that easily.

You don't feel inclined to engage with any discussions regarding the ongoings and shortcomings of the pro-life campaign, you are absolutely obsessed with the supposed issues with the pro-choice campaign, the sheer amount of effort you go to in just trying to discredit it is ridiculous, you're very clearly not "on the fence" or "just asking questions", you've come in here with a very nasty agenda and now that you've been caught, you don't want to fess up. Nobody on this thread will engage with you (most likely) until you comment on the PLC with the same amount of enthusiasm that you have to make comments and find issues on the pro-choice campaign.

I never made any comment defending campaigners of the "pro-life campaign".

There are numerous different groups campaigning on both sides of the argument.

I asked questions in relation to arguments for and against abortion.

I posted items to back up points I was making. I got criticized for posting videos, many of which were debates which included speakers representing both sides of the issue of abortion.

Humorously enough, I got criticized for including video links of debates which included speakers for and against.

Those criticizing me didn't even notice that many of the videos I referenced included arguments for abortion. You can't have a debate without the views of both sides being outlined.

One poster who would agree with Patricia Lohr's stance on abortion said that they "didn't know or care" who she was.

Anyone who has been reading up in the debate on the referendum, would know who she is, since she addressed both the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee.

Doesn't the fact that this poster, didn't know who Patricia Lohr is, suggest that that poster hasn't spent too much time considering arguments for and against?

Then a poster moaned and argued that Patricia Lohr is from the UK, and that I should not have referenced what she said, because in this poster's view, Patricia Lohr of BPAS, is irrelevant to Ireland's abortion laws.

This poster obviously doesn't know that BPAS registered the www.abortion.ie website, that links to www.bpas.co.uk.

It certainly seems clear to me that BPAS has a business interest in the repealing of the 8th amendment, and subsequent legislation in Ireland.

Despite arguments for abortion being expressed in videos of the debates that I included in my posts, with spokespersons arguing for, and against abortion, posters advocating repeal of the 8th amendment still moaned that they wouldn't watch the videos.

Some moaned on the basis that they read the thread on their phones. What am I supposed to do about the fact that they decide to use a phone, instead of something else with a wider screen?

Since the vast majority of the comments in the thread are pro repeal, it is obvious that there will be more pro repeal comments made, so as a result, more questions that can be asked of posters who advocate repeal of the 8th amendment.

One of these questions I asked was about the contradiction in claims by Ivana Bacik, that abortion will not be approved for cases of Down's Syndrome, compared to what Patricia Lohr - who is endorsed by Ivan Bacik in the way that Ivana Bacik included a video on youtube of Patricia Lohr at the Oireachtas Committee, but omitted the question answer session including Peter Fitzpatrick's questions - stated, with regard to cases of abortion on the original ground of sex selection, being carried out under another ground. Maria Steen stated that in Germany, abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, are approved under mental health grounds, because abortion on the ground of disability is not approved.

I never mentioned anything in defence of groups that are campaigning for a no vote.

I asked questions, in relation to the fact that the Oireachtas Committee has stated, that it cannot be certain that the recommendations in the Committee Report will be implemented verbatim.

Considering that, we cannot be sure, of the grounds, under which abortion will be approved, in legislation enacted following the referendum, if there is a yes vote.

You just assumed, by the way you claimed that I don't mention "shortcomings" of the "pro-life campaign" that I agreed with everything stated by the various groups that argue for a no vote.

I wouldn't have bothered including videos of debates on abortion, that include speakers from both sides of the argument, if I was as intolerant of one side in the debate, as you suggest.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

I very much doubt you're convincing anyone man.

NuMarvel

tretorn wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/woman-who-died-after-abortion-was-discharged-despite-vomiting-inquest-told-1.3467432

Oh my good god, is this what awaits us, the murder of five month old developing human beings.

How can we make sure if the Eighth is repealed that this doesnt happen in Ireland.

That woman had a child at home waiting for her mu to come back.

How was that Doctor and those nurses not struck off.

Keeping the 8th makes it harder to protect women from this, not easier. Because if we keep the 8th, women will keep traveling abroad, and Irish authorities and the Irish people will have no input and no control over what happens if a mistake is made again.

robarmstrong

You also still have yet to comment on the pro-life campaign, instead you deflect anything that questions you on what you have to say specifically about it. Why?

You also got overly defensive when pushed on it.

Grayson

ELM327 wrote: »

He can say what he wants but that's only one doctor.
It does not reflect the reality.

Are you John McGuirk?

Also he said "Also speaking at the event, Prof Eamon McGuinness, a former chairman of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child."


That doesn't say it's legal. Or that there are no other occasions here a termination is necessary.

Ave Sodalis

Grayson wrote: »

Also he said "Also speaking at the event, Prof Eamon McGuinness, a former chairman of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child."


That doesn't say it's legal. Or that there are no other occasions here a termination is necessary.

It's also ignoring the fact that the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology's official stance is pro-repeal so using them to further a pro-life argument is a bit moot.

BarleySweets

horseburger wrote: »

I never made any comment defending campaigners of the "pro-life campaign".

There are numerous different groups campaigning on both sides of the argument.

I asked questions in relation to arguments for and against abortion.

I posted items to back up points I was making. I got criticized for posting videos, many of which were debates which included speakers representing both sides of the issue of abortion.

Humorously enough, I got criticized for including video links of debates which included speakers for and against.

Those criticizing me didn't even notice that many of the videos I referenced included arguments for abortion. You can't have a debate without the views of both sides being outlined.

One poster who would agree with Patricia Lohr's stance on abortion said that they "didn't know or care" who she was.

Anyone who has been reading up in the debate on the referendum, would know who she is, since she addressed both the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee.

Doesn't the fact that this poster, didn't know who Patricia Lohr is, suggest that that poster hasn't spent too much time considering arguments for and against?

Then a poster moaned and argued that Patricia Lohr is from the UK, and that I should not have referenced what she said, because in this poster's view, Patricia Lohr of BPAS, is irrelevant to Ireland's abortion laws.

This poster obviously doesn't know that BPAS registered the www.abortion.ie website, that links to www.bpas.co.uk.

It certainly seems clear to me that BPAS has a business interest in the repealing of the 8th amendment, and subsequent legislation in Ireland.

Despite arguments for abortion being expressed in videos of the debates that I included in my posts, with spokespersons arguing for, and against abortion, posters advocating repeal of the 8th amendment still moaned that they wouldn't watch the videos.

Some moaned on the basis that they read the thread on their phones. What am I supposed to do about the fact that they decide to use a phone, instead of something else with a wider screen?

Since the vast majority of the comments in the thread are pro repeal, it is obvious that there will be more pro repeal comments made, so as a result, more questions that can be asked of posters who advocate repeal of the 8th amendment.

One of these questions I asked was about the contradiction in claims by Ivana Bacik, that abortion will not be approved for cases of Down's Syndrome, compared to what Patricia Lohr - who is endorsed by Ivan Bacik in the way that Ivana Bacik included a video on youtube of Patricia Lohr at the Oirechtas Committee, but omitted the question answer session invlusing Peter Fitzpatrick's questions - stated, with regard to cases of abortion on the original ground of sex selection, being carried out under another ground. Maria Steen stated that in Germany, abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, are approved under mental health grounds.

I never mentioned anything in defence of groups that are campaigning for a no vote.

I asked questions, in relation to the fact that the Oireachtas Committee has stated, that it cannot be certain that the recommendations in the Committee Report will be implemented verbatim.

Considering that, we cannot be sure, of the grounds, under which abortion will be approved, in legislation enacted following the referendum, if there is a yes vote.

You just assumed, by the way you claimed that I don't mention "shortcomings" of the "pro-life campaign" that I agreed with everything stated by the various groups that argue for a no vote.

I wouldn't have bothered including videos of debates on abortion, that include speakers from both sides of the argument, if I was as intolerant of one side in the debate, as you suggest.

You are muddying the waters by mixing concerns about the current issue, to repeal the 8th or not, with hypotheticals and worrying about the legislative process. Legislation on abortion is way down the line and has absolutely nothing to do with this referendum.

reubenreuben

horseburger wrote: »

I never made any comment defending campaigners of the "pro-life campaign".

There are numerous different groups campaigning on both sides of the argument.

I asked questions in relation to arguments for and against abortion.

I posted items to back up points I was making. I got criticized for posting videos, many of which were debates which included speakers representing both sides of the issue of abortion.

Humorously enough, I got criticized for including video links of debates which included speakers for and against.

Those criticizing me didn't even notice that many of the videos I referenced included arguments for abortion. You can't have a debate without the views of both sides being outlined.

One poster who would agree with Patricia Lohr's stance on abortion said that they "didn't know or care" who she was.

Anyone who has been reading up in the debate on the referendum, would know who she is, since she addressed both the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee.

Doesn't the fact that this poster, didn't know who Patricia Lohr is, suggest that that poster hasn't spent too much time considering arguments for and against?

Then a poster moaned and argued that Patricia Lohr is from the UK, and that I should not have referenced what she said, because in this poster's view, Patricia Lohr of BPAS, is irrelevant to Ireland's abortion laws.

This poster obviously doesn't know that BPAS registered the www.abortion.ie website, that links to www.bpas.co.uk.

It certainly seems clear to me that BPAS has a business interest in the repealing of the 8th amendment, and subsequent legislation in Ireland.

Despite arguments for abortion being expressed in videos of the debates that I included in my posts, with spokespersons arguing for, and against abortion, posters advocating repeal of the 8th amendment still moaned that they wouldn't watch the videos.

Some moaned on the basis that they read the thread on their phones. What am I supposed to do about the fact that they decide to use a phone, instead of something else with a wider screen?

Since the vast majority of the comments in the thread are pro repeal, it is obvious that there will be more pro repeal comments made, so as a result, more questions that can be asked of posters who advocate repeal of the 8th amendment.

One of these questions I asked was about the contradiction in claims by Ivana Bacik, that abortion will not be approved for cases of Down's Syndrome, compared to what Patricia Lohr - who is endorsed by Ivan Bacik in the way that Ivana Bacik included a video on youtube of Patricia Lohr at the Oirechtas Committee, but omitted the question answer session invlusing Peter Fitzpatrick's questions - stated, with regard to cases of abortion on the original ground of sex selection, being carried out under another ground. Maria Steen stated that in Germany, abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, are approved under mental health grounds.

I never mentioned anything in defence of groups that are campaigning for a no vote.

I asked questions, in relation to the fact that the Oireachtas Committee has stated, that it cannot be certain that the recommendations in the Committee Report will be implemented verbatim.

Considering that, we cannot be sure, of the grounds, under which abortion will be approved, in legislation enacted following the referendum, if there is a yes vote.

You just assumed, by the way you claimed that I don't mention "shortcomings" of the "pro-life campaign" that I agreed with everything stated by the various groups that argue for a no vote.

I wouldn't have bothered including videos of debates on abortion, that include speakers from both sides of the argument, if I was as intolerant of one side in the debate, as you suggest.

What does the above actually mean?

RobertKK

Grayson wrote: »

Also he said "Also speaking at the event, Prof Eamon McGuinness, a former chairman of the Institute of Obstetrics and Gynaecology at the Royal College of Physicians of Ireland, said no Irish doctor would ever fail to intervene to save the life of a pregnant woman - even if that risked the life of her unborn child."


That doesn't say it's legal. Or that there are no other occasions here a termination is necessary.

Of course it is legal, how many cases have doctors being charged with for working to save the life of the mother where the unborn died?

thee glitz

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

AnneFrank wrote: »

I do take your point, but i won't be lobbying it's just not something i would do personally, but if it was tweaked i would vote yes.

Myself, two weeks ago:

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Thee Glitz and lots of other prolifers just like to sound reasonable by saying "I'd love to vote Repeal but...". No matter what is proposed, there will always be a "....but ... so I have to vote the way the Bishop says." at the end.

It's like all the "I have no problems with the Gays, some of my friends own pink shirts, but..." people in the SSM referendum, who were always voting No to SSM regardless, because the Vatican said it was "a defeat for Humanity".

People reasoning why they intend to vote No, due to the proposed legislation, proclaiming to recognise some merit in going Yes - can't be legit! You appear to be fairly knowledgeable on matters of interest, so why resort to arguments based on 'well the Bishop says' when there's no evidence of it being an influential factor and makes you look a clown?

reubenreuben

reubenreuben wrote: »

What does the above actually mean?

I'm on the fence on how I will vote but constantly posting stuff against repeal and dodging answering questions.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

Of course it is legal, how many cases have doctors being charged with for working to save the life of the mother where the unborn died?

No idea why you think that proves anything : how many people have been charged importing and/or using abortion pills in Ireland? Something we know is illegal. But not even women who have brought them in publicly have been questioned never mind charged.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

No idea why you think that proves anything : how many people have been charged importing and/or using abortion pills in Ireland? Something we know is illegal. But not even women who have brought them in publicly have been questioned never mind charged.

Not here but in the six counties there have been two cases recently.

volchitsa

DubInMeath wrote: »

Not here but in the six counties there have been two cases recently.

I know. It can be done, if there is any appetite for it. (They've decided there is no appetite in Northern Ireland either, BTW, and have suspended the 2nd case indefinitely. Or may have dropped it quietly since.)

But the claim was that something to do with abortion was legal because nobody had been charged with it - that is the most arrant nonsense.

There is no wish for embarrassing trials that will call attention to Ireland's very dubious treatment of women, because prolife know that such a trial would only hasten the end of the law, not strengthen it. Doesn't mean it would actually be legal for doctors to act in the way it is claimed they did though.

horseburger

BarleySweets wrote: »

You are muddying the waters by mixing concerns about the current issue, to repeal the 8th or not, with hypotheticals and worrying about the legislative process. Legislation on abortion is way down the line and has absolutely nothing to do with this referendum.

I am making the point that we don't know what will be covered in legislation, if there is a majority yes vote, since the Oireachtas Committee has stated that it cannot ensure that its recommendations are implemented exactly as stated in its report.

I think the exchange between Patricia Lohr and Peter Fitzpatrick discussing grounds for approval of abortion, is very relevant to this issue, of not knowing what will be covered under new legislation.

Cabaal

DubInMeath wrote: »

Not here but in the six counties there have been two cases recently.

Which is a different country so it doesn't matter as it has different laws, in the Republic nobody has been charged will illegal import and use.

Even when women took pills in front of the media nobody was even stopped by gardai.

You'll notice the pro life groups remain silent too. Why? Because they know a legal case against women would put the nail in the coffin for the 8th and there would be massive public support to remove it.

So until its removal they are happy to claim Ireland is abortion free when it is anything but and women continue to take risks , incur high financial costs wait longer for abortions.

Triceratops Ballet

horseburger wrote:

I think the exchange between Patricia Lohr and Peter Fitzpatrick discussing grounds for approval of abortion, is very relevant to this issue, of not knowing what will be covered under new legislation.

I can't speak for everyone but since I don't oppose access to abortion on any grounds and fully support the right to choose, discussion of the grounds for approval of abortion are not a priority of mine which is why I don't feel the need to discuss them, maybe there are others that feel that way, you can't expect everyone to engage with the topic on your terms.

kneemos

Mary Loo,s election poster s.https://www.newstalk.com/Sinn-Fin-launches-campaign-calling-for-Yes-vote-in-Eighth-Amendment-referendum

Cabaal

horseburger wrote: »

I am making the point that we don't know what will be covered in legislation, if there is a majority yes vote, since the Oireachtas Committee has stated that it cannot ensure that its recommendations are implemented exactly as stated in its report.

I think the exchange between Patricia Lohr and Peter Fitzpatrick discussing grounds for approval of abortion, is very relevant to this issue, of not knowing what will be covered under new legislation.

At the end of the day NOTHING changes without the 8th being removed. If its not removed we continue to put women at risk, punishment rape victims, punishment women with a FFA etc.

If you're not happy with legislation then lobby your TDs, that's what they are for.

But voting no only punishes women who need proper medical care.

NuMarvel

horseburger wrote: »

I am making the point that we don't know what will be covered in legislation, if there is a majority yes vote, since the Oireachtas Committee has stated that it cannot ensure that its recommendations are implemented exactly as stated in its report.

I think the exchange between Patricia Lohr and Peter Fitzpatrick discussing grounds for approval of abortion, is very relevant to this issue, of not knowing what will be covered under new legislation.

By this logic, you must vote No in every referendum. :rolleyes:

horseburger

BarleySweets wrote: »

It’s a bunch of “he said, she said” for the most part. I think the crux of his issue is that he’s afraid that abortions will be allowed for Down syndrome babies. Germany allows this but Bacik said Ireland wouldn’t, but she didn’t condemn Germany’s laws sufficiently enough to impress him which makes him worry that she’s being insincere. So he’s trying to conflate that with pro-choice supporters being barbarians. As if any of that has anything to do with the referendum.

On the episode of Prime Time on 18th January 2018, Maria Steen states that Germany doesn't allow for abortion in the case of Down's Syndrome or other disabilities, but abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, is occurring in Germany under a different ground - under the ground of mental health.

Maria Steen in the Prime Time debate on 18th January 2018, stated that abortions in the case of Down's Syndrome are occurring in Germany under mental health grounds.

Ivana Bacik did not challenge this in the Prime Time debate.

It is clear that Ivana Bacik endorses the stance of Dr Patricia Lohr Medical Director of BPAS, because Ivana Bacik posted, on youtube, the video of the address to the Oireachtas Committee, by Patricia Lohr.

I am relating this to Patricia Lohr of BPAS stating clearly, at the Oireachtas Committee on 22nd November 2017, that a case of abortion for "foetal sex" reasons - sex selection - where the woman does not want a boy or girl, would be would be permitted under another ground.

It is detailed in the Oireachtas video of that days proceedings and in the transcript for that day.

Peter Fitzpatrick TD spoke at the 1 hour 58 minute mark.

http://www.oireachtas.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=37332&&CatID=127&StartDate=01 January 2017&OrderAscending=0

https://media.heanet.ie/p/20171122+Joint+Committee+on+Eighth+Amendment+of+the+Constitution/HbnSmB

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/EAJ2017112200002#N240

swampgas

I suspect the Pro-Life crew are afraid that they might be outnumbered by what they consider to be an immoral majority.

If the 8th is repealed, they fear, the same voters that voted to repeal the 8th would be likely to support "liberal" abortion legislation. They really don't care about democracy when it comes to abortion, in their minds it's just wrong wrong wrong no matter how many other people think it should be allowed.

And so they will fight tooth and nail, with every dirty trick in the book, to block repeal. Because they feel they are fighting the good fight, the fight to "save the lives of babies". And no amount of logic, or persuasion, or evidence, will change them. It's like arguing with religious fundamentalists.

Almost every anti-repeal poster here (not all, but most) is operating dishonestly. They know they can't win by being honest, because they know their true motivations for being against repealing the 8th are wildly unpopular. I would find it refreshing if at least one of the persistent "I'm on the fence, no really, now here's a load of vile pro-life propaganda" people would just spell out what they really think. My guess is many of them are either religiously motivated or deeply misogynistic. Some of them I feel are just irrational and (to be blunt) too stupid to grasp the arguments.

But they won't dare admit it. They will just keep on lying and spinning and wriggling and nit-picking, because their true feelings, their true beliefs, are just too repellent to the rest of us. And they know it.

Cabaal

kneemos wrote: »

Mary Loo,s election poster s.https://www.newstalk.com/Sinn-Fin-launches-campaign-calling-for-Yes-vote-in-Eighth-Amendment-referendum

Poster design is odd alright , but I suppose at least she's willing to put her name/face on the line for the issue. FF and FG aren't doing any posters afaik.

I say the above as somebody who doesn't support any specific party

kneemos

Cabaal wrote: »

Poster design is odd alright , but I suppose at least she's willing to put her name/face on the line for the issue. FF and FG aren't doing any posters afaik.

I say the above as somebody who doesn't support any specific party

It's not a political issue.

Edward M

kneemos wrote: »

It's not a political issue.

Of course it is!

blanch152

horseburger wrote: »

I never made any comment defending campaigners of the "pro-life campaign".

There are numerous different groups campaigning on both sides of the argument.

I asked questions in relation to arguments for and against abortion.

I posted items to back up points I was making. I got criticized for posting videos, many of which were debates which included speakers representing both sides of the issue of abortion.

Humorously enough, I got criticized for including video links of debates which included speakers for and against.

Those criticizing me didn't even notice that many of the videos I referenced included arguments for abortion. You can't have a debate without the views of both sides being outlined.

One poster who would agree with Patricia Lohr's stance on abortion said that they "didn't know or care" who she was.

Anyone who has been reading up in the debate on the referendum, would know who she is, since she addressed both the Citizens' Assembly and Oireachtas Committee.

Doesn't the fact that this poster, didn't know who Patricia Lohr is, suggest that that poster hasn't spent too much time considering arguments for and against?

Then a poster moaned and argued that Patricia Lohr is from the UK, and that I should not have referenced what she said, because in this poster's view, Patricia Lohr of BPAS, is irrelevant to Ireland's abortion laws.

This poster obviously doesn't know that BPAS registered the www.abortion.ie website, that links to www.bpas.co.uk.

It certainly seems clear to me that BPAS has a business interest in the repealing of the 8th amendment, and subsequent legislation in Ireland.

Despite arguments for abortion being expressed in videos of the debates that I included in my posts, with spokespersons arguing for, and against abortion, posters advocating repeal of the 8th amendment still moaned that they wouldn't watch the videos.

Some moaned on the basis that they read the thread on their phones. What am I supposed to do about the fact that they decide to use a phone, instead of something else with a wider screen?

Since the vast majority of the comments in the thread are pro repeal, it is obvious that there will be more pro repeal comments made, so as a result, more questions that can be asked of posters who advocate repeal of the 8th amendment.

One of these questions I asked was about the contradiction in claims by Ivana Bacik, that abortion will not be approved for cases of Down's Syndrome, compared to what Patricia Lohr - who is endorsed by Ivan Bacik in the way that Ivana Bacik included a video on youtube of Patricia Lohr at the Oirechtas Committee, but omitted the question answer session invlusing Peter Fitzpatrick's questions - stated, with regard to cases of abortion on the original ground of sex selection, being carried out under another ground. Maria Steen stated that in Germany, abortion in cases of Down's Syndrome, are approved under mental health grounds.

I never mentioned anything in defence of groups that are campaigning for a no vote.

I asked questions, in relation to the fact that the Oireachtas Committee has stated, that it cannot be certain that the recommendations in the Committee Report will be implemented verbatim.

Considering that, we cannot be sure, of the grounds, under which abortion will be approved, in legislation enacted following the referendum, if there is a yes vote.

You just assumed, by the way you claimed that I don't mention "shortcomings" of the "pro-life campaign" that I agreed with everything stated by the various groups that argue for a no vote.

I wouldn't have bothered including videos of debates on abortion, that include speakers from both sides of the argument, if I was as intolerant of one side in the debate, as you suggest.

The great thing about the issues you raise with the legislation, is that if those fears (although they appear completely irrational to me) come to pass, the Oireachtas will be swiftly able to correct them. So if DS babies are being aborted at 24 weeks, we can change the law very easily.

Isn't that a great thing about the repeal that we both support.