8th amendment referendum part 3 - Mod note and FAQ in post #1

PlaneSpeeking

AnneFrank wrote: »

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

AnneFrank post here suggests you are a hypocrite. You have no problem sentencing actual living beings to death but will post here claiming that you consider life.

This was from a different thread,different subject,totally out of context,pathetic really

No reply yet as to my question of why YOU get to decide that I must remain on pain because I cannot access medical treatment because of a "mythical" foetus that will never exist????

bootpaws

It's absolutely insane that it's so normal to insist women carry through pregnancies they don't want, yet I've never heard anybody who wasn't my own Doctor so much as utter the word "tokophobia." No one in this damn country so worried about zygotes and foetuses seems to have a single thought about how traumatic pregnancy can be for women, especially if it's a pregnancy they do not want.

For some women it is a real and terrible phobia, and unlike many phobias, there's not much about it that's irrational. Pregnancy is not 9 months of swanning about with some swollen ankles, cravings, and a lovely glow. Men will never know the unsettling worry of literally having something inside you that you don't want there, that is completely out of your control. It's making you sick, it's making your body change, it's causing nosebleeds, vomiting, backaches, headaches, migraines, dehydration through vomiting, heartburn, foot pain, leg pain, sleeplessness, sweating, emotional distress x100, a constant urge to urinate, constipation, haemorrhoids, breast pain, congestion, cramping, bleeding gums, not to mention strange, excess vaginal discharge and mucus plugs. Lovely, right?

This isn't even all of it. But the way people have been speaking in this debate, as if pregnancy is some minor inconvenience and sure who cares if you want it or not, what about the 2 inch long developing potential for life in there? Now THAT'S valuable! Shut up, Meg!

Putting a woman through all of the above and more, before eventually going through a painful labour, during which due to the 8th she won't have much say in anything done to her to get the baby out? This is a f**king nightmare.

Please, please, I beg you, stop prioritising a potential life over quality of existing life. I am sick of having to beg for my rights, there was a time I was too proud to do it. But it's what this country has pushed me to. Do not force this on women who don't want it.

Zubeneschamali

mohawk wrote: »

The silent No voters interest me I have to say. if you feel that you are doing the right thing why not say it?

In the SSM debate, this was pretty easy to answer - voting No was shameful, and no-one wants to admit to being a bigot, but it is much easier to vote "No to sodomy" in the privacy of the voting booth.

This time, I am not seeing it. The No story is that they are saving lives and Yes are murdering babies. Why would anyone who believes that be shy about saying it to a pollster?

I think there are plenty of "shy" voters on both sides who are not talking about it in real life to avoid extremely awkward conversations with family members, friends and co-workers. But that is on both sides, and wouldn't skew the polls either way.

Zubeneschamali

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Ever heard of a fetus that developed into anything other than a baby?

Sadly, many end in a miscarriage rather than a baby.

Andrew Beef

The argument that “abortion is happening in the UK anyway; make it safer by allowing it to happen here” is utterly ridiculous.

I want to see the 8th repealed but will be voting No because I don’t want to see unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks. Why? Because it is morally wrong. If perfectly healthy people want to end the lives of perfectly healthy unborn children, let them travel to a jurisdiction that allows it. Making things convenient for them is not our concern; discretionary abortion shouldn’t be easy and we are right to keep it from happening on our doorstep.

Zubeneschamali

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Making things convenient for them is not our concern; discretionary abortion shouldn’t be easy and we are right to keep it from happening on our doorstep.

Bah! Not while you're under my roof, young lady!

Triceratops Ballet

ASISEEIT wrote:

Its stopping it here . Only a fool would say that having abortion available here would not increase numbers of women having abortions. Its like saying that having more pubs and off licenses doesn't increase alcholism

Well that's bs, they have no pubs/off licence trade in places like Iran yet alcoholism is a big enough problem there.

Wrongway1985

AnneFrank wrote: »

This was from a different thread,different subject,totally out of context,pathetic really

It's a different thread sure but how is it taken out of context it would be better for national resources apparently if people in homeless situations were dead according to you it doesn't sound very remorseful, you'll condone women in troubling scenarios on abortion though.

What's pathetic is how you couldn't explain why?It's fine to throw that out elsewhere but it doesn't fit your stance here?

B0jangles

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The argument that “abortion is happening in the UK anyway; make it safer by allowing it to happen here” is utterly ridiculous.

I want to see the 8th repealed but will be voting No because I don’t want to see unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks. Why? Because it is morally wrong. If perfectly healthy people want to end the lives of perfectly healthy unborn children, let them travel to a jurisdiction that allows it. Making things convenient for them is not our concern; discretionary abortion shouldn’t be easy and we are right to keep it from happening on our doorstep.

Abortion up to 12 weeks is ALREADY HERE as long as you have internet access and a postal address. It's just not as safe as it should be. Are you ok with women taking the pills without medical back-up if anything goes wrong?

That's what is happening right now and the 8th does not and cannot do anything to prevent that.

With respect, your morals are your business, no-one else's. No-one should be forced to live by your moral code, nor should you be forced to live by theirs. This means they get to choose whether or not abortion is the right answer for them and you get to choose never to have one yourself.

PhoenixParker

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The argument that “abortion is happening in the UK anyway; make it safer by allowing it to happen here” is utterly ridiculous.

I want to see the 8th repealed but will be voting No because I don’t want to see unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks. Why? Because it is morally wrong. If perfectly healthy people want to end the lives of perfectly healthy unborn children, let them travel to a jurisdiction that allows it. Making things convenient for them is not our concern; discretionary abortion shouldn’t be easy and we are right to keep it from happening on our doorstep.

What we have is unrestricted abortion.
Nobody has ever been prosecuted for importing and using abortion pills. There is a law on the books, but as it's never been prosecuted it can hardly count as a restriction.

Similarly the right to travel to the U.K. without restriction is constitutionality guaranteed.

What the government is proposing increases the restrictions.

It obliges a woman to talk to her doctor, confirm how far along she is and wait 3 days before accessing abortion. It provides the opportunity for a doctor to intervene if they see doubt or co-ercion.

If you are concerned about unrestricted abortion, surely that is an improvement?

Wrongway1985

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The argument that “abortion is happening in the UK anyway; make it safer by allowing it to happen here” is utterly ridiculous.

"Safer" only refers to under medical supervision prior/after; in + out from X country at the min.

Abortion is happening here be it back alley abortion or pills online it's here anyway.

What effect on you does unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks have on you and what is your recommendation if you say you are for repeal but that's a sticking point,What's your ideal alternative?

Andrew Beef

That is a ridiculous argument!

Just because some women are choosing to commit an illegal and immoral act either via the internet by ordering pills or via a trip to the UK, it is not justification for changing our country into one which readily accepts the unnecessary termination of a viable baby’s life.

The 8th needs to go but we do not need unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks.

Triceratops Ballet

BoJack Horseman wrote:

If you claim to be on the wrong end of a hierarchy, who is on the top exactly?

I would say that men who have an unconditional right to bodily autonomy are at the top. My right to life/bodily autonomy/access to healthcare/consent to medical intervention should not be contingent on the contents of my uterus.

PhoenixParker

Andrew Beef wrote: »

That is a ridiculous argument!

Just because some women are choosing to commit an illegal and immoral act either via the internet by ordering pills or via a trip to the UK, it is not justification for changing our country into one which readily accepts the unnecessary termination of a viable baby’s life.

The 8th needs to go but we do not need unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks.

I think you're more persuaded then you'd like to admit.

Why don't we need access to abortions, on request in Ireland, restricted by a three day waiting period, subject to the approval of a doctor and up to 12 weeks?

Triceratops Ballet

Andrew Beef wrote:

Just because some women are choosing to commit an illegal and immoral act either via the internet by ordering pills or via a trip to the UK, it is not justification for changing our country into one which readily accepts the unnecessary termination of a viable baby’s life.

Would you like to see these women prosecuted?

Immoral is a subjective term, and should not inform law, we live in a democracy not a theocracy

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

That is a ridiculous argument!

Just because some women are choosing to commit an illegal and immoral act either via the internet by ordering pills or via a trip to the UK, it is not justification for changing our country into one which readily accepts the unnecessary termination of a viable baby’s life.

The 8th needs to go but we do not need unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks.

Why do you consider a <12 week foetus to be the same as a baby? Genuine question. This opinion is at odds with the medical profession and the vast majority of the developed world. But it is prevalent in Ireland due to the influence of the RCC.

bootpaws

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I want to see the 8th repealed but will be voting No

Do you understand how words work?

Andrew Beef

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote:

Just because some women are choosing to commit an illegal and immoral act either via the internet by ordering pills or via a trip to the UK, it is not justification for changing our country into one which readily accepts the unnecessary termination of a viable baby’s life.

Would you like to see these women prosecuted?

Immoral is a subjective term, and should not inform law, we live in a democracy not a theocracy

Yes, I would. I would prefer if discretionary abortions were illegal and gave rise to prosecutions because I believe that they are utterly wrong.

joe40

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The argument that “abortion is happening in the UK anyway; make it safer by allowing it to happen here” is utterly ridiculous.

I want to see the 8th repealed but will be voting No because I don’t want to see unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks. Why? Because it is morally wrong. If perfectly healthy people want to end the lives of perfectly healthy unborn children, let them travel to a jurisdiction that allows it. Making things convenient for them is not our concern; discretionary abortion shouldn’t be easy and we are right to keep it from happening on our doorstep.

So could you give some suggestions on what to replace it with, and more importantly how this would be administered.

Plenty of adamant no voters here want to keep the 8th I get that but disagree. I don't understand your stance. Did you read any of the expert testimony.

PhoenixParker

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Yes, I would. I would prefer if discretionary abortions were illegal and gave rise to prosecutions because I believe that they are utterly wrong.

This is interesting to me.

You've changed your wording to discretionary abortions.

What do you think constitutes a discretionary abortion?

Where do you draw the line between discretionary and need?

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Yes, I would. I would prefer if discretionary abortions were illegal and gave rise to prosecutions because I believe that they are utterly wrong.

I am shocked by the bit in bold. Discretionary??

No woman takes the decision lightly and to suggest otherwise is deeply misogynistic and insulting.

Andrew Beef

I would look to allow abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality, and cases such as the tragic Savita case.

Cases of abortion and incest are harder to deal with because, by the time any case has worked itself through the system, the baby has been born. I would therefore set up “Rape Committees” which would consist of a clinical psychologist, a Garda of no less than Chief Superintendent rank, and an obstetrician or appropriate medical professional; the Rape Committee could permit an abortion if they agree unanimously that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rape has taken place. The findings of the Rape Committee could not be used in any criminal trial.

Beyond that, I would not allow discretionary abortion.

Andrew Beef

Flying Fox wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Yes, I would. I would prefer if discretionary abortions were illegal and gave rise to prosecutions because I believe that they are utterly wrong.

I am shocked by the bit in bold. Discretionary??

No woman takes the decision lightly and to suggest otherwise is deeply misogynistic and insulting.

You should probably google “discretionary+meaning” so.

Timberrrrrrrr

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I would look to allow abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality, and cases such as the tragic Savita case.

Cases of abortion and incest are harder to deal with because, by the time any case has worked itself through the system, the baby has been born. I would therefore set up “Rape Committees” which would consist of a clinical psychologist, a Garda of no less than Chief Superintendent rank, and an obstetrician or appropriate medical professional; the Rape Committee could permit an abortion if they agree unanimously that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rape has taken place. The findings of the Rape Committee could not be used in any criminal trial.

Beyond that, I would not allow discretionary abortion.

A RAPE committee? Seriously? You want a woman who has been raped to be interviewed and cross examined?

Also re the bolded part, they cannot do that! To make that decision their would have to be a criminal trial.

Timberrrrrrrr

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I would look to allow abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality, and cases such as the tragic Savita case.

Cases of abortion and incest are harder to deal with because, by the time any case has worked itself through the system, the baby has been born. I would therefore set up “Rape Committees” which would consist of a clinical psychologist, a Garda of no less than Chief Superintendent rank, and an obstetrician or appropriate medical professional; the Rape Committee could permit an abortion if they agree unanimously that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rape has taken place. The findings of the Rape Committee could not be used in any criminal trial.

Beyond that, I would not allow discretionary abortion.

A RAPE committee? Seriously? You want a woman who has been raped to be interviewed and cross examined?

Also re the bolded part, they cannot do that! To make that decision their would have to be a criminal trial.

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

That is a ridiculous argument!

Just because some women are choosing to commit an illegal and immoral act either via the internet by ordering pills or via a trip to the UK, it is not justification for changing our country into one which readily accepts the unnecessary termination of a viable baby’s life.

The 8th needs to go but we do not need unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks.

Our constitution gives women the right to information on abortion & the right to travel & have an abortion.
Basically the state, constitutionally allow women to have abortions.
Just not in this country.
So are you looking to repeal the amendments allowing this to happen?

bootpaws

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I would therefore set up “Rape Committees” which would consist of a clinical psychologist, a Garda of no less than Chief Superintendent rank, and an obstetrician or appropriate medical professional; the Rape Committee could permit an abortion if they agree unanimously that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rape has taken place. The findings of the Rape Committee could not be used in any criminal trial.

Beyond that, I would not allow discretionary abortion.

A little derivative but a solid outline for an eerie dystopian sci-fi thriller in the vein of- wait you're serious.

Andrew Beef

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I would look to allow abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality, and cases such as the tragic Savita case.

Cases of abortion and incest are harder to deal with because, by the time any case has worked itself through the system, the baby has been born. I would therefore set up “Rape Committees” which would consist of a clinical psychologist, a Garda of no less than Chief Superintendent rank, and an obstetrician or appropriate medical professional; the Rape Committee could permit an abortion if they agree unanimously that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rape has taken place. The findings of the Rape Committee could not be used in any criminal trial.

Beyond that, I would not allow discretionary abortion.

A RAPE committee? Seriously? You want a woman who has been raped to be interviewed and cross examined?

Also re the bolded part, they cannot do that! To make that decision their would have to be a criminal trial.

We should even consider ending the life of that unborn child unless it can be proven, within the timescale, that a rape has taken place. Ideally, an actual trial would take place but that is not feasible.

pitifulgod

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I would look to allow abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality, and cases such as the tragic Savita case.

Cases of abortion and incest are harder to deal with because, by the time any case has worked itself through the system, the baby has been born. I would therefore set up “Rape Committees” which would consist of a clinical psychologist, a Garda of no less than Chief Superintendent rank, and an obstetrician or appropriate medical professional; the Rape Committee could permit an abortion if they agree unanimously that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rape has taken place. The findings of the Rape Committee could not be used in any criminal trial.

Beyond that, I would not allow discretionary abortion.

Your proposal sounds psychologically damaging in its own right. Also, do you want to remove the right to yes travel? Seems like you should given the extremity of your position.

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I would look to allow abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality, and cases such as the tragic Savita case.

Cases of abortion and incest are harder to deal with because, by the time any case has worked itself through the system, the baby has been born. I would therefore set up “Rape Committees” which would consist of a clinical psychologist, a Garda of no less than Chief Superintendent rank, and an obstetrician or appropriate medical professional; the Rape Committee could permit an abortion if they agree unanimously that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rape has taken place. The findings of the Rape Committee could not be used in any criminal trial.

Beyond that, I would not allow discretionary abortion.

Oh, it's rape committee guy again!!
The most horrific thing to happen to a woman & you think they should be interrogated by a PANEL of strangers, to see if they are telling the truth.........

I honestly don't think anyone could believe this......

AnneFrank

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

It's a different thread sure but how is it taken out of context it would be better for national resources apparently if people in homeless situations were dead according to you it doesn't sound very remorseful, you'll condone women in troubling scenarios on abortion though.

What's pathetic is how you couldn't explain why?It's fine to throw that out elsewhere but it doesn't fit your stance here?

There was a mod warning on quoting from different threads, as it was a 'dickish' thing to do.

eviltwin

Andrew Beef wrote: »

Yes, I would. I would prefer if discretionary abortions were illegal and gave rise to prosecutions because I believe that they are utterly wrong.

What would be an appropriate punishment in your opinion and would this apply to all involved ie the woman, her partner, those who may have helped or known her intentions and didn't stop it etc?

Would you punish all women including those who travel or just those who procure abortions here?

Andrew Beef

A pal of mine who is also opposed to discretionary abortion came up with an interesting idea recently.

Many people fear that liberalising Ireland’s abortion regime will result in abortion being used as some form of retrospective contraception.

His idea? For discretionary abortions pre-12 weeks, the patient’s womb must also be removed. It’s extreme to say the least, but it would certainly rule out abortions taking place willy nilly.

Re abortions/incest, all I see and hear is people ranting and raving but not coming up with proposals to deal with it.

The Rape Committee concept is novel and extreme some might say, but what’s people’s alternative?

Hannibal_Smith

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I would look to allow abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality, and cases such as the tragic Savita case.

Cases of abortion and incest are harder to deal with because, by the time any case has worked itself through the system, the baby has been born. I would therefore set up “Rape Committees” which would consist of a clinical psychologist, a Garda of no less than Chief Superintendent rank, and an obstetrician or appropriate medical professional; the Rape Committee could permit an abortion if they agree unanimously that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rape has taken place. The findings of the Rape Committee could not be used in any criminal trial.

Beyond that, I would not allow discretionary abortion.

I would like a Rape Committee to not be implemented. You would have a mock trial for a woman who is pregnant yhrough rape and wants an abortion where time is of the absolute essence? And if those 3 people say, sorry I don't believe you....she stays pregnant? Is it not enough that a woman says she was raped? Are women such devious untrustworthy being a that we have to put them under scrutiny like That?

Repeal the 8th and let the woman decide.

Timberrrrrrrr

Andrew Beef wrote: »

We should even consider ending the life of that unborn child unless it can be proven, within the timescale, that a rape has taken place. Ideally, an actual trial would take place but that is not feasible.

So the rapist gets to live his life as innocent until proven guilty until such time a trial has taken place.

Meanwhile his victim has to live her life as guilty until proven innocentuntil such time a trial has taken place.

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

You should probably google “discretionary+meaning” so.

I know the meaning of the word and I know well what your intention is in using it.

Ahh here, this has to be bulls hit!!
Take away the womb......

PhoenixParker

Andrew Beef wrote: »

I would look to allow abortion in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality, and cases such as the tragic Savita case.

Cases of abortion and incest are harder to deal with because, by the time any case has worked itself through the system, the baby has been born. I would therefore set up “Rape Committees” which would consist of a clinical psychologist, a Garda of no less than Chief Superintendent rank, and an obstetrician or appropriate medical professional; the Rape Committee could permit an abortion if they agree unanimously that, beyond a reasonable doubt, a rape has taken place. The findings of the Rape Committee could not be used in any criminal trial.

Beyond that, I would not allow discretionary abortion.

How do you consider health issues for the mother?

dudara

Andrew Beef wrote: »

A pal of mine who is also opposed to discretionary abortion came up with an interesting idea recently.

Many people fear that liberalising Ireland’s abortion regime will result in abortion being used as some form of retrospective contraception.

His idea? For discretionary abortions pre-12 weeks, the patient’s womb must also be removed. It’s extreme to say the least, but it would certainly rule out abortions taking place willy nilly.

I’m honestly gobsmacked. Sometimes you forget just how much other people want to tell you how to live your life and exactly how much you should be punished for failing to meet their moral standards.

AnneFrank

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

I would say that men who have an unconditional right to bodily autonomy are at the top. My right to life/bodily autonomy/access to healthcare/consent to medical intervention should not be contingent on the contents of my uterus.

Ah those evil men again,

Timberrrrrrrr

Andrew Beef wrote: »

A pal of mine who is also opposed to discretionary abortion came up with an interesting idea recently.

Many people fear that liberalising Ireland’s abortion regime will result in abortion being used as some form of retrospective contraception.

His idea? For discretionary abortions pre-12 weeks, the patient’s womb must also be removed. It’s extreme to say the least, but it would certainly rule out abortions taking place willy nilly.

Re abortions/incest, all I see and hear is people ranting and raving but not coming up with proposals to deal with it.

The Rape Committee concept is novel and extreme some might say, but what’s people’s alternative?

Yeah......this post has been reported because if you are serious then you are talking about going down a very dark path!

bootpaws

AnneFrank wrote: »

Ah those evil men again,

Literally one page over a man suggested removing our wombs as punishment for seeking abortion.

wexie

Andrew Beef wrote: »

His idea? For discretionary abortions pre-12 weeks, the patient’s womb must also be removed. It’s extreme to say the least, but it would certainly rule out abortions taking place willy nilly.

.....jeeez.....that's not psychotic at all

Andrew Beef

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

We should even consider ending the life of that unborn child unless it can be proven, within the timescale, that a rape has taken place. Ideally, an actual trial would take place but that is not feasible.

So the rapist gets to live his life as innocent until proven guilty until such time a trial has taken place.

Meanwhile his victim has to live her life as guilty until proven innocentuntil such time a trial has taken place.

The missing piece in your analysis is the life of the unborn!

bodice ripper

Andrew Beef wrote:

His idea? For discretionary abortions pre-12 weeks, the patient’s womb must also be removed. It’s extreme to say the least, but it would certainly rule out abortions taking place willy nilly.

Wonderful. Let's remove the testicles of the man who knocked her up too. Cover all the bases.

AnneFrank

bootpaws wrote: »

Literally one page over a man suggested removing our wombs as punishment for seeking abortion.

Not the view of every man though, in fact I'd say it's the view of one man

Andrew Beef

Andrew Beef wrote: »

A pal of mine who is also opposed to discretionary abortion came up with an interesting idea recently.

Many people fear that liberalising Ireland’s abortion regime will result in abortion being used as some form of retrospective contraception.

His idea? For discretionary abortions pre-12 weeks, the patient’s womb must also be removed. It’s extreme to say the least, but it would certainly rule out abortions taking place willy nilly.

Re abortions/incest, all I see and hear is people ranting and raving but not coming up with proposals to deal with it.

The Rape Committee concept is novel and extreme some might say, but what’s people’s alternative?

This has to be a p*ss take...

Zubeneschamali

Andrew Beef wrote: »

The Rape Committee concept is novel and extreme some might say, but what’s people’s alternative?

The alternative proposed by the Citizens Assembly and non party Oireachteas Committee after listening to expert testimony: unrestricted access to abortion up to 12 weeks.

Andrew Beef

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Andrew Beef wrote: »

A pal of mine who is also opposed to discretionary abortion came up with an interesting idea recently.

Many people fear that liberalising Ireland’s abortion regime will result in abortion being used as some form of retrospective contraception.

His idea? For discretionary abortions pre-12 weeks, the patient’s womb must also be removed. It’s extreme to say the least, but it would certainly rule out abortions taking place willy nilly.

Re abortions/incest, all I see and hear is people ranting and raving but not coming up with proposals to deal with it.

The Rape Committee concept is novel and extreme some might say, but what’s people’s alternative?

Yeah......this post has been reported because if you are serious then you are talking about going down a very dark path!

It wasn’t my idea and is not my position.

I have given my position a lot of thought and, if you actually spent some time reflecting on my position rather than leaping for the rant button, you’d see it’s reasonable.

- I am in favour of abortion in FFA and Savita-type cases.

- I am in favour of abortion in cases of rape.

My position is hardly extreme!

But tell me how we can prove rape in the timescale.

Too many people in this debate have extreme views but no answers!!!

pjohnson

Every second youtube vid is an add for the no side.