But they are using rape victims as a means to give every perfectly healthy woman âthe rightâ to exterminate their naturaly concieved and perfectly healthy baby for no good reason.
1 Like
Iâve only heard two, both fairly civilised in fairness.
The dup are itching to weigh in, but they canât complain about Leo sticking his nose in here while sticking their own noses in there.
1 Like
By all accounts Tubridy handled the LLS debate well the other night .
1 Like
Whatever chance the no side have of pulling this off, theyll be hammered if they let those cunts get involved
1 Like
Murdering a healthy baby is murder, mate.
Abortions up to 12 weeks donât involve babies and are thus not baby murder - they are not murder at all, they are nothing of the sort.
The 8th Amendment on the other hand is a barbaric relic of a bygone Ireland which takes no cognisance of reality whatsoever and denies access to essential health care based on the personâs sex.
Whatâs this?
Why did the Dail committee decide to go with the 12 week limit?
This has muddied the waters for many who would have voted repeal?
1 Like
In my opinion. I recall them not doing a great job on two referendums. For a long time they hired the same barrister to their legal analysis for them, must have gotten through a rake of referendums.
Just wondering which referendums? The one the Attorney Generals won late in the game?
Nobody, not one person, is in favour of denying necessary health care for women who need it. But what percentage of abortions does that cover?
A lot of the yes side seem more concerned with letting the world know that the churchs influence is being repudiated here than considering what an abortion involves.
3 Likes
And the 8th Amendment denies that necessary healthcare.
Ergo, to be in favour of women having access to that necessary healthcare, by definition, you must be pro-repeal of the 8th Amendment.
It does indeed. And a great many people who will vote no are in full agreement with you.
The issue they have is the proposed legislation that will replace it if repealed. Specifically unrestricted access up to twelve weeks
I definitely remember disagreeing with them on the European Fiscal Compact, I couldnât recall the details off the top of my head.
The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
- can that not be interpreted in such a way as to do whatever is necessary to guarantee a mothers health, as should have happened in the savita case, rather than the nuclear option?
No. Thatâs why we have to have a referendum.
1 Like
The Government have been up front and honest on the issue.
If they hadnât proposed legislation, people would be making a major issue of their failure to do so.
Polls consistently show a majority in favour of access to safe and legal abortion.
We elect our politicians to draft legislation. They are doing their job in this case.
Well why not another amendment on health and welfare based grounds rather than a blanket repeal.
If weâve learned one thing itâs that you canât legislate for abortion in the Constitution.
I never said they hadnât been honest. I said a lot of people have an issue with the proposed legislation.