Iām looking for him to substantiate which sounds like a very dubious statement. He seems unable to do it and you find it weird.
You donāt seem to be mature enough to differentiate between reality and fabrications.
You donāt seem to be able to substantiate your point, once again. Not the first time you have been unable to stand behind your points. No need to be getting ratty when itās pointed out.
Itās fine you want to come on here and pretend you know it all but you unravel under the slightest hint of scrutiny.
Put up or shut up.
Michelle Harte, died in 2011 after receiving compensation from the state
Sheila Hodgers, died in 1983 after giving birth to her child who also died.
The PP v HSE case with"NP", the brain dead pregnant woman kept on ventilator for 4 weeks
Savita Halappanavar, died 2012 after sepsis during a miscarriage when the babys heartbeat was still present
Miss Y, forced to have a C section at 25 weeks
The X case
Some of the more media announced cases. Of course there are plenty of cases not in the media, plenty of cases settled outside the halls of hospitals not publicly released.
And of course there are plenty of others. @anon61956325 aunt for one. My wife for another.
You genuinely havent a clue. If I had thought better that you were wumming on this, I wouldnt bother, but I think you actually believe that the 8th amendment is good for women.
7 Likes
There is nothing dubious about his statement at all, you ignorant gobshite.
1 Like
Thereās no factual basis for the fact that legislation prevents the saving of lives. Medical negligence maybe.
Nothing about the healthy babies of healthy mothers who will be terminated though and these are the numbers that really hit home.
Itās a very dubious statement swirling in misinformation.
had the YES campaign promoted a hard legislation change in favour of rape victims, incest victims, those with life threatening illnesses then it would have won by a landslide.
why are the YES campaigners neglecting them at the expense of āequalityā for women who have nothing wrong with them?
2 Likes
so just ignore the substantiated points then? Its not medical negligence, its an amendment that causes medical practice which is not in the best interest of a pregnant woman.
2 Likes
No. They are not substantiated points.
In regards to the Indian lady. She died because of medical negligence, not the legislation.
you probably would be best directing that to a yes campaigner rather than me. It would be nigh on impossible to bring in a legislation that only accounts for the above cases you mention. It would lead to a greater number of falsely reported instances for women who see that as being their only option. As it currently stands, people dont believe that women can be suicidal, so I doubt only legislating for the above would be much different.
There is a law similar to the one you mentioned in Iowa or somewhere in America. It doesnt seem to have made things better. Iām no expert though, so best off ask another.
I was going to call you a thick cunt, but Iām actually the thick cunt for actually engaging with you. Best of luck with your future posts on the matter.
4 Likes
I admire your patience with these stupid cunts.
2 Likes
It would still have been opposed by the headbangers on the No side who want to chain rape victims to beds and force them to go full term.
Ratty again because you canāt substantiate your bullshit.
Would the Indian lady have died if the doctors had diagnosed her properly and in time?
1 Like
He did substantiate it. You are simply being an evasive fucking moron again.
1 Like
This is the type of language and imagery put forward from the Yes side.
He didnāt.
He did.
Evasive would suggest some sort of guile or smarts, not the correct word here.
When he gets clamped he moves the goalposts, itās his entire MO on here.