Will you be buying your daughter a ticket if her pregnancy isnât viable or is a thread to her health?
What do you mean âif her pregnancy isnât viableâ?
If the pregnancy is a threat to her health as you say doctors are able to intervene in spite of the eight amendment.
1 Like
No they arenât.
Pregnancy may not be viable but no immediate threat to her health
So sheâs going to have to buy her own ticket and travel to another jurisdiction for the care she needs?
What are you on about âthe care she needsâ? There are doctors and obstetricians have come out all over the place and have said that the eight amendment did not impede them in the care of pregnant patients and their babies. They were queuing up on Clare Byrne live to tell the public as much. Are you saying all these practising experts were telling lies? 
Of course theyâre telling lies. They are a very small minority, and they object because they have a very narrow moral position they want to impose on everybody else, almost always driven by their personal religious views.
In every country where abortion is safe and legal, youâll find a minority of medical practitioners who are anti-abortion in absolutist terms. Thatâs because in every country there are medical practitioners to whom the imposition of a narrow, moral view on others is more important than best medical practice, again almost always driven by their adherence to religious dogma.
The vast majority of medical practitioners working in this area support repeal - obstetricians, gynaecologists, midwives, nurses, GPs.
Those at the coalface who are most familiar with the issues support repeal in the highest numbers of any profession across the whole of society.
Why do you think that is?
I am not going to enter into a back and forth with you because I deem you to be a know it all head case with endless time on his hands and who never knows when he is beaten even in the face of insurmountable proof.
I donât expect you to respect the way Iâm voting on May 25th and nor do I care. I have read and taken in plenty from both sides on the topic and have weighed everything up in my conscience and you are not going to change the way in which I wish to vote.
2 Likes
Ooooooft.
Thatâs an unmerciful smack down.
All the insurmountable proof is on the Yes side, as you know full well.
The reason you wonât get into a back and forth is because you know Iâd utterly destroy you.
Even your reply acknowledges that you will not be voting on the issues but on dogma.
To be fair, I wouldnât expect anything more from you.
How will the polling staff check your identity when your headâs stuck so far up your ass?
But youâre belief that a foetus at 2 weeks has the same moral worth as a baby at 2 years is based on a prevalent religious culture.
Are you for real?
The courts have continually picked holes in the 8th Amendment over the years because itâs a disastrously designed piece of shit. Itâs a legal abomination which needs binning ASAP.
Just watched the Claire Byrne debate there, a few thoughts:-
- the audience werenât as uncivilized as I was expecting but were very strongly No.
- speaking as a strong Yes supporter, the No side comprehensively won. It was a complete mugging. The No side must have been planning that for a month.
- the speakers who really performed were Dr. Boylan and Mary Lou for Yes and Claire Steen for No. Dr. Boylan is a saint the shit he put up with. He started off angry, his life experience and hard earned wisdom shone through and left him more resigned in the second half. Mary Lou survived by dodging, Steen survived by lying. Dr. Monaghan was a complete disgrace. The other ones on stage were all shite.
- at the risk of sounding vulgar, if anyone thinks that Dr. Monaghan got the better of Dr. Boylan there, I would have to seriously question that personâs intelligence and ability to judge character.
- Claire. Byrne was a disgrace also and got progressively worse as the debate went on. It seemed to me the considerable majority of time with the audience was spent with No supporters. So many doctors for no and so on. I could see Yes doctors I actually know in the audience not saying anything (eg Ross Kelly was there)
- This was the first time Iâve seen Steen in action after hearing very much about her. Superstar in the making, but after spending a lot of time watching barristers in action she came across to me as very dishonest. A lot of tricks Iâve seen before (ie. downright lying). Fairly common among barristers, especially women for some reason, who start out hot but once the judges learn they canât be trusted their careers fizzle out quickly. I can see how a lay person would be taken in by her though. Sheâs smart, she knows exactly what sheâs up to. Her comment to MaryLou that Mary Lou didnât love her children when she felt them kick inside her was absolutely outrageous on many levels. For starters itâs my understanding that the first kick happens at 14 to 16 weeks, obviously wrong far beyond just that. An off-the-wall personal insult.
- the idea that less than 20% of doctors who oppose repeal were allowed to present themselves as equally worthy of respect as the 80%+ who support repeal was wrong in my opinion.
- Mary Lou was right when she said that a constitutional amendment for hard cases was too blunt an instrument but I can see how that wouldnât make sense to a layman.
- talk of hard cases completely dismissed.
- Doctors saying they would refuse to refer a woman who wanted a termination on to anotherâs doctor was very slightly disturbing.
- this thing wonât pass. However a real rubicon has been crossed. Back when I was a kid any Irish man who supported reproductive rights was seen as basically either a West Brit or a faggot. You wouldnât have gotten the like of Kevin McMenanamin there today or anyone else being pro choice. The No might (will) win this but theyâre in terminal decline, like that Mayo team or something.
- not to get into Cicero style spamming but the idea that a 6 week fetus is the same as a 6 month foetus is the same as a 6 year child is counter-intuitive and wrong. A miscarriage at 6 months is worse than at 6 weeks, the law should reflect that. Instead of just talking about âchildren children children babies babies babiesâ pro lifers need to accept that not everyone sees it that was and grow up and accept that doesnât make people evil just because they see things differently. The great majority of doctors and scientists agree with that and it was the Catholic position (more or less) for almost 1000 years.
11 Likes
That goes for every side. Good summary but the final point is your own subjective opinion on the overall debate. you are of course entitled to it.
4 Likes
Iâd say it will pass handy enough in the end.
Disappointing decision and even more disappointing rationale from a normally well-respected poster.