Thats your opinion. You are entitled to it. Clare daly and others thinks they have no rights up to birth. I dont share that. My right.
They absolutely should have.
Actions have consequences and killing babies should not be a reasonable avenue to abdicate responsibilities brought about by oneâs own actions.
Eh, you new on here? This is tfk, where when someone has a point of view, youâll be bored into submission and failure to respond or shout louder means you lose.
A general query tho, think you made a comment earlier on it, but why does the unborn need constitutional rights? It seems odd that this is being played a load in this, and I canât seem to find any majority of countries who either have a constitution anyway, but particularly any mention or specific rights for the unborn. It seems a few south and central America countries have mention of it, but seems few and far between.
So why is constitutional rights so important? As an example does Canada have it?
The proposed legislation up to 12 weeks doesnât discriminate in any way - thatâs the whole point of it. Iâm up front in that Iâm in favour of not forcing women to be a vessel after that if their pregnancy is found to involve a fatal foetal abnormality.
This is very much a question for the No side to answer as it exposes a serious contradiction in their rhetoric and stated aims. It exposes no such contradiction on the Yes side.
The No side are campaigning to keep in place a constitutional provision that gives an equal right to life for ALL foetuses (bar where a threat to life to the mother exists) as it does to the women carrying them.
Thatâs ALL foetuses, bar where there is a threat to the motherâs life. So why are they making the distinction between healthy ones and unhealthy ones?
Iâd venture that the majority of âunhealthyâ foetuses are deemed to not carry a risk to the motherâs life. Iâm not including Downâs Syndrome in that category of âunhealthyâ foetuses, by the way. Are the No side?
Keep shouting, mate.
Yes they should, yes they should, yes they should!
Just because you said so.
In your warped world the foetus of a rapist is more entitled to life than a mother of 10 who was abducted and executed.
You should seek professional help.
Women put themselves at risk once they open their legs.
Maybe they should do themselves a favour and keep them closed until such time as they are prepared not to want to terminate an innocent baby because they donât like the results of their actions.
Accountability and responsibility.
No it doesnât, again im not sure why canada is relevant here. Not too many countries have given this right, but that doesnât make it bad per se unless you think just following international norms is the only basis for legislation
Itâs not more entitled to life, itâs equally as entitled to live.
Youâre the one who feels an entitlement to terminate and deny an unborn child the right to live - there is no dancing around that for you, Iâm afraid.
What distinction are the no side making regarding unhealthy unborn children?
1 Like
Oooh, corporate buzzwords. Nice.
Funny how you expect there to be no accountability or responsibility whatsoever on the part of out health services to give essential or even basic healthcare to pregnant women - actually, they donât even have to be pregnant - they can be denied such healthcare until they PROVE they are not pregnant.
Only asking about Canada as youâre there so might know. No other reason.
I just find it odd why itâs such a big issue that itâs up for removal from the constitution and seems like itâll be carnage when it goes, yet it doesnât seem to be many other places but has no impact on the care or general rights afforded the unborn in those places.
Again, nothing Iâve read up too much on, so donât know what it is in other places
How do I know youâre not Johnny Arse? Thatâs just the sort of shite that cunt would pull.
Not there any longer. I spoke to a lawyer a few weeks back who was incredulous to read that we were having this referendum, that such a protection of the unborn even existed. This is a particularly irish argument. Grounded in our catholic heritage, but maybe that alone doesnât make it bad law.
1 Like
Yet you were singing the praises of the HSE of late.
Accountability and responsibility are not corporate buzzwords, they are the type of values good parents should raise their kids with, not encouraging them to runaway when they reek havoc.
Iâm not dancing around anything. A woman, or child, should be allowed abort a foetus if pregnanted by a rapist.
Women do not need headbangers like you trying to force them to go full term.
And what about the unborn child? Why is it being denied the right to live?
And what about a woman who wants to abort a baby for no other reason that it cramps their lifestyle?
Address this, for once.
But youâre not voting no. Youâre inhumane.
1 Like
Theyâre constantly referring to âhealthy babiesâ. If their position is to be coherent, it should make, the âhealthâ of the foetus should make no difference.
For example, for their position to be coherent, a foetus with a fatal foetal abnormality which is deemed to not pose a threat to the life of the mother should have absolutely equal rights to that of a completely healthy foetus. There should be no difference whatsoever, even if that foetus only has a chance of living five minutes when delivered as a baby, or even if it will not make it to term and will be miscarried.
By referring to âhealthy babiesâ, they are clearly drawing a distinction and placing more value on healthy foetuses than on foetuses with, say, a fatal foetal abnormaility. That is a direct contravention of the 8th Amendment.
So, theyâre claiming to be campaigning for the 8th Amendment, while simultaneously using a line of argument that contravenes it.
This makes no sense at all. But sure very little in the No campaign does.
Iâm not voting. Iâd encourage those who recognise the free state to vote no.