In 1992 over a million people voted to specifically enshrine the right of Irish women to have an abortion.
This was not a right that the framers of the Eighth Amendment wanted to give Irish women or indeed Irish voters.
It was only the spectacularly idiotic intervention of the ultra-conservative Roman Catholic Attorney General Harry Whelehan that led to the X Case ruling that Irish women had the right to travel.
Thank you Harry Whelehan for your spectacular idiocy.
thats fine. Its an odd stance to have though in a referendum or debate specifically about the constitutional position.
edit: your post above clarifies your thoughts further. Your initial post to @anon61956325 was in response to his post about if it doesnt happen here, it doesnt happen at all mantra of some in the no side, ie they are happy for abortions to be abroad, just not in Ireland. Iâm not going to argue either of your discussions on that point.
So you know fuck all more than anyone else and are no more qualified than anyone else to discuss these things. Thanks for clarifying. Try not to talk down to people in future.
What a long winded way of saying absolutely nothing of any interest or consequence whatsoever.
The fact he cant see how 4000 women a year travelling has no bearing on abortion in Ireland either means he is a lunatic or on a wind-up.
Imagine going on about the constitution in a debate about an amendment to the constitution
What is your point?
Thousands of Irish go abroad and partake in activities that are illegal or more restricted here.
So what?
Democratic countries have laws and can decide what they want. I do not deny for a second that Irelandâs Constitutional and legislative position on abortion is a mess and should be changed.
A while ago he was too much of an expert on it to talk to a âlay manâ but he seems to have tucked his tail up under his legs on that one now.
Could be his poorly cut umbilical cord.
The glib standard of response that your mate Glas engages in too.
You canât defend your point so engage in it.
Democratic counties have different laws on issues. That is their prerogative. The substance of the debate should not be that it happens elsewhere so it should just happen here. Itâs a stupid argument. You can quite obviously take the experience of another country in pursuing a certain path and frame your argument on that basis, otherwise it is dicey road you are going down.
Back from under your rock when you get a little bit of support.
Once again, stick to the actual argument here.
Classic Tim. Arguing a point that no one has made.
How many of those activities are defined as healthcare activities by the World Health Organisation?
It has been made above.
As Gman already admitted, I wasnât talking about the constitution.
Whatâs your expertise Tim? As a layman Iâd love to know. Why canât you answer? Are you a nun?
Or a have been labelled a breach of human rights?
I wouldnt bother, mate â heâs on a wind up.
Again, so what? Of course we can take the view of the WHO and healthcare professionals. That is called framing an argument.
The argument should not be that it happens there so it should happen here.
How can people not see the end game stupidity of that standard of argument?
What is my expertise on what exactly?
I am not talking about our constitutional position on this. I am talking about a well worn argument in favour of abortion in this country.
I have no interest in getting into an argument about the interpretation of our Constitution on this, as I said.
Ah I know, another feather in the contrarian cap.
What count centre will you be pitching up at on Saturday pal?
City Hall, Cork.
You?