It doesnât when its mother orders its execution.
Great post
I thought you were a Roman Catholic, mate?
Youâre going against Roman Catholic teaching here.
Roman Catholic teaching is that it is her duty as a wife to have sex.
Thatâs what priests used to knock on peopleâs doors for. To inform the wife of her duty.
My views on abortion have nothing to do with religion.
Sure. 
1 Like
Iâd imagine a lot of the yes voters on here are the very ones that will happily put their mother or father in nursing homes and let them rot there because they become an inconvenience. An out of sight out of mind, not my problem anymore philosophy. Probably looking in the rear view mirror as they drive away from the cold grey efface housing their loved ones with the smell of bleach from the tiles still lingering is their nostrels. They will try to convince and fool themselves that their mam or dad is better off in the hands of professionals when in reality all they want is to be loved and cared for by their children. Its the circle of life. We come into this world dependent and we go out of it dependent.
6 Likes
A right to travel is different to explicitly allowing abortion? This is back to just because its legal abroad doesnât mean it has to be here. Me and you have been having this debate for a while so i dont expect it to be settled now. At least you can debate like an adult and not screech.
This debate has really separated the wheat from the chaff in terms of debaters. Some of the yes posters have really caused me to pause for thought id have to admit.
1 Like
I care for my father on a full-time basis and this has helped inform my decision to vote Yes.
The sort of people who are voting No are the sort of people who had no problem with mother and baby homes and nuns trafficking actual babies for profit.
9 Likes
How exactly would repealing the 8th in favour of what is being proposed have saved Savita Halappanavarâs life considering it was past the 12 week limit? Genuine question, maybe thereâs a simple answer
1 Like
Yeah the rest of day here went a bit mental. Have little interest in reading or responding to a hape of shit written.
Thankfully itâll be over this weekend. Thereâll be some other tedious arguing on something else to be done next week I imagine.
The current legislation is written for when a womanâs life is in danger
The proposed change is when a womanâs health is in danger. A small change, but one stops the life becoming in danger.
1 Like
Also, Iâm not sure if the irony of this completely passed you by, or if you are on a wind up.
Given youâre voting No, Iâd have to assume itâs the former.
At the moment you can only get an abortion where there is a threat to the life of the mother. The change would allow an abortion where there is a threat to the health of the mother.
So, she could have gotten an abortion at the point the pregnancy was a threat to her health.
Currently if a pregnancy threatens health they can do nothing but sit and look at it until it becomes a threat to life. By then it was too late in the halapanavar case.
1 Like
It wouldnât have made any difference bar the hospital staff might not have been as hesitant to abort. Another question is what does the yes side propose to do with people who want abortions past 12 weeks?
Thatâs not true.
Well it would depend who made the call as to what level the threat was at. There was huge confusion over the legal ramifications of providing the abortion at all was there not âCatholic countryâ and all that.
1 Like
Whats the test going to be here?