This is a very important point ( I voted no btw) but I guarantee you there will be a legal challenge in the not too distant future by someone on this matter
Unbelievable performance from the Yes voters to turn out in such numbers and completely take any drama out of the count - thus clearing the way for full concentration on tonightâs main event.
In Roche v Roche (2009) the Supreme Court ruled that a man could not be forced to procreate against his will.
The case related to frozen embryos which were the product of the couple - I think the couple had since split up and the woman wanted to implant one of the embryos.
The ruling also stated that frozen embryos do not have a right to life.
Fair point I had forgotten about that case. But will the same apply going forward? Assuming the legislation proposed is passed where will that leave the father of the child ( particularly after the first 12 weeks has passed) legally in terms of future maintenance costs?
Why would things change Mike? The constitution changing means that the woman has rights over her pregnancy. It has nothing at all to do with men shirking responsibilities of children. This too is another hypothetical query being brought up to conflate things when in other countries where abortion has already been in place, it has never been an issue. Why suddenly would it be an issue in Ireland?
Do you think that in retrospect your tactic of posting âYou kill babiesâ over 500 times and then not voting yourself might have been counter-productive?
When you look back could there have been a more effective strategy?
If you canât see anything wrong with denying unborn babies the chance to experience life then I donât think there was any more that could have been done. The consequences are on you.