Iād say the play now by the head bangers is to try and string it out as long as possible hoping for a general election before a referendum and then know that a FF led govt would put it on the long finger
Jaysus.
Louth have won 8 Leinster titles. The ninth was repealed by Martin Sludden shortly before it was due to be delivered.
1 Like
There will never be agreement on so complex an issue as abortion. People, on both sides of the argument, have entrenched and sincerely held views.
To make any progress, I think the fulcrum question needs to be changed. It should not be: āDo you agree with abortion?ā Instead it should become: āIs it properly the stateās role to make citizens holy?ā
I respect entirely peopleās opposition to abortion provision. But I do think they should face up to the logic of their position.
What really cracks me up is the people who simultaneously want a maximal state where abortion provision is concerned but a minimal state where the public sector and social welfare is concerned. Yes, take a bow Lucinda Creighton, John McGuirk et al.
These peopleās hypocrisy is considerable, since they oppose social welfare for its kinetic aspect ā namely, for how social welfare provision supposedly leads to increased social welfare demand. We all know the buzzword of this political perspective: āchoiceā. On the same logic, the state, rather than Ryanair, should allow choice as to how one saves oneās soul.
McGuirk must be one of the most obnoxious and repellent individuals around.
3 Likes
I think only women should have a say on this.
Men dont have a vote anyway if the child is born out of wedlock.
Good post to be fair bit I donāt agree with the change of question. What gets me is the absolutes of the feminazis like Badchips and the Labour party, and on the other the hypocrisy of the likes of that donkey McGuirk. There is a middle ground in there somewhere but I could never ever agree to abortion where there is a fully formed child in there, regardless of the reason.
Donāt agree at all. Thats a bit like saying that single people shouldnāt have had a vote on the divorce referendum.
What a load of Bollox. Despite the huge numbers identifying themselves as catholics I this country, this is no longer a religious issue. Most people in Ireland donāt give a fuck what their church tells them. Your suggestion smacks of a Kevin Myers type smart arseism. Are you a journalist /wannabee journalist?
3 Likes
Even in the case of a medical emergency where the life of the mother is at risk, or a serious genetic abnormality? Admittedly these are rare cases, but why would the state decide rather than the mother or the family? Would you willingly give up your life to save a fetus?
I thought this was a thread about banning farmers from coming to Dublin on the 8th
4 Likes
Itās a moral issue and peopleās morals are undoubtedly influenced by religion. What grounds are there to deny abortion to a woman say in the first 3 months other than a religious argument?
Iād say that one of the sides would identify themselves as religious, itās the pretend religious that are driving the debate here.
What are you raving about? I said nothing about religion per se. I am merely making the point that it is hypocritical to be both for and against the ānanny stateā.
Nothing too complicated, although I have never seen even one article, among the reams produced on the subject of abortion, on this issue.
Definitely, I dislike listening to the stridently self righteous on both sides, including Ivana Bacik, but I do not think terms such āfeminazisā achieve anything worthwhile except the dubious pleasure of self indulgence.
1 Like
You posed the question whether t it might be the stateās role to make citizens holy. If thatās not religious then what is.
Opening the floodgates so that you can accommodate hard cases is what happened in the UK, There is absolutely no doubt that a mothers life has to come first and foremost. But allowing fully formed, sick or not, babies to be killed and than removed piece by piece is barbaric.
2 Likes
So youāve changed your mind in two days? Previously you said no abortion for any reason for a āfully formed childā (whatever that means), and now you accept abortion is OK to save the life of the mother. Thatās the problem with the abortion debate, it is extremely difficult to gain any consensus on the subject, which makes legislation almost impossible.
Using emotional and incorrect terms like child and baby to describe a fetus doesnāt help the debate, and only serves to blame women for what can be a heartrending choice. Fundamentally the decision should lie with a woman and her doctor.
Who is the chairwoman ?
