59 thoughts on “De Tuesday Papers

  1. Liam Deliverance

    Any one else have problems loading broadsheet.ie when the front pages of the newspapers are involved. My browser slows down to a crawl while it loads all those images. I probably could use some more RAM but was curious if anyone else has similiar prob?

          1. mildred st. meadowlark

            I’m a oneplus 2 girl myself.

            It’s a lovely little (not so little) device.

            And I thought I gave you my number… It’s 16

  2. Zuppy International

    Article 40.3.3
    “The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.”

    If the Irish state presents a referendum that will allow it to abandon its duty to defend and vindicate the right to life of the unborn then that referendum will itself be unconstitutional.

          1. Nigel

            I can’t even tell if the apologists are the baby murderers or if they’re apologising for the baby murderers.

    1. Happy Molloy

      That’s out how it works because the constitution also provides for referendums to amend the constitution.

    2. Twunt

      The referendum will be to change the constitution, that is how they work. That article got there by referendum.

        1. edalicious

          My baby murdering days are probably behind me now at this stage. If only we could say the same about your bizarre compulsion to control women’s reproductive health…

          1. mildred st. meadowlark

            No you just want to keep the current restrictive laws exactly as they are, which are a violation of the mother’s human rights and her personal freedoms.

            So yeah, you do like the idea that there is control over women’s bodies.

          2. Zuppy International

            You mean the “restrictive” laws the protect the unborn? Yes, that seems like a good idea to me. I’m against the murder of babies.

            Are you trying to claim it’s a woman’s right to murder her child? What kind of barbarian are you?

          3. mildred st. meadowlark

            I’m a woman who has carried a child. I’m a woman who was forced to go to Liverpool following a diagnosis of FFA with her first child, and who had to wait while that same child’s remains were posted to her in a box. I’m a woman who actually knows the pain of having to choose abortion and the sting of being failed by my home country.

            Which is far more than you will ever be or could possibly comprehend with your childish slurs of ‘barbarian’ and ‘baby murdering apologists’ or whatever shite you spout.

          4. Zuppy International

            Now play the victim card.

            ~ To be fair you do seem quite traumatised by the experience you chose to undergo in another country with a much less enlightened regime

            However, if you had let your body follow it’s natural process you would have had the time and the opportunity to grieve properly and without the added emotional baggage.

            Stop trying to force your own bad decisions on everybody else.

          5. mildred st. meadowlark

            No, I think I would know my own body much better than you. I am not a fupping victim. I am a woman who had make a horrible decision and I chose an abortion.

            I chose an abortion because I’d much rather have not gone through the agony of carrying and loving a child only to have it die in my arms. And the fact that this country didn’t care enough, thought more of the life of the child who wouldn’t have made it through even the natural process, as you so delicately put it, of birth, is despicable. And yes, yes I am bitter. I’m furious with the government for not protecting MY interests, the rights and freedoms I am entitled as a citizen of this country. I pay taxes and contribute to society, just as much, if not more than a little nit like you.

            I am aware of the consequences of my decision and it has only made me more determined that my daughter will never ever have to make the kind of decision I did. She will never feel that her country is ashamed of her for not wanting to continue a pregnancy that is doomed, that will only lead to heartbreak.

            And btw, you’re a fupping hypocrite. How dare you attempt to lecture me on something you know less than nothing about. How dare YOU push your views on me, just because you dislike the idea that women can and do make decisions about their body, and are well capable of understanding what that means.

            Shame on you, you nasty little man.

          6. Topsy

            Mild – you seem to have a personal involvement or intimate knowledge regarding every topic discussed on BS. Strange that, isn’t it!

          7. Happy Molloy

            Are you honestly trying to take the moral high ground with a comment like that? Have a bit of class

          8. Listrade

            Others have been way too lenient in describing you Zuppy. This reply is despicable and utterly unforgivable.

            I cannot understand what would compel anyone to say this to another human, especially not given the loss and pain Mildred must have suffered.

            I don’t think there are any words that would pass the moderator that would be the right description of you right now.

            You’re a disgusting, heartless, vindictive ladygarden.

          9. Zoella

            Zuppy, you truly are a cretin. “However, if you had let your body follow it’s natural process…” Because you know best, don’t you. Better than the woman making the decision whose body it is, who has been inhabiting that body forever.

    3. mildred st. meadowlark

      Hey Zup.

      as far as practicable

      Please note.

      The wording is kinda fudgy I think. What exactly is practicable, in this day and age? Leaving a woman to die from a septic miscarriage, when an abortion would have saved her life? Or is it going against the wishes of a brain-dead pregnant woman’s family, to protect the life of a child?

      A little clarification, at the very LEAST, is needed.

      1. Zuppy International

        Always with the hard cases making the bad law.

        And always with the hidden agenda which is Abortion on demand provided by corporate baby murdering machines.

        1. mildred st. meadowlark

          Nice and coherent.

          Good job. Everyone is going to take you seriously now.

          And don’t address my perfectly valid points, whatever you do.

        2. mildred st. meadowlark

          And while we’re at it, the reason those cases are ‘hard’, is because women with husband’s and families and other children suffered at the hands of poorly written legislation. Medical professionals were unable to do their jobs to the best possible standards.

          The fact that we’ve had three very high profile cases in less than 3 years because of this legislature, which is fundamentally flawed, is a big problem.

          1. mildred st. meadowlark

            Says the lad who likes to post things like ‘baby-murdering machines’ and other hysterical nonsense.

            Think I’ll stick to the newspaper, thanks.

      2. Listrade

        Pretty much the whole issue with the X case was around “practicable”, but also alongside “due regard”. In the X case it was suggested that “due regard” includes all the other rights assigned to an citizen under the constitution, in theory giving more rights to the Mother (as a citizen) than the unborn child.

        From an industrial view, practicable tends to roughly mean if it is scientifically and technically feasible to do something, then it should be done.

        I don’t think they solved it then or came up with a reasonable test/definition other than where the death of the mother is inevitable due to continuation of the pregnancy, then an abortion is justified. That seemed to be the only agreement.

        So a lay interpretation (based on the X case) is that if it is technically feasible to preserve the unborn life, then it must be done as long as there is no immediate and inevitable threat to the mother’s life.

        In the PP v HSE case where the pregnant mother was already dead and kept on life support against the family wishes, the judge stated that the treatment must not be ” futile, impractical or ineffective” to preserve the unborn life. As the pregnancy was still very early, it was seen as impracticable to continue with the life support (as the mother was basically rotting in the bed) and there was no practicable means of supporting the unborn child outside the womb.

        That seems to be about as much as we have. If the unborn life can be preserved, then it must be, unless it is inevitable the mother would die. as a result.

        1. mildred st. meadowlark

          Very interesting. I was too young to understand the X case, and so I would have missed a lot of the ethical debate.

          This, along with the brain-dead case, shows how difficult the wording of it is, how hard it is to properly interpret the law.

          As it is, I feel that it is wrong to have the rights of the mother entwined like that in the constitution. We’ve seen plenty of examples now as to how the wording of it, the very existence of it, is muddying our doctors ability to correctly do their job.

          1. Listrade

            I’m not sure that there is too much sympathy with the doctors as a whole in some cases. There would never have been any constitutional issues with Savita Halappanavar, her death was inevitable and abortion fully justified under the interpretation of the X Case. They chose not to act.

          2. mildred st. meadowlark

            It’s even worse when you put it like that.

            This country has such a long way to go.

  3. know man is an island

    Anyone else think the Sun got it right with their headline?
    Could be just as easily applied to those false imprisonment gurriers as well.

Comments are closed.