At a guess I expect he will say that it affected you when you were a fetus, because it gave you a right to life as an unborn.
Weirdly he also says women should have a right to terminate the pregnancy at ANY stage for ANY reason though. And he also claims that the fetus inside such a woman is something without right, because it gets these AFTER it is born and is given human rights.
If you can make sense of these contradictions, you are a better man than I.
A move you often make. But if you decide to bow back in again I will repeat here a post you appear to have missed earlier:
I am still curious what your interest even is in a law that protects the right to life of the unborn given you have indicated to me in the past (assuming you were not just communicating poorly) that you believe a woman should be able to have a termination of her pregnancy at any stage, for any reason.
I am very interested to hear how one can hold the position that a woman should have the right to terminate the pregnancy at any stage for any reason........ while also holding to the position the unborn should have a right to life.
You have told us "that a woman should have full control over her own body at any stage in her pregnancy.".
Is that not at odds with a law that gives a right to life to the unborn?
You have also told us that "Before it's born, it's a foetus, inside a pregnant woman, who does not want to continue her pregnancy. After it's born, it's no longer a foetus, but an individual human being upon which we confer human rights."
Is there not a contradiction in saying we confer rights after birth, but having a law that gives it rights before birth? Which is it? It can not be both!
I genuinely would like to see the connection here, because at the moment it is like reading the posts of two totally different people posting under one single user name. Perhaps a simple re-wording of your points is all that is required for me to see the missing link, but right now things appear to by entirely contradictory.
Or maybe even better, because second voices can often be clearer than one.... if someone ELSE understands how this conflict is resolved and understands OEJs position here, could you adumbrate it in your own words for me. Maybe I will understand the same point better simply made by a different person in a different way?
uptherebels Registered User
When people call you a nimby in relation to abortion it is because as you have said before that your support for the right to life is limited by geography.
Plus, a more restrictive regime would still put most women's lives at risk because it would only benefit a smaller number of women, meaning the remainder would continue to exposed to the risks of a general abortion ban.
eviltwin Registered User
It says everything that some people are more concerned with the fate of individuals yet to be conceived than actual women and girls.
thee glitz Registered User
I don't care much for the CA - what's this thread called and why anyway? Apparently, they voted one way, but the proclaimed 'result' was something else due to the farcical way it was determined. I also don't buy your concern for women's lives being any greater than mine - would you accept the possibility of legislating for abortion on demand being kicked 10 years down the road if it meant an end to women dying due the 8th?
What risks, what are you comparing?
Bannasidhe Registered User
I watched the whole vote. It was very clear. Each proposal was clearly made, any clarifications sought were provided, then the vote on that particular proposal was not only taken - they had a vote as to whether they would vote.
No apparent discrepancy at all - the resulting report reflected the vote.
Glad to clear that up.
The risks you referred to as being present in the current situation minus whatever ones might be mitigated by the alternative you'd propose in lieu of the Committee's recommendations.
oh no i'm not. you made a claim about a poster. that claim was false. when pointed out to you by that poster and myself that your claim was false, you continued to make the claim.
no, when people call me all sorts it's based on makey uppy nonsense and stuff i never said. my posts are twisted to mean and say what those people want them to say and to mean, in an aim to get them to fit the bogyman nonsense they have created in their heads.
most people who are against abortion on demand are concerned for both. that is why we support abortion when necessary but don't when it isn't, meaning that where the baby does have a genuine effect on the mother it's life can be terminated. it doesn't mean we agree with the act, but we understand it's necessary as it would cause an unacceptible outcome in the form of death or permanent disability.
i haven't dodged anything. i actually meant to get back to you but had other things to do.
in the future, the human being unborn life will be sentient and have experience, a developed brain and brain power way above an ant. so therefore the human life comes above that of an ant.
mrkiscool2 Registered User
Lol, EOTR getting on his high horse about a claim being false when he has made a few false claims himself and has never admitted any of them were false, cause fcuk the truth getting in the way of his narrative.
This is just Panto. I notice as well now EOTR supports abortion where there in the case the child may be disabled. Another contradictory position from a so called pro life poster. Laughable really.
dr.fuzzenstein Registered User
Except that's not what you do.
You support abortion for medical reasons and all others you would rather they don't, but you don't care if they do a coat hanger job or travel to England.
So you can sit on your moral high horse and say "There's No Abortion (on demand) in Ireland!" You don't give a flaming fart for those women.
Since you don't support capturing women who want to abort and chain them to a bed forcing them to have their baby all I get is the very unsavoury wiff of a hypocrite.
As for the clump of cells debate:
EOTR has his views and others have a different view. Will we just leave it there please?
In the end the votes decide, but whatever the outcome, you cannot FORCE someone to change their mind, will you please just agree to disagree?
This endless back and forth about this point is very tedious and can't be resolved.
Except the MULTIPLE posts on this thread from me, that you have simply dodged. We are not talking about one point or one post here. We are talking about an ongoing demonstrably consistent MO where you ignore posts I write to you, wait a few hours or days, then take pot shots at a post I have written to someone else.
A) You do not know that. Many fetuses simply do not survive.
B) So we are agreed, it is NOT a sentient agent now. You just imagine it being in the future.
C) You are stll not comparing like with like. You refuse to compare two things now, rather you have to take one now, and one you imagine in the future, so the comparison gives what YOU want it to give.
Zubeneschamali Registered User
I have read many, many times from the pro-life crew that fetuses are babies, fuill stop. No killing them just because their dad is a rapist, no killing them because their dad is their grandad too, and the one about the little baby who the mother was told by evil doctors would never live who grew up to win the Nobel Prize, the Eurovision and an all Ireland hurling medal.
So even with an unworkable wording for FFA, rape and incest only, the Pro-Life movement would have fought it tooth and nail, just as they wanted to keep travel and information illegal, just as they tried to remove the suicide exception, twice.
And these were not handfuls of votes, they were 30+ percent of the electorate.