Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Options
1…321322324326327…330

Comments

  • Options
    #9692
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    not true.

    and also how can you suggest that psychiatrist that did not respond support the this law,thats crazy...where were these vast majority of psychiatrist during the senate hearings??? :eek:

    Not responding is an indication of support for the bill. If they were that concerned about it, they would respond. What in oldrnwisnr's post is untrue? He's provided plenty of peer reviewed material to substantiate his position.


  • Options
    #9693
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    not true.

    You keep saying this as if it will somehow become reality if you just repeat it often enough. You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that you're incorrect on this. It's not pleasant, I know, admitting fault rarely is. But not doing so is really dishonest, and nobody's going to take you seriously as a result.


  • Options
    #9694
    eireannBEAR
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,713 ✭✭✭eireannBEAR


    Sarky wrote: »
    You keep saying this as if it will somehow become reality if you just repeat it often enough. You're going to have to come to terms with the fact that you're incorrect on this. It's not pleasant, I know, admitting fault rarely is. But not doing so is really dishonest, and nobody's going to take you seriously as a result.

    then they are free not to bombard me with questions and let me state my views that i know are facts. :D


  • Options
    #9695
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    then they are free not to bombard me with questions and let me state my views that i know are facts. :D

    It should be very easy to back them up if they're facts. Why don't you do that? :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #9696
    oldrnwisr
    Registered Users Posts: 1,594 ✭✭✭oldrnwisr


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    not true.

    Would you care to back that up as I have done?

    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    and also how can you suggest that psychiatrist that did not respond support the this law,thats crazy...where were these vast majority of psychiatrist during the senate hearings??? :eek:

    I am not suggesting that. My world isn't as black and white as yours. What I am suggesting is that, from the paltry evidence in the article you linked to we know that: 32% have expressed concern with the legislation, 4% have expressed explicit support for the legislation and the status of the other 64% is indeterminate since they were either a) not contacted or b) did not respond.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9697
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    then they are free not to bombard me with questions and let me state my views that i know are facts. :D
    That's the thing, kiddo; Almost nothing you have stated is fact. In fact, most of it is completely false, and has been pointed out by such nice folks as oldrnwisr. Simply saying "not true" is not going to make all the evidence and logic they provide you magically go away. You're still left holding views which are demonstrably wrong. Repeating them after they have been shown to be wrong is lying. You don't want to be a liar, do you?


  • Options
    #9698
    eireannBEAR
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,713 ✭✭✭eireannBEAR


    Corkfeen wrote: »
    It should be very easy to back them up if they're facts. Why don't you do that? :rolleyes:

    ok from now on i will post my links and facts but under no circumstances will i respond to posts.

    so please guys dont post insults or offensive posts in my direction


  • Options
    #9699
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    That's a bit of a cop out. Why can't you do both?


  • Options
    #9700
    MagicMarker
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 32,865 ✭✭✭✭MagicMarker


    Using mod font is a sure way to get yourself aborted.


  • Options
    #9701
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Sarky wrote: »
    That's a bit of a cop out. Why can't you do both?

    That's why...Hard to answer the hard questions when you pretend not to see them;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9702
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    "couldn't???

    Yes. Couldn't.


  • Options
    #9703
    old hippy
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 9,441 ✭✭✭old hippy


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    ok from now on i will post my links and facts but under no circumstances will i respond to posts.

    so please guys dont post insults or offensive posts in my direction

    Please don't ask you to back up your "facts" & please don't ask difficult questions, in other words...


  • Options
    #9704
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    this post is off topic and offensive brian please stop,thanks.

    No, I won't stop telling the truth, because the truth needs to be heard.

    Anti-abortionists are anti-life. Proof: They are currently attacking a bill, and anyone supporting it, whose sole design and effect is to ensure the constitutionally protected right to life of the mother (I'll note here that the 1983 ammendment pushed on us by anti-abortionists made legalisisng abortions inevitable under certain circumstances).

    Anti-abortionists are anti-fun. Proof: They are invariably right-wing religious persons. One of the common characteristics of the religious right is the attempt to ban anything which would be seen to be enjoyable (cf Geneva under Calvin).


  • Options
    #9705
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    ok from now on i will post my links and facts but under no circumstances will i respond to posts.
    If you do that you will be removed from this forum.

    It's bad enough you post links to back up claims, and then refuse to accept when your facts are clearly shown to be incorrect, without posting stuff and then not even discussing it.


  • Options
    #9706
    TwoShedsJackson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,438 ✭✭✭TwoShedsJackson


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    ok from now on i will post my links and facts but under no circumstances will i respond to posts.

    so please guys dont post insults or offensive posts in my direction

    So you want to post up what you want to say, on a discussion forum, and ignore any and all replies?

    Just start a blog for fu<k's sake...


  • Options
    #9707
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    so please guys dont post insults or offensive posts in my direction

    While you're perfectly free to continue to insult the rest of us I take it?


  • Options
    #9708
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,772 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    ok from now on i will post my links and facts but under no circumstances will i respond to posts.

    So basically this thread is now your blog?


  • Options
    #9709
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    ok from now on i will post my links and facts but under no circumstances will i respond to posts.

    so please guys dont post insults or offensive posts in my direction
    *****NEWSFLASH****

    You do not get to decide who can or cannot reply to your posts on a public forum. This may come as a surprise to you but you are not that special. :eek:


  • Options
    #9710
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,407 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    [...] under no circumstances will i respond to posts.
    A+A is a discussion forum. That means that people get carded or banned for ignoring people's patient replies, continuing to fail to answer questions that have been asked repeatedly, failing to stick to the rules and standards of polite debate and generally failing to take part in a mature, reasonable way in the discussion that everybody else is having. For the avoidance of doubt, a conversation happens when the attention span of all posters is roughly equal, and when the levels of interest shown by all posters to each other is roughly equal.
    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    [...] please guys dont post insults or offensive posts in my direction [...]
    If you feel that any posts violate the forum charter, then please report them using the little warning triangle to the left of the post panel. The forum moderators will take any action the deem necessary, up to and including a ban for the offending poster.


  • Options
    #9711
    eireannBEAR
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,713 ✭✭✭eireannBEAR


    robindch wrote: »
    A+A is a discussion forum. That means that people get carded or banned for ignoring people's patient replies, continuing to fail to answer questions that have been asked repeatedly, failing to stick to the rules and standards of polite debate and generally failing to take part in a mature, reasonable way in the discussion that everybody else is having. For the avoidance of doubt, a conversation happens when the attention span of all posters is roughly equal, and when the levels of interest shown by all posters to each other is roughly equal.If you feel that any posts violate the forum charter, then please report them using the little warning triangle to the left of the post panel. The forum moderators will take any action the deem necessary, up to and including a ban for the offending poster.

    alright lol i said this 3 times but i will unfollow. im sick of reading hateful leading posts and be hounded by these posters.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9712
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    alright lol i said this 3 times but i will unfollow. im sick of reading hateful leading posts and be hounded by these posters.

    Well that escalated quickly! :eek:


  • Options
    #9713
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    alright lol i said this 3 times but i will unfollow. im sick of reading hateful leading posts and be hounded by these posters.

    I'm still trying to work out how I was insulting in the post you responded to... All you had to do was provide us with the sources for your facts. :D


  • Options
    #9714
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,407 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    eireannBEAR wrote: »
    [...] im sick of reading hateful leading posts and be hounded by these posters.
    You are not being hounded. You are being asked to answer a range of other questions, as people have replied to yours; and you're being asked to revise or retract inaccurate or false claims that you've made.

    As above, that's not "hounding", instead, that's discussion and if that's too much for you, well, perhaps you should choose to post in somewhere other than a discussion forum.


  • Options
    #9715
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    In the spirit of answering questions I'd appeciate answers to two questions that have been dodged:

    Bumper, The question you've failed to answer about 5 times

    Mark Hamill, you indicated that life would be "better" for the "very poor" if they had less children. Would you like to a legal limit on the number of children the "very poor" can produce?


  • Options
    #9716
    Corkfeen
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,940 ✭✭✭Corkfeen


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    In the spirit of answering questions I'd appeciate answers to two questions that have been dodged:

    Bumper, The question you've failed to answer about 5 times

    Mark Hamill, you indicated that life would be "better" for the "very poor" if they had less children. Would you like to a legal limit on the number of children the "very poor" can produce?

    Legal limits on children goes in direct opposition to the idea of choice so i'm guessing he'll say no........


  • Options
    #9717
    bumper234
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,250 ✭✭✭✭bumper234


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    In the spirit of answering questions I'd appeciate answers to two questions that have been dodged:

    Bumper, The question you've failed to answer about 5 times

    Mark Hamill, you indicated that life would be "better" for the "very poor" if they had less children. Would you like to a legal limit on the number of children the "very poor" can produce?



    I did reply but meh...... you first
    A Homeless woman is raped, weeks later she confirms that she is pregnant and the father of the fetus is the rapist. She has been homeless for 2 years and it has been a struggle to feed herself. She has no access to family, No access to social welfare because she has no address and therefore CANNOT(A) Travel to the UK(B) Pay for the procedure in a clinic and also the cost of accommodation.She also has a friend in Dublin (also homeless) who she would like to have near for support but also has no money.Would BB agree that the woman should have instant access to the medical facilities to bring about an abortion?


    And i don' t mean tell us the story of what halle ed to ur wife in the 70s chile


  • Options
    #9718
    maguic24
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,790 ✭✭✭maguic24


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    In the spirit of answering questions I'd appeciate answers to two questions that have been dodged:

    Bumper, The question you've failed to answer about 5 times

    Mark Hamill, you indicated that life would be "better" for the "very poor" if they had less children. Would you like to a legal limit on the number of children the "very poor" can produce?

    I know you didn't ask me this question but I felt like responding.

    No I don't think there should be a limit on how many children the 'very poor' can have, however I do agree that life for the 'very poor' would be considerably better if they had less children. Lets face it, children are very expensive! The more children you have, the less money you have.

    I think contraception should be less expensive and more readily available, especially for the 'very poor'. Maybe free contraception if you have a medical card? Just my 2 cents.

    I am pro-choice, I think women should have the choice no matter what, however I don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control, but, in all fairness, it's much easier and less expensive to use contraception then get an abortion. A lot of pro-lifers are of the opinion that if abortion was introduced in Ireland, it would be used as a form of contraception. I, for one, would rather use a condom, than get an abortion...but maybe that's just me? :)


  • Options
    #9719
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    maguic24 wrote: »
    I know you didn't ask me this question but I felt like responding.

    No I don't think there should be a limit on how many children the 'very poor' can have, however I do agree that life for the 'very poor' would be considerably better if they had less children. Lets face it, children are very expensive! The more children you have, the less money you have.

    I think contraception should be less expensive and more readily available, especially for the 'very poor'. Maybe free contraception if you have a medical card? Just my 2 cents.

    I am pro-choice, I think women should have the choice no matter what, however I don't think abortion should be used as a form of birth control, but, in all fairness, it's much easier and less expensive to use contraception then get an abortion. A lot of pro-lifers are of the opinion that if abortion was introduced in Ireland, it would be used as a form of contraception. I, for one, would rather use a condom, than get an abortion...but maybe that's just me? :)

    And where in your opinion does this "choice" end?

    In the case of an unsuccesful abortion and there is a delivered baby still alive does the mother have the right to request the abortionist to kill the living newborn baby?


  • Options
    #9720
    Sierra 117
    Registered Users Posts: 629 ✭✭✭Sierra 117


    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    In the case of an unsuccesful abortion

    An abortion is the termination of a pregnancy. The baby being removed means it was a successful abortion.
    Brown Bomber wrote: »
    and there is a delivered baby still alive does the mother have the right to request the abortionist to kill the living newborn baby?

    And given that the child is no longer using her body, no she doesn't have that choice.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9721
    Brown Bomber
    Site Banned Posts: 8,331 ✭✭✭Brown Bomber


    bumper234 wrote: »
    I did reply but meh...... you first

    And i don' t mean tell us the story of what halle ed to ur wife in the 70s chile
    Clearly you have no intention of following mod instructions and answering questions so just forget it, yeah.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement