Is it still 1971 in Ireland? The contraceptive train still runs - Under another name.

Guderian78

volchitsa wrote: »

What a strange rant.

Not only do you completely ignore the content of my post (it is strange, IMO, to have posters choosing Nazi names for themselves, and since you're one of them, perhaps you could explain) but you also ignore my earlier post where I had already gone back to see which question you were complaining that someone hadn't answered, and I gave you my answer to it (post 285).

Yet you ignored that, and instead went off on one about me "killing the discussion". How does that work then? I reply to your question, you ignore the reply, I move on to something else that strikes me as odd and frankly a little sinister, and you throw a strop.

Riiight.

You are being disingenuous and misrepresenting what he is saying. There is nothing "sinister" in his post. I suggest you take my advise and reevaluate you faulty logic.

moneyman

Looks like Stormfront have found boards then.

volchitsa

Guderian78 wrote: »

You are being disingenuous and misrepresenting what he is saying. There is nothing "sinister" in his post. I suggest you take my advise and reevaluate you faulty logic.

I didn't say there was anything sinister in his post, I said I think it is very strange to choose the name Fuhrer, and positively sinister when not only is there a poster called "Fuhrer" on a thread but also one called Albert Speers and also apparently one called Rommel.

What is faulty about that logic?

Guderian78

volchitsa wrote: »

I didn't say there was anything sinister in his post, I said I think it is very strange to choose the name Fuhrer, and positively sinister when not only is there a poster called "Fuhrer" on a thread but also one called Albert Speers and also apparently one called Goebbels.

What is faulty about that logic?

What's sinister about it?

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

What a strange rant.

Not only do you completely ignore the content of my post (it is strange, IMO, to have posters choosing Nazi names for themselves, and since you're one of them, perhaps you could explain) but you also ignore my earlier post where I had already gone back to see which question you were complaining that someone hadn't answered, and I gave you my answer to it (post 285).

Yet you ignored that, and instead went off on one about me "killing the discussion". How does that work then? I reply to your question, you ignore the reply, I move on to something else that strikes me as odd and frankly a little sinister, and you throw a strop.

Riiight.

Basic reading comprehension isn't your strong point so ill just have to go ahead and reiterate it again.

I was asking someone else a question, after a series of posts between us where they wouldn't answer a simple question about their supposedly strong held believes.

You dived into the middle into the middle of this discussion, answering a utterly unrelated to you and outside the discussion we were having with the must inane pseudo intellectual non answer I've ever seen, while also spectacularly missing the point of the question too, quite a feat. Well done!

volchitsa

moneyman wrote: »

Looks like Stormfront have found boards then.

"
And they are here to put the "pro-life" point of view. That pleases me somewhat. Less effort required for those of us arguing against it.

Guderian78

The life of a foetus which has feelings is more important than the convenience of it's Mother.

Guderian78

volchitsa wrote: »

"
And they are here to put the "pro-life" point of view. That pleases me somewhat. Less effort required for those of us arguing against it.

So you are readily admitting you position is that difficult to argue that you have to resort to strawman arguments such as criticising a user's username. Interesting.

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

"
And they are here to put the "pro-life" point of view. That pleases me somewhat. Less effort required for those of us arguing against it.

Ranting moronic slogans isnt arguing against something, its just ranting moronic slogans.

Lets see how deeply you've thought about this.

Try answering a few of these incredibly straight forward questions.


You believe a woman should have the right to have an abortion whenever she wants?

efb

RobertKK wrote: »

We can both be right, there is very little difference.

but they have so many abortions....

volchitsa

Fuhrer wrote: »

Ranting moronic slogans isnt arguing against something, its just ranting moronic slogans.

Lets see how deeply you've thought about this.

Try answering a few of these incredibly straight forward questions.


You believe a woman should have the right to have an abortion whenever she wants?

Thing is, I joined in,"jumped in" I think you said, on post 285 and replied to your questions. You ignored my reply, including after I pointed out that I had actually replied and even gave you the post number so you could read it - so why should I start over again now?

You can begin by apologizing for your unwarranted aggression, since I had already replied and had moved on to a second subject at that point. When you've done that, and also replied to the content of my post, then I will be prepared to engage with you. Not before.

volchitsa

Guderian78 wrote: »

The life of a foetus which has feelings is more important than the convenience of it's Mother.

What feelings do you think fetuses have?

Fuhrer

volchitsa wrote: »

Thing is, I joined in,"jumped in" I think you said, on post 285 and replied to your questions. You ignored my reply, including after I pointed out that I had actually replied and even gave you the post number so you could read it - so why should I start over again now?

You can begin by apologizing for your unwarranted aggression, since I had already replied and had moved on to a second subject at that point. When you've done that, and also replied to the content of my post, then I will be prepared to engage with you. Not before.

So the answer is no, you cant answer a simple straight forward question.

And the hilarity for anyone reading seeing someone who spent the last 10 posts ranting about a Nazi conspiracy to push an agenda is now asking someone to apologize for unwarranted aggression is plain to see.

This is why the Pro Choice campaign can never get off the ground properly in this country, the most vocal supporters dont have the intelligence and foresight to articulate a cogent and well thought out argument of their position.

It really is quite depressing to see.

PopePalpatine

*Googles Guderian*

I did Nazi that coming.

SeanW

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Shouldn't you be campaigning for that then on it's own merits instead of trying to equate it with abortion?

Only it is equal. Society appears to have determined that at least one partner in an questionable pregnancy has the right to walk away, either directly by allowing abortion, or by allowing information and travel for the purpose.

I'm simply suggesting that the same rights should be extended to the other, as was mentioned by a previous poster.

One eyed Jack

SeanW wrote: »

Only it is equal. Society appears to have determined that at least one partner in an questionable pregnancy has the right to walk away, either directly by allowing abortion, or by allowing information and travel for the purpose.

I'm simply suggesting that the same rights should be extended to the other, as was mentioned by a previous poster.

It's still not an abortion whatever way you choose to spin it. Call it what it is - child abandonment.

It still has nothing to do with a woman's reproductive rights, it has more to do with a man's reproductive rights, and like I said, to try and deny a woman her reproductive rights on the basis that men are denied their reproductive rights, is just spiteful.

nlgbbbblth

I was there in 1992. That's when the pro-life movement seemed to largely consist of hysterical people waving photos of dead foetuses, holding crucifixes / rosary beads and screaming "murderer" at anyone who disagreed with their views. This really alienated the middle ground. Pro-choicers like myself were calm, rational and open to debate.

Now many pro-lifers seem to be serene young women that radiate happiness and a sense of calm. Beaming smiles and pure white t-shirts. At least that's the impression I get when I see them at their rallies and on their stalls.

On the other hand many of the pro-choicers come across as condescending, dismissive, angry, hysterical and perpetually outraged - as evidenced by recent stunts like knickergate, the pill train and the reaction to Cora Sherlock's BBC nomination.

In a referendum situation the calm people are more likely to prevail.

RDM_83 again

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

I was there in 1992. That's when the pro-life movement seemed to largely consist of hysterical people waving photos of dead foetuses, holding crucifixes / rosary beads and screaming "murderer" at anyone who disagreed with their views. This really alienated the middle ground. Pro-choicers like myself were calm, rational and open to debate.

Now many pro-lifers seem to be serene young women that radiate happiness and a sense of calm. Beaming smiles and pure white t-shirts. At least that's the impression I get when I see them at their rallies and on their stalls.

On the other hand many of the pro-choicers come across as condescending, dismissive, angry, hysterical and perpetually outraged - as evidenced by recent stunts like knickergate, the pill train and the reaction to Cora Sherlock's BBC nomination.

In a referendum situation the calm people are more likely to prevail.

It would be nice if some sort of realistic middle ground could be found, now I know this is an ultimately divisive topic based on moral absolutes, but the fact its always people yelling Pro-Abortionist or Anti-choicer at each other does nothing to sway anybodies opinion.

Demonique

Guderian78 wrote: »

The life of a foetus which has feelings is more important than the convenience of it's Mother.

Fetuses don't have feelings, they're not self-aware until later into the pregnancy

RDM_83 again

Demonique wrote: »

Fetuses don't have feelings, they're not self-aware until later into the pregnancy

Is self awareness a good boundary line,?i am fairly certain new born babies aren't considered self aware by some, pain response for all its faults is at least measurable (and then u get into the response/perception argument). Also its a fetus till birth, embryo what you mean?

volchitsa

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Is self awareness a good boundary line,?i am fairly certain new born babies aren't considered self aware by some, pain response for all its faults is at least measurable (and then u get into the response/perception argument). Also its a fetus till birth, embryo what you mean?

I don't think a boundary line was being suggested, it was just a reply to the poster who talked about the fetus' "feelings" taking precedence over the mother's wishes. Because fetuses obviously don't have "feelings".

Pumpkinseeds

Fuhrer wrote: »

This is such a strange position that so many people take.

You say that its always a womans right to choose what to do with her body but you limit your abortions to 12 weeks.

Why 12 weeks? Why the cut off? If you believe that no one should force a woman to not abort a baby, what magical thing happens after 12 weeks that stops you from holding that position?

Interesting question from someone with your username. I say 12 weeks as there has to be some cut off point.

Fuhrer

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

Interesting question from someone with your username. I say 12 weeks as there has to be some cut off point.

But why does there have to be a cut off point?


If a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if its her choice, why shouldn't she be allowed to have it the day before she is due to deliver the baby?

shruikan2553

Fuhrer wrote: »

But why does there have to be a cut off point?


If a woman should be allowed to have an abortion if its her choice, why shouldn't she be allowed to have it the day before she is due to deliver the baby?

They tend to deliver the baby at that point.

Fuhrer

shruikan2553 wrote: »

They tend to deliver the baby at that point.

Not if its aborted first.

shruikan2553

Fuhrer wrote: »

Not if its aborted first.

1 day before the due date? Its called inducing labour or c section. The point is to end the pregnancy, not to "murder" as some people try to claim.

Fuhrer

shruikan2553 wrote: »

1 day before the due date? Its called inducing labour or c section. The point is to end the pregnancy, not to "murder" as some people try to claim.

No, that would be delivering the baby, im talking about what volchitsa wants to be able to do, abort at any time for whatever reason.

One day later, a living human being
One day previous, a fetus fee to be aborted

Im sure you can see why some people find the line being thrown out by some of the lower common dominators on here to be quite morally and ethically repulsive

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

No, that would be delivering the baby, im talking about what volchitsa wants to be able to do, abort at any time for whatever reason.

One day later, a living human being
One day previous, a fetus fee to be aborted

Im sure you can see why some people find the line being thrown out by some of the lower common dominators on here to be quite morally and ethically repulsive

My pregnancies were ended by c section. Why would a doctor stop the heart of a foetus one day before a due date instead of induce delivery? Ms Y had to deliver her baby alive.

Fuhrer

lazygal wrote: »

My pregnancies were ended by c section. Why would a doctor stop the heart of a foetus one day before a due date instead of induce delivery? Ms Y had to deliver her baby alive.

Because its a womans choice what to do with her body isnt it?

lazygal

Fuhrer wrote: »

Because its a womans choice what to do with her body isnt it?

Yes. I chose to deliver my second child by section. No doctor would have agreed to stop the heartbeat and deliver a dead foetus at that point though. As we know Ms Y had to deliver a live foetus as her desire to terminate the pregnancy was facilitated by early delivery via c section. Do you think she should have been forced to go full term?.