‘People think I’m the devil for having an abortion, but it’s the only option that&

Shrap

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I never boycotted anything, posting lies about me doesn't mean I support boycotting something.
People voted to restrict abortion here, do you want things brought in against the will of the people?

In 1983. We have moved on from that era of kowtowing to the RCC, in case you haven't noticed. We wish for another vote on the issue, or do you think constitutional laws are set in stone?

gandalf

In a mature country the constitution is a document that grows with the differing needs and views of the country, it is not a stone tablet that's been taken down from the side of a mountain to be obeyed for perpetuity.

Given a whole generation has passed since the last election then I certainly believe the electorate should be asked the question again.

Delirium

RobertKK wrote: »

No, I never boycotted anything, posting lies about me doesn't mean I support boycotting something.
People voted to restrict abortion here, do you want things brought in against the will of the people?

And now the people are changing their views on abortion and should be allowed vote.

Especially since no-one under the age of 50 voted in the previous vote on abortion.

RobertKK

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

What are you on about?

Condoms are a good protection against both HIV and pregnancy. They're not foolproof, however.

But, your chances of contracting HIV when a condom splits is far, far lower than your change of getting pregnant, which is why it isn't mentioned much with regards to HIV.

Professor Greene of Harvard, an expert in HIV , found where only contraception ie condoms were promoted, it didn't lower the HIV rate.
Where there was success, it was found promoting abstaining from sex till one was older caused the biggest decrease, next was being monogamous and finally the contraception.

The same problem exists with crisis pregnancies, a society which treats sex as something you have before a certain age, sleep around before you find someone you want to spend your life with, which also leads to the high STI rate of infection, abortion is an option if you pregnant if contraception fails, which makes the abortion a result of contraception and which most abortions are.
There are a lot of irresponsible people having sex who then get into a panic when they get pregnant.
The message promoted by the media/film/tv and so on is one for a liberal sexual freedom. Nothing about the consequences.

RobertKK

SW wrote: »

And now the people are changing their views on abortion and should be allowed vote.

Especially since no-one under the age of 50 voted in the previous vote on abortion.

Did you watch the program last night?

Mostly young people in those pro-life groups.

Sure polls showed 4% would vote against the children's referendum and 80% for...

Shrap

RobertKK wrote: »

Did you watch the program last night?

Mostly young people in those pro-life groups.

Sure polls showed 4% would vote against the children's referendum and 80% for...

What's that got to do with putting it to a vote again? Democracy requires that the issues are put to the will of the people. We are not living in a Theocracy (any more).

Penny Tration

RobertKK wrote: »

Professor Greene of Harvard, an expert in HIV , found where only contraception ie condoms were promoted, it didn't lower the HIV rate.
Where there was success, it was found promoting abstaining from sex till one was older caused the biggest decrease, next was being monogamous and finally the contraception.

The same problem exists with crisis pregnancies, a society which treats sex as something you have before a certain age, sleep around before you find someone you want to spend your life with, which also leads to the high STI rate of infection, abortion is an option if you pregnant if contraception fails, which makes the abortion a result of contraception and which most abortions are.
There are a lot of irresponsible people having sex who then get into a panic when they get pregnant.
The message promoted by the media/film/tv and so on is one for a liberal sexual freedom. Nothing about the consequences.

Abstinence is the best way to protect oneself from pregnancy or disease, who'd-a thunk it?

The 'message' that is all for sexual freedom is a good one. Women were previously considered whores if they had sex outside of marriage, but the men could ride all around them with no consequences. At least now, women are afforded the same right to have sex as men, although are still judged much more harshly.

inocybe

RobertKK wrote: »

The same problem exists with crisis pregnancies, a society which treats sex as something you have before a certain age, sleep around before you find someone you want to spend your life with, which also leads to the high STI rate of infection, abortion is an option if you pregnant if contraception fails, which makes the abortion a result of contraception and which most abortions are.
There are a lot of irresponsible people having sex who then get into a panic when they get pregnant.
The message promoted by the media/film/tv and so on is one for a liberal sexual freedom. Nothing about the consequences.

Do you realise that more women in their 40's have abortions than teenagers? Responsible people having sex, taking contraception - that the pill when taken perfectly still has a 1% failure rate.

Delirium

RobertKK wrote: »

Did you watch the program last night?

Mostly young people in those pro-life groups.

Sure polls showed 4% would vote against the children's referendum and 80% for...

That doesn't change that no-one under 50 (be they pro-life or pro-choice) has never voted on abortion. The populations attitude has changed since 1983, it's only right to ask the people to decide what should or shouldn't be allowed regarding abortion.

RobertKK

SW wrote: »

That doesn't change that no-one under 50 (be they pro-life or pro-choice) has never voted on abortion. The populations attitude has changed since 1983, it's only right to ask the people to decide what should or shouldn't be allowed regarding abortion.

I'm under 50 and voted in an abortion referendum.

Delirium

RobertKK wrote: »

I'm under 50 and voted in an abortion referendum.

How did you vote in the 1983 vote? it was 32 years ago and you've to be 18 to vote. Legally you weren't entitled to vote.

Shrap

RobertKK wrote: »

I'm under 50 and voted in an abortion referendum.

Not the one that provided constitutional rights to the foetus to the extent that abortion could never be allowable here, except in the instances that were put to the vote, presumably the referendums you are talking about. You are avoiding the elephant in the room that is the 8th amendment. We wish to vote to see if the will of the people wishes to remove it or let it stand.

Shrap

SW wrote: »

How did you vote in the 1983 vote? it was 32 years ago and you've to be 18 to vote. Legally you weren't entitled to vote.

He didn't. He is avoiding the real issue of the 8th amendment.

Penny Tration

RobertKK wrote: »

I'm under 50 and voted in an abortion referendum.

You're obviously 49 so, if you voted in Ireland. To have been eligible to vote in 1983, you'd have to have been born in 1965.

That's a moot point anyway. The point is - every single solitary woman this law could affect, has never had the opportunity to vote on it.

RobertKK

Jenny Thalia wrote: »

You're obviously 49 so, if you voted in Ireland. To have been eligible to vote in 1983, you'd have to have been born in 1965.

That's a moot point anyway. The point is - every single solitary woman this law could affect, has never had the opportunity to vote on it.

No, we had our last referendum involving abortion in 2002 where Dana and Ivana bacik were on the same side.

RobertKK

Shrap wrote: »

He didn't. He is avoiding the real issue of the 8th amendment.

It is only an issue for pro-choice.

Shrap

RobertKK wrote: »

No, we had our last referendum involving abortion in 2002 where Dana and Ivana bacik were on the same side.

You are still avoiding the 8th amendment. If the people of Ireland wish to see broader abortion services in this country we have to repeal the 8th amendment. This should be put to the vote so that we can find out what the country thinks now. Are we clear?

DuffmanGuy

sup_dude wrote: »

Do you mind providing these studies now that you're back?

"You've found a heap of papers that prove that fertilisation can produce a human. We know this.
"

Haven't you already accepted and agreed with the published science books/studies I've sent already? When you said "We Know This", did you mean something else?

I'd like you to show ME the studies that prove that human life begins whenever you think it does. Give me an exact event or time, agreed in Peer-reviewed science publications, that says Human life beings at any other point than fertilisation. Please do.
Surely you hold your knowledge to the same standards that you hold others to?

RobertKK

Shrap wrote: »

You are still avoiding the 8th amendment. If the people of Ireland wish to see broader abortion services in this country we have to repeal the 8th amendment. This should be put to the vote so that we can find out what the country thinks now. Are we clear?

Yes, most want restricted abortion according to polls and not what they have in the UK.

Shrap

RobertKK wrote: »

It is only an issue for pro-choice.

It's truly sickening how you on the one hand claim that you're not boycotting anything and on the other make it completely clear that because the 8th amendment suits you, you don't want to see a vote on the issue. Thereby boycotting the will of the people being explored through referendum. How undemocratic of you.

Ave Sodalis

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

"You've found a heap of papers that prove that fertilisation can produce a human. We know this.
"

Haven't you already accepted and agreed with the published science books/studies I've sent already? When you said "We Know This", did you mean something else?

I'd like you to show ME the studies that prove that human life begins whenever you think it does. Give me an exact event or time, agreed in Peer-reviewed science publications, that says Human life beings at any other point than fertilisation. Please do.
Surely you hold your knowledge to the same standards that you hold others to?

You are the one making claims. You have not provided any papers to prove your claims. For someone who claims to know so much about science, you don't know nothing about how it works. You've been repeatedly asked to provide papers. You haven't. You can't go asking people to do the same. Also, no, read the rest of my posts. I never accepted or agreed to any of the quotes you've sent.

Delirium

RobertKK wrote: »

No, we had our last referendum involving abortion in 2002 where Dana and Ivana bacik were on the same side.

Really?

The Twenty-fifth Amendment was a failed attempt to amend the Constitution of Ireland to tighten the constitutional ban on abortion. It would have removed the threat of suicide as a grounds for legal abortion in the state, as well as introducing new penalties for anyone performing an abortion.

That clearly is not a vote on whether to allow (or not) abortion in Ireland. It was a vote to make more difficult to have an abortion in Ireland.

Shrap

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, most want restricted abortion according to polls and not what they have in the UK.

Yes that's probably true. However, we cannot legislate for restricted abortion without putting the status of the 8th amendment to the will of the people. Would you be hopeful that this is put to the vote soon?

rainbow kirby

RobertKK wrote: »

No, we had our last referendum involving abortion in 2002 where Dana and Ivana bacik were on the same side.

And we voted not to tighten the restrictions further.

Nobody under 30 now has had any say at all (I missed that one by around 2 months) yet they are the ones who are most affected by the current state of affairs. Watching that BBC3 documentary last night made me feel absolutely embarrassed to be from a country that continues to treat its women like that.

RobertKK

rainbow kirby wrote: »

And we voted not to tighten the restrictions further.

Nobody under 30 now has had any say at all (I missed that one by around 2 months) yet they are the ones who are most affected by the current state of affairs. Watching that BBC3 documentary last night made me feel absolutely embarrassed to be from a country that continues to treat its women like that.

As I said Dana and Ivana Bacik were on the same side, so it is questionable.

DuffmanGuy

sup_dude wrote: »

You are the one making claims. You have not provided any papers to prove your claims. For someone who claims to know so much about science, you don't know nothing about how it works. You've been repeatedly asked to provide papers. You haven't. You can't go asking people to do the same. Also, no, read the rest of my posts. I never accepted or agreed to any of the quotes you've sent.

You're making the claim that Human life begins at a different stage than fertilisation.

Your claim is not true, so you're avoiding providing any proof because it does not exist.
Also denying the proof I've provided, from credited, qualified, experienced, published scientists (re-read my posts) and presenting no counter-argument.
So, when you said "We know this" in reference to my previous post, what exactly did you mean ?

Shrap

Shrap wrote: »

Yes that's probably true. However, we cannot legislate for restricted abortion without putting the status of the 8th amendment to the will of the people. Would you be hopeful that this is put to the vote soon?

Any chance you could answer this RobertKK?

RobertKK

Shrap wrote: »

Yes that's probably true. However, we cannot legislate for restricted abortion without putting the status of the 8th amendment to the will of the people. Would you be hopeful that this is put to the vote soon?

I don't mind.

Pro-life marches have been far larger than pro-choice marches so I expect it will also be easier to get pro-life people to vote.

RobertKK

Shrap wrote: »

Any chance you could answer this RobertKK?

I was answering as you posted.

Just to let you know, I have to work so if no reply you know why.

Ave Sodalis

DuffmanGuy wrote: »

You're making the claim that Human life begins at a different stage than fertilisation.

Your claim is not true, so you're avoiding providing any proof because it does not exist.
Also denying the proof I've provided, from credited, qualified, experienced, published scientists (re-read my posts) and presenting no counter-argument.
So, when you said "We know this" in reference to my previous post, what exactly did you mean ?

Yes I'm denying it because a handful of quotes from papers you didn't even read are not, and never will be, proof. I'm avoiding providing any proof because proof was requested off you and you've failed to do so. Why would I even bother looking for proof for you, when I'm doing so because you've failed to do so?
"We know this" means exactly that. We know fertilisation needs to happen for humans to procreate.