The new, vicious fight

PopePalpatine

eviltwin wrote: »

20 years in prison for having an abortion? I don't think even the hardliners on the pro life side would support that.

Oh no no no, nox just wants the Magdalenekazetten back.

And BTW, there are hardliners on the anti-choice side who want that. Just have a look at El Salvador.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

20 years in prison for having an abortion? I don't think even the hardliners on the pro life side would support that.

There is an easy way to avoid it. Don't kill your unborn child in an back street clinic.

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Oh no no no, nox just wants the Magdalenekazetten back.

Ah yes because being against the killing of babies is exactly the same as wanting the magdalene laundries back :rolleyes:

The arrogance of people is unbelievable that they think they should have the right to decide if their child lives or dies.

hynesie08

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

Mandatory murder charges should discourage that and a few convictions would stop it altogether. Amazing what the threat of 15 or 20 years in jail can do.

The threat of jail doesn't stop you drink driving though, why would it stop this?

eviltwin

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

There is an easy way to avoid it. Don't kill your unborn child in an back street clinic.

Dream on, I think you're alone in your desire to imprison women just for having abortions. :rolleyes:

hynesie08

hynesie08 wrote: »

The threat of jail doesn't stop you drink driving though, why would it stop this?

Well it does actually as its very very rarely I would drive if I thought I was over the limit and only in a place I could be almost sure there would be no guards. Were it allowed Id do it all the time.

eviltwin wrote: »

Dream on, I think you're alone in your desire to imprison women just for having abortions. :rolleyes:

The question was in relation to hypothetical back street abortions, I offered a way to combat them if the situation arose.

hynesie08

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

Well it does actually as its very very rarely I would drive if I though I was over the limit and only in a place I could be almost sure there would be no guards. Were it allowed Id do it all the time.



The question was in relation to hypothetical back street abortions, I offered a way to combat them if the situation arose.

Wow, just wow. So basically you claim to be a Christian yet you yourself don't follow the moral code you expect others to. Thank god (if s/he exists) that most people have more common sense than to take you seriously.

eviltwin

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

Well it does actually as its very very rarely I would drive if I thought I was over the limit and only in a place I could be almost sure there would be no guards. Were it allowed Id do it all the time.



The question was in relation to hypothetical back street abortions, I offered a way to combat them if the situation arose.

If there was no drink driving limit you would do it all the time? So much for your belief in the right to life.

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

If there was no drink driving limit you would do it all the time? So much for your belief in the right to life.

I'd drive after 3 or 4 pints not if even approaching drunk. I think the limit should be set to allow the average man to drink 3 pints anyway it's not the lad with 3 pints that is the danger it's the lad with double figure numbers.

NachoBusiness

volchitsa wrote: »

Irrelevant speculation. You don't know why individual women have abortions. I know someone who had several because she desperately wanted a baby, but each time her pregnancies led to uncontrollable hyperemesis (what the Duchess of York had). It can be life threatening, and the fact that she didn't wait until her life was actually at risk (because she was afraid of having to have a late term abortion) doesnt change the fact that her health was at risk from the pregnancy. Of course in Ireland she'd have had to wait and possibly been traumatized by a late second or even third trimester abortion - the kind that someone earlier claimed should be banned as being better "for all concerned".

More to the point here, the fact is that pregnancy is more dangerous than non pregnancy for the woman, and even late termination is safer than continuing to term. That's just a fact.

I have shown you the stats. The numbers show that the maternal death in the UK and Ireland is so rare that it would be an absurdity for any woman to say they chose to have an abortion on the back of them. If you are talking about dangers which do not involve the mother dying, then what are they precisely and do you have some statistics regarding their occurrence.

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think any of the 4,000 women travelling to other countries to kill the unborn might be doing so because continuing a pregnancy might result in their death but Ireland won't allow them to kill the unborn here? You can't get an abortion here if your health is at risk. Maybe women travel to kill the unborn because of health reasons, thereby skewing our maternal mortality rate. Also not dying while pregnant is a pretty low bar for measuring the relative.quality of maternity services.

First of all, I have said repeatedly that I have no problem with therapeutic abortions and would vote accordingly given the choice.

Secondly, whenever research is done to weed out the reasons why women choose to have second trimester abortions, risk to health is not all that high on the list of reasons. The reason one has to 'weed' out them out is because of the way information given for 'grounds' for abortions are collected in the UK. For example, abortions carried out in an effort to prevent grave permanent injury to the mother are categorized along with abortions which are carried out for the controversial reason that continuing with the pregnancy would cause grave injury to the mother's mental health.

In any case, even when research is carried out which attempts to weed through the pc bs, the numbers of abortions which are found to have been carried out to prevent grave physical damage to the mother, are a low percentage. It would be quite bizarre to suggest that the number of women travelling from Ireland to the UK for an abortion (on the basis that to go through with the pregnancy would cause them grave physical damage) is greater than the number of women who have abortions for the very same reason in a country with ten times the population.

You see, as ever, what we have here is the pro choice crowd sanctimoniously using abortions carried out for life threatening reasons, to excuse those carried out for lifestyle / birth control ones.

Rough Sleeper

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

Mandatory murder charges should discourage that and a few convictions would stop it altogether. Amazing what the threat of 15 or 20 years in jail can do.

Should you be done for negligence if your zygote fails to implant as well?

PopePalpatine

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

Ah yes because being against the killing of babies is exactly the same as wanting the magdalene laundries back :rolleyes:

You called for women to have abortions to be charged (and presumably convicted in a kangaroo court chaired by Eoghan de Faoite, Ronan Mullen and Cora Sherlock) with murder. All you have to do is outsource these convicted women's imprisonment to the RCC, and hey presto, you've revived the Magdalenekazetten.

PopePalpatine

Rough Sleeper wrote: »

Should you be done for negligence if your zygote fails to implant as well?

Well, if El Salvador does it, I suppose the Legatus lackeys would want us to emulate them in that area.

eviltwin

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

There is an easy way to avoid it. Don't kill your unborn child in an back street clinic.



Ah yes because being against the killing of babies is exactly the same as wanting the magdalene laundries back :rolleyes:

The arrogance of people is unbelievable that they think they should have the right to decide if their child lives or dies.

Should smoking, drinking, eating junk etc during pregnancy be classed as child abuse then?

PopePalpatine

PopePalpatine wrote: »

You called for women to have abortions to be charged (and presumably convicted in a kangaroo court chaired by Eoghan de Faoite, Ronan Mullen and Cora Sherlock) with murder. All you have to do is outsource these convicted women's imprisonment to the RCC, and hey presto, you've revived the Magdalenekazetten.

A poster described a hypothetical situation where women ended up opting for back street clinic abortions in Ireland. It was essentially a "how would you deal with it" type post and I gave a possible solution. I didn't not say that currently people should be jailed for having an abortion in the UK. Having an illegal in Ireland though should have repercussions.

eviltwin wrote: »

Should smoking, drinking, eating junk etc during pregnancy be classed as child abuse then?

It could be argued for smoking, small amounts of drunk or junk food are not an issue for a pregnant woman. It's a stupid comparison anyway even smoking only increases the risk to a baby while with abortion it hasn't a prayer.

John_Rambo

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

I'd drive after 3 or 4 pints not if even approaching drunk. I think the limit should be set to allow the average man to drink 3 pints anyway it's not the lad with 3 pints that is the danger it's the lad with double figure numbers.

Man preaching about jailing women thinks men should have a special limit so men can drink and drive.

One eyed Jack

Kev W wrote: »

65% actually. The 45% were the ones who were in favour of allowing women to access abortion as they choose. Not the same thing.

My apologies, I got the digits mixed up, I meant to say 64%, not 46%, and the rest of my point still stands - that's still a far cry from the vast majority you claimed earlier who disagree with the frostyjacks statement that the 8th amendment is an affirmation of human rights. It is, because it treats both the right to life of the unborn, and the mother's right to life, as equal. Amnesty International, purporting to be an organisation that advocates for human rights, seems to have neglected the fact that the unborn also has human rights. That's why I suggested that they are no longer a human rights organisation, but merely another populist political lobby group.


EDIT: I know you won't take my word for it, but will you take the word of a former Amnesty International Board Member?

University of Illinois professor of international law Francis Boyle, who spent several years as an Amnesty International USA Board member, claimed that aspects of organisational continuity and survival came ahead of human rights aims. He stated "Amnesty International is primarily motivated not by human rights but by publicity. Second comes money. Third comes getting more members. Fourth, internal turf battles. And then finally, human rights, genuine human rights concerns."

Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_Amnesty_International

NachoBusiness

eviltwin wrote: »

Should smoking, drinking, eating junk etc during pregnancy be classed as child abuse then?

Well, it will soon to be illegal for women to smoke if there's a child in their car.. so why not their womb?

But I suppose then it's back to a case of it being their body and nobody else's damn business, right?

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

Man preaching about jailing women thinks men should have a special limit so men can drink and drive.

Where did I say the limit would only apply to men? You can set it at 3 pints for a woman as that would allow a man to drink too much and still be under the limit.

PopePalpatine

Your suggestion about drink-driving limits is goddamn idiotic. You do realise different beers and ciders have different ABV levels, or is that LIBRUL PROPAGANDA according to "Barely "Alive!"?

At least your kind only represent 7% of the population.

John_Rambo

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

Where did I say the limit would only apply to men?

Here.

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

I think the limit should be set to allow the average man to drink 3 pints anyway

Average man. Not person.

When asked what would happen in Ireland if women didn't have the right or ability to travel to avail of abortion services? You said;

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

Mandatory murder charges should discourage that and a few convictions would stop it altogether. Amazing what the threat of 15 or 20 years in jail can do.

Murder charges for women with 15 to 20 years in prison. But you want men to get a cert to drive after four pints.

It's a man childs world.

John_Rambo

John_Rambo wrote: »

Here.



Average man. Not person.

Men and women have very different alcohol tolerance so you can't compare them and you should obviously set the bar using the one with higher tolerance.

When asked what would happen in Ireland if women didn't have the right or ability to travel to avail of abortion services? You said;

John_Rambo wrote: »

Murder charges for women with 15 to 20 years in prison. But you want men to get a cert to drive after four pints.

It's a man childs world.

As I've said more than once I was just throwing it out there in response to a hypothetical post on women having back street clinic abortions. If the woman's life is in extreme danger she should have access to abortion if she just doesn't want the baby as a lifestyle choice tough, no way should she be allowed to have an abortion.

Electric Sheep

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

Men and women have very different alcohol tolerance so you can't compare them and you should obviously set the bar using the one with higher tolerance.

When asked what would happen in Ireland if women didn't have the right or ability to travel to avail of abortion services? You said;



As I've said more than once I was just throwing it out there in response to a hypothetical post on women having back street clinic abortions. If the woman's life is in extreme danger she should have access to abortion if she just doesn't want the baby as a lifestyle choice tough, no way should she be allowed to have an abortion.

What if the father doesn't want the baby either? Should the mother be able to hand it over to him and force him to bring it up by himself?

PopePalpatine

Electric Sheep wrote: »

What if the father doesn't want the baby either? Should the mother be able to hand it over to him and force him to bring it up by himself?

Oh no, in that case the baby is sold to extremist Catholics in the USA.

Electric Sheep

Electric Sheep wrote: »

What if the father doesn't want the baby either? Should the mother be able to hand it over to him and force him to bring it up by himself?

There are many options if she doesn't want the baby other than killing it. There are familys who can't have children who are always in need of kids for adoption for instance.

lazygal

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

There are many options if she doesn't want the baby other than killing it. There are familys who can't have children who are always in need of kids for adoption for instance.

Why should I stay pregnant because someone else can't procreate? How would a baby with a life limiting condition be adopted, given the length of time involved in the adoption process? Or would such children be made wards of court on birth?

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

Why should I stay pregnant ...

Because killing a defenceless baby is a disgusting and evil act.

PopePalpatine

Well, it beats leaving women to die or driving them to suicide.

NachoBusiness

Lydia Unsightly Leg wrote: »

Because killing a defenceless baby is a disgusting and evil act.

Well, wouldn't agree that all abortions are but certainly yes, second trimester abortions (when the life / health of the baby and mother are not threatened in any significant way) are pretty despicable.

Especially so I feel, in western countries that have social welfare systems in place to help parents that may struggle financially.

NachoBusiness

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Well, it beats leaving women to die or driving them to suicide.

I was told two days ago on this thread that 15,000 was a low number.

If that's the case, then I would suggest that the number that represents the cases which you are citing would be almost nonexistent in comparison.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

NachoBusiness wrote: »

I was told two days ago on this thread that 15,000 was a low number.

If that's the case, then I would suggest that the number that represents the cases which you are citing would be almost nonexistent in comparison.

Relatively low number. 15,000 out of 100k+ is relatively low.