anyone else fed up hearing about abortion already

jameorahiely

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

^ Even in isolation I have no idea what that sentence means. Taken as, what I can only guess was it's intention, specifically a reply to my post leaves me even more lost however. Perhaps someone else can translate for me?

Halarious, get someone to translate, what a corker :rolleyes:

It's in response to your first sentence.

ohnonotgmail

frag420 wrote: »

To those of you that are Pro-Life...what post birth groups are you a member of and support that may help disabled children, homeless children, hungry children, abused children etc etc etc!?

Do any of you support either financially or other any of the following children groups...

The Children's Rights Alliance
Barnardos
LauraLynn
Barretstown
Focus Ireland
MakeaWish
TempleStreet
CARI

I ask as it seems that the vast majority of the anti abortion/Pro Life crowd here and that I have met in the real world are in fact Pro Birth and after birth they don't give a crap??

I asked a Pro Life lady I met in Galway last summer this very asme question. She could not answer. I asked how much she donates of her time to children already alive that are suffering and she refused to answer, a sheepish look in her eye as she knew she was on the backfoot. I asked if she had her last tenner would she spend it on feeding/housing a homeless child or on her anti abortion agenda and she refused to answer.

So are you Pro Life folks as committed to life once the child is born? Do you visit children hospitals to help out, maybe read stories to the sick kids, donate some money to help with services or is it someone else problem once birth occurs?

they stop caring once it is born.

donkeykong5

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

Now that publicity loving panti bliss has jumped on the bandwagon. (As abortion is something that really would affect his daily life ). I am wondering who will be next with their views. Thinking una mullally and lynn ruane and defo david norris. ![/nQUOTE]


it is shocking that people not directly affected should have an opinion. Perhaps we should only allow women to vote on any future referendum?

No problem with anyone voting on referendum. It's the personal pontificating attention seeking before hand that makes my skin crawl. Need to add that one in four guy to my list as well. His name escapes me at the moment.

jameorahiely

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they stop caring once it is born.

Do the pro abortionists stop wanting disabled children killed once their born?

Christy42

donkeykong5 wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No problem with anyone voting on referendum. It's the personal pontificating attention seeking before hand that makes my skin crawl. Need to add that one in four guy to my list as well. His name escapes me at the moment.

Are you not allowed campaign for these this now?

ohnonotgmail

donkeykong5 wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No problem with anyone voting on referendum. It's the personal pontificating attention seeking before hand that makes my skin crawl. Need to add that one in four guy to my list as well. His name escapes me at the moment.

it is worrying that you are so upset by a citizen giving their opinion on something which may be the subject of a referendum. I would have thought that everybody should be encouraged to give their opinion.

Mary63

Sick to the back teeth of it too.

I will stop my subscription to the Irish Times shortly if Una Gan guna Mullalley doesn't stop with the tripe.

ohnonotgmail

jameorahiely wrote: »

Do the pro abortionists stop wanting disabled children killed once their born?

who are these pro-abortionists you speak of?

Grayson

jameorahiely wrote: »

Are you pro or anti colonoscopies? I still not sure what's your point?

I believe this is my third time explaining this.

You made the point that people die during abortions. I'm assuming you mean to show that this means abortions are bad and should therefore be illegal.

I pointed out that a termination is safer than a colonoscopy. If you want to ban abortions because people die during them then you should want to ban a more dangerous procedure too.

nozzferrahhtoo

jameorahiely wrote: »

Halarious, get someone to translate, what a corker :rolleyes: It's in response to your first sentence.

So your criteria for what to include in lack of abortions.... is abortions? And you think my requirement for a translation is comical? Wow. Just wow. No I still genuinely do not see what your point was meant to be. Perhaps if you could flesh it out a little more.

You want to know the death count caused by not having access to abortions.... I have at least given you the criteria on how you might at least begin to establish that number.

It certainly is not at the core of my own position on abortion. I see no reason ethically or morally for us NOT to have abortion by choice up to 16 weeks at all. So justifying it by pointing to deaths not having it causes..... is not something I have to do. But if it is a number you require, at least now you can see a starting point to getting it.

PopePalpatine

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they stop caring once it is born.

Case in point - the Tuam Babies.

jameorahiely

Grayson wrote: »

I believe this is my third time explaining this.

You made the point that people die during abortions. I'm assuming you mean to show that this means abortions are bad and should therefore be illegal.

I pointed out that a termination is safer than a colonoscopy. If you want to ban abortions because people die during them then you should want to ban a more dangerous procedure too.

I made the point people die during abortions in to you stating you were disgusted that someone died from not having an abortion. I asked you were you disgusted that women died due to having an abortion, you answered with colonoscopy.

frag420

jameorahiely wrote: »

Do the pro abortionists stop wanting disabled children killed once their born?

Lets make a deal, you answer the questions i wrote above and then I will answer your question...not too difficult is it?

If you don't answer I will donate money to Pro Abortion, Pro Gay, Pro Trans groups in your name with a link to your profile here...:D:D:D

So man up and tell us if you care post birth or not?

Grayson

jameorahiely wrote: »

I made the point people die during abortions in to you stating you were disgusted that someone died from not having an abortion. I asked you were you disgusted that women died due to having an abortion, you answered with colonoscopy.

There's a difference between dying because you were refused a medical treatment that you needed and dying because of a side effect. One is deliberately refusing treatment leading to death and the other is an accident.

Can you imagine deliberately refusing any other treatment, knowing that it would result in the death of the patient?

Am I saddened by the death of someone due to complications? yes of course I am. However I wouldn't refuse them treatment because there's a tiny possibility that something might go wrong. If I used that standard then we wouldn't even give patients aspirin because they might have a reaction to it.

infogiver

gctest50 wrote: »

Does it now

Of course. Why not? Do you doubt the speakers credentials?

jameorahiely

frag420 wrote: »

Lets make a deal, you answer the questions i wrote above and then I will answer your question...not too difficult is it?

If you don't answer I will donate money to Pro Abortion, Pro Gay, Pro Trans groups in your name with a link to your profile here...:D:D:D

So man up and tell us if you care post birth or not?

Donate away

Yes I do donote both time and money. Do you, or do you just shrug and say " should of killed them, not my problem"


Do you donote to the pregnant womans drinking fund? Some expectant mothers find it hard to fund the eight pints a week reccommended by experts.

nozzferrahhtoo

Grayson wrote: »

Am I saddened by the death of someone due to complications? yes of course I am.

^ Yea I am saddened when people die during abortion in the same way I was this week saddened that a 15 year old girl died simply for eating a take out.

In other words I am saddened by the specific event, and hold it as no way relevant to the thing that caused it. I do not indict abortion with the death any more than I indict fast food with that teens death. It caused it, yes, but it is thankfully an outlier rare event.

donkeykong5

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

donkeykong5 wrote: »

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No problem with anyone voting on referendum. It's the personal pontificating attention seeking before hand that makes my skin crawl. Need to add that one in four guy to my list as well. His name escapes me at the moment.

it is worrying that you are so upset by a citizen giving their opinion on something which may be the subject of a referendum. I would have thought that everybody should be encouraged to give their opinion.

No problem with any citizen giving their opinion. Why would I. Just panti bliss in media already reminded me of the other publicity seeking morons from the last referendum.

Grayson

http://www.thejournal.ie/citizens-assembly-submissions-3173739-Jan2017/

Some of the letters sent to the citizens assembly.

When the blood flows from abortion, Satan has his day and that has consequences for everyone. Jesus told us in the Garden of Gethsemane, all who draw the sword will die by the sword. God forbid Ireland to fall on the sword but when it comes to God – ‘tis all or nothing.

frag420

jameorahiely wrote: »

Donate away

Yes I do donote both time and money. Do you, or do you just shrug and say " should of killed them, not my problem"


Do you donote to the pregnant womans drinking fund? Some expectant mothers find it hard to fund the eight pints a week reccommended by experts.

How very classy of you!! So who are these expectant women that drink eight pints a week? Why are you not standing outside pubs stopping them from drinking?

What groups do you volunteer for, donate your time to?

Having said that, drinking when pregnant may explain your grammar and spelling (donote??), maybe your mother should have laid of the gin when pregnant with you, just a thought!?

jameorahiely

frag420 wrote: »

How very classy of you!! So who are these expectant women that drink eight pints a week? Why are you not standing outside pubs stopping them from drinking?

What groups do you volunteer for, donate your time to?

Having said that, drinking when pregnant may explain your grammar and spelling (donote??), maybe your mother should have laid of the gin when pregnant with you, just a thought!?

I see you lied. I "manned up" as you so sexistly put it and answered yours, yet you did not answer mine.

Do you advocate for aborting all people with dyslexia too?

Mr. CooL ICE

jameorahiely wrote: »

Do you advocate for aborting all people with dyslexia too?

Sweet jesus dude, what are you on about?

nozzferrahhtoo

jameorahiely wrote: »

Some expectant mothers find it hard to fund the eight pints a week reccommended by experts.

And this little "bait and switch" move is a great highlight of just how honest you intend NOT to be on the subject of abortion. Because you trotted out this "recommended drinks" narrative before and were roundly corrected on it. Yet here you are trotting it out again unedited.

I will repeat what I wrote the first time, which you ignored. We simply have no idea if there is any effect or not. And people like those in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics AT BEST only ever come out with statements like "Just play it safe and do not drink any".

In fact that is the general narrative offered by most. Even the authors of a Danish study in 2012 who found no issues at all with even up to 8 drinks a week during pregnancy still sold the "play it safe anyway" narrative.

But notice the CHASM of difference between them saying they found no issue with 8 drinks....... and your distortion of that into that they are RECOMMENDING those 8 drinks. Honest this is most certainly not and I am glad you said it as it is just you giving yourself rope to hang yourself with.

But as Time Magazine reported "As even the AAP report acknowledges, there is consensus on this issue. A large share of OBs in the U.S. report telling their pregnant patients that some alcohol is fine." and that "This wasn’t just an absence of any evidence at all. There are many studies—largely from Europe—which compare women who do not drink at all to those who drink lightly in pregnancy. Some of these are better than others—some of the best are a series of studies from Denmark—but their results consistently fail to show negative impacts of pregnancy drinking at low levels."

And more recent studies validate this too. Repeatedly.

But certainly do not allow facts get in the way of propaganda, when propaganda is all you have to offer.

infogiver

stinkle wrote: »

Can you point out where I said "thing" and "not human" please? Or else stop twisting my comments and projecting your own emotions onto them.

You asked a q and I answered. You carried a foetus and gave birth to a neonate, or in laywoman's terms, a baby. Congratulations btw, and I genuinely mean that. Unfortunately not every woman had the same positive experience as you. do you have actual specific issues with the biology I spoke about?

I'm sorry you don't like actual medical terminology, but that's your problem. I say this as a woman working in reproductive health, where we use the term "foetus" daily. It's not intended to piss prolifers off, it's for clarity in communication.

My gestational history is none of your business and adds nothing to anyone's opinion on this topic IMO.

I find it interesting that you work in the world of human reproduction.
Do you deal with expectant or potential parents face to face or not at all?

jameorahiely

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

Sweet jesus dude, what are you on about?

Isn't that what the poster was suggesting?

My mother should have laid in to gin (an old wives tale, gin is supposed to cause an abortion) because my spelling and grammar is inacurate

I was wondering do the see bad spelling/ grammar as justification for abortion, or was it just me they wished was miscarried?)

(isn't commenting on spelling and grammar against the ah rules? )

Grayson

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Hilarious and yet, at the same time, quite disturbing.

https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/11140251_951610748244567_4340495879914493500_n.png?oh=d3e6dc3e6418998921ed57508c2ad5fa&oe=592425BF

Be careful, abortion may lead to Buddhism.

jameorahiely

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And this little "bait and switch" move is a great highlight of just how honest you intend NOT to be on the subject of abortion. Because you trotted out this "recommended drinks" narrative before and were roundly corrected on it. Yet here you are trotting it out again unedited.

I will repeat what I wrote the first time, which you ignored. We simply have no idea if there is any effect or not. And people like those in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Academy of Pediatrics AT BEST only ever come out with statements like "Just play it safe and do not drink any".

In fact that is the general narrative offered by most. Even the authors of a Danish study in 2012 who found no issues at all with even up to 8 drinks a week during pregnancy still sold the "play it safe anyway" narrative.

But notice the CHASM of difference between them saying they found no issue with 8 drinks....... and your distortion of that into that they are RECOMMENDING those 8 drinks. Honest this is most certainly not and I am glad you said it as it is just you giving yourself rope to hang yourself with.

But as Time Magazine reported "As even the AAP report acknowledges, there is consensus on this issue. A large share of OBs in the U.S. report telling their pregnant patients that some alcohol is fine." and that "This wasn’t just an absence of any evidence at all. There are many studies—largely from Europe—which compare women who do not drink at all to those who drink lightly in pregnancy. Some of these are better than others—some of the best are a series of studies from Denmark—but their results consistently fail to show negative impacts of pregnancy drinking at low levels."

And more recent studies validate this too. Repeatedly.

But certainly do not allow facts get in the way of propaganda, when propaganda is all you have to offer.

How much gin is recommended?

frag420

jameorahiely wrote: »

I see you lied. I "manned up" as you so sexistly put it and answered yours, yet you did not answer mine.

Do you advocate for aborting all people with dyslexia too?

Here is my answer for you...

I am Pro-Choice. I believe in the best care for the foetus/child pre and post birth.

However when the care for or presence of the foetus has a direct impact on the life and/or health of the woman then I believe in her choice to terminate the pregnancy. This must be done within a specific time (I am open to discussion on this but would advocate for as early as posible) I do not advocate late abortions unless absolutely required to save the life of the mother.

I do not believe in abortion as a contraceptive. Ideally I would like a world where abortion is not required but sadly it is in some circumstances.

I have made my point as simply as possible for you to understand, good luck trying to twist it but I am sure you manage it somehow!!

ohnonotgmail

Grayson wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/citizens-assembly-submissions-3173739-Jan2017/

Some of the letters sent to the citizens assembly.

expect any referendum to bring out all of the pro-choice nutters. that is mild compared to what we can expect.

Mr. CooL ICE

jameorahiely wrote: »

Isn't that what the poster was suggesting?

No. No, it quite clearly isn't.