Late Late Show April 27th

ouxbbkqtswdfaw

At the end of the day, you can't get away from the fact that abortion is the killing of a living thing.

Hotblack Desiato

Every time you eat, you are killing a living thing.

pleas advice

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Every time you eat, you are killing a living thing.

ah here, lock it up mods

NAGDEFI

SusieBlue wrote: »

Fetuses aren’t people. And abortion isn’t murder. If it’s murder why do we have it written into our constitution that we permit women to travel to ‘murder’ these Irish citizens?
Oh wait. Because it isn’t murder.

Susie you can't even spell 'foetus' let alone define what one is.

It's a matter of opinion whether they are people or not.

NAGDEFI

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I was specifically talking about the show last night, tough luck if the debate didn't go your way.

It's a desperate situation when you have to steal the Avonmore milk logo..

NAGDEFI

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Every time you eat, you are killing a living thing.

You've too much time on your hands... come on, back to the Atheism and Agnostic forum with you. Your usual haunt Chat show fora are a bit light for such a deep thinker:)

NAGDEFI

Skid X wrote: »

You must be joking, back in the day it would regularly pass 700

There were a few non-toy show threads that got over 1000

Atlantic, Skid, Donie, Welshmegaman, Donkeykong, Robert etc..i hope we can all move on from this and have our light hearted posts on chat shows in future despite our differing and strongly felt views on the 8th:) It would be a shame otherwise.

I don't think any of us want to be defined by this one issue.

SusieBlue

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Susie you can't even spell 'foetus' let alone define what one is.

It's a matter of opinion whether they are people or not.

Both are accepted spellings of the word, my phone autocorrects to fetus so I use that one. However if you have to resort to poking fun at alleged spelling mistakes, you mustn’t have any valid points to make.

I accept that it’s a matter of opinion whether they are people or not.
I don’t believe a fetus is equal to a living person, so I shouldn’t have to live my life restricted by your beliefs, just because you equate it’s worth to that of a living adult.
That is literally the whole point of being pro-choice yet you keep missing it.

NAGDEFI

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Every time you eat, you are killing a living thing.

When you scratch your arm i'm sure you kill a few living cells. That doesn't equate those cells to human embryos. Or the lettuce you may have eaten today.

NAGDEFI

SusieBlue wrote: »

Both are accepted spellings of the word, my phone autocorrects to fetus so I use that one. However if you have to resort to poking fun at alleged spelling mistakes, you mustn’t have any valid points to make.

I accept that it’s a matter of opinion whether they are people or not.
I don’t believe a fetus is equal to a living person, so I shouldn’t have to live my life restricted by your beliefs, just because you equate it’s worth to that of a living adult.
That is literally the whole point of being pro-choice yet you keep missing it.

Fair enough, apologies, i see it can be spealt that way.

Well i don't think your views on a foetus should result in protection being removed for the unborn.

No you don't get the point and never will i think. You want every individual to have a choice to kill an unborn. Can you not see how many feel society and government should have a role in protecting the unborn which overrides individual feeling?

None of us have the right to do whatever we want. To many it's free choice to kill. Society has to protect it's most vulnerable.

NAGDEFI

Of the 8.75 million abortions in the UK since 1969 how many Bobby Charltons, Richard Ashcrofts, Paloma Faiths etc were killed? Maybe a few footballers under the granny rule and we'd be going to Russia!! I know some will say we may have been saved a few mass murderers too.But i like to look on humanity as 95% decent people. So i look on those abortions and say what a waste.

I know a great many were the result of desperate personal situations.But i like to think life first.

SusieBlue

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Fair enough, apologies, i see it can be spealt that way.

Well i don't think your views on a foetus should result in protection being removed for the unborn.

No you don't get the point and never will i think. You want every individual to have a choice to kill an unborn. Can you not see how many feel society and government should have a role in protecting the unborn which overrides individual feeling?

None of us have the right to do whatever we want. To many it's free choice to kill. Society has to protect it's most vulnerable.

Well if that’s how you feel I presume you are campaigning to repeal the 13th and 14th amendments which specifically give women the constitutional right to travel to procure an abortion.
If you genuinely believe it to be killing persons than you would be doing this, otherwise you are just a hypocrite who is happy to export the problem.
Not in my backyard type thinking.

Society has to protect its most vulenerable... the unborn are not members of society.
The women carrying them, are though.
And it’s these vulnerable living citizens that we are putting in dangerous, distressing situations by exporting their healthcare, just so that we can pretend there is no abortion in Ireland.

There is abortion in Ireland anyway. It’s happening despite the 8th.
What were being asked is whether we want to regulate it, making it safer and less riskier for our women, or if we’re happy to keep dropping them at the departure gates to export the problem, putting our women in dangerous situations.

And regardless of all that, the 8th effects maternity care for absolutely every woman, for every wanted pregnancy.
It isn’t just about abortion.

NAGDEFI

SusieBlue wrote: »

Well if that’s how you feel I presume you are campaigning to repeal the 13th and 14th amendments which specifically give women the constitutional right to travel to procure an abortion.
If you genuinely believe it to be killing persons than you would be doing this, otherwise you are just a hypocrite who is happy to export the problem.
Not in my backyard type thinking.

Society has to protect its most vulenerable... the unborn are not members of society.
The women carrying them, are though.
And it’s these vulnerable living citizens that we are putting in dangerous, distressing situations by exporting their healthcare, just so that we can pretend there is no abortion in Ireland.

There is abortion in Ireland anyway. It’s happening despite the 8th.
What were being asked is whether we want to regulate it, making it safer and less riskier for our women, or if we’re happy to keep dropping them at the departure gates to export the problem, putting our women in dangerous situations.

And regardless of all that, the 8th effects maternity care for absolutely every woman, for every wanted pregnancy.
It isn’t just about abortion.

Susie you can't stop people from travelling. And that viewpoint doesn't make one a hypocrite.

Also i fear, as do others, that easy access to abortion will result in a lot more of them. Hence, for what i believe to be the greater good i'll be voting No.

Apologies again about the spelling, petty of me. You have argued your position fairly and i respect that. I've never been effected by the issue of abortion in my family. Maybe my position on the issue would change if i was. But where i am, and where you are is borne out of sincerity.

The major difference between both sides is usually one doesn't view the foetus as a human being and the other does.

I think we'll have to agree to differ and accept the democratic will of the people.

SusieBlue

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Susie you can't stop people from travelling. And that viewpoint doesn't make one a hypocrite.

Also i fear, as do others, that easy access to abortion will result in a lot more of them. Hence, for what i believe to be the greater good i'll be voting No.

Apologies again about the spelling, petty of me. You have argued your position fairly and i respect that. I've never been effected by the issue of abortion in my family. Maybe my position on the issue would change if i was. But where i am, and where you are is borne out of sincerity.

The major difference between both sides is usually one doesn't view the foetus as a human being and the other does.

We can, we did it before we voted the 13th and 14th amendments into the constitution.

Those referendums happened after we stopped a pregnant 14 year old who had been raped by a male relative at the airport with her parents on her way to the UK for an abortion.
We stopped her because she was traveling to end her pregnancy.

And there was such a national outcry at how disgustingly we treated that young girl, that we held a referendum and put it in our constitution that women had the right to travel for abortions.

If we truly believed it to be killing we would be repealing those amendments. We would be testing every child bearing woman upon leaving and entering the country.
Because if we truly believed that these women were traveling to cruelly murder an actual baby, a citizen of this country, nothing would be too much trouble to enforce the law.

Except we don’t.
Because people don’t care so long as it isn’t happening here.
Out of sight and out of mind. Not in my backyard.
We’re a nation of hypocrites.

Martina1991

NAGDEFI wrote:

The major difference between both sides is usually one doesn't view the foetus as a human being and the other does.

One side thinks a woman should give birth at all costs. Whether the child is wanted or not. Healthy or dead. Whether the woman will suffer or not.

NAGDEFI

SusieBlue wrote: »

We can, we did it before we voted the 13th and 14th amendments into the constitution.

Those referendums happened after we stopped a pregnant 14 year old who had been raped by a male relative at the airport with her parents on her way to the UK for an abortion.
We stopped her because she was traveling to end her pregnancy.

And there was such a national outcry at how disgustingly we treated that young girl, that we held a referendum and put it in our constitution that women had the right to travel for abortions.

If we truly believed it to be killing we would be repealing those amendments. We would be testing every child bearing woman upon leaving and entering the country.
Because if we truly believed that these women were traveling to cruelly murder an actual baby, a citizen of this country, nothing would be too much trouble to enforce the law.

Except we don’t.
Because people don’t care so long as it isn’t happening here.
Out of sight and out of mind. Not in my backyard.
We’re a nation of hypocrites.

The 1992 X case attitude would never be tolerated now. The right to travel was well established by the courts. Well i do care. I'd hope a lot of those young women received proper counselling and care and not be presented with an abortion first option.

Is it unseemly that Irish women go to the UK for abortion, absolutely. Why do i not want these facilities at home. I'm scared the rates of abortion will rise rapidly. So the situation we have, while far from ideal, is the lesser of 2 evils i feel.

DickSwiveller

Martina1991 wrote: »

One side thinks a woman should give birth at all costs. Whether the child is wanted or not. Healthy or dead. Whether the woman will suffer or not.

That's just pure nonsense. You need to get out of your echo chamber and engage with pro-life people.

NAGDEFI

Martina1991 wrote: »

One side thinks a woman should give birth at all costs. Whether the child is wanted or not. Healthy or dead. Whether the woman will suffer or not.

No.

Not at all costs, the woman's health comes first. Savita was ONE case that went horribly wrong. There are huge mistakes in all areas of health. That poor Phelan lady, 43, misdiagnosed and now has terminal cancer. All the Hepatitis scandals. That's a gross over simplification to say a side wants a woman to give birth at all costs.

Same as saying all Yes voters agree with abortion on demand. Equally untrue.

SusieBlue

NAGDEFI wrote: »

The 1992 X case attitude would never be tolerated now. The right to travel was well established by the courts. Well i do care. I'd hope a lot of those young women received proper counselling and care and not be presented with an abortion first option.

Is it unseemly that Irish women go to the UK for abortion, absolutely. Why do i not want these facilities at home. I'm scared the rates of abortion will rise rapidly. So the situation we have, while far from ideal, is the lesser of 2 evils i feel.

Your version of the lesser of two evils will undoubtedly cause suffering and distress to women in vulnerable situations.

I don’t think the health and well-being of women should be a sacrifice or considered colleteral damage just so we can say we’re an abortion free country.

We aren’t. We never were. We never will be. As long as women are conceiving there will be women who will seek to end it, for their own reasons.
This has literally been happening since the dawn of time.
We’ve just moved on from coat hangers and scalding baths to Ryanair departure gates.

SusieBlue

NAGDEFI wrote: »

No.

Not at all costs, the woman's health comes first. Savita was ONE case that went horribly wrong. There are huge mistakes in all areas of health. That poor Phelan lady, 43, misdiagnosed and now has terminal cancer. All the Hepatitis scandals. That's a gross over simplification to say a side wants a woman to give birth at all costs.

Same as saying all Yes voters agree with abortion on demand. Equally untrue.

There was also Malek Thawley, Sheila Hodgers, Michelle Harte, Ann Lovett, the woman kept on life support to gestate a pregnancy even though she was brain dead against the wishes of her husband.....

Even one woman is too many.
If women were allowed to make their own choices they might never have died.

NAGDEFI

The martyred women narrative is becoming tiresome at present. One poster replied to taking a baby to term with a list of every know complication and condition that could arise. It's getting like the hashtag movements at the moment that don't accept the rule of law as in the Belfast case.

Are people going to seriously argue that abortions won't take place that are 'lifestyle' choices. Fell pregnant and it doesn't suit me careerwise, i only wanted 2 children etc. I feel they are selfish reasons to kill an unborn.

NAGDEFI

SusieBlue wrote: »

There was also Malek Thawley, Sheila Hodgers, Michelle Harte, Ann Lovett, the woman kept on life support to gestate a pregnancy even though she was brain dead against the wishes of her husband.....

Even one woman is too many.
If women were allowed to make their own choices they might never have died.

You're going back to 1984 to Anne Lovett and that was a different era with shame of being pregnant outside wedlock. That's irrelevant to today's discussion.

SusieBlue

NAGDEFI wrote: »

The martyred women narrative is becoming tiresome at present. One poster replied to taking a baby to term with a list of every know complication and condition that could arise. It's getting like the hashtag movements at the moment that don't accept the rule of law as in the Belfast case.

Are people going to seriously argue that abortions won't take place that are 'lifestyle' choices. Fell pregnant and it doesn't suit me careerwise, i only wanted 2 children etc. I feel they are selfish reasons to kill an unborn.

No I actually didn’t, I only included the ones off the top of my head that I remembered from when I was in that situation.
I’m sure there are many more.

Why are you oversimplifying and dismissing the sacrifice and impact pregnancy had on women’s lives?

Thepoet85

NAGDEFI wrote:

Are people going to seriously argue that abortions won't take place that are 'lifestyle' choices. Fell pregnant and it doesn't suit me careerwise, i only wanted 2 children etc. I feel they are selfish reasons to kill an unborn.

Yes. I think it was made pretty clear last night that this would be the case.

SusieBlue

NAGDEFI wrote: »

You're going back to 1984 to Anne Lovett and that was a different era with shame of being pregnant outside wedlock. That's irrelevant to today's discussion.

Michelle Harte passed away not too long ago. Same for Malek Thawley.

NAGDEFI

SusieBlue wrote: »

There was also Malek Thawley, Sheila Hodgers, Michelle Harte, Ann Lovett, the woman kept on life support to gestate a pregnancy even though she was brain dead against the wishes of her husband.....

Even one woman is too many.
If women were allowed to make their own choices they might never have died.

Countless thousands of babies are too many too. They have rights also.

You can only arrive at best practice. Unfortunately many women die giving birth also. Portlaoise hospital had many awful cases.

NAGDEFI

SusieBlue wrote: »

Michelle Harte passed away not too long ago. Same for Malek Thawley.

Unfortunately unborn babies aborted don't have names i could type or i'd be here all night.

SusieBlue

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Countless thousands of babies are too many too. They have rights also.

You can only arrive at best practice. Unfortunately many women die giving birth also. Portlaoise hospital had many awful cases.

They shouldn’t have any rights at the expense of the woman carrying it.

We need to look after the people we do have before we look after the potential people.

A woman’s needs, wants, and wishes should always come before that of a pre 12 week old fetus. She is more important unless she chooses otherwise.

SusieBlue

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Unfortunately unborn babies aborted don't have names i could type or i'd be here all night.

I’m sure the families of those women who needlessly lost their lives will appreciate that.

NAGDEFI

SusieBlue wrote: »

They shouldn’t have any rights at the expense of the woman carrying it.

We need to look after the people we do have before we look after the potential people.

A woman’s needs, wants, and wishes should always come before that of a pre 12 week old fetus. She is more important unless she chooses otherwise.

I disagree. 2 human beings. Woman's health and well being paramount and to be saved at the cost of the baby if it comes to it.