Strike For Repeal?

Absolam · 12-03-2017 04:06AM

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

First of all I was taking about European Union

And yet you said Europe. Why would we want to only consider the EU? Why not the Eurozone, or the world? I suspect you're trying to exclude countries from your sample purely to skew the data so you can make a misleading claim.

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

Second the countries you mentioned allowed abortion in almost all the cases which include mental health. Ireland is the only red one. Also I don't count city states as countries like UK and Germany.

you mean mental health like a risk of suicide? Maybe they do. I note you're trying to exclude other countries from your sample now. These ones just because you don't count them? This is sounding remarkably arbitrary...

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

Also Poland is another country like Ireland which is controlled by religious zealots which tells you everything you need to know. However it is still more liberal than Ireland.

Well, you appear to have some strong opinions about countries it must be said, which may well tell me much of what I need to know. But, whilst your claim that "LITERALLY ALL OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ALLOW ABORTION YES ALL 27 THE ONLY ONE THAT DOES NOT IS IRELAND 1 OUT OF 28 COUNTRIES" is demonstrably absolute and utter nonsense, I'm happy to agree with you that Ireland is certainly one of a number of countries that places strong restrictions on abortion. Justifiably, in my opinion, but I suspect you won't agree with that.

Absolam · 12-03-2017 04:10AM

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

Are you joking me with these city states/Island states? Malta has a population that is LESS than half of DUBLIN.
Liechtenstein? Really?
San Marino? I am done, you have to be trolling.

Are they not countries in Europe? If so, you should let the UN know. Or are you claiming that only big countries (other than the U.K., or Poland, or Germany, any others you don't like obviously) should be allowed make their own laws about abortion? Seems a bit mean.

Live65a846d0ee · 12-03-2017 04:13AM

Absolam wrote: »

And yet you said Europe. Why would we want to only consider the EU? Why not the Eurozone, or the world? I suspect you're trying to exclude countries from your sample purely to skew the data so you can make a misleading claim.
you mean mental health like a risk of suicide? Maybe they do. I note you're trying to exclude other countries from your sample now. These ones just because you don't count them? This is sounding remarkably arbitrary...

Well, you appear to have some strong opinions about countries it must be said, which may well tell me much of what I need to know. But, whilst your claim that "LITERALLY ALL OTHER EUROPEAN COUNTRIES ALLOW ABORTION YES ALL 27 THE ONLY ONE THAT DOES NOT IS IRELAND 1 OUT OF 28 COUNTRIES" is demonstrably absolute and utter nonsense, I'm happy to agree with you that Ireland is certainly one of a number of countries that places strong restrictions on abortion. Justifiably, in my opinion, but I suspect you won't agree with that.

I consider European Union as it is the most advanced in terms of advancement. To be a member of the European Union you need to have certain criteria met. Countries outside the EU are mostly less developed or poorer than countries inside(exception Switzerland). This is the reason that Ireland looks like a village compared to the UK. Just go to London and it feels like you are in a mega city while in Dublin you feel like a village just shows how 2 countries developed differently. One is secular and one is religious. Dublin is the size of a village in the UK. Your ignorance is beyond comprhension.

Live65a846d0ee · 12-03-2017 04:15AM

Absolam wrote: »

Are they not countries in Europe? If so, you should let the UN know. Or are you claiming that only big countries (other than the U.K., or Poland, or Germany, any others you don't like obviously) should be allowed make their own laws about abortion? Seems a bit mean.

You pull out ''countries'' with a population the size of an Irish village in county Leitrim.
Enjoy your right to breed and continue to overpopulate the already overpopulated world. Have 20 children.

Live65a846d0ee · 12-03-2017 04:22AM

Absolam wrote: »

Are they not countries in Europe? If so, you should let the UN know. Or are you claiming that only big countries (other than the U.K., or Poland, or Germany, any others you don't like obviously) should be allowed make their own laws about abortion? Seems a bit mean.

I have read your posts and have seen that you are religious zealot. I am done, thank you for the conversation but I have made it my life's promise to avoid conversing with zealots as they are already mind controlled by beings from other world and ant conversation is just a waste of breath.

JupiterKid · 12-03-2017 05:00AM

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

I consider European Union as it is the most advanced in terms of advancement. To be a member of the European Union you need to have certain criteria met. Countries outside the EU are mostly less developed or poorer than countries inside(exception Switzerland). This is the reason that Ireland looks like a village compared to the UK. Just go to London and it feels like you are in a mega city while in Dublin you feel like a village just shows how 2 countries developed differently. One is secular and one is religious. Dublin is the size of a village in the UK. Your ignorance is beyond comprhension.

Dublin is the size of a U.K. Village. Yeah sure.:rolleyes: It's bigger than Leeds, Sheffield, Bristol, Cardiff, Edinburgh. It's actually quite a sizeable city. But don't let that taint your rants.

I'm pro-choice but you do the pro-choice side no favours.

Absolam · 12-03-2017 05:46AM

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

I consider European Union as it is the most advanced in terms of advancement.

More advanced in terms of advancement? That's a heck of an achievement right enough. Since you're excluding the UK and Germany and Poland, should we assume they are also less advanced in terms of advancement?

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

You pull out ''countries'' with a population the size of an Irish village in county Leitrim.

I didn't pull them out; they're countries in Europe, aren't they?

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

Your ignorance is beyond comprhension.

Aw now that's just rude. And I already pointed out against the rules.

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

Enjoy your right to breed and continue to overpopulate the already overpopulated world. Have 20 children.

The whole personal remarks thing though... really? I'm getting the impression that rather than discuss the facts you just want to be mean about people....

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

I have read your posts and have seen that you are religious zealot. I am done, thank you for the conversation but I have made it my life's promise to avoid conversing with zealots as they are already mind controlled by beings from other world and ant conversation is just a waste of breath.

Ah... I see. If you'd started with "I believe there are people who are mind controlled by beings from another world" I have to admit I probably wouldn't have bothered discussing the paucity of facts, or sense, in your post.

volchitsa · 12-03-2017 08:17AM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Nope I haven't lied.

Here's the bit about the vunerable woman who couldn't give consent

and

A link to the full summary report for anyone interested in reading it. It's grim. http://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/new_reports/AAAF9029.pdf
If the report is too much for you to read, here's a summary from the telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/12/20/watchdogs-release-damning-reports-marie-stopes-abortion-clinics/

I didn't say you lied about what was in the report.
I'm saying you're effectively lying when you use a present tense (among other techniques) to portray incidents taken from a highly critical inspection report as being the usual way abortions now take place in the UK.

If someone took the HIQA report into Savita Halappanavar's death using the present tense and in the way you've done here, you wouldn't consider that a truthful representation of how women with 2nd trimester miscarriages are likely to be treated in Ireland, or even in GUH - or would you?

That's why I say you're lying, because you're deliberately trying to mislead people.

stefanovich · 12-03-2017 08:18AM

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

Dublin is the size of a village in the UK. Your ignorance is beyond comprhension.

You are joking right?

Stupid paddies right? Look how advanced we are in London with our Sharia patrols and Isis recruiters.

jameorahiely · 12-03-2017 09:29AM

volchitsa wrote: »

I didn't say you lied about what was in the report.
I'm saying you're effectively lying when you use a present tense (among other techniques) to portray incidents taken from a highly critical inspection report as being the usual way abortions now take place in the UK.

If someone took the HIQA report into Savita Halappanavar's death using the present tense and in the way you've done here, you wouldn't consider that a truthful representation of how women with 2nd trimester miscarriages are likely to be treated in Ireland, or even in GUH - or would you?

That's why I say you're lying, because you're deliberately trying to mislead people.

A critical report on GUH one be one report on one hospital. The summary report for CQC was based on 10 and their headquarters clinics out of 14. The auditors felt it was representative of the way business was carried out until the were forced to suspend services. The majority of staff were not trained in many important areas. Can you see the difference between the systematic failings across the organisation and one case in one hospital. Yes I would say it's
A true representation of what happenned in this organisation, and so do the inspectors.

And stop accusing me of lying. If the facts discredit your position so be it.

And yes, you did accuse me of lying about what was in the report

volchitsa wrote: »

Here's your original post, in full:

As I suggested in my reply to that post, it's a complete misrepresentation of the situation : you took an official report criticizing incidents of malpractice, a repor which actually led to the clinics involved being closed until they put things right - and you presented that as the usual situation in the UK now, and as something that was likely to happen here if we didn't all protest against Marie Stopes.

You also added several allegations which are not even in the report, such as holding down vulnerable women, or women being looked down on for not terminating their pregnancies.

You're lying, basically, and there's no point in having a conversation with someone who lies. So I won't bother trying.

And I didn't even mention open top buckets full of foetal renaims being carried through waiting areas...

Wibbs · 12-03-2017 10:13AM

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

I consider European Union as it is the most advanced in terms of advancement.

That's a lot of advancing' going on.

To be a member of the European Union you need to have certain criteria met.

Yeah we really should have stuck to that when the EU included Greece...

Countries outside the EU are mostly less developed or poorer than countries inside(exception Switzerland). This is the reason that Ireland looks like a village compared to the UK.

Eh we're in the EU, so is the UK, though they're leaving and this is a reason in your head? Mkayyy...

Just go to London and it feels like you are in a mega city while in Dublin you feel like a village just shows how 2 countries developed differently.

and your basic understanding of the reasons for the differences in scale is completely absent.

One is secular and one is religious.

Nope, not a "reason". Neither are particularly religious, indeed one could easily argue London has more religions and more enclaves of same. Never mid that a century ago when both were part of Britain, Dublin was still much smaller than London and was the city least influenced by Catholicism.

Dublin is the size of a village in the UK.

Nope. It's not. In any event size isn't everything. Athens at the height of its influence in the classical world had a population that would struggle to fit Croke Park.

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

Enjoy your right to breed and continue to overpopulate the already overpopulated world. Have 20 children.

You do realise that the EU is concerned about dropping birth rates and the impact that will have on economics?(though I personally don't agree) Ireland is the outlier in this.

Your ignorance is beyond comprhension.

The levels of irony in this sentence just slowed down the internet.

Live65a846d0ee · 12-03-2017 01:19PM

Wibbs wrote: »

That's a lot of advancing' going on. Yeah we really should have stuck to that when the EU included Greece... Eh we're in the EU, so is the UK, though they're leaving and this is a reason in your head? Mkayyy... and your basic understanding of the reasons for the differences in scale is completely absent. Nope, not a "reason". Neither are particularly religious, indeed one could easily argue London has more religions and more enclaves of same. Never mid that a century ago when both were part of Britain, Dublin was still much smaller than London and was the city least influenced by Catholicism. Nope. It's not. In any event size isn't everything. Athens at the height of its influence in the classical world had a population that would struggle to fit Croke Park.

You do realise that the EU is concerned about dropping birth rates and the impact that will have on economics?(though I personally don't agree) Ireland is the outlier in this.

The levels of irony in this sentence just slowed down the internet.

Ok, just wanted to get one thing sorted, after that I am not interested in conversing with a zealot.
I actually never wanted to exclude UK Germany or whatever. I precisely wanted to include them as their abortion laws are excellent so that is completely invalid. Did you think for a minute? Why would I exclude countries that have liberal abortion laws?
I am not interested in discussing anything else with you as you are religious zealot so I will not even waste my time. I could factually disapprove all your statements however.

Absolam · 12-03-2017 01:27PM

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

Ok, just wanted to get one thing sorted, after that I am not interested in conversing with a zealot.
I actually never wanted to exclude UK Germany or whatever. I precisely wanted to include them as their abortion laws are excellent so that is completely invalid. Did you think for a minute? Why would I exclude countries that have liberal abortion laws?

Do you imagine everyone who questions you is a zealot? Are they all mind controlled by beings from another planet, or just some?

IvyTheTerrible · 12-03-2017 01:35PM

Wibbs is a religious zealot? I've heard it all now!

mahamageehad · 12-03-2017 01:43PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Nope. I stated there was a marie stopes clinic in NI, which there is.
Abortions are available there up to 9 weeks and 4 days with the correct paperwork from your doctor, which they are. Logic woukd follow (to most) that they would open clinics here if it was legalised, as they are the uk's biggest abortion provider and already in the north, they would expand down here if our laws allowed them to.

Sorry if I bamboozled you with more information (all accurate) than a 3 word slogan.
People do need to educate themselves, I agree

Fyi the law in England (when you read it you will understand why abortion clinics have to often change the reason given for termination, abortion on demand is not actually permitted under it)

The law as it stands
The Abortion Act 1967, as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, permits the termination of pregnancy up to 24 weeks’ gestation where two doctors have formed the opinion, in good faith, that:
‘The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family.’
Furthermore, a pregnancy may be terminated up to birth where two doctors have formed the opinion, in good faith, that:
‘The termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
‘The continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
‘There is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.’
The law further requires that abortion takes place on NHS or approved premises.

This will be my last response to you. I actually thought that you were one of the few pro-lifers on this thread capable of actual conversation, but apparently you're not. Abortions are not available in Northern Ireland at any time unless the life of the mother is at risk. I have provided numerous links to show this, and your only response has been to falsely continue asserting it to be the case and to insult my intelligence (bamboozled by more than 3 word slogans, seriously? :rolleyes:). The 1967 Abortion Act does not apply in Northern Ireland.

I have read the 1967 Abortion Act. I understand that it doesn't allow for abortion on demand. However, the UK government have a lot to answer for there. The doctors involved are equally culpable but it has become the status quo. Theoretically they could clamp down on abortion tomorrow and enforce those laws, but there seems to be no appetite to do that. In comparison, in NI they recently voted against allowing abortion in the case of rape or FFA.

This is the problem with people entrenched in their opinions, actual debate isn't possible because they're completely closed off to understanding the other side. I am pro-choice within specific confines. I am open to reviewing material put forward by both sides and judging them on their merits. I'm open to changing my opinion on facets of the debate. The Marie Stokes stuff put forward earlier is pretty shocking, but they were sanctioned for it. That doesn't mean that kind of stuff happens in every abortion clinic, despite what some people in this thread would have you believing. Actual conversation is almost impossible because the zealots on both sides want to change your opinion and attack you for having it, so the people in the middle generally bow out. That's pretty much happened with this thread already unfortunately.

jameorahiely · 12-03-2017 01:54PM

mahamageehad wrote: »

This will be my last response to you. I actually thought that you were one of the few pro-lifers on this thread capable of actual conversation, but apparently you're not. Abortions are not available in Northern Ireland at any time unless the life of the mother is at risk. I have provided numerous links to show this, and your only response has been to falsely continue asserting it to be the case and to insult my intelligence (bamboozled by more than 3 word slogans, seriously? :rolleyes:). The 1967 Abortion Act does not apply in Northern Ireland.

I have read the 1967 Abortion Act. I understand that it doesn't allow for abortion on demand. However, the UK government have a lot to answer for there. The doctors involved are equally culpable but it has become the status quo. Theoretically they could clamp down on abortion tomorrow and enforce those laws, but there seems to be no appetite to do that. In comparison, in NI they recently voted against allowing abortion in the case of rape or FFA.

This is the problem with people entrenched in their opinions, actual debate isn't possible because they're completely closed off to understanding the other side. I am pro-choice within specific confines. I am open to reviewing material put forward by both sides and judging them on their merits. I'm open to changing my opinion on facets of the debate. The Marie Stokes stuff put forward earlier is pretty shocking, but they were sanctioned for it. That doesn't mean that kind of stuff happens in every abortion clinic, despite what some people in this thread would have you believing. Actual conversation is almost impossible because the zealots on both sides want to change your opinion and attack you for having it, so the people in the middle generally bow out. That's pretty much happened with this thread already unfortunately.

Hang on a minute. You are the one that brought the law in NI in to it to somehow dispel the fact that there is a Marie Stopes clinic there.

The law and the marie stopes clinic state that abortion in available until 9 weeks and 4 days once you have the correct paperwork from your doctor, which is what I stated.

The 1967 abortion act applies to England, which I stated in my post.

Actual conversation is near impossible because some people refuse to a. Read what is wrote abd b. Accept facts.

Bow out if the facts don't suit you :rolleyes: providing facts is not attacking you :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

mahamageehad · 12-03-2017 02:20PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Hang on a minute. You are the one that brought the law in NI in to it to somehow dispel the fact that there is a Marie Stopes clinic there.

The law and the marie stopes clinic state that abortion in available until 9 weeks and 4 days once you have the correct paperwork from your doctor, which is what I stated.

The 1967 abortion act applies to England, which I stated in my post.

Actual conversation is near impossible because some people refuse to a. Read what is wrote abd b. Accept facts.

Bow out if the facts don't suit you :rolleyes: providing facts is not attacking you :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

No, attacking me is saying I can't understand anything longer than a 3 word slogan.

Sorry if I bamboozled you with more information (all accurate) than a 3 word slogan.

As the laws in NI only allow abortion under the same conditions as those in Southern Ireland, there's theoretically nothing stopping Marie Stokes opening a clinic here. Abortion is only allowed when the mother's life is a risk in the north and south. Considering that in 2015 combined abortion numbers from North and South are less than 50 though, it wouldn't make economic sense for them to do so though. It wouldn't surprised me if the clinic in Belfast was only staffed by a secretary on a part time basis because 99% of what they do up there is refer people to their english clinics.

Wibbs · 12-03-2017 02:28PM

Live65a846d0ee wrote:

I am not interested in discussing anything else with you as you are religious zealot so I will not even waste my time.

I could factually disapprove all your statements however.

No. I'm afraid you really couldn't.

IvyTheTerrible wrote: »

Wibbs is a religious zealot? I've heard it all now!

Yeah, like eh wut? :pac:

Outlaw Pete · 12-03-2017 03:02PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Yeah, like eh wut? :pac:

Come on man, your avatar is a priest.

hatrickpatrick · 12-03-2017 03:15PM

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

I consider European Union as it is the most advanced in terms of advancement.

jameorahiely · 12-03-2017 03:23PM

mahamageehad wrote: »

No, attacking me is saying I can't understand anything longer than a 3 word slogan.

As the laws in NI only allow abortion under the same conditions as those in Southern Ireland, there's theoretically nothing stopping Marie Stokes opening a clinic here. Abortion is only allowed when the mother's life is a risk in the north and south. Considering that in 2015 combined abortion numbers from North and South are less than 50 though, it wouldn't make economic sense for them to do so though. It wouldn't surprised me if the clinic in Belfast was only staffed by a secretary on a part time basis because 99% of what they do up there is refer people to their english clinics.

By saying you may have been bambozzled, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt that you weren't deliberately misrepresenting what my posts said.

Marie Stopes do not release the numbers for medical abortions performed in the north. They are not included in the figures as they are unknown. The numbers are flawed as they are missing this vital information.

Marie Stopes already have an "impartial advice servivce" in dublin under a different name.

Live65a846d0ee · 12-03-2017 07:27PM

Wibbs wrote: »

No. I'm afraid you really couldn't.

Yeah, like eh wut? :pac:

What can be said to a man(really?) that wants to force women to have babies without giving them a choice. I bet if a woman had an abortion and he could punish her then the punishment would be stoning, Islamic style.
Yes he is a religious zealot just like most of you, and we all know that there is no point in arguing with zealots as their mind will not change under any circumstances. Karma will get you all.

jameorahiely · 12-03-2017 08:11PM

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

What can be said to a man(really?) that wants to force women to have babies without giving them a choice. I bet if a woman had an abortion and he could punish her then the punishment would be stoning, Islamic style.
Yes he is a religious zealot just like most of you, and we all know that there is no point in arguing with zealots as their mind will not change under any circumstances. Karma will get you all.

A man who forces a woman to have a baby without giving them a choice?

That'd be a rapist

stefanovich · 12-03-2017 08:18PM

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

What can be said to a man(really?) that wants to force women to have babies without giving them a choice. I bet if a woman had an abortion and he could punish her then the punishment would be stoning, Islamic style.
Yes he is a religious zealot just like most of you, and we all know that there is no point in arguing with zealots as their mind will not change under any circumstances. Karma will get you all.

I'm not religious at all. I'm 100% against abortion on demand.

stefanovich · 12-03-2017 08:19PM

Live65a846d0ee wrote: »

he is a religious zealot... Karma will get you all.

Sound a bit like my old granny ranting about purgatory there.

volchitsa · 12-03-2017 08:41PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

A man who forces a woman to have a baby without giving them a choice?

That'd be a rapist

No, the rapist commits the first crime against her, in raping her.

Whether or not she becomes pregnant, his action was the same, and I don't think it's an aggravating factor in a trial that the woman because pregnant, is it?
Nor a mitigating one if she didn't. Right?

Someone wanting to physically restrain a woman, as the HSE wanted to do to Ms Y, is committing a completely separate crime against her, and one that is just as violent.

And someone forcing her to remain pregnant by refusing a health care procedure that is available in pretty much all the developed countries nowadays, including Ireland, is committing a slightly lesser version of the same crime.

stefanovich · 12-03-2017 08:43PM

volchitsa wrote: »

refusing a health care procedure

Killing a perfectly viable foetus in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is not a health care procedure. You are murdering a baby.

jameorahiely · 12-03-2017 08:46PM

volchitsa wrote: »

No, the rapist commits the first crime against her, in raping her.

Whether or not she becomes pregnant, his action was the same, and I don't think it's an aggravating factor in a trial that the woman because pregnant, is it?
Nor a mitigating one if she didn't. Right?

Someone wanting to physically restrain a woman, as the HSE wanted to do to Ms Y, is committing a completely separate crime against her, and one that is just as violent.

And someone forcing her to remain pregnant by refusing a health care procedure that is available in pretty much all the developed countries nowadays, including Ireland, is committing a slightly lesser version of the same crime.

I don't think that poster was on about rapists. But portraying women as victims who didn't have a choice in becoming pregnant in a consenual relationship.

75-85% of rape victims decide not to abort their babies in the study I'm looking at here. The pri repealers like to use them to push their agenda under the presumption that 100% will want to abort.

12-03-2017 08:47PM

As someone who would most probably vote to repeal, I think the repeal side are hurting their case with how they are going about their campaign. The repeal side think they have the right to talk down to anyone who disagrees with them and they are also very pushy.

volchitsa · 12-03-2017 08:51PM

stefanovich wrote: »

Killing a perfectly viable foetus in the 2nd or 3rd trimester is not a health care procedure. You are murdering a baby.

So the 90%+ termininations before 12 weeks are ok then, right?

And the vast majority of the others are not of viable fetuses, they are for serious health reasons.

(Irish women have a significantly higher rate of late terminations than the average by the way, due to having to travel. If anyone actually wanted to prevent late terminations, they'd ensure that earlier ones were genuinely available.)

Strike For Repeal?

Comments