Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Hotel Cancels Pro life event due to Intimidation.

1…1314161819…42

Comments

  • #452
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    AryaStark wrote: »
    There are some things that do not need to be debated and some people who should not be heard ... This nonsense about abortion causing breast cancer is dangerous and stupid. 
    I hate the pro lifers and the horrible posters that they insist on putting up .. but for me this new idea of God punishing women is disgusting. It doesn't affect me as I am an atheist and pro choice but I feel for young girls and women who may be looking for advice and support and end up hearing such ridiculous opinions.

    I feel sorry for the baby who's massacred.


  • #453
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,002 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    Thanks for your kind words, Billy. I'll give it some consideration.

    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    I feel sorry for the baby who's massacred.

    9 minutes


  • #454
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,002 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    Maybe I should write to boards.ie, urging them to censor 'Ohnonotgmail' and 'January' for being anti-scientific.

    You talk about anti scientific posters then call a foetus a baby and an abortion a massacre.


  • #455
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    pjohnson wrote: »
    You talk about anti scientific posters then call a foetus a baby and an abortion a massacre.

    Way to dehumanise the baby. I suppose it doesn't make you feel bad knowing it's just a 'fetus' that's being killed.


  • #456
    AryaStark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 656 ✭✭✭AryaStark


    On
    arayess wrote: »
    January wrote: »
    Except this has nothing to do with opposing a pro-choice view, it has everything to do with trying to dispel the false claims this crowd are trying to spout.

    this is bullsh1t it's about silencing your opposition and nothing else

    If they were spouting such crap (and  I know it's crap) you should be able to dispel the myth without bully-boy tactics or silencing them. And easily so.
    You've (not you personally )  only made martyrs of them.
    Only martyrs to the people who agree with them. Hopefully young impressionable people won't get to hear this view if they are not given a platform.


  • Advertisement
  • #457
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    Way to dehumanise the baby. I suppose it doesn't make you feel bad knowing it's just a 'fetus' that's being killed.
    Point of note:
    You can't dehumanize that which is not (yet) human .


  • #458
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Point of note:
    You can't dehumanize that which is not (yet) human .

    So when is it human?


  • #459
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,912 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    So when is it human?


    when it is born.


  • #460
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,002 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    Way to dehumanise the baby. I suppose it doesn't make you feel bad knowing it's just a 'fetus' that's being killed.

    Well do you believe in science or not? Calling people out for not being scientific only to follow it up by not being scientific yourself is a bit unclear.

    Do you believe in science or not? That should clear things up you appear confused.


  • #461
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    when it is born.

    So it's okay to abort it the day before?


  • Advertisement
  • #462
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,912 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    So it's okay to abort it the day before?


    how many abortions do you think are performed the day before? Forgetting for a moment that if it is aborted there is no day before to speak of. and what reasons do you think there are for very late abortions?


  • #463
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    how many abortions do you think are performed the day before? Forgetting for a moment that if it is aborted there is no day before to speak of. and what reasons do you think there are for very late abortions?

    You said it is not human until it is born. So I'm asking, would you oppose legislation that permitted abortion up to the day before delivery?


  • #464
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,002 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    So it's okay to abort it the day before?

    Wait Dick calm down. You're getting erratic. You asked when is it a human?

    You were answered it is a human when it is born. Until then including one day before birth it is still a fetus.

    That was your first question.

    Secondly abortions are not carried out a day before. If a fetus is removed from the mothers womb (thus being born and becoming a baby) it is called a C-Section.


  • #465
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    So it's okay to abort it the day before?

    If it wasn't viable outside the womb then yes, otherwise that just wouldn't happen. If a fetus has reached viability and the mother requests that a termination of pregnancy take place, then the woman would be induced or given a cesarean and a live birth would take place.

    2% of abortions take place after 20 weeks and they were either for fatal fetal abnormalities or threat to the mother's' life.

    But you just keep on using your emotional blackmail there.


  • #466
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    So when is it human?
    When it is no longer an embryo or a foetus


  • #467
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    January wrote: »
    If it wasn't viable outside the womb then yes, otherwise that just wouldn't happen. If a fetus has reached viability and the mother requests that a termination of pregnancy take place, then the woman would be induced or given a cesarean and a live birth would take place.

    2% of abortions take place after 20 weeks and they were either for fatal fetal abnormalities or threat to the mother's' life.

    But you just keep on using your emotional blackmail there.

    I'm asking him a hypothetical question. If the legislation permitted abortion up until the day before delivery, would you support it?


  • #468
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    I'm asking him a hypothetical question. If the legislation permitted abortion up until the day before delivery, would you support it?
    Would I support an abortion a day before birth?
    No.

    Do I think I can tell someone else via legislation what they can or cannot do?
    No.


  • #469
    January
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,862 ✭✭✭✭January


    Yup. Abortion, doesn't always = killing a 'baby'. Abortion can mean termination of pregnancy resulting in a live birth. I support fully abortion to term. Knowing that the killing of 'babies' the day before they are due to be delivered just does not happen, anywhere in this world.


  • #470
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Would I support an abortion a day before birth?
    No.

    Do I think I can tell someone else via legislation what they can or cannot do?
    No.

    What?? Legislation doesn't tell people what they can and can't do?


  • #471
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,002 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    January wrote: »
    But you just keep on using your emotional blackmail there.

    If this is his goal it aint working.

    Alas he still hasnt clarified if he believes in science. He is busy jumping from question to question not acknowledging any answers. Despite his claim that YOU dont follow science you certainly appear to have at least a Leaving Cert understanding of the reproductive system. Its quite confusing.


  • Advertisement
  • #472
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    What?? Legislation doesn't tell people what they can and can't do?
    Not with regard to their bodily autonomy, no it shouldn't!


  • #473
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    pjohnson wrote: »
    If this is his goal it aint working.

    Alas he still hasnt clarified if he believes in science. He is busy jumping from question to question not acknowledging any answers. Despite his claim that YOU dont follow science you certainly appear to have at least a Leaving Cert understanding of the reproductive system. Its quite confusing.

    He claimed a man could have a baby. He needs to see a doctor immediately.


  • #474
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    He claimed a man could have a baby. He needs to see a doctor immediately.
    Clearly you are unfamiliar with gender reassignment.


  • #475
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Clearly you are unfamiliar with gender reassignment.

    And I get teased for being unscientific.


  • #476
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    And I get teased for being unscientific.
    Que?
    Do go on... How am I unscientific? Are you unaware of transgender people? Or just clutching at straws?


  • #477
    DickSwiveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,697 ✭✭✭DickSwiveller


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Que?
    Do go on... How am I unscientific? Are you unaware of transgender people? Or just clutching at straws?

    Yes, I'm aware of this delusion. It used to be called Gender dysphoria.

    Mod- Banned


  • #478
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,002 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    He claimed a man could have a baby. He needs to see a doctor immediately.

    But do YOU believe in science? I'm starting to really doubt you do.

    Anyway to explain your latest confusion.

    "Man" nowadays is a useless terminology. It is also NOT a scientific terminology.

    Genetic males cannot have children. However nowadays genetic males are calling themselves both man or woman or both. A male whether calling itself man or woman or both cannot have a child.

    However genetic females are behaving the same way calling themselves man or woman or both. A genetic female whether man or woman or both can have a child.

    This is because a genetic female has a vagina, uterus etc. A genetic male would be required, but it could easily be two "men" that reproduce with one of them pregnant provided that one has the female reproductive system and the other the male reproductive system.


    Simples!


  • #479
    pjohnson
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 25,002 ✭✭✭✭pjohnson


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    Yes, I'm aware of this delusion. It used to be called Gender dysphoria.

    Are you aware then that gender does not affect the reproductive system?


  • #480
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    DickSwiveller wrote: »
    Yes, I'm aware of this delusion. It used to be called Gender dysphoria.
    And I'm the unscientific one.
    What's next, burn them at the stake? :rolleyes:


  • Advertisement
  • #481
    ELM327
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,103 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    pjohnson wrote: »
    But do YOU believe in science? I'm starting to really doubt you do.

    Anyway to explain your latest confusion.

    "Man" nowadays is a useless terminology. It is also NOT a scientific terminology.

    Genetic males cannot have children. However nowadays genetic males are calling themselves both man or woman or both. A male whether calling itself man or woman or both cannot have a child.

    However genetic females are behaving the same way calling themselves man or woman or both. A genetic female whether man or woman or both can have a child.

    This is because a genetic female has a vagina, uterus etc. A genetic male would be required, but it could easily be two "men" that reproduce with one of them pregnant provided that one has the female reproductive system and the other the male reproductive system.


    Simples!
    To be fair, he called it a delusion so I doubt he's going to listen to reason.


Advertisement