eviltwin wrote: » . I don't believe there are many who would force her to continue a pregnancy against her will.
eviltwin wrote: » it's a rehash of every other abortion thread with the same people over and over again. What's the point?
eviltwin wrote: » I've decided I'm not debating this issue anymore. I've been debating it for 25 years, I'm done. I know we have long way to go but we are finally getting a referendum and I trust the Irish people to make the right choice. I've seen a real change in attitude in this country since marriage equality, people are no longer afraid of change and there seems to be a desire to take control of our society and make it what we want it to be, not what we are told it should be. I'm going to vote for repeal because I think Irish women deserve better. I'm going to vote with compassion and empathy, not judgement and condescension. I hope everyone can think of their sisters or daughters and what they would feel if she told them she was considering an abortion and what choice she should have. I don't believe there are many who would force her to continue a pregnancy against her will.
end of the road wrote: » it's actually not fine, but we have to be realistic. people can't be stopped from traveling abroad.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » I will vote against a referendum to change the constitution unless it includes a clause stipulating that the constitution must remain exactly the same...
freshpopcorn wrote: » Do people here think that everybody has almost made up their minds on the matter once they know what their voting on? Most people I know who'd go out and vote seem to have their minds made up now once they know it's abortion up to 12 weeks and no amount of debating will change it.
sbsquarepants wrote: » A lot of pro lifers tend to stop giving a rats arse about what happens to the lives they "save" once they are actually born.
NuMarvel wrote: » So in summary: you're against abortion on demand but you're not against abortion on demand, and you're not against the freedom to travel but we must protect the unborn even if it only works in one case, except in that one case where stopping someone travelling worked because we can't stop people travelling even when we did and something something something abortion on demand!!! Here's a simple yes or no question: Would you vote Yes or No in a referendum to repeal the constitutional protection of the freedom to travel for an abortion?
Joeytheparrot wrote: » That is impossible
Joeytheparrot wrote: » No I would probably guess 20-30% are convinced pro life and 20-30% are convinced pro choice and that there is about 40-60% who can be swayed
end of the road wrote: » i'm against abortion. however there are some circumstances where it is necessary whether i agree with it or not. such as the threat of life or where the baby is unable to be caried to full term. i also recognise that i cannot stop someone leaving the country to procure an abortion. i can however vote to keep what protections the irish state has in the knowledge that they protect some unborn babies. there are going to be variables on the pro-life side as well, variables aren't something that isn't only availible to those who are in favour of abortion on demand, but are also availible to those of us who are pro-life as well, whether those in favour of abortion on demand like it or not.
NuMarvel wrote: » So would you vote Yes or No if there was a referendum to repeal the constitutional protection of the freedom to travel for an abortion? A 1 word reply will be sufficient.
eviltwin wrote: » I will discuss, not debate. There is no point trying to change a person who is deeply pro life, look at this thread for example - it's a rehash of every other abortion thread with the same people over and over again. What's the point? I am more than willing to discuss the issue with anyone not sure of how to vote or who needs more clarification on various things. But I'm not going to debate with people who just want to sling misinformation and insults.
c_man wrote: » What on Earth makes you think you should be giving out guidelines as to how people post? Is that kinda crap actually allowed here?
WhiteRoses wrote: » EOTR is incapable of giving a solid answer to anything he's asked to clarify about his opinion, he almost talks in riddles. I've often seem him asked for one word answers just to make things very clear, and he'll still reply with a whole paragraph of contradictions.
end of the road wrote: » i would vote no .
end of the road wrote: » a travel bann just wouldn't be enforcible over all without banning all pregnant women from traveling which is impossible and unreasonable.
end of the road wrote: » it does not change my view on the act of abortion.
end of the road wrote: » it does not make the protections for the life of the unborn that the irish state have invalid.
c_man wrote: » How dare he not follow the directions of random posters!
Been thinking of this more and to be honest I am going to be voting no if the proposal in its current form goes before us, unless there are constitutional safegards put in place to protect the life of the unborn.
NuMarvel wrote: » Yes it does, for reasons that have been stated by me and others numerous times. You can ignore that if you wish, but it doesn't make your statements true.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Well no, its actually just really difficult to debate with someone who constantly contradicts themselves. It gets extremely confusing, so I can see why someone might suggest he answer just just a yes or no to confirm what he's trying to get at.
end of the road wrote: » i answer all questions put to me where relevant in terms of the context of the thread. if the questions are not relevant to the thread they will not be answered. the abortion issue as a whole will be a contradiction on everyone's part as there will be a multitude of differing viewpoints in terms of both sides of the argument. some for example will see the pro-choice view of only abortion up to 12 weeks as contradictory, as they believe that being pro-choice means you must not interfere in when people should and shouldn't have an abortion.
others will see the pro-life view of only protecting the life of the unborn as much as is practical to be contradictory, as they believe that if you are in favour of protection of the unborn, you must be in favour of it at any cost. both are valid views, just the same as mine and many others.
it really doesn't. the fact is the irish state still has some protections for the life of the unborn. however they can only go so far whether i agree with the act of abortion or not.
i don't contradict myself. it has never happened. however in relation to a topic like abortion, one must be realistic in terms of what is achievible.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » No, it's not a contradiction at all. Most people don't support abortion until full-term. While I think 12 weeks is a little short, I also recognise it's perhaps the best way to get the referendum passed. I personally think up to 20 weeks (as, like I have stated before, the fetus can't survive before 17 weeks and has less than 5% chance at 20 weeks of surviving outside the womb). At some point, there has to a recognition that the fetus is viable and is therefore life. Some say 24 weeks, others say 16, whatever. It's not a contradiction, even scientists have a hard time pin-pointing when the fetus is viable.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Actually, no, I don't know any people who say this. And, if people do say this, they are morons. My issue with anti-choice (not pro-life) is that they don't care what happens the fetus once it is born and is a child. They are pro-birth, not pro-life. That's the contradiction, not that they can agree that if the mother's life is in danger, an abortion is fine.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Yes, and it will continue to have after this referendum. After 12 weeks, apart from certain situations, the unborn will still be protected by the state. In most countries where abortion is until a certain period of pregnancy, the unborn fetus has rights after that point. You're just ignoring that.
freshpopcorn wrote: » If Ireland did reject the repeal could an argument be made to repeal the right to travel/information?
