end of the road wrote: » technically she is importing illegal drugs so should be done for that. illegal drugs are illegal drugs after all, and one doesn't know what is within them. if we go on this thread, it's a couple of individuals who are pro-abortion who are the extremists. engaging in personal attacks, twisting what people say, telling those who disagree with them what they think when they don't think it. those of us who are against abortion on demand on the other hand, debate in a civil manner as while we know this is an imotive debate, we know that abuse and attacks, twisting and the rest, are not going to work in getting our point across.
Edward M wrote: » https://amp.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/big-split-in-fine-gael-on-abortion-as-varadkar-to-study-report-over-break-36426735.html
end of the road wrote: » WhiteRoses wrote: » Let's just get one thing straight here, don't dare put words in my mouth. I have made my position more than clear on a number of threads now, but I now see I was flogging a dead horse by even replying to you at all. i didn't put words in your mouth. i understand this is an imotive topic, but you need to give up the personal attacks and lies about people. none of us on the pro-life side have done it to you and we expect the same treatment back. WhiteRoses wrote: » I believe in a woman making a choice for herself. I believe it's between her and her doctor. I trust my fellow female citizens to make the right choice for their circumstances. I don't believe a woman should go through the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy. I don't believe a child should be brought into the world unwanted, into a life of neglect and abuse. I believe that when it is YOU who is pregnant, EOTR, or your partner, then you can push all your notions about the unborn into the mix and make your own mind up. But until then it has nothing to do with you. it has everything to do with me as. 1. i'm going to be asked to vote on repealing the 8th, so it has been made my business. 2. society has a duty to protect life, and when a woman engages in an abortion, that is effecting another life. i believe the state is right to not allow the practice within it bar extreme circumstances. i also believe in a woman being able to make a choice for herself. however when it effects the right to life then that choice needs to be curtailed, just like in any case where someone's choices effect others right to life. WhiteRoses wrote: » And to clarify, the reason I refuse to engage with you is not because I think you are right (???), it is because you are full of contractions and NIMBYisms, you just rant your opinion over and over again as if it's fact despite several intelligent posters pointing out flaws in your logic over the course of severel threads. this has never happened, and as i said the personal attacks and lies needs to stop. WhiteRoses wrote: » It is of course your CHOICE to post in that style and I won't take that choice away from you, but I will refuse to reply to your posts because I don't wish to engage with someone with such dedicated disregard for other people's viewpoints. you won't engage because you know deep down that what i have said is right and the truth. that is why people engage in personal attacks toards those of us on the pro-life side, because deep down we all know that killing the unborn is wrong.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Let's just get one thing straight here, don't dare put words in my mouth. I have made my position more than clear on a number of threads now, but I now see I was flogging a dead horse by even replying to you at all.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I believe in a woman making a choice for herself. I believe it's between her and her doctor. I trust my fellow female citizens to make the right choice for their circumstances. I don't believe a woman should go through the trauma of an unwanted pregnancy. I don't believe a child should be brought into the world unwanted, into a life of neglect and abuse. I believe that when it is YOU who is pregnant, EOTR, or your partner, then you can push all your notions about the unborn into the mix and make your own mind up. But until then it has nothing to do with you.
WhiteRoses wrote: » And to clarify, the reason I refuse to engage with you is not because I think you are right (???), it is because you are full of contractions and NIMBYisms, you just rant your opinion over and over again as if it's fact despite several intelligent posters pointing out flaws in your logic over the course of severel threads.
WhiteRoses wrote: » It is of course your CHOICE to post in that style and I won't take that choice away from you, but I will refuse to reply to your posts because I don't wish to engage with someone with such dedicated disregard for other people's viewpoints.
PeterParker957 wrote: » No brain stem, no person. Brain stem formed 15-18 weeks gestation typically. Thought we needed a bit of science over the fluffy nonsense.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » doesnt seem to stop them posting on boards
end of the road wrote: » boards isn't going to be a pro-abortion echo chamber.
emo72 wrote: » EOTR is Pro life. I didn't see that coming. This conversation is all pointless anyway. The old guard is fading. The sooner this referendum is done the better. Abortion will be available then. EOTR are you going to reply with your classic "you're wrong"?
end of the road wrote: » no as none of us know how the referendum will ultimately go. it is unlikely to be a repeat of the ssm referendum however. there is a lot more people against abortion on demand, or abortion full stop, in this country then some would think and it's nothing to do with religion or conservatism in a large amount of cases.
emo72 wrote: » Looking back we'll wonder what we were even thinking trying to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies and their health.
end of the road wrote: » if it was simply about that then the vote for repeal would be a resounding yes. however, unfortunately it's not just about that, but about abortion on demand. preventing abortion on demand within the state isn't telling someone what they can do with their body, it's telling them that they cannot cary out an action that brings death upon another human being. that is where the difference exists. so that is why the referendum may not be a repeat of the ssm referendum, because there is a large number of people who disagree with abortion on demand.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Doctor Jimbob wrote: » It is. Our constitution currently dictates what a woman can and can't do with her body. That's completely unacceptable.
end of the road wrote: » untrue. baseless allegations. all you are doing by throwing personal attacks is insuring those in the pro-life movement who are quite extreme stick more to their views. it's water off a duck's back to me as i'm perfectly content with my view and how i'm going to vote in the referendum. i will never support abortion on demand on the island of ireland. the only time i am willing to accept abortion is in the case where there is a threat to life or where the baby cannot be caried to term.
uptherebels wrote: » any sources for any of that?
end of the road wrote: » untrue. baseless allegations. all you are doing by throwing personal attacks is insuring those in the pro-life movement who are quite extreme stick more to their views. it's water off a duck's back to me as i'm perfectly content with my view and how i'm going to vote in the referendum. i will never support abortion on demand on the island of ireland. the only time i am willing to accept abortion is in the case where there is a threat to life or where the baby cannot be caried to term. to an extent it does and i have said i disagree with that, and if repealing the 8th was just about that then i would vote yes to repeal. however it's not about that, but more about allowing abortion on demand, so i cannot support that. prohibiting abortion on demand isn't dictating what a woman can and can't do with her body. it's dictating that she cannot take the life of the unborn as the irish state recognises the right to life of the unborn bar extreme circumstances. it can't practically stop someone from procuring an abortion on demand abroad but it can refuse to provide it within the state as the state has no duty to provide it as it's not a right.
end of the road wrote: » so that is why the referendum may not be a repeat of the ssm referendum, because there is a large number of people who disagree with abortion on demand.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » No-one's disputing that. However, if the government embraces the committee's recommendations, Yes campaigners will be hoping that a large proportion of those who up till now only agreed with abortion in 'exceptional circumstances' will buy into the position adopted by the majority of the committee that legislation for abortion specific to those circumstances, especially for rape/incest, is unworkable, and that if you want women to have access to abortion in such cases, you'll have to vote for abortion on demand (within term limits).
splinter65 wrote: » No. The maker of , the distributor of, the sender of, the abortion pills.
Edward M wrote: » A life has been formed though, a human life at that. I think that is a person, that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it.
end of the road wrote: » of course. which is why it is important that those who are against abortion on demand yet who would agree with it in extreme cases don't fall into the trap. because legislation to allow abortion in extreme circumstances but not on demand is workible and would be best for the country as it would allow for necessary abortion but would not allow unnecessary abortion. i do think most people who would be against abortion on demand won't fall into the trap that the yes campaigners want.
end of the road wrote: » i will never support abortion on demand on the island of ireland. the only time i am willing to accept abortion is in the case where there is a threat to life or where the baby cannot be caried to term.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » If the referendum is voted down, do you believe the government will come back in a year or two offering one on 'limited liberalisation' of abortion? Is it not much more likely that the whole issue will be put into cold storage for at least ten years.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » Do you believe the majority of those who favour abortion in exceptional circumstances but not on demand would choose that option over full liberalisation next year?
end of the road wrote: » i would really like for the government to guarantee that only abortion in extreme circumstances would be legislated for so that i could vote yes to repeal.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » To focus on the most intractable issue, do you have any ideas on how legislation for abortion specific to cases of rape and incest might be drawn up in practice. Are you aware of any jurisdiction where this has even been attempted.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » AFAIK, no witnesses to the committee made even a back-of-the-envelope suggestion as to how this might be done. The overwhelming consensus was that if you want to provide abortion access for rape victims, you have to legalise 'without restriction' (ip to whatever term limit).
ToddyDoody wrote: » Anyone else feel this issue is really none of their business.
end of the road wrote: » sadly no to both questions. i actually am a bit uncomfortable in supporting abortion in those cases as it's not the fault of the baby who their father is . if that is the case then that is very unfortunate. sadly i would have to vote no in those circumstances.
captbarnacles wrote: » You know who is really uncomfortable in those cases? The pregnant woman. Your petty foibles are meaningless in comparison.
