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.
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: » 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: » 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: » boards isn't going to be a pro-abortion echo chamber.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » doesnt seem to stop them posting on boards
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.
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.
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: » 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.
volchitsa wrote: » A woman who takes abortion pills ordered online?
volchitsa wrote: » It really is the most cowardly dodge isn't it? They'd have us believe they think women are just too stupid to know what they're doing when they seek out an abortion, or that evil abortionists grab them in off the street. I wonder is the idea that women generally are too silly to know the difference between right and wrong, or do they imagine pregnancy frazzles our brains? TBH I suspect they're lying about what they really believe, and they would be perfectly happy with a Nicaraguan-style regime where women are imprisoned even for unexplained miscarriages, never mind actual abortion, but they daren't expose the depth of their extremism because they know very few people in Ireland still think like that these days.
eviltwin wrote: » Abortion, by choice and done in consultation with medical professionals, is the middle ground.
Edward M wrote: » That's been talked through long before now, no one wants to see anyone die here AFAIK. There are extreme views on either side, some accuse abortionists of murder, some accuse pro lifers of causing death to women who die in childbirth or medical conditions during pregnancy. I don't see that either should have to happen or a law be put in place that can cause either to happen. The current law needs changing, no doubt on that, but not so extremely as to have unlimited abortion. There is a middle ground, perhaps it will turn out to be the most popular choice, but not if its not given a chance by not even being considered for a vote.
volchitsa wrote: » So, one of the problems the Oireachtas Committee identified was that Irish women were resorting to abortions using pills later than is considered ideal in other countries, precisely because abortion is illegal and therefore carried out without proper medical supervision, as well as often being later than would be the case if the woman had been able to go to her GP or a clinic. I see in the IT today there's an article about abortion law in France, where medical abortion is available until the 8th week, and only surgical abortion after that until the 12th week : https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/abortion-battles-rage-on-in-france-despite-liberal-regime-1.3327713 Since they are having these abortions anyway, the question really is whether the principle is so important that we are prepared to see Irish women put their health at unnecessary risk, or whether we accept that women are having abortions, aided and abetted by our own law, but not in optimally as conditions. It's not as though we're actually trying to stop them, after all. Basically, all those posters who don't want to see women jailed for having abortions, are you prepared nevertheless to see some of them injured and possibly dying as an alternative punishment? I think a spell in jail would be preferable to dying, don't you?
splinter65 wrote: » If it’s so easy, risk free, straight forward and commonplace, then why on earth bother with the expense and inconvenience of the doctor at all?
splinter65 wrote: » It happens every month. Naturally, as a consequence of my body’s own biology. The product of a uterus that has been growing a baby for 3 months bears no resemblance to the shedding of a uterine lining that is not needed after 21 days. You can try to convince yourself that it does, but it doesn’t. Anyone who has had a 12 week miscarriage will vouch for that. So, not the same thing at all as a chemically induced abortion. People in favor of abortion work so hard to convince themselves that it’s all very simple and straightforward and clean and tidy, and nobody, but nobody, mother or baby suffers or gets hurt in any way. Inducing a chemical abortion at home is a great step forward for the health of women and children . Sure.
splinter65 wrote: » PeterParker957 wrote: » Hence the 8th needs to be repealed But the proposals include the decriminalisation of abortion pills. Are you happy to take pills at home that will cause you to bleed profusely from an orifice, are you happy to give them to your child?
PeterParker957 wrote: » Hence the 8th needs to be repealed
seamus wrote: » So you buy all your medication online then? After all, if you can get "decriminalized" medication cheaply online, why go to a doctor?
Edward M wrote: » I'm sure you had very good reason for your decision and are happy that you did what you felt was the right thing, and I applaud you for your honesty on here. Can I just say, I give my opinions for my stance on this issue, I hold no judgement over those who hold a different opinion than mine. If you feel you did no wrong then to hell with other opinions or derogatory comments that might be made about your situation.
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » are you going to adopt these thousands of saved babies?
Da Boss wrote: » You can’t face the facts , that’s your problem, unable to admit you condone MURDER , The KILLINGS of defenseless unborn . The 8th amendment is about so much more than woman’s freedom, it’s about SAVING LIVES OF THOUSANDS, legalized abortion cos cause more loss of life than English colonization ever did on this island
January wrote: » I had an abortion at 10 weeks using pills. It was no worse than a period. A bit more painful (not as bad as contractions but similar pattern) but the amount of blood wasn't much bigger than a normal period for me.
splinter65 wrote: » Yes because they’re not going to buy them cheaply on the internet once they’re decriminalised..
splinter65 wrote: » So your only in favor of abortion in the cases of rape and incest? Or are you just throwing it in there for the purposes of silly appeal to emotion, knowing that rape and incest is a reason given for abortion in such a minuscule tiny almost nonexistent percentage of abortions? Interesting that you would by a stack of abortion pills from Costco for your child (? are we in the States or Ireland), in preference over reliable safe contraception coupled with safe sex practices. I suppose there’s no point in campaigning for and fighting for the equipment if your not going to use it when it gets here.
end of the road wrote: » because you cannot argue against what has been said. you know abortion on demand is wrong. i know it is wrong. everyone knows it is wrong. refusing to debate me won't change that fact.
