STB. wrote: » You have no say in peoples personal troubles or choices.
STB. wrote: » Its your judgemental, self righteous type attitude that will make people sitting on the fence go the other way, by the way.
STB. wrote: » Finally any chance you can stop jumping all over peoples posts whilst disregarding valid questions and points that have been raised. Its as grating as your holier than thou, think of the children mantra, accusing anyone who disagrees with you as being a murderer.
end of the road wrote: » we can have compassion for both mother and baby. not allowing someone to abort isn't taking control from someone in my view. we do sometimes have to stop things from happening when they are going to negatively effect others. there is no question that rape is beyond aweful but the baby does not deserve to be killed. it's not it's fault what it's father is . the baby has a right to life and to live.
Originally Posted by end of the road View Post 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.
end of the road wrote: » telling someone they cannot kill someone else is not control. it's insuring the someone else's right to life is upheld. you are wrong. someone who disagrees with abortion on demand is nothing like a rapist, the fact a rape victim may be prevented from having an abortion in the state doesn't change that either. your opinion is more of the extremist narrative that has no place in this debate. again these are more lies which have no basis in reality. i agree we may as well leave it there. because you can't debate on this issue without resorting to getting personal with me.
eviltwin wrote: » There you go again telling a woman what she can and can't do, that is the very essence of control.
eviltwin wrote: » The physical and mental health of a woman who has been violated should be at the forefront of treatment. If she wants an abortion she should get one. To deny that is a further violation and anyone who could stand in front of a rape victim and deny her wishes because it makes them feel uncomfortable is no better than the person who raped her imo.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Hang on, you actually must be having a laugh. You said this: And I said not to put words in my mouth. And now your saying you didn't put words in my mouth and are calling me a liar?????????! You just put words in my mouth, AGAIN, in the same post, how can you not see you are full of contradictions? What you have said is NOT right and NOT the truth and I would appreciate it if you would stop forcing your opinion on me and telling me what I think. I've already told you what I think and I don't think it's wrong at all. I won't engage with you anymore simply you are an absolute head melter. You are impossible to debate with. I'm not going to change my position on this and clearly neither are you, so we have nothing to say to each other without detailing the thread.
end of the road wrote: » 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.
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.
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.
up for anything wrote: » Grand job. Let us have your address and we'll send you all the unwanted babies to raise or perhaps you know of a bit of space in a Mod note: Cut that out. Debate the point without the theatrics, please. Buford T. Justice
eviltwin wrote: » I think a woman who has been through the trauma of a rape deserves every bit of compassion and support she can get. I see no point in further traumatizing her by forcing her to carry a pregnancy she doesn't want. In fact I'd say anyone prepared to take control from someone who has already had someone force their will on them is cruel and lacking empathy and should put their morals aside. Rape is awful enough.
end of the road wrote: » the baby doesn't deserve to be killed because of what happened. it's not it's fault or the mother's fault.
captbarnacles wrote: » You know who is really uncomfortable in those cases? The pregnant woman. Your petty foibles are meaningless in comparison.
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.
ToddyDoody wrote: » Anyone else feel this issue is really none of their business.
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).
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: » 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 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
....... 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.
