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.
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: » 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.
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
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.
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: » 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.
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.
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: » correct i don't. i have never stated otherwise. however i do have a say when it comes to removing the protections over one's right to life, and where someone's choices will effect the right to life of others. this is especially the case when i'm asked to vote on it. if i'm to have no say, then there should be no referendum to repeal the 8th. things should be left. or we can debate and people can vote.
end of the road wrote: » i'm not judgemental or self righteous. if people change their view, it won't be because of me or others who simply give their opinion and disagree with a different viewpoint. if anything it's possibly an element of the pro-choice who believe in extremist opinions and who engage in attacks on people who may cause a shift in voting due to their behaviour.
end of the road wrote: » i have never engaged in any of this.
STB. wrote: » Do you not understand that OTHER peoples choices are just that. Not your choice. See I said it again. Choice. By the way. You should know that you are very much in the minority in your views. Your attitudes towards women and their choices and the circumstances that are forced upon them that they must leave the state to carry out what must be very difficult decisions etc belong in the dark ages. I can see the rights of the unborn child is very close to your heart. How ****ing noble. That does not give you the right to judge other people or ignore circumstances that would place people in unforseen or unfortunate circumstances in which they must make difficult personal choices.
STB. wrote: » I have a big shock for you so. You are. By God do not have me quote them back to you. Some of your posts here are disgraceful. The other ones are just plain disrespect.
STB. wrote: » All your inane, off the wall ramblings have succeeded in doing is winding up people.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
jimmycrackcorm wrote: » I always find this argument as an introduction to make silly comparisons. E.g. We have most cars capable of driving well in excess of the speed limits. A cursory glance at the number of penalty points issued annually suggests a good indication that practically nobody sticks to the limits. Modern cars are very safe to allow someone to maximize their speed on an empty M1. So why not just repeal the speed limits? After all, people have to travel far (to Germany's autobahns), to drive the fastest. Of course the comparison isn't truly equal, even if you can make cursory comparisons. A car, after all evolve into a human being.
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.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Like, if people can't see that abortion, as it stands in Ireland, is a class issue and one of the reasons the gap between poor and rich has not being closed for decades, I don't know what their knowledge of social economics is.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Encouraging women living in poverty to have abortions instead of bringing more 'undesirables' into society to be a 'burden' on the State, is about as piss poor an argument for abortion as it gets really, and demonstrates a very poor understanding on your part of socioeconomics. Addressing the underlying causes which force women to live in poverty would be a far more realistic endeavour than your let them eat cake" nonsense, as though women in those circumstances would want to avail of abortion in the first place, and second of all you're right when you suggest that it is a class issue - it's much more convenient to encourage people who feel they don't have any choice to have an abortion so you don't have to be dealing with the underclass :rolleyes: The more I hear from some people in the repeal camp, the more I'm convinced they're oblivious to reality.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Encouraging women living in poverty to have abortions instead of bringing more 'undesirables' into society to be a 'burden' on the State, is about as piss poor an argument for abortion as it gets really, and demonstrates a very poor understanding on your part of socioeconomics. Addressing the underlying causes which force women to live in poverty would be a far more realistic endeavour than your let them eat cake" nonsense, as though women in those circumstances would want to avail of abortion in the first place, and second of all you're right when you suggest that it is a class issue - it's much more convenient to encourage people who feel they don't have any choice to have an abortion so you don't have to be dealing with the underclass :rolleyes:The more I hear from some people in the repeal camp, the more I'm convinced they're oblivious to reality.
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.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » Ok, point out to me EXACTLY where I stated that I want poor couples to have abortions? Like, seriously, tell me? If a poor couple want to have a baby, there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop them. Nor would I want to stop them from doing so. If they think they can cope with it, more power to them.
But, and there is a HUGE but, when they know they are not financially capable of raising a child (due to in poorer sexual education and the fact contraception costs a sh1t ton, both male and female), they cannot get an abortion due to the cost of it. If they want an abortion, under current laws, they cannot access one in the country and cannot afford the cost of getting one in the UK. That's what leads to class divide and an ongoing cycle of poverty.
Also, you clearly have absolutely no clue about socioeconomics if you believe that "undesirables" have a "burden" on the State. What absolutely vile language to use. Shows the level of contempt you have for women in poorer backgrounds who want abortions.
One eyed Jack wrote: » You made the point that one of the reasons for the class divide in Ireland is because of abortion. How else was anyone supposed to interpret that as anything other than encouraging poor women to have abortions so they wouldn't be having children you determine for them that they can't afford?
Your argument still rests on the assumption that they don't want to have a child, and would choose to have an abortion instead, when the reality is that one of the reasons abortion hasn't had much support in this country is because 1. There's simply no appetite for it, and 2. We have numerous support structures in this country which provide people with the means to provide for their children. Legislating for abortion will have zero effect on women and children living in poverty, in just the same way as it has had zero effect on the class divide where abortion is legislated for in the countries where women travel to avail of it there, countries which have even poorer support systems than Ireland!
That's exactly the language that was used in determining what should be done about the issue of unmarried pregnant women when the idea of institionalising them and their unwanted children was floated, and you're right, it is a terrible attitude, and Irish society hasn't moved on all that much as there still exists a stigma against unmarried mothers in this country, exacerbated by the class divide where poorer unmarried mothers are subjected to harsher judgement and criticism than more affluent unmarried mothers. You want to talk about a class divide, well there it is, and it doesn't say anything about my attitude towards any woman who would want an abortion, regardless of her circumstances, because I'm not the one who made the assumption that poor women would want abortions in the first place.
mrkiscool2 wrote: » I'd read that paragraph you quoted again there bud. Also, your logic is horrible. "Hmm, this poster is saying that it is a class issue for poor couples to not be able to travel for abortions, therefore he wants all poor women to get abortions! How dastardly!" That's not how logic works. You can extrapolate 3 things from it. Either a. what you jumped to b. that I don't care either way or c. that everyone should have the option and not just the middle/upper classes. In previous posts I have talked about how it is c, but logically, there are 3 equally valid options. So of course you jump to the one that makes your side look best, figures. :rolleyes:
Well, empirical and anecdotal evidence both points to the fact that yes, yes there are poor couples who would like to have an abortion but due to our laws they can't. Some women are so desperate they take out fcuking loans, putting themselves in debt so they don't have to have a child they don't want and can't afford/want to look after! But, that messes with your narrative, so let's not acknowledge it, right?
There is clearly an appetite to repeal the 8th, in some form. Almost around 80% of people are in favour of repealing it. It's just about where that line should be drawn. So there clearly IS an appetite for it. But, as always, ignore the facts in front of your face, put your hands over you ears and pretend it isn't happening.
Finally, empirical evidence from America and the UK actually does suggest that having abortions available does help close poverty gaps. The more liberal a society or population is when abortion is available, the more the rich/poor divide closes (or, at least, doesn't open as fast). So, yeah, there is evidence. Not that you will listen, of course.
What are you even babbling on about? We all know that poorer people generally get harsher sentences than richer ones. That's common fact, and due to the level of attorney you can afford to hire. And again, I have not assumed that ALL poor women will want to have abortions, or that the State thinks all poor women should have abortions. Again, you jumped to that conclusion.
But, the class issue here is that middle/upper class women can afford to travel for abortions while lower class women can not (or put themselves into debt to do so). When one group can access a service another can't, particularly a health care one, that is unequal treatment and is a class divide, therefore is a class divide issue.
One eyed Jack wrote: » even if the 8th amendment were to be repealed, how many people do you think would even want an abortion clinic in their neighbourhood? I certainly wouldn't tbh.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » On a side note, does anyone know if the 8th is repealed and legislation along the lines proposed by the committee is introduced, does that necessarily mean there will be 'abortion clinics' as such operating in Ireland. They were talking about a GP-led service providing the abortion pill. Also, the Belfast abortion clinic recently closed down, so presumably the same services can be provided without the necessity for a dedicated clinic.
Shenshen wrote: » This reply reads to me like you saw what you wanted to see. The vast majority of pro-choice people don't just want a society where abortion is available, they want one where nobody actually chooses to have one, because there is no need. Because the services offered should they choose to carry the pregnancy to term are good enough to actually make that a viable choice for them. We don't have such a society yet, but we do have the option of giving people in difficult circumstances a choice. That doesn't mean we'll stop working towards a society where nobody feels they need to choose to have an abortion.
One eyed Jack wrote: » I didn't jump to any conclusion which "makes my side look best" as you put it, as I pointed out to another poster way, way back in this thread - I have no interest in... taking sides. Jesus it's even horrible to type that out because, well for me personally I feel it simply diminishes the gravity of what we're talking about here which is peoples lives, and that's why I bailed out of this thread earlier when it was clear that ideology was going to trump reality. I'll clear up my interpretation of what you suggested then, because I try to engage in good faith and no, I don't think you personally were suggesting that we should encourage poor women to have abortions, but that would be the effect of your suggestion - that rather than support women so they wouldn't feel they had no choice but to have an abortion, they choose abortion because they lack support, and that's what I meant when I said that it would be better to address the underlying issues which cause women to find themselves in those circumstances. One thing I can tell you is that it's not because contraception isn't affordable. More often it's simply because contraception isn't used, or isn't used properly.
I'll clear up my interpretation of what you suggested then, because I try to engage in good faith and no, I don't think you personally were suggesting that we should encourage poor women to have abortions, but that would be the effect of your suggestion
One thing I can tell you is that it's not because contraception isn't affordable. More often it's simply because contraception isn't used, or isn't used properly
Of course there are women who due to their socioeconomic circumstances feel that it would be better for them to have an abortion, I'm just not going to assume that they would want one if they were able to afford not to have one. That's why for many women abortion simply isn't as easy a choice as has been made out in this thread. To acknowledge that of course wouldn't suit the prevailing narrative in this thread, as that would mean having to acknowledge that simply legislating for abortion isn't going to allieviate poverty in Irish society.
The assertion is often made that pro-life people don't care about a child once they're born, and I'd love to know where that comes from, because the evidence appears to suggest otherwise given that one of the largest pro-life organisations in this country is also the largest provider of education to children! I guess that doesn't suit the narrative either.
I'm not talking about an appetite to repeal the 8th, I'm talking about abortion, and there really is no appetite for it in any society really, and that's why the stigma against abortion exists, in pretty much every society you'd care to mention. People don't generally just see abortion as being the equivalent of a benign medical procedure as is being made out in this thread. I know well it happens, but that doesn't mean people actually want to acknowledge that it happens, and that's why even if the 8th amendment were to be repealed, how many people do you think would even want an abortion clinic in their neighbourhood? I certainly wouldn't tbh.
I'm always prepared to listen, and I'm actually eager to listen if you actually have evidence to back up such an extraordinary claim! I also wouldn't suggest Irish society is as liberal as you're given to assuming, but I'd love to see your evidence for your claims pertaining to the US and the UK at least.
When I used the word 'judgement' there, I didn't mean in the judicial sense, I meant in the sense that people have more of a tendency to pass judgement on unmarried mothers in socioeconomically deprived circumstances. I didn't jump to the conclusion that you personally think all poor women would have abortions at all. My point, and my only point, is that using poor women's circumstances to make your argument for abortion is a terrible argument, because it can be easily pointed out that abortion won't do anything for them, and that's even if they wanted an abortion in the first place if they had a REAL choice in whether or not to have one. That's why I made the point that unmarried women in more affluent circumstances have more choices than women in poorer circumstances - it's not because they are able to afford to travel for an abortion, it's because they are generally better off all-round in terms of education, social support and social status!
No, that's not unequal treatment, it's exactly the same treatment that is provided by a service provider, to those who can afford it. That would still be an issue regardless of whether or not the 8th amendment is repealed - more affluent people will always have access to better healthcare than people who are poorer, and legislating for abortion won't change that fact.
