The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

frag420 · 29-12-2017 05:14PM

Sin City wrote: »

Pretty sure you dont need to be identifiable when reporting a crime to the authorities

That’s not the point and you know it. I’m just curious to know if the life of the unborn is worth people knowing you are a grass and proud of your pro life stance or not?

frag420 · 29-12-2017 05:18PM

end of the road wrote: »

already provided. 53% in support. 26% against. 20% don't know/won't say. the 20% of those who don't know/won't say were excluded and 26% are still opposed. therefore only 53% are definitely in favour. the only reason why 53% would become 66% is if the op is making the definite assumption that 13% of the don't knows/won't says would vote yes, which isn't a given.

Seeing as you have been online since and have refused or are too chicken to answer the question put to you then I believe we can all safely assume that you are indeed not pro life and you are pro abortion and/or pro choice!

This is the same as any and every other pro life person I have put this question to, happy to shout and scream but don’t have the Bala to stand by their beliefs!

From now on I and I think others should refer to you as EOTR - he that supports the killing of potential babies in Ireland ( emotional language fully intentional)

Thanks for clearing things up for us EOTR!!

Sin City · 29-12-2017 05:33PM

frag420 wrote: »

That’s not the point and you know it. I’m just curious to know if the life of the unborn is worth people knowing you are a grass and proud of your pro life stance or not?

Well then frame it in a way thats more realistic instead of trying to shame someone to go against their beliefs

Sin City · 29-12-2017 05:45PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

An opinion poll in today's Daily Mail says 53% of all respondents are in favour of repeal and allowing unrestricted access to abortion in the first 12 weeks. 26% are opposed, and 20% don't know or won't say.

Excluding don't knows/won't say, that puts support for access up to 12 weeks (or abortion on demand as some call it) at 66%. That makes it the second poll in the last two months to show the majority of people support what is likely to be the Government's proposal.

It's an encouraging result, but should still be treated with caution. In the 6 months before the marriage equality referendum put support at over 80% (excluding don't knows), whereas the result on the day was 62%. As the article notes, one of the dangers is that some of those in favour of repeal won't turn up to vote, which won't be an issue for the anti-repeal side.

Full article here.

Even I stopped reading after the Daily Mail was cited for statistics

frag420 · 29-12-2017 05:59PM

Sin City wrote: »

Well then frame it in a way thats more realistic instead of trying to shame someone to go against their beliefs

If you believe in something like the pro life side do then what’s to be ashamed of? Would you be ashamed to be known as a saver of potential life?

Also while we are in the subject of shame, how about the pro life should reconsider shaming women into not seeking a termination?

Sin City · 29-12-2017 06:10PM

frag420 wrote: »

If you believe in something like the pro life side do then what’s to be ashamed of? Would you be ashamed to be known as a saver of potential life?

Also while we are in the subject of shame, how about the pro life should reconsider shaming women into not seeking a termination?

I think shaming anyone into anything is fairly redundant in any modern civilized society

This is an emotive subject for both sides so shaming someone no matter what what their stance is despicable

tigger123 · 29-12-2017 06:20PM

Sin City wrote: »

I think shaming anyone into anything is fairly redundant in any modern civilized society

This is an emotive subject for both sides so shaming someone no matter what what their stance is despicable

It's a valid question though (... the one posed to EOTR).

Sin City · 29-12-2017 06:24PM

tigger123 wrote: »

It's a valid question though (... the one posed to EOTR).

Not really as the likelihood of being asked to identify themselves reporting someone is valid

I mean reporting fraud to revenue or even serious crime to the gardai can all be done anonymously

The having to declare yourself when reporting to the authorities is a red herring designed just to be awkward

tigger123 · 29-12-2017 06:33PM

Sin City wrote: »

Not really as the likelihood of being asked to identify themselves reporting someone is valid

I mean reporting fraud to revenue or even serious crime to the gardai can all be done anonymously

The having to declare yourself when reporting to the authorities is a red herring designed just to be awkward

That's not the question being asked.

If I understand it correctly, the question being asked is whether EOTR would report to the authorities (anonymously or not) if a family member had imported the morning after pill.

It's a valid question, as a lot of Irish people seem to be happy with Irish women having to travel to the UK for abortions and for them to be prohibited here.

Quite literally 'not in my back yard'.

Sin City · 29-12-2017 06:41PM

frag420 wrote: »

Welcome back EOTR...

Again in case you missed it could you please be so kind as to answer the following question, it’s the fourth time I will have asked this if you!?

If you don’t we can’t rest assured that you are happy for abortions to happen and are complicit in them as you would not be willing to stop them happening!

So EOTR, If there was a number you could call where you could grass up women( your sister, mother, cousin, aunt. colleague, neighbour etc) who you knew or suspected were going abroad to have a termination or you knew or suspected they were procuring abortion pills online to bring about a termination...

Would you use it to grass up these women to save the potential babies? Also please note that when you do call you will have to give your name and PPS number so you will be identifiable but hey, that should not matter if you’re saving potential life eh!?

So what say you?

tigger123 wrote: »

That's not the question being asked.

If I understand it correctly, the question being asked is whether EOTR would report to the authorities (anonymously or not) if a family member had imported the morning after pill.

It's a valid question, as a lot of Irish people seem to be happy with Irish women having to travel to the UK for abortions and for them to be prohibited here.

Quite literally 'not in my back yard'.

Im replying to the part in bold

end of the road · 29-12-2017 06:46PM

frag420 wrote: »

That’s not the point and you know it. I’m just curious to know if the life of the unborn is worth people knowing you are a grass and proud of your pro life stance or not?

oh but it is the point. it's one of the many points that show your question is complete nonsense, and is designed to twist whichever answer would be given by any respondant to fit your agenda.

frag420 wrote: »

Seeing as you have been online since and have refused or are too chicken to answer the question put to you then I believe we can all safely assume that you are indeed not pro life and you are pro abortion and/or pro choice!

This is the same as any and every other pro life person I have put this question to, happy to shout and scream but don’t have the Bala to stand by their beliefs!

From now on I and I think others should refer to you as EOTR - he that supports the killing of potential babies in Ireland ( emotional language fully intentional)

Thanks for clearing things up for us EOTR!!

thankfully what you assume and what i know for a fact are 2 different things, especially when your assumption is based on me refusing to answer a ridiculous question which is designed based on whichever answer would be given to be twisted to fit a pro-abortion narrative.
you assume i'm pro-abortion (i'm not) . i know for a fact that i'm pro-life and am anti-abortion bar extreme circumstances. therefore what i know to be fact over-rules your assumption.

tigger123 wrote: »

It's a valid question though (... the one posed to EOTR).

oh it really isn't. hence i have ignored it because i know what the poster is looking to do based on whichever answer i would give.

tigger123 · 29-12-2017 06:49PM

Sin City wrote: »

Im replying to the part in bold

Well, he hasn't asked either part of the question. And it's still a valid question.

Sin City · 29-12-2017 06:53PM

tigger123 wrote: »

Well, he hasn't asked either part of the question. And it's still a valid question.

Even asking the question isnt going to prove anything as no matter what you say unless your in that situation you wont know what youll do

Case in point
I have a friend who doesnt believe in abortion
would argue against it at every oppurtuniy

He changed hes mind as soon as he knocked this woman up

He was booking flights to the UK as soon as he knew it and was convincing her shes not gonna have hes child

tigger123 · 29-12-2017 06:56PM

Sin City wrote: »

Even asking the question isnt going to prove anything as no matter what you say unless your in that situation you wont know what youll do

Case in point
I have a friend who doesnt believe in abortion
would argue against it at every oppurtuniy

He changed hes mind as soon as he knocked this woman up

He was booking flights to the UK as soon as he knew it and was convincing her shes not gonna have hes child

Kind of illustrates the lack of empathy on the pro life side; all about the principal until it's your problem (and not someone else's), then it's all about the choice.

frag420 · 29-12-2017 06:58PM

So it took several tones being asked before he answers and only after someone else stepped in to question my motives thus handing EOTR an excuse not to answer like he does in so many of his replies!

The point of the question is whether the life of the unborn in worth people knowing that you are anti choice in the real world!? It’s ok being behind a phone or computer stating your objection but would you be brave enough to report someone for procuring an abortion if your local community knew it was you that reports that person!

I would bet all I have that you would not have the balls to do it and thus your position on saving the lives of babies is self serving and complete nonsense!

Surely the community deserves to know who the local hero is that is saving all these potential lives?

Sin City · 29-12-2017 07:00PM

tigger123 wrote: »

Kind of illustrates the lack of empathy on the pro life side; all about the principal until it's your problem (and not someone else's), then it's all about the choice.

I never said if im pro life or pro choice

I was giving an insight as to how people behave in any given situation might be different to their actual views

frag420 · 29-12-2017 07:01PM

Sin City wrote: »

Not really as the likelihood of being asked to identify themselves reporting someone is valid

I mean reporting fraud to revenue or even serious crime to the gardai can all be done anonymously

The having to declare yourself when reporting to the authorities is a red herring designed just to be awkward

Surely that feeling of awkwardness should pale in comparison to the feeling EOTR would get from saving potential life no? Unless the the babies life is not worth him feeling a little awkward in the community? In which case his position is flawed and complete BS

Sin City · 29-12-2017 07:03PM

frag420 wrote: »

So it took several tones being asked before he answers and only after someone else stepped in to question my motives thus handing EOTR an excuse not to answer like he does in so many of his replies!

The point of the question is whether the life of the unborn in worth people knowing that you are anti choice in the real world!? It’s ok being behind a phone or computer stating your objection but would you be brave enough to report someone for procuring an abortion if your local community knew it was you that reports that person!

I would bet all I have that you would not have the balls to do it and thus your position on saving the lives of babies is self serving and complete nonsense!

Surely the community deserves to know who the local hero is that is saving all these potential lives?

You should be asking batman to stop wearing the costume and fight the joker as Bruce Wayne

:D:D

Sin City · 29-12-2017 07:05PM

frag420 wrote: »

So it took several tones being asked before he answers and only after someone else stepped in to question my motives thus handing EOTR an excuse not to answer like he does in so many of his replies!

The point of the question is whether the life of the unborn in worth people knowing that you are anti choice in the real world!? It’s ok being behind a phone or computer stating your objection but would you be brave enough to report someone for procuring an abortion if your local community knew it was you that reports that person!

I would bet all I have that you would not have the balls to do it and thus your position on saving the lives of babies is self serving and complete nonsense!

Surely the community deserves to know who the local hero is that is saving all these potential lives?

I wouldnt even report anyone from not paying their tv licence mate
Its not worth the rammifcations

So youll say stand by your convitions

I say I would shop them Id be mocked as being dishonest

You see where Im going here

frag420 · 29-12-2017 07:09PM

Sin City wrote: »

I wouldnt even report anyone from not paying their tv licence mate
Its not worth the rammifcations

So youll say stand by your convitions

I say I would shop them Id be mocked as being dishonest

You see where Im going here

Not really as paying your tv licence is not saving a potential human lives, it’s just feeding tubridy and co!

If EOTR shops them he can still be happy in the fact he saved a potential life, if a bit of ribbing from the local community is not worth a babies life and he is willing to let a potential life be aborted so he doesn’t get embarrassed down the local post office when picking up his pension then his argument for life is bogus and fake and he cares more about himself that the unborn!!

As for the dishonesty part, true if he was pro choice but he ain’t so I dont see how it would be dishonest?

See where I am going here?

Sin City · 29-12-2017 07:13PM

frag420 wrote: »

Not really as paying your tv licence is not saving a potential human lives, it’s just feeding tubridy and co!

If EOTR shops them he can still be happy in the fact he saved a potential life, of a bit of robbing from the local community not worth it or is he willing to let a potential life be aborted so he doesn’t get embarrassed down the local post office when picking up his pension?

As for the dishonesty part, true if he was pro choice but he ain’t so I do t see how it would be dishonest?

See where I am going here?

To be honest I havent even checked to see whos on whos side of the coin

I just didnt think your argument of shopping people was an unfair one

even in the above post you keep using incitement to illustrate your point

Try having a debate without the colourful language

(Striking a super hero pose) Sin City away

:D

tigger123 · 29-12-2017 07:14PM

Sin City wrote: »

I never said if im pro life or pro choice

I was giving an insight as to how people behave in any given situation might be different to their actual views

I never made any assumption whether you were pro life or pro choice.

And I think we're in agreement; when people are faced with the reality of a situation heir thinking can change very quickly. Hence the lack of empathy.

Sin City · 29-12-2017 07:17PM

tigger123 wrote: »

I never made any assumption whether you were pro life or pro choice.

And I think we're in agreement; when people are faced with the reality of a situation heir thinking can change very quickly. Hence the lack of empathy.

Of course their thinking can change
Its Logical vs emotional

Yes we are in agreement about everything but the empathy deserved

NuMarvel · 29-12-2017 08:00PM

Sin City wrote: »

Even I stopped reading after the Daily Mail was cited for statistics

I also cited the polling company's own research in my post, though for some reason you edited that part out of your post when quoting me.

Sin City · 29-12-2017 08:10PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I also cited the polling company's own research in my post, though for some reason you edited that part out of your post when quoting me.

Because as I am in work I cant check that site out
So I edited out as I could not comment on it

Also I said I didnt read passed the mention of the Daily Mail for statistics:D

NuMarvel · 29-12-2017 08:19PM

Sin City wrote: »

Because as I am in work I cant check that site out
So I edited out as I could not comment on it

Also I said I didnt read passed the mention of the Daily Mail for statistics:D

So even though you didn't read past the start of my post, you were able to edit out a link referenced later on in my post. And be certain that you can't access it either. Sure, Jan....

Sin City · 29-12-2017 08:24PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

So even though you didn't read past the start of my post, you were able to edit out a link referenced later on in my post. And be certain that you can't access it either. Sure, Jan....

I did indeed as I couldnt open the link

NuMarvel · 29-12-2017 08:29PM

Sin City wrote: »

I did indeed as I couldnt open the link

Suuure...

Anyways, when you're out of work, feel free to have a look and share your opinions on the polling company's methodology.

Sin City · 29-12-2017 08:56PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Suuure...

Anyways, when you're out of work, feel free to have a look and share your opinions on the polling company's methodology.

Just skimmed through it there on my phone

It doesnt say where it gets its applicants for the polls

For example is it a poll for the whole of Ireland or was it just a few Dubs that were surveyed

Also the age demographic was what ? Late teens to early 20s 30 to 40s above or a healthy mix

Im not disagreeing with the findings btw
Just all cards on the table here is needed about those surveyed

18 and over isnt a clear demographic

NuMarvel · 29-12-2017 09:28PM

Sin City wrote: »

Just skimmed through it there on my phone...

See, wasn't so hard, now was it?

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

Comments