MrPudding wrote: » I know you have been asked this before, but what is the pro-abortion movement. Can you point out some pro-abortion posters to me please? I am most certainly pro-choice, but i am certainly not pro-abortion, and I think that vast majority of pro-choice people are the same. I am pretty sure you know this, as it has been pointed out to you before, but you persist in using the term pro-abortion as you think it casts pro-choice people in a more negative light. it may do that, but what it definitely does is highlight the dishonesty you use in arguing your position. MrP
end of the road wrote: » they are in favour of abortion on demand therefore are pro-abortion. what's the issue with pointing that out, after all they are content with their viewpoint aren't they not? stating that fact doesn't highlight any dishonesty as i'm not one bit dishonest and never have been.
thee glitz wrote: » My point is that they don't say anything - I believe you're the first to even address my point, so I can only infer from the silence. If we had a referendum on retaining the 8th amendment vs adding a clause allowing for abortion in the case of FFA, I have no doubt that that particular case could then be legislated for. Pro-choicers are promoting their cause by highlighting special cases, while refusing to contemplate compromises which would facilitate them.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » If pro-choice people believe abortion on demand/request within 12 or so weeks has majority support, why should they settle for something short of that? Such legislation would facilitate abortion in FFA cases along with the other ones where women need/wish for abortions.
Itssoeasy wrote: » I think the 8th ammendment will be repealed when the referendum does take place, but I don't think it will be the landslide that some think it will be.
end of the road wrote: » MrPudding wrote: » I know you have been asked this before, but what is the pro-abortion movement. Can you point out some pro-abortion posters to me please? I am most certainly pro-choice, but i am certainly not pro-abortion, and I think that vast majority of pro-choice people are the same. I am pretty sure you know this, as it has been pointed out to you before, but you persist in using the term pro-abortion as you think it casts pro-choice people in a more negative light. it may do that, but what it definitely does is highlight the dishonesty you use in arguing your position. MrP they are in favour of abortion on demand therefore are pro-abortion. what's the issue with pointing that out, after all they are content with their viewpoint aren't they not? stating that fact doesn't highlight any dishonesty as i'm not one bit dishonest and never have been.
thee glitz wrote: » I'm not saying they shouldn't (or that they'd be correct in thinking that there is majority support for that). From my experience, they don't care any more for cases of FFA than for just because, and are willing to risk the continued unavailability of abortion is such circumstances for same.
Children's Minister Katherine Zappone believes that only offering abortions in cases of incest, rape and fatal foetal abnormality would "do nothing at all for most women in Ireland".
Loafing Oaf wrote: » If you share this view then I guess a referendum on full liberalisation of the law is a gamble worth taking.
Da Boss wrote: » The government are introducing stricter drink driving laws- to saw lifes! They are taking measures to tackle climate change- which will save life’s. They are (talking of a t least) tackling homelessness- to help save life’s. They are however planning to remove a piece of legislation-the 8th amendment, which has saved more lives that anything else ever did . Without the 8th how many of us Irish would have been denied our lives we currently enjoy,all thanks to the 8th
thee glitz wrote: » Will they say it though, or continue to push special circumstances as a particular cause of concern?
volchitsa wrote: » It's dishonest because nobody is pro abortion. Everyone here would be delighted if every baby was wanted and if no medical issues threatening the mother's health ever required a pregnancy to be terminated. Being pro education means you want all children to be well educated, being pro democracy means you want all citizens to have a free vote. Whereas there's no such thing as being pro abortion. As everyone knows, including you. So the fact that you need to portray the other side of the debate in that way can only be so as to dismiss their views without engaging.
WhiteRoses wrote: » So you are just pro birth it seems, not pro life. Doesn’t matter what kind of life these poor children are born into, with potentially unfit parents, neglect, abuse, poverty, life limiting health conditions etc so long as they are born.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I understand your passion for ‘saving lives’ but women don’t usually go around procuring abortions as casually as buying a cup of coffee, as you like to make out. It is in most cases a very last resort in a very sad situation. By denying a woman her right to a termination, can you even begin to imagine what kind of conditions will be forced on her and her child? Because they literally have no other option? It has been mentioned and admitted many times that support in this country from the government for women in these circumstances is minimal.
WhiteRoses wrote: » The resources simply aren’t there to help her or her child. So she struggles on. Is this miserable situation honestly preferable, in your opinion? And if you are so passionate about saving all these lives, can I ask what you do to support struggling mothers in disadvantaged situations trying their hardest to bring up their kids? Or do you not care, so long as they are born?
end of the road wrote: » no it's because i believe if people really don't want abortion on demand, they won't allow it in their country. they would allow abortion in extreme circumstances, which i'm in favour of also even if i don't agree with the act, as it's a case of necessary evil, but they wouldn't facilitate abortion for life style reasons. at least if they are born into neglect and so on, there is a system to remove them from that neglect. absolutely it's far from perfect, but it can be improved. it's not reason to kill them instead. again, a woman doesn't have a right to an abortion bar extreme circumstances. it's important to keep pointing this out. there is no such right within the state. a woman doesn't even have the right to procure abortion abroad technically, just the right to travel. the system can be and should be improved. we pay taxes to help women who have children who can't afford them. we can deal with the issues, we can't bring an unborn baby back to life if it's aborted.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » I don't see any incompatibility in believing that all women should have access to abortion (within term limits) and holding that such access is particularly urgent in certain cases. Therefore I don't see anything hypocritical or deceitful in focusing on 'hard cases' in the referendum campaign.
If the recommendations of the committee are followed, it will be clear to any sentient person that a yes vote in the referendum is a vote for abortion on demand/request/whatever you want to call it.
thee glitz wrote: » while not contemplating a situation where it could be available, for example, in the case FFA without full liberalisation..
tigger123 wrote: » "Lifestyle reasons". Sluts and whores, eh?
Loafing Oaf wrote: » If, as seems increasingly likely, that choice will be between full liberalisation and no change, why waste time and muddy the waters 'contemplating' alternative proposals.
Fred Swanson wrote: » He is a foreign head of state seeking to interfere in the affairs of another nation.
thee glitz wrote: » Because a lot of people want just change, but not full liberalisation. Framing it in such terms puts the change most want at risk.
end of the road wrote: » wrong, not Sluts and whores. never
Consonata wrote: » I pray that you aren't being sarcastic.
end of the road wrote: » i'm not being one bit sarcastic. i have never and would never describe a woman as a slut or a whore and i have no time for anyone who would either.
Consonata wrote: » I pray that you aren't being sarcastic. What lifestyle reasons then?
tigger123 wrote: » What are the "lifestyle reasons" you referred to in your post?
