end of the road wrote: » those points are inaccurate and are just made up in an attempt to de-rail the thread. i haven't used any unsupported claims and i don't masquerade anything as fact. i do give some well known and widely availible facts yes, however where something isn't fact i make it clear that it's my viewpoint.
uptherebels wrote: » Asking you to provide evidence of your claims isntan attempt to derail a thread. No unsupported claims? Remind me why you got banned from one of the other abortion threads .
end of the road wrote: » christians and all other religions are united with those of us who are non-religious in knowing that the killing of the unborn unrestricted and on demand is one of the most barbaric acts known to man.
uptherebels wrote: » So when you claimed the above can you point out how you showed this was your viewpoint? As claiming all religions are united with you is incorrect as some religions have no official stance on abortion and some are ok with it up to a certain number of weeks. Even JC's link before to show that atheists are pro life showed that Catholics are approx 50/50 in being for/against abortion in most/all cases
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Just because an acorn can become an oak tree, does not mean that an acorn IS an oak tree. This also doesn't tally with my wife's experience of having three miscarriages in an Irish "Catholic Ethos" maternity hospital. Not a single person involved in her care gave the slightest impression that there was an actual child involved.
end of the road wrote: » there is no evidence that 1. this tactic is a counter productive and self destructive means of communicating their message. 2. that it will turn undecided people off voting for them. i'm afraid it's likely that this is more wishful thinking on your part rather then something true and based on accuracy, as such immages do show accurate happenings.
david75 wrote: » How about playing the point rather than coming at me personally? I don’t wishfully think anything. There’s plenty of evidence these images upset people. Read the thread in the image I posted. The first response is from a woman saying it makes her upset as she had a miscarriage. I’ve also seen people complain to Gardai about youth defence doing the same thing outside the gpo and gardai felling them to take the images down and moving them when they refuse. Maybe you could as a thought experiment look from the other point of view and see why the use of these kind of images could be self sabotaging
antiskeptic wrote: » Graphic warnings on cigarette packets? Would people who have direct experience of the diseases shown be upset by them?
david75 wrote: » Just saw something on twitter I have always wondered about. Certain extreme elements within the pro life campaign have always but are now also using really graphic imagery showing alleged abortions/failures. There’s posters up around town already. Do they not realise this is not only an utterly counter productive and self destructive means of (mis) communicating their message but also these images cause huge upset to the many women and their husbands who have suffered miscarriages or FFA? It’s going to really turn even undecided people off voting for them. Is it really necessary? And is such imagery allowed be used in a referendum?
david75 wrote: » You’d imagine that on such a profoundly divisive and sensitive issue in Ireland, the self appointed mouth pieces for the pro life campaign would vocally and visibly distance themselves from that sort of campaigning. They tried the same what about the kids?!? Nonsense in marriage equality and it backfired on them the moment they did and all the way through to their defeat. Really isn’t the way to win a referendum having what are effectively extremists out claiming to be on your side.
david75 wrote: » I’m sure they would. Your wandered away from the point with an odd analogy but yeah I’d say they would be.
....... wrote: This post has been deleted.
WhiteRoses wrote: It’s actually sickening the way women are spoken about in this thread.
end of the road wrote: » the marriage equality referendum was a very different beast. most people were in favour of, marriage equality, others didn't agree with it but were willing to vote for it because nobody would be harmed. repealing the 8th is very different due to the abortion debate, a lot of people don't agree with abortion on demand.
david75 wrote: » I’d disagree. The same people that positioned themselves as the moral superiority and mouthpieces of their campaign in marriage equality are the same ones positioning themselves here in this debate. Cora Sherlock Breda O Brien Paddy Manning that Everrt woman and her husband Keith Mills etc and of course, David Quinn. They oversaw a campaign using multiple fronts including mothers and fathers matter, in the deluded hope that Irish people are stupid enough to believe the nonsense they were coming out with. And the patronising and condescending and utterly false narrative they were pushing assumed we were all stupid and would buy it. Cos that’s what they do when the church says jump. These same people are running this campaign. These same people would want to change their tone and message. Seems like they’ve hired outside PR to assist them with that. Where’s that money coming from again? Ps. We aren’t having a referendum on abortion on demand. At all. You seem to either not have a full grasp of the facts involved or are confused and trying to assume other people are as confused as you. It’s not working.
david75 wrote: » These same people are running this campaign. These same people would want to change their tone and message.
Seems like they’ve hired outside PR to assist them with that. Where’s that money coming from again?
end of the road wrote: » i'm well aware technically the referendum isn't about abortion on demand. however the reality is abortion on demand is the main thing that will be the result of it, and that is why people are talking about that the most. if it was just about repealing the 8th then there would be lots of support for that including from pro-life supporters including myself.
david75 wrote: » We’re asking for the 8th I be repealed and finally for an Irish government to stand up and show some maturity through legislation that is fit for purpose and serves the needs of the women involved. We have an atrocious history with dealing and sorting out difficult issues. None of our TDS are educated or equipped to make even barely serviceable regulations on these matters. They’re hicks and upstarts from small towns with painfully small parties ah pump outlooks. Just look at the Hepatitis/infected blood scandal back in the 90s. Something I don’t understand. The pro life campaign are fine with women traveling for abortion to the uk. They just don’t want it happening here. This suggests they’re either fine with the abortion happening or they know the reality that by the time a woman or young girl finds out she’s pregnant she’ll be unable to get enough money together to go and see to her medical needs in the uk. So that’s both stupid and cruel no matter what way you look at it.
end of the road wrote: » it would only be cruel if abortions in extreme circumstances were being prevented. as it's abortion on demand then it's not cruel, the current system is necessary to try and protect the life of the unborn and it is stopping some abortions. having people traveling to the uk insures that those people fund the abortion themselves rather then the hard-pressed tax payer as a whole having to do it. pro-life are not okay with people having abortions abroad but we have to recognise there is a right to travel and people are able under EU law to use services in other countries and we cannot stop them.
david75 wrote: » The clinically dead corpse of a woman was kept on life support a few years back in the rotunda in Dublin because even though the baby was due any moment it wasn’t going to live even moments after birth. The mother was legally dead. The hospitals hands were legally bound and couldnt do anything. This was prior to Savitas situation. We need to let the medical professionals make decisions here. Not your morals or mine or anyone else’s.
end of the road wrote: » that case is not relevant to the discussion of abortion on demand. it's completely different as the baby apparently wasn't going to live anyway.
antiskeptic wrote: » But folk can special plead this gut instinct away for selfish reasons, when it comes to something as intrusive to personal goals as a having a child. To paraphrase that truest of observations (originally concerning livelihoods) "it's hard to get a woman to believe something when her personal fulfillment depends on her not believing it"
Gerry T wrote: » Your twisting what is being said. The discussion is should abortions be allowed without a reason. Not all women will make considered decisions hence there needs to be some legislation. I don't agree with zero abortion as the line, I'm not at the polar ends but somewhere in the middle. But given the choice of having either polar position, I will vote not to repeal until a better choice is presented. This is not an attack at women, if a woman wants to do anything with her body I would say fire away. But I'm discussing the childs body.
smacl wrote: » Your logic is badly wrong there.
As things stand in this country, we're already in the extreme polar position, to the extent that the UN has commented on us in relation to neglecting women's rights. By voting to keep the eighth you're voting to maintain an extreme and inhumane status quo.
There seems to be agreement on both sides here that whether or not a foetus at 12 weeks is or is not a person is a matter of personally held belief, whereas that a pregnant woman is a person is a matter of fact. On that basis, I find it morally reprehensible that those from the pro-life side would seek to dictate to a woman how she should behave based on their questionable beliefs.
Pithy analogies to slavery, finger-wagging NIMBYisms and shameful shock tactics just add to this.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
