Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Stop spamming the thread with videos of songs because it doesn't validate your pro life stance one bit. I wonder would you be ok if I started posting death metal videos or videos of satanic rituals?
J C wrote: » We're at over 1200 posts ... and both sides have presented 'logical' arguments for their positions. Here is an interesting Chrisitian song from the possible perspective of the unborn child herself ...
pilly wrote: » Please provide proof that most people who claim to be christan aren't? Really sick of you making stuff up. Lies.
Dionysis wrote: » Agreed. However the question here is, when do you begin to have rights, and when are they considered to be infringed. To explain. If after conception a foetus has rights, then at what stage are you considering them to infringe on the mothers rights. If a child is born with a deficiency due to something that happened when the mother was still carrying it, (for arguments sake, drinking/smoking during pregnancy caused a defect), has the mother infringed the unborn babies rights and caused the deficiency, and so is liable? If not, then a babies rights and infringing on them only occurs after it’s born.
Ash.J.Williams wrote: » Life begins at conception and anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot.. And I'm pro choice.
ABC101 wrote: » Abortion is the physical implementation of a opinion that a beautiful baby should never be born. It is the enactment of a appalling injustice.
pilly wrote: » Proof that customs are getting the vast majority of pills please.
smacl wrote: » Expectant mothers anticipating a baby and their doctors / midwives will talk about a baby as that is what they're planning and hoping for. A pregnant woman who does not want to have a baby, not so much. I would assert that for a woman who chooses to have an abortion, there isn't nor has there been any baby. That you or anyone else might believe differently is no more or less than your belief, it is not a matter of fact. Do you in all honesty consider the woman who has an abortion to be a murderer? Is have an abortion, by your way of thinking, the exact same crime as murdering a child?
end of the road wrote: i expect the laws of the land to be enforced without fear or favour, regardless of whether i agree with the law or not. it's not up to me to campaign for the forces of the state to do their job, they should do it. but as i said, customs are having great success in stopping abortion pills from getting into the country. they won't get them all but i believe they are getting a massive percentage of them.
end of the road wrote: there is little support for drug enforcement anyway abortion pills asside. most ordinary people caught with a bit of whatever are usually cautioned or given a very light sentence if bought to court, it's only the big dealers who get actual sentences. the gardai need to do little in relation to the abortion pills as customs are getting the vast majority that are being imported anyway. the people on the train were let have their little stunt because customs are having huge success. it was a way of the gardai trying to get some of the people back on side.
end of the road wrote: actually there is no evidence they favour unlimited abortion as that wasn't the question asked. it could be abortion in limited circumstances they are in favour of but the question was ambiguous. as a republican i will never except the unquestioned and on demand killing of the unborn in my country.
end of the road wrote: the question itself never mentioned abortion on request. so for all we know it could be abortion in limited circumstances they are in favour of. most of the people who claim to be christian in ireland actually aren't anyway so it cannot be gauged how many actual christians would be in favour of abortion on demand. i'd suspect very few. abortion in limited circumstances may be a different story.
ABC101 wrote: » I merely pointed out that expectant mothers / doctors / midwives etc refer to the unborn as a baby not a fetus. I’ve never personally asked a pregnant mother “how’s your fetus doing?”. I also credited Leo Varadker as stating this publically. WRT some historical adoption instances I fail to understand the relevance to this debate. Adoption is not the same as abortion. If you are unable to discuss in a civil manner various topics of debate then perhaps you should be posting / blogging elsewhere.
end of the road wrote: pro-lifers are very likely part of that campaign.
david75 wrote: » Ever heard of a pro lifer looking after a baby the Moment it appeared in the world and scooping it away and caring about it only until it was cute enough to selll that precious baby to the richest person available as soon as it was cute enough? Yes we have actually heard of those people. They were called nuns. And they literally stole babes from their mothers and sold them away for their own avericious ends. Jealousy they could never have children. And greed for never enough money. stop with your every life is precious bull****. Your hypocrisy is hanging out
david75 wrote: They were called nuns. And they literally stole babes from their mothers and sold them away for their own avericious ends. Jealousy they could never have children. And greed for never enough money.
ABC101 wrote: » Ever heard a pregnant woman refer to the being inside her as a fetus? When a pregnant woman visits her doctor for a check up, does the doctor refer to the being as a fetus? No to both. Doctors and pregnant women refer to the being as a baby, not a fetus. Leo Varadker made this point some time ago.
david75 wrote: » A foetus isn’t a child though. Are you confused about that? It would seem so.
Nick Park wrote: » Careful, you're likely to get accused of 'talking out of your behind' for expressing a view on something that, apparently, no-one in the country is talking about. :pac:
Cabaal wrote: » Works in Australia so it can certainly be done so to say its not viable is incorrect Thats rather amusing coming from the same person who has previously suggested that a democratic vote should be ignored because it doesn't fit your viewpoint.
end of the road wrote: » wouldn't be viable, would take up to much court time and would be costly, it would be undemocratic also. but yeah, certainly worth a thread elsewhere sometime
end of the road wrote: » wouldn't be viable, would take up to much court time and would be costly
it would be undemocratic also.
david75 wrote: » As I said. It’s very carefully set up that way and changing it doesn’t suit the powers that be. Personally I think voting should be mandatory and fines for anyone not doing their duty but that’s another story.
end of the road wrote: » i wouldn't be forcing anyone to do anything. the fact is one does not have a right to kill the unborn unless their life is in danger, they are under threat of permanent injury or disability, or the baby cannot be viably caried to term or will not live to term.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Possibly because they are held on weekdays, during term time and one cannot vote outside of their electorate! Intentional at all? People who study and commute are grossly disadvantaged from what I’ve seen of Irish elections.
david75 wrote: » Ah no I get that. It’s just screwed up even in general elections that it suits the establishment MO to have people totally disinterested and not engaging. We have the youngest population in Europe and among the lowest turnouts by them in elections and referenda. That’s really alarming.
