end of the road wrote: » abortions in cases of FFA could be allowed via an extension of the existing law. having people travel to procure abortions shows them that there are consiquences to the act of killing the unborn outside extreme circumstances, which will hopefully deter some from carying out the act.
david75 wrote: » You’re halfway to having an actual understanding of the referendum and what it is about. Progress. At last.
david75 wrote: To be honest I can see this kind of faith based preaching and threatening instigating people to vote in favour of the referendum. It’s counter productive.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » For those who voted for sodomy, get on your knees and beg God's forgiveness.
sodomy ˈsɒdəmi/ noun noun: sodomy anal intercourse.
end of the road wrote: » ireland is a civilised country by not allowing unrestricted and on demand abortion. countries that allow abortion on demand and unrestricted are less civilised as they allow the killing of the unborn without good reason.
ABC101 wrote: » Smacl, thanks for your reply etc. Would you be in favour of unlimited abortion, up to 9 months? If not what type of abortion would you not be prepared to endorse?
Cabaal wrote: » Tell me, what is it with many Christian's people obsession with sodomy and it being bad but being fine with Lesbian's having sex?
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
antiskeptic wrote: » Oi, steady on the broad brushstroke. Deal with Owen's view as if they were Owen's views.
Cabaal wrote: » What broad brushstroke? I said many christian, not all, not even a majority. It is something that many Christian's do certainly have an obsession about. They go on about how bad sodomy is but they never for a second mention lesbians, this does suggest a little bit of an obsession. I'm well aware not all Christian's are obsessed or even care about such things, but many do as you see it time and time again mentioned when it comes to gay rights by religious people.
end of the road wrote: » Having people travel to procure abortions shows them that there are consiquences to the act of killing the unborn outside extreme circumstances, which will hopefully deter some from carying out the act.
Effects wrote: » So it's fine for wealthy people to be able to have abortions, but not the poor?
end of the road wrote: » because a number of those in favour of abortion will never leave it at 12 weeks. they will scream and scream until it's increased and the government will end up bending over.
Delirium wrote: » If you're concerned about abortions being carried out later into pregnancies, then opposing the removal of the 8th makes little sense. Women are having abortions later because travelling to another country means the abortion doesn't happen as early into the pregnancy if they didn't have to go abroad.
end of the road wrote: » i'm aware the current system is causing later abortions. however it is outweighed for me by the 8th quite likely saving many unborn lives by insuring a deterrent for some to procure abortion outside medical reasons, by having them travel to the uk and funding it themselves. so i still won't oppose the 8th because i believe it does save some lives and i believe some form of deterrent toards the procurement of abortions outside medical reasons is a good thing.
Delirium wrote: » And what about the women who can't travel and are denied abortions that force them continue through the pregnancy until they miscarry or deliver a child that dies shortly after?
