end of the road wrote: » of course i'm here to debate, i wouldn't be here otherwise. if i was here to stop boards from becoming an abortionist echo-chamber, then i have lost that battle as one part of boards has already become such where pro-life views aren't allowed. so that would be a bad strategy. i have listened to what others have said however what they have to say is for the most part wrong and therefore i'm not going to support or agree with it.
J C wrote: » You probably can ... but this doesn't eliminate the hurt that abortion causes women. Here is a woman who had three abortions ... and afterwards became a Born Again Christian ... and turned her life about.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » And fir every video you post i can post multiple articlres and video clips of women who do not regret having abortions.
uptherebels wrote: » As has been said to you many times, you are not here to debate, you are here by your own admission so that boards doesn't become a pro choice echo chamber. You refusing to hear what is being said doesn't mean people cant argue against you
J C wrote: » Abortion is a disaster for the unborn child ... but it is also very problematical for many of the women who have one as well. Here is the other side of abortion ... told by women who have had abortions.
end of the road wrote: » mothers who's lives are under threat i believe can get abortions in ireland now, the law was changed in 2013. i believe that law can be extended for other extreme cases. i actually did make a statement on why i believe the research to not be reliable. youdidn't like the answer. there is nothing to "feed" and i'm not an "it" . i'm a human being. just because you can't argue against what i say that doesn't mean you should not debate with me.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » And never has or will, on any thread on any subject. I don't even feed it anymore because its a waste of time.
Delirium wrote: » But they aren't able to get an abortion due to the 8th. The same 8th you were just saying you're okay with as the current situation saves lives.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
....... wrote: » You have already been shown the research that disproves your "belief" above. You refused to accept the Lancet article and refused to state what part of the research you had an issue with. So evidence has been provided to you to show that abortion bans do not reduce abortions.You have not shown a shred of evidence to show that removing an abortion ban will increase the number of abortions.
end of the road wrote: » to be fair, i did state in my post "outside medical reasons" meaning i would be okay with abortion for medical reasons such as a threat to the mother's life, cases of FFA, where the baby cannot be caried viably or live to term, or cases where the mother is under threat of permanent injury or disability.
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?
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: » 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: » 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.
Effects wrote: » So it's fine for wealthy people to be able to have abortions, but not the poor?
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.
