RobertKK wrote: » There are many women against abortion. A survey by Newstalk with a polling company found more men were prochoice than women. Your post is tacking the person and not the topic at hand which shows you have a weak argument if you can’t argue the topic.
RobertKK wrote: » So if a baby that is born is dependent on the mother and has no one else to look after it, infanticide would be ok as it directly impacts the mother’s life and her choices?
joeyanne wrote: » NO again. If a baby is born, then it is a living, breathing human being. But at, and before, 12 weeks, it is not a baby. It is a fetus. How can you really believe a fetus can have the same rights as a woman?
RobertKK wrote: » The woman’s life comes first but a blatant disregard for the life she carries does give a view into the psyche of that woman or man who supports taking that life away. There is a lack of empathy with the other life if there is nothing wrong and you terminate his/her life in the womb. He/she in the womb is growing and showing he/she wants to live as there are two lives involved.
RobertKK wrote: » The woman’s life comes first but a blatant disregard for the life she carries does give a view into the psyche of that woman or man who supports taking that life away.
RobertKK wrote: » There is a lack of empathy with the other life if there is nothing wrong and you terminate his/her life in the womb.
RobertKK wrote: » He/she in the womb is growing and showing he/she wants to live as there are two lives involved.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
kylith wrote: » No. A baby can be taken care of by anybody with a mind to. There is literally no way that a fetus can be taken from a womb and implanted into another womb to gestate.
RobertKK wrote: » What if the mother doesn’t want her baby to be cared by someone else and want her/him dead? We have seen mothers commit infanticide. That is illegal but the argument is the baby has the same understanding as the unborn baby in the womb has. The only difference is you can see one and the other is hidden in a body of a woman.
RobertKK wrote: » The only difference is you can see one and the other is hidden in a body of a woman.
....... wrote: » Why do you think women who seek abortions have a blatant disregard for the life they carry? Do you not think it is a measure of last resort for a woman? A difficult decision? I dont know how a fetus is showing it wants to live. Life is not that special, we are surrounded by it here on Earth, everything rudely and enthusiastically multiplies , we are surrounded by life. One single life in a womb is really of zilch importance in the scheme of things.
RobertKK wrote: » In the end if for let’s say ‘oh a baby will get in the way of my studies’ and she has an abortion. It shows a selfishness.
Riskymove wrote: » if someone was to harm a pregnant woman resulting in the loss of the foetus ...would the person be charged with murder?
RobertKK wrote: » Surely the choice should come down to the choice of the pregnant woman into how she felt about what happened and if the unborn was murdered.
RobertKK wrote: » In the end if for let’s say ‘oh a baby will get in the way of my studies’ and she has an abortion. It shows a selfishness. How do you know if an an abortion has zilch importance in the scheme of things? How do you know who is being not allowed to be born? It could be a very cruel person but it could also be a person who would have made life better for everyone because of they would have been a genius. No one knows what they are potentially depriving the world of when they intentionally abort. As I said it could be someone the world is better off without, but it could also be someone who revolutionises something whether in health, travel, work, inventions we don’t know as they were never given a chance in the lottery of life.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Yea we hosted a debate in London on the Marriage Referendum. Voters came to it for a ticket price. The ticket price included watching the debate between the for and against camps, and the bus and ferry ticket (there was a number of buses) to bring them on the day trip home to Ireland. They were not questioned about their eligibility to vote but of course it came up in many over heard conversations on the trip. I did not get the impression from any conversation I over heard, or heard reported to me, that anyone on the buses was under any impression they were not voting legally. They were either "normally resident" in Ireland on a given cut off day, had not been out of Ireland for a given length of time, or had intentions to return to Ireland within a given time and so forth. Perhaps some were, but I saw nothing suggesting it. I think the "illegal voters" are a small number and are just used as a crutch by the losing side to help them get over their loss. And the buses, I might add, were not restricted to just yes voters. There was no voters there too, and the debates continued in a friendly and mature fashion the entire way over on the bus and boat. So those who do moan that illegal voters came, forget that illegal voters vote BOTH ways.
freshpopcorn wrote: » The poll that was released was released at the weekend discussed here and people showed polls of the marriage referendum. Most polls in the marriage referendum were well into the 60% or even 70%. So seeing a poll just in the mid 50% would have me worried.
swampgas wrote: » As for the whole "potential genius that might never be born" angle, you might as well try to add something to the constitution that mandates having 10 kids per family. It's a bogus argument.
