WhiteRoses wrote: » No sane person uses abortion as a means of contraception. Anyone who suggests so clearly has no knowledge of what the procedure involves, because if they did they would know no woman would go through with it unless they had no other option - let alone multiple times as a means of contraception. The fact that you don’t trust women is pretty disgusting and speaks for itself but hey ho, it is your CHOICE to feel that way and who am I to deprive you of that? You are right about it being my opinion but the good thing about being pro choice is that I’m actually not forcing my opinion on anyone, or on society as a whole. Have an abortion, don’t have an abortion. Everyone has their own choice and opinion and is free to live their lives and make their own decisions as they see fit. It’s to pro-life side that are forcing their opinions and beliefs on everyone. I’m not arrogant enough to believe that my opinion speaks for society as a whole. I trust other women. Maybe you should do that too.
q9214n5louyt3p wrote: » Why stop there. Using your logic you could limit the voting to women of child bearing years - impacts them the most
Podge_irl wrote: » How?
q9214n5louyt3p wrote: » Thats a shocking misrepresentation of what I posted and quite dishonest. You need to recalibrate your moral compass - it's way off course
WhiteRoses wrote: » Sorry, which bit did I misunderstand? The bit about not trusting women or the bit about fearing women would use abortion as a means of contraceptive?
RobertKK wrote: » It will be most likely the big business abortion providers who will move in fill the void if the 8th amendment is replaced.
Spanish Eyes wrote: » I would favour that, because that is the reality. Men on the other hand are not safe until they are boxed! But democracy means that you and others beyond childbearing years will always have a say and that is good too. I think! If male, you will never have to face such a decision. Will you?
q9214n5louyt3p wrote: » I think you understood me very well and chose to misrepresent my post - I've called you out on it. I think most reasonable people will call your post for what it is - disingenuous
WhiteRoses wrote: » Nope, sorry. I responded to what I saw in front of me. I was being sincere in my reply. I didn’t misrepresent anything. If you are making claims of me being disingenuous you’re going to back it up and explain how.
q9214n5louyt3p wrote: » That is your opinion. There are other opinions on the matter though. Some might not share your trust of other women using abortion in lieu of contraception.
q9214n5louyt3p wrote: » I simply don't believe your claim of sincerity.
swampgas wrote: » Basically, you think that women can't be trusted, and might have abortions in a way that you find unacceptable, immoral, or unethical. You don't trust women when it comes to really important decisions about their own bodies and lives - do the women in your life know this too? Because the constitution and law apply to them too.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Not entertaining this, it isn’t clear at all what you mean which is why two other people have asked besides myself. So either explain what your problem is or let it go.
applehunter wrote: » Soros has never come up in these arguments tbh. These arguments are more fundamental than that. The media have a duty to report on it and be robust in their job. People in their day to day lives do not have the time to investigate this stuff. That is why we are supposed to have a fourth estate.
q9214n5louyt3p wrote: » I don't give a hoot about you "not entertaining" it.
Flying Fox wrote: » Seems pretty typical of the tactics used by the pro-birthers.
WhiteRoses wrote: » Well stop complaining and making vague statements so then? I have no problem discussing any issues you might have with my post. But I have no intention of coaxing the reason you’re upset out of you. So seeing as it’s clear you aren’t willing to tell me what your issue is, we’ll just have to drop the issue so as not to derail the thread. Your call.
q9214n5louyt3p wrote: » Where did I say I was upset? You must be so used to misrepresenting others you can't help yourself!
applehunter wrote: » What does that mean? a robot?
WhiteRoses wrote: » As I said if you aren’t willing to discuss and explain the ‘misrepresenting’ and my ‘disingenuity’ then it’s best to just drop it.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » Pretty muchhttps://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/will-eighth-amendment-vote-be-manipulated-online-1.3297594?mode=amphttp://metro.co.uk/2017/10/21/brexit-twitter-bots-posted-65000-messages-then-vanished-after-eu-referendum-7016396/https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/anti-abortion-group-hires-kanto-agency-that-pushed-brexit-hfnklf3kk The Pro Life campaign has hired Kanto who have links to Cambridge Analytica. These guys will be infiltrating social media with millions of disruptive bots.
applehunter wrote: » Then if comes to light that multi-billionaire George Soros is funding one the main repeal groups. But, not only that, in doing so he is breaking irish law. Sounds like a juicy story to me.[Media blackout for 4 days.
applehunter wrote: » https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/amnesty-international-ordered-to-return-donation-from-billionaire-george-soros-1.3320638
q9214n5louyt3p wrote: » No. Anyone can look at my post and yours - I'm happy with that
Billy86 wrote: » Poster complains about George Soros. Poster claims media will not report on negative stories about George Soros. Poster then links to the highest profile newspaper in the country running a negative story on George Soros to try and prove this. Poster no doubt sees any of the irony in this, nor the fact they have successfully defeated their own argument with exactly zero assistance.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wc.vanillicon.com/v2/cb3e473e130edbea92f4060567c2cc7f.svg)
