Schorpio wrote: » If the information is 'indisputable', then please tell me how there are over 2k posts in this thread? We both know that the 'information' provided here has been disputed over, and over again. And again - you're not protecting the unborn. The majority of women who want an abortion today can have one, but the need to travel for it. You're not protecting or preventing anyone. In fact, you're endangering the women. But hey, I know your mind's not for changing and I'm wasting my time so I'm going to give this thread a miss from now on.
uptherebels wrote: » Any evidence for this or are you engaging in the usual anti choicer task of fabricating "facts"
J C wrote: » Ah now, come on Delirium, do you really believe what you are saying? The reality is that all of the pressure will be to lift the time limit to be in line with English law ... because we apparently can't have any women going to England for abortions ... or so the pro-abortionists are maintaining.
J C wrote: » I have posted anatomically correct scientifically vaidated images of unborn children, in all of their undoubted Humanity ... and they were criticised for being 'cartoons' ... but no reason was given as to why they weren't anatomically correct ... so we can safely assume that they are anatomically correct.
Delirium wrote: » No, I don't think that the limit should be in the constitution.I could revise it downwards as science progresses and don't think a referendum should be required to modify the law to a smaller week limit.
J C wrote: » There are many wonderful young people 'on the side of the angels' on this one ... so young and old Ireland are both strongly pro-life.
Schorpio wrote: » Lads, this thread is toxic.
Schorpio wrote: » As a pro-choice individual, I can completely understand and accept that there are legitimate reasons why some people could be anti-repeal. However, having followed this thread for a while, none of this is on display. In fact, this thread could be held up as everything that is wrong with the save the 8th campaign. The level of scaremongering, cartoon 'scientific' drawings, and general misinformation floating about is unreal. Also, just because a statement is written in bold doesn't make it true.
Schorpio wrote: » Here's the kicker though lads - we're all wasting our time. Nobody is going to sway anyone's opinion in this thread. Equally, people on the fence aren't going to wade through all of these posts.
Schorpio wrote: » On a side note, there were similar posts/posters around the time of the marriage referendum, and look how that turned out.
Schorpio wrote: » Some of the (what I would refer to as) 'old' Irish mentality is still alive and well here, but I don't think it's representative of the general populous......and long may that continue to be the case.
end of the road wrote: » the thread is fine, it has provided factual and indisputable information. wanting to protect the unborn's right to life is not the old irish mentality, but a modern progressive ideal. we aren't voting no to repeal because we believe the 8th to be a great act that must remain, we are voting no because the 8th remaining is the only option availible to insure the unborn's right to life is upheld, given the proposals on the table.
Schorpio wrote: » Lads, this thread is toxic. As a pro-choice individual, I can completely understand and accept that there are legitimate reasons why some people could be anti-repeal. However, having followed this thread for a while, none of this is on display. In fact, this thread could be held up as everything that is wrong with the save the 8th campaign. The level of scaremongering, cartoon 'scientific' drawings, and general misinformation floating about is unreal. Also, just because a statement is written in bold doesn't make it true. Here's the kicker though lads - we're all wasting our time. Nobody is going to sway anyone's opinion in this thread. Equally, people on the fence aren't going to wade through all of these posts. On a side note, there were similar posts/posters around the time of the marriage referendum, and look how that turned out. Some of the (what I would refer to as) 'old' Irish mentality is still alive and well here, but I don't think it's representative of the general populous......and long may that continue to be the case.
J C wrote: » Would you be happy to place the 12 week limit in the constitution ... or is your commitment to the 12 week limit, just because the politicians think this is as far as they can push the people and get the 8th repealed ... and then it will be 'whatever you are having yourself' !!!
Delirium wrote: » This from the poster who mentioned oranges. I'm okay with abortion on request up to 12 weeks. So to your question, generally no. The answer is in your question, after 12 weeks.
david75 wrote: » Given the amount of time and vast amounts of posts in this thread I don’t see how you’d have time for much of anything else. An observation not an insult. But you’re not paying attention as self appointed Catholic mouthpieces appear frequently and regularly on tv radio and in print on this issue. Breda O Brien weekly and unchallenged in the Irish Times. David Quinn under every stone you can overturn.
Katie Full Leak wrote: » Now you're being disingenuous. We're not talking about aborting sperm.
So to you...are you ok with killing humans just because they're not wanted?
we now know that youre happy to abort a human foetus at 12 weeks. At what point would you be unhappy to do so.?
J C wrote: » David Quinn has a regular opinion piece in the Irish Independent, I think ... which he uses to talk about all kinds of things ... and not just the 8th. Apart from this token Iona/Roman Catholic column, I have not seen or heard any debate about the 8th on any media. The objective seems to avoid debate at all costs ... for the nominal reason of avoiding conflict and controversy ... to which I'm tempted to say, 'since when did that stop them'? They think they have it all 'wrapped up' ... and any debate can only result in losses for the pro-abort side ... and that is why they are avoiding any debate like the plague. This may actually be the rock the repeal of 8th actually perishes on ... so I would encourge them to keep doing exactly what they are doing !!!
Delirium wrote: » So does sperm yet it's not regarded as a human being.
Delirium wrote: » You are joking right? It's quite common for Iona or a priest to be on current affairs programmes to argue the pro-life side. Not to mention Iona have regular columns in national newspapers.
J C wrote: » The pro-life movement have had little or no access to the MSM to date.Discussions on the 8th have largely revolved around 'experts' discussing various 'technical' aspects of conducting campaigns in general and the 8th in particular. All very 'safe' stuff ... but of no interest to and with even less real infomation on abortion for the general public. People aren't stupid ... and they won't be patronised with such obvious ruses.
Katie Full Leak wrote: » It has human DNA as opposed to orange DNA.
J C wrote: » TBH there one poll and one poll only that counts ... and that will be the referendum poll. All I'll say about opinion polls is that the got it spectaculary wrong on Trump and Brexit ... and the 8th is shaping up the same way!!! ... with a lot of stuff going on 'under the radar' ... that elites are blissfully unaware of. The pro-life movement have had little or no access to the MSM to date. Discussions on the 8th have largely revolved around 'experts' discussing various 'technical' aspects of conducting campaigns in general and the 8th in particular. All very 'safe' stuff ... but of no interest to and with even less real infomation on abortion for the general public. People aren't stupid ... and they won't be patronised with such obvious ruses.
Delirium wrote: » I see you're fond of the smart alek answers when it suits you. care to answer the question this time? What are the properties of a zygote/embryo that makes you say it is a human being? Just to be clear, I'm not asking you what makes the zygote a human zygote. I'm asking what makes it a human being?
J C wrote: » They are not graphic images of the procedure ... they are graphic images of the result of the procedure ... the mangled and bloodied arms, legs, head and torsos put it beyond all doubt that it was a tiny Human baby that was killed ... and therefore the images must be condemned as 'disgusting', if you are to continue in denial of what abortion actually is ... the killing of tiny vulnerable Human Beings.
Anyway, are you going to stop hiding behind semantics ... and come out and honestly put your arguments for the abortion of unborn children, in all of their obvious Humanity?
Is this 12 week old unborn child not objectively Human? ... and it is proposed to abort unborn children, just like this, if the 8th is repealed.
david75 wrote: » Polls aren’t wishful thinking. All polls indicate it will be passed. Not concrete but not to be ignored. ‘Wrong again’. Try harder.
Delirium wrote: » Is that the metric now? If you can stomach the graphic images of a procedure, then it can be legal? Seems a silly way to decide medical policy.
end of the road wrote: » it's not a fact unless the vote for repeal is passed via the referendum. until then, it's just wishful thinking with no basis in reality. so, wrong again.
david75 wrote: » Oh here we go with the concentration camps and eugenics pro life lingo bingo is a go!
david75 wrote: » The vast majority of voters in Ireland support repealing the eighth. That’s a fact.
J C wrote: » If you're not distancing yourself from abortion ... then come out and just say that you are in favour of killing unborn children, in all of their obvious Humanity by abortion. Like I have said, I can respect your honesty, if not your ideas, if you do that.
Please stop hiding behind semantics and the denial of the obvious ... and what is objectively verifiable.
It's like the people who recoil in horror at pictures of aborted babies ... and then hypocritically criticise the people who showed them the pictures ... and not the people who aborted these unborn children, in the first place ... who are the cause and creators of these pictures of horror. A classical 'blaming of the messenger for the message'. Its yet another way of going into denial and distancing themselves from what that they support.
