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.?
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.
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.
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to the 12 week limit, just because the politicians think this is as far as they can push the people and get the 8th repealed ...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' !!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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: » 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.
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.
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.
J C wrote: » All of the fact denial on this thread is on the pro-abortion side. Ye are denying the fact of the humanity of the unborn child ... because to accept the truth you would be faced with the fact that every abortion kills a Human Being ... and ye can't be having that!!! Here are Irish Pro-life young people ... and not an old man or woman in sight !!
uptherebels wrote: » But why do you insist on posting cartoons and cgi? I mean actual pics are available so that means you choose the cartoons because you fell there is an advantage in using them over actual pics. I wonder why that is?
end of the road wrote: » there are quite a surprising amount of young people who are pro-life.
Katie Full Leak wrote: » Why 12 weeks? Why not 11 or 13? When is the foetus human? When is abortion the arbortion of a human?
end of the road wrote: » no, what i what i want is a new constitutional provision that protects the unborn and the mother, and allows for necessary abortions.
end of the road wrote: » voting repeal isn't going to deliver the change i want, voting no will protect the unborn. i'm not expecting lots of referendums should no be successful, but i am happy to hold out for whatever length it takes to get the change that is good for society, rather then what is proposed which is bad for society.
david75 wrote: » Same tactics being employed by save the 8th here to even more disasterous effects for their campigan.
david75 wrote: » The previous poster was correct. Threads like these aren’t changing anyone’s minds. They are a great indicator of how deluded many of the pro life side actually are.
david75 wrote: » Yep. Keep letting those guys speak. Their doing wonders for the repeal side.
uptherebels wrote: » you claimed both young and old ireland are strongly pro life a picturee of a couple of young people does not prove this. Good thing i wasn't holding my breath waiting for anti choicers to provide any evidence as usual All of the fact denial is by pro choice?:pac::pac: another example of making it up as you go along. Need to take those blinkers off
NuMarvel wrote: » It's been explained more than once why that's not a runner. The TL;DR version is that the constitution isn't the place to deal with complex clinical issues. You may want it, but it's simply not feasible unless you have a solution to address those problems. Voting No isn't going to deliver the change you want either. Nothing's going to deliver the change you want, because what you want can't be done. Nor will voting No protect the unborn, because women will continue to travel or import pills or take more extreme measures. Anyone who thinks a No vote is going to make this or future governments consider having another abortion referendum in the foreseeable future is deluding themselves. This will be the end of the matter for a decade if not more, so if they really want change, this will be their only chance to get it. If they decide to vote No anyway, then chances are they didn't want meaningful change in the first place.
Delirium wrote: » It's 10 weeks before viability. I'd consider the foetus a human being at 20+ weeks. 11 would be fine, 13 I'd be asking why the extra week is needed.
end of the road wrote: » this is wishful thinking with no basis in fact and reality. there is no evidence the pro-life's tactics are disasterous in terms of their campaign. they aren't a great indicator of anything of the sort. this is more wishful thinking with no basis in fact and reality. there is no evidence that the pro-life view is turning people to the repeal camp.
end of the road wrote: » voting no will protect the unborn's right to life within the constitution, and will protect some unborn babies from being killed. even if it only protects 1, that's 1 less unborn baby killed.
J C wrote: » My original post was in response to a post that stated that pro-life was largely 'old' Ireland and it was as follows:-Originally Posted by J C 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. ... and I posted a picture showing young pro-life people marching. I don't see anything made up about any of this.
david75 wrote: » You’re in another thread where several participants are outraged by the use of graphic imagery on billboards held by campaigners of the PLC and their young kids seeing it making them upset. And you’re defending the use of the posters.
