Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

1…265266268270271…332

Comments

  • #8012
    railer201
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 968 ✭✭✭railer201


    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    So why do we need to permit abortion in this country if so few women are choosing to travel with a view to ending the life of their unborn child?

    Because we should handle our own problems 'in house' and not expect other nations to do what we could actually do here and won't because of religious reasons. Do you not see the hypocrisy of this ?

    More importantly we need to protect the lives of the mothers and this ain't happening because of the 8th - perhaps you should read this - https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/former-holles-street-master-eighth-amendment-has-caused-death-of-women-36240277.html
    Former Holles Street master: 'Eighth Amendment has caused death of women'

    The Eighth Amendment has caused “grave harm to women including death” according to former master of Holles Street hospital, Professor Peter Boylan.

    He was speaking before the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment today, where he also said Ireland’s abortion legislation has an effect on the decision-making abilities of clinicians, resulting in the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar who died of sepsis at Galway University Hospital.

    “She died as a consequence of the Eighth Amendment”, Professor Boylan told the committee following questions from Deputy Mattie McGrath.

    Mr McGrath went on to argue that there are “lots of differing opinions” about the cause of death of Savita Halappanavar, to which Professor Boylan said he had “the advantage of reviewing her notes forensically”.


    The fifth anniversary of Ms Halappanavar’s death is next week.

    Also present at the Committee was Dr Sir Sabaratnam Arulkumaran president-elect of International Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology who also investigated the death of Savita Halappanavar.

    He said the difficulty in the Irish legislation where a clear and present threat to a woman’s life must exist before an abortion can occur creates a serious ongoing risk, “some cases accelerate steeply and you miss the boat”, he said. For example, there is up to 60pc chance of maternal mortality with sepsis fever but because the [foetal] heartbeat is there and you start dilly-dallying and that’s it.”

    All witnesses at the Oireachtas Committee on the Eighth Amendment today called on Ireland to repeal the Eighth Amendment and replace with legislation along the lines of what was called for by the Citizens Assembly earlier in the year.

    The Citizens’ Assembly members voted on their recommendations for access to abortion for certain medical and other conditions and voted overwhelmingly to remove the 8th amendment from the constitution.

    Read more: Fianna Fáil delegates reject calls to change the Constitution on abortion
    64pc of the Members’ recommended that the termination of pregnancy without restriction should be lawful.

    During today’s meeting, expert witness Professor Peter Boylan former Master of Holles Street Hospital said Ireland could look at other EU countries to as possible legal models when shaping any new abortion legislation, not just the UK, where most Irish women have an abortion.


    Mr Boylan said 99pc of women in the EU have access to termination in the first trimester.

    The Oireachtas Committee is considering a range of options in the event of next year’s referendum on the Eighth Amendment passing, one of which is to insert limited legislation which allows for abortion in cases of rape or incest.

    Professor Boylan pointed out the difficulties that will emerge when a burden of proof will lie with a woman to prove she has been raped in order to obtain an abortion.

    There is no “test to confirm rape” and any woman who has "undergone the trauma of rape should not be forced to ‘prove’ rape if she chooses to terminate a resulting pregnancy", he said.

    Women should be "taken at their word, hardly a revolutionary concept", he added.


  • #8013
    NuMarvel
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,279 ✭✭✭NuMarvel


    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    I absolutely care about the unborn child; if it were up to me, I would criminalise women who travel overseas for abortions.

    Question for pro lifers and anti-repealers; How many of you agree with this sentiment? Do you think women should be criminalised for having an abortion abroad?


  • #8014
    Andrew Beef
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 754 ✭✭✭Andrew Beef


    Abortion in medical cases and FFA cases should be allowed in Ireland.


  • #8015
    Orion
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,807 ✭✭✭✭Orion


    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    Abortion in medical cases and FFA cases should be allowed in Ireland.

    So you support repealing the 8th Amendment then because it prevents abortion in those cases.


  • #8016
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Edward M wrote: »
    Of course it was. The fetus in a human body is a human creation, its a human, no question of that in my mind anyway.
    There's no need to dehumanise it to gain support.

    I am talking about Humanization of it in terms of the narratives and attributes we think of in individual personhood. I think I was pretty clear that I am not talking at all about Taxonomy here and identifying it as "Human" in that sense.

    The user is talking about the dehumanization inherent in calling it a "fetus" rather than a "baby" or "unborn child". And it is the "human" attributes inherent in the narratives behind the word "baby" and "child" that are not warranted, and never have been, in their application to the fetus.

    So when we call it a fetus, rather than a "baby" this is not dehumanizing it. Rather, it is not pre-humanizing it before it's due.


  • Advertisement
  • #8017
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    So why do we need to permit abortion in this country if so few women are choosing to travel with a view to ending the life of their unborn child?

    Because we are a compassionate society and we do not want our wives, daughters, girlfriends and other close friends to suffer needlessly.

    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    blanch152, I have never heard such a case of semantics in all my life.

    You claim that no person’s right can trump another person’s right, but on occasion one person’s right can supercede another person’s right!

    Incredible!


    Not at all, you just didn't understand my point.

    If a right "trumps" another right, it is superior in all circumstances. That just isn't true and no right is completely superior to all other rights.

    As I have repeatedly explained, there are competing rights, the right to life of the unborn on one side, and the rights of a woman to bodily integrity, to choose, to health and to medical treatment on the other. At different points and under different circumstances, the balance of all of those rights sometimes would allow abortion and sometimes it would not. As a mature society, we need to consider that appropriate balance. Hence I support abortion for any reason up to 12 weeks as proposed by the Dail Committee (I could go to 15 or be persuaded by medical experts to 18, but 12 is acceptable) and only after that for specific reasons e.g. FFA, a threat to the life of the woman etc. On the other hand, if a woman at 30 weeks pregnant wanted to abort an otherwise healthy baby, that shouldn't be allowed as the right to life of the unborn at that stage takes precedence.

    If we frame the debate in those terms - what is the appropriate balance between the competing rights? - we take it away from the extremists on either side who foam at the mouth and repeat insane absolutisms. Be careful that you don't become one of those.


  • #8018
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Edward M wrote: »
    Of course it was. The fetus in a human body is a human creation, its a human, no question of that in my mind anyway.
    There's no need to dehumanise it to gain support.


    I use both terms.

    When I am talking about a 30-week pregnancy, I refer to an unborn baby. When I am talking about a 6-week pregnancy, I refer to a fetus.

    Why? Because there is a difference between the two.


  • #8019
    Oldtree
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,109 ✭✭✭Oldtree


    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    So why do we need to permit abortion in this country if so few women are choosing to travel with a view to ending the life of their unborn child?

    Because every Irish woman, her health and choices is important.

    You are confusing the micro with the macro with the numbers.
    Oldtree wrote: »
    In 2016 there were 2,407,437 women in Ireland. In 2016, 3,265 women and girls gave Irish addresses at UK abortion services.
    (This number is an underestimation for various reasons and does not include abortion pill packages.)

    This represents 0.14% of women in the country, hardly a socialtial fabric changing number in either mindset, or changing what is actuality happening.

    Let me rephrase. 0.14% is not going to bring about the end of society as we know it (as you suggested), but 3,265 women is a significant number of individual women to warrant a change in our laws and medical practices, so they may be properly cared for by us. I remind you that they are Irish women, our mothers, our sisters, our daughters, our wives.


  • #8020
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    Abortion in medical cases and FFA cases should be allowed in Ireland.

    You also believe that abortion should be allowed in cases of rape. Should we allow for that in Ireland?
    You haven't quite explained why the unborn in a rape case doesn't have the same right to life as the unborn in another pregnancy?


  • #8021
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    Edward M wrote: »
    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    You are running around the pitch with the goal posts here though in a concerted and contrived and willful campaign of topic hoping.

    The post before this one you were trying, and failing, to correlate teen pregnancies with sex education..... suggesting a rise in one is linked to a rise in the other, and vice versa. You then dodge from that to STI, and then dodge from that to something entirely off topic about comments about Islam and then dodge once again to the topic of media pressures on children to start having sex. You are taking the "slippery fish" approach to discussion here, leaping out of each topic into the next in an attempt not to be pinned down to the mat on any one.

    When that post on education position was roundly rebutted you shifted to another narrative about a rise in STI. A completely different position to a rise in pregnancies. And NEITHER of your links correlates this with sex education at all. So yes it IS "just one study" on the subject you addressed, a subject you have run away from in favor of another now.

    The "just one study" you presented to support your narrative about sex education however is one that even the authors themselves say should be interpreted very cautiously. Which you might have noticed if you had more of a tendency to read the original studies, rather than news paper spin articles ABOUT studies.

    It is more comical than I have words to describe that you moan about people who "only follow the Medias propaganda" yet every link you provide is TO MEDIA ARTICLES and never to the actual studies themselves. And not just any media articles, but highly biases ones from sources like "Breitbart". You might also notice that one of the authors you cite is remarkably biased on the subject, having spent a decade or more writing against strategies educating teens on sex. It gets even funnier when you moan things are not "news worthy" while citing NEWS articles about them. The conspiracy theories are strong in this one.

    In other words, the one entirely and wholly reliant on media propaganda here is you. You. Just you. Only you. And, of course, you. Moaning about the media while pretty much exclusively ONLY using media links is remarkably comical even by your usual standards of misdirection. Try reading, understanding and citing the actual research in future, and leave the media out of it entirely.

    The first thing you need to notice after this is that correlation does not imply causation. The effects of sexual education do not stop the moment you cut funding to sex education. The cuts come at precisely the time when we expect to see the beneficial effects of the sex education the government HAD been funding. So it is a leap of pure narrative and spin to try and correlate the variance in pregnancies NOW with the cut in funding NOW. The former is more likely to be causally linked to what happened BEFORE the latter.

    Studies worldwide CONSISTENTLY show the benefits of earlier, more comprehensive, and more extensive sexual education. One opinion piece that fails entirely to understand the link before correlation and causation is not going to make all that go away for you. And as one of your own links points out, the issue is less likely to be anything to do with contraception and sex education and more likely to do with mass changes in sexual culture such as afforded to us by dating apps and the like.

    If you want to support the narrative that an increase in funding to sexual education results in an increase in pregnancies and STIs then you have a LOT more work to do to attain that, as you have presented nothing at all supporting such a concept thus far.



    If the two were event remotely mutually exclusive you might have the semblance of a point here. But since they are not, you do not.

    I am perfectly capable of, and in fact very much active in, campaigning to have abortion by choice in my home country while also campaigning for a multiple approach set of initiatives in reducing the number of people who ever seek one.

    The concept that we should focus on one or the other, especially to the exclusion of one or the other, is a harmful narrative supported by nothing at all that you have presented to date.



    Or to put less of a contrived spin on your attempts at historical revisionism..... people are generally happy to use terms freely until such a time as being specific is required.

    It was "Unborn child" before "abortion on demand" because the use of the term "unborn child" did not bring implications that were relevant at the time. Now that abortion IS a question in our world we have to be more specific, and not allow unwarranted implications to be smuggled in through mere mis-use of language.

    What is happening therefore is NOT the "dehumanization of the baby" as you simply pretend in your agenda driven narrative. Rather we are now in a position to examine whether "humanization of the fetus" was ever warranted in the first place.

    Clue: It wasn't.

    Of course it was. The fetus in a human body is a human creation, its a human, no question of that in my mind anyway.
    There's no need to dehumanise it to gain support.
    The hair on a human body is a human creation, it's human, no question of that...


  • Advertisement
  • #8022
    Andrew Beef
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 754 ✭✭✭Andrew Beef


    Orion wrote: »
    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    Abortion in medical cases and FFA cases should be allowed in Ireland.

    So you support repealing the 8th Amendment then because it prevents abortion in those cases.

    Yes, I do.

    I support abortion in certain circumstances; medical cases (e.g. the Savita case), rape cases, and incest cases. And to answer another poster’s question, I support abortion in cases of rape and incest because I believe that the woman’s right to bodily integrity trumps the unborn child’s right to life in such circumstances. As previously stated, I oppose abortion in “plain vanilla” circumstances and believe that women who procure abortions either at home or abroad should be criminalised. My “Rape Committee” solution of a senior Garda, a GP, and clinical psychologist for rape/incest cases has already been put forward. My thought process is therefore clear and I have done my best to address the incessant and repetitive questioning from the pro-abortion lobby. Beyond that, I have nothing further to say, other than to express hope that the debate, both here and further afield, can remain civil.


  • #8023
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    sondagefaux wrote: »
    And yet, pre-quickening abortions were carried out and only punished or condemned by having to say a few prayers?
    Hmmm, somehow I don't think that most people would regard that as much of a punishment.
    I don't know whether the "punishment" was "a few prayers" or not.  I made no claims about punishment.  If you want to make claims about punishment, go right ahead.  I may respond if what you say is interesting. It won't be interesting, though, if your claim is that the "punishment" was "only a few prayers", but it turns out that you have no evidence for this.
    sondagefaux wrote: »
    As to your claim that the Catholic Church is on the moral high ground when it comes to the treatment of infants . . .
    I made no such claim; nor would I.  If you're having to make up claims, ascribe them to me, and then post multi-paragraph screeds to refute the claims you have made up, I'll take it that as an attempt to distract attention from the fact that you're unable to defend your own claims about an entirely different matter in an entirely different era.
    This is what you said:
    This, along with the condemnation of the practice of exposing unwanted infants, is one of the earliest distinctive Christian ethical positions that we know of.  
    You drew a distinction between Christian thinking about 'unwanted infants' and non-Christian, with the clear implication that the Christian 'ethical position' was superior.
    By the way, do you generally dismiss extracts from news reports about the abuse and criminal mistreatment of unmarried mothers and their infant children as 'multi-paragraph screeds'?


  • #8024
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 18,749 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Andrew Beef wrote: »
    Yes, I do.

    I support abortion in certain circumstances; medical cases (e.g. the Savita case), rape cases, and incest cases. And to answer another poster’s question, I support abortion in cases of rape and incest because I believe that the woman’s right to bodily integrity trumps the unborn child’s right to life in such circumstances. As previously stated, I oppose abortion in “plain vanilla” circumstances and believe that women who procure abortions either at home or abroad should be criminalised. My “Rape Committee” solution of a senior Garda, a GP, and clinical psychologist for rape/incest cases has already been put forward. My thought process is therefore clear and I have done my best to address the incessant and repetitive questioning from the pro-abortion lobby. Beyond that, I have nothing further to say, other than to express hope that the debate, both here and further afield, can remain civil.

    What about women health? You do know, I'm sure, the effects the 8th amendment has on it?
    I myself personally had to go through a completely unnecessary surgery because Of The 8th amendment. That's a disgusting way to treat women.
    But, seeing as how you do support abortion in certain circumstances, I guess you will be voting to repeal.


  • #8025
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    sondagefaux wrote: »
    The hair on a human body is a human creation, it's human, no question of that...
    Your logical fallacy is
    Composition/division


  • #8026
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Andrew Beef wrote: »

    My “Rape Committee” solution of a senior Garda, a GP, and clinical psychologist for rape/incest cases has already been put forward.



    Isn't that what they did with the Kerry Babies Tribunal? Put a woman up before a board and questioned her in depth about her sexual activity?

    I don't think it is possible to imagine a more traumatic response to a request for abortion following a rape than the one you have put forward.


  • #8027
    sondagefaux
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,443 ✭✭✭sondagefaux


    pleas advice wrote: »
    sondagefaux wrote: »
    The hair on a human body is a human creation, it's human, no question of that...
    Your logical fallacy is
    Composition/division
    The logical fallacy is claiming that something with the potential to become human is already human. 
    For thousands of years, human beings drew a distinction between the post-'quickening' stages of pregnancy and the earlier stages of pregnancy, permitting abortion in the earlier stages of pregnancy, prior to 'quickening'. 
    Only in the past 150 years or so has the law in Ireland and other common law jurisdictions tried to ascribe humanity to the foetus in its earliest stages.


  • #8028
    Martina1991
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,548 ✭✭✭Martina1991


    Andrew Beef wrote:
    I support abortion in certain circumstances; medical cases (e.g. the Savita case), rape cases, and incest cases. And to answer another poster’s question, I support abortion in cases of rape and incest because I believe that the woman’s right to bodily integrity trumps the unborn child’s right to life in such circumstances. As previously stated, I oppose abortion in “plain vanilla†circumstances and believe that women who procure abortions either at home or abroad should be criminalised.
    Your views and criteria for allowing abortion are contradictory.
    "The woman's right to bodily integrity trumps the unborn right to life In such circumstances ". But should be criminalised and jailed if the condom broke?
    You have reached your conclusions based on your own morals. Not based on the needs of Irish women.

    You lack compassion or understanding for any women that are and have been affected by the 8th.


  • #8029
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    NuMarvel wrote: »
    Do you think women should be criminalised for having an abortion abroad?

    The 13th amendment preventing this passed in 1992 by 62.4% to 37.6%, or 1035,308 votes to 624,059.


  • #8030
    mrkiscool2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    Edward M wrote: »
    Of course it was. The fetus in a human body is a human creation, its a human, no question of that in my mind anyway.
    There's no need to dehumanise it to gain support.
    The stint in my Granddad's heart is in a human body and is a human creation, by your logic it's also human.


  • #8031
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    sondagefaux wrote: »
    The hair on a human body is a human creation, it's human, no question of that...

    There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human.
    It might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it i. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.


  • Advertisement
  • #8032
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Edward M wrote: »
    There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human.

    My appendix is human.

    I suppose what you mean is that a fertilized egg, not even a fetus yet, is a human being with rights.

    The law disagrees though, and does not offer any rights whatsoever to a fertilized egg.


  • #8033
    pleas advice
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭pleas advice


    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    The stint in my Granddad's heart is in a human body and is a human creation, by your logic it's also human.

    Appeal to ridicule, it's like fallacy bingo in here...


  • #8034
    mrkiscool2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    Edward M wrote: »
    There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human.
    It might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it i. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.
    And you have every right to believe that. I don't agree with you and I can show you why that belief is wrong, but ultimately it is your right to believe what you want and I will always defend it.

    However, your rights end where another's begin. By refusing to change the law because of your (and others) beliefs, we are stopping women from having the right to bodily autonomy. Your right to believe a 12 week old fetus is a human being falls below the woman's right to bodily autonomy as your right is directly impacting others rights, therefore is no longer important.

    Just to clarify my point. You have a right to freedom. You then kill someone. As you infringed on someone else's rights, your right to freedom is diminished and you go to jail.

    In short, you can belief a fetus is human but you don't get to stop women from having access to abortion because you believe something to be true that isn't.


  • #8035
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Well the timing is very strange but this is happening

    Seven judges to hear appeal over rights of unborn
    Judgment may affect the wording of the referendum on the Eighth Amendment

    https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/supreme-court/seven-judges-to-hear-appeal-over-rights-of-unborn-1.3399385


  • #8036
    mrkiscool2
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,159 ✭✭✭mrkiscool2


    pleas advice wrote: »
    Appeal to ridicule, it's like fallacy bingo in here...
    Hahahahahaha. "I have no points, so I am just going to play the fallacy card, even when someone uses the same logic as a poster I agree with. Hurr durr".

    And yes, there may be an ad hominem in there but it's to point out how stupid you constantly saying "fallacy" and literally changing definitions for others to suit yourself. (Myself and another poster used the same logic as Edward M in a post and we both got different fallacies. Odd that!)


  • #8037
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    mrkiscool2 wrote: »
    And you have every right to believe that. I don't agree with you and I can show you why that belief is wrong, but ultimately it is your right to believe what you want and I will always defend it.

    However, your rights end where another's begin. By refusing to change the law because of your (and others) beliefs, we are stopping women from having the right to bodily autonomy. Your right to believe a 12 week old fetus is a human being falls below the woman's right to bodily autonomy as your right is directly impacting others rights, therefore is no longer important.

    Just to clarify my point. You have a right to freedom. You then kill someone. As you infringed on someone else's rights, your right to freedom is diminished and you go to jail.

    In short, you can belief a fetus is human but you don't get to stop women from having access to abortion because you believe something to be true that isn't.

    I'm voting for repeal!
    I don't believe an unborn has an equal right to life as the mother.
    Despite that I don't believe in unlimited abortion either, but the eighth dissent protect either mother or unborn really, abortion is available to those who really seek it anyway, either by imported pills or travelling abroad.
    I'm just on the side of those that medically really need abortion and can't get it, as well as those made pregnant through force or fear of abuse.


  • #8038
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Edward M wrote: »
    There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human.
    It might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it i. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

    There is no doubt in my mind that the earth is flat, it might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it is. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

    See, it is easy to keep things as simple as that.


  • #8039
    Edward M
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,837 ✭✭✭Edward M


    blanch152 wrote: »
    There is no doubt in my mind that the earth is flat, it might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it is. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

    See, it is easy to keep things as simple as that.

    In the context of what we speak of that's pretty ignorant really.
    But fair play for lying, I tell the truth as I see it, not make condescending remarks about others real beliefs.
    My father used to say if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all.


  • #8040
    blanch152
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,851 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Edward M wrote: »
    In the context of what we speak of that's pretty ignorant really.
    But fair play for lying, I tell the truth as I see it, not make condescending remarks about others real beliefs.
    My father used to say if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all.


    I am just making the point that your belief about the unborn is founded about as much in scientific reasoning as the flat-earthers.

    You may view my response as ignorant or condescending, but that doesn't make it any less true.


  • Advertisement
  • #8041
    frag420
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,161 ✭✭✭frag420


    Edward M wrote: »
    My father used to say if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all.

    Perhaps you should listen to your father more?!


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement