Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

david75 · 07-03-2018 08:45PM

Nick Park wrote: »

No, that one does not say anything remotely like what you tried to ascribe to me. It states simple facts.

1. The Referendum will not mention 12 weeks anywhere.
2. There will (according to government sources) be an insertion that makes no mention of any gestational limits but says that provision may be made by law for the termination of pregnancies.
3. A politicians' promise is considerably less cast-iron than a Constitutional guarantee.
4. Such a repeal and replace opens the door for any government, present or future, to introduce subsequent abortion legislation (something many Repeal campaigners are already demanding) without any constitutional hindrance.

All four points are factual, and none of them claim that we are "voting on abortion up until birth" or say that such is likely to happen.

Come on, either substantiate your accusation against me or be man enough to admit you were wrong and apologise.

I'm asking you again

Not a single one of those are facts. You are either living in an alternative reality or determined to keep spreading this hysterical hyperbolic nonsense.

david75 · 07-03-2018 08:47PM

recedite wrote: »

No, that is not a fact. It is makey-uppey nonsense.
Any fool can see straight through a claim that all abortions after 12 weeks are always for FFA.

That's a terrible thing to say. No empathy or compassion for the other poster at all. He simply related a personal story. There was nothing about telling other families what to do in the post.

Facts.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

david75 · 07-03-2018 08:56PM

Trying to imagine the world you live in where you think a woman is going through the 9 month difficult ordeal of pregnancy and all its pains trials and tribulations only the week or day before she’s due to give birth she decides to have an abortion.

That’s truly a twisted warped disturbing line of thinking. Weirder yet you think our government would legislate to allow for that.

They never would. What you’re saying is ‘we have to stop this referendum in case that happens!! The door is open for them to do it!’

You have an abysmally poor view of people. Women in particular.

Ps- there isn’t a doctor in the state that would take part in such a procedure either at That stage. They just wouldn’t.

end of the road · 07-03-2018 09:19PM

david75 wrote: »

Not a single one of those are facts. You are either living in an alternative reality or determined to keep spreading this hysterical hyperbolic nonsense.

they are facts. you are either living in an alternative reality or determined to keep spreading fake news.

david75 wrote: »

Trying to imagine the world you live in where you think a woman is going through the 9 month difficult ordeal of pregnancy and all its pains trials and tribulations only the week or day before she’s due to give birth she decides to have an abortion.

That’s truly a twisted warped disturbing line of thinking. Weirder yet you think our government would legislate to allow for that.

They never would. What you’re saying is ‘we have to stop this referendum in case that happens!! The door is open for them to do it!’

You have an abysmally poor view of people. Women in particular.

Ps- there isn’t a doctor in the state that would take part in such a procedure either at That stage. They just wouldn’t.

looking at all possibilities regardless of how remote does not make one have "an abysmally poor view of Women" . there is no evidence a government in the future wouldn't completely liberalise our abortion law to allow abortion right up to birth. it's likely a very very remote possibility, but it is there, and that is why we have to insure it double definitely can't happen by voting no to repeal of the 8th and continue to protect the unborn.

NuMarvel · 07-03-2018 09:55PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I fully support for all citizens, men and women alike, to retain their rights under the Constitution. There should be absolute equality between men and woman in that regard.

I couldn't agree more, which is why I support repeal of the 8th and not its retention.

Repeal means women can be treated equally when it comes to decisions on medical care and bodily autonomy. There is no instance of a constitutional provision impeding these rights for men, even if it impacts on the rights of others, so to deliver equality for women we need to remove the 8th.

Retention means supporting a status quo where women are discriminated against, in particular women who are unable to travel abroad for an abortion for legal or financial reasons.

Nick Park wrote: »

It is perfectly reasonable to support one group's rights without advocating the removal of another group's rights.

On the other hand it's unreasonable to advocate support for one groups' rights and ignore the effects on the rights of another group. As you did in your earlier post when you spoke about the effect repeal would have on the unborn and failed to mention the woman who is also, inextricably, involved.

david75 · 07-03-2018 10:03PM

end of the road wrote: »

they are facts. you are either living in an alternative reality or determined to keep spreading fake news.

looking at all possibilities regardless of how remote does not make one have "an abysmally poor view of Women" . there is no evidence a government in the future wouldn't completely liberalise our abortion law to allow abortion right up to birth. it's likely a very very remote possibility, but it is there, and that is why we have to insure it double definitely can't happen by voting no to repeal of the 8th and continue to protect the unborn.

‘there is no evidence a government in the future wouldn’t completely liberalise our abortion law to allow abortion right up to birth.‘
Then you go on to accuse me of fake news. Seriously?? You’re dealing in the most hysterical hyperbolic scaremongering possible and talking about a future that will not happen, so you can keep your fake news nonsense because it’s exactly what you’re pedalling and nobody is buying.

david75 · 07-03-2018 10:05PM

I’m actually disgusted with myself.

I responded to someone that used the words ‘fake news’ with a straight face as a response in an actual discussion.

Try harder in future there EOTR. ‘Fake news’ isn’t a response worthy of reply.

end of the road · 07-03-2018 10:10PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

I couldn't agree more, which is why I support repeal of the 8th and not its retention.

Repeal means women can be treated equally when it comes to decisions on medical care and bodily autonomy. There is no instance of a constitutional provision impeding these rights for men, even if it impacts on the rights of others, so to deliver equality for women we need to remove the 8th.

Retention means supporting a status quo where women are discriminated against, in particular women who are unable to travel abroad for an abortion for legal or financial reasons.

On the other hand it's unreasonable to advocate support for one groups' rights and ignore the effects on the rights of another group. As you did in your earlier post when you spoke about the effect repeal would have on the unborn and failed to mention the woman who is also, inextricably, involved.

to deliver equality for all however, we need to keep the 8th and push for better proposals that can deliver even more equality, without abortion on demand. women who are unable to travel abroad for an abortion for legal or financial reasons are not being discriminated against, they are being prevented from killing another human being, as it should be.

david75 wrote: »

‘there is no evidence a government in the future wouldn’t completely liberalise our abortion law to allow abortion right up to birth.‘
Then you go on to accuse me of fake news. Seriously?? You’re dealing in the most hysterical hyperbolic scaremongering possible and talking about a future that will not happen, so you can keep your fake news nonsense because it’s exactly what you’re pedalling and nobody is buying.

we can never rule out anything where a government is concerned in the future, hence we have to keep the 8th until better proposals are put forward that protect the rights of the unborn within the constitution, and which will remove the issues currently caused by the 8th. most people will look objectively at all possibilities regardless of remoteness of them happening, as they know it's vital to be fully informed on such an issue. there is no hysterical hyperbolic scaremongering from any of the pro-life posters on this or the other abortion threads.

david75 · 07-03-2018 10:13PM

end of the road wrote: »

this never happened

Fake news.

Wracking my brain to think who you sound like. I know I’ve heard this before somewhere.

uptherebels · 07-03-2018 10:13PM

end of the road wrote: »

there is no evidence a government in the future wouldn't completely liberalise our abortion law to allow abortion right up to birth. it's likely a very very remote possibility, but it is there,

and there is no evidence they will.
So remote that it is negligible?

What was that you were saying about reality and fake news:rolleyes:

uptherebels · 07-03-2018 10:26PM

end of the road wrote: »

there is no hysterical hyperbolic scaremongering from any of the pro-life posters on this or the other abortion threads.

you clearly don't understand the meaning of hyperbole or scaremongering then.

J C · 07-03-2018 10:31PM

end of the road wrote: »

they are facts. you are either living in an alternative reality or determined to keep spreading fake news.

looking at all possibilities regardless of how remote does not make one have "an abysmally poor view of Women" . there is no evidence a government in the future wouldn't completely liberalise our abortion law to allow abortion right up to birth. it's likely a very very remote possibility, but it is there, and that is why we have to insure it double definitely can't happen by voting no to repeal of the 8th and continue to protect the unborn.

The decision of the Supreme Court today brings clarity to the extreme vulnerablity that unborn children find themselves in, right up to birth, if the 8th is repealed.

The court has confirmed that the only constitutional right unborn children have, is the right to life guaranteed by the 8th and this is so, right up to birth.

People back in 1983 were scoffed at when they said that the 8th was necessary to protect unborn Human life in Ireland ... and they were told that they were alarmist when they cited Roe v Wade (which introduced unlimited abortion on demand, into the US overnight, by striking down all state anti-abortion laws.
We faced the exact same constitutional scenario in 1983 ... and we will face it again, if the 8th is repealed.

In a 'nutshell' Roe v Wade was a case made on the basis that the mother had a right to privacy (amongst many other rights) ... and as the unborn had no constitutional rights in the US ... all anti-abortion laws were declared unconstitutional, as a result ... leading to a total free for all, when it came to abortion.

A similar legal situation currently exists in Canada following the Canadian Supreme Court striking down their Abortion Law as unconstitutional.
Quote:-
"Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy, and is governed by the Canada Health Act. While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion. Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces.

Prior to 1969, all abortion was illegal in Canada. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69 introduced by Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government legalized abortion, as long as a committee of doctors signed off that it was necessary for the physical or mental well-being of the mother. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgentaler that the existing laws were unconstitutional, and struck down the 1969 law. The then-governing Progressive Conservatives attempted, but failed, to pass a new abortion law, and since then Canada has had no criminal laws governing the subject, and abortion is a decision made by a woman with her doctor. "

J C · 07-03-2018 10:37PM

david75 wrote: »

Oh look. A terminally ill woman dying of cancer having to travel for abortion.

If she only had been able to access the care she needed here in her own country.

State settled with cancer patient
The State has paid substantial compensation to a woman who was forced to travel to Britain for an abortion despite being terminally ill

In 2010, after she became unintentionally pregnant while suffering from a malignant melanoma, doctors at Cork University Hospital advised her to terminate her pregnancy because of the risk to her health.

Mr Boylan said her obstetrician was willing to perform a termination but was “hamstrung” by legal issues. The issue was referred to the hospital’s “ad hoc” ethics committee.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/state-settled-with-cancer-patient-1.555035

The legal situation has now been clarified since 2013 with the PLDPA.

david75 · 07-03-2018 10:38PM

J C wrote: »

The decision of the Supreme Court today brings clarity to the extreme vulnerablity that unborn children find themselves in, right up to birth, if the 8th is repealed.

The court has confirmed that the only constitutional right unborn children have, is the right to life guaranteed by the 8th and this is so, right up to birth.

People back in 1983 were scoffed at when they said that the 8th was necessary to protect unborn Human life in Ireland ... and they were told that they were alarmist when they cited Roe v Wade (which introduced unlimited abortion on demand, into the US overnight, by striking down all state anti-abortion laws.
We faced the exact same constitutional scenario in 1983 ... and we will face it again, if the 8th is repealed.

In a 'nutshell' Roe v Wade was a case made on the basis that the mother had a right to privacy (amongst many other rights) ... and as the unborn had no constitutional rights in the US ... all anti-abortion laws were declared unconstitutional, as a result ... leading to a total free for all, when it came to abortion.

A similar legal situation currently exists in Canada following the Canadian Supreme Court striking down their Abortion Law as unconstitutional.
Quote:-
"Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy, and is governed by the Canada Health Act. While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion. Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces.

Prior to 1969, all abortion was illegal in Canada. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69 introduced by Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government legalized abortion, as long as a committee of doctors signed off that it was necessary for the physical or mental well-being of the mother. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgentaler that the existing laws were unconstitutional, and struck down the 1969 law. The then-governing Progressive Conservatives attempted, but failed, to pass a new abortion law, and since then Canada has had no criminal laws governing the subject, and abortion is a decision made by a woman with her doctor. "

We are neither under US or Canadian jurisdiction. Posts and examples like these are kind of pointless.

NuMarvel · 07-03-2018 11:05PM

end of the road wrote: »

to deliver equality for all however, we need to keep the 8th and push for better proposals that can deliver even more equality, without abortion on demand.

Tell us then. How does keeping the 8th deliver equality for women, and what proposals do you want to see to deliver "even more equality"?

J C · 07-03-2018 11:06PM

volchitsa wrote: »

Why? Are you suggesting it didnt happen? Because it did.

Or that there is a reason why this could not be done to women attempting to travel to the UK? Because we know the ansswer to that : the people voted to allow them to travel for abortions, when they voted the 13th amendment.

And we could be having a referendum to remove it, in May, instead of the one that is planned. But nobody wants to remove it. Not even pro-life. Or not that they are prepared to admit anyway.

Why? So you can waste my time instead of having to admit you were wrong?
The laws exist. Here's just one, the UK one, Section 72 of the 2003 sexual offences act :
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/section/72

Sex tourists face UK prosecution over abuse abroad

Paedophile sex tourists are engaged in an activity that is illegal in all juristictions ... and the 2003 Act in the UK was amended after enactment to avoid predators escaping on a technicality in relation to the exact legality, locally of what they got up to while abroad. The standard is now correctly set at what is illegal in Britain, in regard to sex crimes comitted abroad.

There is no legal comparison between sex crime anywhere ... and abortion that is freely and legally available in Europe ... and therefore a legal service under the laws of many countries.
European law allows free movement of people to avail of lawful services within the EU (and abortion is such as service) ... European Law doesn't allow people to engage in criminality, like child abuse, or other sex crime anywhere.

... so your post is a complete legal 'red herring' .... because your suggested criminalistion of women who have abortions abroad, would be totally illegal under European Law ... as well as being totally unjust ... by criminalising somebody for doing something that is legally allowed (by statute law no less) in the country being visited while abroad.

Sex crimes aren't legally allowed by statute law anywhere?

You're 'grasping at straws' on this one, I'm afraid.

NuMarvel · 07-03-2018 11:07PM

J C wrote: »

The decision of the Supreme Court today brings clarity to the extreme vulnerablity that unborn children find themselves in, right up to birth, if the 8th is repealed.

The court has confirmed that the only constitutional right unborn children have, is the right to life guaranteed by the 8th and this is so, right up to birth.

People back in 1983 were scoffed at when they said that the 8th was necessary to protect unborn Human life in Ireland ... and they were told that they were alarmist when they cited Roe v Wade (which introduced unlimited abortion on demand, into the US overnight, by striking down all state anti-abortion laws.
We faced the exact same constitutional scenario in 1983 ... and we will face it again, if the 8th is repealed.

In a 'nutshell' Roe v Wade was a case made on the basis that the mother had a right to privacy (amongst many other rights) ... and as the unborn had no constitutional rights in the US ... all anti-abortion laws were declared unconstitutional, as a result ... leading to a total free for all, when it came to abortion.

A similar legal situation currently exists in Canada following the Canadian Supreme Court striking down their Abortion Law as unconstitutional.
Quote:-
"Abortion in Canada is legal at all stages of pregnancy, and is governed by the Canada Health Act. While some non-legal obstacles exist, Canada is one of only a few nations with no legal restrictions on abortion. Regulations and accessibility vary between provinces.

Prior to 1969, all abortion was illegal in Canada. The Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1968–69 introduced by Pierre Trudeau's Liberal government legalized abortion, as long as a committee of doctors signed off that it was necessary for the physical or mental well-being of the mother. In 1988, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Morgentaler that the existing laws were unconstitutional, and struck down the 1969 law. The then-governing Progressive Conservatives attempted, but failed, to pass a new abortion law, and since then Canada has had no criminal laws governing the subject, and abortion is a decision made by a woman with her doctor. "

Off topic, haven't you been asked to lay off the bolding?

Nick Park · 07-03-2018 11:15PM

david75 wrote: »

I’m actually disgusted with myself.

I responded to someone that used the words ‘fake news’ with a straight face as a response in an actual discussion.

Try harder in future there EOTR. ‘Fake news’ isn’t a response worthy of reply.

You should be disgusted with yourself. Primarily for posting things that are untrue, and then continuing, in a Trumpish fashion, to insist they are true even when you can't produce a scrap of evidence to support your claims.

Where is your evidence that Mormons die because of refusing blood transfusions? After all, if it were true all you would have to do is Google it and there would be plenty of results you could cite. You were obviously confusing Mormons with Jehovah's Witnesses. But when this understandable mistake was pointed out to you, you just denied that you were confusing them, yet failed to produce evidence for your claim, even when repeatedly requested.

Where is your evidence that all abortions occurring after the twelfth week "are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth."? When challenged on this obvious howler, you link to a document that says no such thing.

Here's what a real piece of evidence looks like:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/83-irish-women-ended-pregnancy-over-down-syndrome-36554914.html

The salient points are in the following quotes:

"More than 80 Irish women had abortions in two years on the grounds their unborn baby would have Down syndrome.
Another six abortions were carried out after a pregnant woman was told her baby would have spina bifida."

"The Institute of Obstetricians has said that while women have access to a screening test to indicate the chances of their baby having Down syndrome within 12 weeks, it is not definitive. It would be 14 weeks into the pregnancy before a diagnosis would be available.

Institute chairman Dr Peter Boylan said he never had a patient who had an abortion based on a screening test alone."

Will you now stop this nonsense? It is obvious to anyone that can read that your claim is false.

Meanwhile you have made a claim about me that you cannot substantiate. When challenged to do so, you posted a quote of mine that does not come remotely close to the comments you untruthfully ascribed to me.

I pointed this glaring fact out to you. And explained that my quote simply offered four very simple facts. Your response?

Not a single one of those are facts. You are either living in an alternative reality or determined to keep spreading this hysterical hyperbolic nonsense.

So let's look at these facts.

FACTS 1 & 2.
1. The Referendum will not mention 12 weeks anywhere.
2. There will (according to government sources) be an insertion that makes no mention of any gestational limits but says that provision may be made by law for the termination of pregnancies.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0307/945745-eighth-amendment-timeline/

This link contains the following quote, citing what has been telegraphed by the Cabinet and by virtually every news report on the subject for weeks:

A special Cabinet meeting will take place tomorrow, when ministers will be asked to approve the final wording of the referendum that will be put to the people, most likely before the end of May.

This is likely to mirror closely the draft wording previously agreed in which it was decided that the people would be asked to delete Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution and insert the following wording: "That provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy."

So, come on David. Please produce one single piece of evidence to disprove these two facts. Demonstrate to us that the Referendum question is going to mention 12 weeks, or that RTE and I are wrong about an insertion that makes no mention of any gestational limits but says that provision may be made by law for the termination of pregnancies.

Fact 3
A politicians' promise is considerably less cast-iron than a Constitutional guarantee.

David, you have claimed that this is not a fact. I'm really, really, looking forward to your evidence to demonstrate that a politicians' promise is, in fact, as cast-iron as a guarantee written into our nation's Constitution. Please, please, do try to argue this one.

Fact 4.
Such a repeal and replace opens the door for any government, present or future, to introduce subsequent abortion legislation (something many Repeal campaigners are already demanding) without any constitutional hindrance.

David, please tell us, if the Eighth Amendment is repealed, which article in the Constitution would hinder a present or future government from introducing subsequent abortion legislation? The finest Constitutional lawyers in the land are totally unaware of any such hindrance, so this is your golden opportunity to make a name for yourself.

Nick Park · 07-03-2018 11:17PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Off topic, haven't you been asked to lay off the bolding?

I don't remember a front-seat mod asking him any such thing? But I'm open to correction and will happily admit my error if someone can point to such a request.

J C · 07-03-2018 11:21PM

david75 wrote: »

We are neither under US or Canadian jurisdiction. Posts and examples like these are kind of pointless.

The US and Canada are common law juristictions, just like Ireland, and legal precedents set are mutually recognised between all common law juristictions ... unless constitutional or statute laws prevents their recognition.

So, it is very important take account of what has happened in America, in relation to abortion ... because it has direct relevance to a common law country, with a similar written constitution, like Ireland.

The 8th prevents a Roe v Wade scenario (or the Canadian abortion situation) in Ireland ... that was why it was introduced, in 1983.

However, if the 8th is repealed ... our Supreme Court confirmed today, that the unborn will have no constitutional rights whatsoever ... exactly like unborn children in the US and Canada ... and we know what that led to.

end of the road · 07-03-2018 11:27PM

david75 wrote: »

We are neither under US or Canadian jurisdiction. Posts and examples like these are kind of pointless.

they aren't pointless at all as they show us what can happen without constitutional protection for the unborn.

J C · 07-03-2018 11:32PM

NuMarvel wrote: »

Off topic, haven't you been asked to lay off the bolding?

Embolding is used routinely for added clarity and emphasis in written English.

There is nothing wrong with using embolding ... and if it is ever determined that there is, then the boards should disable the B/U feature on all of its posts.

Please feel free to use embolding yourselves ... the clarity of the 'walls of text' in some of the posts would be greatly improved by doing so.

You're complaining about my use of embolding, while campaigning for the killing of unborn children in abortion processes that are are so horrific, that descriptions or images of them are banned on the Boards ... and in polite company.

It's something that people dare not speak of or link to, such is the horror of what is involved.

... and you're fretting about my correct use of embolding.

'Sweating the small stuff' doesn't even begin to describe this behaviour.

'Straining out a gnat, and swallowing a camel' ... comes close to describing it ... allright.

david75 · 07-03-2018 11:36PM

Nick Park wrote: »

You should be disgusted with yourself. Primarily for posting things that are untrue, and then continuing, in a Trumpish fashion, to insist they are true even when you can't produce a scrap of evidence to support your claims.

Where is your evidence that Mormons die because of refusing blood transfusions? After all, if it were true all you would have to do is Google it and there would be plenty of results you could cite. You were obviously confusing Mormons with Jehovah's Witnesses. But when this understandable mistake was pointed out to you, you just denied that you were confusing them, yet failed to produce evidence for your claim, even when repeatedly requested.

Where is your evidence that allabortkions occurring after the twelfth week "are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth."? When challenged on this obvious howler, you link to a document that says no such thing.

Here's what a real piece of evidence looks like:

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/83-irish-women-ended-pregnancy-over-down-syndrome-36554914.html

The salient points are in the following quotes:

Will you now stop this nonsense? It is obvious to anyone that can read that your claim is false.

Meanwhile you have made a claim about me that you cannot substantiate. When challenged to do so, you posted a quote of mine that does not come remotely close to the comments you untruthfully ascribed to me.

I pointed this glaring fact out to you. And explained that my quote simply offered four very simple facts. Your response?

So let's look at these facts.

FACTS 1 & 2.
1. The Referendum will not mention 12 weeks anywhere.
2. There will (according to government sources) be an insertion that makes no mention of any gestational limits but says that provision may be made by law for the termination of pregnancies.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0307/945745-eighth-amendment-timeline/

This link contains the following quote, citing what has been telegraphed by the Cabinet and by virtually every news report on the subject for weeks:

So, come on David. Please produce one single piece of evidence to disprove these two facts. Demonstrate to us that the Referendum question is going to mention 12 weeks, or that RTE and I are wrong about an insertion that makes no mention of any gestational limits but says that provision may be made by law for the termination of pregnancies.

Fact 3
A politicians' promise is considerably less cast-iron than a Constitutional guarantee.

David, you have claimed that this is not a fact. I'm really, really, looking forward to your evidence to demonstrate that a politicians' promise is, in fact, as cast-iron as a guarantee written into our nation's Constitution. Please, please, do try to argue this one.

Fact 4.
Such a repeal and replace opens the door for any government, present or future, to introduce subsequent abortion legislation (something many Repeal campaigners are already demanding) without any constitutional hindrance.

David, please tell us, if the Eighth Amendment is repealed, which article in the Constitution would hinder a present or future government from introducing subsequent abortion legislation? The finest Constitutional lawyers in the land are totally unaware of any such hindrance, so this is your golden opportunity to make a name for yourself.

The melodrama and self importance dripping off that entire post. I provided facts and you disregarded them. You are talking absolute nonsense and consistently inferring and insinuating we are voting for unlimited abortion.its been pointed out to you several times by several posters and yet you continue. As you just have once again here.

Can you please tell us where the impetus or need for any Irish government would be to introduce abortion on demand?
You seem to have a crystal ball or have been to the future and come back and want to protect us all from something (that will never happen)
Can you point to where this abortion on demand legislation is being proposed?

As I have often said you and your pals are having a totally different debate to everyone here in the real world (and this timeline). And that’s why you’re losing and the PLC looks like outdated shrieking throwbacks.

You’re looking to win a point against *future possible legislation* while ignoring the legislation we’re talking about here and now.

FYI. You have no idea at all what will happen in the future. The 8th could be maintained and still further referenda, abolishments and workarounds could be implemented.

You’re literally against the 8th bein repealed *incase of future legislation*.

We passed marref. Nobody is marrying their sisters or mothers or dogs as your pals suggested. We aren’t adopting kids to abuse them. Etc etc etc

This is the same nas nonsense were seeing here now from you.
This level of whatabottery and fear mongering is off the scale and is completely off putting to all. As well as baseless transparent and laughable.

david75 · 07-03-2018 11:37PM

Nick Park wrote: »

I don't remember a front-seat mod asking him any such thing? But I'm open to correction and will happily admit my error if someone can point to such a request.

JC has been asked by a mod twice AFAIR To stop with the bolding

Nick Park · 07-03-2018 11:46PM

david75 wrote: »

The melodrama and self importance dripping off that entire post. I provided facts and you disregarded them. .

You haven't provided facts. You repeatedly make untrue statements, and, despite being asked repeatedly, neither provide evidence for your falsehoods or withdraw them.

You are not alone in this. But you certainly elevate it to an art form.

Never mind ad hominem attacks about self-importance or melodrama. Give us evidence. At least address the evidence I have posted which directly contradicts your untruthful statements.

You are talking absolute nonsense and consistently inferring and insinuating we are voting for unlimited abortion.

No, I have not inferred or insinuated any such thing. I have detailed my position very clearly, and I have asked you to provide quotes as to where I have inferred or insinuated any such thing. You have failed to provide any such support for your unwarranted accusation. Why is that not surprising?

J C · 08-03-2018 12:04AM

david75 wrote: »

Can you please tell us where the impetus or need for any Irish government would be to introduce abortion on demand?
You seem to have a crystal ball or have been to the future and come back and want to protect us all from something (that will never happen)
Can you point to where this abortion on demand legislation is being proposed?

They are already well on the way, with proposals for 12 week unrestricted abortion ... and no gestational time limits on the existing abortion legislation for specific cases, in the the PLDPA.

... but it could well be taken out of the politicians hands ... if a Supreme Court challenge was mounted to whatever legislation is introduced, because it doesn't cover some hard (or not-so-hard) case ... and the Supreme Court were to strike down all abortion law, (on privacy grounds or any other right enjoyed by the mother in the constitution) like happened in the US and Canada.

david75 wrote: »

You seem to have a crystal ball or have been to the future and come back and want to protect us all from something (that will never happen)
Can you point to where this abortion on demand legislation is being proposed?

The reality is that we don't have a crystal ball ... and we don't know what might happen ... but because the unborn will have no rights, if the 8th is repealed, it will inevitably go only one way ... and that is another very good reason to not repeal the 8th.

david75 · 08-03-2018 12:07AM

Nick Park wrote: »

You haven't provided facts. You repeatedly make untrue statements, and, despite being asked repeatedly, neither provide evidence for your falsehoods or withdraw them.

You are not alone in this. But you certainly elevate it to an art form.

Never mind ad hominem attacks about self-importance or melodrama. Give us evidence. At least address the evidence I have posted which directly contradicts your untruthful statements.

No, I have not inferred or insinuated any such thing. I have detailed my position very clearly, and I have asked you to provide quotes as to where I have inferred or insinuated any such thing. You have failed to provide any such support for your unwarranted accusation. Why is that not surprising?

‘So let's look at these facts.

FACTS 1 & 2.
1. The Referendum will not mention 12 weeks anywhere.
2. There will (according to government sources) be an insertion that makes no mention of any gestational limits but says that provision may be made by law for the termination of pregnancies.

https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2018/0307/945745-eighth-amendment-timeline/

This link contains the following quote, citing what has been telegraphed by the Cabinet and by virtually every news report on the subject for weeks:
Here you are again stating things as facts. But you then go on to say it’s ‘telegraphing’??

It can’t be both Nick. Which is it??

You’re talking absolute nonsense.

end of the road · 08-03-2018 12:09AM

david75 wrote: »

The melodrama and self importance dripping off that entire post. I provided facts and you disregarded them. You are talking absolute nonsense and consistently inferring and insinuating we are voting for unlimited abortion.its been pointed out to you several times by several posters and yet you continue. As you just have once again here.

Can you please tell us where the impetus or need for any Irish government would be to introduce abortion on demand?
You seem to have a crystal ball or have been to the future and come back and want to protect us all from something (that will never happen)
Can you point to where this abortion on demand legislation is being proposed?

As I have often said you and your pals are having a totally different debate to everyone here in the real world (and this timeline). And that’s why you’re losing and the PLC looks like outdated shrieking throwbacks.

You’re looking to win a point against *future possible legislation* while ignoring the legislation we’re talking about here and now.

FYI. You have no idea at all what will happen in the future. The 8th could be maintained and still further referenda, abolishments and workarounds could be implemented.

You’re literally against the 8th bein repealed *incase of future legislation*.

We passed marref. Nobody is marrying their sisters or mothers or dogs as your pals suggested. We aren’t adopting kids to abuse them. Etc etc etc

This is the same nas nonsense were seeing here now from you.
This level of whatabottery and fear mongering is off the scale and is completely off putting to all. As well as baseless transparent and laughable.

you provided no facts. you made allegations against a poster, and when he challenged you and proved your allegations false, you kept, and keep making the claims. he even gave you the opportunity to prove your claims to be correct, and you were unable to do so.
the only one losing anything here is you with your false allegations.

J C · 08-03-2018 12:09AM

david75 wrote: »

JC has been asked by a mod twice AFAIR To stop with the bolding

Why is embolding (and italics and underlining) available for use with posts?

They are obviously there to be used for emphasis and to aid clarity ... and that is how I use them.

The fact that I'm effectivley making my points may be 'getting up your nose' ... but this is no reason to condemn me for it.

You'll be accusing me next, of 'using big words that you can't understand' ... if you keep on going down this route!!

david75 · 08-03-2018 12:12AM

end of the road wrote: »

you provided no facts. you made allegations against a poster, and when he challenged you and proved your allegations false, you kept, and keep making the claims. he even gave you the opportunity to prove your claims to be correct, and you were unable to do so.
the only one losing anything here is you with your false allegations.

Here ye the facts he’s asked for in his post. It’s my third time posting them. It’s getting repetitive

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Comments