J C wrote: » 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 wrote: » Here ye the facts he’s asked for in his post. It’s my third time posting them. It’s getting repetitivehttps://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/679028/Abortions_stats_England_Wales_2016.pdf
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??
J C wrote: » 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.
Nick Park wrote: » There's just one problem here. That pdf does not, anywhere, support your untruthful claim that all abortions after the twelfth week "are wanted pregnancies that tragically won’t survive after birth." We can all see that isn't true. Stevie Wonder could see it isn't true. You obviously can't cite anywhere in that PDF that supports such an obviously untruthful claim. It is a fact that the Referendum question will not contain any reference to 12 weeks. Every political commentators knows that to be the truth. If you think otherwise, then please cite one reputable source that says the that the Referendum question will mention 12 weeks. Just one, that's all.
J C wrote: » Some notable statistics allright:- Quote:- "For abortions at 22 weeks or beyond, feticide is recommended by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists prior to the evacuation of the uterus to stop the fetal heart. In 2016, of the 1,508 abortions performed at 22 weeks and over, 48% were reported as preceded by a feticide and a further 45% were performed by a method whereby the fetal heart is stopped as part of the procedure. Eleven (0.7%) of abortions at 22 weeks or beyond were confirmed as having no feticide. For the remaining 89 cases (6%), at the time of publication, the Department of Heath had not been able to confirm whether feticide had been performed." "Congenital malformations were reported as the principal medical condition in nearly half (46%; 1,471) of the 3,208 cases undertaken under ground E. The most commonly reported malformations were of the nervous system (21% of all ground E cases; 680) and the cardiovascular system (9%; 288). Chromosomal abnormalities were reported as the principal medical condition for just over a third (37%; 1,187) of ground E cases. Down’s syndrome was the most commonly reported chromosomal abnormality (22%; 706). Other conditions account for 17% of ground E abortions, this includes cases where the fetus was affected by maternal factors, hydrops fetalis, family history of heritable disorders, and Cystic Hygroma."
volchitsa wrote: » No, it doesn't have to be illegal abroad (the bit in bold). Where is the article of law that says anything about what the foreign law says in that link I gave you? (Ans: Nowhere) Maybe I should explain, you seem to be finding this challenging. A British man goes to Seoul and has sex with a 14 year old prostitute. He has committed a crime because even though the age of consent is 13 in SK he is guilty of child abuse under section 72 of the Sex Crimes Act in the UK as though he had committed the same act in the UK. It doesn't matter that the act was legal in Seoul, it is illegal for him. It's as simple as that. They brought that law in to stop British men going to countries to abuse children in places where there may be no age of consent, so child abuse would be legal. The parents would sell the child's services, as they had a right to. In Ireland, OTOH, we brought in a law to allow Irish people to go to other countries to abort pregnancies, because it seemed to be illegal and we didn't want that. That was a choice the country made. You can deny it all you want, those are the facts.
david75 wrote: » Well done! You read actual facts! Now read my last post where our government is limiting it to 12 weeks! Yay!
volchitsa wrote: » What is your point about feticide, J_C? These are not healthy babies being killed, you do get that, don't you? These are severely disabled fetuses that are almost at term, and so may be born alive, but those that do survive birth will die within minutes or at most, hours or days after that. Feticide is proposed purely to avoid the trauma of the baby dying shortly after its birth, possibly in significant pain. Not to kill a healthy baby. Those are grounds E, which is why they may be past the 24 week limit, but they are not healthy babies.
david75 wrote: » You’re ignoring what is being said by our government yet you were posting quotes from Leo only a while back. Odd that.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
J C wrote: » There is no legal comparison between sleazy sex with exploited under-age people in a third world country ... and women availing of a lawful service (abortion) in another EU member state ... and to state otherwise is quite disengenuous. Your claim that women who go to England for abortions are equivalent to paedophile predators who go to Thialand to abuse under-age boys and girls is quite outrageous IMO.
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.
J C wrote: » 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.
Delirium wrote: » MOD NOTE@Nick Yes, I've already asked JC to dial the bolding as there have been many complaints about the readability of his posts due to over-use of the bold feature.
david75 wrote: » Oh wait. New account with 7 posts. Says it all.
david75 wrote: » Where toceven start with that. We do not live in a society that forces women to have abortions. I don’t know where you’re from but thats simply not the case here. Very much the opposite in fact. Oh wait. New account with 7 posts. Says it all.
....... wrote: » What about women who never want to have children, like me? Or women who already have enough children to care for so dont want another one? Or women who already have children but due to medical issues suffered in their last pregnancy they dont want to go through another pregnancy? I think you are completely wrong in your thoughts. Women are not having abortions because they dont want to feel shame or have a problem. Many women simply choose abortion because having a child does not suit their circumstances or life plan.
end of the road wrote: » exactly, hence there is no requirement to facilitate those people by providing them with an abortion. especially a free abortion. their situation is not a medical issue, it's a lifestyle issue. we have enough lifestyle issues causing us problems currently.
end of the road wrote: » there is a need for abortion services for genuine medical reasons only. there is no need for abortion services for lifestyle reasons, it's a want only. a want which there is no obligation to facilitate. any money that would be spent on it is already being spent on pressing matters and should not be diverted to abortion on demand.pro-life don't engage in misinformation and lies as there is nothing to gain from it.
Gorugeen Fingleton writes: You may recall those ‘My Abortion’ story billboards. The Noel featured turns out is a fake. Save8.ie have since deleted his story (this is the cached page) Considerable (well, not really. It was pretty straightforward) leg work went into proving this guy is not a nurse, has a city and guilds cert that appears altered (provided to us by Pro-Life activist John McGurk), has lied about his experience, is a self confessed convicted armed robber and self-professed gun runner… Instead of doing the sensible thing and throwing him under a bus ( OMG he lied to us) John McGurk and Save the 8th are claiming Noel left the campaign because of bullying by repealers. This was either a very clumsy attempt at duping folks or it was incompetence on a grand scale. Either way I for one hope they continue with such own goals. Its awfully entertaining!
