david75 wrote: It’s so laughable and transparent all these re-regs. Asking the same questions to kick it all off again.
david75 wrote: It’s not working lads. Move on.
Oldtree wrote: » Proper prissy little thing
Ave Sodalis wrote: » Oh so a new poster who makes a fairly inflammatory post as his first post, just so happens to stumble across a thread riddled with re-regs and trolls for their second post which asks a most likely loaded and hypothetical question giving the wording of it?
Ave Sodalis wrote: » Me? Did that come across a little bit blunt? Sorry, got angry about an unrelated thing a short while ago and I guess I'm not quite back to tolerance levels yet. That was me making a conscious effort to tone back the post. I think I need to stay away from the internets for a few hours!
Oldtree wrote: » Proper prissy little thing rattling their cage Sierra Eire, Irish America perhaps?
Sierra Eire wrote: » I am not a "re-reg". This is my first account on this site and I use my username on every website I use. Try googling it. I can't find anything trollish about my question in this thread. I find it ridiculous that a number of pro-abortion people cry "women's rights!!!" even though healthy little unborn girls are the majority of abortion victims. If you think I am a troll for not buying this "women's rights" pro-abortion argument then you are naive.
WhiteRoses wrote: » ‘I agree with it in X, Y, and Z cases but not A, B or C. So because I want to stop people from doing something I don’t want them to, I’m going to vote no. Even if it means the cases of X, Y and Z will suffer and potentially die, I don’t care, because my feelings and opinions on A, B and C are more important than those women’s lives.’ That sums up the selfishness and arrogance in a lot of posts in the last few days. If you are ok with it in cases of FFA or rape, you are ok with it full stop. A life is a life and all that. You can’t just pick and choose when it’s a life when it suits. You can’t proudly declare you’re voting No in the name of saving da baybeez and then in your next post say your ok with it in cases of rape. It’s a total contradiction. And this isn’t aimed at anyone in particular, just summing up my feelings on a lot of similar posts over the last week or so.
Oldtree wrote: » Not you! I pressed the wrong button on phone and hadn't finished post. Here it is again, finished and in all its glory (and perhaps slightly clearer)
Sierra Eire wrote: » I don't agree with sending people to prison. Prison is inhumane as it is. I believe in the death penalty, fines and beatings - depending upon the crime.
Ave Sodalis wrote: » When you use emotive wording like that, it makes me think that you don't actually care about the answer to your question, that it doesn't matter what people tell you... you're just going to join the dozens of other first time posters on the pro-life side (you can't see how that's not even a little bit suspicious?) who believe they are right and that is that, often followed by claims of bullying or having their free speech stamped out if anyone even thinks about disagreeing with them. It's a repetitive cycle. The question itself if not trollish (just very clear where you're going to go with it) but a huge amount of new posters on this thread are. I have absolutely no interest in googling your username, and I cannot fathom why/how that would prove anything. Not to worry!
david75 wrote: » Check out his charming YouTube channel. Swastikas and Nazi videos ahoyhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfC0sIGuXx55iEuep-86Svw
WhiteRoses wrote: » What about the women carrying the pregnancy, what about her rights? Her rights (as a living person) should supersede that of a potential person. As someone very wise said earlier in the thread, you are looking at the uterus so hard you can’t see the woman attached to it.
Ave Sodalis wrote: » If it is, interesting in August you posted "It's funny how many people get upset at the stuff they are not forced to do..."
Sierra Eire wrote: » If a woman's life is in danger because of the pregnancy, I would be OK with abortion in that case. But the pro-abortion agenda in this country will legalise on-demand abortion.
Sierra Eire wrote: » Abortion is not a women's rights issue, unless the woman in question is at risk of dying from the pregnancy. That is all I have to say.
WhiteRoses wrote: » If you are ok with abortion in cases of rape you are ok with abortion. A life is a life, it doesn’t become any less of a baby because of how it was conceived. If you are ok with it in cases of rape I presume you’ll be voting to repeal.
WhiteRoses wrote: » It is a woman’s rights issue. And the referendum is about SO much more than abortion. Please educate yourself on the matter.
Cally Caleigh wrote: » It's a shame for people like me who know the complications the 8th amendment causes and the positives of repealing it to replace with legislation. I don't believe the constitution is the place for such a complex legal issue. But replacing with legislation that allows 12-week unrestricted is a step too far for me, having done research on how much the fetus at 12 weeks has physically developed. Obviously something had to change for cases of fatal fetal abnormality, or where the mother's life would be in danger by not aborting (hypertension, septic miscarriage, etc). And I would vote to repeal if that was the extent of the replacement text. But it's not. So I guess it's a no from me.
Sierra Eire wrote: » Yes, it IS a women's rights issue when the woman's right to life is at risk because of the pregnancy. If you think it is a women's rights issue to have on-demand abortion then you'll need to explain why.
Sierra Eire wrote: » That isn't my Twitter account, please stick to the abortion discussion. But if you must harass me on Twitter, go after me on my @DaveCullenCF account. Thanks.
WhiteRoses wrote: » a womans needs, wants and rights are more important than that of a potential person. It’s that simple.
NuMarvel wrote: » It's a women's rights issue because our law doesn't presently consider any of the woman's rights during pregnancy, bar her right to life. Her right to bodily atuonomy and her health; her right to be free of degrading and inhuman treatment; her right to freely give or withhold consent to clinical services; all out the window. Men never experience this; all of the rights above are guaranteed for us, even if it results in someone else's death. So yes, this is very much a women's rights issue.
Sierra Eire wrote: » Once again, if a woman's life is in danger and can be proven to be in danger due to the pregnancy, I would be OK with abortion. A baby is not a "potential person". When a baby is born it's always a human being that comes out of the vagina, not a cheesecake or a puppy - a human.
WhiteRoses wrote: » A zygote or fetus does not have equal value to a living, breathing woman. A woman is so much more valuable and important and her rights absolutely should trump that of the contents of her womb.
Sierra Eire wrote: » I have never heard of any of these "rights" you are describing. Are these actually upheld by law or are you saying they are rights because you think they should be?
