david75 wrote: » Check out his charming YouTube channel. Swastikas and Nazi videos ahoyhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCfC0sIGuXx55iEuep-86Svw
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.
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!
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.
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)
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.
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?
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?
Oldtree wrote: » Proper prissy little thing
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.
Cally Caleigh wrote: » I think we have our wires crossed. If I am not mistaken, the draft legislation proposed by government contains a line allowing 12 week unrestricted abortions.. This will be debated in the Houses of the Oireachtas, not by members of the public. There will be no public vote on that particular issue, it's not necessary as the constitution will already be changed. Since when do the government listen to members of the public on legislative bills? Look at the blasphemy law amended into Defamation Act 2009 as an example. Making blasphemy an indictable offense. This was definitely against public will and if put to public vote would not have been introduced.
Sierra Eire wrote: » How is that relevant? I support the death penalty *GASP* for convicted criminals. I am against a death penalty (abortion) for innocent, unborn babies.
Ave Sodalis wrote: » Before anyone replies to this person, can I just point out that the only other post they have is about how they believe in the death penalty and beatings?
Ave Sodalis wrote: » Then I don't understand why you are voting no to repeal? You can campaign for different restrictions, or even complete restriction after the 8th is repealed.
Sierra Eire wrote: » Can someone explain to me how abortion is a "women's rights" issue?
Cally Caleigh wrote: » I know..
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.
Ave Sodalis wrote: » The constitution will not have the 12 week restriction specified
Cally Caleigh wrote: » But replacing with legislation that allows 12-week unrestricted is a step too far for me, .
JDD wrote: » The fact is that there is no workable solution for legalizing abortions in case of rape or incest. If you are restricting abortions, you can only restrict it to cases where the mother's life or physical (as opposed to mentai) health is significantly at risk. Even then that would be a grey area. Pregnancies in women over 40, or those who have had children already, often result in health issues that permanently compromise their quality of life.
Edward M wrote: » And I have acknowledged that pilly, I know what's going to happen. But you're all right of course, I have made the point, so I will leave it there for a while. My point has been made no more often than most others though.
pilly wrote: » I know you keep saying this Edward but it's not going to happen so it's quite tiresome.
Edward M wrote: » Same as people think you can't be pro repeal and anti choice perhaps. More people might be pro repeal if they felt that there was going to be something else other than a 12 week limit put in place perhaps.
