end of the road wrote: » currently i can't find anything that provides clarity either way on the issue. and i have looked. if we were to remove the drink driving laws, someone who would decide not to drink and drive wouldn't be forced to drink and drive. stating how someone wouldn't be forced to have an abortion, is just not an argument, given that if we were to remove other laws which try to prevent people causing harm to society, we would not be forced to commit those acts, but the removal of such laws are highly likely to allow for more harm to be caused to society. just like removing the 8th, which currently is likely protecting some unborn, via the mother deciding not to travel to the uk due to expence. my comments are not deflection, but showing the logic of the pro-choice arguments to not stack up, given they can ultimately be used to change the laws in relation to other acts, which i would suspect the pro-choice side would also not want changed, but could be if there was enough support. bringing in the laundries, and unmarried mother's imprisonment, while a crime against humanity as far as i'm concerned, does nothing for the debate.
Delirium wrote: » Please provide evidence that the unborn is regarded as a citizen under Irish law.
DubInMeath wrote: » Women who decide not to have an abortion aren't going to be forced to have them. Your comments regarding drink driving laws are just a deflection from the subject. It's like saying that we should go back to imprisoning unmarried mothers in church laundries.
SusieBlue wrote: » Oh for goodness sake. Do you even read back on your posts before posting them? How can something be both unborn and a living citizen? Please provide evidence for same. I’d also like to point out that I previously told you I don’t wish to engage with you any more. I was simply commending someone else on their position and you took it as an opportunity to start soapboxing about the unborn. I think we’ve long established we’re never going to see eye to eye on this so there was no reason for you to derail the thread by jumping on what I said to someone else with more of your nonsensical drivel.
end of the road wrote: » bingo. abortion harms living citizens also, who are unborn. again, bingo. the unborn are living citizens as well. sadly, they can and have been the victims of drink driving. it's not a potential human, it's an actual human that is developing. personhood is the argument you are trying to have there. if the mother's needs wants and rights come before the fetus before 12 weeks, then why not after 12 weeks, or even up to birth? the reality is when we put the pro-choice arguments to the test, they fall down on the fact they can be stretched into issues you won't want to be changed, yet if they do get enough support to be, they could be changed whether you want it or not. the argument from most pro-life posters on the other hand have a consistent message, the unborn are humans and have a right to life. apart from extreme cases where it is absolutely necessary for their right to life not to be upheld.
end of the road wrote: » but again, we are effectively forcing our beliefs on others via the statute book, in the form of every single law in the book. there will be people who will disagree with those laws and will unfortunately break them. i'm sure you agree, as i do, that those laws are implamented for the greater good and smoother functioning of society. it's the same with banning abortions outside extreme circumstances in ireland, it was implamented to try and protect as much as is practical, the unborn from being harmed, and uphold as much as is practical their right to life. yes people go abroad to kill them, but the reality is people do try and get around legislation, yet we don't simply abolish it because people break the law or try and get around the legislation.
SusieBlue wrote: » Drink driving potentially harms living citizens.
SusieBlue wrote: » I care about living citizens (such as pregnant women) so I do not agree with or condone drink driving.
SusieBlue wrote: » As I have told you about 2908918642 times now on about 6 different threads, I care more about the pregnant living woman than I do about the potential human she is carrying. Her needs, wants and rights will always supervise that of a pre 12 week old fetus and nothing on this earth will convince me otherwise.
DubInMeath wrote: » Yes what I've posted is the case as to why, as the attitudes posted show a deeper problem in Irish society towards victims of rape and with some posters just women in general, and I'm not just talking about this thread as a single example. I know that your not going to change your opinion and it's your right to have it and I'm not about to try and change your mind as that's not my place to do so. I have my opinions and beliefs but regardless of how I feel about the subject personally, I'm not going to force them on someone else through the statute book.
end of the road wrote: » presumably on that score then you believe that we should remove, lets say, the drink drive laws? after all, the essence of pro-choice is supposibly that you recognize that it may not be a choice you would personally make yourself, but you respect someone else’s right to choose otherwise, if they wish. the drink drive law is preventing someone from making the choice to go to the pub, and drive home afterwords.
SusieBlue wrote: » You hit the nail on the head - the very essence of being pro choice is that you recognize that it may not be a choice you would personally make yourself, but you respect someone else’s right to choose otherwise, if they wish. You summed it up brilliantly. I hope your loved one is recovering well from what happened to her.
end of the road wrote: » i don't believe you that this is your reason. in my view the idea that someone would vote a certain way on the basis of posters on a random website is just not true. i can understand your below post being the reasoning and i'd certainly except that as the reason. it may not mean much but i'm genuinely sorry for her. what happened to her is unimaginable and i hope the piece of work responsible was caught and locked up as it should be. i cannot agree however that the unborn should be killed. neither the unborn or the mother did anything wrong. the problem for your argument is that every other law that tries to prevent people causing harm to others, is ultimately forcing people not to have the choice to cary out acts that harm others. why should this be different because it's the unborn? i have saw no reasoning to make me think this should be different. i don't include extreme circumstances within that such as the mother's life needing to be saved, FFA or a threat of permanent injury or disability to the mother.
DubInMeath wrote: » Actually I was undecided in terms of what way I'd vote, but on reading a lot of the pro life posts on here and checking other threads/posts by the same people and seeing the negative attitude they have to women, I decided I'm going to vote for repeal. The reasoning for this is that someone very close to me was raped. Luckily they didn't become pregnant from the attack, but have spent years trying to come to terms with it and I don't think they ever will, I'm not sure anyone does come to terms with it. But if they had become pregnant from the attack and been forced to carry to term it would most likely have destroyed her completely. Reading the posts here from the pro life side on here actually sickened me when I thought of what else she might have had to go through and made me realise that what ever my feelings are on abortion, I'm certainly not going to force anyone to not have the choice to have one.
DubInMeath wrote: » Actually I was undecided in terms of what way I'd vote, but on reading a lot of the pro life posts on here and checking other threads/posts by the same people and seeing the negative attitude they have to women, I decided I'm going to vote for repeal.
DubInMeath wrote: » The reasoning for this is that someone very close to me was raped. Luckily they didn't become pregnant from the attack, but have spent years trying to come to terms with it and I don't think they ever will, I'm not sure anyone does come to terms with it. But if they had become pregnant from the attack and been forced to carry to term it would most likely have destroyed her completely.
DubInMeath wrote: » Reading the posts here from the pro life side on here actually sickened me when I thought of what else she might have had to go through and made me realise that what ever my feelings are on abortion, I'm certainly not going to force anyone to not have the choice to have one.
david75 wrote: » Yep. Delusional.
david75 wrote: » There is no vitriol.
end of the road wrote: » i have debunked everything. i have answered every question where those questions were relevant and i haven't ran away from anything. there was lots of vitrial on one particular thread toards pro-life posters just for being pro-life. there is no evidence anyone is being turned off the pro-life campaign by posts on a website, it's wishful thinking on your part with no basis in fact or reality. you can keep trying to make out otherwise but there is nothing to back it up.
Katie Full Leak wrote: » A Christian doesn't stand by and stay silent when murder is being committed....yet another straw man from pro repeal! I'm out of this conversation. See you all at the polls
Lantus wrote: » A loving Christian would want individual choice for all and understand that even if abortion is legal they still have their religion to prevent them availing of that. Jesus never forced religion on anyone. He never used votes to enforce mob rule on the ones who disagreed. If Christians believe that the only way to safe gaurd morality is to maintain Draconian and totalitarian laws to suppress the rights of anyone that disagrees with their narrow view of the world then what does that say about religion.... Not a lot.....
david75 wrote: » Yep. Delusional. About to quote you on every relevant thread. Let’s see how that works out for your claim debunking and answering. You have done neither. Ever.
david75 wrote: » You haven’t debunked anything. You’ve run away from every question you’re uncomfortable with across multiple threads. There is no vitriol. There is however people getting pissed off with someone who says their pro life but cherry picks what kind kind of abortion is acceptable and CONSTANTLY refuses to answer questions and rattles off nonsensical answers. You. This is what is turning people off pro life’s argument. And it’s delicious that you don’t see it. If I had a bet I’d say you’re a plant from the pro choice side. You’re convincing so many to vote yes.
david75 wrote: » You’ve just hit on something I’ve been thinking a long time. The two sides in this debate are having two *totally* different conversations. You guys are talking about the what ifs and intangibles and unproveables. This side is talking about women. In the real world.
david75 wrote: » You just said abortion is nothing to do with a woman’s right to bodily autonomy. So in that you completely disregard every woman’s right to that autonomy. And self determination and by extension you are insisting women should be forced to give birth no matter what. Read your post again before replying and tell me where you or anyone on that side of the debate has the right to say that and impose that thinking onto the women of Ireland?
david75 wrote: » It is exactly this line of thought that is turning people against no. That ugly horrid grip on our sisters and daughters lives and wombs.
david75 wrote: » I have no doubt you can’t make the leap to s e this post from This side rather than your own. You are not alone on being hardwired myopic redundancy. But to defeat an enemy you must understand them. And you don’t. At all.
end of the road wrote: » it can do those things early on dav. that is a fact. the call is for abortion on demand up to a certain time frame. the view on that time frame differs from 12 to 16 or even 20 weeks depending on who you talk to, the government have opted for 12 weeks to try and get a vote for repeal. abortion is nothing to do with a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and self determination for herself, bodily autonomy and self-determination are just used to muddy the waters and to make this into a rights issue, which it isn't. if we are to argue that abortion is about bodily autonomy and self-determination, then why not support abortion up to birth.
david75 wrote: » Early on?? It cant. We come back to the phrase of the debate. 12 weeks. In no universe especially this one is anyone calling for abortion on demand. Or Abortion up to birth. In this same debate we are actually dealing with a massive point you guys won’t even acknowledge which is a woman’s right to bodily autonomy and self determination for herself. You consistently say ‘as long as it doesn’t happen here, we can’t stop women travelling’. So by that logic, it would take women longer to get to England for an abortion and the pregnancy would be further along and the foetus more developed and by that stage, aware in some cases. So you support the foetus actually having to suffer in real terms post 12 weeks, whereas if that option was available to women here in Ireland, there would be no suffering. Do you not see the gaping hole in your position?
end of the road wrote: » so you agree then that what is in the womb is an unborn baby from a very early timeframe. because it can do all of those things from very early on.
david75 wrote: » A foetus can do none of those things. You are either unaware of this or willfully ignoring this.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
