robarmstrong wrote: » It's also sad to see such extremist views portrayed with such ignorance. It also forbids all the atrocities we Christians committed throughout our entire existence, but sure look we all know you're going to sit there, hateful as ever and do whatever you can to prevent society from leaving that mindset behind. When the 8th is amended and repealed I hope you'll take your defeat gracefully. If not, I'll be praying for you.
Delirium wrote: » MOD NOTE Less of the personal attacks please. Thanks for your attention.
SusieBlue wrote: » Yes they are, JC made many of them. I can dig through and quote them if you don’t want to search yourself. Are you saying those views are not extreme?
david75 wrote: » See a lot of pro life people saying why doesn’t the pregnant woman just give birth and give the baby up for adoption. Would everyone here be ok if gay couples came forward to adopt the babies? There’s huge amounts of married gay and lesbian couples out there would love to adopt. I know certain factions in the marriage equality campaign fought (nonsensically) against it for Exactly this reason. But the baby would get to live. So what are all your thoughts?
J C wrote: » Yes there is practically no care required until a child is born ... everything proceeds quietly and automatically with little or no conscious input required from the pregnant mother.
Gerry T wrote: » Well tough luck, your want is trumped by the baby's need.
end of the road wrote: » except it can't be up to her, because technically it's not part of her, but is a life form in it's own right. it relies on her for a period of time yes, but it is still ultimately a separate life.
J C wrote: » There is a well established principle in law that third parties who cause damage to a baby in utero may bear full criminal and civil responsibility for such damage. Society hasn't extended such liability to the mother.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » Some women look upon it as a lifestyle choice. They are to be severely pitied.
J C wrote: » It all depends on what you call 'motherhood'. If you mean that she should have to be a parent to her child when it is born ... then I'm not saying that ... the option of fosterage or adoption should be available to her. If by 'motherhood' you mean that she should continue with her pregnancy to viability of her unborn child, then yes, she should behave as the mother that she has become to her unborn child, as a result of her pregnancy.
J C wrote: » but do you think that a perfectly healthy woman who aborts has given any meaningful consideration to the killing of her unborn child?
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » Because a woman or man does not own their own body, it is the property of the Holy Spirit.
J C wrote: » Why will the abortion laws in this country not be quickly and exactly matched with those of England ... when the main reason for repealing the 8th is to eliminate the reasons for women travelling to England for abortions? One can just hear it now ... "Why did this woman still have to travel to England to abort her child with a cleft palate at 8 months?"
robarmstrong wrote: » Was nowhere near a personal attack, saying someone is being hateful isn't an attack on them at all, it's merely an observation of a characteristic they're displaying.
end of the road wrote: » i would have no issue with it what so ever. just like i have no issue with same sex marriage given i voted yes to it.
robarmstrong wrote: » Any chance you could address my points so we can move forward with this discussion?
end of the road wrote: » there isn't anything to address. the only post that could be considered a bit out there from the examples you gave was the post by owenybaloney. but as he isn't here to defend himself it's ultimately irrelevant. there is a difference between disagreeing with a view and it being "disgraceful"
end of the road wrote: » that's not on this thread though.
robarmstrong wrote: » Plenty on this thread alone, so you're wrong on that one. It's not ultimately irrelevant either, you denied there was a horrible attitude shown towards women who pursue abortions on this thread. I've now gone and proven you wrong. Why is it all of a sudden irrelevant when you've been proven wrong? Can you actually contribute constructively to a debate?
end of the road wrote: » there are no "extreme" views on this thread. 1 poster who was a bit out there but his postings were tame in comparison to some posted by parts of the opposition elsewhere on this site. as he isn't here to defend himself his posts are irrelevant to the discussion. so, you haven't proven me wrong.
robarmstrong wrote: » You denied there was any posts in this thread portraying women seeking an abortion in an ill-manner. I showed you a direct contradiction of your statement, backed up with numerous posts. That particular users posts are relevant to the discussion as his posts fell under the remit I mentioned. So yes, you've been proven wrong.
end of the road wrote: » no, you posted posts and claimed they were extreme, and claimed they were portraying women seeking an abortion in an ill-manner. however they were neither of what you claim, so you did not show me a direct contradiction of my statement.
end of the road wrote: » i'm afraid the posts of a user who is not here to defend himself is not relevant to the discussion, i'm not going to discuss the posts of users who are not here to defend their posts. so no, i have not been proven wrong, because the posts you reposted do not fit the description of what you believe them to fit. if they did then those posts would have been removed.
end of the road wrote: » no, you posted posts and claimed they were extreme, and claimed they were portraying women seeking an abortion in an ill-manner. however they were neither of what you claim, so you did not show me a direct contradiction of my statement. i'm afraid the posts of a user who is not here to defend himself is not relevant to the discussion, i'm not going to discuss the posts of users who are not here to defend their posts. so no, i have not been proven wrong, because the posts you reposted do not fit the description of what you believe them to fit. if they did then those posts would have been removed.
J C wrote: » do you think that a perfectly healthy woman who aborts has given any meaningful consideration to the killing of her unborn child?
robarmstrong wrote: » So eotr, I've outlined numerous examples of the absolutely disgraceful attitude shown by people from your side that you seem to align yourself with (considering you thank the majority of these posts). If I was to go across boards itself in search of more posts like this I'd be banned (banned like you are from these very same threads) Am I gonna get an actual response from you or is it soapbox and run away time? EDIT: stop referring to unrestricted abortions as unlimited abortion or abortion on demand. Any time you've ever been challenged on this you literally never back it up with any ounce of fact, I genuinely have no idea why you're allowed to even continue debating on this topic let alone boards. Now deny that there has been no horrible attitude towards women across this thread, I'll wait.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
end of the road wrote: » your points were dealt with so whatever you are supposibly waiting for, it won't be coming. case closed.
Delirium wrote: » MOD NOTE@EOTR any chance you lift the standard of your contributions to something more than "no it isn't" (and there have been other posters equally guilty of this) replies that are essentially ignoring what others post. What purpose do your posts serve to the topic if you're not going to engage with questions from other posters? General note: The topic deserves a considered discussion that has been lacking in the most recent posts on the thread. Lets try and right the course to put the level of discussion back to where it needs to be. Thanks for your attention.
robarmstrong wrote: » <snip> if the 8th is repealed and unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks is brought in - how do those who voted to save the 8th for religious purposes feel about the direction the country is going in terms of progression? Genuine question.
david75 wrote: » All these inputs and yet to see one thought that gives any credence to someone coming from a religious perspective being morally superior to a woman in a crisis pregnancy or facing a fatal foetal abnormality. Nor any help. It isn’t about ‘ saving babies’ It’s about the dying last grasp of a dying religion trying to control women’s bodies as it ever has. But no longer.
