The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Maybe ask a question so I don’t have to search.

There are a lot of people currently on the repeal shift working here at the moment...

I guarantee if there were repeal posters of Savita on the streets, repeal would be accused of "disgracefully using the image of a dead woman to further an agenda of baby killing" or some such nonsense

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so you have no issue showing graphic images to young children?

I grew up in a farm. You are exposed to a lot of stuff that city people would feel their children need to be shielded from.
Cows and heifers have natural abortions and that didn’t affect me seeing them as a child as it is a part of nature which one can’t control.
I was a child old enough to remember the 1983 referendum, the images then did not have a negative effect on me.

RobertKK wrote: »

I grew up in a farm. You are exposed to a lot of stuff that city people would feel their children need to be shielded from.
Cows and heifers have natural abortions and that didn’t affect me seeing them as a child as it is a part of nature which one can’t control.
I was a child old enough to remember the 1983 referendum, the images then did not have a negative effect on me.

good for you. it didn't bother you so why should anybody else be bothered, is that it? your lack of empathy for parents of very young children is contemptible.

RobertKK wrote: »

I grew up in a farm. You are exposed to a lot of stuff that city people would feel their children need to be shielded from.
Cows and heifers have natural abortions and that didn’t affect me seeing them as a child as it is a part of nature which one can’t control.
I was a child old enough to remember the 1983 referendum, the images then did not have a negative effect on me.

Considering you said you were searching for images of aborted foetuses only a few posts back, I'm not so sure about that.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Considering you said you were searching for images of aborted foetuses only a few posts back, I'm not so sure about that.

Doesn't post a genuine picture of an aborted fetus.

Can't understand why people consider it graphic and offensive.

RobertKK wrote: »

Here is what an unborn looks like at 12 weeks, you see no humanity in this...

RobertKK wrote: »

I was going to use an image of a real 12 week old that was miscarried but decided against it so used a similar plastic image instead.

Just had a google of a 12 week miscarriage and I would put money on the fact that you did not use that image because far from looking like that plastic doll it actually looks like a cross between the Asgard from SG1, the albino Alien/human hybrid from Aliens, and a nightmare. It's skin is translucent, it's head is significantly larger, it has zero fat, and it looks a lot less 'baby' like than that doll.

NuMarvel wrote: »

Considering you said you were searching for images of aborted foetuses only a few posts back, I'm not so sure about that.

I would be reported by people here and maybe thread banned because people here would go nuts as reality is too much for them and to appease people I might be sacrificed.

RobertKK wrote: »

You want a world without reality.

I want a world without people who think it is ok to frighten young children. Same old story though. the anti-choice crowd dont give a monkeys what happens to a child once it has been born.

RobertKK wrote: »

What is wrong with natural biology?
Your argument is like children shouldn’t go to London, Paris and elsewhere in Europe as a suicide bomber might strike and a child would be exposed to body parts, because it is the body parts that are offensive, rather than the cause of the body parts being seen.

What on earth are you talking about?

A million-to-one terrorist attack is the equivalent of anti-repeal groups plastering shopping areas and main streets with graphic imagery where they can't not be seen?

Are you seriously for real?

I have to say RobertKK is play an absolute blinder this morning. He is doing the repeal side a huge favour with his posts. So much so i would nearly suspect he was a poe.

RobertKK wrote: »

Why exactly is abortion offensive?

you cant see why showing graphic images to a young child is offensive?

If I found out I was pregnant tomorrow, I'd have an abortion asap. That's just the facts, no matter what posters or ads or lies or pictures you show me. It'd be as early as I could get it, I wouldn't be partying on the ryanair flight, I'd be home within the couple of days and I'd probably be hesitant to go to my doctor for follow up treatment if I had concerns.

What do pro-life people want to do? What lengths do you want to go? Would you catch me in a giant net at the airport and put me in a barn for 9 months? Literally when will the reality of life vs your perception of how beautiful and wonderful and ideal and lovely it should be sink in? Nothing you could say to me would change my situation or my mind. Pregnancy isn't for me. Raising a child isn't for me. I don't feel guilty about that, either. It is what it is.

I and many other women, for reasons varying from economical to immediate health concerns, require those services, and the "lucky" among us will avail of them in the UK at a higher cost and bigger delay.

So what's the plan here? No abortion in our own country, no rights over our own body from the first missed period. Before then, even. We've all heard of women being denied cancer treatments, unable to receive terminations even when their body is slowly being poisoned from the inside until the VERY LAST MINUTE, at which point their health will have deteriorated further.

But those of us who have the means can still travel, of course. It will take longer, I'm sure in the week or two difference the foetus has won gold in the womb backflip olympics. You're not making a fuss about the 13th amendment, as has been mentioned before. So what is it? You want to make a hard decision even harder? You want to potentially make a quick procedure more invasive with the time delays? The pregnancy is being ended either way, so make the b*tches suffer if they really want it?

The reality is abortion will always happen, and you know this. The reality is an amendment granting a foetus equal rights to a woman does nothing, absolutely nothing, but put women in danger, even in a wanted pregnancy.

That's my first and last post here. Imagine that no matter what you may reply, what amazing incredible emotive arguments you may use if you are to quote parts of this post, that I'm hypothetically already on that flight. Because that's reality.

RobertKK wrote: »

Why exactly is abortion offensive?

You tell us, you are the one offended by it.

The rest of us however seem capable of distinguishing between "X" and "Images of X". I do not think any surgery is offensive or harmful. Depending on context I think IMAGES of surgery can be. I do not think sex is offensive either, but IMAGES of it in the wrong context can be.

That you can not make this distinction is not a fault you need to be projecting on to everyone else.

reubenreuben wrote: »

I note that the Poll to repeal the 8th has gradually been increasing. It has gone beyond 73%. Do you think this is much of an indicator of what will actually happen on the vote day?

I expect between 50-50 and 60-40.