Hitman3000 wrote: » There is no answer to your reply other than b.s. and an absolute cop out.
Hitman3000 wrote: » You really need to listen to the attorney general. For 35 years the 8th has proven to be a colossal f**k up. What I find amazing is this b.s. of we need the 8th to protect the baby in the womb. The state was founded in the 1920's the 8th was inserted in the constitution in 1983. What protected babies for 60 + years before the 8th?
end of the road wrote: every day society makes decisians for each other via the laws of the land. this is no different. i'm voting to prevent the legalising of the ending of the life of the unborn for any reason up to 12 weeks, and to uphold the unborn's right to life and the constitutional protection for it. my position is very much from a position of empathy and understanding for both mothers and their babies. to say no to the devaluing of life and devaluing of motherhood.
Hitman3000 wrote: » Hopefully you will never find yourself in an airport or on a ferry facing a harsh decision. I have no respect for anyone making a decision for others regarding a situation they will never find themselves in. Vote how you feel is right but don't pretend it is from a position of empathy or understanding.
end of the road wrote: i have listened to all the arguments, and have come to my decisian. i believe voting no this time is the best, right, and just decisian given the proposals being put forward. i would have rathered to be in a position where i could vote yes, but the government via their proposals have left me with no option.
end of the road wrote: i don't really believe so. i think the government could have tried harder with the 2013 act to cater to those cases. either way, there is just no possibility that i could vote in good conscience for something that would allow healthy unborn human beings to be killed, even if it would allow for the cases i agree should be provided an abortion. i cannot in good conscience vote to end the life of a human being simply because they aren't wanted. that is why i have to vote no
end of the road wrote: » if it's not going to survive to birth or won't survive post birth then abortion should be availible. the decisian would be in conjuction with both parents and a number of doctors agreeing it should happen
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Of course the response to this would be that a developing human being at 12 weeks is not a baby, which is like saying a small growing carrot in the ground shouldn't be called a baby carrot until it's removed from the ground. A preposterous argument based on location and little else. Nobody has an issue with a 21 week old premature fetus in an incubator being referred to as a baby and so why when in the womb?/QUOTE] First off there's a hell of a difference between a developing human being at 12 weeks in the womb and a 21 week old premature fetus in an incubator. The developing human being, a life-form, is not a baby. A human baby is something you can hold and cuddle in your arms or look at in an incubator. 1. The premature feotus [as you choose to describe it] in the incubator is born/birthed and is therefor not a feotus. It is a baby. You even accptt that no one has an issue with a feotus in an incubator being referred to as a baby so why do you use call it a feotus? 2. Comparing a carrot, a root vegetable in the ground, to either a human feotus in the womb or a birthed human baby in an incubator is simply preposterous.
swampgas wrote: » For that alone you would need to repeal the 8th.
aloyisious wrote: » I take it that mean's that when the situation is reversed in regard to the health of the unborn, eg: that when it is in an unhealthy state and unable to survive outside the womb [due to unhealth] after birth, you would, in good conscience, let the parent/s decide to allow it's life be terminated [killed] to stop it being made to undergo cruel and unusual treatment?
magicbastarder wrote: » i just can't wait for the referendum on euthanasia. it'll be like the abortion referendum, but with people who will actually want to talk about their own deaths.
aloyisious wrote: » If the referendum decision is a majority YES vote, I accept that abortion numbers will increase here as there is more than a slim likelihood that the numbers of irish women and girls travelling to the UK for abortion will slump, due to it's availability here. Ditto for the numbers of irish women and girls who currently travel to Holland for the same purpose/reason. If abortion is legalized here in a greater capacity that hereto allowed in law, it follows that there will be more home abortions here as the numbers of irish women and girls currently obliged to travel abroad for abortions will drop off.
end of the road wrote: » unborn human beings will legally be killed in ireland, so whether one calls them babies or fetuses or whatever, human beings will die on irish soil, in greater numbers then those traveling to the uk, if the 8th is repealed.
end of the road wrote: » i don't really believe so. i think the government could have tried harder with the 2013 act to cater to those cases. either way, there is just no possibility that i could vote in good conscience for something that would allow healthy unborn human beings to be killed, even if it would allow for the cases i agree should be provided an abortion. i cannot in good conscience vote to end the life of a human being simply because they aren't wanted. that is why i have to vote no
swampgas wrote: » I can understand your logic, but I think deep down you are hoping for repeal (without having voted for it yourself) so you won't have to live with the consequences of what a No vote might mean for vulnerable women and girls.
end of the road wrote: » my no vote will prevent abortion on demand from being legal in ireland, and prevent abortion numbers from likely increasing higher. it will save lives. lives of the most innocent of all, the unborn. whichever way the vote goes, and i think it will be repealed, i know that i will have done the right thing, what i believe is the right thing for society.
swampgas wrote: » I afraid that's just wishful thinking. But if there is a No vote I hope your conscience will be clear when the next tragedy unfolds. As the number of the abortions you dislike will continue unchanged as women continue to use pills or travel, your No vote will have only had the effect of hurting or killing a pregnant woman. IMO.
end of the road wrote: » where there is a threat to the mother's life. where there is a threat of permanent injury or disability. where the unborn is unlikely to survive either to birth or after birth.
Overheal wrote: » In what scenarios do you believe abortion should be allowed?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » No babies will be harmed if the result is a Yes, since abortion doesn't kill babies.
Overheal wrote: » Ben Carson is a verifiable idiot however. I like how he claims he took the Hippocratic Oath to “first, do no harm” - when that has been debunked again, again, and again.https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/first-do-no-harm-201510138421 Add it to his grain silo of other absurd claims, theories, and lies.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » given that a No vote, if successful, would ultimately result in the saving of many babies lives.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Well, considering that every single human being that had their life ended prematurely in the womb also had a father, and many of those fathers did not always agree with the woman in their life deciding to still their baby's heartbeat, I think the ad is therefore kinda apt, given that a No vote, if successful, would ultimately result in the saving of many babies lives. Currently the abortion rate of Irish women is not near being on a par with that of women in other European countries (even when illegal abortions are taken into account) but that will absolutely change within a few years of abortion on demand being made legal here. So, yes, in that regard, a No Vote is a heroic attempt at saving babies lives. Of course the response to this would be that a developing human being at 12 weeks is not a baby, which is like saying a small growing carrot in the ground shouldn't be called a baby carrot until it's removed from the ground. A preposterous argument based on location and little else. Nobody has an issue with a 21 week old premature fetus in an incubator being referred to as a baby and so why when in the womb? It's ridiculous and all just an obvious desire to dehumanize the fetus, because of course, if we dehumanize them enough, then mistreating them and bullying them can't be seen as inhumane, but it is, it very much is. I'll still vote No, but alas I think it will sadly being in vain and the Yes side will be victorious. We at at a stage now in society where modern day feminist values are adopted not because they have logic, coherency or even meaningful societal value, but because it's not politically correct to express views to the contrary. The societal ostracization is a very real consequence of going against the current far left grain. At work recently one twenty something woman told me that she was voting no and quickly followed it with a request not to tell anyone. We see repeal t-shirts, even a repeal shop. The vote is a fashionable one and given with most abortions we are talking about a human being's short life being brought to a premature close, I find it rather distasteful. I guess the prochoice really do see the moving, reacting, thumb sucking baby in the womb as just a mere clump of cells. Funny how a generation usually obsessed with science are so willing to abandon it when it suits them. And referring to a 12 week fetus is absolutely doing just that. Lovely day out and so will love and you leave you with some words from Ben Carson, former Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at John Hopkins:
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » The No campaign is totally not about religion, atall atall.
