The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Cupcake_Crisis wrote: »

Ok, you don’t like sex, we get it! But the rest of us do. Abstinence is not a realistic solution and we’ve argued that to death. Granted, it’s been amusing, but we’ve covered it. Have you any other points you’d like to put forward?

#1 I never said i didnt like sex...Inventing more nonsense now are we?

#2 no we havent because all ive heard is incessant babbling about me me me and "my pleasure" and "my desires". That is not proving it is not a realistic solution

All that proves is a vast majority of people think more of sexual intercourse than the life of an unborn in an everyday context ( despite the fact i was very context specific)

So we went from debating about the worth of mothers life vs the unborns life vs now to the act of coitus vs the unborns life

And its evident from the vast majority of responses I seen, that a lot of people would terminate an unborn rather than practice A LITTLE ABSTINENCE. And in the grand picture that says it all really

And dont bother running around saying I said nobody should every have sex ever, or everyone should never have sex until menopause. Either use my words in exactly the manner they were presented, or continue making yourself both look extremely foolish

DarkScar wrote: »

"Why" is for theists. It just is that way, there's no "why" unless you think things have a divine purpose. Ew.

Its nothing to do with theism, so stop inserting religion like every other idiotic post that did in the past. Its deflecting from the point and trying to draw attention away from the actual matter at hand. It is irrelevant and nonsensical

Sexual intercourse exists so that we may procreate. If the people stop having sexual intercourse, then the people stop existing eventually

Now if people stop having sexual intercourse, there are a plethora of other ways they can satisfy their desires

Do you see the difference between the two? Or do I need to illustrate further

spookwoman wrote: »

If its as you say a "It is biologically a fact that sexual intercourse is for procreation ... that is its function, and that is why it exists" then why do people still have sex when they are well past reproductive age?
You you have just have sex to reproduce?
You don't like it when people mention religion is it because we are correct and you don't like hearing the truth?
I brought up the lti because i thought maybe the poster was referencing it. But reading it more I would have thought that someone like yourself may have a bit more compassion towards someone in a crisis pregnancy because they may be suffering from the same things. how you you feel if you forced into doing something against your will that caused those conditions to get worse.

Im going to say the same thing to you I said to the above

#1 read my posts...you are continually inventing scenarios i never mentioned...You have no idea if im trying for a child or not...so why ask about abstinence...note the context i spoke in....and for the love of all that's good READ THE POST!

#2 You are inserting religion on absolutely zero basis...like every other juvenile poster in this thread, when in fact its nothing to do with my opinion and ive stated is SEVERAL TIMES. Your inability to accept that is what i dont like...its nothing to do with hearing the truth. Because for me to hear the truth, means you would have to actually be speaking it, which you clearly are not

#3 No if someone got raped we would be having a different discussion....if someone was medically diagnosed with a FFA or an ectopic pregnancy we would be having a different discussion...They are crises

Falling pregnant because you couldnt take the proper steps necessary to ENSURE you dont flal pregnant isnt a crises, its a situation that it totally and easily avoidable. And whether you like that or not is absolutley irrelevant because ive actually proven how it is totally aviodable and given real practical examples...and all you and the vast majority of repliers have done is insinuate how difficult and unfair it might be

Yet nobody stops to think about how unfair it is for the unborn who never asked to be created in the first place, had no say in that...and equally did not ask to have that life taken before it was even given the full chance to flourish

Im sorry, but all you, and everyone else has done is proved the selfishness, narcissism and egocentricity are the rule of the roost in modern Ireland...and im still waiting for someone to come forward and actually debate that point...because anyone that says abortion is totally acceptable on financial grounds is only further proving the aforementioned

All ive heard is body autonomy and my body etc. Yes it is your body and your choice....you have a choice who you engage in sexual activity with and what kind...and if you cannot engage in activity without making what you consider a mistake...then perhaps its that choice you need to question....not what to do after youve already made the mistake...No third party should suffer because of your inability to make the choice that causes the least amount of problems

Does that make my position clearer?

Overheal wrote: »

Not sure what argument you claim to have made, but contraception fails, and rape still happens. So how easy is it in all cases, really?

Then read the posts i made, and stop jumping on your high horse, and more importantly including things I never said. I never brought rape into the discussion so why did you? I am talking about abortion on the grounds of inconvenience..specifically financial...nothing else

Overheal wrote: »

And also has no capacity for self awareness of these and other issues near any stage in contention here. Perhaps the unborn considers it unfair to be born at all. Who are you to say? The mother (or prospective mother) should have the last say in whether or not she chooses to gift life to offspring.
I'm not sure what you mean by acceptable on financial grounds.

Actually what I am saying is its unfair to procreate unless you have the intention to raise a child, intentional or not..care to argue that?

No the mother shouldn't solely..because a mother does not create life independently.... unless you know of any asexual beings in which case im sure scientists all over hope to meet you. Dont negate the male role in this..because without a male the whole debate is null and void

A mother has the right to choose what act she engages in...and my entire argument is that if she and the father are not willing to become parents they should engage in other sexual activity instead of intercourse to prevent that from happening

So my case is for prevention in the instance of anyone not wanting to become a parent....Intercourse exists for procreation...that is its function...There's 101 ways for two people to satisfy their carnal desire...there's only one way to fall pregnant

Overheal wrote: »

except when you're raped

Yet i never mentioned rape..so why did you? This is typical of every poster on this thread to drag up topics that I never mention...I entered this discussion when a poster said abortion on financial grounds is totally acceptable...thats the only reason i entered and its the only point im discussing

If you cannot understand it...perhaps you should read the posts I made

Overheal wrote: »

Like an unplanned child born to said negligent person? Then, we agree.

Sorry but no....There is two irresponsible adults who care more about their own self interest which results in either an unplanned child, or an aborted baby...please get it right

I am saying both are totally avoidable...are you disputing that?

alan partridge aha wrote: »

If you're not sure vote NO

If you're not sure, look at the people calling for No: The Bishops, Iona, Justin Barrett's brownshirts, John Waters, Ronan Mullen, Declan Ganley and his pet McGuirk, Healey-Eames, Mattie McGrath, Keith Mills, Cora Sherlock, the Healey-Raes.


Does that crew make you more likely to vote No? Did you ever agree with this crew on anything else?

DubInMeath wrote: »

His ego wouldn't allow that. If they had got rid of him his twitter posts about them would have sunk them faster than anything else he's done by keeping him on board.

Wait until they lose, McGuirk will be all over twitter blaming everyone else on the No side (except Declan Ganley).

zeebre12 wrote: »

Lots of people living today would not be alive if we had abortion like the UK.

We do have abortion exactly like the UK - we outsource it to them.

pone2012 wrote: »

#1 I never said i didnt like sex...

OK, folks, that was very amusing, but it's the week of the actual referendum and this noise detracts from our usual "I'm on the fence and just askin'" posters, some of whom might even be on the fence and just askin'.


Can we please just ignore Sir Wanksalot?

pone2012 wrote: »

#1 I never said i didnt like sex...Inventing more nonsense now are we?

#2 no we havent because all ive heard is incessant babbling about me me me and "my pleasure" and "my desires". That is not proving it is not a realistic solution

All that proves is a vast majority of people think more of sexual intercourse than the life of an unborn in an everyday context ( despite the fact i was very context specific)

So we went from debating about the worth of mothers life vs the unborns life vs now to the act of coitus vs the unborns life

And its evident from the vast majority of responses I seen, that a lot of people would terminate an unborn rather than practice A LITTLE ABSTINENCE. And in the grand picture that says it all really

And dont bother running around saying I said nobody should every have sex ever, or everyone should never have sex until menopause. Either use my words in exactly the manner they were presented, or continue making yourself both look extremely foolish





Its nothing to do with theism, so stop inserting religion like every other idiotic post that did in the past. Its deflecting from the point and trying to draw attention away from the actual matter at hand. It is irrelevant and nonsensical

Sexual intercourse exists so that we may procreate. If the people stop having sexual intercourse, then the people stop existing eventually

Now if people stop having sexual intercourse, there are a plethora of other ways they can satisfy their desires

Do you see the difference between the two? Or do I need to illustrate further



Im going to say the same thing to you I said to the above

#1 read my posts...you are continually inventing scenarios i never mentioned...You have no idea if im trying for a child or not...so why ask about abstinence...note the context i spoke in....and for the love of all that's good READ THE POST!

#2 You are inserting religion on absolutely zero basis...like every other juvenile poster in this thread, when in fact its nothing to do with my opinion and ive stated is SEVERAL TIMES. Your inability to accept that is what i dont like...its nothing to do with hearing the truth. Because for me to hear the truth, means you would have to actually be speaking it, which you clearly are not

#3 No if someone got raped we would be having a different discussion....if someone was medically diagnosed with a FFA or an ectopic pregnancy we would be having a different discussion...They are crises

Falling pregnant because you couldnt take the proper steps necessary to ENSURE you dont flal pregnant isnt a crises, its a situation that it totally and easily avoidable. And whether you like that or not is absolutley irrelevant because ive actually proven how it is totally aviodable and given real practical examples...and all you and the vast majority of repliers have done is insinuate how difficult and unfair it might be

Yet nobody stops to think about how unfair it is for the unborn who never asked to be created in the first place, had no say in that...and equally did not ask to have that life taken before it was even given the full chance to flourish

Im sorry, but all you, and everyone else has done is proved the selfishness, narcissism and egocentricity are the rule of the roost in modern Ireland...and im still waiting for someone to come forward and actually debate that point...because anyone that says abortion is totally acceptable on financial grounds is only further proving the aforementioned

All ive heard is body autonomy and my body etc. Yes it is your body and your choice....you have a choice who you engage in sexual activity with and what kind...and if you cannot engage in activity without making what you consider a mistake...then perhaps its that choice you need to question....not what to do after youve already made the mistake...No third party should suffer because of your inability to make the choice that causes the least amount of problems

Does that make my position clearer?

TLDR
What position would that be? Cowgirl?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We do have abortion exactly like the UK - we outsource it to them.

This is an incredibly good point that’s hasn’t really been discussed much to date-all the scaremongering posters re 1 in 5 and floodgates opening and yet the abortion regime we have is that of the UK. The only difference being that we are seeing a perceived upswing in the number of abortions being carried out using pills purchased on the internet with numbers travelling to England reducing-it is a really dangerous trend for the women of Ireland experiencing unsupervised abortions and it’s totally wrong that the state has its back turned on them.

I do find it interesting the way you could pick up a leaflet from refcom, and pick up a leaflet from the Yes side, and they'd be pretty similar. The Yes side are appealing for people to educate themselves on the referendum, and go in with all the facts.

Then the No side come along and are lying left, right and centre. A leaflet from them will be nothing like the refcom leaflets. We have posters here calling for people to vote No if you're unsure, instead of informing yourself. They're distorting figures, changing facts and pretty much just using manipulation to try and win.

Maybe there's a certain degree of bias here, but I really think it says a lot.

I really think it could go to no. After brexit and trump I wouldn’t even be that surprised. The slimy campaigns are very compelling, and in the case of the no campaign, the brainwashing possibly effective. I drove up and down a road with a multitude of no posters (actually I was in the passenger seat) and the subliminal messaging (even though I’m a yes) even had me thinking about it.

Make sure you get to the polling booth early. Get up and go before work if you can. Give other voters lifts. Get your pals out nice and early. Don’t get stuck in a queue late at night and miss out on getting your vote in. Every vote counts on this one.

Mr.H wrote: »

Why should I talk to you? You reported me for trolling FFS. I mean if you wanna debate fine but how do I know you won't just randomly report me again just because you get wound up by differing views.

It's OK to not agree on everything but to be childish and report people just because you don't agree with their pathetic.



The percentage of those medical professionals on record of calling for yes is very very low. Something like 10%. Claire byrne debate is my resource. Boylan is the one that claimed it iirc.



Don't mean to. Sorry if it comes across that way.

I did say health and not life. For that I am sorry. I did mean serious health risk. Which again doesn't change the fact savita was entitled to a termination.

What?

Where are you getting your percentages from?

Leroy42 wrote: »

The form needs to be signed by a Garda does it not, it is not simply a case of someone calling to your house.

Mostly no. The guards only have to sign a minority of forms for the supplement register.

Yes mostly it is a case of someone calling to your house.