The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

DOS · 22-05-2018 04:01PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

You seemed to avoid answering my question but instead focused on what you perceived to be an insult on your beliefs, you have old-fashioned beliefs, that is not an insult, it's fact.

Fact!

No it's your truth. Not mine.

DOS · 22-05-2018 04:01PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Your own church doesn't recognise the life until after 24 weeks!

What church is that?

robarmstrong · 22-05-2018 04:02PM

DOS wrote: »

Fact!

No it's your truth. Not mine.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Which is worse, forcing women (against their will as yeno, that's what force is) to continue unwanted pregnancies just so they stay in-line with your beliefs, or allowing them the choice of access to an abortion which they may or may not take, but at least the choice is there, hmm?

Now, I've removed what you perceived to be an insult.

Answer the question, yano, the next question you so willingly asked for.

amcalester · 22-05-2018 04:02PM

DOS wrote: »

'Whoever saves one life saves the World entire'.

I disagree with you Sir

Didn't apply to Savita though did it?

spookwoman · 22-05-2018 04:02PM

Cantona's Collars wrote: »

The wife just saw on her newsfeed that an investigation is underway in Waterford after the body of a newborn was left in a doctor's surgery.
There's a dillema for the love both/no campaign.
Would that woman have been better off having an early abortion than going full term and leaving the body of a dead baby in a doctor's surgery?

Pretty tragic. I didn't want to mention it because we dont know the full story except she was dropped off at care doc, gave birth in toilet and she was brought to the hospital In the meantime they were searching for baby and was found dead.
The same thing crossed my mind that there seemed to be no support for the young woman.

FrancieBrady · 22-05-2018 04:03PM

DOS wrote: »

'Whoever saves one life saves the World entire'.

That could apply to a doctor saving the life of a woman in a difficult pregnancy...yeh?

Zubeneschamali · 22-05-2018 04:03PM

Calina wrote: »

In a strange way it makes me feel sorry for Cora Sherlock. It is like her own side have no faith in her.

I eagerly await McGuirk ripping her a new one on twitter after she screws up.

Leroy42 · 22-05-2018 04:03PM

DOS wrote: »

What church is that?

Does your church recognise it?

DOS · 22-05-2018 04:04PM

robarmstrong wrote: »

Now, I've removed what you perceived to be an insult.

Answer the question, yano, the next question you so willingly asked for.

I answered it already.

Is selfishness worse than trying to save the lives of the unborn.

It's a rhetorical question with an obvious answer.

DOS · 22-05-2018 04:05PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Does your church recognise it?

Christian Churches are inherently pro life.

ohnonotgmail · 22-05-2018 04:05PM

DOS wrote: »

I answered it already.

Is selfishness worse than trying to save the lives of the unborn.

It's a rhetorical question with an obvious answer.

Is your morality more important than the lives of women?

DOS · 22-05-2018 04:07PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That could apply to a doctor saving the life of a woman in a difficult pregnancy...yeh?

It could. Or it could apply to counseling a mother during a crisis pregnancy and saving 2 lives.

jjmcclure · 22-05-2018 04:07PM

This is largely framed as a religious debate, particularly with Pro-Choice accusing anyone who is Pro-Life of being a religious zealot.

I am agnostic at best, probably more on the atheist side of the debate but I am strongly Pro-Life. However I do see the need to legislate properly for fatal fetal abnormality or cases of rape/incest.

The current proposals will lead to unrestricted abortion in Ireland. This is simply wrong. The Pro-Choice Zealots would state that a woman should be able to terminate up to 6 months, many of them up to 9 months!, for no reason other than the pregnancy being an inconvenience. I think this view is "wrong".

I propose the Pro-Choice side consider this hypothetical scenario and then answer the question I will pose truthfully.

A man and his pregnant partner are traveling in a car, the woman is three months pregnant. At a cross roads their car is hit side on by a lorry and the woman and unborn child are killed instantly.

How many lives does the husband mourn for??

Life is Life!

SusieBlue · 22-05-2018 04:07PM

DOS wrote: »

What church is that?

Babies lost before 24 weeks and/or before they weigh 500g are not given death or birth certificates, as far as the government is concerned, its like they never even existed.

robarmstrong · 22-05-2018 04:07PM

DOS wrote: »

I answered it already.

Is selfishness worse than trying to save the lives of the unborn.

It's a rhetorical question with an obvious answer.

I didn't see your answer, is it because you've failed to answer it?

You answered my question with what you strangely assume to be an intelligent question, it is not.

You say you are not male, that's fine, so obviously you're female.

Why feel the need to deprive your fellow women of a choice they may require in the future just because you don't agree with it? That's pretty...

Selfish.

SusieBlue · 22-05-2018 04:08PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

Although this is largely framed as a religious debate, particularly with Pro-Choice accusing anyone who is Pro-Life of being a religious zealot.

I am agnostic at best, probably more on the atheist side of the debate but I am strongly Pro-Life. However I do see the need to legislate properly for fatal fetal abnormality or cases of rape/incest.

The current proposals will lead to unrestricted abortion in Ireland. This is simply wrong. The Pro-Choice Zealots would state that a woman should be able to terminate up to 6 months, many of them up to 9 months!, for no reason other than the pregnancy being an inconvenience. I think this view is "wrong".

I propose the Pro-Choice side consider this hypothetical scenario and then answer the question I will pose truthfully.

A man and his pregnant partner are traveling in a car, the woman is three months pregnant. At a cross roads their car is hit side on by a lorry and the woman and unborn child are killed instantly.

How many lives does the husband mourn for??

Life is Life!

If we're playing games with scenarios...

You are outside a burning building. Inside, there is a screaming toddler, and a petri dish containing 10 embryos.
You can only save one.
Who do you save?

PhoenixParker · 22-05-2018 04:09PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

This is largely framed as a religious debate, particularly with Pro-Choice accusing anyone who is Pro-Life of being a religious zealot.

I am agnostic at best, probably more on the atheist side of the debate but I am strongly Pro-Life. However I do see the need to legislate properly for fatal fetal abnormality or cases of rape/incest.

The current proposals will lead to unrestricted abortion in Ireland. This is simply wrong. The Pro-Choice Zealots would state that a woman should be able to terminate up to 6 months, many of them up to 9 months!, for no reason other than the pregnancy being an inconvenience. I think this view is "wrong".

I propose the Pro-Choice side consider this hypothetical scenario and then answer the question I will pose truthfully.

A man and his pregnant partner are traveling in a car, the woman is three months pregnant. At a cross roads their car is hit side on by a lorry and the woman and unborn child are killed instantly.

How many lives does the husband mourn for??

Life is Life!

Honestly 1.

No woman I know mourns her miscarriage like she would mourn the loss of a child.

juanjo · 22-05-2018 04:09PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

This is largely framed as a religious debate, particularly with Pro-Choice accusing anyone who is Pro-Life of being a religious zealot.

I am agnostic at best, probably more on the atheist side of the debate but I am strongly Pro-Life. However I do see the need to legislate properly for fatal fetal abnormality or cases of rape/incest.

The current proposals will lead to unrestricted abortion in Ireland. This is simply wrong. The Pro-Choice Zealots would state that a woman should be able to terminate up to 6 months, many of them up to 9 months!, for no reason other than the pregnancy being an inconvenience. I think this view is "wrong".

I propose the Pro-Choice side consider this hypothetical scenario and then answer the question I will pose truthfully.

A man and his pregnant partner are traveling in a car, the woman is three months pregnant. At a cross roads their car is hit side on by a lorry and the woman and unborn child are killed instantly.

How many lives does the husband mourn for??

Life is Life!

Were they travelling to an abortion clinic?

DOS · 22-05-2018 04:09PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Is your morality more important than the lives of women?

No. Obviously not. I love both.

If you don't mind I'm not in the dock being cross examined.

I'm off to canvass where the real work takes place.

God bless!

spookwoman · 22-05-2018 04:10PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

This is largely framed as a religious debate, particularly with Pro-Choice accusing anyone who is Pro-Life of being a religious zealot.

I am agnostic at best, probably more on the atheist side of the debate but I am strongly Pro-Life. However I do see the need to legislate properly for fatal fetal abnormality or cases of rape/incest.

The current proposals will lead to unrestricted abortion in Ireland. This is simply wrong. The Pro-Choice Zealots would state that a woman should be able to terminate up to 6 months, many of them up to 9 months!, for no reason other than the pregnancy being an inconvenience. I think this view is "wrong".

I propose the Pro-Choice side consider this hypothetical scenario and then answer the question I will pose truthfully.

A man and his pregnant partner are traveling in a car, the woman is three months pregnant. At a cross roads their car is hit side on by a lorry and the woman and unborn child are killed instantly.

How many lives does the husband mourn for??

Life is Life!

It is wrong as in that is a complete and utter lie where are you getting that info from. Its up to 12 weeks and a lesson in biology an abortion at 9 months is normal as its also know as giving birth.

c68zapdsm5i1ru · 22-05-2018 04:10PM

There are a lot of people who have concerns about unlimited abortions up to 12 weeks and are unwillingly voting Yes because they feel it's better than leaving the status quo unchanged. But surely it would be better to vote No and then demand that the Government give this more thought and come up with a better proposal.

Zubeneschamali · 22-05-2018 04:10PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

The current proposals will lead to unrestricted abortion in Ireland. This is simply wrong.

Can you explain why? Thanks.

robarmstrong · 22-05-2018 04:11PM

DOS wrote: »

No. Obviously not. I love both.

If you don't mind I'm not in the dock being cross examined.

I'm off to canvass where the real work takes place.

God bless!

Love both but selfishly deprive women of the choice to terminate a pregnancy they very clearly are not capable of having.

Cool.

jjmcclure · 22-05-2018 04:11PM

SusieBlue wrote: »

If we're playing games with scenarios...

You are outside a burning building. Inside, there is a screaming toddler, and a petri dish containing 10 embryos.
You can only save one.
Who do you save?

Your argument is nonsense.

A petri dish full of embryos is not a growing human life. Please consider a better argument before posting again.

SusieBlue · 22-05-2018 04:11PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

There are a lot of people who have concerns about unlimited abortions up to 12 weeks and are unwillingly voting Yes because they feel it's better than leaving the status quo unchanged. But surely it would be better to vote No and then demand that the Government give this more thought and come up with a better proposal.

Its taken 35 years to get this far. We can't let this go on another 35, while they kick the can down the road.
Women are dying. Families are suffering. It simply isn't good enough.
We deserve better.

Calina · 22-05-2018 04:12PM

DOS wrote: »

robarmstrong wrote: »

Now, I've removed what you perceived to be an insult.

Answer the question, yano, the next question you so willingly asked for.

I answered it already.

Is selfishness worse than trying to save the lives of the unborn.

It's a rhetorical question with an obvious answer.

actually it is open to debate. What us the motivation of trying to save the lives of the unborn? Is it followed up with comprehensive care for them when they are born? Is it so yoh can feel good about making everyone comply with your value?

If you do it to get personsl satisfaction, with no specific regard for the lives of those children, I contend that the prolife stance is essentially selfish as it is not backed up by support post birth. Now this is less of an issue in Europe because it leans towards provision of healthcare and social welfare. In the US, this is very debateable given fhe overlso between alleged prolife and the gun rights lobby.

But if the motivation is to control women's behaviour, which imo it often is, even here, then the prolife stance is more selfish than the prochoice stance.

Hotblack Desiato · 22-05-2018 04:12PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

The current proposals will lead to unrestricted abortion in Ireland.

Not true.

many of them up to 9 months!, for no reason other than the pregnancy being an inconvenience.

And that is entirely untrue.

SusieBlue · 22-05-2018 04:13PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

Your argument is nonsense.

A petri dish full of embryos is not a growing human life. Please consider a better argument before posting again.

Its a human life. And according to pro-lifers, all human life is equal. Whether it be a 35 year old mum of 3 who's health is at risk from her pregnancy, or a 10 week old fetus the size of a grape.

All the same and all equal.

Zubeneschamali · 22-05-2018 04:13PM

jjmcclure wrote: »

A petri dish full of embryos is not a growing human life.

Correct, it is several growing human lives (if you buy an embryo being a human life).

robarmstrong · 22-05-2018 04:14PM

Malaya Red Sandlot wrote: »

There are a lot of people who have concerns about unlimited abortions up to 12 weeks and are unwillingly voting Yes because they feel it's better than leaving the status quo unchanged. But surely it would be better to vote No and then demand that the Government give this more thought and come up with a better proposal.

And in the mean time, all those hard cases continue to be denied just because of people's "concerns".

How valiant, continue to deny the hard cases because what's proposed doesn't suit you.

It would absolutely not be better to vote No and demand that the Government give this more thought, there can't be more thought given as the 8th would have to be removed for more leeway to be brought in, the hard cases would continue to suffer unless the 8th is gone, once the 8th is gone, legislation can then be lobbied for.

The 8th amendment referendum - part 4

Comments