....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Financially there not suppoted what's, the cost of raising a kid here, 100k until their 21 on the last count. To someone with nothing that's winning the lottery money. Was it 5 Irish babies adopted last year I think, we could do with increasing the supply, were importing the babies and exporting the abortions. It's pretty insane when you think of the logic.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Your very Niave to be playing judge and executioner. We all know a Jacinta. The point was missed on you obiviously as it was in response to a question from the Yes side who brought Jacinta into it. We take it your in favour of killing her children, that folks is the mindset of a Yes voter, if her daddy's poor chop the baby up.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Financially there not suppoted what's, the cost of raising a kid here, 100k until their 21 on the last count. To someone with nothing that's winning the lottery money.
Was it 5 Irish babies adopted last year I think, we could do with increasing the supply, were importing the babies and exporting the abortions. It's pretty insane when you think of the logic.
drunkmonkey wrote: » 1) The choice is life over death 2) I'm not suggesting it for special cases like rape. I'm suggesting it for women who chose for economic reasons, whether that's 10k if you adopt or 10k in financial assistance to help you after the baby arrives. 3)That's debatable personally after seeing someone with kidney failure i'd keep mine regardless of cost, I've no issue if someone wants to sell one willingly. I was willing to give one for free but that was a family member. 4)If I was stoney broke and given the choice I might just take the 10k, see point 2. 5)Your logics dictates we kill the 5000 in that point. So to sum up, kill them all, screw giving an alternative is your main theme.
drunkmonkey wrote: » We all know a Jacinta. We take it your in favour of killing her children, that folks is the mindset of a Yes voter, if her daddy's poor chop the baby up.
drunkmonkey wrote: » Was it 5 Irish babies adopted last year I think, we could do with increasing the supply, were importing the babies and exporting the abortions. It's pretty insane when you think of the logic.
The Specialist wrote: » Clear to see someone failed biology (like 99.9% of the No side). What you are referring to is a foetus.
drunkmonkey wrote: » The doctor called them babies every time we went to them, call it a Mexican taco for all I care if it makes you feel better about killing something that's alive.
The Specialist wrote: » How do you feel after masturbating, you mass murderer?
bubblypop wrote: » All maternity services are free in Ireland. Take 2 identical women, same age, same socioeconomic status etc. One takes 2 abortion pills. One goes through 9 months of pregnancy, medical appointments, scans etc (hope fully everything OK, so no extras) Has a baby, baby is entitled to medical card. Child allowance is paid until child is 18. Etc etc etc. And in this example, the women are working & providing for them selves. Which coats the taxpayer more? I am NOT suggesting abortion should be brought in to save money, I am merely counter arguing the 'how much will it cost the taxpayer' rubbish.
pauldla wrote: » Your answer in no way responds to my question. Let me ask it again, in a more refined and direct manner: over the last three decades, what have the anti-choice/pro-life lobby done to 'do better' for the 'hard cases'?
Mark Hamill wrote: » We aren't having a referendum on the 8th tomorrow because the no-side compaigned for it.
Jenneke87 wrote: » TBH, I'm voting yes simply because once it's in then it can be researched better without this idea that Ireland is somehow different from everywhere else. Once it's in, then changes to the law will occur without the need for a referendum, and the emotional aspect can be removed with a more systematic approach taken. Hopefully, (and past experience tells me that this is unlikely), proper research and analysis on the issue with Irish cases, will provide a better guide for how Abortion should be implemented for Irish women. I honestly don't see how it can be prevented at this stage, and will be brought up again & again until it's passed.
Sponge25 wrote: » I've never understood how men have no choice whether there off spring lives or dies.
RocketRaccoon wrote: » Because we don't have ovaries or some nonsense. Either way, our opinions don't count.
Wibbs wrote: » I've no particular skin in this game, haven't commented either way and to be frank the zealots on both sides are giving me a pain in my arse, but if you're comparing the products of a **** with a gestating foetus you're another who has as you put it "failed biology". Put it another way at what point do you see a difference between the two? Two weeks, twenty weeks, thirty? Having read and listened and watched over the last months my general take has been both the Yes and No crowd are often as not as bad as each other and I would suspect the majority who are soft Yes/No voters feel the same. For me the sooner this bloody referendum is done and dusted the better. Regardless of the result.
_Dara_ wrote: » The Yes campaign hasn’t been perfect for sure. But some of the stunts pulled by the No campaign put them way out in front: quotations from fake healthcare professionals, planting people at Repeal with banners featuring blatantly inflammatory slogans, distributing a booklet modelled aesthetically on official government booklets etc. Very underhand stuff and, honestly, quite desperate. I haven’t seen anything that compares from the Yes campaign. Saying that one side is as bad the other is fluent but doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny. My father is voting no and he has much bigger problems with the No campaign. Really hates the lot of them and has found the Yes campaign much less objectionable. He has found the No campaign so offputting that he is actually considering abstaining. He told me that earlier and, believe me, he always votes.
RocketRaccoon wrote: » While I agree that some folk on the No side have been disgraceful, I find a lot on the Yes side to be just as bad. That Facebook page "in her shoes" I think it's called is at least 80% bull and just made up stories to try and stir up emotional reactions and it is pathetic.
SusieBlue wrote: » That is absolutely not true. If you read the comments on most of those posts, the person who the story is about usually ‘outs’ themselves by saying thanks for the support. Arlette who was on the Pat Kenny show last night, her story was featured on it. She’s a real person. She is just one of many examples I can think of.
SusieBlue wrote: » Thirdly, I don't think anyone, man or woman, should get to have a choice in a strangers pregnancy. A pregnancy that has nothing to do with them. A pregnancy that will have zero effect on their life.
And this is the problem with the No side - they are exploiting and taking advantage of situations like this to make a collective CHOICE for the whole of society.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b0748b4741870baaad828fe92174b3c.svg)
