end of the road wrote: » i'm assuming the relevant people over the campaign will be looking at whether it's worth continuing with that tactic or not. i know i and most no voters on here have never said all abortion is murder
end of the road wrote: » it's an unborn baby and is murder.
end of the road wrote: » morally she has commited a murder yes . she has killed the most defenseless, the unborn.
end of the road wrote: » plenty of "left wing liberals" disagree with baby murder.
end of the road wrote: » it should not be up to her what happens it and it can't be, as it's a separate entity which has rights of it's own. the fact it relies on it's mother as a host doesn't justify it's murder.
end of the road wrote: » it is murder. however the state can only protect the life of the unborn as much as is practical.
end of the road wrote: » the unborn and people have a right to live. people suffering hardship is sad but at the end of the day if we allow abortion on demand, then there will be unborn with ds who may live a mostly functioning life who will be murdered.
end of the road wrote: » abortion on demand is not comparible to tv shows or drinks or food or gum. abortion on demand is the murder of an unborn life. no . an unborn baby with Down Syndrome is being murdered for having Down Syndrome.
end of the road wrote: » technically it is . it's premeditated taking of a life. the state may not recognise it as such but it definitely fits the definition of murder.
end of the road wrote: » you don't know. you have just decided because it fits your agend of pro-murder of the unborn.
end of the road wrote: » we can only deal with acts commited within our state, or acts that are illegal abroad commited by citizens of our state. we cannot do anything about people traveling to other countries to do something that is legal there, even if it is murdering the unborn. modern medicine does have quite an idea of when a woman's life will be at risk. proper sex education and free contraception + a bann on abortion in ireland bar medical necessity is the best way to reduce abortions as having to travel and fund one's abortion themselves is quite likely to be a deterrent to some.
end of the road wrote: » if the child was born and then the mother killed it, she would be shamed and called a murderer. why does that suddenly become wrong because the child is unborn?
Hellrazer wrote: » See I can do colour aswell!!!!! The referendum was a definitive "Yes" The electorate has decided by a majority of 2 to 1 in favour of allowing abortion in the state. I wish the No campaigners would just get over that. Sore losers anyone?? The sooner the better the law is in place to shut you lot up once and for all. Womens rights won through in the end and I firmly believe that's what made the yes vote win in the end.No number of aborted fetus`posters could have swayed the referendum in favour of the no vote. The whole controlling women has been defeated regardless of whether you agree with abortion or not. ]
gormdubhgorm wrote: » Disagree boards.ie has a clear leaning when it comes to political and social debate.
Trasna1 wrote: » In a democracy the losing side is still allowed to protest the result. Would you tell anti Trump or anti Brexit campaigners to shut up too? They lost as well, are they sore losers too? Should they just get over it? Or are you so politically immature that you only call the side you don't agree with sore losers?
robarmstrong wrote: » You were saying?
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » Did he say anywhere that he wanted to force a rape victim to carry a child? If you want to beat somebody in argument, build up the strongest version of their argument and try to undermine that, rather than reducing and misrepresenting their position to one so extreme that very would agree with it in the first place.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » I don't see it as controlling women I see it as safeguarding a fetus they have all the control they want after that. If I got a hammer and smashed a babies brains out I would be arrested and vilified. Yet aborting a fetus is OK now just a few months earlier? Laws are strange they change social and societal norms. Years ago in the 1500's it was common place for royalty to give thier 13 year old daughter to some man. Now that would be viewed as pedophilia. Some societal changes are good but not this abortion thing. To call it controlling seems strange to me. Do people who get abortions not view the fetus as a life form at all? I don't get it. I know of a neighbour who miscarried and even went to the trouble of getting a little white coffin. Obviously from the tone of this thread the vocal people who voted yes view the fetus as an inconvenience to thier body. That should be got rid of like a pimple on yer @rse. Unless the life of the mother is threatened I see it as an unnecessary act. As I said in another post statistically some of those who voted yes must be unplanned pregnancies / unwanted pregnancies themselves. So it was kind of like turkeys voting for Christmas... for some of them. As I said before this is the start of the slippery slope. I think a lot of the moderate yes votes will regret thier decision in 10 / 20 / 30 years to come.People have made thier beds now this is the start of the slow slide toward eugenics, gender based abortion, maybe even colour of eyes / hair in years to come. The hipster generation have spoken. I ME ME ME MINE as the Beatles
kenmc wrote: » Wait. What? Their decisions have not been taken into account? No voters are still perfectly free to CHOOSE not to have an abortion. Their rights have not been impacted in the slightest after the 8 was destroyed, and their right of CHOICE has finally been extended to all.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » He didn't say that though did he? He said no voters are all being dismissed as backwards without any nuance in their arguments being taken into account. Similar to how every single Trump voter is a "deplorable", and look at the ridiculous levels of divisiveness in America now.
Fighting Tao wrote: » Hey needwater. As I said, you misrepresented the poster I quoted. Do you still want to accuse me of misrepresenting? If so read the barbaric ideals he posted below. Hint, it is from the poster that I was replying to and it backs up what I was saying.
ELM327 wrote: » A no vote is backwards. It's a misogynistic attempt to control the bodies of women, imposing your beliefs on them. I'm a trump supporter and that "deplorable" comment won trump the election.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » Or... depending on your perspective, it could be seen as a noble attempt to save the life of an unborn child. Your refusal to acknowledge the existence of that point of view is frankly ridiculous. ... I don't even know where to start How can you be such a hardcore liberal on here, calling for the shaming of no voters etc, and then on the other hand be a trump supporter? Additionally, calling anti-trump protesters / anti-brexit protesters sore losers is the height of immaturity.
end of the road wrote: » it's very unlikely the no campaign is going to simply go away because the law is introduced. they aren't going to simply get over it or shut up. that isn't how democracy works. women's rights won through in the end only in relation to the issue of the medically necessary abortions which were not covered under POLDPA and which should have been. women's rights in general have been upheld in ireland for a long time now thankfully. for the controling women to have been defeated there would have had to have been controling of women on a whole scale basis, which while ireland was once a place where such happened, it hasn't been a place where such happened for a long long time.
ELM327 wrote: » You cannot impose your beliefs on others. That only exists in such democratic countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China etc If you want to "save a life" then go get pregnant and don't have an abortion. I am a trump supporter and have been since the early days. Even if I don't support the misogyny I admire his actual policies. I'm actually a right wing conservative in most issues - I don't support the interference of big governent in anything. I favour low taxes, low welfare/state support, no state interference in the free market, and no state interference in private lives. The last part is why I'm a hardline pro repeal. Your last comment re immaturity is quite frankly equal measure of obstreporous and risible... as such it shall receive the response it warrants. None.
The Legend Of Kira wrote: » " Ruth Coppinger says she will try to get rid of the 72-hour waiting period for women seeking an abortion when the bill comes to the Dáil. "https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/ruth-coppinger-to-seek-to-remove-insulting-72-hour-wait-for-abortion-845721.html Well it didn,t take long for Ruth Coppinger to look to make changes to the planned legislation post referendum win, she could of being more upfront pre referendum that she would seek changes to get rid of the 72 hour pause period but didn,t , it shall be interesting to see what other changes others will try to make .
fxotoole wrote: » Shall also be interesting to see what changes the No side try to make to the proposed legislation. They should have been more upfront about this before the referendum :rolleyes: It's a democracy for chrissake. We all knew the legislation was not set in stone and that it was subject to discussion/ammendment when we voted on it.
tretorn wrote: » Abortions are now being considered as part of maternity care and the Government plans to cover the full cost. Harris has never looked so happy and Leo cant believe how much the child benefit will go down. They havent stopped beaming since Saturday. We can now convince ourselves abortions are miscarriages and its all great.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » Sorry, just had to google obstreporous there, took a minute. We're not getting anywhere with out discussion, and for sure we won't achieve anything in a discussion about Trump, so i suggest we leave it at that. With all due respect, I would just like to say that you should perhaps be open to a change in ideas. You seem fairly radical in most of your beliefs, and more power to you, but perhaps read about the actual consequences of such measures, and be open to the idea that you might not be 100% correct about everything, despite your conviction.
Cupcake_Crisis wrote: » Actually the figure of €300 is being suggested atm. Although that’s ludicrous and won’t make it through legislation imo.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » In what way is it ludicrous?
SusieBlue wrote: » A noble attempt to save an unborn child's life, yet at the expense of the wishes of the woman carrying the child, just so they can feel good about themselves?
Cupcake_Crisis wrote: » Because it puts it out of reach for a lot middle/working class women. The women who were most negatively affected by the cost of having to go to England.
Mavis Warm Stranger wrote: » If it's covered by the medical card is the problem solved?
SusieBlue wrote: » A noble attempt to save an unborn child's life, yet at the expense of the wishes of the woman carrying the child, just so they can feel good about themselves? Happily going against what the person actually carrying and caring for the subsequent child wants, because they feel its their business? The problem was that they wanted to "save lives" at all costs. Born, but to a drug addict mother. Born, but to a home with domestic violence. Born, but into a life of poverty. Born, but only for a matter of minutes, in excruciating pain, due to an FFA. Born, but to a mother who already has several children she can't cope with, and into a life of neglect. Born, but with a life limiting condition that will cause pain and suffering. Born, but homeless, and living on the streets. Born, but to a mother who has been left disabled/long term impacted by carrying the pregnancy and giving birth. Born, but to a mother suffering from epilepsy/diabetes/sciatica who will never be the same again. But, at least the forced birthers get to say they "saved" a life, right?
ELM327 wrote: » You cannot impose your beliefs on others. That only exists in such democratic countries as Saudi Arabia, Russia, China etc If you want to "save a life" then go get pregnant and don't have an abortion.
