end of the road wrote: » . we were extending the view that it is wrong to kill except in extreme circumstances, to the unborn.
FingerDeKat wrote: » removing a clump of cells isn't killing anything...I'm not a murder when I get a tooth removed.
FingerDeKat wrote: » If you were truley anti-choice you'd be fighting to remove the right to travel, for irish women , for an abortion.
FingerDeKat wrote: » but like all the no-side you're a hyprocit...just as long as it's not in my backyard you don't give a fuk about the welfare of irish women.
FingerDeKat wrote: » But now (ironically) the anti choice side have no choice in what Irish women do with their bodies.
FingerDeKat wrote: » Suck it up and move on. We're coming for your schools and the controls you have over Irish health care so get busy.
Shurimgreat wrote: » I'd answer but would be accused of repetition by certain posters. I believe it was discussed at the start of the thread and I gave my input then.
Shurimgreat wrote: » Not inconsistent at all. I and most other No siders have been consistent all along. They oppose freely available abortion in this country in all but the most extenuating of circumstances. Extenuating includes lack of consent in the pregnancy, FFA, serious risk to mothers life, and extreme mental distress. Healthy fetuses are a possibility when it comes to extreme mental distress, rape and often with a serious risk to the mothers life. So yes, consistent re extenuating cases. (That's probably my last post for the evening btw).
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » Man has sex with a woman Man uses condom as woman does not wish to get pregnant. Condom breaks. Woman gets pregnant = lack of consent to pregnancy.
FingerDeKat wrote: » removing a clump of cells isn't killing anything...I'm not a murder when I get a tooth removed. If you were truley anti-choice you'd be fighting to remove the right to travel, for irish women , for an abortion. but like all the no-side you're a hyprocit...just as long as it's not in my backyard you don't give a fuk about the welfare of irish women. But now (ironically) the anti choice side have no choice in what Irish women do with their bodies. Suck it up and move on. We're coming for your schools and the controls you have over Irish health care so get busy.
Shurimgreat wrote: » You know a thread has run its course when you get angry shouty posters like you skipping right to the end of the thread to aggressively post. You also sound like a re-reg of a similarly aggressive shouty poster I earlier put on ignore.
Shurimgreat wrote: » OK definitively last post as this thread has taken up far more of my time than I thought would. For all you unrestricted abortion lovers out there, say hello to one of your victims.http://www.bbc.com/news/health-44357373 I hope you are mighty proud of yourselves.
astrofool wrote: » To be fair, it ran it's course when the landslide yes vote occurred. Since then, the No side has become even more hypocritical in it's stance (of course others will have noticed you repeat the same arguments ad infinitum, except worry about repetition when asked to provide a practical solution to any of your positions, that doesn't fall apart immediately).
Shurimgreat wrote: » Lots of posts here and not enough time to answer them all. The Yes side continue to bring up mother and baby homes. These homes are all extinct because of A. Abortion and the like and B. Wider families no longer feel ashamed about single mothers which of course is a positive thing. Church, state and the people worked together in olden days in Ireland. Famillies dumped babies and mothers in these homes to get rid of them. So some simple questions to the faux outrage church haters on here, from an athiest. Were you married in a church? YES Are your kids babtised? YES Did they make their communion? YES Are they confirmed? NEXT MARCH Do you regularly attend church occasions such as for taking these sacraments? NO Or do you stay true to your church hating principles and stay well clear of the church? THAT'S THE MISTAKE YOU ARE MAKING. I'm not expecting too many answers. Its possible to justify anything these days by hating the church. All I am expecting is even more faux outrage which if it could be harnessed would power Ireland for generations. The level of fake and likely hypocritical outrage is amusing at this stage. I suspect I could summarize most answers as follows by the way: I post on boards.ie saying I hate the church yet I attend significant church occasions. Once they are over I go back to hating the church.
Mumha wrote: » You don't seem to get it. Most people actually like the idea of the church, but hate the assholes running it into the ground. Unfortunately when the good people walked away or were silenced, it left a controlling layer of RWNJs. It's a touch of Fianna Fail during the dark, Haughey Henchmen years. Una Voce ! So I'm happy to use them as they use us, even better that it pisses them off.
Graces7 wrote: » :rolleyes: Meaningless hypocrisy.
Graces7 wrote: » Delightedhttps://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0605/968418-referendum-challenge-high-court/
Graces7 wrote: » https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0605/968418-referendum-challenge-high-court/
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Of course you are. As long as you get to push that hateful ideology of yours, who cares about democracy? Fortunately, these are doomed to fail.
Shurimgreat wrote: » This has been answered elsewhere on the thread. 35 years and nothing from the Yes side either. Fine Gael and Fianna Fail who had the political power came up with nothing until Savita died and only then with the public outcry did they get interested. So save us the nonsense. The only ones with power enough to introduce a referendum was FG and FF. But they sat on their hands for 35 years. Harris and Varadkar said there wouldn't be any new legislation or a referendum for another 35 years if this one was defeated. They are in government FFS. Shows you how much they care about getting it right. They were quite content to wait another 35 years. Except they weren't. They LIED.
Achasanai wrote: » The Yes side was a grassroots campaign that has been in action for 35 years... ... eventually gaining the support of key members of the main political parties.
sabat wrote: » I'm not saying that there weren't many smaller groups and individual activists involved in the repeal campaign through the years but I don't think describing it as "grassroots" in the traditional understanding of the word is accurate-particularly over the last couple of years when there was very controlled, centralised strategy and messaging managed by people well-connected to the levers of government, media and academia. The sudden epiphanies experienced by Varadkar, Martin, Harris et al who had claimed to be pro-life had nothing to do with their concern for women but were the result of seeing opinion polls showing how far ahead repeal was.
