nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dick Swiveller

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Naah. John Curran in Dublin Mid West is toast.

And because it's possible for any future government to make abortion illegal again, it's important that people DO think about pro- or anti-choice when voting. It's not a purely constitutional issue which is done and dusted once the referendum is over.

I'm telling you it will not be an issue for most people at election time. For a small number, maybe. People vote tribally at election time. My pro-life grandparents will vote FG like they have always done.

Dick Swiveller

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Naah. John Curran in Dublin Mid West is toast.

And because it's possible for any future government to make abortion illegal again, it's important that people DO think about pro- or anti-choice when voting. It's not a purely constitutional issue which is done and dusted once the referendum is over.

Also, how many of the young people who registered to vote in the referendum will vote in a general election?

Bredabe

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

Yes, but most people won't vote depending on whether the TD is pro-life or pro-choice. People on Boards might, but the general public won't.

Of course they will, none wants to go backwards and suffer again. No matter how much you want to delude yourself otherwise.

Where I work sometimes, there is a very closeted pro life cllr and one who is honestly pro life, vast majority of the people who I know in the community will not be voting for either.
Not one of those ppl are on SM. The lack of signal there doesn't allow for the luxury of it. This is not isolated thinking by a long chalk.

Dick Swiveller

Bredabe wrote: »

Of course they will, none wants to go backwards and suffer again. No matter how much you want to delude yourself otherwise.

Where I work sometimes, there is a very closeted pro life cllr and one who is honestly pro life, vast majority of the people who I know in the community will not be voting for either.
Not one of those ppl are on SM. The lack of signal there doesn't allow for the luxury of it. This is not isolated thinking by a long chalk.

Well, we'll see, but I guarantee all the pro-life TDs will be voted in.

Bredabe

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

Also, how many of the young people who registered to vote in the referendum will vote in a general election?

Lots if you go by the presidential and blas refs. So many young ppl are returning to live here and are used to this kind of healthcare.

Bredabe

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

Well, we'll see, but I guarantee all the pro-life TDs will be voted in.

We will(not) indeed, but keep taking the meds in the meantime tho.

Dick Swiveller

Bredabe wrote: »

Lots if you go by the presidential and blas refs. So many young ppl are returning to live here and are used to this kind of healthcare.

The number of people under 25 who voted in the Presidential election was tiny.

Bredabe

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

The number of people under 25 who voted in the Presidential election was tiny.

Nope, the amount of anyone voting in the pres was tiny.

Dick Swiveller

Bredabe wrote: »

We will(not) indeed, but keep taking the meds in the meantime tho.

No need to insult me. I'm just giving my opinion on what will happen at election time.

Dick Swiveller

Bredabe wrote: »

Nope, the amount of anyone voting in the pres was tiny.

But you said "lots".

Bredabe

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

But you said "lots".

Yes lots in terms of the small no's of that turned out at all.

Dick Swiveller

Bredabe wrote: »

Yes lots in terms of the small no's of that turned out at all.

That doesn't make any sense. Anyway, we've veered off topic. Have a nice day.

Bredabe

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

No need to insult me. I'm just giving my opinion on what will happen at election time.

Im tempted to respond to this the same way the No campaign sanctioned in its workers, but im better than that, it was just a flippant comment.

Loafing Oaf

Bredabe wrote: »

Of course they will, none wants to go backwards and suffer again. No matter how much you want to delude yourself otherwise..

But no-one will be talking about going backwards. Just the same as no-one was talking about re-outlawing divorce at the 1997 election. Guarantee you McGrath, Healy Rea et all will be saying abortion is settled now, we won't be making an issue of it in the next Dail.

Bredabe

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

But no-one will be talking about going backwards. Just the same as no-one was talking about re-outlawing divorce at the 1997 election. Guarantee you McGrath, Healy Rea et all will be saying abortion is settled now, we won't be making an issue of it in the next Dail.

I hope so, but given international attitudes to issues like these and the views exhibited by others on this thread, for as long as I have ppl of reproductive age in my life I'll be keeping an eye on moves to undermine repeal.

Hotblack Desiato

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

Well, we'll see, but I guarantee all the pro-life TDs will be voted in.

LOL yeah right. RENUA worked out great didn't it?

Dick Swiveller

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

LOL yeah right. RENUA worked out great didn't it?

Are you referring to Lucinda Creighton?

end of the road

eviltwin wrote: »

maybe he will join the one issue party that is Renua

i find that doubtful if i'm honest. i really think he will run as an independant if he does run again.
as for renua, over all i wouldn't vote for them myself but they aren't a 1 issue party. i would agree with a lot of their policies in relation to crime but it's not enough for me to vote for them. my ideal party would be a varient of sf with an anti-abortion on demand stance and a willingness to actually tackle crime.

Bredabe wrote: »

As the ref was 2:1, how is he going to convince enough Yes voters to vote for him? especially as the churches power has been eroded so noticeably?

What tactics do you think he can employ that will overcome the majorities dislike of killing pregnant people, lack of job security, health care, housing? Before we even look at how there are so few easily accessible alternatives to abortion?

the church isn't relevant here. i am very much against the church and what it stands for yet i am against abortion on demand. in fact the church may be against abortion full stop so we don't even share an exact view on it.
i'm not sure what you are on about in the first part of your second question given there has been no stance that engages in killing pregnant women and saying it is okay. at least not in the past 3 or more decades.

Bredabe

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

That doesn't make any sense. Anyway, we've veered off topic. Have a nice day.

Makes complete sense to others, but you are right its boring now.
Nos Da.

Dick Swiveller

Bredabe wrote: »

Makes complete sense to others, but you are right its boring now.
Nos Da.

"Lots" means a large amount. There was no large amount. Ergo you are mistaken.

ohnonotgmail

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

"Lots" means a large amount. There was no large amount. Ergo you are mistaken.

You state that as fact. Can you back that up?

Dick Swiveller

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You state that as fact. Can you back that up?

For the Presidential election?

ohnonotgmail

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

For the Presidential election?

well that is what it refers to, so yes.

Hotblack Desiato

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

Are you referring to Lucinda Creighton?

Better give that political crystal ball of yours a polish :rolleyes:

Dick Swiveller

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Better give that political crystal ball of yours a polish :rolleyes:

So you are, ok. Do you think she wasn't re-elected because of her views on abortion or because Fine Gael would have one that seat regardless of who was standing for them?

Hotblack Desiato

Not just her, it was the failure of ANY of their candidates to get elected.

Dick Swiveller

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not just her, it was the failure of ANY of their candidates to get elected.

Well, yes, but that doesn't tell us anything really.

Loafing Oaf

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

LOL yeah right. RENUA worked out great didn't it?

But Renua were perceived to be a one-issue party: most of the anti-abortion Tds are parish pump merchants who have built up a strong local support base over the years. Pro-life is only a small part of their platform. The TDS in an equivalent position to Renua are Carol Nolan and Peter Fitzpatrick (and possibly Peadar Toibin now), and I agree that they are likely to lose their seats (if they stand at all).

ohnonotgmail

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

"Lots" means a large amount. There was no large amount. Ergo you are mistaken.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

You state that as fact. Can you back that up?

Dick Swiveller wrote: »

For the Presidential election?

do you plan on substantiating your claim?

aloyisious

I'm watching a video from Ciara Sherlock about the Govt bill on abortion, incl the voting result in the Dail and comments there by deputies. She's very definite that the Govt are Nazis, laughing and bragging about their bill, child-killing factories. The video has her talking about children at 9 months and by including that in her video, giving the message that abortions will be allowed up to that time. According to her video the TD's took back-handers, with satanic smiles. It's full of shock-jockey tactics describing limbs [arms & legs] being torn from the bodies. Drug Co's using the tissue and internal organs in pharmaceuticals.

As the video was posted by another person on a facebook page unrelated to the issue and topic of abortion, I won't copy or repost it from that page as that would be an abuse of the page and further the aims of the O/P. The video ends on a religious credo rant.