robindch wrote: » Look folks, I realize it's Christmas time and the levels of both casual alcohol and fists may be a few inches higher than normal, but there's still no point in losing the run of oneself here on A+A, Anglo-Saxon wise. Thanking youze. // wishing you and yours a happy Festivus
end of the road wrote: » nope, it was a mistype. nothing more.
end of the road wrote: » no but the fact they are still doctors would be enough proof for me and for the rules that they have provided the best care possible.
end of the road wrote: » religion has nothing to do with this for many.
end of the road wrote: » i am satisfied that both mother and baby receive the best possible care from the vast majority of doctors
end of the road wrote: » i provided arguments as to why an unborn human being should have an equal right to life as a born human being
end of the road wrote: » you did not wish to except those arguments, for which i can do no more.
end of the road wrote: » incorrect it's anti-AOD and not anti-choice. if she was anti-choice then she would be against anyone being able to choose to do anything which is not the case.
Perhaps the best-known use of the term is in the title of the 1977 punk rock album Never Mind the Bollocks, Here's the Sex Pistols. Testimony in a resulting prosecution over the term demonstrated that in Old English, the word referred to a priest, and could also be used to mean "nonsense". Defence barrister John Mortimer QC and Virgin Records won the case: the court ruled that the word was not obscene.
aloyisious wrote: » The use of terms like AOD in the same sentence as anti-choice, ala "I'm anti-abortion on demand but not anti-choice" is - IMO - a covert use of free speech toward denying pregnant women the right to abortion services at all here.
robarmstrong wrote: » But again, nothing will be done I reckon.
robindch wrote: » So long as no posts are reported for offences within the remit of the forum charter, then yes, you're correct as nothing can be done. I note you've reported two posts this year and both were non-specific.If you can take the time to report posts which can be actioned according to the forum charter, especially the recent rule regarding truth-claim adjudication, then the forum mods will be able to take more focussed action. Happy christmas all!
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Again a mistype is a misspelling or a typo. A strawman is where you change what someone said into something entirely different because it is easier to reply to, or you want to move the goal posts. You want to pretend you did the former when it was blatantly the latter, fine. But no one but yourself seems to be buying it. Especially given how many times I have pulled you up on that exact MO before.Argument from authority fallacy from you there. You have offered no evidence or argument that they offered the best care possible. So you just pretend that their being doctors does that for you. The problem for your fallacy is you also have a cherry picking fallacy here. In that many doctors came out during the referendum debates to say the exact opposite of the tripe you are pedalling here. Which means that apparently their being doctors only proves your position when they agree with your position. When they do not, suddenly their being doctors does not matter any more. Cake and eat it stuff from you there as usual. Great but who are you telling? Did someone claim otherwise? Did someone claim that it was something to do with religion for everyone? Not clear here what your point here is, or to what you think you are directing it. Not even clear YOU know either of those things. But I will repeat my point as it was before you sidestepped it in this way. Religious nonsense aside, I see no argument why a non-person should be given medical preference over and actual person. Withholding treatment from a PERSON in deference to a THING is not "best medical care" by any means and you certainly have not argued as to how or why it might be.You might want to show your workings and data and evidence on this evaluation then. Because right now it appears to be an assertion made solely because it fits your anti abortion agenda. Since you have apparently evaluated the "majority" of cases you must have some workings or a data set we can view. Not that I have seen, anywhere, ever. In fact EVERY time I ask you for such arguments you do the above: Claim you have presented them before. I never seem to get a link to them, a citation of them, a quote, a repetition, or even a glimpse of them. Just claims over and over and over and over that you already put them out there somewhere. In fact the only thing I recall you spewing out was some weird view that there is some "right to become sentient". Yet ever time I have pulled you up on substantiating that claim you have run away from the conversation entirely.So perhaps rather than claims you have provided arguments you might instead provide the arguments? If arguments exist let us know what they are. This thread certainly has not thrown up any, what with it's "ooo my knees go funny cause it has a tongue that moves around when we play music and that makes me think it might be talking" types going around. Yeah funny I do not accept assertions that you call arguments. Wonder why that might be?You are redefining what the phrase "anti choice" means in order to pretend it is not anti choice. No one using the phrase "anti choice" is claiming it means "being able to choose to do anything" except you. Claiming X is not X because X means something different to you personally that it does to the people using X, is one of your weaker dodges and distortions.
Igotadose wrote: » A reason to celebrate at Midnight: https://www.rte.ie/news/health/2018/1231/1019710-hospital-trolleys/ Helpline opens tonight. I wonder when the hatebothers start trying to spam it. Hopefully that's being anticipated.
An_Toirpin wrote: » A dark day for human rights.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » A great day for womens rights.
uptherebels wrote: » Only if you dont like pregnant women having rights
end of the road wrote: » a dark and sad day yes. however if there is any comfort for us, it will be that one day this wrong will be undone. who knows when that day will be, we may not even be around to see it, but we have to believe that it will come. it did for many other things that went against the human rights of people, and we should believe that the same will happen for the unborn. that isn't true. being against abortion being availible for any reason does not make the person being against it, dislike pregnant women having rights.
uptherebels wrote: » It is when a woman has less right because she is pregnant You never gave us your alternative to 12 weeks on request
ohnonotgmail wrote: » You dont want her to have control over her own body so you are against women having rights over themselves.
An_Toirpin wrote: » Unless they are little women.
end of the road wrote: » a dark and sad day yes. however if there is any comfort for us, it will be that one day this wrong will be undone. who knows when that day will be, we may not even be around to see it, but we have to believe that it will come. it did for many other things that went against the human rights of people, and we should believe that the same will happen for the unborn. Yes we know, we know that there are plenty of ppl who would deny pregnant people choice and that organisations will be working to make sure it happens. However there will as always have been people who will work to make sure women are allowed their rights to bodily autonomy. I am keeping a close eye on the ones who are trying to get into power for as long as it will take.
end of the road wrote: » i did though, abortion where the mother's life is under threat is what i believe to be the alternative, i don't believe 12 weeks for any reason is needed. again this is incorrect and i have explained this, that i am satisfied a woman already has full control over her body and has had in this country for a couple of decades. so therefore your claim that i am against women having rights over themselves is false because for it to be true, i would have to believe that she had no or not all rights over her body before AOD became availible and believe that to be fine.
Bredabe wrote: » Yes we know, we know that there are plenty of ppl who would deny pregnant people choice and that organisations will be working to make sure it happens. However there will as always have been people who will work to make sure women are allowed their rights to bodily autonomy. I am keeping a close eye on the ones who are trying to get into power for as long as it will take.
e1vwdgzy4l9uom wrote: » Megan and Harry were delighted to find she was pregnant... at 13 weeks.
e1vwdgzy4l9uom wrote: » Like free condoms in schools and colleges. No sense of personal responsibility. That would be too much. By the way, why have a vending machine when they will be given out for free? Why not an open basket at the school door?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » What exactly is your point?
e1vwdgzy4l9uom wrote: » You think it's a good idea to distribute free condoms in schools and colleges?
