King Mob wrote: » Ok, doesn't really answer my questions. It doesn't explain why you dodged my question initially. I simply do not buy that you "just missed it." You and your buddies do that constantly. It doesn't explain why you are still ignoring my other question. But I've learned when I ask you guys a question 3 times and you're still dodging it. You're not going to answer it.
uptherebels wrote: » Careful now! they will think you are trying to silence them.
splinter65 wrote: » No odhinn. Your problem is that science is your friend when science supports the case for abortion but when science supports the case against abortion you have to revert to accusing the entire prolife community of playing the God card. Neonatal care advances in the last 10 years have escalated to the point where preemies are enjoying excellent outcomes they didn’t before and this is causing abortion activists much trouble on the US in particular where you have the extraordinary situation in any given hospital of a baby of 21 weeks being aborted in one room while pediatricians fight to save the life of a preemie of 21 weeks down the hall.
.........putting even more pressure on young adults to compromise their self esteem and self respect by making sure that they’re “intercourse ready” with baskets of condoms positioned carefully all over the place."
splinter65 wrote: » Apparently they are offensive because a law was passed making abortion legal and that means that the discussion should be over?
I don’t know about you but getting threatening PMs from people who don’t think you should be allowed to voice your opinion is pretty much an attempt to silence.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » The discussion IS over.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Hmmm and do you report these PMs? Does Twitter find anything wrong with them?
end of the road wrote: » as a whole it isn't. certain aspects maybe such as in relation to the specific elements of the law but the discussion on abortion in general will never end until AOD is no more.
splinter65 wrote: » I’ll pm you emails from twitter to me informing me of which tweets if mine were reported, the grounds of the report and the desicion of twitter.
end of the road wrote: » as a whole it isn't. certain aspects maybe such as in relation to the specific elements of the law but the discussion on abortion in general will never end until AOD is no more. i should hope they do. making threats toards people goes beyond anything reasonable.
end of the road wrote: » the discussion on abortion in general will never end until AOD is no more.
smacl wrote: » So you're saying that the discussion ends once your minority position is upheld against that held by the substantial majority following due democratic process?
smacl wrote: » Thankfully that isn't how Irish society works any longer, nor is it ever likely to be again as we continue to shift further towards secular democracy and away dogmatic theocracy.
SusieBlue wrote: » Banning abortion doesn't stop abortions from occurring. Abortions have been happening since the dawn of time. So long as there are women falling pregnant, there will be women who for their own reasons, will require a termination. Banning them makes them unsafe and puts women at risk. It doesn't stop them from happening. You have offered up absolutely zero conclusive solutions to deal with this fact. I emphasised the word fact there, because that's exactly what it is. Women will always seek abortions. That's just how it is, how it has always been, and how it will be in the future. So it is disingenuous to suggest that if we ban abortion again, the problem will go away. Because it won't. We can handle this issue this issue by making it safe, regulated, and ensuring they happen as early as possible. Or we can put our fingers back in our ears, look the other way, and send our wives, sisters, daughters and friends back on the boats to the UK for them to deal with. But either way abortions will still be happening and after years and years of seeing your posts on this matter, its about time you faced up to that fact.
end of the road wrote: » banning abortions apart from genuine circumstances where it is actually needed, such as where the mother's life is under threat, says that abortions other then where there is such a grave situation, has no place in society and is a want rather then a need. if someone doesn't want to be put at risk, then don't go killing their unborn child simply because they don't want it, should do it. i have already offered a solution to the issue, that because someone may want something, it doesn't mean they have to get it, and we don't have an obligation to give it to them. a bann doesn't need to stop abortion outright, and in actual fact nobody is looking for that in the first place. we can handle the issue by saying, an abortion will be provided where there is a serious threat, but if you want it simply because you don't want to be pregnant, then you will have to make your own provisions. i faced up decades ago to the fact that mass killing of unborn children happens, and it horrifies me just as much now as it did then.
end of the road wrote: » as we already know, the democratic process only asked about repealing the 8th and allowing the government to legislate for abortion. the people did not vote on the issue of abortion itself and we weren't asked to do so (i believe we should have got a vote on it) but we didn't. it was the government who decided that everyone who voted yes were all in favour of abortion being implemented rather then simply the politicians being able to legislate for it as asked on the ballot paper.
SusieBlue wrote: » And you, a stranger on the internet, are in no position to be making such a determination on my behalf, or on behalf of other women whose circumstances you are unaware of. As someone with no information on my background, childhood, health and life in general I'm sure you can only agree that YOU have no business deciding whether I want or need an abortion. To sum it up, its frankly absolutely none of your business. The decision should be up to the owner of the uterus, and thankfully, the public agreed. Why you feel you should have any say in the control of my reproductive organs still astonishes me, but here we are. Regardless, your reply doesn't answer the point I made. Which is that abortions have always happened and will continue to happen, regardless of the law. Banning it will change absolutely nothing, only put lives at risk and ensure abortions occur at later gestations. It isn't naivety on your part that you are ignoring this and denying this. You are aware of it, you just don't care. You are so obsessed with the contents of womens wombs, you are forgetting about the living, breathing woman attached to them. I'm not about to get into another back and forth with you, because there is frankly no point, but its really disappointing to see you once again refuse to address any of the points that have been put to you. You haven't come up with a solution, because there is no solution. If there was a solution that could have avoided abortion being necessary, the 8th wouldn't have been Repealed. The fact of the matter is that abortions have always and will always happen, and we as a country have voted to trust women with their own uteruses & own decisions and regulate the process in a legal manner.
end of the road wrote: » except you, i, and everyone else effectively make similar determinations on behalf of each other on a daily basis dispite backgrounds, circumstances etc, via the laws of the land, especially where and when it comes to harming others. so yes i believe that as a society, given abortion is the ending of a life of a human being, that it is it's business as to whether someone actually wants, or genuinely needs, an abortion or not and that the owner of the uterus, should not be able to decide that another's life should be ended except where there is a grave threat. the public didn't necessarily agree that the owner of the uterus should be able to end the life of their unborn child, we weren't asked on such a matter. as i have said before abortion is only necessary in some cases. i would be willing to have respect for people who would accept and admit this to be the case, even if i would still disagree with them. but to deny that in most cases abortion is about a want rather then a genuine need is in my view an error of judgement. we as a country haven't voted to trust women at all, that was just a meaningless slogan which meant nothing. what we voted for, was to repeal the 8th and give the government the ability to legislate for abortion. we didn't vote on uteruses & own decisions anything else.
SusieBlue wrote: » You don't half contradict yourself. There are no other laws of a similar capacity to the sh*tshow that the 8th Amendment was. None. Zero. If you are insisting otherwise, please point out another law that dictates your bodily autonomy and capacity to consent to medical procedures. I know you're male so I'm particularly interested in hearing which laws effect you in a similar way that the 8th affected women. You're tying yourself up in knots trying to justify your self appointed authority on other people's lives. There is no justification for it, none.
SusieBlue wrote: » You lost, the people have spoken, get over it.
end of the road wrote: » irrelevant, and the people only spoke in relation to repeal of the 8th. those against brexit also lost that vote as another example, but it matters not. when something is wrong it's wrong, and it doesn't stop being wrong because of a vote. no amount of "you lost, get over it, remoaner" will change that.
Bredabe wrote: » Stuck for since this morning in a hospital with a very very sick child, as his GP is being flooded with calls by those with negative feelings about the practice being on the contact list for "My Options". Preventing his distraught parents getting an appointment and keeping him out of the hospital. I dont understand the logic of it, preventing a terminally ill child getting health care because of a decision his DR made and has NOTHING to do with the child involved.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » They only care about babies that have not been born yet.
An_Toirpin wrote: » Actually the RCC did revise it's position based on the rise in scientic understanding. That has long been how the RCC did things. Not always but frequently.
Bredabe wrote: » Stuck since this morning in a hospital with a very very sick child, as his GP is being flooded with calls by those with negative feelings about the practice being on the contact list for "My Options". Preventing his distraught parents getting an appointment and keeping him out of the hospital. I dont understand the logic of it, preventing a terminally ill child getting health care because of a decision his DR made and has NOTHING to do with the child involved.
Igotadose wrote: » Get the GP to get their names, and report names to the guards. If this is a coordinated effort likely charges can be brought. As always, the hateboth crowd shows their true colors.
aloyisious wrote: » Is that revision of its position relative to science in general or is it more specifically on medical scientific understanding of gynaecology and womens/girls reporoductve systems, and how abortion is not only something that women and girls should be allowed decide for themselves but is also a medical necessity that modern science recognizes? Saying that the church's position on scientific understanding has changed is different from saying that the church understands or even accepts the validity of modern medical science and that science's essence when it comes to pregnant women and girls. Are you and I discussing the same thing, a specific medical need of and for pregnant women and girls? It seems to me that the church [while some of it's members recognize that abortion through their chosen wording - terminations - are a necessity] does not itself accept that medical science is correct when it comes to the need for abortions and instead chooses traditional theology over science.
An_Toirpin wrote: » They aren't preventing anyone get health care though. If I ring my doctor with a flu am I stopping sick kids getting sick. Get real
King Mob wrote: » I like how you say this after previously your anti-abortion buddy was claiming that his free speech was being suppressed cause he was getting nasty PMs. Also, you again have missed my post:https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109008393&postcount=8718 Please address it. Why do you guys keep ignoring questions?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
