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

[Deleted User]

An_Toirpin wrote: »

The soul is a Catholic conceptional vehicle to explain the the human experience of mind and body. Why it begins at conception is because that is the only obvious biological threshold of new life. Other groups have other explainations but they all are referring to the same question, the beginning of human life. The Catholic Church made an inconvenient policy by sticking with the science to ensure a higher moralaity. While the pro abortion movement went in the other direction.

Sure lets pretend that's what they say the soul is.
Great. Show this science.
Stop deflecting and dodging the question.
I'm a bit tiredhaving to chase you guys down on every question 3 times before you even acknowledge them

Edit: Actually no. I'm not going to give you the benefit of doubt or any leeway. I call bull**** on your interpretation on the catholic notion of the soul.
Back that up with references and then show how that is supported by science.

gctest50

I'd reckon a few of these really determined/vocal/noisy Anti-Choice males are upset because they think it will interfere with their "supply" of vunerable children to molest

Bredabe

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

They don't miss them, they deliberately ignore them because they can't answer.

I've seen a pro life campaigner admit on his public fb page that the reason they couldn't in the campaign answer the difficult questions on say rape, is that they just didn't have any answers and so avoided/distracted or steered the conversation to what they did have answers for.

My pro life campaigner girl said pretty much the same thing, only now is she seeing how lacking in substance that campaign was.

An_Toirpin

Bredabe wrote: »

I've seen a pro life campaigner admit on his public fb page that the reason they couldn't in the campaign answer the difficult questions on say rape, is that they just didn't have any answers and so avoided/distracted or steered the conversation to what they did have answers for.

My pro life campaigner girl said pretty much the same thing, only now is she seeing how lacking in substance that campaign was.

You could easily have a rewording to allow in cases of rape. The Repeal campaign soughy elective abortion. That is what happened.

An_Toirpin

gctest50 wrote: »

I'd reckon a few of these really determined/vocal/noisy Anti-Choice males are upset because they think it will interfere with their "supply" of vunerable children to molest

What the hell????

SusieBlue

An_Toirpin wrote: »

You could easily have a rewording to allow in cases of rape. The Repeal campaign soughy elective abortion. That is what happened.

How? How would we facilitate that when a rape trial can take up to 3 years to get through the legal system?
Unless you are suggesting we euthanise preschoolers when the rapist is found guilty?

seamus

An_Toirpin wrote: »

You could easily have a rewording to allow in cases of rape.

You couldn't "easily" have done this.

This is a lie which has been debunked ad nasueum. Stop spreading your false bullsh1t.

[Deleted User]

An_Toirpin wrote: »

What the hell????

Hi. You seem to have missed my question again.

Please show where the Catholic position that the soul enters the body at conception is supported by science.

If you are not intending to address it, please at least say that you are not and explain why you are not, then withdraw your claim.

Honestly, I don't get what you think you guys think you are doing when you dodge these direct questions.
Do you think that if your ignore them and pretend they don't exist they vanish?

An_Toirpin

King Mob wrote: »

Sure lets pretend that's what they say the soul is.
Great. Show this science.
Stop deflecting and dodging the question.
I'm a bit tiredhaving to chase you guys down on every question 3 times before you even acknowledge them

Edit: Actually no. I'm not going to give you the benefit of doubt or any leeway. I call bull**** on your interpretation on the catholic notion of the soul.
Back that up with references and then show how that is supported by science.

You are not exploring the implications of your point. I didn't say souls exist. I'm not obligated to prove they exist. The question of souls is not important. What matters is the idea of beginning of human life. Prochoicers often get bogged down in the idea of ensoulment to attack the idea of life beginning at conception, with ever offering a satisfactory alternative of when life begins apart from vague blabbering.

[Deleted User]

An_Toirpin wrote: »

You are not exploring the implications of your point. I didn't say souls exist. I'm not obligated to prove they exist. The question of souls is not important. What matters is the idea of beginning of human life. Prochoicers often get bogged down in the idea of ensoulment to attack the idea of life beginning at conception, with ever offering a satisfactory alternative of when life begins apart from vague blabbering.

Bull**** and deflection.

You claimed that the church's position is based on science.
Back up your claim.
Or withdraw it.

An_Toirpin

SusieBlue wrote: »

How? How would we facilitate that when a rape trial can take up to 3 years to get through the legal system?
Unless you are suggesting we euthanise preschoolers when the rapist is found guilty?

Euthanize unwanted infants like the prochoice utopia the Netherlands does? Anyway other nations allow such rape exceptions. It is babarbic to kill a child due to crimes of the father or mother but that is still a middle ground position and it has been done before.

SusieBlue

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Euthanize unwanted infants like the prochoice utopia the Netherlands does? Anyway other nations allow such rape exceptions. It is babarbic to kill a child due to crimes of the father or mother but that is still a middle ground position and it has been done before.

Spreading more misinformation, I see. This has been picked through and debunked several times over before the referendum.
Most people saw it for what it was - a scare tactic used to guilt people into voting No.
Fetuses are not children.
There is absolutely nothing middle ground about your position.

seamus

OK, so.

Ah, that's better.

An_Toirpin

King Mob wrote: »

Bull**** and deflection.

You claimed that the church's position is based on science.
Back up your claim.
Or withdraw it.

Lol no I said the church's position changed due to science. I didn't defend it, just repeating history. That been said the church's teaching on the soul is based on philsophy, informed by science. Philsophy is actually more eminent the science.

An_Toirpin

seamus wrote: »

OK, so.

Ah, that's better.

Wow shows you won the intellutual battle.

gctest50

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Wow shows you won the intellutual battle.

[Deleted User]

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Lol no I said the church's position changed due to science. I didn't defend it, just repeating history.

Mm hmm. Deflection to avoid the question again.
I'm getting very tired of these cowardly bull**** tactics from you guys.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109007971&postcount=8717
That's your post.

Back it up.
Show the science that led the church to change it's position.

I don't buy this new excuse btw. If this was your contention you could have pointed it out at any half dozen times I asked this question.

Hotblack Desiato

An_Toirpin wrote: »

You could easily have a rewording to allow in cases of rape.

This claim was discussed at great length here and elsewhere over and over again during the campaign. It was found to be complete bullsh!t.

The Repeal campaign soughy elective abortion. That is what happened.

Yes, made no bones about it either, and the electorate overwhelmingly endorsed it.

uptherebels

An_Toirpin wrote: »

You could easily have a rewording to allow in cases of rape. The Repeal campaign soughy elective abortion. That is what happened.

And how do you determine someone is pregnant from rape?
There is a reason your buddy won't tell us his alternative to the 12 weeks to allow for rape victims and it ain't because he can't think of a rewording

uptherebels

So it has begun
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/health/hse-warns-public-against-bogus-myoptions-website-linking-to-antiabortion-material-37678581.html

From the article:

"A spokesperson for the HSE confirmed to Independent.ie that the site is not affiliated in any way with the official MyOptions helpline or website.

“We are aware of a number of websites and ads that are appearing in search results and social media that claim to be providing unplanned pregnancy support services under variations of the myoptions name,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson said the HSE are aware of a number of unplanned pregnancy agencies that “may have a hidden agenda”. "

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

Spreading more misinformation, I see. This has been picked through and debunked several times over before the referendum.
Most people saw it for what it was - a scare tactic used to guilt people into voting No.
Fetuses are not children.
There is absolutely nothing middle ground about your position.

actually there is nothing to say most people saw it as a scare tactic, especially as it wasn't a scare tactic. even a born baby isn't usually called a child until a bit later on anyway, nearly always refered to as babies in my experience, which ultimately they are still such before birth.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This claim was discussed at great length here and elsewhere over and over again during the campaign. It was found to be complete bullsh!t.

from following the discussion around that particular claim, it actually wasn't found to be complete bull, more it was a case that people wanted it to be.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Yes, made no bones about it either, and the electorate overwhelmingly endorsed it.

actually from what i could see they avoided it like the plague. deflected and dodged in any way they could to get out of saying abortion on demand. the people only endorsed repeal of the 8th and allowing the politicians to legislate. technically they did not endorse anything more then that, it was the government who decided to take a yes vote as an endorsement for the full whack. essentially some were hoodwinked while yes obviously there were many who did want AOD.

Igotadose

uptherebels wrote: »

So it has begun
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/health/hse-warns-public-against-bogus-myoptions-website-linking-to-antiabortion-material-37678581.html

From the article:

"A spokesperson for the HSE confirmed to Independent.ie that the site is not affiliated in any way with the official MyOptions helpline or website.

“We are aware of a number of websites and ads that are appearing in search results and social media that claim to be providing unplanned pregnancy support services under variations of the myoptions name,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson said the HSE are aware of a number of unplanned pregnancy agencies that “may have a hidden agenda”. "

Clearly still getting ideas from the USA. Fortunately Ireland's smaller with better 'back-networks' and not nearly as rife with stupid people (says this expat).

aloyisious

An_Toirpin wrote: »

You are setting up a red herring. Most abortions are elective. Killing a healthy featus/ baby is not medical necessity. It is a question of ethics. The RCC doesn't prohibit abortion in life saving circumstances, in the same way killing someone in self defense isn't prohibited. Life saving abortions are never controversial. How can you sustain your argument? If this point wasn't true they still changed their policy on science to have a higher moral standard.

It seems to me that you are dodging the question about the church and it's understanding of science that you introduced in respect to this topic so I don't know why you introduced it. It's like the church sees science has advanced and as it doesn't like what it sees [even though it understands it] it has decided it should be allowed to limit the science and scientists.

Looking at what you've written above in respect of abortion, it seems you are reverting to abortion being all about the personal ethics and morals of the pregnant woman/girl and others who, like me, believe the choice is solely that of the woman/girl versus the ethical/moral position of the church on abortion while you then cover the church's ass by mentioning it as NOT prohibiting abortion in life-saving circumstances. I suggest instead that the church would insist on a termination and not an abortion when it came to a life-saving operation.

Now that you've introduced it, I beg to differ with you on your statement that life-saving abortions are never controversial but won't follow your red herrings any further.

Edit. I see you seem to mean philosophy when you refer to science, and not medical science.

Bredabe

uptherebels wrote: »

So it has begun
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/health/hse-warns-public-against-bogus-myoptions-website-linking-to-antiabortion-material-37678581.html

From the article:

"A spokesperson for the HSE confirmed to Independent.ie that the site is not affiliated in any way with the official MyOptions helpline or website.

“We are aware of a number of websites and ads that are appearing in search results and social media that claim to be providing unplanned pregnancy support services under variations of the myoptions name,” the spokesperson said.

The spokesperson said the HSE are aware of a number of unplanned pregnancy agencies that “may have a hidden agenda”. "

Should,nt this be covered by the legislation regarding rogue agencies?
Such scaremongering has always gone on and has not put off women who needed terminations, they need a new approach.

ohnonotgmail

An_Toirpin wrote: »

Wow shows you won the intellutual battle.

Says the poster who thinks soapboxing about religious dogma is a winning tactic in a forum titled about Atheism and Agnosticism.

aloyisious

It seems, from this image on the North Wicklow Together for Choice & Equality F/B page that Pro-Life protestors are active in the Galway County region. The photo was originally posted by the Galway Pro-Choice group. I do NOT have a date for the protest shown in the photo though the F/.B page post was made approx 4 [four] hours ago.

Edit. The premises may have been closed for business at the time of the protest which would probably mean that a protest [if it was one and not a photo-shoot gathering] would have been perfectly legal.

Bredabe

aloyisious wrote: »

It seems, from this image on the North Wicklow Together for Choice & Equality F/B page that Pro-Life protestors are active in the Galway County region. The photo was originally posted by the Galway Pro-Choice group. I do NOT have a date for the protest shown in the photo though the F/.B page post was made approx 4 [four] hours ago.

Edit. The premises may have been closed for business at the time of the protest which would probably mean that a protest [if it was one and not a photo-shoot gathering] would have been perfectly legal.

This is in a shopping centre, there is typical sc driving and the path is narrow. Additionally they are obstruction ppl getting to the betting office and church.
Been there 3 days I'm told. so many dont look local.

Sean.3516

New to the thread.

Just wondering what people’s thoughts are the protesting that took place outside a GP’s clinic in Galway. Do u think it should be allowed?

I don’t there’a anything remotely coercive or harrasing about a group of people standing there with signs attempting to persuade people not to go through with an elective procedure they disagree with. As far as I can see, they have the right to stand there with signs to the extent they don’t disrupt public order.

Sean.3516

Bredabe wrote: »

Should,nt this be covered by the legislation regarding rogue agencies?
Such scaremongering has always gone on and has not put off women who needed terminations, they need a new approach.

What is the problem with anti abortion organizations promoting non abortion options for women in unplanned pregnancies? Obviously I’m not in favor of fraudulent websites claiming to be myoptions like in the above article.

It seems kind of fascistic that you think the government ought to crack down on “rogue agencies” as you call them which are basically just crisis preg organizations that don’t believe in the governments preferred solution here.

ohnonotgmail

Sean.3516 wrote: »

What is the problem with anti abortion organizations promoting non abortion options for women in unplanned pregnancies? Obviously I’m not in favor of fraudulent websites claiming to be myoptions like in the above article.

It seems kind of fascistic that you think the government ought to crack down on “rogue agencies” as you call them which are basically just crisis preg organizations that don’t believe in the governments preferred solution here.

When their "advice" does not include all possible they are not acting in the best interests of the women who contact them.

btw did we ever get to the bottom of what the 3516 refers to? I'm still convinced it refers to the verse in Numbers but you will probably deny that again. You can never accuse the anti abortion crowd of being subtle.