Cabaal wrote: » "Concerned Christians" doing leaflet drops
Pherekydes wrote: » Hmmm, Timothy 2:1,2? I hope they follow Timothy's exhortations in 2:12, which means they probably shouldn't vote for women candidates. Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
Pherekydes wrote: » Hmmm, Timothy 2:1,2? Timothy 2:12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
The Randy Riverbeast wrote: » That's just a metaphor/out of context/doesnt apply anymore
robdonn wrote: » https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnoWFZ29xSE Peru compensates woman in historic UN Human Rights abortion case "In 2001, a 17-year-old Peruvian girl, named K.L., was 14 weeks pregnant when doctors at the public hospital in Lima diagnosed the foetus with anencephaly."The Universal Declaration of Human Rights "The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a milestone document in the history of human rights."Rights "Rights are entitlements (not) to perform certain actions, or (not) to be in certain states; or entitlements that others (not) perform certain actions or (not) be in certain states."Zika prompts urgent debate about abortion in Latin America "Across Latin America, calls to loosen some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the world in the face of the Zika virus outbreak are gaining momentum but encountering strong and entrenched opposition."
frostyjacks wrote: » There is no right to have an abortion. None whatsoever.
PopePalpatine wrote: » Not even if the woman is at risk of dying, or is that her own fault and she needs to suck it up and get busy repenting?
aloyisious wrote: » Just seen this posted on FaceBook.... http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/election-2016/taoiseach-wants-appropriate-woman-to-chair-expert-group-examining-changes-to-the-eighth-amendment-34478061.html
One eyed Jack wrote: » No worries, my reply can wait till you're back
volchitsa wrote: » I've no idea what you think you're saying there, genuinely not a clue what your point is. However on the point of "judging" people, I think you've misunderstood what I was saying. Lots of people make major decisions for reasons that I would think terrible reasons, whether getting married because they want a party and a white dress, or having a baby because that's what you do. Or because they want to feel validated in some way, or whatever. Does that mean I think they should be stopped? Well, no. The consequences of trying to micromanage people's lives like that, even if it were possible, would be disastrous. IMO. I think the same about abortion : there are reasons that I personally think absolutely justified that some others might not, and reasons that I would find insufficient, but that the couple concerned might find absolutely compelling. Since I have come to the conclusion that there are some cases in which pregnancy termination is acceptable, then it seems to me that (at the same term of fetal development) forcing someone else to give birth for reasons I find acceptable is really not my business. Parenthood is far too major a decision to force on someone else.
eviltwin wrote: » Better a dead woman who kept her virtue than a living woman who had an abortion seems to be the view of some people.
volchitsa wrote: » So there you go. HTH.
volchitsa wrote: » Quick question. For those people here who support contraception on demand, does that include a woman's right to use contraception because she's afraid of having a child of a particular gender or hair colour? Isn't that what "on demand" means, after all? People are entitled to be unpleasant people if they like, and disliking someone because of their gender or their hair colour is pretty high up on the scale of nasty IMO, but if choosing to have an abortion because you've been raped is considered to be your own business and no-one else's, then clearly abortion is not the equivalent of killing the resulting child. 1. It's ending a pregnancy, which is a different thing. 2. That is because a fetus is not a child, no matter how much the forced birthers try to say it is. (Though how one would identify a red-haired fetus is a puzzle.)
One eyed Jack wrote: » 1. It's not any different other than the wording you're more comfortable with using to describe the same end result. 2. See 1. The question was regarding abortion on demand, not contraception on demand, and by way of answering that specific question, I would suggest it doesn't matter what a woman's reasons are for wanting an abortion, and this is not directed at you personally, but at anyone who thinks they have any right to decide what are or aren't legitimate reasons for an abortion, or whether that woman is nasty or not for whatever reason she decides to have an abortion, should really go away and think about that position.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Yes there is. If I am pregnant and do not want to be, I have a right to travel with the specific intent of having an abortion. I can tell the Garda, airport officials, any person/organisation at all who represents the law, that that is the reason I am travelling, and there is nothing they can do to stop me because I have that right.
Absolam wrote: » Is that not a right to travel? Regardless of your intent?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » I'm not so sure, if someone informed the Garda of an intent to travel for the specific purpose of having an actual child killed, I doubt it would be completely ignored.
aloyisious wrote: » This part of POLDPA might cover the informing of a Garda of the above mentioned purpose..... An Act to protect human life during pregnancy; to make provision for reviews at the instigation of a pregnant woman of certain medical opinions given in respect of pregnancy; to provide for an offence of intentional destruction of unborn human life; Link: PROTECTION OF LIFE DURING PREGNANCY ACT 2013 --- page 5 of the PDF - https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjgro3ljI_LAhVCxQ8KHXFXBYwQFggiMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishstatutebook.ie%2Feli%2F2013%2Fact%2F35%2Fenacted%2Fen%2Fpdf&usg=AFQjCNEJCxQQwhbKuv1xDbrIHLr_TsFzPw.
Absolam wrote: » I don't believe you could be prevented from travelling though, could you? I'm sure if they took it seriously they'd inform the relevant authorities of the jurisdiction you were travelling to. Unless it wasn't illegal to kill children in the jurisdiction you were travelling to, in which case there'd be no point. I can't imagine they'd ignore it, just as you say. But your right to travel, regardless of your intent, would remain, wouldn't it?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » When Gail O'Rouke was charged with assisting her friends suicide (although the charges were later dropped), included was a charge that she had attempted to arrange euthanasia for her friend in a jurisdiction where it is legal. If it was simply a case of a right to travel, how could the state even consider pressing these charges?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Would an Irish parent be charged on their return from Belgium if they had taken their terminally ill child there for the purpose of euthanasia? Would the right to travel cover this too?
Kiwi in IE wrote: » Would my husband and I be charged on our return to Ireland if we had organised an abortion abroad?
Absolam wrote: » She wasn't charged with travelling (or prevented from doing so), she was charged with "aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide of another, or an attempt by another to commit suicide." The assistance having been provided within the jursidiction of the State. The charges weren't dropped by the way, she was acquitted. They could be; whilst they would have a right to travel, it would still be illegal to assist in the suicide, and arranging the travel for the suicide, or even accompanying the person travelling (as long as it occurred within the State) could be considered assisting, and could lead to a prosecution. No; it's not illegal to assist someone to intentionally destroy unborn human life, only to intentionally destroy unborn human life. And the limit of jurisdiction is, as with the offence of assisting a suicide, the jurisdiction of the State.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » As you point out though, it is unclear whether or not someone could be charged with assisting suicide by travelling with a person who intends to avail of euthanasia in a jurisdiction where it is legal. So although the person may have had a right to travel, they do not have the right to assist a person seeking euthanasia while travelling, specifically protected.
Kiwi in IE wrote: » On the other hand the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act specifically protects a person travelling to another jurisdiction for the purpose of terminating a pregnancy. The exemption from prosecution for carrying out legal activities in other jurisdictions that are illegal in Ireland in this case, only refers to Section 22 of this Act, not any other illegal activities. Therefore it is not simply the right to travel, the Act reads that you have the right to travel specifically to kill a foetus.
galljga1 wrote: » Yeah, old Frosty is a true Christian. One wonders does he have a wife, daughter, female friends, any empathy for anything women face. I would have to say no. Just an angry christian.
frostyjacks wrote: » It's nothing to do with religion, or misogyny or lack of empathy. It's about a right to life, voted on by the people. I wonder how homosexuals would react if there was a concerted and sustained campaign to strike gay marriage from the constitution.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6b1975299c8e5d4897a60061c4f145b7.svg)
