lazygal wrote: » And any chance of you telling us how your List of Shame would work for women and children who have abortions?
ABC101 wrote: » People who have no shame, are not easily shamed.
lazygal wrote: » What principles count? That women and children who can't afford abortions must stay pregnant? Is there any bias in selecting a period in which a decomposing woman is being used as an incubator to promote the idea of media bias?
lazygal wrote: » ABC101 wrote: » People who have no shame, are not easily shamed. Frosty wants women and children who have abortions to have their names published on a list to shame them. What do you think, would that help the unborn?
frostyjacks wrote: » A brain-dead woman recently gave birth to a healthy baby. If you had your way, that child would never have seen the light of day. Who made you God?https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/08/baby-born-to-brain-dead-mother-in-portugal
Delirium wrote: » proving that some people are viewing women as nothing more than incubators (i.e dead womans body is kept alive for 4 months to allow foetus to develop).
ABC101 wrote: » The principle of a humans right to life been upheld because it counts, because it is valued. No nothing to do with money, pregnant women should be encouraged to deliver their precious baby healthily. Many times it is the environment in which the woman lives which is at fault, not the fact that she is pregnant. Pregnancy is a wonderful natural event, and it should always be that way for all women. WRT a decomposing body, not all of the 3500 (assuming this figure is correct?) women going abroad annually for abortions have decomposing bodies.
ABC101 wrote: » Not quiet correct, technically a womb can be viewed as an type of incubator, providing the perfect environment for the developing baby. To expand on this as some people view women as incubators is unfair.
ABC101 wrote: » It was you who brought up a list of Shame, not Frosty. Frosty only asked who made you God. I only highlighted that trying to shame a shameless person is rather futile. As you would well know.
lazygal wrote: » Was pregnancy a wonderful natural event for Miss X, a raped 14 year old child? Money means you can have an abortion.I can afford as many as I want. Poor women and children can't. Is that fair?
ABC101 wrote: » The X case was not a case of a rape in the normally understood event, although many pro choice / pro abortionist campaigners will never admit this fact. The X case was a underage girl who was dating a man in his 20's or 30's with the full knowledge of her parents. In the course of the relationship, the underage girl was raped on a technicality, I.e. Because she was under the age for consent it was considered rape. It was not because she was coming home from school and in some dark alley way she was beaten half senseless and violently abused by some twisted stranger. The entire fiasco could have been avoided if the parents had done their job as parents, told the man to sod off and that he has no business around their daughter. I know I would have. These days somebody behaving that way would be considered a pedophile. Nobody said life would be fair. Given the fact you have lots on money you can always give your money to women who are seeking abortions. Or spend your money on getting yourself pregnant and enjoy playing God by travelling abroad for late term abortions.
ABC101 wrote: » On the contrary Lazygal, it is you who has shown your true colours.
ABC101 wrote: » The X case was not a case of a rape in the normally understood event, although many pro choice / pro abortionist campaigners will never admit this fact. The X case was a underage girl who was dating a man in his 20's or 30's with the full knowledge of her parents. In the course of the relationship, the underage girl was raped on a technicality, I.e. Because she was under the age for consent it was considered rape. It was not because she was coming home from school and in some dark alley way she was beaten half senseless and violently abused by some twisted stranger. The entire fiasco could have been avoided if the parents had done their job as parents, told the man to sod off and that he has no business around their daughter.
volchitsa wrote: » Are you saying that the parents were aware of a relationship between the two, and considered them as boyfriend and girlfriend? Id be interested to know where you're getting that form, because it's not my recollection of the case, in fact my memory of it is that he was married.
A 14-year-old girl is raped by a man known to her and her family. She becomes pregnant and it is later discovered that the teenager was being sexually abused by the same man for the previous two years. Court judgements subsequently call him an “evil and depraved” man
ABC101 wrote: » The X case was not a case of a rape in the normally understood event, although many pro choice / pro abortionist campaigners will never admit this fact. The X case was a underage girl who was dating a man in his 20's or 30's with the full knowledge of her parents. In the course of the relationship, the underage girl was raped on a technicality, I.e. Because she was under the age for consent it was considered rape.It was not because she was coming home from school and in some dark alley way she was beaten half senseless and violently abused by some twisted stranger. The entire fiasco could have been avoided if the parents had done their job as parents, told the man to sod off and that he has no business around their daughter. I know I would have. These days somebody behaving that way would be considered a pedophile. Nobody said life would be fair. Given the fact you have lots on money you can always give your money to women who are seeking abortions.
Delirium wrote: » source. As you can see there's no mention of dating at all.
stinkle wrote: » That's not the only classification of rape. In fact, most rapists are known to their victims. This is a typical pro-lifer response that comes up time and again with respect to abortion in the case of rape. Cos as long as a woman isn't attacked down a lane she must have brought it on herself? :rolleyes:
inocybe wrote: » And some are married to them.
Loafing Oaf wrote: » We voluntarily signed up to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights you know. Do you think it's acceptable for states to sign up to these treaties and then blithely ignore the bodies charged with implementing them?
Cabaal wrote: » Come on so, lets vote on it, While the UN can't change the constitution, they can pressure Ireland to have a vote on the matter.
Cabaal wrote: » Something that governments are choosing to avoid year after year, even though there is demand to allow people to vote on the matter.
Cabaal wrote: » The constitution isn't set in stone, it must reflect our society and right now many feel it does not best serve women in our society so its important we have a democratic right to vote on changing that
stinkle wrote: » It's not illegal to travel for an abortion though. The Irish people voted on that.
stinkle wrote: » What isn't fair is that women who can afford to travel, can, while those who can't are stuck in Ireland or resort to importing pills that aren't legal there despite being deemed "essential medicine" by organisations like the WHO
Absolam wrote: » I'd rather not vote on it ... It's certainly important that we have a democratic right to vote on it. We can also use our democratic right to advocate avoiding a vote, in case the vote doesn't produce the result we want....
robdonn wrote: » Just as a matter of interest Absolam, if a referendum was held in the next 30-60 days, do you think the Irish people would vote to keep the Eighth Amendment or get rid of it?
