Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

eireannBEAR

oldrnwisr wrote: »

This is going round and round in some really ridiculous circles. Look, eireannBEAR, you're wrong.

And here's why.

The offence you describe in bold above is called child destruction and is punishable under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929:

(1) Subject as hereinafter in this subsection provided, any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction, and shall be liable on conviction thereof on indictment to penal servitude for life: Provided that no person shall be found guilty of an offence under this section unless it is proved that the act which caused the death of the child was not done in good faith for the purpose only of preserving the life of the mother.
(2) For the purposes of this Act, evidence that a woman had at any material time been pregnant for a period of twenty-eight weeks or more shall be primâ facie proof that she was at that time pregnant of a child capable of being born alive.

So, what was your point again?

if you read back over my previous posts,i already mentioned this,so do you think its ok to kill a 5month pregnant mothers baby and not get charged for that?? pathetic post.

absolutely disgraceful and people with attitudes such as this live in our society its a joke!

Delirium

eireannBEAR wrote: »

if you read back over my previous posts,i already mentioned this,so do you think its ok to kill a 5month pregnant mothers baby and not get charged for that?? pathetic post.

absolutely disgraceful and people with attitudes such as this live in our society its a joke!

I think you may want to re-read the post you responded to as it clearly states the assailant will be charged.

Lingua Franca

eireannBEAR wrote: »

because as proven in a pre-posted link,you cant get charged for the death of a baby unless it dies outside the womb.

Paul Davey, of Lower Road, Hundon, is charged with procuring the miscarriage of a woman by poison or instrument

That this is an offence shows that there is legal protection for a pregnancy. Procuring a miscarriage is an offence. Are you saying that the passing of a deceased foetus does not constitute a miscarriage?

The plain fact is that we do not know if the foetus was alive or dead before being passed.

You say you know this, as it is obvious.

You've been questioned by many people here about that, so it is most certainly NOT obvious.

You have not proved this and indeed, you've gone silent and obfuscated when questioned on this.

Here's a few more questions you have ignored.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Which women? The study you've linked doesn't mention any suicides that I can see. Perhaps I missed a bit. Can you point out the increased suicide rates part to me, please?

Corkfeen wrote: »

How could I be incorrect? You have stated that he tried to stop it being publish? Show me where you obtained this information.

Don't bother saying you've already provided links. We know you have because we've read these links, they do not say what you claim they say and that is exactly why we are asking you to support your assertions.

i also posted a link where a drunk driver injured a mother and killed her baby yet only got charged for injuring the mother

You mean that one in Australia? How on earth does that prove that the foetus in the procured miscarriage case in England was born alive?

..do keep up franca or at least read the posts before commenting.
i only posted these links two days ago you have no excuse for it.

I am keeping up perfectly well, as is everyone else here. Your links do not say what you claim they say and they do not prove what you claim they prove. Frankly, your posts are getting sillier and sillier.

Do keep up, eireannBEAR. And try reading your own links. You are the one posting them and them making false assertions and there's no excuse for it.

oldrnwisr

eireannBEAR wrote: »

if you read back over my previous posts,i already mentioned this,

If you already mentioned it then why did you go and contradict yourself. You stated that "you can't be charged for the death of a baby unless it dies outside the womb" which is demonstrably false.

eireannBEAR wrote: »

so do you think its ok to kill a 5month pregnant mothers baby and not get charged for that??

No I don't think it is OK. However that does not mean that an offence committed at that point necessitates the same punishment as one committed at a different point of development.

eireannBEAR wrote: »

absolutely disgraceful and people with attitudes such as this live in our society its a joke!

Attitude such as what? I said nothing about my position on abortion. I merely corrected a mistake of fact which you committed.

eireannBEAR

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timescall.com%2Fnews%2Flongmont-local-news%2Fci_21064561%2Fmany-want-punishment-but-state-law-says-killing&ei=PDDXUc3bHOav7Aab6YGQAQ&usg=AFQjCNE39bcKUe6mKDs5k_MhJSGQmJG__Q&sig2=-d9aVgOIgnDJObZc8Vbfrg

a few days before death died in the womb..not charged. so some of the posters here are lying or ignorant to these realities.

you will just look foolish if you deny these facts.

Nodin

eireannBEAR wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&ved=0CDgQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ucd.ie%2Fphilosophy%2Fstaff%2Fgerardcasey%2Fcasey%2FBornAlive.pdf&ei=-CrXUaWMB8rY7Aa76IC4Bw&usg=AFQjCNGx9zm40OIQFfuY0piDgFelCTW0fw&sig2=fdttZFJqJhStKQ5x7WQJtA

here..

Firstly, throwing up 190 pages without a quote to the specific section is not providing a response. Secondly Oldrnwisr has shown where you are wrong quite specifically.

eireannbear wrote:

a few days before death died in the womb..not charged. so some of the posters
here are lying or ignorant to these realities.

...one state in the US, and a drunk driving case at that. I'd suggest you're grasping at straws.

Lingua Franca

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/sentencing-remarks-hhj-peter-rookqc-r-v-dogar-others.pdf

Charged with procuring a miscarriage.

We could do this all day.

Lingua Franca

eireannBEAR wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timescall.com%2Fnews%2Flongmont-local-news%2Fci_21064561%2Fmany-want-punishment-but-state-law-says-killing&ei=PDDXUc3bHOav7Aab6YGQAQ&usg=AFQjCNE39bcKUe6mKDs5k_MhJSGQmJG__Q&sig2=-d9aVgOIgnDJObZc8Vbfrg

a few days before death died in the womb..not charged. so some of the posters here are lying or ignorant to these realities.

you will just look foolish if you deny these facts.

http://www.worldmag.com/2013/06/cleveland_captor_charged_with_murder_for_terminating_victim_s_pregnancies

Castro may face the death penalty for the aggravated murder charges, which stem from killing his unborn children.

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/201006230296

- Police charged a Charleston man with murder late Tuesday after he allegedly punched his girlfriend in the stomach so hard that it killed her unborn baby.

http://www.citizen-times.com/article/20130623/NEWS/306230045/Warrants-offer-details-unborn-baby-death

Tina Louise Bailey, who is charged with murder of an unborn child

Different states, different rules.

Delirium

eireannBEAR wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timescall.com%2Fnews%2Flongmont-local-news%2Fci_21064561%2Fmany-want-punishment-but-state-law-says-killing&ei=PDDXUc3bHOav7Aab6YGQAQ&usg=AFQjCNE39bcKUe6mKDs5k_MhJSGQmJG__Q&sig2=-d9aVgOIgnDJObZc8Vbfrg

a few days before death died in the womb..not charged. so some of the posters here are lying or ignorant to these realities.

you will just look foolish if you deny these facts.

And yet you are ignoring all examples shown that clearly prove that people will be charged with a crime...

TheChizler

Lingua Franca wrote: »

http://www.worldmag.com/2013/06/cleveland_captor_charged_with_murder_for_terminating_victim_s_pregnancies

On an off topic note, look, it's Gale from Breaking Bad!

Corkfeen

You'll find that State law across the US is entirely divisive because it treats various cases so differently. One issue with an individual state's law doesn't prove a point.

eireannBEAR

TheChizler wrote: »

On an off topic note, look, it's Gale from Breaking Bad!

i dont think she cares shes to busy trying to defend herself. shes frantically searching for links online.

eireannBEAR

Corkfeen wrote: »

Ironically, there's only one person that is seeming more and more foolish. You'll find that State law across the US is entirely divisive because it treats various cases so differently. One issue with an individual state's law doesn't prove a point.

no we copy uk laws and i proved my point in that case.

Nodin

eireannBEAR wrote: »

no we copy uk laws and i proved my point in that case.

You did not prove any point because I've already showed that such an offence exists

"procuring the miscarriage of a woman by poison or
instrument. "
http://www.suffolkfreepress.co.uk/news/latest-news/hundon-man-on-rape-and-causing-miscarriage-charges-1-3879147

Lingua Franca

eireannBEAR wrote: »

i dont think she cares shes to busy trying to defend herself. shes frantically searching for links online.

Care to back this false assertion up? I was actually thanking posts in You Laugh You Lose. :pac: I have nothing to defend myself from, I'm not the one making false assertions.

oldrnwisr

eireannBEAR wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timescall.com%2Fnews%2Flongmont-local-news%2Fci_21064561%2Fmany-want-punishment-but-state-law-says-killing&ei=PDDXUc3bHOav7Aab6YGQAQ&usg=AFQjCNE39bcKUe6mKDs5k_MhJSGQmJG__Q&sig2=-d9aVgOIgnDJObZc8Vbfrg

a few days before death died in the womb..not charged. so some of the posters here are lying or ignorant to these realities.

you will just look foolish if you deny these facts.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to get at here.

Firstly, Colorado is one of those 20 US states you mentioned (which is 15 actually) which don't have clear protections for the foetus in law. In fact a foetus/unborn child is only referred to in law in three places:

Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-1.3-401 specifies that a court shall sentence a defendant convicted of committing specified offenses against a pregnant woman, if the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was pregnant, to a term of at least the midpoint, but not more than twice the maximum, of the presumptive range for the punishment of the offense.

Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-1.3-501 establishes that a court shall sentence a defendant convicted of assault in the third degree to a term of imprisonment of at least six months, but not longer than the maximum sentence authorized for the offense, if the victim of the assault was a pregnant woman and the defendant knew or reasonably should have known that the victim was pregnant.

Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-1.3-1201 defines aggravating factors in the sentence of death or life imprisonment. The law defines the intentional killing of a pregnant woman with the knowledge that she was pregnant as an aggravating factor.

Now had this incident occurred in say Florida (Fla. Stat. Ann. 316.193) or Washington (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. 9A.32.060) or Ohio (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2903.01), as shown in Lingua's link, then the incident would have resulted in a criminal prosecution. So I'm not sure what you're trying to say here other than to point out that something which is illegal in one jurisdiction may not be in another, but that's hardly surprising, in fact it's pretty commonplace.

Secondly, wild accusations of lying and ignorance is not conducive to reasonable debate, and it's not all that polite either.

Corkfeen

eireannBEAR wrote: »

no we copy uk laws and i proved my point in that case.

I wasn't referring to that story. But in regards to that story, there was a conviction.... Seriously, you keep posting links but you have to consider the conclusions which you make in regards to them.... The interpretations don't fit the news stories or studies that you link to.

eireannBEAR

oldrnwisr wrote: »

here.






Secondly, wild accusations of lying and ignorance is not conducive to reasonable debate, and it's not all that polite either.

oh really then why havent you called out anyone else for this?? i think you will find i have been abused first and numerous times before i lightly responded. maybe you should read back a few pages and see how this debate went off course.

Lingua Franca

eireannBEAR wrote: »

you have spent the last two days trying to get me to reply to your posts.

Yes, I have spent the last few days trying to get you to discuss and debate with honesty and integrity. On a discussion board where you chose to enter this discussion, no less.

lol

your silly.

Speaks for itself.

Hotblack Desiato

eireannBEAR wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/psychiatrists-defend-decision-to-push-back-abortion-meeting-29396670.html

national heroes.

I quite agree, they are resisting anti-choice entryist pressure to hold a quick meeting which may well be unrepresentative of their membership-as-a-whole's view due to holidays etc.

There is recent form in this regard with the IMO and ICGP. If you have to pack a meeting with retired honorary members, when most of the active members are either too busy working or on precious holidays to attend, in order to pass a 'democratic' vote in your favour, it doesn't cast your organisation in a good light. Same tactics as in the 'democratic' communist takeover of the Eastern Bloc - how ironic.

Turtwig

eireannBEAR wrote: »

your silly.

As you've been previously warned your posting manner is bordering on unacceptable! Refrain from including personal remarks like the above!

TheChizler

Wasn't sure whether to stick this in here or The Funny Side of Religion, got this through the letterbox today, absolutely bizzare.

Abortion is wrong because life is like The Island and fathers are aborting their babies for their sweet, sweet (pointlessly tiny) kidneys. As per usual no info as to who's been distributing these.

jill_valentine

What.... in the ****...? Is the father Action Man, or how does that work exactly?

Hotblack Desiato

Would've been a more credible story if they'd said he was a durty baby-eatin' atheist.
Some of us aren't fond of the organ meats. Their loss.

Sarky

I'm actually rather fond of kidney, but if I was going to eat human ones I'd wait until a couple years after they'd hit puberty. Foetal kidneys wouldn't even be an hors d'oeuvre.

On a realted note, OH DEAR EIREANNBEAR.

eireannBEAR

Sarky wrote: »

I'm actually rather fond of kidney, but if I was going to eat human ones I'd wait until a couple years after they'd hit puberty. Foetal kidneys wouldn't even be an hors d'oeuvre.

On a realted note, OH DEAR EIREANNBEAR.

PROVOCATION MOD???

Delirium

Ireland’s abortion Bill will not make things any easier for women

Enda Kenny, his government, and even doctors are torn between the strength of public opinion and the Catholic Church. Incredibly, pro-life groups are campaigning against even these most narrow and restrictive reforms in their zeal for an absolutist protection of foetal life. These groups are well represented on the boards of many hospitals outside Dublin and use their influence to prevent antenatal scans until 29 weeks, at which point it is too late to terminate the pregnancy.

:mad:

bumper234

Jamesw2 wrote: »

Can't support any bill that allows for the taking of any life. Its clearly unsupportable. Clearly goes against the conscience and belief.

"If your not for God your against God"

I actually find it very supportable.

I guess i must be against "god"

Dades

eireannBEAR wrote: »

PROVOCATION MOD???

OVERRULED!

(Because we're debating in a Deep South courtroom)

Actually sometimes it feels like the Deep South in this thread.

Hotblack Desiato

You know you're in a bad way if the Torygraph thinks your country is too conservative :rolleyes:

:pac: at the 'for god or against god' comment, Dubya 'logic' at its finest. Most of us here have no love whatsoever for the Judeo/Christian/Islamic concept of god and its many highly negative effects on society. It's as if we're all supposed to think "oh noes, we're against god now? better run off to mass"