Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

Options
1…1314161819…24

Comments

  • Options
    #452
    PopePalpatine
    Registered Users Posts: 11,935 ✭✭✭✭PopePalpatine


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Why would you ask me.

    Don't avoid the question, Nodin asked you a genuine question.


  • Options
    #453
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Why would you ask me. You're the one playing God and re-writing the constitution.


    Better get that done fast, before the trendy liberals change their minds.

    I think it is only fair to state your position after Nodin did.

    We can't have much of a discussion if you don't state your position.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #454
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Why would you ask me. You're the one playing God and re-writing the constitution.


    Better get that done fast, before the trendy liberals change their minds.


    I've stated my position clearly. I am therefore asking you what yours is on the issue. I fail to see why I should be asking this a third time.

    ...under what conditions/in what scenarios would you permit a woman to have an abortion?


  • Options
    #455
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Nodin wrote: »
    I've stated my position clearly. I am therefore asking you what yours is on the issue. I fail to see why I should be asking this a third time.

    ...under what conditions/in what scenarios would you permit a woman to have an abortion?
    Pi55ing in the wind...


  • Options
    #456
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Nodin wrote: »
    I've stated my position clearly. I am therefore asking you what yours is on the issue. I fail to see why I should be asking this a third time.

    ...under what conditions/in what scenarios would you permit a woman to have an abortion?

    ;
    Your position was dragged out of you several threads ago. Fine with the massive abortion rates of Ukraine, Canada, New York even. I don't think ANYONE is fine with numbers like that except you and maybe a handfull of extremist pro-"choice" types.

    My position is that I support the current constitution. I'm perfectly fine with the small number of necessary terminations that are carried out here every year.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #457
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    ;
    Your position was dragged out of you several threads ago. Fine with the massive abortion rates of Ukraine, Canada, New York even. I don't think ANYONE is fine with numbers like that except you and maybe a handfull of extremist pro-"choice" types.

    My position is that I support the current constitution. I'm perfectly fine with the small number of necessary terminations that are carried out here every year.


    So essentially you've no problem with a woman having to go through a pregnancy caused by rape, a pregnancy where the child will be born dead and a pregnancy where the health of the mother may be endangered.

    Glad we sorted that out.

    Don't you think forcing a woman to carry a foetus that will not develop a brain to term is - in your terms - "playing god", and essentially perverse?


  • Options
    #458
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    ;
    Your position was dragged .........

    I've never been vague or coy about my views on the subject, so less of the "dragged" please.


  • Options
    #459
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,164 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    My position is that I support the current constitution. I'm perfectly fine with the small number of necessary terminations that are carried out here every year.

    You don't have a problem with providing abortions for women with ectopic pregnancies?


  • Options
    #460
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Nodin wrote: »
    I've never been vague or coy about my views on the subject, so less of the "dragged" please.

    Least you're not denying it. Thats progress. Think the next step is to get yourself a placard.

    Don't think I need to repond to the other post. I don't imagine anyone who advocates thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of terminations of lives gives a krap anyway.

    Answer my question though. Whats in it for you?


  • Options
    #461
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,164 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Don't think I need to repond to the other post. I don't imagine anyone who advocates thousands (or hundreds of thousands) of terminations of lives gives a krap anyway.

    The usual evasion.

    Nobody's advocating thousands of terminations, by the way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #462
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    The usual evasion.

    Nobody's advocating thousands of terminations, by the way.

    you want me to start digging up quotes from previous threads? There's an agenda that people are pushing and that is happening now to you in this country.

    You want New York abortion rates here?


  • Options
    #463
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,164 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    you want me to start digging up quotes from previous threads?

    Jesus, no. Why can't you just say if you agree with murdering little citizens to save women's lives during ectopic pregnancies? Happens about 1% of the time.


  • Options
    #464
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    you want me to start digging up quotes from previous threads? There's an agenda that people are pushing and that is happening now to you in this country.


    My previous post was a polite reply to state your position, and thank you for doing so.

    Mod:

    Please do not drag up replies from previous threads, the thread has been civil enough so far, it's a personal subject and doing that isn't going to help.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #465
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    Jesus, no. Why can't you just say if you agree with murdering little citizens to save women's lives during ectopic pregnancies? Happens about 1% of the time.

    Be fair. I'm not medical. Abortions are carried out here, in Ireland for various reasons. I don't have info on the whys and hows.

    Life is precious to me. Thats the reason I'm posting here about this.


  • Options
    #466
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Be fair. I'm not medical. Abortions are carried out here, in Ireland for various reasons. I don't have info on the whys and hows.

    Life is precious to me. Thats the reason I'm posting here about this.

    Is a zygote or embryo a child? Fourth time lucky.

    What about after the baby is born is life still as precious for you?


  • Options
    #467
    Phill Ewinn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,007 ✭✭✭Phill Ewinn


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    Is a zygote or embryo a child? Fourth time lucky.

    What about after the baby is born is life still as precious for you?

    Dunno how you're trying to paint me. Dunno how you're trying to paint yourself. Why would the value of a child change post birth?


  • Options
    #468
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Dunno how you're trying to paint me. Dunno how you're trying to paint yourself. Why would the value of a child change post birth?

    Great evasion of my first question.

    Just hoping you are as precious toward life and help it with the same vigour you help zygotes and embryos.

    Btw can you answer the question fifth time of asking or would that be too much to ask.

    Self deception is amazing...


  • Options
    #469
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Least you're not denying it. Thats progress.
    ?
    As I never denied anything I don't know what you're on about.
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Don't think I need to repond to the other post.?

    I think you do. Don't you think forcing a woman to carry a foetus that will not develop a brain to term is - in your terms - "playing god", and essentially perverse?

    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Answer my question though. Whats in it for you?

    I already answered - I believe women should be pre-eminent in any considerations with regards availability to abortion, as a right. If you've any questions about that answer, please ask them, rather than ask it again in a few pages time.


  • Options
    #470
    Bannasidhe
    Registered Users Posts: 19,218 ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Why would you ask me. You're the one playing God and re-writing the constitution.


    Better get that done fast, before the trendy liberals change their minds.

    Dev was God? :eek:

    He was the one who supervised the re-writing the 1922 Constitution....


  • Options
    #471
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,219 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Dev was God? :eek:

    He was the one who supervised the re-writing the 1922 Constitution....

    To be fair, americans do think their constitution was written by God. And Dev was an american.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #472
    looking_around
    Registered Users Posts: 2,491 ✭✭✭looking_around


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Why would you ask me. You're the one playing God and re-writing the constitution.


    Better get that done fast, before the trendy liberals change their minds.

    Wait, so are you against;
    contraception?
    Medicine?
    Operations?
    Cancer treatment?
    resuscitation?
    etc etc.

    ALL of them are still playing god. Why is that ok?? >.>

    Saving lives is still playing god.
    So please don't bring up the god argument.


  • Options
    #473
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Dev was God? :eek:

    He was the one who supervised the re-writing the 1922 Constitution....


    ...and were the people who wrote the 1983 amendment Gods? It's all getting very Greek.


  • Options
    #474
    krudler
    Registered Users Posts: 34,788 ✭✭✭✭krudler


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Why would you ask me. You're the one playing God and re-writing the constitution.


    Better get that done fast, before the trendy liberals change their minds.
    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    ;
    Your position was dragged out of you several threads ago. Fine with the massive abortion rates of Ukraine, Canada, New York even. I don't think ANYONE is fine with numbers like that except you and maybe a handfull of extremist pro-"choice" types.

    My position is that I support the current constitution. I'm perfectly fine with the small number of necessary terminations that are carried out here every year.

    That's still "playing god" as if by your logic we stop a woman who's ectopic pregnancy is killing her, we're changing gods plan for her aren't we?


  • Options
    #475
    wandatowell
    Registered Users Posts: 8,435 ✭✭✭wandatowell


    When ye talked about Youth Defence I thought ye were talking about the Hitler Youth :D


    Not much to seperate them really


  • Options
    #476
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    Phill Ewinn wrote: »
    Why would you ask me. You're the one playing God and re-writing the constitution.
    Funny because the reason an abortion is so hard to legislate for or procure in this jurisdiction is because the people did re-write the constitution, in the Referendum for the 8th Amendment.

    The constitution has been changed to deny mothers the right to their health, and some day it will be changed back again.


  • Options
    #477
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,306 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    wandatowell wrote: »
    When ye talked about Youth Defence I thought ye were talking about the Hitler Youth :D


    Not much to seperate them really

    Godwin!

    This surely can't be the first on a thread this long?!?


  • Options
    #478
    The_Valeyard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,452 ✭✭✭✭The_Valeyard


    endacl wrote: »
    Godwin!

    This surely can't be the first on a thread this long?!?


    Could this be or is this a drinking game?


  • Options
    #479
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    Pherekydes wrote: »
    The term pro-life is incorrect anyway. Its use would imply that its opponents are pro-death, which is a vile insult.

    The correct term(s) are pro-choice and anti-choice.
    Hardly considering that the "pro-choice" lobby assume that the child chooses to die, and that the father can have a choice, but only when he agrees with the mother.

    Pro-abortion & anti-abortion would be more accurate. Where pro-abortion would allow mothers to abort. ...but, that's seen as a little too accurate for some.
    St.Spodo wrote: »
    I don't think anyone necessarily changed their position, but it raised people's level of consciousness. I don't think those billboards helped you one bit.
    :confused: Helped me to what? Change my opinion?
    Of course it didn't, I'd already considered my position on the matter and a billboard campaign by a fanatical religious group was unlikely to change it. I mean pictures and a catchy headline don't really change the facts.


  • Options
    #480
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,789 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Zulu wrote: »
    Hardly considering that the "pro-choice" lobby assume that the child chooses to die, and that the father can have a choice, but only when he agrees with the mother.
    That's nonsense. If I get a woman pregnant and she decides to have an abortion, I can choose not to support that decision. I can't force her not to have the abortion but I don't have to agree with it either.

    I don't understand why the man only has a choice if it's at the cost of the womans? There are still choices available, but the ultimate choice must rest with the woman. She is the pregnant person after all.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #481
    Zulu
    Registered Users Posts: 10,965 ✭✭✭✭Zulu


    koth wrote: »
    That's nonsense. If I get a woman pregnant and she decides to have an abortion, I can choose not to support that decision.
    Fat lot of good that is to your child! You say it's nonsense, but supporting or not supporting her decision is a small consolation where your childs life is under threat.

    This all comes back to how you view the unborn child. If one views it as "a clump of cells", then that's fine. But, if one views it as their son/daughter...
    I don't understand why the man only has a choice if it's at the cost of the womans?
    I get where you have problems with this logic, but that doesn't detract from my point: "pro-choice" is as an inaccurate a title as "pro-life", that "pro-choice" does not consider the choice of the father or of the child but only the choice of the mother.
    ... but the ultimate choice must rest with the woman. She is the pregnant person after all.
    Indeed, so it's not "pro-choice" at all, but rather "pro mothers choice"


Advertisement