Prolife Campaign on Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill Superthread

B0jangles

Obliq wrote: »

Who says? Show me the research and if it's not bollix, I'll take it seriously.



What sort of sh*te is that? I remember you. You showed your hand on a different thread about your distaste for Muslims and their progeny.



You do listen to some rubbish, don't you? I'm an out and out feminist, and I love and respect men. There is not one word of those quotes that I can agree with. Get with the times bro.

Yeah and at least one of them is flat-out made-up:

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/mackinnon.asp

Eramen

bodice ripper wrote: »

Care to address the point and tell me why its ok to hold women to being broodmares for the state?

And why are men bled dry in war, and are forced to finance the state? Why should we do it? I'd prefer to pay less taxes yet men pay over 85% the tax bill..

You're argument is obviously with nature/God/some life-force that made the sexes as they are. Deal with it.

lazygal

Eramen wrote: »

And why are men bled dry in war, and are forced finance the state? Why should we do it? I'd prefer to pay less taxes yet men pay over 85% the tax bill..

You're argument is obviously with nature/God/some life-force that made the sexes as they are. Deal with it.

Ah sure we're all going to die anyway. How many children will you leave behind? For someone concerned about population decline, you seem reticent about the part you're playing in it.

Obliq

Eramen wrote: »

And why are men bled dry in war, and are forced to finance the state? Why should we do it? I'd prefer to pay less taxes yet men pay over 85% the tax bill..

You're argument is obviously with nature/God/some life-force that made the sexes as they are. Deal with it.

You're a strange little person, aren't you? I think you'll find we're not fighting some battle of the sexes here. There isn't one as far as I'm concerned, as I've yet to meet the man who doesn't take me seriously. Get back to the topic will ya, and talk about abortion.

bodice ripper

Eramen wrote: »

And why are men are bled dry in war, and are forced finance the state? Why should we do it? I'd prefer to pay less taxes yet men pay over 85% the tax bill..

You're argument is obviously with nature/God/some life-force that made the sexes as they are. Deal with it.

Did you actually just tell me it is my lot in life because god ordained it so?


I am of a good mind to go get a recreational abortion now, out of spite.

Amirani

Eramen wrote: »

And why are men bled dry in war, and are forced to finance the state? Why should we do it? I'd prefer to pay less taxes yet men pay over 85% the tax bill..

You're argument is obviously with nature/God/some life-force that made the sexes as they are. Deal with it.

Oh dear.

B0jangles

Eramen wrote: »

And why are men bled dry in war, and are forced to finance the state? Why should we do it? I'd prefer to pay less taxes yet men pay over 85% the tax bill..

You're argument is obviously with nature/God/some life-force that made the sexes as they are. Deal with it.

99% of men will never experience war first-hand. (BTW I believe this to be a good thing - no-one should have to experience war). Hardly comparable to the chances of of woman becoming unintentionally pregnant.

As to the tax bill, if your number is true, (which I doubt) does that not suggest that men are likely to have significantly higher incomes, or is the Department of Finance staffed entirely by radical man-hating 1960's feminists?

Eramen

Obliq wrote: »

Who says? Show me the research and if it's not bollix, I'll take it seriously.

I did, yet you selectively read through it all it seems.

Obliq wrote: »

What sort of sh*te is that? I remember you. You showed your hand on a different thread about your distaste for Muslims and their progeny.

I'm unsure about that. Most Muslims are healthy, vigorous and have a lust for life, yet they don't refrain from holding onto their time-honored values and the metaphysical dimension of life. The same can't be said of the inane trends we see taking place in Europe.

Obliq wrote: »

You do listen to some rubbish, don't you? I'm an out and out feminist, and I love and respect men. There is not one word of those quotes that I can agree with. Get with the times bro.

DUUURR, it's the year 2013? etc

lazygal

Eramen wrote: »

I did, yet you selectively read through it all it seems.




I'm unsure about that. Most Muslims are healthy, vigorous and have a lust for life, yet they don't refrain from holding onto their time-honored values and the metaphysical dimension of life. The same can't be said of the inane trends we see taking place in Europe.





DUUURR, it's the year 2013? etc

Your posts are getting funnier and funnier. Also, I now have Iggy Pop's Lust for Life in my head.
Also this: metaphysical dimension of life - Is that you, John Waters?

endacl

Eramen wrote: »

I will tell you how many kids I have if you tell me your IQ?

Nice one! That made tea squirt out my nose!

You should be on stage.

lazygal

Eramen wrote: »

I will tell you how many kids I have if you tell me your IQ?

Ah I'm only a wimmins, what would I know about IQ. I'm too busy birthing babies to counteract the population decline in Ireland for any book learning. I'm about to pop out number two, as it happens. Go me, I'm a one woman defence against the metaphysical muslims.

Obliq

Eramen wrote: »

The abortion rate per 1,000 women in Russia is 53. This equates to 13 abortions for every 10 live births.

In the USA it's 20, UK 18, Australia 19.. Do the math! In fact the math is already done for you elsewhere, it's a simple internet search..

Oh, this bit? Yeah, read it.

Eramen wrote: »

I did, yet you selectively read through it all it seems.

Yes, I chose to select the fact that out of 1,000 women in Russia, the abortion rate is ONLY 53. Look at that! 947 Russian women want to have children out of every 1,000. I consider that to be quite amazing really. If not potentially scary for the already over-populated world......

I'm unsure about that. Most Muslims are healthy, vigorous and have a lust for life, yet they don't refrain from holding onto their time-honored values and the metaphysical dimension of life. The same can't be said of the inane trends we see taking place in Europe.

Oh, I'm pretty sure we've gone down that road before, you and me. As I remember, you were more concerned about the percentage of Muslims in Ireland increasing, than you were about the loss of foetus's (except when they were potentially CHRISTIAN children that is....).

DUUURR, it's the year 2013? etc

Well done. Spot on, good man yerself.

Eramen

lazygal wrote: »

Ah I'm only a wimmins, what would I know about IQ. I'm too busy birthing babies to counteract the population decline in Ireland for any book learning. I'm about to pop out number two, as it happens. Go me, I'm a one woman defence against the metaphysical muslims.

Congratulations (in all seriousness)

You know, I always liked the name Muhammad...

robman60

Obliq wrote: »

Yes, I chose to select the fact that out of 1,000 women in Russia, the abortion rate is ONLY 53. Look at that! 947 Russian women want to have children out of every 1,000. I consider that to be quite amazing really. If not potentially scary for the already over-populated world......

I believe you're misinterpreting the statistic. An abprtion rate of 53 means that in any given year, 53/1000 women of child bearing age will have an abortion. The majority of the remaining 947 won't get pregnant in the year, while ~40 will give birth.

Obliq

robman60 wrote: »

I believe you're misinterpreting the statistic. An abprtion rate of 53 means that in any given year, 53/1000 women of child bearing age will have an abortion. The majority of the remaining 947 won't get pregnant in the year, while ~40 will give birth.

Good ol Russians doing their bit for overpopulation then....
That'll do.

shruikan2553

Eramen wrote: »

The situation is more serious than you may think, even in the West.

The abortion rate per 1,000 women in Russia is 53. This equates to 13 abortions for every 10 live births.

In the USA it's 20, UK 18, Australia 19.. Do the math! In fact the math is already done for you elsewhere, it's a simple internet search..

13 abortions to 10 births means nothing, 1000 die, 1000 born, 1300 abortions. Now lets just take that all of those abortions were perfectly healthy and would have been born without death of the mother. From this there is no change in population. Lets up the number of abortions to 1000000. Same result to the population.

Eramen wrote: »

We are presently suffering a population hemorrhage by killing off our potential youth off en masse. There's no argument about it. It's leading us to a demographic catastrophe which is already very well recognised in the West. There is absolutely no basis for saying that abortion on demand does not significantly harm the population when in fact it does - to a very large degree.

A picture says a thousand words and a video has thousands of pictures but all I need is 1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNKFKpO_Ye0

The global population is rising and I am doubting you are taking into account emigration from these countries.

Eramen wrote: »

This comes at a time when we won't even be able to afford our own healthcare, infrastructure, retirements, and to keep to wheels turning in the economy. We will become stagnant culturally and as a economic entity.

We didnt have abortion before the reccession.

Eramen wrote: »

I'm not hear to listen to excuse after excuse when the information is in plain sight. The pro-choice mentality is disastrous for the continuance of progress and is an obstacle to the advancement of the state and people as a whole, especially in Europe. It's inevitable that abortion as we know it, freely available and commoditised in many parts of the world, will slowly evaporate as an option out of the need to secure our state's well-being and the national interest.

Repeat that video above.


Lets just say you are right for a second. Should women be forced to have 3 children to save us from our impending doom? Shouldnt we use abortion to save mothers so they can go on to breed more?

What they are doing is bringing in a medical procedure to help peoples health and prevent their death in some cases. As much as youth defense tries to make you believe, there will be no abortion loyalty card which grants you a free abortion after 8 stamps and a tshirt after 30. To be against legislating it you have to think raped women should have their rapists children and women should die if they have complications.

I learnt a trick when the college had a vote on supporting abortion. Tell pro life poeple "no thanks, I hate children" and they just stare at you confused

K-9

Eramen wrote: »

And why are men bled dry in war, and are forced to finance the state? Why should we do it? I'd prefer to pay less taxes yet men pay over 85% the tax bill..

You're argument is obviously with nature/God/some life-force that made the sexes as they are. Deal with it.

Eramen wrote: »

I will tell you how many kids I have if you tell me your IQ?

Mod:

Between the above posts and others bringing the thread off topic, and your previous warning about calling the opposing side idiotic, do not post on this thread again, thank you.

Phill Ewinn

shruikan2553 wrote: »

13 abortions to 10 births means nothing, 1000 die, 1000 born, 1300 abortions. Now lets just take that all of those abortions were perfectly healthy and would have been born without death of the mother. From this there is no change in population. Lets up the number of abortions to 1000000. Same result to the population.



A picture says a thousand words and a video has thousands of pictures but all I need is 1.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNKFKpO_Ye0

The global population is rising and I am doubting you are taking into account emigration from these countries.



We didnt have abortion before the reccession.



Repeat that video above.


Lets just say you are right for a second. Should women be forced to have 3 children to save us from our impending doom? Shouldnt we use abortion to save mothers so they can go on to breed more?

What they are doing is bringing in a medical procedure to help peoples health and prevent their death in some cases. As much as youth defense tries to make you believe, there will be no abortion loyalty card which grants you a free abortion after 8 stamps and a tshirt after 30. To be against legislating it you have to think raped women should have their rapists children and women should die if they have complications.

I learnt a trick when the college had a vote on supporting abortion. Tell pro life poeple "no thanks, I hate children" and they just stare at you confused

If there was ever an argument against being pro-choice, thatz it.

Laneyh

conorhal wrote: »

It's low, but it's no lower then using a tragic case of medical negligence to push an agenda.

It's lower than a snake's belly

Even if your above statement were true the agenda is being pushed on Government who have a duty of care to all of us living in Ireland.

This poster is pointedly targeting rape victims what kind of morally bankrupt person or persons would put that on the agenda?

endacl

Laneyh wrote: »

It's lower than a snake's belly

Even if your above statement were true the agenda is being pushed on Government who have a duty of care to all of us living in Ireland.

This poster is pointedly targeting rape victims what kind of morally bankrupt person or persons would put that on the agenda?

The kind who have no position to argue?

Jester252

NiallSparky wrote: »

Are you arguing that 12 year olds should be allowed vote? If they're not allowed vote, their signature on a "Don't Kill Babies" list shouldn't be held in any standing.

If teenagers want to actively play a role in the discussion (and I'm sure many do), I'd be completely in support of it. That's not what this is though.

I'm say that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. Are you saying that a teenagers viewpoint should be ingnored because their young?
You say you support teenagers getting invovled but in the same post you said that they should not sign a petition. Would you hold the same view if it was to stop child abuse or animal abuse? Like I've asked is their a pro-choice grass roots campaign?

endacl

Jester252 wrote: »

I'm say that they should be allowed to vote. Are you saying that a teenagers viewpoint should be ingnored because their young?
You say you support teenagers getting invovled but in the same post you said that they should not sign a petition. Would you hold the same view if it was to stop child abuse or animal abuse? Like I've asked is their a pro-choice grass roots campaign?

Would I be right in guessing you're a teenager...?

CroatoanCat

Is anybody else chilled to the bone by Eramen's posts? Such terrifyingly eloquent propaganda. To quote Mr. Knightley to Emma: "Better to be without sense, than misapply it as you do."

P.S. Thanks to lazygal for her trojan work on this and so many related threads.

endacl

Not chilled, no. If he was serious, he's in a very tiny minority. And gone from this thread.

K-9

CroatoanCat wrote: »

Is anybody else chilled to the bone by Eramen's posts? Such terrifyingly eloquent propaganda. To quote Mr. Knightley to Emma: "Better to be without sense, than misapply it as you do."

P.S. Thanks to lazygal for her trojan work on this and so many related threads.

endacl wrote: »

Not chilled, no. If he was serious, he's in a very tiny minority. And gone from this thread.

Mod:

That poster is thread banned. It is totally unfair to mention him with no right to reply. Any similar replies will result in forum, not thread bans.

pharmaton

<enters thread > walks away quietly

resnatop

Could we count the propaganda from the YD e.c.t. as harassment?

Cool_CM

I find it quite amusing that Youth Defence are wasting so much time and (American) money campaigning against the legalisation of something that is already legal. A campaign that will have no effect on anything, except to make people aware of how far removed they are from reality. I have no problem with that.
Please Youth Defence, carry on!

Laneyh

CroatoanCat wrote: »

Is anybody else chilled to the bone by Eramen's posts? Such terrifyingly eloquent propaganda. To quote Mr. Knightley to Emma: "Better to be without sense, than misapply it as you do."

P.S. Thanks to lazygal for her trojan work on this and so many related threads.

Nah the internet is the best place for such a crank

I didn't find the posts particularly eloquent

Once people start quoting themselves, bolding text or attacking those who disagree with them rather than refute the point you kind of know not to take any notice of that person

cassid

There are over 5000 babies born preterm in Ireland each year, that's one in sixteen women will deliver preterm.

I often wonder why organisations can't help and support the babies that are here now fighting for survival.

In Ireland, some neonatal units don't have enough incubators, ventilators, hospital grade breast pumps, CPAP machines. The hospitals are forced to swap equipment between them to help the babies that arrive before their time. The preterm birth rate is increasing every year and yet investment in neonatalogy has not kept abreast with the increase in numbers putting huge strain on resources. There are over 11,000 admissions to the neonatal units each year in Ireland.

The neonatal transport unit that moves the sickest babies to is only working certain hours, God forbid you deliver outside those hours.

I know of preterm babies who are one and two and have never gone home because they require intensive medical care and there is no enough money for support packages for 24/7. Why can't these groups help these babies have a better quality of life at home ?

Why can't these groups have babies with access to essential services and therapies just so they can live a "normal" life.

Why can't these groups help parents with simple things like food, water, accommodation when their sick baby is transferred to Dublin from around Ireland for treatment, they have nowhere to stay and really sick babies can spend months in Dublin before the baby is well enough to go home.