Abortion Discussion

gaynorvader

mbiking123 wrote: »

{...}

In Ireland we value the life of the unborn, hence no abortions

"We" is such a big word isn't it?

_rebelkid

mbiking123 wrote: »

So someone believes child rape is right, so let them do what they want

No No it don't work that way

There are laws, for very good reasons

In Ireland we value the life of the unborn, hence no abortions

Yes, in Ireland we value the life of the unborn. But, we also value the life of "the born", i.e the mother. So, if the mother needs an abortion to live, she get's one. If she doesn't need it, she doesn't get one. Unless she then makes a choice to get one in the UK.

So we don't have abortion in Ireland*, but we have Irish Abortions.

But those Irish abortions are surrounded by God Fearing shame, trying to drive in to the woman a sense of guilt. THAT is what we want to change. Just because your god said it was wrong, and you believe that, doesn't make it true or applicable to everybody. And it most certainly does not give you the right to force that belief on others, simply because you believe it's true.

What "we" want, is a society that allows choice, that allows a non-choice (i.e giving birth) and does not shame for making either. We don't want people to choose abortion over birth, but if that is the choice a woman wants or needs to make, then by all means let her do it in her homeland.


*We actually do have abortions in Ireland, as has been pointed out here before

mbiking123

_rebelkid wrote: »

What "we" want, is a society that allows choice, that allows a non-choice (i.e giving birth) and does not shame for making either. We don't want people to choose abortion over birth, but if that is the choice a woman wants or needs to make, then by all means let her do it in her homeland.


*We actually do have abortions in Ireland, as has been pointed out here before

No its not we its you

We as in that is what was put to the Irish people and that is what was voted on. The people of Ireland spoke

If people oh so much wanted all this abortion, how come FG and FF as so popular. Surely people would go lefty and vote Labour and other socialist parties, communist etc etc

So 'We' as in the majority

old hippy

mbiking123 wrote: »

So someone believes child rape is right, so let them do what they want

No No it don't work that way

There are laws, for very good reasons

In Ireland we value the life of the unborn, hence no abortions

But thousands and thousands of women forced to seek the procedure elsewhere, right?

mbiking123 wrote: »

No its not we its you

We as in that is what was put to the Irish people and that is what was voted on. The people of Ireland spoke

If people oh so much wanted all this abortion, how come FG and FF as so popular. Surely people would go lefty and vote Labour and other socialist parties, communist etc etc

So 'We' as in the majority

You don't have to be of left wing persuasion to have an abortion.

_rebelkid

mbiking123 wrote: »

No its not we its you

We as in that is what was put to the Irish people and that is what was voted on. The people of Ireland spoke

And three times they said yes. Are you not getting that?

If people oh so much wanted all this abortion, how come FG and FF as so popular. Surely people would go lefty and vote Labour and other socialist parties, communist etc etc

So 'We' as in the majority

So FF and FG are popular because they don't allow abortion... which is why they backed and voted yes on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, which according to your side, brought abortion into Ireland.

As old hippy said, you don't need to be a lefty to allow abortion. Proved by FF and FG really...

gaynorvader

mbiking123 wrote: »

No its not we its you

We as in that is what was put to the Irish people and that is what was voted on. The people of Ireland spoke

If people oh so much wanted all this abortion, how come FG and FF as so popular. Surely people would go lefty and vote Labour and other socialist parties, communist etc etc

So 'We' as in the majority

No. See, this is one of the fundamental flaws in a republic. People can be "left wing" on some issues and "right wing" on others. Just because people vote for FF or FG or Labour or the Green party does not mean that they agree with all of their policies. In fact many people haven't even read a party's manifesto or vote a certain way because their parents vote that way or feel hard done by a previous government so don't vote for that party. It's a popularity contest, some people vote for the manifestos, most (or at least most of the people I've talked to) just vote for who they 'feel' is right, or whose leader they like the best.

28064212

mbiking123 wrote: »

No its not we its you

We as in that is what was put to the Irish people and that is what was voted on. The people of Ireland spoke

If people oh so much wanted all this abortion, how come FG and FF as so popular. Surely people would go lefty and vote Labour and other socialist parties, communist etc etc

So 'We' as in the majority

• "We" as in "We believe a woman should have the right to an abortion if there is a threat to her life, including where that threat is suicide"
• "We" as in "We believe a woman should have the right to obtain information on how to obtain an abortion in another country"
• "We" as in "We believe a woman should have the right to travel to another country to obtain an abortion"

Oh, and btw, what the pro-choice side wants is a referendum to have a vote on an issue that hasn't been voted on in 30 years, not compulsory abortions brought in undemocratically. You seem to have missed that point

mbiking123

_rebelkid wrote: »

As old hippy said, you don't need to be a lefty to allow abortion. Proved by FF and FG really...

Do you really think FG want abortion in this country !

Why do you think the issue caused so much problem in their party, in the end nothing more happened than what was already in law because of the x case

That is why they allowed it

_rebelkid

mbiking123 wrote: »

Do you really think FG want abortion in this country !

Why do you think the issue caused so much problem in their party, in the end nothing more happened than what was already in law because of the x case

That is why they allowed it

You might want to let the entire anti-abortion movement know that, seeing as they say opposite.

No group *wants* abortion. But most want the option to be there. No one is forcing anyone to have one, no one is forcing anyone to go to term. Except the church. They do want to force women to term. Which I think is sick.

The only problem for FG was "Lucy Cretin" getting all loud and annoyed. She was *staunchly* anti abortion, but she voted yes on everything except suicidality. She didn't seem to have an issue allowing women a right to not be forced to die by the hands of Catholic doctrine. How, pray tell, is that anti-abortion?

iwantmydinner

mbiking123 wrote: »

So someone believes child rape is right, so let them do what they want

Oh, come on! Seriously?!

You can't be suggesting *that* as the natural progression of my logic, can you??

Catch yourself on!

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/peaceful-pro-life-demonstrators-violently-attacked-in-paris-protected-by-ri

I'm sorry but referencing lifesitenews.com in the abortion debate is a bit like referencing the Protocols of the Elders of Zion when you want to excuse anti-semitism.

That website is 100% lying propoganda.

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

That website is 100% lying propoganda.

Ok, that's you view - based on what evidence ?

mbiking123

iwantmydinner wrote: »

Oh, come on! Seriously?!

You can't be suggesting *that* as the natural progression of my logic, can you??

Catch yourself on!

You want to kill an unborn child, (oh I think cop yourself on is more natural)

Brian Shanahan

Jernal wrote: »

Pro-abortion is the mystical person who actively wants people to experience abortions.

So basically like Gandalf or the baybee Jebus then?

Pherekydes

mbiking123 wrote: »

Theologically speaking to gain the happiness of heaven we must know, love, and serve God in this world

So it would be impossible for a miscarried or aborted baby to go to heaven? What happens them? Their souls are in situ from conception, yet they go to hell through no fault of their own.

Interested to hear the theological arguments on this, because, let's face it, theology will eventually contradict itself.

mbiking123

Pherekydes wrote: »

So it would be impossible for a miscarried or aborted baby to go to heaven? What happens them? Their souls are in situ from conception, yet they go to hell through no fault of their own.

Interested to hear the theological arguments on this, because, let's face it, theology will eventually contradict itself.

This was discussed before (in detail), they go to heaven

Turtwig

mbiking123 wrote: »

You want to kill an unborn child, (oh I think cop yourself on is more natural)

Some people believe the right to bodily integrity of the woman trumps that of the right to life of the foetus. That does not mean those people WANT to kill the foetus. You yourself accept this position when it comes to situations like entopic pregnancies. Here the intention is to the save to mother and as an indirect result the child dies.

Corkfeen

mbiking123 wrote: »

This was discussed before (in detail), they go to heaven

You misunderstood a portion of the old testament and Oldnrwisnr corrected you actually.

mbiking123

Corkfeen wrote: »

You misunderstood a portion and Oldnrwisnr corrected you actually.

I don't agree, nobody corrected me and I also commented on the books suggested to me

For Christians new Testament is more important
:rolleyes:

Jernal wrote: »

Some people believe the right to bodily integrity of the woman trumps that of the right to life of the foetus. That does not mean those people WANT to kill the foetus. You yourself accept this position when it comes to situations like entopic pregnancies. Here the intention is to the save to mother and as an indirect result the child dies.

In most cases in abortion (I don't want to go back over Sweden stats etc), the integrity of the woman is not the issue. They just don't want to be pregnant.

Turtwig

So Pere and Oldrnwisr are invisible? :eek:

Corkfeen

Jernal wrote: »

So Pere and Oldrnwisr are invisible? :eek:

They refute therefore they aren't.

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

best I can find to back up that spitting is assault http://www.justanswer.com/uk-law/3qv9m-charged-common-assault-spitting-someone.html

All they say is that in English law you would get at most a caution. In England if you committed an assault (violent attack) then you would get more than a caution. You get a caution for a breach of the peace, a much lesser offence.

I know it is a popular one in Limerick, and I have heard a legal eagle stating it is classed as assault

As a Limerick man born bred and resident, the only thing I can say to this sentence is you're pulling this from where the sun shineth not. I've never seen a single case where somebody was done for a violent crime just because they spat on someone else. The most I've ever heard is the guards throwing them in the slammer for the night and giving them a caution the next morning for drunk and disorderly.

And world health organisation for the other bit http://www.who.int/topics/violence/en/

Here's the text:

Violence is the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.

Spitting comes nowhere near that definition. And why would you use the World Health Organisation, anyway? They have nothing to do with crime, just the coordination and standard setting for healthcare world-wide. And given this, the WHO is pretty pro-abortion anyway.

Peregrinus

It's a bit OT, but:

"Assault" includes both (a) applying force or impact to someone's body, or (b) putting them in fear of immediate force or impact.

Mere words can be an assault, if they cause you to fear that you are about to be hit; so can gestures.

However a simple assault consisting merely of a threat is not often prosecuted. To get a conviction you have to show that the victim was put in genuine fear of attack. It's easier just to prosecute for some similar offence like disorderly conduct, which doesn't require evidence about the effect on the victim.

Then you have more serious offences like assault causing harm, or assault causing serious harm. In theory those offences can be committed by words and gestures (if I terrify you so much that you take a fit, for example) but it's vanishingly rare. They nearly always involve actually hitting somebody.

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

Ok, that's you view - based on what evidence ?

Based on it's open presentation of every bit of "news" which supports its own agenda, and outright suppression of every bit of actual evidence which shows its views to be wrong.

When a website publishes this as as an article you know it has got to be up there with Der Sturmer in the truthfullness stakes.

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

As a Limerick man born bred and resident, the only thing I can say to this sentence is you're pulling this from where the sun shineth not.

Well if you want to call me a liar, do it (you have basically said it)

I know the fact of what I was told by a legal person, which I will not go into detail here. If people want to suggest some means by which I can prove what I am saying but not in an open forum I am open to suggestions ! Cause I know what I am talking about

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Based on it's open presentation of every bit of "news" which supports its own agenda, and outright suppression of every bit of actual evidence which shows its views to be wrong.

When a website publishes this as as an article you know it has got to be up there with Der Sturmer in the truthfullness stakes.

To quote yourself 'pulling this from where the sun shineth not'

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

Well if you want to call me a liar, do it (you have basically said it)

I don't need to call you a liar, you damn yourself with your mendacious posting.

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I don't need to call you a liar, you damn yourself with your mendacious posting.

Don't put anymore questions to me so

Brian Shanahan

mbiking123 wrote: »

Don't put anymore questions to me so

I don't put questions to you I just point out where I can see your posts are greviously wrong, and I will continue to do so, because your screeds need to be refuted, in case impressionable minds come upon them.

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

I don't put questions to you I just point out where I can see your posts are greviously wrong, and I will continue to do so, because your screeds need to be refuted, in case impressionable minds come upon them.

No, you just basically call me a liar