Abortion Discussion

Leftist

it's a joke really. We're less socially developed than the entire european union bar malta.

Vivisectus

lazygal wrote: »

Do you think the right to travel for the express purpose of killing an unborn child should be repealed?

That's nothing - people have operations right here in Ireland that kill millions of unborn children! Their development is stopped in it's tracks in a dreadful surgical procedure called a vasectomy.

Amazing people get so worked up over a handful of abortions when there is full scale ethic cleansing happening every day under our very noses!

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

pro-freedom-of-choice people are not considering abolishing the right to life in the constitution as a totality, merely that part so recently written into the constitution referring to the unborn. Yes. it is in theory as easy to consider abolishing the right to travel. I just don't imagine that would succeed; do you?

I honestly don't imagine that either would succeed, no.

aloyisious wrote: »

I reckon that that might be on the wish-list of pro-freedom-of-choice people. It's on mine.

What? Increasing or reducing the number? Or being one of the number?

aloyisious wrote: »

the baby's existence is post the caesarean operation and in cold reality not relevant to the discussion on the woman's pre-op status and her request for an abortion of the feotus which had been growing inside her womb. To that discussion extent, I have disregarded the baby's existence and accept it as a fait-accompli. By we I mean anyone who think's about the baby's welfare ante the caesarean operation, whence it was born and it's status thus changed from feotus to a baby.

So do you think someone is going to attack your position, based on the care the baby received, even though it seems they would include themselves in the 'we' you've defined?

aloyisious wrote: »

Ref your different references to the rape-victim status of the woman, do you have reason to doubt the veracity of her rape claims?

I don't, I'm just aware that she has alleged that she was raped; no one has been convicted, or even accused, of committing the rape that we know of. So, for now, she is an alleged rape victim. You might notice the media reports were equally cautious about specifying that she was raped.

aloyisious wrote: »

Sarcasm doesn't work

Are you sure?

aloyisious wrote: »

I meant what I said about using the baby as a weapon in the discussion here. That, IMO, would be hypocrisy.

And I meant what I said, do you actually think you can tell people what they can or can't say in this discussion?

aloyisious wrote: »

using a baby as a weapon in the discussion is surely cold-hearted, or do you disagree?

That doesn't show's a cold-hearted lack of care about the baby; they could be bringing up the child as their very own right now in their loving family home and still coldheartedly use it's existance to make a point on an internet forum, or do you disagree?

aloyisious wrote: »

No, not in the way I suspect the obstetrician and/or other medical people may have used the wording of the guidelines to subvert the pregnant woman's requests for an abortion, whatever about stringing-out the length of time of the feotus's existence in her womb so they could tell her "sorry, we can't give you an abortion as the feotus is past the time we could do so", thereby getting them off whatever personal/ethical hooks they had about providing her with an abortion.

Can you demonstrate the timeline over which you suspect this subversion took place for us? You might also throw in why you have reason to suspect these individuals had an aversion to providing the woman with an abortion?

aloyisious wrote: »

Please don't bother asking me for proof of my suspicions and beliefs about the practice of the medics I posted in my last three response-para's as it'd be like asking for proof that God exists or all we know as life coming from a bit of dust eons ago.

So the evidence for your assertions is as substantial as the evidence for god? Did you by any chance come across it by divine revelation?

Ralphdejones

Leftist wrote: »

it's a joke really. We're less socially developed than the entire european union bar malta.

Or rather in this aspect less medieval, where killing children in the womb is supposed to be seen as a some sort of acceptable solution to anything.

Vivisectus

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Or rather in this aspect less medieval, where killing children in the womb is supposed to be seen as a some sort of acceptable solution to anything.

And yet when I brought a small clump of perfectly viable cells to my daughters school and introduced it as her brother, everyone just went "eww".

Ralphdejones

Vivisectus wrote: »

And yet when I brought a small clump of perfectly viable cells to my daughters school and introduced it as her brother, everyone just went "eww".

Is that what you call toddlers now ? We're all "just a bunch of cells"

wp_rathead

What are peoples views on this? Don't entirely understand why she shouting at the men in the crowd who came to support the pro-choice to "know your place" - honestly do not see the point?

Absolam

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

As another of those voters, I should point out (In case you weren't paying attention at the time) that the thirteenth amendment is not a general ban on limiting travel. It is a specific exception inserted into Article 40.3.3 to guarantee the right to travel against attempts to use the constitutional right to life of the unborn to prevent travel.

So, the right to travel between Ireland and another state cannot be limited by the government as a result? I didn't actually say it was a general ban on limiting travel.

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In other words, the state recognizes the equal right to life of the unborn, but will not stop you going to England to kill it.

No, pretty sure those 'other words' weren't there. The specific wording is:
"This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state."
Not a jot about going to England to kill the unborn, or abortion on demand.

Vivisectus

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Is that what you call toddlers now ? We're all "just a bunch of cells"

Speak for yourself. Personally I like to think of myself as a sentient being, which is kind of the point.

Ralphdejones

wprathead wrote: »

What are peoples views on this? Don't entirely understand why she shouting at the men in the crowd who came to support the pro-choice to "know your place" - honestly do not see the point?

The mask slips

The claps and cheers throughout are the most interesting

So much for so called equality of the sexes eh.

Imagine the next speech was a white person saying, "I see black people have come out to support us, remember, black people, know your place, and never tell a white person anything"

hinault

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Maybe that because Canadian politicians are intelligent enough to know that being against women's right to choose is, rightfully, political suicide in their country.

There is no appetite to restrict the current choice in Canada vis a vis abortions, because most Canadians are intelligent and compassionate enough to allow the decision to be made between the pregnant woman and her doctor.

Or maybe Canada and it's politicians support the censorship of politicians who are pro life.

I lived in Canada. Canadians generally are no more intelligent or stupid than people here in Ireland.

Brian Shanahan

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes it is illegal, but the practice does exist.

But Richard's original point was that in China women were forced to have abortions, especially in order to select the gender of any babies resulting from pregnancy, which has been repeatedly refuted.

Vivisectus

hinault wrote: »

Or maybe Canada and it's politicians support the censorship of politicians who are pro life.

I lived in Canada. Canadians generally are no more intelligent or stupid than people here in Ireland.

Are they the same ones with the gay agenda, which is presumably kept on a small side-table in the gay lobby?

Brian Shanahan

hinault wrote: »

Or maybe Canada and it's politicians support the censorship of politicians who are pro life.

I lived in Canada. Canadians generally are no more intelligent or stupid than people here in Ireland.

Of course it is far more likely that it is because Canadians are far more likely to take the moral and ethical position of being pro-choice than the pro-killing of pregnant mothers anti-abortion agenda you support and loudly cheerlead.

Brian Shanahan

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

But Richard's original point was that in China women were forced to have abortions, especially in order to select the gender of any babies resulting from pregnancy, which has been repeatedly refuted.

I never read that post. This was the post I saw

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91830133&postcount=5213

hinault

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Of course it is far more likely that it is because Canadians are far more likely to take the moral and ethical position of being pro-choice than the pro-killing of pregnant mothers anti-abortion agenda you support and loudly cheerlead.

You'll be able to link a post where I support the killing of pregnant women so.

Kindly supply the link then.

Unlike you I don't support the destruction of any human life, Brian.

Leftist

Ralphdejones wrote: »

Or rather in this aspect less medieval, where killing children in the womb is supposed to be seen as a some sort of acceptable solution to anything.

a) it's a practical, life saving solution in many instances.

b) they are not children

Mr. CooL ICE

hinault wrote: »

Or maybe Canada and it's politicians support the censorship of politicians who are pro life.

I lived in Canada. Canadians generally are no more intelligent or stupid than people here in Ireland.

I read that article a few pages back. Are you sure that is what it said? The liberal party just didn't want anybody in the party with a pro-life (a.k.a non-liberal) sentiment. A bit like Lucinda losing the FG whip.

That's not censorship.

Vivisectus

hinault wrote: »

You'll be able to link a post where I support the killing of pregnant women so.

Kindly supply the link then.

Unlike you I don't support the destruction of any human life, Brian.

If you get to use the emotive term "destruction of human life" then it is not unreasonable for Brian to use the equally emotive "Support for the killing of pregnant women".

Neither term is going to aid understanding in any way.

Nodin

Richard Bingham wrote: »

From (.........)discounted?

It's illegal, however.

Crosby Rhythmic Neckerchief wrote:

The insinuation was that because sex selective abortion was illegal that it
wasn't an issue

The original "insinuation" was that people here wanted to mirror a Chinese state where sex selection by abortion was legal. It is illegal in china.

Cabaal

wprathead wrote: »

What are peoples views on this? Don't entirely understand why she shouting at the men in the crowd who came to support the pro-choice to "know your place" - honestly do not see the point?

Very odd indeed,

I got to say I'd be abit pissed off with some silly women shouting something like that at me if I was there and she's telling me to "remember my place".

Also, I'd have more respect if she stopped cursing. She completely de-value's any type of argument she might try and get across by doing so.

Seems completely needless and imho pretty disrespectful when commenting about Savita's family/friends. Fair enough she can talk about failings but no need to curse.

Very odd speech,

Nodin

wprathead wrote: »

What are peoples views on this? Don't entirely understand why she shouting at the men in the crowd who came to support the pro-choice to "know your place" - honestly do not see the point?

Ranting at the wrong time and place, from what I gather. Best ignored.

Loafing Oaf

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

I read that article a few pages back. Are you sure that is what it said? The liberal party just didn't want anybody in the party with a pro-life (a.k.a non-liberal) sentiment. A bit like Lucinda losing the FG whip.

Or Sinn Fein turning down a membership application from someone who advocated Ireland rejoining the United Kingdom. You'd have wonder what a guy with those views was doing in a 'liberal' party in the first place....

Vivisectus

Nodin wrote: »

The original "insinuation" was that people here wanted to mirror a Chinese state where sex selection by abortion was legal. It is illegal in china.

And remember, Richard, when moving goalposts, lift from the knees! You only get one back.

jank

wprathead wrote: »

What are peoples views on this? Don't entirely understand why she shouting at the men in the crowd who came to support the pro-choice to "know your place" - honestly do not see the point?

A bit of a lunatic if I must say so. The pro choice movement would be wise not to give her a platform again but goes to show there are zealots and fundamentalists on both sides of this argument. Also, what does continious cursing achieve in a speech?

Brian Shanahan

Vivisectus wrote: »

Neither term is going to aid understanding in any way.

My increasing usage of stronger terms is in response to the constant lying from those with an anti-abortion agenda that they are somehow pro-life. I am getting increasingly annoyed over this rampant mendaciousness about one of the fundamental tenets of their philosophy, viz. the life of the pregnant woman isn't wort shít except as a vessel for the foetus which has only a potential for life.

hinault

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

The liberal party just didn't want anybody in the party with a pro-life (a.k.a non-liberal) sentiment. A bit like Lucinda losing the FG whip.

That's not censorship.

Of course, it is censorship.
Canada's Liberal Party will not allow candidates with prolife views to run for election.

hinault

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Of course it is far more likely that it is because Canadians are far more likely to take the moral and ethical position of being pro-choice than the pro-killing of pregnant mothers anti-abortion agenda you support and loudly cheerlead.

You'll be able to link a post where I support the killing of pregnant women so.

Kindly supply the link then.

Unlike you I don't support the destruction of any human life, Brian.

aloyisious

Absolam wrote: »

What? Increasing or reducing the number? Or being one of the number? - A reduction of the number through the "natural process" naturally, definitely not an increase of it LOL


Are you sure? - LOL

And I meant what I said, do you actually think you can tell people what they can or can't say in this discussion? - my continuing our conversation should be proof I'm not into censoring O/P's right to free speech, only expressing a desire that they don't descend into using babies for ammunition.

That doesn't show's a cold-hearted lack of care about the baby; they could be bringing up the child as their very own right now in their loving family home and still coldheartedly use it's existance to make a point on an internet forum, or do you disagree? - Not relevant, as you and I know which baby I had in mind.

Can you demonstrate the timeline over which you suspect this subversion took place for us? You might also throw in why you have reason to suspect these individuals had an aversion to providing the woman with an abortion?
So the evidence for your assertions is as substantial as the evidence for god? Did you by any chance come across it by divine revelation?

-
1. NO.
2. olderandwiser cynicism about long-fingering being used to provide a way out of having to do something personally undesirable.
3. I'm awaiting guidance on how to answer your last 2 Q's (put's on shades to protect eyes from blinding flash).

Edit, again there's something going on that's making me post outside the box.

Mr. CooL ICE

hinault wrote: »

Of course, it is censorship.
Canada's Liberal Party will not allow candidates with prolife views to run for election.

As a liberal. They can still run, just not as a liberal.