Abortion Discussion

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

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

Thats not censorship, its a part line and anti-choice would be against the line.

Nothing stopping a anti-choicer running separately as another party or independent.

Now if a anti choicer wasn't allowed to run at all then it would be censorship, but thats not the case. They can't, just not part of that particular party.

Vivisectus

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

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.

I am outraged at your use of such terms: you are bad and you should feel bad. You are a heartless monster who hates babies. But scorn from the likes of you is just that beginning of the endless persecution that has to be endured by the unborn. Just the other day I was outraged that my efforts to get Lumpy Vivisectus, my small and slightly slimy clump of cells which could easily be nurtured into a clone of me, enrolled in the local school. All this only weeks after I was refused a full church funeral when my wife was a few weeks late getting her period.

You can see how your vile behavior is just the tip of the iceberg: the schools hates clone and supports denying them equal rights, and the church is very hypocritical and apparently does not really value ALL kinds of human life in the same way and actually supports throwing unborn children into a toilet.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

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

So do you count it as murder if a women has an abortion?

Vivisectus

hinault wrote: »

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

True, in the same way that not letting a communist run for a election as a christian-democrat is censorship. That is to say, not very.

hinault

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

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

No, they can't run as a member of the Liberal Party candidate.

That is censorship by that political party.

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

So do you count it as murder if a women has an abortion?

I would consider a mother deciding to undergo an abortion as a deliberate act of killing.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

No, they can't run as a member of the Liberal Party candidate.

That is censorship by that political party.

Yes, yes it is.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Its also censorship when the Catholic Democrat's wouldn't allow me (an Atheist) to run as one of their candidates in the last European elections.

Apparently it was down to me not being in-line with their ethos...amongst other things. For example they are against marriage equality and I'm not.

The candidate they did choose said such things like

There will be no same-sex referendum going through in Ireland, I guarantee it, because our faith and the family is too strong to actually interfere with family life in that area,

Oh how we can all point and laugh now

But yes by your logic its very clearly censorship
:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Stop making a fool of yourself will you.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

I would consider a mother deciding to undergo an abortion as a deliberate act of killing.

act of killing what?, a baby? fetus? a bunch of cells?

Mr. CooL ICE

hinault wrote: »

No, they can't run as a member of the Liberal Party candidate.

That is censorship by that political party.

What the hell. Do you even know what a political party is, what they do and how they operate?

It. Is. Not. Censorship.

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

I would consider a mother deciding to undergo an abortion as a deliberate act of killing.

I would consider a woman deciding to undergo an operation to remove her appendix a deliberate act of killing, too.

But it's not my business, it's between her and her doctor.

Skrynesaver

hinault wrote: »

No, they can't run as a member of the Liberal Party candidate.

That is censorship by that political party.

Once more for the hard of thinking, the Canadian Liberal party have policies and positions in a number of areas, in the area of reproductive rights they hold a pro-choice position, so you cannot stand for election as a member of the Liberal party while advocating forced birth.

Similarly they don't select people who support nationalisation of industry because it would contradict their policy positions in the areas of private property and industry.

If you are still having difficulty understanding the distinction why not have a bottle of gin, fall down the stairs and relax in a hot bath.

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

Yes, yes it is.
:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Its also censorship when the Catholic Democrat's wouldn't allow me (an Atheist) to run as one of their candidates in the last European elections.

Apparently it was down to me not being in-line with their ethos. For example they are against marriage equality and I'm not.

The candidate they did choose said such things like

Catholic Democrat political party is presumably a Catholic ethos based party.

The Canadian Liberal party's "liberal" ethos disbars candidates who advocate prolife views from running for election.

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

act of killing?, a baby? fetus? a bunch of cells?

An acting of killing human life.

hinault

Nicolas Cage wrote: »

It. Is. Not. Censorship.

I disagree. It is censorship.

Vivisectus

hinault wrote: »

An acting of killing human life.

Finally someone willing to make a stance for me and my crusade to get equal rights for Lumpy Vivisectus, the future clone.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

An acting of killing human life.

So you equate it equal to say a 6 month old baby?

Life is life after all...all equal in your books it seems, except the women/girls life...thats secondary to anything else.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

I disagree. It is censorship.

and again



Seriously, for your own sake stop. Its just a sorry state of affairs when you continue to show yourself up.

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

An acting of killing human life.

But presumably you don't mean like an appendix (which is human and alive until you remove it).

You mean you think removing a blob of undifferentiated cells is the same as shooting a baby in the head. Murder.

MrPudding

Absolam wrote: »

There is I'm afraid a constitutional impediment to redacting a persons right to travel, which is related to the constitutional impediment to redacting a persons right to life.
I think we're unlikely to ever assemble either the will or the cash necessary to start imposing our national will on other nations.

Well, it could be said that such abortion as is necessary is already provided here.

That constitutional impediment is only relevent when the life of the mother is at risk. It does not apply to cases were merely the health of the mother is a risk. It most certainly does not apply when the mother simply wishes to be not be pregnant anymore.

So, I would again suggest that there is nothing in law, constitutional or otherwise prevent the government enacting legislation to prosecute those women that travel abroad to procure an abortion, the caveat being, she. They do so and their life is not at risk.

As I mentiond before, Ireland does not need the cash or the will to enforce its laws I other countries. It can simply enforced its will and laws on its citizens, irrespective of where the 'offense' took place.

MrP

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

So you equate it equal to say a 6 month old baby?

I equate all human life as being equal.

Do you discriminate human life on the basis of age?

Vivisectus

hinault wrote: »

Catholic Democrat political party is presumably a Catholic ethos based party.

The Canadian Liberal party's "liberal" ethos disbars candidates who advocate prolife views from running for election.

That is what I said to the Catholic Democrats! But they keep saying that they do not recognise my re-write of the Bible, or my claim to be Uber-Boss-Pope. It seems that they have some very specific ideas about what it is to be Catholic Democrat that they wrote down this so called "election platform" or something...

hinault

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

But presumably you don't mean like an appendix (which is human and alive until you remove it).

An appendix is human life?

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

Seriously, for your own sake stop. Its just a sorry state of affairs when you continue to show yourself up.

You should follow your own advice.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

I equate all human life as being equal.

You might, but the Irish state don't see a fetus or a bunch of cells as equal to a baby or teenager or adult.

A bunch of cells that don't have a heartbeat and can't live without taking nutrients from another being is not equal to a 1 day old baby,

Giving more rights to a bunch of cells then a women shows the twisted world you live in, shocking you'd rather take the risk that a adult women could die then get rid of a bunch of cells that can in no way live without the women.

Zubeneschamali

MrPudding wrote: »

So, I would again suggest that there is nothing in law, constitutional or otherwise prevent the government enacting legislation to prosecute those women that travel abroad to procure an abortion

Yes, there is, the thirteenth amendment:

This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.

Any law prosecuting women for travelling to England for an abortion would be unconstitutional because of this clause.

Zubeneschamali

hinault wrote: »

An appendix is human life?

It's not alive or non-human, you need it out pronto!

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

You should follow your own advice.

Did you see that?....you mean you didn't see it?

Yeah, that's the lack of support anybody is giving you for any of your comments
:pac:

Mr. CooL ICE

hinault wrote: »

I disagree. It is censorship.

Vivisectus

hinault wrote: »

An appendix is human life?

Lumpy and me are very disappointed in you, Hinault. Lumpy and the appendix are indeed potential life. With the right equipment, they could be nurtured into a clone of me. If it was my appendix.

Sure, it would be a hell of a lot easier if we had proper stem cells. But actually expecting them to grow into a viable human being on their own without help would be tantamount to asking babies to grow up without a womb!

Why do you support murdering clones, Hinault?

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

You might, but the Irish state don't

You asked me to consider if a human life is 6 months equal to an unborn human life.

You didn't ask me to make a statement about what the Irish State holds.

I consider all human life as being equal.