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

Abortion Discussion

Options
1…324325327329330…334

Comments

  • Options
    #9782
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Gosnell is a product of the abortion industry, as well as representative of it.
    ironies abound in this dismaying case of savagery

    Then are Michael F. Griffin, Paul Jennings Hill, John Salvi, Eric Robert Rudolph, James Kopp, Scott Roeder, Joseph Grace, Father Edward Markley, Matt Goldsby, Jimmy Simmons, Kathy Simmons, Kaye Wiggins, Martin Uphoff, John Earl, Peter James Knight, The Army of God et al a product of and/or representative of the anti-choice movement?


  • Options
    #9783
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    If planned parenthood is found guilty should all state funding be withdrawn and the organisation closed down? Does everyone have a moral obligation to not be associated with them?

    Remember, it is only a small minority and the rest of the services offer help to people.


  • Options
    #9784
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,805 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    Fr Brendan Smyth is a product of the catholic seminary system, so is he representative of all catholic clergy? :rolleyes:

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



  • Options
    #9785
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 82,764 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Gosnell is a product of the abortion industry, as well as representative of it.
    ironies abound in this dismaying case of savagery
    If you like we can resume to the site wide church bashing from the actions of a handful of religious elites.

    I guess the church wants more young boys to fiddle? Is that why they want more orphans?

    See, the level of this conversation can get really low - and even there, your argument won't hold up.


  • Options
    #9786
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,491 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Overheal wrote: »
    If you like we can resume to the site wide church bashing from the actions of a handful of religious elites.

    I guess the church wants more young boys to fiddle? Is that why they want more orphans?

    Except that afaiaa there is not a single case of another abortion provider knowingly covering up for Gosnell, only some employees who - for obvious reasons - probably just didn't dare turn their employer in. So apparently abusive priests are far more representative of their professional body than Gosnell ever was - certainly if one goes by the number of abusers and the readiness of their non-abusing comrades to cover up for them.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9787
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    volchitsa wrote: »
    Except that afaiaa there is not a single case of another abortion provider knowingly covering up for Gosnell, only some employees who - for obvious reasons - probably just didn't dare turn their employer in. So apparently abusive priests are far more representative of their professional body than Gosnell ever was - certainly if one goes by the number of abusers and the readiness of their non-abusing comrades to cover up for them.
    It's quite interesting that pro-choice supporters opt for attacking the Church when trying to identify their opposition.

    It's fairly solid evidence that much of the pro-choice sector is motivated, not by any concern for women, but by religious hangups.

    As I said ... interesting!


  • Options
    #9788
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    It's quite interesting that pro-choice supporters opt for attacking the Church when trying to identify their opposition.

    It's fairly solid evidence that much of the anti-choice sector is motivated, not by any concern for women, but by religious hangups.

    As I said ... interesting!

    FYP


  • Options
    #9789
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    Kev W wrote: »
    FYP
    'Cos that's all you've got. :D


  • Options
    #9790
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    It's quite interesting that pro-choice supporters opt for attacking the Church when trying to identify their opposition.

    It's fairly solid evidence that much of the pro-choice sector is motivated, not by any concern for women, but by religious hangups.

    As I said ... interesting!

    You would be happy to see state funding removed from any group associated with the RCC then? The magdalene laundries would be quite similar to the situation you are accusing planned parenthood of.


  • Options
    #9791
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »
    You would be happy to see state funding removed from any group associated with the RCC then? The magdalene laundries would be quite similar to the situation you are accusing planned parenthood of.
    You pro-choice lot really can't help yourselves, can you?

    This thread just got funny. :pac:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9792
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    You pro-choice lot really can't help yourselves, can you?

    This thread just got funny. :pac:

    Its a simple question. Should the RCC be treated in the same manner you wish PP to be treated?

    At least one of us finds babies dying or sold funny.


  • Options
    #9793
    sinead88
    Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭sinead88


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    It's quite interesting that pro-choice supporters opt for attacking the Church when trying to identify their opposition.

    It's fairly solid evidence that much of the pro-choice sector is motivated, not by any concern for women, but by religious hangups.

    As I said ... interesting!

    Although I'm an atheist, I'm in no way motivated by religious hangups, because I don't have any. I'm motivated by equality for women, regardless of how much money they have, and the concept of bodily freedom.


  • Options
    #9794
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »
    Its a simple question. Should the RCC be treated in the same manner you wish PP to be treated?

    At least one of us finds babies dying or sold funny.
    That's not the funny part. I'll let you guess which part is (hint - you're in it).


  • Options
    #9795
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    sinead88 wrote: »
    Although I'm an atheist, I'm in no way motivated by religious hangups, because I don't have any. I'm motivated by equality for women, regardless of how much money they have, and the concept of bodily freedom.
    What a pity some females will never get the chance to grow to the stage where you care about them.

    woman: an adult female person.

    I'm concerned for all females - women, girls, female children and female babies.


  • Options
    #9796
    The Randy Riverbeast
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,770 ✭✭✭The Randy Riverbeast


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    What a pity some females will never get the chance to grow to the stage where you care about them.

    woman: an adult female person.

    I'm concerned for all females - women, girls, female children and female babies.*

    *Unless they were abused by an organisation you support.


  • Options
    #9797
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    'Cos that's all you've got. :D

    Its more than you've come up with.


  • Options
    #9798
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »
    *Unless they were abused by an organisation you support.
    The GAA did what?:eek:


  • Options
    #9799
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    The GAA did what?:eek:

    Now you're making jokes about clerical abuse? Clearly you care a lot about kids. As long as they haven't been born that is.


  • Options
    #9800
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    Kev W wrote: »
    Now you're making jokes about clerical abuse? Clearly you care a lot about kids. As long as they haven't been born that is.
    It's hilarious the way you've managed to drag the Church into a sub-forum called 'Atheism & Agnosticism'.

    Admit it... you were just waiting for an excuse, weren't you?
    Your support for abortion is just a way to have a go at the church, isn't it?

    You pro-choice lot are so predictable.

    Look... a bishop! :D


  • Options
    #9801
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    It's hilarious the way you've managed to drag the Church into a sub-forum called 'Atheism & Agnosticism'.

    Admit it... you were just waiting for an excuse, weren't you?
    Your support for abortion is just a way to have a go at the church, isn't it?

    You pro-choice lot are so predictable.

    Look... a bishop! :D

    I didn't bring up the church. I certainly don't find child rape as funny as you do. I guess once they're born you can do what you like to them, eh?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9802
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    Kev W wrote: »
    I didn't bring up the church. I certainly don't find child rape as funny as you do. I guess once they're born you can do what you like to them, eh?
    Reported!




    Only joking .... I'm still laughing.
    Tell us what you'd like to do to THE CHURCH.


  • Options
    #9803
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Reported!




    Only joking .... I'm still laughing.
    Tell us what you'd like to do to THE CHURCH.

    Separate them from the state.

    I see you don't deny finding child rape funny.

    Some humanitarian you are.


  • Options
    #9804
    sinead88
    Registered Users Posts: 172 ✭✭sinead88


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Reported!




    Only joking .... I'm still laughing.
    Tell us what you'd like to do to THE CHURCH.

    What I'd like to do to THE CHURCH is have it completely separated from state. Children should not be indoctrinated and paid for by the tax payer. What do you reckon we should do with it?


  • Options
    #9805
    Kev W
    Registered Users Posts: 2,536 ✭✭✭Kev W


    sinead88 wrote: »
    What I'd like to do to THE CHURCH is have it completely separated from state. Children should not be indoctrinated and paid for by the tax payer. What do you reckon we should do with it?

    Snap!


  • Options
    #9806
    recedite
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,993 ✭✭✭✭recedite


    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    There are two aspects to the sex-selective abortion argument that has come up in this thread: a) whether it is illegal and b) whether it happens.
    Agreed.
    oldrnwisr wrote: »
    Regarding the first aspect, abortion for the intention of sex selection is illegal. It is not listed as a viable grounds under the 1967 Act and the General Medical Council (not the NHS) have also stated that it is illegal. If some women claim mental distress so that they can obtain an abortion under ground C of the Act, even though their true motive is sex selection, this still doesn't mean that sex selection abortions are permitted as Peregrinus claimed, it simply means that the enforcement procedures aren't robust enough to catch this kind of ulterior motive.
    I reach a different conclusion. If the motive is sex-selection and there is some mental anguish involved, the abortion is legal. That is the liberal abortion regime as it operates in England. The GMC link you provided says;
    "Abortions provided solely on grounds of the sex of the foetus are not legal in the UK."
    The caveat "solely" is put in there for a reason. They know that sex-selection abortions are legal if the mother claims mental anguish.
    This India-born subject group has a cultural preference for male children. Would you agree the Irish-born demographic who obtained abortions in the UK over the same historical period of time would generally have had a cultural preference for having children "within wedlock", and that cultural stigma was one of the main reasons for many of them going to England for their abortion?
    In other words, if the GMC made the statement "Abortions provided solely on grounds of the marital status of the mother are not legal in the UK" it would be equally true, but also equally irrelevant to the legality of those abortions being performed.
    I think we understand each other on this, without getting any further into the pedantics of it.
    OK, firstly, the dataset is reliable. The authors treatment of the data isn't. The entire dataset covers 1969-2005. However, the data on which the authors base their conclusions only covers the period 1990-2005. So the authors excluded 20 years worth of data. This is called cherrypicking.
    The dataset covers almost 40 years, and a change or a consistent new trend emerges over half of that period from approx. 1987 onwards.
    Its hardly "cherrypicking" to use statistics to expose such a trend. Isn't that the whole point of analyzing statistics?
    Only 8% of recorded abortions in the UK are performed after the point at which sex can reliably be determined. This proportion wouldn't explain such a rapid shift in sex ratio in the specified period.
    That refers to all abortions, not just to those who might be looking for male children. We might reasonably suppose that the cultural group in question would be overrepresented within that 8%. That would explain the rapid shift.
    Secondly, I raised the idea of confounding factors because a good study should always attempt to deal with confounding factors.... They make no mention of other factors which influence birth ratios and whether they considered them in their discussion. That's a big flaw in methodology.
    Its not a flaw in the methodology if they can't find any such factors. In looking for environmental factors, they mentioned that the number of female live births was actually increasing among the control (UK born) population. If anything, this makes the increase in the male birth rate among the Indian born subjects even more suspicious.


  • Options
    #9807
    Two Sheds
    Registered Users Posts: 316 ✭✭Two Sheds


    sinead88 wrote: »
    What I'd like to do to THE CHURCH is have it completely separated from state. Children should not be indoctrinated and paid for by the tax payer. What do you reckon we should do with it?
    Off topic. ;) (I know you can't help yourself)


  • Options
    #9808
    robdonn
    Registered Users Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭robdonn


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Off topic. ;) (I know you can't help yourself)

    Ehhh, you asked the question. Remember? It was right after you were laughing at child rape.
    Two Sheds wrote: »
    Only joking .... I'm still laughing.
    Tell us what you'd like to do to THE CHURCH.


  • Options
    #9809
    krankykitty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,518 ✭✭✭krankykitty


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    What a pity some females will never get the chance to grow to the stage where you care about them.

    woman: an adult female person.

    I'm concerned for all females - women, girls, female children and female babies.

    No, you're only concerned about foetuses. Maybe I'll give you babies and children as well. but you're certainly not concerned with girls and women of childbearing age being forced into pregnancy regardless of their circumstances


  • Options
    #9810
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,491 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    Two Sheds wrote: »
    It's quite interesting that pro-choice supporters opt for attacking the Church when trying to identify their opposition.

    It's fairly solid evidence that much of the pro-choice sector is motivated, not by any concern for women, but by religious hangups.

    As I said ... interesting!

    The only problem I have with the Catholic Church is its deliberate cover up of the child abuse going on within its ranks. Nothing else.

    I genuinely can't understand how anyone who claims to care about children, as you've just done, doesn't think that's as evil a crime as murdering them
    (I personally don't believe abortion is murder, but you claim to. I do think that allowing children to be abused or tortured is pretty much as bad as killing them.

    As for why that was mentioned, it's a relevant question : you said that Gosnell was both the product and was representative of abortion providers.

    But then it follows that it's also valid for the Catholic Church. How is pointing that out an attack on them - you made the point, it's your logic. And Gosnell had no equivalent of Brady, did he? Which was my point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #9811
    Hotblack Desiato
    Registered Users Posts: 34,805 ✭✭✭✭Hotblack Desiato


    It was an analogy, not hard to understand I'd have thought.

    Fingal County Council are certainly not competent to be making decisions about the most important piece of infrastructure on the island. They need to stick to badly designed cycle lanes and deciding on whether Mrs Murphy can have her kitchen extension.



This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement