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, Part Trois
Comments
-
A woman who is pregnant is mother to the human being she is carrying.
A tiny foetus has all thats required to develop into a human being, you can deny this reality to convince yourself that abortion isnt morally wrong. You might succeed in convincing yourself but dont waste your time convincing other people who have a different outlook on life to you.0 -
-
But again, most people in Ireland don't agree with you.A woman who is pregnant is mother to the human being she is carrying.
A tiny foetus has all thats required to develop into a human being, you can deny this reality to convince yourself that abortion isnt morally wrong. You might succeed in convincing yourself but dont waste your time convincing other people who have a different outlook on life to you.
Ranting and ignoring questions and difficult points isn't going to convince anyone. It didn't when you needed to convince people most.0 -
A woman who is pregnant is mother to the human being she is carrying.
A tiny foetus has all thats required to develop into a human being, you can deny this reality to convince yourself that abortion isnt morally wrong. You might succeed in convincing yourself but dont waste your time convincing other people who have a different outlook on life to you.
Says the man trying to impose his own personal outlook on the whole of society, regardless of the fact that a large portion of that society disagrees with him.0 -
So its now a large portion of society, yes, that is more accurate than stating most Irish people want abortion in Ireland.
The facts are 46 per cent of sixty four per cent who voted were in favour of repealing the 8th.
A substantial number of people who didnt vote did so because they couldnt bring themselves to vote for what they knew would happen. Abortion of healthy babies up to twelve weeks and then pressure would start to extend that time to twenty weeks, please dont waste your time saying this wont happen, it will within five years.
A third of the forty six per cent who vited said NO. You can add thousands of voters who didnt vote to the NO voters, if people wanted abortion they would have made sure they voted.
A third of the electorate voting NO is huge particularly when the media was pushing the YES vote endlessly.
This large vite against is an indication of how concerned people are for the unborn, not all of us think they have the same worthless value as table legs.0 -
Advertisement
-
So its now a large portion of society, yes, that is more accurate than stating most Irish people want abortion in Ireland.
The facts are 46 per cent of sixty four per cent who voted were in favour of repealing the 8th.
A substantial number of people who didnt vote did so because they couldnt bring themselves to vote for what they knew would happen. Abortion of healthy babies up to twelve weeks and then pressure would start to extend that time to twenty weeks, please dont waste your time saying this wont happen, it will within five years.
A third of the forty six per cent who vited said NO. You can add thousands of voters who didnt vote to the NO voters, if people wanted abortion they would have made sure they voted.
A third of the electorate voting NO is huge particularly when the media was pushing the YES vote endlessly.
This large vite against is an indication of how concerned people are for the unborn, not all of us think they have the same worthless value as table legs.
Can you back that up with evidence, please.0 -
So its now a large portion of society, yes, that is more accurate than stating most Irish people want abortion in Ireland.
The facts are 46 per cent of sixty four per cent who voted were in favour of repealing the 8th.
A substantial number of people who didnt vote did so because they couldnt bring themselves to vote for what they knew would happen. Abortion of healthy babies up to twelve weeks and then pressure would start to extend that time to twenty weeks, please dont waste your time saying this wont happen, it will within five years.
A third of the forty six per cent who vited said NO. You can add thousands of voters who didnt vote to the NO voters, if people wanted abortion they would have made sure they voted.
A third of the electorate voting NO is huge particularly when the media was pushing the YES vote endlessly.
This large vite against is an indication of how concerned people are for the unborn, not all of us think they have the same worthless value as table legs.
Again, as per the forum rules, can you provide evidence for any of the statements of fact you are making?0 -
Again, evidence. Or your claims are nothing but lies.So its now a large portion of society, yes, that is more accurate than stating most Irish people want abortion in Ireland.
The facts are 46 per cent of sixty four per cent who voted were in favour of repealing the 8th.
A substantial number of people who didnt vote did so because they couldnt bring themselves to vote for what they knew would happen. Abortion of healthy babies up to twelve weeks and then pressure would start to extend that time to twenty weeks, please dont waste your time saying this wont happen, it will within five years.
A third of the forty six per cent who vited said NO. You can add thousands of voters who didnt vote to the NO voters, if people wanted abortion they would have made sure they voted.
A third of the electorate voting NO is huge particularly when the media was pushing the YES vote endlessly.
This large vite against is an indication of how concerned people are for the unborn, not all of us think they have the same worthless value as table legs.
You can also provide evidence that the "media was pushing the YES vote endlessly."
Or that will be dismissed as a lie and a silly conspiracy theory.0 -
ohnonotgmail wrote: »Again, as per the forum rules, can you provide evidence for any of the statements of fact you are making?
Funny that you didn't challenge pro choicers who called pro life pedophiles the other day.0 -
Again, evidence. Or your claims are nothing but lies.
You can also provide evidence that the "media was pushing the YES vote endlessly."
Or that will be dismissed as a lie and a silly conspiracy theory.
RTE was supposed to be balanced but in the print media was probably 9:1 infavour.0 -
Advertisement
-
No real evidence but I am involved in a few organisations, have a large family and lots of neighbours and acquaitances.
I heard so many people express their fears of what abortion would mean but they wanted FFA catered for. They decided not to vote at all and just switched off completely.
Over 700,000 people voted NO.
Anyone thinking that Irish people are delighted that abortion is available free up to twelve weeks gestation are seriously deluded.0 -
An_Toirpin wrote: »Funny that you didn't challenge pro choicers who called pro life pedophiles the other day.
Did you?0 -
An_Toirpin wrote: »RTE was supposed to be balanced but in the print media was probably 9:1 infavour.
Evidence?
And could you go back and address my previous point to you before jumping into posts not directed at you?0 -
No real evidence but I am involved in a few organisations, have a large family and lots of neighbours and acquaitances.
I heard so many people express their fears of what abortion would mean but they wanted FFA catered for. They decided not to vote at all and just switched off completely.
Over 700,000 people voted NO.
Anyone thinking that Irish people are delighted that abortion is available free up to twelve weeks gestation are seriously deluded.
so just your opinion then?0 -
-
An_Toirpin wrote: »RTE was supposed to be balanced but in the print media was probably 9:1 infavour.
RTE has an obligation to be balanced. Privately owned media do not. they publish in accordance with public opinion. and your 9:1 is way out. there were plenty of pro-life opinion pieces in the print media, the irish times in particular.0 -
What complete nonsense. If you're vehemently, fundamentally opposed to the idea of abortion you'd vote no and then explore ways for FFA to be addressed. You wouldn't just abstain so you could whine about not being represented.
The majority of people in Ireland wanted abortion introduced as proposed. The people who chose not to vote don't get to stand up and be counted after the fact.0 -
Captain Flaps wrote: »The majority of people in Ireland wanted abortion introduced as proposed. The people who chose not to vote don't get to stand up and be counted after the fact.
It's not even that they are counting themselves.
It's people like those in this thread counting them anyway to ignore the reality of their position.0 -
Evidence of what.
The figures speak for themselves.
The media gave us non stop coverage of FFA because it would have been seen to be a good tactic and it was.
The reality of abortion though is its mostly required as a result of one nights stands and if women took responsibility and used the morning after pill they wouldnt need an abortion pill at all.
And now we are being told by deluded posters here that women should be proud of their abortions, a notch on their belt so to speak, yeak ok, whatever.
You have clearly well informed on this issue😉0 -
So its now a large portion of society, yes, that is more accurate than stating most Irish people want abortion in Ireland.
The facts are 46 per cent of sixty four per cent who voted were in favour of repealing the 8th.
A substantial number of people who didnt vote did so because they couldnt bring themselves to vote for what they knew would happen. Abortion of healthy babies up to twelve weeks and then pressure would start to extend that time to twenty weeks, please dont waste your time saying this wont happen, it will within five years.
A third of the forty six per cent who vited said NO. You can add thousands of voters who didnt vote to the NO voters, if people wanted abortion they would have made sure they voted.
A third of the electorate voting NO is huge particularly when the media was pushing the YES vote endlessly.
This large vite against is an indication of how concerned people are for the unborn, not all of us think they have the same worthless value as table legs.
And going by your logic if people did not want abortion they would have got out and voted.
Were they lazy? Or did they just not bother because they knew it was a lost cause? I was passionate about voting yes and i flew back from the UK for the day to ensure i voted.0 -
Advertisement
-
People wanted FFA to be dealt with but they didnt want abortion on demand. They knew by voting to Repeal the 8th the tiny number of babies with FFA could e terminated if this is what the parents wanted. We heard interminably from parents who wanted to choose abortion for babies with FFA but rarely did we hear from parents who wouldnt choose abortion under any circumstances, this would be the vast majority of women.
By not going out to vote a person who didnt want an abortion up to twelve weeks no questions asked wasnt going to be counted in the jubilant landside victory the Repeal camp are screeching about. Within the forty six per cent who voted to Repeal are huge numbers who are very unhappy with unrestricted abortion up to twelve weeks and are furious that abortion is free without any regards to income limits. They voted YES because they were given no other option as to how to deal with FFA but to say forty six per cent of the electorate are thrilled with the outcome is simplifying matters. People have accepted the inevitable which is maternity hospitals performing thousands of abortions annually and soon the pressure will come on to increase the time limit for abortions.
If I was to suggest that all dog rescue centres should close down and all unwanted puppies should be terminated at birth the animal lobby would hunt me down, we care more about puppies with big eyes that we care about the unborn of our own species, truly the lunatics have control of the asylum.0 -
People wanted FFA to be dealt with but they didnt want abortion on demand. They knew by voting to Repeal the 8th the tiny number of babies with FFA could e terminated if this is what the parents wanted. We heard interminably from parents who wanted to choose abortion for babies with FFA but rarely did we hear from parents who wouldnt choose abortion under any circumstances, this would be the vast majority of women.
By not going out to vote a person who didnt want an abortion up to twelve weeks no questions asked wasnt going to be counted in the jubilant landside victory the Repeal camp are screeching about. Within the forty six per cent who voted to Repeal are huge numbers who are very unhappy with unrestricted abortion up to twelve weeks and are furious that abortion is free without any regards to income limits. They voted YES because they were given no other option as to how to deal with FFA but to say forty six per cent of the electorate are thrilled with the outcome is simplifying matters. People have accepted the inevitable which is maternity hospitals performing thousands of abortions annually and soon the pressure will come on to increase the time limit for abortions.
If I was to suggest that all dog rescue centres should close down and all unwanted puppies should be terminated at birth the animal lobby would hunt me down, we care more about puppies with big eyes that we care about the unborn of our own species, truly the lunatics have control of the asylum.
I know I'm wasting my time asking but do you have evidence to prove this claim or is it another opinion of yours?0 -
Again, evidence for this?People wanted FFA to be dealt with but they didnt want abortion on demand.
Or:Within the forty six per cent who voted to Repeal are huge numbers who are very unhappy with unrestricted abortion up to twelve weeks and are furious that abortion is free without any regards to income limits.
How do you address the evidence already provided that contradicts your claim?
Is that evidence faked?
Where is your evidence for this conspiracy in the media you seem to believe exists?0 -
People wanted FFA to be dealt with but they didnt want abortion on demand. They knew by voting to Repeal the 8th the tiny number of babies with FFA could e terminated if this is what the parents wanted. We heard interminably from parents who wanted to choose abortion for babies with FFA but rarely did we hear from parents who wouldnt choose abortion under any circumstances, this would be the vast majority of women.
By not going out to vote a person who didnt want an abortion up to twelve weeks no questions asked wasnt going to be counted in the jubilant landside victory the Repeal camp are screeching about. Within the forty six per cent who voted to Repeal are huge numbers who are very unhappy with unrestricted abortion up to twelve weeks and are furious that abortion is free without any regards to income limits. They voted YES because they were given no other option as to how to deal with FFA but to say forty six per cent of the electorate are thrilled with the outcome is simplifying matters. People have accepted the inevitable which is maternity hospitals performing thousands of abortions annually and soon the pressure will come on to increase the time limit for abortions.
If I was to suggest that all dog rescue centres should close down and all unwanted puppies should be terminated at birth the animal lobby would hunt me down, we care more about puppies with big eyes that we care about the unborn of our own species, truly the lunatics have control of the asylum.
Complete speculation, you have no conclusive proof, this is all your personal assumptions with zero evidence to back it up.
If you want anyone to actually take you seriously you are going to have to show proof of your claims.0 -
People wanted FFA to be dealt with but they didnt want abortion on demand. They knew by voting to Repeal the 8th the tiny number of babies with FFA could e terminated if this is what the parents wanted. We heard interminably from parents who wanted to choose abortion for babies with FFA but rarely did we hear from parents who wouldnt choose abortion under any circumstances, this would be the vast majority of women.
By not going out to vote a person who didnt want an abortion up to twelve weeks no questions asked wasnt going to be counted in the jubilant landside victory the Repeal camp are screeching about. Within the forty six per cent who voted to Repeal are huge numbers who are very unhappy with unrestricted abortion up to twelve weeks and are furious that abortion is free without any regards to income limits. They voted YES because they were given no other option as to how to deal with FFA but to say forty six per cent of the electorate are thrilled with the outcome is simplifying matters.
As per the forum charter do you have any evidence to support that claim? Especially in the light that we knew almost exactly what we were voting on at the time of the referendum and that included "abortion on demand".People have accepted the inevitable which is maternity hospitals performing thousands of abortions annually and soon the pressure will come on to increase the time limit for abortions.
If I was to suggest that all dog rescue centres should close down and all unwanted puppies should be terminated at birth the animal lobby would hunt me down, we care more about puppies with big eyes that we care about the unborn of our own species, truly the lunatics have control of the asylum.
evidence for your claim that maternity hospitals will be performing thousands of abortions annually given that abortion services will be GP led.0 -
It is factually incorrect to say most people in Ireland wanted abortion.
Ah the old bait and switch dodge. You were asked to back up YOUR assertion about what most of those people think or want. Rather than step up to that demand however, you have chosen to dodge by saying attacking the opposite position which has not actually been espoused here.
Again, as per the forum charter here, can you back up your position. For posterity it was:
"Most people in Ireland do not support abortion" and ""Many people who voted to Repeal the 8th did so because of the hard cases".
Quantity "many" here for me please and cite your statistics for both statements.One third of the electorate didnt bother voting at all.
So what? It was a strong turn out by the standards of any election. Do you only moan about turn out when the result does not go your way? Turnout is only relevant if you have good reason and data to think that the people who did not turn out were not significantly well represented by those that did.This means less than half of the Irish electorate wanted Abortion on demand
Only if you assume to know what the people who did or did not turn out wuold have voted had they turned out. Again what data are you using to make any assumptions about the people who did not turn out, or that they would not be split in the same way as those that did?
You seem to think turn out is relevant here, but I am not seeing why it should be considered to be so. I would suspect their split was the same as the ones who did vote, so their non-turn out is irrelevant. Or they do not give a monkeys toss one way or another about the topic AT ALL and hence their opinion.... or specifically the lack of it.... is irrelevant.
Either way..... struggling to see your approach here as anything but irrelevant.at least half of those voters would have been swayed by endless sad stories about FFA even though these cases are a tiny minority of pregnancies.
Again with your assumptions to know the minds of people based on nothing but your own desire for it to be what they think. It seems that from your perspective the thing on peoples minds is whatever most suits you, your narrative, and your agenda to be on their minds. What data we have about what was ACTUALLY on their minds appears not to be a requirement for you. Convenient I must say when it is data you actually do not seem to have.
As I said I am agog to see any data on the subject given it simply does not track even a LITTLE bit anecdotally with the people I actually did meet during the campaign on the ground and in the front lines. Where people, despite your claims, did not seem to mention the "hard cases" at all when explaining their reasons and positions on the topic of abortion.
Your ENTIRE approach to this discussion therefore so far appears to be putting words in peoples mouths, and thoughts in peoples heads, as suits yourself.Most abortions are a result if casual sex which is fuelled by alcohol and drugs
Again with the assertions without citations. Quite the trend you are forming here. Further so what? As I said before, in the post you appear to have decided to skip, dodge and ignore, when presented with a medical case it is often not a concern.... and often it should not be a concern.... how the person got into it. Your "shame on abortion by proxy to shame on my personal value judgements of how they got there" approach is a level of nanny-stateing that we simply have no requirement for.
There is a lot of people in the middle between the extremes you present however. Between the "Drunken casual sex" people and the "hard cases" there are all sorts of people you seem to not care to mention. Women who already are married with kids who can not afford or cope with more for example. Women who actually planned to get pregnant but when it happened their circumstances change dramatically.... job loss.... partner loss..... and so forth. People for who contraception simply failed. Teenagers who got pregnant not from drink or drugs but sheer ignorance. Other medical complications on the part of the mother rather than the fetus. Financial reasons. The list goes on. All not mentioned by you because they are outside your narratives and agendas. And you presume to lecture others about "shame" when carrying on in this way. Laughable.Evidence of what. The figures speak for themselves.
They might had you actually presented any. Thus far you have not, even when directly asked to.if women took responsibility and used the morning after pill they wouldnt need an abortion pill at all.
What difference is there which they take? Further how can you assume any given woman did NOT take it? Do you assume for some weird reason it is 100% effective? Also what of the people who do not take MAP because they used one or more other contraceptive methods and only 12 weeks later do they discover they failed?
You have a weird black and white narrative in relation to sex that does not even remotely seem to track with the reality around you.And now we are being told by deluded posters here that women should be proud of their abortions, a notch on their belt so to speak, yeak ok, whatever.
I just looked over the last 3 pages of this thread for the words "proud" and "pride" and can not find the posts you are referring to. Could you let me know what you are referring to here so I can check for myself? I find myself suspecting what a user actually said, and how you are painting it here, are going to turn out to be SIGNIFICANTLY different from each other.The woman is the mother and its her role to nurture her young. The bond between mother and bsby is the strongest of all human bonds.
Who are you preaching to here? Because I am not sure anyone has said anything that even remotely disagrees with any of that. The difference is between fetus and "baby" and "young" however. Words you appear intent on slipping between too easily where it suits your narrative to do so.many men will stop using condoms completely now that they dont have to worry about having to cough up for abortion.
Love the implication here that it is the men who make that choice rather than BOTH partners together. Who knows where women would be without men to look after them and make their choices for them huh? There is a user around here you would love who thinks that unwanted pregnancy is the only way to get working class women to want to better themselves and that in fact we should stop giving them social welfare or single parent allowance so they are motivated even harder.A woman who is pregnant is mother to the human being she is carrying. A tiny foetus has all thats required to develop into a human being, you can deny this reality to convince yourself that abortion isnt morally wrong.
Well you see the "reality" here is that you have just openly and happily contradicted yourself. In the first sentence you said it IS a "human being" and in the second sentence you have acknowledged it is NOT a "human being".
It is comical to see you accuse other people of denying reality when in fact they are in COMPLETE agreement with what you just said. It is just you barely seem to understand what you just said or how you just shot your own nonsense in the foot by saying it.You might succeed in convincing yourself but dont waste your time convincing other people who have a different outlook on life to you.
By all means do not bother to try to convince others of YOUR world view. But I will be the sole arbiter of how I spend my time thanks. And I invested quite a lot of it "on the ground" during the campaigns and it seems we won by a land slide and so convinces lots of people.
Maybe you guys sitting around thinking it all a "waste of time" to even bother is what helped us win. By all means.... keep it up!
However I do not need to "convince myself" abortion is not morally wrong. I just have to notice a simple fact. You and your cohort have never, even when asked directly, given me a single argument as to why I should consider it to be morally wrong. You appear to think simply CALLING it "morally wrong" does the job. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" is not one of the axioms you operate under. Some of us do.A substantial number of people who didnt vote did so because they couldnt bring themselves to vote for what they knew would happen.
YET AGAIN I have to ask you for your citations that show how you know what people think. You do not even seem to have data on what the people who DID vote think, yet somehow you claim to know what the people who did NOT vote think????
I myself did not take the "psychic" module in college. Nor was I offered the chance. I guess you got a decent grade in it?it will within five years.
And not just psychic but a fortune teller too??? Your supernatural and paranormal skills know no bounds. Your science and citations and actual data however, rather lacking.You can add thousands of voters who didnt vote to the NO voters, if people wanted abortion they would have made sure they voted.
And I can write the opposite sentence just as validly. "You can add thousands of voters who didnt vote to the YES voters, if people did not want abortion they would have made sure they voted.".
Like it or not, in many situations the choice not to vote is in itself a vote of sorts. And unless you can show ANYTHING that suggests the people who did not vote have opinions disproportionate to those that did and hence were not represented by those that did.... you are spewing hot air from an orifice not normally associated with communication.This large vite against is an indication of how concerned people are for the unborn, not all of us think they have the same worthless value as table legs.
Has someone here compared their VALUE to table legs? You might want to cite who that person was. Can't wait to see who it was in fact.
What you might find when looking for a quote that does not exist however is that someone compared their level of SENTIENCE to table legs. Which is a much different thing entirely. And is, like it or not, entirely accurate as a comparison. Bully for you.No real evidence
That is, for the first time today, at least honest! Progress of a sort!but I am involved in a few organisations, have a large family and lots of neighbours and acquaitances.
Are you aware of statistical clumping in anecdote? Where people tend to surround themselves with people who agree with them, and hence anecdotally believe more people agree with them than actually do?
Anecdote is not evidence. The plural of anecdote is not statistics. If you are basing your positions on a small clump of people you personally associate with, then you are presenting NOTHING.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Anecdote is not evidence. The plural of anecdote is not statistics. If you are basing your positions on a small clump of people you personally associate with, then you are presenting NOTHING.
the phrase is "The plural of anecdote is not data". Using data one can glean statistics.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Ah the old bait and switch dodge. You were asked to back up YOUR assertion about what most of those people think or want. Rather than step up to that demand however, you have chosen to dodge by saying attacking the opposite position which has not actually been espoused here.
Again, as per the forum charter here, can you back up your position. For posterity it was:
"Most people in Ireland do not support abortion" and ""Many people who voted to Repeal the 8th did so because of the hard cases".
Quantity "many" here for me please and cite your statistics for both statements.
So what? It was a strong turn out by the standards of any election. Do you only moan about turn out when the result does not go your way? Turnout is only relevant if you have good reason and data to think that the people who did not turn out were not significantly well represented by those that did.
Only if you assume to know what the people who did or did not turn out wuold have voted had they turned out. Again what data are you using to make any assumptions about the people who did not turn out, or that they would not be split in the same way as those that did?
You seem to think turn out is relevant here, but I am not seeing why it should be considered to be so. I would suspect their split was the same as the ones who did vote, so their non-turn out is irrelevant. Or they do not give a monkeys toss one way or another about the topic AT ALL and hence their opinion.... or specifically the lack of it.... is irrelevant.
Either way..... struggling to see your approach here as anything but irrelevant.
Again with your assumptions to know the minds of people based on nothing but your own desire for it to be what they think. It seems that from your perspective the thing on peoples minds is whatever most suits you, your narrative, and your agenda to be on their minds. What data we have about what was ACTUALLY on their minds appears not to be a requirement for you. Convenient I must say when it is data you actually do not seem to have.
As I said I am agog to see any data on the subject given it simply does not track even a LITTLE bit anecdotally with the people I actually did meet during the campaign on the ground and in the front lines. Where people, despite your claims, did not seem to mention the "hard cases" at all when explaining their reasons and positions on the topic of abortion.
Your ENTIRE approach to this discussion therefore so far appears to be putting words in peoples mouths, and thoughts in peoples heads, as suits yourself.
Again with the assertions without citations. Quite the trend you are forming here. Further so what? As I said before, in the post you appear to have decided to skip, dodge and ignore, when presented with a medical case it is often not a concern.... and often it should not be a concern.... how the person got into it. Your "shame on abortion by proxy to shame on my personal value judgements of how they got there" approach is a level of nanny-stateing that we simply have no requirement for.
There is a lot of people in the middle between the extremes you present however. Between the "Drunken casual sex" people and the "hard cases" there are all sorts of people you seem to not care to mention. Women who already are married with kids who can not afford or cope with more for example. Women who actually planned to get pregnant but when it happened their circumstances change dramatically.... job loss.... partner loss..... and so forth. People for who contraception simply failed. Teenagers who got pregnant not from drink or drugs but sheer ignorance. Other medical complications on the part of the mother rather than the fetus. Financial reasons. The list goes on. All not mentioned by you because they are outside your narratives and agendas. And you presume to lecture others about "shame" when carrying on in this way. Laughable.
They might had you actually presented any. Thus far you have not, even when directly asked to.
What difference is there which they take? Further how can you assume any given woman did NOT take it? Do you assume for some weird reason it is 100% effective? Also what of the people who do not take MAP because they used one or more other contraceptive methods and only 12 weeks later do they discover they failed?
You have a weird black and white narrative in relation to sex that does not even remotely seem to track with the reality around you.
I just looked over the last 3 pages of this thread for the words "proud" and "pride" and can not find the posts you are referring to. Could you let me know what you are referring to here so I can check for myself? I find myself suspecting what a user actually said, and how you are painting it here, are going to turn out to be SIGNIFICANTLY different from each other.
Who are you preaching to here? Because I am not sure anyone has said anything that even remotely disagrees with any of that. The difference is between fetus and "baby" and "young" however. Words you appear intent on slipping between too easily where it suits your narrative to do so.
Love the implication here that it is the men who make that choice rather than BOTH partners together. Who knows where women would be without men to look after them and make their choices for them huh? There is a user around here you would love who thinks that unwanted pregnancy is the only way to get working class women to want to better themselves and that in fact we should stop giving them social welfare or single parent allowance so they are motivated even harder.
Well you see the "reality" here is that you have just openly and happily contradicted yourself. In the first sentence you said it IS a "human being" and in the second sentence you have acknowledged it is NOT a "human being".
It is comical to see you accuse other people of denying reality when in fact they are in COMPLETE agreement with what you just said. It is just you barely seem to understand what you just said or how you just shot your own nonsense in the foot by saying it.
By all means do not bother to try to convince others of YOUR world view. But I will be the sole arbiter of how I spend my time thanks. And I invested quite a lot of it "on the ground" during the campaigns and it seems we won by a land slide and so convinces lots of people.
Maybe you guys sitting around thinking it all a "waste of time" to even bother is what helped us win. By all means.... keep it up!
However I do not need to "convince myself" abortion is not morally wrong. I just have to notice a simple fact. You and your cohort have never, even when asked directly, given me a single argument as to why I should consider it to be morally wrong. You appear to think simply CALLING it "morally wrong" does the job. I guess "innocent until proven guilty" is not one of the axioms you operate under. Some of us do.
YET AGAIN I have to ask you for your citations that show how you know what people think. You do not even seem to have data on what the people who DID vote think, yet somehow you claim to know what the people who did NOT vote think????
I myself did not take the "psychic" module in college. Nor was I offered the chance. I guess you got a decent grade in it?
And not just psychic but a fortune teller too??? Your supernatural and paranormal skills know no bounds. Your science and citations and actual data however, rather lacking.
And I can write the opposite sentence just as validly. "You can add thousands of voters who didnt vote to the YES voters, if people did not want abortion they would have made sure they voted.".
Like it or not, in many situations the choice not to vote is in itself a vote of sorts. And unless you can show ANYTHING that suggests the people who did not vote have opinions disproportionate to those that did and hence were not represented by those that did.... you are spewing hot air from an orifice not normally associated with communication.
Has someone here compared their VALUE to table legs? You might want to cite who that person was. Can't wait to see who it was in fact.
What you might find when looking for a quote that does not exist however is that someone compared their level of SENTIENCE to table legs. Which is a much different thing entirely. And is, like it or not, entirely accurate as a comparison. Bully for you.
That is, for the first time today, at least honest! Progress of a sort!
Are you aware of statistical clumping in anecdote? Where people tend to surround themselves with people who agree with them, and hence anecdotally believe more people agree with them than actually do?
Anecdote is not evidence. The plural of anecdote is not statistics. If you are basing your positions on a small clump of people you personally associate with, then you are presenting NOTHING.
Sorry, I dont engage with posters who multiquote, zzzzzzzzzzh, nods off after first quote.
If you re read the recent posts someone with very low morals equated the unborn human being with a table leg. It may have been you yourself because you claim a twelve week old foetus has the sentient of a rock. There is no further point in engaging with you on this matter, we will have to agree to disagree.
I have never heard of a rock growing and developing day by day and never considered that a rock had any human rights. I happen to think the unborn have human rights because guess what I dont think of them as a rock or a table leg. Rocks and table legs are not born of man and woman and they are what they are and will never be anything else.
I cant even believe I am entertaining you, goodbye, have a nice life.0 -
Sorry, I dont engage with posters who multiquote, zzzzzzzzzzh, nods off after first quote.
If you re read the recent posts someone with very low morals equated the unborn human being with a table leg. It may have been you yourself because you claim a twelve week old foetus has the sentient of a rock. There is no further point in engaging with you on this matter, we will have to agree to disagree.
I have never heard of a rock growing and developing day by day and never considered that a rock had any human rights. I happen to think the unborn have human rights because guess what I dont think of them as a rock or a table leg. Rocks and table legs are not born of man and woman and they are what they are and will never be anything else.
I cant even believe I am entertaining you, goodbye, have a nice life.
That is not what the post says.0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry, I dont engage with posters who multiquote, zzzzzzzzzzh, nods off after first quote.
Which given you are replying to me shows that even THAT is a lie too. It would appear nothing you are sayng is true on this thread, not even when you are talking about yourself.
But a dodge is a doge, regardless of your excuse for it.If you re read the recent posts someone with very low morals equated the unborn human being with a table leg.
Except no, they did not. You know how I know? Because it was ME. And as I said you will find I did not equate the value as you lie I did. What I did do was equate the level of sentience between them. Which is 100% accurate and not immoral at all. There is no more reason to think a fetus at 10-12 weeks sentient than there is to consider a rock or table leg sentient. Get hip to that fact, and you will make some progress here today.
So I can imagine why you do not want to further engage on it. You simply can't. Again, bully for you.I dont think of them as a rock or a table leg.
Nor do I. You need to read more carefully before you dismiss so readily.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement