Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

100cent

robindch wrote: »

Oops, my cliché detector just red-lined and assploded.

Have you considered writing for Alive?

A fine publication it is too.

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

I'll thro a fe names at you. Maybe you've heard of them.

Ivana Bacik, Clare Daly, Kitty Holland, Colm O'Gorman, Fintan O'Toole, Richard Boyd Barrett.

Among many others. Its not as if they are hiding their abortion pom poms under a bushel. They are out and proud, so to speak, on the issue.

And what is wrong with being "out and proud" in support of increasing availability of abortion services for Irish women? Is it that they are in the public eye and their views should be suppressed?

PopePalpatine

100cent wrote: »

A fine publication it is too.

And a "Deus vult" to you too. :rolleyes:

Delirium

100cent wrote: »

I'll thro a fe names at you. Maybe you've heard of them.

Ivana Bacik, Clare Daly, Kitty Holland, Colm O'Gorman, Fintan O'Toole, Richard Boyd Barrett.

Among many others. Its not as if they are hiding their abortion pom poms under a bushel. They are out and proud, so to speak, on the issue.

are you suggesting that no politican or member of Amnesty International should actively work to try improve access to abortion in Ireland?

And would you also object if they were working on behalf of the pro-life side?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

So just to clarify, abortion on any health grounds would not necessarily be a liberal abortion regime, but it would be a more liberal regime?

I'm not sure what you're trying to clarify? A more or less liberal abortion regime depends on the existing abortion regime, whether or not someone sees any of them as liberal or conservative would depend on their point of view.

keane2097

Clare Daly is a societal and political elite? Jesus wept.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're trying to clarify? A more or less liberal abortion regime depends on the existing abortion regime, whether or not someone sees any of them as liberal or conservative would depend on their point of view.

I was just trying to clarify whether abortion on health grounds was part of your use of liberal abortion, which I believe the answer is 'it depends'?

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

I was just trying to clarify whether abortion on health grounds was part of your use of liberal abortion, which I believe the answer is 'it depends'?

In the context of the original post, certainly if it were abortion on the grounds that not being pregnant is better for the health of a woman than being pregnant it would qualify. Other health grounds would probably depend on the health grounds. That established, what significance do you attach to it?

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

In the context of the original post, certainly if it were abortion on the grounds that not being pregnant is better for the health of a woman than being pregnant it would qualify. Other health grounds would probably depend on the health grounds. That established, what significance do you attach to it?

Well it goes back to the original statement made:

Absolam wrote: »

Poor old Una seems to be making the same assumption that a couple of posters here are inclined to; that everyone who supports marriage equality supports liberal abortion because the Catholic Church opposes both.

While I agree with you that the position of the Catholic Church probably has little influence over Yes voters, 87% of people do want abortion services to be expanded to cover at least some health grounds, a liberal abortion regime in respect to our current system.

I think we could both agree that the 13% opposed to expanding abortion services is not entirely made up out of people who voted Yes in the Marriage Equality referendum, but even if by some strange fluke it is, that would still leave ~80% of Yes voters in support.

So while you are right that probably not everyone who supports Marriage Equality are in support of liberal abortion, at least ~80% of them are (minimum), as well as a very significant number from the other side.

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

And what is wrong with being "out and proud" in support of increasing availability of abortion services for Irish women? Is it that they are in the public eye and their views should be suppressed?

You said you didn't know who they were. I gave you examples. I'm not sure how you infer I think theres something wrong.

100cent

Delirium wrote: »

are you suggesting that no politican or member of Amnesty International should actively work to try improve access to abortion in Ireland?

And would you also object if they were working on behalf of the pro-life side?

I refer you to my previous response in relation to the first psrt of your post.

I'm a democrat who believes in freedom of expression.

I do find it pathetic that a so called Human Rights organisation is openly advocating for the destruction of human life.

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

I was just trying to clarify whether abortion on health grounds was part of your use of liberal abortion, which I believe the answer is 'it depends'?

Would you view the UK as having a Liberal regime?

Over 200K abortions a year.

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

You said you didn't know who they were. I gave you examples. I'm not sure how you infer I think theres something wrong.

Then what is your problem with them, apart from that promote extending access to abortion services?

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

Would you view the UK as having a Liberal regime?

Over 200K abortions a year.

I personally would, yes. I hope that one day Ireland will emulate it.

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

Then what is your problem with them, apart from that promote extending access to abortion services?

There's no 'problem'.

I'm making an observation.

Seriously. Are you attempting to troll me now?

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

I personally would, yes. I hope that one day Ireland will emulate it.

I never doubted it.

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

There's no 'problem'.

I'm making an observation.

Seriously. Are you attempting to troll me now?

Referring to them as "The smoked salmon, Trinity, Irish Times, Trotskyite brigade" hints that you might have a problem with them.

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

I never doubted it.

So?

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

Referring to them as "The smoked salmon, Trinity, Irish Times, Trotskyite brigade" hints that you might have a problem with them.

They are, what they are.

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

So?

I refer you to my previous response, I never doubted it.

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

robdonn wrote: »

Referring to them as "The smoked salmon, Trinity, Irish Times, Trotskyite brigade" hints that you might have a problem with them.

They are, what they are.

They're smoked salmon?

100cent

robdonn wrote: »

They're smoked salmon?

Smoked salmon brigade.

This is getting silly now.

Kiwi in IE

Do Salmon have abortions?

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

This is getting silly now.

It really is.

robdonn

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Do Salmon have abortions?

No, but they have increased risk of stillbirths from smoking.

Kiwi in IE

Some countries advise that smoked fish (including Salmon) should not be eaten while pregnant.

robdonn

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Some countries advise that smoked fish (including Salmon) should not be eaten while pregnant.

Stupid liberals.

Delirium

100cent wrote: »

I refer you to my previous response in relation to the first psrt of your post.

I'm a democrat who believes in freedom of expression.

I do find it pathetic that a so called Human Rights organisation is openly advocating for the destruction of human life.

So you find it pathetic that they advocate for women to be able to choose to have an abortion if the foetus is found to be have a severe foetal abnormality instead of carrying the pregnancy to term to watch it die?

100cent

Delirium wrote: »

So you find it pathetic that they advocate for women to be able to choose to have an abortion if the foetus is found to be have a severe foetal abnormality instead of carrying the pregnancy to term to watch it die?

Yes.

They are ignoring the Human Right to life of that child in the womb.

robdonn

100cent wrote: »

Yes.

They are ignoring the Human Right to life of that child in the womb.

Even if that life will only last 30 minutes and involve severe suffering from birth to death?