The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

infogiver

notjustsweet wrote: »

Have you anything to contribute other than bitchy comments and constant repetitions about your issues with wording?
Genuine serious question?

Instead of the obsession with what words people use maybe have a little more empathy and caring for your fellow humans.

Probably the best thing to do is report the post you think breaks the rules and let the mods take care of it, lest you be found to be back seat modding

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Posters objected to an observable statistic that more unmarried women availed of abortion due to socioeconomic circumstances than married women. Their objection appeared to be based on their perception that I was inferring something untoward about unmarried women. I didn't make up the categories for these surveys and reports. I couldn't care less for a pregnant woman's marital status personally. It appears those posters who objected to my use of the term cared more about their perception of unmarried women who would choose to avail of an abortion than I do, and they chose to project their perceptions and preconceived ideas onto my observations.

That's not what happened at all. Your interpretation of that exchange is bizarre to say the least.

njs030

infogiver wrote: »

Probably the best thing to do is report the post you think breaks the rules and let the mods take care of it, lest you be found to be back seat modding

Oh look more assumptions. Where did I say it was rule breaking?
I said you were repetitive and lacking in empathy.
You proved the first was true and I'd no doubts about the second

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

...and more condescending prattle as you become increasingly frustrated.
Do you use that kind of patronising language in real life with people who simply don't agree with you and won't acquiesce to your demands or do you reserve it for your anonymous persona?

I said I'm not frusted by amused yet yoy read that as "increasingly frustrated"

In real life I genuinely dont know anyone who has issues akin to yours. Well I guess younger children can develop a penchant for "new" words and then struggle horribly to use them.

Outlaw Pete

eviltwin wrote: »

It's a developing baby.

So when a baby is born at 23 weeks gestation and is in an incubator, that's not a baby.. cause it's still developing? Ha.

Be honest folks, the reason you all hate the word baby is because it brings home the reality of what abortion entails and that is that it takes a human being's life. Has fcuk all to do with wanting to be scientific.

oneilla

infogiver wrote: »

It was 20 years ago. From the day I knew I was pregnant she was my baby. When I went to my ante natal check ups at Holles St starting at 18 weeks the midwives would have used the expression "have you felt baby move yet?" and subsequently "have you felt baby move much?", even though posters here who claim to work in the oby/gynae world claim that only the expression "foetus" is used.
I'm afraid no one told the midwives in Holles St that in 1997.
It strikes me that a lot of the politics of the pro abortion lobby is tied up with terminology and phrases.
For example, even though you are either "pro water charges" or "anti water charges" you cannot use the expression "pro abortion" . The lobby insists its "pro choice ".
It's not aborting a baby or even a foetus, it's "terminating a pregnancy ".
And it's definitely not a baby. The contents of my 40 week gestation womb is a foetus even though once it's travelled down the 4 or 5 inches of my vagina(sometimes quite quickly) it then becomes a baby.
It strikes me that in order to "sell" abortion to the masses, the exhausting mental gymnastics is like a strict code to make it palatable to people, and there's a level of dishonesty there that's disturbing.

I'm as pro-abortion as I am pro-kidney transplants, pro-heart surgery, pro-chemotherapy etc.

You think ending a pregnancy (ie. after implantation) is infanticide. It is not.

The comment about making abortion "palatable" in order to "sell it" is absurd and inflammatory.

oneilla

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So when a baby is born at 23 weeks gestation and is in an incubator, that's not a baby.. cause it's still developing? Ha.

Be honest folks, the reason you all hate the word baby is because it brings home the reality of what abortion entails and that is that it takes a human being's life. Has fcuk all to do with wanting to be scientific.

Skin cells are "human life". If human cloning by cells were possible then each time a woman washes her hands she takes a life. Absurd argument again Pete. Abortion is not infanticide - if you and others believed so you'd do more than post nonsensical arguments on a message board.

Outlaw Pete

oneilla wrote: »

Skin cells are "human life". If human cloning by cells were possible then each time a woman washes her hands she takes a life. Absurd argument again Pete. Abortion is not infanticide - if you and others believed so you'd do more than post nonsensical arguments on a message board.

Poor comprehension.

I said a "human being's life" - not merely 'human life' as you misquoted me as saying.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

...it takes a human being's life. Has fcuk all to do with wanting to be scientific.

Tigger

oneilla wrote: »

I'm as pro-abortion as I am pro-kidney transplants, pro-heart surgery, pro-chemotherapy etc.

You think ending a pregnancy (ie. after implantation) is infanticide. It is not.

The comment about making abortion "palatable" in order to "sell it" is absurd and inflammatory.

What is your deadline for abortion of a healthy fetus ? How many weeks in do you think it's a right for the woman and no rights for the fetus till?
See that's my stumbling block I thorough I was pro choice and I think I'm 90's pro choice but 2017 pro choice seems to think abortions should be free and available for Mach later terms than I think are appropriate

oneilla

Tigger wrote: »

What is your deadline for abortion of a healthy fetus ? How many weeks in do you think it's a right for the woman and no rights for the fetus till?
See that's my stumbling block I thorough I was pro choice and I think I'm 90's pro choice but 2017 pro choice seems to think abortions should be free and available for Mach later terms than I think are appropriate

Most abortions are earlier rather than later - abortifacient tablets can be taken ~9weeks in. Later abortions are more risky and at that point it's more down to the medical opinion rather than the woman's choice.

Deadlines are a red herring. That people focus on terms to maintain the current regime imo. proves that they don't want to argue the Catholic line that implantation = human being, not-one-sperm, and all the other daft stuff the church believes around reproductive rights.

Hotblack Desiato

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Can you define 'the unborn' please?

Not too surprisingly, I'm still waiting.

Tigger

oneilla wrote: »

Most abortions are earlier rather than later - abortifacient tablets can be taken ~9weeks in. Later abortions are more risky and at that point it's more down to the medical opinion rather than the woman's choice.

Deadlines are a red herring. That people focus on terms to maintain the current regime imo. proves that they don't want to argue the Catholic line that implantation = human being, not-one-sperm, and all the other daft stuff the church believes around reproductive rights.

I'm an atheist have been since I was about 10 and I realised god was stupid concept and I have no issue with sub 9 week abortions
I asked you what weeks you think would be the deadline for a healthy fetus. And saying deadline are a red herring is just saying no comment as I am asking outside the world of religious or other propaganda.

oneilla

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Poor comprehension.

I said a "human being's life" - not merely 'human life' as you misquoted me as saying.

Your opinion is that pregnancy is a "human being's life". You believe terminating a pregnancy is infanticide ie. murdering a baby. It's not.

Tigger

oneilla wrote: »

Your opinion is that pregnancy is a "human being's life". You believe terminating a pregnancy is infanticide ie. murdering a baby. It's not.

What if you shot a woman in the womb the day before her due date and the fetus dies
Is that the same as shooting the baby the next day after it was born or much less bad cos it seems the same to me

njs030

Tigger wrote: »

What if you shot a woman in the womb the day before her due date and the fetus dies
Is that the same as shooting the baby the next day after it was born or much less bad cos it seems the same to me

It's not in law which is what matters. She would be shot in the stomach not in "the womb" as she's still one person with one body.

njs030

Tigger wrote: »

What if you shot a woman in the womb the day before her due date and the fetus dies
Is that the same as shooting the baby the next day after it was born or much less bad cos it seems the same to me

If you shot the baby the day after it was born you wouldn't have shot the woman in the stomach anymore would you?
Or if you did it'd be two shots. Two separate people, no longer one.

Think about it.

oneilla

Tigger wrote: »

What if you shot a woman in the womb the day before her due date and the fetus dies
Is that the same as shooting the baby the next day after it was born or much less bad cos it seems the same to me

Ah yes, another abortion = infanticide red herring.

I'm not planning on shooting a woman in the womb. I'd hope neither would you.

Tigger

notjustsweet wrote: »

It's not in law which is what matters. She would be shot in the stomach not in "the womb" as she's still one person with one body.

Sorry that doesn't make any sense
Your stomach is part of your digestive system. I'll say again shot in the woman who is going to have a baby tomorrow's womb, not the stomach in the abdomen yes but not the womb.


And surely the existing law is irrelevant when discussing changing the law is it not ? I'm referring to materially or morally

Tigger

notjustsweet wrote: »

If you shot the baby the day after it was born you wouldn't have shot the woman in the stomach anymore would you?
Or if you did it'd be two shots. Two separate people, no longer one.

Think about it.

Ok you simply make no sense

njs030

Tigger wrote: »

Sorry that doesn't make any sense
Your stomach is part of your digestive system. I'll say again shot in the woman who is going to have a baby tomorrow's womb, not the stomach in the abdomen yes but not the womb.


And surely the existing law is irrelevant when discussing changing the law is it not ? I'm referring to materially or morally

Grand.

The existing law relating to murder has nothing to do with changing the 8th amendment.

It's a really weird thing to ask anyway TBH.

Tigger

oneilla wrote: »

Ah yes, another abortion = infanticide red herring.

I'm not planning on shooting a woman in the womb. I'd hope neither would you.

It's not a red herring in fact it's the principle of logic
See I see no material or moral difference in killing a viable fetus; the day before it's born or the baby it would become; the following day
So I stretched it back in time in my mind and read about life viability for fetus's that had to be delivered due to trauma to their mothers and I personally think that if a fetus can be removed from a woman because she was fatally injured and can be viable then that's a seperate life that potentially has a independent existence .
Then I started at the other end at conception; no life there no chance of it living if the mother was eliminated from its existence so where is the line?
For me it starts at the 0% chance of life marker and it's not a great hardship to have had an abortion by then for a healthy fetus
But time and time again people won't say that they agree they say it's a red herring or a falicy
Ye are as bad as the old life begins with ejaculation contraception is a sin crowd

The moderate middle voted for the same sex marriage equality with pride
We may or may not have had close friends or family that were effected by the inequality but don t assume we will vote for carte Blanche abortion on demand without discussing it with us or worse assuming our religious beliefs

Tigger

notjustsweet wrote: »

Grand.

The existing law relating to murder has nothing to do with changing the 8th amendment.

It's a really weird thing to ask anyway TBH.

Performing an abortion is murder under Irish law under the 8th in some circumstances

njs030

Tigger wrote: »

Performing an abortion is murder under Irish law under the 8th in some circumstances

Which part exactly?????

Tigger

notjustsweet wrote: »

Which part exactly?????

3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

Ben Gadot

A page of talking about theoretically shooting someone in the stomach.

Put me out of my misery and let me just vote on the subject already so I don't have to listen to the infernal ****e from both sides anymore.

pjohnson

Tigger wrote: »

What if you shot a woman in the womb the day before her due date and the fetus dies
Is that the same as shooting the baby the next day after it was born or much less bad cos it seems the same to me

No its not the same.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not too surprisingly, I'm still waiting.

I think One Eyed Jack answered you....

One eyed Jack wrote: »

"unborn”, in relation to a human life, is a reference to such a life during the period of time commencing after implantation in the womb of a woman and ending on the complete emergence of the life from the body of the woman
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2013/act/35/enacted/en/pdf

Tigger

Tigger wrote: »

Performing an abortion is murder under Irish law under the 8th in some circumstances

No it's not. Abortion is never murder in Irish law. Never.

kunst nugget

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Not too surprisingly, I'm still waiting.

I guess the unborn is the foetus equivalent of the undead so is it zombie foetuses?

eviltwin

Tigger wrote: »

Performing an abortion is murder under Irish law under the 8th in some circumstances

Sigh. No it's not. It's illegal to perform or seek an abortion here but neither party will be charged with murder. You can't murder someone who doesn't legally exist. This kind of stuff is just confusing the issue, let's stick to facts.

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

Sigh. No it's not. It's illegal to perform or seek an abortion here but neither party will be charged with murder. You can't murder someone who doesn't legally exist. This kind of stuff is just confusing the issue, let's stick to facts.

Saying it's someone who doesn't legally exist is also rather confusing the issue.... if you're sticking to facts, the fact is the unborn has a legal existence underpinned by the Constitution and expressed in Irish law. The fact is that intentional destruction of unborn human life carries a penalty of up to fourteen years imprisonment; a convicted murderer will serve about eighteen years in Ireland, so not a huge difference in that regard.

eviltwin

Absolam wrote: »

Saying it's someone who doesn't legally exist is also rather confusing the issue.... if you're sticking to facts, the fact is the unborn has a legal existence underpinned by the Constitution and expressed in Irish law. The fact is that intentional destruction of unborn human life carries a penalty of up to fourteen years imprisonment; a convicted murderer will serve about eighteen years in Ireland, so not a huge difference in that regard.

They are not given the same rights as the individual though. They have the right to life but taking that life is not murder. The fourteen years has been established as being to protect women from backstreet abortionists who may profit from offering services, it's extremely unlikely any woman having an abortion here would serve anything like that and probably wouldn't even go to prison. We may be a country that sees abortion as taking a life but we still don't see it as on a par with murder.

B0jangles

infogiver wrote: »

It was 20 years ago. From the day I knew I was pregnant she was my baby. When I went to my ante natal check ups at Holles St starting at 18 weeks the midwives would have used the expression "have you felt baby move yet?" and subsequently "have you felt baby move much?", even though posters here who claim to work in the oby/gynae world claim that only the expression "foetus" is used.
I'm afraid no one told the midwives in Holles St that in 1997.
It strikes me that a lot of the politics of the pro abortion lobby is tied up with terminology and phrases.
For example, even though you are either "pro water charges" or "anti water charges" you cannot use the expression "pro abortion" . The lobby insists its "pro choice ".
It's not aborting a baby or even a foetus, it's "terminating a pregnancy ".
And it's definitely not a baby. The contents of my 40 week gestation womb is a foetus even though once it's travelled down the 4 or 5 inches of my vagina(sometimes quite quickly) it then becomes a baby.
It strikes me that in order to "sell" abortion to the masses, the exhausting mental gymnastics is like a strict code to make it palatable to people, and there's a level of dishonesty there that's disturbing.

Thank you for responding but those aren't actually answers to the 2 questions I asked, which were:

B0jangles wrote: »

-When you were pregnant infogiver , did you tell people ' I have a baby' or would you have said 'i'm expecting a baby'?
-Did you call yourself a 'mother' or an 'expectant mother'?

I think we can all agree that it is colloquially understandable for an expectant mother and those around her to refer to the foetus she is carrying as a baby because we all understand that until that foetus reaches viability it's not actually a fully-formed baby because it is incapable of surviving outside the womb. We understand that the hope and plan is for the pregnancy to continue until this stage is reached and the baby is born.

To make an analogy, some friends of mine are currently building a house - whenever I see them, I ask "how's the house coming along?"

The 'house' currently consists of a building site centered on a structure consisting of three foot-high block walls. It is objectively not a house yet, but in casual conversation we refer to it as such because the end result of the ongoing process is that a house will be built. I would not ask them 'why haven't you moved into your house yet?' because that would be ridiculous, the house doesn't exist in a practical and functional sense yet.

I hesitate to ascribe ulterior motives to strangers online, but it appears to me that your total inability to acknowledge that this is simply a function of how colloquial language works rather than some kind of fundamental truth about what occurs during the nine months of pregnancy is an attempt to pretend that a slow-moving and complex process is actually highly simplistic black-and-white terms - i.e egg+sperm=baby!

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

They are not given the same rights as the individual though. They have the right to life but taking that life is not murder. The fourteen years has been established as being to protect women from backstreet abortionists who may profit from offering services, it's extremely unlikely any woman having an abortion here would serve anything like that and probably wouldn't even go to prison. We may be a country that sees abortion as taking a life but we still don't see it as on a par with murder.

None of that supports your assertion that they don't legally exist does it? In fact, it all pretty much amounts to the fact that you are patently aware of their legal existence but elected to deny it nonetheless....

infogiver

pjohnson wrote: »

I said I'm not frusted by amused yet yoy read that as "increasingly frustrated"

In real life I genuinely dont know anyone who has issues akin to yours. Well I guess younger children can develop a penchant for "new" words and then struggle horribly to use them.

You don't know any pro life people? Wow! You need to get out a bit more, or maybe you'd meet more people if you stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they're stupid....

volchitsa

infogiver wrote: »

You don't know any pro life people? Wow! You need to get out a bit more, or maybe you'd meet more people if you stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they're stupid....

You realize that's not what the poster said, right?

Although since you have mentioned pro life, I will say that I know several pro life people in real life, but none who are strongly prolife without also being religious.

In fact IME strength of prolife feeling correlates strongly to religious practice. In real life that is. Which is why I find it hard to credit that there are so many anonymous posters who claim to be non religious but strongly prolife. Where are those people in the Irish media and in everyday life? Nowhere to be seen.

It's almost like they're exploiting the anonymity of the Internet to "create" a class of people that doesn't actually exist.

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

I hesitate to ascribe ulterior motives to strangers online, but it appears to me that your total inability to acknowledge that this is simply a function of how colloquial language works rather than some kind of fundamental truth about what occurs during the nine months of pregnancy is an attempt to pretend that a slow-moving and complex process is actually highly simplistic black-and-white terms - i.e egg+sperm=baby!

I don't think at all that you hesitate to ascribe ulterior motives to strangers online (I don't either when I have a rational basis for doing so), but your insistence upon using medical terminology outside of a medical context is actually far more telling of your own appeals to linguistic simplicity, than acknowledging that in an online forum, colloquial terminology is actually far more appropriate than medical terminology.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

You realize that's not what the poster said, right?
Although since you have mentioned pro life, I will say that I know several pro life people in real life, but none who are strongly prolife without also being religious.
In fact IME strength of prolife feeling correlates strongly to religious practice. In real life that is. Which is why I find it hard to credit that there are so many anonymous posters who claim to be non religious but strongly prolife. Where are those people in the Irish media and in everyday life? Nowhere to be seen.
It's almost like they're exploiting the anonymity of the Internet to "create" a class of people that doesn't actually exist.

Because that will lull the pro-choice camp into some sort of false sense of security somehow? I'm not sure there's any real reason for someone to pretend to be pro life and irreligious; if their position is based on their religion then they're going to be as forthright about the rest of their religious views as they are about abortion.

I think it's far more likely that some people simply can't understand that someone who isn't religious doesn't agree with them, so rather than try and understand that, they find a way to pretend that they don't really exist at all. Because that's much easier.

infogiver

volchitsa wrote: »

You realize that's not what the poster said, right?

Although since you have mentioned pro life, I will say that I know several pro life people in real life, but none who are strongly prolife without also being religious.

In fact IME strength of prolife feeling correlates strongly to religious practice. In real life that is. Which is why I find it hard to credit that there are so many anonymous posters who claim to be non religious but strongly prolife. Where are those people in the Irish media and in everyday life? Nowhere to be seen.

It's almost like they're exploiting the anonymity of the Internet to "create" a class of people that doesn't actually exist.

You realise that this poster has answered every post of mine to tell me how stupid and immature I am simply because I don't agree with him or her, right?
Are you denying that there are pro life atheists groups, pro life LGBT groups?
I mean you do fervently believe that I only believe abortion is wrong because the spaghetti monster in the sky told me in a 2000 year old book, is that not right?
You don't accept at all that I might have decided for myself that the contents of my pregnant womb is a life with a beating heart that deserves to be given a chance to be born?
I am allowing you to make up your mind after giving the matter due consideration, that it isn't a life separate to its mothers life, but you don't want to allow me to reach a different conclusion after the same consideration.
You want to insist that I would reach the same conclusion as you were it not for the interference of the bishop.
Why is that?
BTW I am a Catholic and I would feel the same if I weren't. Your going to have to allow people to disagree with your standpoint without pointing out to them that they have no independent thought because of their religious beliefs

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

You realize that's not what the poster said, right?

Although since you have mentioned pro life, I will say that I know several pro life people in real life, but none who are strongly prolife without also being religious.

In fact IME strength of prolife feeling correlates strongly to religious practice. In real life that is. Which is why I find it hard to credit that there are so many anonymous posters who claim to be non religious but strongly prolife. Where are those people in the Irish media and in everyday life? Nowhere to be seen.

It's almost like they're exploiting the anonymity of the Internet to "create" a class of people that doesn't actually exist.

I'm not surprised you haven't met anyone who is the opposite of your own anti-religious, pro-choice feverence. I have no doubt they're well aware of your views and choose not to entertain you, offline at least.

pjohnson

infogiver wrote: »

You don't know any pro life people? Wow! You need to get out a bit more, or maybe you'd meet more people if you stop telling anyone who disagrees with you that they're stupid....

I do know people who are pro life. I meant I dont know people who actively argue that their opinion is more valid (and proven by citing Professor Serena Williams) than science. Haha.

Edit: Nor do I know anyone who has such a hilarious skill at misinterpreting what people say. You seemed certain I was upset at having to try teaching you last night despite my telling you otherwise.

B0jangles

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think at all that you hesitate to ascribe ulterior motives to strangers online (I don't either when I have a rational basis for doing so), but your insistence upon using medical terminology outside of a medical context is actually far more telling of your own appeals to linguistic simplicity, than acknowledging that in an online forum, colloquial terminology is actually far more appropriate than medical terminology.

Are you sure you meant to quote my post? I only ask because this response doesn't relate in any meaningful way to what I said.

Tigger

Why will no one answer the question of; if you want abortion available then till what age of gestation do you think it's ok to abort a viable fetus. The only answer i get given is that most abortions (no idea where or when just most) are before 9 weeks. This is like asking how much should be too much to drink befor you drive and getting most people drink less than a pint.
Why won't people answer.
Do they think they are debating by deliberately missing the point or hat they are clever by being abusive or dismissive?

One eyed Jack

B0jangles wrote: »

Are you sure you meant to quote my post? I only ask because this response doesn't relate in any meaningful way to what I said.

It does, because you refuse to acknowledge that other people may speak in whatever context they choose, and they are still just as correct as you are. If you insist upon using the term 'foetus', then one has to assume you're speaking in a medical context, which is entirely irrelevant in terms of the 8th amendment, because the 8th amendment and rights, and perceived rights, are all formed in a legal context, where the term used to refer to human life in a legal context is "the unborn", and that applies not just in Irish law, but also in international law.

I'm also hesitant when I meet people who say "we're pregnant". But I'm not going to insist they stop using terms that suit them. I can still work with that, bizarre and all as it may be.

One eyed Jack

pjohnson wrote: »

I'd imagine he meant to quote mine. Pro Life people in failure to fully read shocker. Still incorrect since I do know pro life people. They just tend to be my own age and are actually educated up as far as Leaving Cert biology.

If I were in your position, I'd be keeping shtum about other people's ability to read, let alone be crowing about your level of education.

Samsgirl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It does, because you refuse to acknowledge that other people may speak in whatever context they choose, and they are still just as correct as you are. If you insist upon using the term 'foetus', then one has to assume you're speaking in a medical context, which is entirely irrelevant in terms of the 8th amendment, because the 8th amendment and rights, and perceived rights, are all formed in a legal context, where the term used to refer to human life in a legal context is "the unborn", and that applies not just in Irish law, but also in international law.

I'm also hesitant when I meet people who say "we're pregnant". But I'm not going to insist they stop using terms that suit them. I can still work with that, bizarre and all as it may be.

I used the term foetus and I'm not speaking in medical terms. My first child was referred to as cletus the foetus until she was born.

pjohnson

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If I were in your position, I'd be keeping shtum about other people's ability to read, let alone be crowing about your level of education.

And whys that?

One eyed Jack

Samsgirl wrote: »

I used the term foetus and I'm not speaking in medical terms. My first child was referred to as cletus the foetus until she was born.

I did say though -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But I'm not going to insist they stop using terms that suit them. I can still work with that, bizarre and all as it may be.

But what Bojangles appears to be doing is insisting that infogiver is using incorrect terminology. She isn't.

volchitsa

infogiver wrote: »

You realise that this poster has answered every post of mine to tell me how stupid and immature I am simply because I don't agree with him or her, right?
Are you denying that there are pro life atheists groups, pro life LGBT groups?
I mean you do fervently believe that I only believe abortion is wrong because the spaghetti monster in the sky told me in a 2000 year old book, is that not right?
You don't accept at all that I might have decided for myself that the contents of my pregnant womb is a life with a beating heart that deserves to be given a chance to be born?
I am allowing you to make up your mind after giving the matter due consideration, that it isn't a life separate to its mothers life, but you don't want to allow me to reach a different conclusion after the same consideration.
You want to insist that I would reach the same conclusion as you were it not for the interference of the bishop.
Why is that?
BTW I am a Catholic and I would feel the same if I weren't. Your going to have to allow people to disagree with your standpoint without pointing out to them that they have no independent thought because of their religious beliefs

Since I haven't done any of that, I'm rather puzzled by the vehemence of your reply.

I'm pointing out a difference between how people present themselves online and in real life. And as for the idea that they might be being dishonest about their views in real life and more truthful here, that's possible of course, but it doesn't explain why not a single prominent prolife spokesperson in Ireland is overtly atheist.

So the fact that the prolife people I know in real life tend to be religious, and the named, i.e. non anonymous prolife speakers in the Irish media are also religious is what makes it hard to believe that so many anonymous prolife posters really as as atheist as they claim to be.

Samsgirl

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I did say though -





But what Bojangles appears to be doing is insisting that infogiver is using incorrect terminology. She isn't.

I think that argument works both ways. Infogiver uses whatever terminology suits her argument.