The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

NuMarvel

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never made that claim, don't expect me to defend something I never claimed in the first place.

Saying this was an either/or situation is exactly what you said:

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...in a society of finite resources, we can either give more resources and support to one or the other, and if we give resources and support to one, then there are either none, or fewer available for the other...

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Oh right, no, I never claimed we couldn't deal with them, I'm suggesting, and have suggested all throughout this thread and the many threads that came before it, that we wouldn't.

And you've given nothing to back up that suggestion, so I see no reason as to why it should be given any consideration.

But even if you were right, given that we're already not properly dealing with those issues, the worst case scenario of removing the abortion ban is that the status quo would continue. At the very least, we'd be no worse off, and there would be nothing stopping us changing our approach in the future.

So, in summary;
1 - Removing the abortion ban doesn't stop us addressing socioeconomic issues.
2 - There's a suggestion that removing the ban means we won't address these issues, but a) we're not presently addressing those issues anyway, and b) there's nothing to back up this suggestion in the first place.
3 - The logical outcome is that removing the abortion ban won't have any negative outcomes on addressing socioeconomic issues.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Best not to try and conflate the two things as though abortion would actually make any difference to the numbers of people living in socioeconomic poverty.

I never said anything about that so, of the two of us, the only one conflating the issues is you. In fact, I've been quite clear that the issues can be dealt with separately.

pilly

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, no I don't? I understand that she doesn't want either, but given that one outcome is at least inevitable, obviously she has reasons why she wants to avoid the inevitable, and the most common reasons given are socioeconomic reasons. Tackle the underlying socioeconomic reasons and then you change the inevitable outcome.





Their liberal regime for one thing. I also don't agree with you that they have an extremely well run family centred society but that's entirely a matter of perspective. I don't imagine we're ever likely to see eye to eye on what we consider to be an extremely well run family centred society, but I would say that Ireland is a lot closer to that ideal from my perspective at least, than Sweden will ever be.

No, you don't change the inevitable outcome though Jack, no amount of money or supports would encourage me to have another child if I accidentally got pregnant, full stop.

There are also women who never want to have a child and given that contraception is at best 99% reliable chance are high that they will get pregnant once in a lifetime.

Okay I will concede that there are cases whereby better/cheaper childcare, more maternity/paternity leave etc. would help prevent abortion it doesn't lead to the big leap you're making that everyone who doesn't want to have an abortion and doesn't want to be pregnant can be enticed into thinking pregnancy is the better option.

I'm not sure where you get your idea of Swedish society from but I get it from my brother who lives there. They get completely free childcare from birth, his wife was fully paid during her maternity leave and he got a years paternity leave also. That's where I'm coming from, I would certainly call that family centred. How you think Ireland is better than that with 2 years free childcare for a half day during school terms is beyond me.

If by liberal regime you mean they allow abortion well that's one we'll have to agree to disagree on.

suicide_circus

Abortions will have to free for all of for none. If it's means tested the state will be accused of social engineering and genocide of the poor.

Odhinn

splinter65 wrote: »

In a report a posted earlier in the thread, when ladies arranging to have an abortion in the state of Minnesota for example where asked to pick from around 15 options as to why they were terminatIng, 68% picked “inconvenient”.
In some states it was higher.

You wouldn't happen to have a source for that, would you?

splinter65

NuMarvel wrote: »

I saw someone claim that in 92% of abortions, women had ticked Inconvenient, but they never provided the report they were referencing and the material they did provide didn't include Inconvenient as a reason at all. It was a judgement the article's author made which the poster then repeated as fact while also misattributing the source.

It was myself posted the report.
I actually posted it twice. If you look back through my posts on this thread you will see it.
Minnesota was an example I gave as lots of ladies seemed willing to complete the form, which wasn’t compulsory.
It makes interesting reading.

Odhinn

splinter65 wrote: »

It was myself posted the report.
I actually posted it twice. If you look back through my posts on this thread you will see it.
Minnesota was an example I gave as lots of ladies seemed willing to complete the form, which wasn’t compulsory.
It makes interesting reading.

I'm looking at the results from minnesota and there is no "incovenient" option to select. The highest percentile is for "do not want children now". You might tell me where to find what you were looking at

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

ohnonotgmail

splinter65 wrote: »

It was myself posted the report.
I actually posted it twice. If you look back through my posts on this thread you will see it.
Minnesota was an example I gave as lots of ladies seemed willing to complete the form, which wasn’t compulsory.
It makes interesting reading.

except none of the women selected inconvenience as the reason because inconvenience was not offered as an option. Inconvenience was the term used by the website you linked to. Perhaps agenda driven. the actiual options were

elective
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
--economic
--to avoid adjusting life
--mother single or in poor relationship
--enough children already
--sex selection
--selective reduction 98.3% (87-99 %)
--? (32 %)
--30% (25-40 %)
--? (16 %)
--? (12-13 %)
--? (4-8 %)
--0.1% (<0.1-? %)
--0.1% (<0.1-0.4 %)
the original link is http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

splinter65

Odhinn wrote: »

You wouldn't happen to have a source for that, would you?

Yes it was in a report I posted twice earlier in this thread Odhinn
You just need to go back over my recent posts in this thread.
Very interesting reading.

One eyed Jack

NuMarvel wrote: »

Saying this was an either/or situation is exactly what you said:

That wasn't what I never said I claimed. This is what I never said I claimed -

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm stating that your claim that access to abortion takes away from other services is wrong.

I never said abortion takes away from other services, I said in a society of finite resources, if we give more to one than the other, then we don't give the same amount of resources to the other. You might think I'm being picky, but if you didn't misinterpret what I said in the first place, I wouldn't have to be so picky.

And you've given nothing to back up that suggestion, so I see no reason as to why it should be given any consideration.

I've given plenty to back it up earlier in the thread, but just as you didn't give it any consideration then, I don't expect you would give it any consideration now even if I were to repeat myself, so if you're not going to waste your time, I'm sure as hell not going to waste my time.

But even if you were right, given that we're already not properly dealing with those issues, the worst case scenario of removing the abortion ban is that the status quo would continue. At the very least, we'd be no worse off, and there would be nothing stopping us changing our approach in the future.

That's your bar for social progress? "At least we're no worse off". Well, I'm not afraid to say it but that's a bit shìt tbh, I expect better for future generations tbh, and I expect that preparation to have started already, not at some indistinct point in the future when we look back on our past and say "Jaysis, they treated poor people like shìt back then, didn't they?".

So, in summary;
1 - Removing the abortion ban doesn't stop us addressing socioeconomic issues.
2 - There's a suggestion that removing the ban means we won't address these issues, but a) we're not presently addressing those issues anyway, and b) there's nothing to back up this suggestion in the first place.
3 - The logical outcome is that removing the abortion ban won't have any negative outcomes on addressing socioeconomic issues.

It obviously does if the best you can say is "Well, at least we're not any worse", we are, and I've posted evidence to demonstrate that we are only repeating past mistakes in thinking abortion is a solution to anything.

I never said anything about that so, of the two of us, the only one conflating the issues is you. In fact, I've been quite clear that the issues can be dealt with separately.

I thought you weren't conflating them, which is why when you referred to the issues we have "in spades", I thought you were referring to the number of abortions carried out abroad in any given year, but then you corrected me and suggested you were conflating them -

NuMarvel wrote: »

Nice try, but I was referring to the social and economic issues that you're claiming we couldn't deal with if we allowed access to abortion, and I'm pointing out that we've had a ban on abortion for nearly 160 years yet we still have these issues.

And as I already corrected you on, I'm not saying that we couldn't deal with them, I'm suggesting that we wouldn't, and we would have even less motivation to do so were our laws relating to abortion ever broadened in this country, because people tend to prefer short term solutions, and in desperate situations, desperate people tend to prefer even shorter term solutions, not so much an issue if you're well-educated and wealthy enough that your issue is the undesirable sight of undesirable people.

Epitome of first world problems that is :pac:


Anyway, I'll leave it there for now until this thread cycles back around again, and by then I might just be motivated to find the evidence I presented in the thread already.

NuMarvel

splinter65 wrote: »

It was myself posted the report.
I actually posted it twice. If you look back through my posts on this thread you will see it.
Minnesota was an example I gave as lots of ladies seemed willing to complete the form, which wasn’t compulsory.
It makes interesting reading.

You linked to the same material that the other poster linked to. So the point I made about his post applies to yours as well, namely that inconvenience is an opinion formed by the writer of that article and it's not an option offered to women who are having an abortion in Minnesota or anywhere else.

Odhinn

splinter65 wrote: »

Yes it was in a report I posted twice earlier in this thread Odhinn
You just need to go back over my recent posts in this thread.
Very interesting reading.

The only report I found that you linked was the one I have above and nowhere in the options for minnesota is the option "inconvenient" offered. Could you please link to the report you're referrring to?

dr.fuzzenstein

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I never said abortion takes away from other services, I said in a society of finite resources, if we give more to one than the other, then we don't give the same amount of resources to the other. You might think I'm being picky, but if you didn't misinterpret what I said in the first place, I wouldn't have to be so picky.

Zubeneschamali

The entire thread is very tiresome, since even the "pro-life" posters are mostly in favour of an abortion regime which requires that we repeal the 8th, and are arguing about entirely different matters, like what socio-economic reasons a woman might have for an elective abortion.

This is entirely beside the point. First we have to repeal the 8th.

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

1) A fetus that is in no way a sentient entity is a "human life" in taxonomy terms alone, and little else. There is nothing wrong with terminating it therefore that I can see. And what peoples reasons are for doing so should therefore be none of your business at all. Let alone to "validate" anything.

it is a life with the potential to be sentient. therefore deciding life based on sentients alone is not valid in this instance.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

2) Sentience should be the point when arbitrary reasons for ending the life of another are no longer relevant. At this point there is a valid basis for concerning oneself morally and ethically with the well being of the entity involved.

in the case of brain death where one is not going to recover, yes . that point is valid. however in the case of the unborn where sentients is likely, then sentients cannot be the reason for ending the life being no longer valid, pre-sentients has to be the reason, hence we cannot allow abortion on demand within the state.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then don't. No one, that I can see anyway, is demanding that you do. There is no reason you should feel compelled to do it. But YOUR abhorrence to that choice is not a valid basis for claiming no one else should be making it. And it would be nice to live in a world where people wishing to prevent other people from doing something, could put together a coherent reason for that other than the usual cop out I hear of "I have a right to my opinion/vote".

the fact that it is a life which will become sentient is absolutely a reason to prevent abortion on demand from happening within the irish state.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except the options available to them SHOULD be different and are. That is the topic of the entire thread. Abortion should be an option one has, and the other does not. And it IS an option one has, and the other has not. The issue is just the pointless and damaging geographic and economic lengths they have to go to to avail of it when it could be offered here ethically and relatively safely in a way that is cheaper and easier for the people concerned.

it cannot be offered here ethically, as there is nothing ethical about abortion on demand. there is no good reason why it should be offered within the irish state, when those who really want it can already avail of it if they really wish to.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except "Human life" can mean many things in many contexts. And your pretense that this is not so is not going to make all those meanings go away. A fetus at, say, 12 weeks is "Human life" in terms of taxonomy alone really. The same can not be said about, say, a toddler.

Your whole point on this thread seems a fabricated narrative based on pretending the catch all term "human life" is equally applicable in all contexts. But it really isn't and I doubt many are fooled by it except, possibly, yourself as I genuinely can not tell if you are trying to fool WITH that move or have yourself been fooled BY that move. Or both.

human life is human life. that is indisputable fact. that human life will become sentient and therefore has the right to be protected.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And you have been told, and has this thread, many times what possible answers there are to that question. And my own answer, I have said 100s of times before, is that the moment we have solid reason to believe the fetus is a sentient agent....... we need more that arbitrary reasons to terminate it as it should have the same core right to life as any other sentient agent typifying it's species.

and as has been said that isn't valid as sentients has to come from pre-sentients. therefore pre-sentients has to be given the same protection to allow for sentients to happen so that the would be sentient can become sentient.

pilly

Oh it's back. FFS, was actually beginning to enjoy the conversation there for a while.

pilly

I can be bothered quoting long posts because it pisses everyone off but this sentence in particular has to be given special mention as the biggest load of crap I've seen posted on this subject yet, a 4 year old could do better.

"and as has been said that isn't valid as sentients has to come from pre-sentients. therefore pre-sentients has to be given the same protection to allow for sentients to happen so that the would be sentient can become sentient. "

In fact it's like a 4 year old going "yeah but no but yeah".

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

end of the road

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You are being deliberately ignorant now. What do you propose, we set up euthanasia stations to dispose of grown, sentient children we no longer want?

A bunch of cells, mere weeks old, in the womb are not comparable to developed, grown, sentient human being.

he is not being one bit ignorant. his question is legitimate.
if it's okay to kill the unborn because of affordability, then what should happen to the born should the parents find they are no longer affordible. ultimately his question proves that affordability does not constitute reason for abortion being availible within the irish state.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Have you ever tried to live off thin air? Its quite difficult. We need money for shelter and clothing and food and healthcare and education and to a lesser extent, transport.
Those, at a minimum, are needed to live a comfortable life.
If you aren't financially stable enough to provide those things for yourself AND for another little person (never mind children you may already have), living a comfortable life would be very difficult and stressful.
Rather than impose a life of poverty on a child, some choose abortion.

I vaguely see the point you are making about living children. But there is no such thing as abortion for children who are already born. In any country. Anywhere in the world. So its irrelevant. We are discussing aborting weeks-old pregnancies, not grown children. There is a massive difference.

to be fair, in terms of the poster's question, there actually is no difference.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

The point is completely flying over your head, you are being intentionally obtuse.

his posts are very simple and easy to understand. if it's okay to kill the unborn because of affordability, then what should happen to the born if the parents are unable to afford them down the line?

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Affordability is just ONE of many reasons a woman may want an abortion.

yes it is a reason, but not a valid one given that rightly, we don't kill the born because of unaffordability.

pilly

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

As soon as you get that twinkle in your eye according to some.

dr.fuzzenstein

end of the road wrote: »

it is a life with the potential to be sentient. therefore deciding life based on sentients alone is not valid in this instance.

My sperm has the potential to be sentient life. Should I therefore bottle it and protect it?
Technically masturbating is a mortal sin, no different than abortion. If you really want to follow your logic to it's logical conclusion, it should be illegal to have a ****. It should be classed as abortion.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Odhinn

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

My sperm has the potential to be sentient life. Should I therefore bottle it and protect it?
Technically masturbating is a mortal sin, no different than abortion. If you really want to follow your logic to it's logical conclusion, it should be illegal to have a ****. It should be classed as abortion.

We're back at the classics, I see

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Odhinn

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Damn you, damn you to hell......

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You might want to enter into discussion with our meat industry then, as it does it daily. You might also want to take issue with the farming industry who do it also every day through the use of pesticides and insecticides.

When you are done there, you might go to the paper industry, who are killing trees every day. After that the medical industry who use anti-biotics to end the lives of millions of bacteria in a holocaust of numbers beyond your imagination.

Or instead you could get over the notion that "ending a life of another" is as bad as you think, and that the thing that makes "ending a life" bad in this world happens to be a thing the fetus being terminated lacks not just slightly, but ENTIRELY.

the problem here is that this is all irrelevant as the poster is talking about human life (mind you he could have made that clear)

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

it is an option availible to them already though if they really really feel they want it. i don't see why the state should make it availible. local after care, sure, that should be availible as it can be necessary but the abortion itself doesn't need to be availible within the state unless it is in extreme circumstances, for which we rightly do have it availible.

dr.fuzzenstein wrote: »

My sperm has the potential to be sentient life. Should I therefore bottle it and protect it?
Technically masturbating is a mortal sin, no different than abortion. If you really want to follow your logic to it's logical conclusion, it should be illegal to have a ****. It should be classed as abortion.

masturbating is not a sin for a start, nor is it abortion. so your point isn't valid.

NuMarvel wrote: »

And this can be done while also repealing the Eighth and legislating for increased access to abortion. In the same way, more can be done to improve sex education and access to contraception while also repealing the Eighth and legislating for increased access to abortion.

These aren't either/or situations, both can be done simultaneously, and no one has even hinted that socio-economic issues shouldn’t be addressed. Indeed, you’ll find that pro-choice groups like the NCWI and Amnesty have a history of campaigning on socio-economic issues, whereas anti-repeal groups like Iona don’t.

we can't give the resources to reduce abortions and legislate for abortions. the reality is once we legislate for abortions there would be no incentive to improve the systems we have. in fact, it is highly likely that it may lead to the services getting worse as government decides abortion is the solution to all of the problems. the uk have effectively done that for example. legislating for abortion and improving the systems aren't compatible. i completely agree in terms of sex education and contraception however, those shoudl be availible, contraception being free.

Zubeneschamali

end of the road wrote: »

masturbating is not a sin for a start, nor is it abortion.

Say what???

Or is this another in your long line of attempts to pretend your pro-life views are not Roman Catholic in origin?

sondagefaux

end of the road wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

1) A fetus that is in no way a sentient entity is a "human life" in taxonomy terms alone, and little else. There is nothing wrong with terminating it therefore that I can see. And what peoples reasons are for doing so should therefore be none of your business at all. Let alone to "validate" anything.

it is a life with the potential to be sentient. therefore deciding life based on sentients alone is not valid in this instance.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

2) Sentience should be the point when arbitrary reasons for ending the life of another are no longer relevant. At this point there is a valid basis for concerning oneself morally and ethically with the well being of the entity involved.

in the case of brain death where one is not going to recover, yes . that point is valid. however in the case of the unborn where sentients is likely, then sentients cannot be the reason for ending the life being no longer valid, pre-sentients has to be the reason, hence we cannot allow abortion on demand within the state.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Then don't. No one, that I can see anyway, is demanding that you do. There is no reason you should feel compelled to do it. But YOUR abhorrence to that choice is not a valid basis for claiming no one else should be making it. And it would be nice to live in a world where people wishing to prevent other people from doing something, could put together a coherent reason for that other than the usual cop out I hear of "I have a right to my opinion/vote".

the fact that it is a life which will become sentient is absolutely a reason to prevent abortion on demand from happening within the irish state.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except the options available to them SHOULD be different and are. That is the topic of the entire thread. Abortion should be an option one has, and the other does not. And it IS an option one has, and the other has not. The issue is just the pointless and damaging geographic and economic lengths they have to go to to avail of it when it could be offered here ethically and relatively safely in a way that is cheaper and easier for the people concerned.

it cannot be offered here ethically, as there is nothing ethical about abortion on demand. there is no good reason why it should be offered within the irish state, when those who really want it can already avail of it if they really wish to.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except "Human life" can mean many things in many contexts. And your pretense that this is not so is not going to make all those meanings go away. A fetus at, say, 12 weeks is "Human life" in terms of taxonomy alone really. The same can not be said about, say, a toddler.

Your whole point on this thread seems a fabricated narrative based on pretending the catch all term "human life" is equally applicable in all contexts. But it really isn't and I doubt many are fooled by it except, possibly, yourself as I genuinely can not tell if you are trying to fool WITH that move or have yourself been fooled BY that move. Or both.

human life is human life. that is indisputable fact. that human life will become sentient and therefore has the right to be protected.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And you have been told, and has this thread, many times what possible answers there are to that question. And my own answer, I have said 100s of times before, is that the moment we have solid reason to believe the fetus is a sentient agent....... we need more that arbitrary reasons to terminate it as it should have the same core right to life as any other sentient agent typifying it's species.

and as has been said that isn't valid as sentients has to come from pre-sentients. therefore pre-sentients has to be given the same protection to allow for sentients to happen so that the would be sentient can become sentient.

If we have to protect potentially sentient life, my toenail clippings should be saved. After all, human DNA could be extracted from them and potentially used to clone me.

If I have one cent to my name, can I call myself a potential billionaire?

end of the road

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Say what???

Or is this another in your long line of attempts to pretend your pro-life views are not Roman Catholic in origin?

i don't need to pretend anything. i'm not roman catholic or any other religion. my pro-life views are my own.

sondagefaux wrote: »

If we have to protect potentially sentient life, my toenail clippings should be saved. After all, human DNA could be extracted from them and potentially used to clone me.

cloneing isn't availible in ireland or most of the world, and won't be for a long time yet so your point is invalid

pitifulgod

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Say what???

Or is this another in your long line of attempts to pretend your pro-life views are not Roman Catholic in origin?

When did Catholicism become okay with masturbating? 😂

Doctor Jimbob

end of the road wrote: »

i don't need to pretend anything. i'm not roman catholic or any other religion. my pro-life views are my own.



cloneing isn't availible in ireland or most of the world, and won't be for a long time yet so your point is invalid

Potential being the key word there. Cloning doesn't have to be currently available for the potential to exist.

sondagefaux

end of the road wrote: »

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Say what???

Or is this another in your long line of attempts to pretend your pro-life views are not Roman Catholic in origin?

i don't need to pretend anything. i'm not roman catholic or any other religion. my pro-life views are my own.

sondagefaux wrote: »

If we have to protect potentially sentient life, my toenail clippings should be saved. After all, human DNA could be extracted from them and potentially used to clone me.

cloneing isn't availible in ireland or most of the world, and won't be for a long time yet so your point is invalid

You said that potential life should be preserved. There is plenty of evidence that human cloning is potentially available in the near future. Therefore, the logic of your own position dictates that toenail clippings be preserved for potential future cloning. Same goes for all human tissue, waste or bodily excretions containing DNA: snot, semen etc.

end of the road

sondagefaux wrote: »

You said that potential life should be preserved. There is plenty of evidence that human cloning is potentially available in the near future. Therefore, the logic of your own position dictates that toenail clippings be preserved for potential future cloning. Same goes for all human tissue, waste or bodily excretions containing DNA: snot, semen etc.

my position doesn't dictate anything of the sort. i can see how one may try to think it does, given they are looking for any old thing to try and discredit the pro-life argument, something they are unable to do.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

frag420

Why do you keep ignoring my questions EOTR?

Are you waiting for someone else to step in first to give you some ammo to reply with? Man the hell up....

Il ask again, do you personally have sex purely for procreation purposes or do you ever have sex recreationally for the fun of it?

Da Boss

News flash- it is possible to be pro life and not catholic!! I happen to be both but not every pro life poster here is Catholic, it’s actually very possible for a human using their own logic to come to conclusion their pro life

Martina1991

frag420 wrote: »

Why do you keep ignoring my questions EOTR?

Are you waiting for someone else to step in first to give you some ammo to reply with? Man the hell up....

Il ask again, do you personally have sex purely for procreation purposes or do you ever have sex recreationally for the fun of it?

I already asked that question of EOTR.

See post 3851.

He says "of course not", but if the vast many of us that have sex for the purpose of pleasure experience failed contraception God help us. :rolleyes:

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

sondagefaux

end of the road wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

You said that potential life should be preserved. There is plenty of evidence that human cloning is potentially available in the near future. Therefore, the logic of your own position dictates that toenail clippings be preserved for potential future cloning. Same goes for all human tissue, waste or bodily excretions containing DNA: snot, semen etc.

my position doesn't dictate anything of the sort. i can see how one may try to think it does, given they are looking for any old thing to try and discredit the pro-life argument, something they are unable to do.

So your position does not mean that you need to protect potential human life?

end of the road

Martina1991 wrote: »

I already asked that question of EOTR.

See post 3851.

He says "of course not",

correct.

Martina1991 wrote: »

but if the vast many of us that have sex for the purpose of pleasure experience failed contraception God help us.

never said this.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

not if you agree with abortion outside extreme circumstances IMO. you aren't 100% pro-life

sondagefaux

end of the road wrote: »

Martina1991 wrote: »

I already asked that question of EOTR.

See post 3851.

He says "of course not",

correct.

Martina1991 wrote: »

but if the vast many of us that have sex for the purpose of pleasure experience failed contraception God help us.

never said this.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

not if you agree with abortion outside extreme circumstances IMO. you aren't 100% pro-life

Have you ever tried to block a runway at an Irish airport to try to stop aircraft that might have pregnant women on board travelling to get abortions from taking off?

Have you campaigned to get the constitutional right to travel abroad for an abortion repealed?

If not, I don't think you can justifiably claim to be 100% against women getting abortions.

Da Boss

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Explain this claim of urs??

SusieBlue

Of course you can be both. I am pro life for myself, in my own circumstances, and for my own life.
I am pro choice, in that I support giving other women the option to choose in their own circumstances.
Therefore I am both pro life and pro choice. It’s the most logical and sensible approach, imo.

frag420

So am I hearing your correctly EOTR, you only have sex for procreational purposes only and not for recreational purposes?

Can you confirm which it is?

January

Not religious.... Talks about things being a sin... Yup. I don't buy it.

thee glitz

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Of course you can be both. I am pro life for myself, in my own circumstances, and for my own life.
I am pro choice, in that I support giving other women the option to choose in their own circumstances.
Therefore I am both pro life and pro choice. It’s the most logical and sensible approach, imo.

You support giving other women a choice, but not yourself?

dr.fuzzenstein

frag420 wrote: »

So am I hearing your correctly EOTR, you only have sex for procreational purposes only and not for recreational purposes?

Can you confirm which it is?

Lack of an answer could imply the question is not applicable to him...

SusieBlue

thee glitz wrote: »

You support giving other women a choice, but not yourself?

You’ve missed the point. My choice would be to go forward with a pregnancy. I can’t see myself getting an abortion at any point (although that could change). So I would be pro life in my own circumstances.
However I support everyone’s right to choose, so I am pro choice.

uptherebels

end of the road wrote: »

my position doesn't dictate anything of the sort. i can see how one may try to think it does, given they are looking for any old thing to try and discredit the pro-life argument, something they are unable to do.

Your arguement has been discredited repeatedly. You just put your fingers in your ears and pretend it hasn't

thee glitz

WhiteRoses wrote: »

You’ve missed the point. My choice would be to go forward with a pregnancy. I can’t see myself getting an abortion at any point (although that could change). So I would be pro life in my own circumstances.
However I support everyone’s right to choose, so I am pro choice.

That's called being pro-choice.

Annasopra

Da Boss wrote: »

News flash- it is possible to be pro life and not catholic!! I happen to be both but not every pro life poster here is Catholic, it’s actually very possible for a human using their own logic to come to conclusion their pro life

Of course. It is also perfectly possible to be Catholic and Pro Choice.