The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

So if you see a friend/family/co workers photos of small children you only see them in a sexual light?
Ok.

Have you shown a friend/co-workers photos of your nieces naked ?

splinter65 wrote: »

I’ve got some pictures on my phone of my naked nieces aged 4 and 2 in the bath. .

Buford T. Justice XIX

Blahblah2012 wrote: »

I don't think MURDERING BABIES ON DEMAND is a joking matter..

Mod note: Blahblah2012, you need to dial back on the rhetoric here. A lot! Tone down your comments, please, this is a discussion site, not an online shouting contest.

Buford T. Justice.

splinter65

uptherebels wrote: »

You left out the naked part. Kinda makes a big difference.
Why you would want pics of naked children of any age is beyond me. Least of all other people's children

They’re my nieces. My flesh and blood. If you see a sexual angle to your own flesh and blood then that’s for you to deal with. I can’t help you.

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

They’re my nieces. My flesh and blood. If you see a sexual angle to your own flesh and blood then that’s for you to deal with. I can’t help you.

If their your nieces you can get all the pics you want with clothes on.
You can try and deflect all you want, your the one with pics of naked children on your phone.
Just because people see a problem with that doesn't really support you view that those same people see their family members in a sexual way.
What a very bizarre arguement to try and make.

amcalester

splinter65 wrote: »

They’re my nieces. My flesh and blood. If you see a sexual angle to your own flesh and blood then that’s for you to deal with. I can’t help you.

Children are most likely to be targeted for abuse by a family member.

Not that I for one second am trying to insinuate anything here but having naked pictures of your nieces and nephews might not be a great idea.

splinter65

gctest50 wrote: »

Have you shown a friend/co-workers photos of your nieces naked ?

Do you want to call the Gardai? TUSLA?
Are you offended ? Repulsed?
I suppose if your obsessed with women’s bodies and the contents of their wombs then it shouldn’t surprise me that you can cast a sexual deviancy angle on anything really.
Instead of just seeing children playing you see some kind of perversion.
But go ahead and judge me, please.

AnneFrank

Seriously, this attack on splinter is uncalled for.

Huntergonzo

RobertKK wrote: »

Nell McCafferty who is voting for repeal has compared abortion to the mass slaughter at the Somme in WW1.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/nell-mccafferty-pro-lifers-are-right-about-some-things-1.3469975

Oh I like that analogy, abortion is mass slaughter like in the Somme, and what's a miscarriage then, would it be friendly fire, like say when you accidently throw a grenade at you're own lads.

Analogies are fun :-)

splinter65

amcalester wrote: »

Children are most likely to be targeted for abuse by a family member.

Not that I for one second am trying to insinuate anything here but having naked pictures of your nieces and nephews might not be a great idea.

Oh no. Don’t be coy. clearly you feel that my brother should not take pictures of his tiny children having fun in the bath to send to his sister , their aunt, for fear that I’ll sell them to a paedophile.
And all this to justify the outrage at the pictures of unborn babies on posters on lampposts.

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

I’ve got some pictures on my phone of my naked nieces aged 4 and 2 in the bath. .

Have you shown a friend/co-workers these photos of your nieces naked ?


Yes or No ?

Huntergonzo

AnneFrank wrote: »

Seriously, this attack on splinter is uncalled for.

That's it cry foul, a favourite of 'pro-lifers'.

In fairness anybody who openly condones the erection of naked baby pictures (by their own definition) should be asked to explain themselves and I sincerely hope you don't condone such a practice!

Hammer Archer

AnneFrank wrote: »

According to previous posts a baby up to 12 weeks is not a baby but an idea of a baby, a clump of cells.Madness I know. I would love to hear from Drs that will be forced to do this.Does this not contradict their pledge not to do harm?

And you're back to attacking my own and my partner's personal experience of a miscarriage. Why do you constantly do this?

baylah17

AnneFrank wrote: »

Seriously, this attack on splinter is uncalled for.

At last we agree
It is wrong and somewhat twisted

Buford T. Justice XIX

Mod note: The discussion of naked photos ends HERE!

This is the 8th amendment thread so discuss the 8th amendment!

Buford T. Justice

pjohnson

splinter65 wrote: »

Oh no. Don’t be coy. clearly you feel that my brother should not take pictures of his tiny children having fun in the bath to send to his sister , their aunt, for fear that I’ll sell them to a paedophile.
And all this to justify the outrage at the pictures of unborn babies on posters on lampposts.

So you cant distinguish between unborn foetus and your own nieces then theres not much hope for you.

splinter65

AnneFrank wrote: »

Seriously, this attack on splinter is uncalled for.

If there’s one thing pro repeal people hate its pictures of unborn babies. You find that if you stick around these arguments any length of time.
This would be a very typical response.

Wombatman

The current Junior Cert science book states that a human life begins at fertilization.

Must be an an examinable scientific fact then right :rolleyes:

Page 51. Question 5(a).
http://www.mentorbooks.ie/attachments/233_Teachers'_Rescource_Book.pdf

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

Do you want to call the Gardai? TUSLA?
Are you offended ? Repulsed?
I suppose if your obsessed with women’s bodies and the contents of their wombs then it shouldn’t surprise me that you can cast a sexual deviancy angle on anything really.
Instead of just seeing children playing you see some kind of perversion.
But go ahead and judge me, please.

I don't get offended by words on the internet.
I'm not a pro lifers so I'm not the one obsessed with the contents of a woman's womb.

I haven't accused you of any deviancy or perversion, like I already said it is uneceesary to have pics of naked kids on your phone. I have young nieces, my family have zero naked pics of them.
If you didn't want to be judged why share that info? Were you expecting a pat on the back? Or looking for a reaction so as to play the victim?

Hammer Archer

AnneFrank wrote: »

I just think it's pathetic and childish to be honest with you.I didn't think personal attacks were allowed.

And yet you've no problem personally attacking me. Funny that :pac:

splinter65

pjohnson wrote: »

So you cant distinguish between unborn foetus and your own nieces then theres not much hope for you.

My niece was my niece the second she was conceived. She’s just a bit bigger now.

pjohnson

splinter65 wrote: »

If there’s one thing pro repeal people hate its pictures of unborn babies. You find that if you stick around these arguments any length of time.
This would be a very typical response.

They dislike a foetus being called a baby but thats to do with education.

pjohnson

splinter65 wrote: »

My niece was my niece the second she was conceived. She’s just a bit bigger now.

As said above. Education issue

Huntergonzo

baylah17 wrote: »

At last we agree
It is wrong and somewhat twisted

Hey listen, I don't believe that the No posters are child pornography and I couldn't care less what pictures he has on his phone. It's none of my business, but he's not totally innocent either, he's attempted to twist words and went on the attack, what do you think is going to happen!

But anyway my point is, if No voters truly believe that a fetus is a human being, then are they not erecting naked baby pictures by their very own definition?

Again just calling for consistency, nothing else.

splinter65

gctest50 wrote: »

Have you shown a friend/co-workers these photos of your nieces naked ?


Yes or No ?

Call the Gardai gctest50. You’re clearly very upset. Clearly I’m a paedophile. It’s your duty to do something about it.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Nell McCafferty who is voting for repeal has compared abortion to the mass slaughter at the Somme in WW1.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/nell-mccafferty-pro-lifers-are-right-about-some-things-1.3469975

Nell needs to educate herself on what is involved in an abortion up to 12 weeks.

gctest50

splinter65 wrote: »

Call the Gardai gctest50. You’re clearly very upset. Clearly I’m a paedophile. It’s your duty to do something about it.

Still can't get a straight answer :


Yes or No ?

splinter65

pjohnson wrote: »

As said above. Education issue

As another poster has pointed out, our secondary school children in science class are being currently taught that life begins at conception.
Do you disagree with this?

uptherebels

splinter65 wrote: »

If there’s one thing pro repeal people hate its pictures of unborn babies. You find that if you stick around these arguments any length of time.
This would be a very typical response.

You can show pics of foetus to me all you want. Tell me do pro lifers like looking a pics of third or fourth degree perineal tears or other injuries that some pregnant women suffer during childbirth?

splinter65

gctest50 wrote: »

Still can't get a straight answer :


Yes or No ?

What makes you think I’m obliged to answer you at all?

RobertKK

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Oh I like that analogy, abortion is mass slaughter like in the Somme, and what's a miscarriage then, would it be friendly fire, like say when you accidently throw a grenade at you're own lads.

Analogies are fun :-)

A natural death.