The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

pitifulgod

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Right, the point of this anecdote is?

I think he wants to go back to his warped point that you should be forced to continue a pregnancy so the child can be used as potential evidence.

MilesMorales1

RobertKK wrote: »

Calm down and breathe....just reporting news which involves abortion in a thread about the subject.

It's about the possibility of abortion becoming legal under defined circumstances. Don't see how that anecdote is relevant really.

robarmstrong

pitifulgod wrote: »

I think he wants to go back to his warped point that you should be forced to continue a pregnancy so the child can be used as potential evidence.

Using a child as potential evidence?

Haha that's kind of dehumanising it, is it not? Similar to how pro-choice are "dehumanising" the unborn? Contradictors gon' contradict.

applehunter

January wrote: »

That's right. Cut and edit but it's OK I'll show you the full speech here.

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=1224728841006221&id=191023254376790&_rdr

The rest it of it was just as bad.

Unborn child was never mentioned.

Prostitutes are not sympathetic characters.

January

January wrote: »

We are practical like that. Have to make a plan just in case. Unlike the other side. Think they have it in the bag that if they actually lose they'll just sulk silently into the shadows.

Don't you worry it won't take us 30 odd years to get another referendum. And I won't ever come crying to you either...

What you are basically saying above is that if you don't get the decision you want then we will have another referendum

That is very anti democratic..... I hope whichever side wins, respects the decision of the people of Ireland.

robarmstrong

Deleted User wrote: »

What you are basically saying above is that if you don't get the decision you want then we will have another referendum

That is very anti democratic..... I hope whichever side wins, respects the decision of the people of Ireland.

What's very anti-democratic is removing a woman's right to her body just because she's got a zygote/sub-12week fetus growing inside her.

applehunter

DubInMeath wrote: »

Are you here just to troll or actually take part in the debate?

This is a platform where stilted dialogue and non sequesters abound.

robarmstrong

robarmstrong wrote: »

What's very anti-democratic is removing a woman's right to her body just because she's got a zygote/sub-12week fetus growing inside her.

Its more likely that repeal side will win and I hope the other side respects that.

All I'm saying is that this is a democratic referendum and I hope the losers don't throw a hissy fit. I hope the decision of the Irish people is respected

edit: I am saying that I think repeal will win, not that I am for repeal.

jaxxx

applehunter wrote: »

The rest it of it was just as bad.

Unborn child was never mentioned.

Prostitutes are not sympathetic characters.

Last I checked prostitues were human beings just as much as anyone else.

applehunter

Oldtree

RobertKK wrote: »

it is about the negative butterfly effect of the missing people in society due to abortion being normalised.

In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is the sensitive dependence on initial conditions in which a small change in one state of a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state.

I know you are trying to sound all sciencey n stuff, but you you missed the bit in chaos theory that says 'can' not 'will'!

Linking an action of your choosing with an outcome of your choosing and saying the 2 are linked by the butterfly effect is tenuous at best. In chaos theory, the butterfly effect is about showing all things being interlinked, not just ones of your choosing.

Additionally to call it a 'negative butterfly effect' is disingenuous on your part, as adding 'negative' is superfluous, but suits your agenda to give your hypothesis a negative slant.

Graces7

DubInMeath wrote: »

Are you here just to troll or actually take part in the debate?

No; just left speechless at that post. EEEK. expresses it wel.

robarmstrong

Graces7 wrote: »

No; just left speechless at that post. EEEK. expresses it wel.

You can hardly talk about being left speechless at a post with the sheer amount of sh!te you've posted.

Oh seeing as you've dodged it before in the previous thread, just want to remind you.

Do you think a woman who was raped should be forced to continue her unwanted pregnancy (from a result of the rape) just to be in line with your beliefs?

Oldtree

applehunter wrote: »

There is no suggestion of termination at 22 weeks, unless needed on medical grounds, so the photos are disingenuous and self serving.

Additionally there is a proposed caveat in the recently published government policy paper that will allow any medical staff conscientious objection. Perhaps the doctors for life should read the policy document before appearing to speak for all doctors, implying they will be forced to do somthing they do not wish to do.

Policy issue: Conscientious objection
Policy 14: That the General Scheme would provide for conscientious objection in line with that provided for in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013.
It is noted that Section 17 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act, 2013 provides a right to conscientious objection for medical and nursing personnel.

Graces7

kylith wrote: »

If female infants are left to die in some countries were women are less valued wouldn’t it be better they be aborted before they develop the capacity to suffer than be brought to term to die of starvation and exposure? Girls won’t suddenly be more valued because they can’t be aborted.

Thankfully there are many good folk working to care for these babies so you need not worry about this.

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

Thankfully there are many good folk working to care for these babies so you need not worry about this.

As they are left to die, this won't appear to be the case.

Oldtree

Graces7 wrote: »

Thankfully there are many good folk working to care for these babies so you need not worry about this.

More Mother Teresas, you think?

Graces7

Speaking of doctors..

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/twothirds-of-gps-will-refuse-to-provide-abortion-pills-36682050.html

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

No; just left speechless at that post. EEEK. expresses it wel.

Your actually one of the people posting on here that actually swayed me from undecided to voting for repeal. Your belief that women who are raped should be forced to carry to birth made me realise the hell that a loved one has/is going through after being raped would be compounded if they had been unlucky enough to have fallen pregnant, and that what ever my opinion personally on abortion, I've no right to force that on another person.

robarmstrong

Graces7 wrote: »

Speaking of doctors..

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/twothirds-of-gps-will-refuse-to-provide-abortion-pills-36682050.html

ICYMI -

robarmstrong wrote: »

You can hardly talk about being left speechless at a post with the sheer amount of sh!te you've posted.

Oh seeing as you've dodged it before in the previous thread, just want to remind you.

Do you think a woman who was raped should be forced to continue her unwanted pregnancy (from a result of the rape) just to be in line with your beliefs?

robarmstrong

DubInMeath wrote: »

Your actually one of the people posting on here that actually swayed me from undecided to voting for repeal. Your belief that women who are raped should be forced to carry to birth made me realise the hell that a loved one has/is going through after being raped would be compounded if they had been unlucky enough to have fallen pregnant, and that what ever my opinion personally on abortion, I've no right to force that on another person.

She's dodged answering that directly numerous amounts of times. I wonder why...

Graces7

Oldtree wrote: »

More Mother Teresas, you think?

No; Mother Teresa let babies die too. As her order do to this day. As many aid workers know . Plenty online about that too.

Oldtree

Graces7 wrote: »

Speaking of doctors..

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/twothirds-of-gps-will-refuse-to-provide-abortion-pills-36682050.html

Yes that's been posted before. Did you actually read the article? I'll post this bit again for you:

Dr Conor McGrane, a GP in north Dublin who was involved in the survey, said no GPs trained in Ireland or the UK received direct tuition on providing medical abortions.

He said the doctors who said they would not become involved were likely to be influenced by having no training or lack of time due to their busy practices.

No training and lack of time, and not as you would infer, concieous objection!

robarmstrong

robarmstrong wrote: »

She's dodged answering that directly numerous amounts of times. I wonder why...

I don't know why. Leaving this for a while getting to angry to be rational and have to work in the morning.

Graces7

DubInMeath wrote: »

Your actually one of the people posting on here that actually swayed me from undecided to voting for repeal. Your belief that women who are raped should be forced to carry to birth made me realise the hell that a loved one has/is going through after being raped would be compounded if they had been unlucky enough to have fallen pregnant, and that what ever my opinion personally on abortion, I've no right to force that on another person.

NB I at no time said or wrote that. I stated when asked what my personal response would be were I raped and pregnant and why.

robarmstrong

Graces7 wrote: »

NB I at no time said or wrote that. I stated when asked what my personal response would be were I raped and pregnant and why.

Stop dodging my question. You've dodged my direct question any time I have asked it of you.

Here it is again.

robarmstrong wrote: »

You can hardly talk about being left speechless at a post with the sheer amount of sh!te you've posted.

Oh seeing as you've dodged it before in the previous thread, just want to remind you.

Do you think a woman who was raped should be forced to continue her unwanted pregnancy (from a result of the rape) just to be in line with your beliefs?

applehunter

Oldtree wrote: »

There is no suggestion of termination at 22 weeks, unless needed on medical grounds, so the photos as disingenuous and self serving.

Additionally there is a proposed caveat in the recently published government policy paper that will allow any medical staff conscientious objection. Perhaps the doctors for life should read the policy document before appearing to speak for all doctors, implying they will be forced to do somthing they do not wish to do.

Not at all. I'm dealing with the reality of abortion as proposed.

This child will be aborted under risk to health in the proposal.

Medical grounds includes mental health grounds.

Graces7

robarmstrong wrote: »

She's dodged answering that directly numerous amounts of times. I wonder why...

Your question is irrelevant to this debate. As I have said many times.

robarmstrong

Graces7 wrote: »

Your question is irrelevant to this debate. As I have said many times.

Ah here you're just taking the piss now, you're either very stupid or you're just looking for a reaction.

It's extremely relevant to the debate considering it's regarding abortion.

I'll ask again so.

Do you believe that a woman who has fallen pregnant due to rape should be forced to continue that pregnancy to keep in line with your beliefs, yes or no, it is a very, very simple answer.

Graces7

Graces7 wrote: »

NB I at no time said or wrote that. I stated when asked what my personal response would be were I raped and pregnant and why.

Its not just you that believes women should be forced to carry to term when raped as I said your just one of them and yours and similar posts, who swayed me.