Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

amcalester

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Babies lives matter

Has anyone ever said they don’t?

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So discussions about how we MIGHT get new data in the future that changes that is all very interesting as navel gazing. But in terms of discussing abortion it is a red herring and the most inane of whatiffery.

I find thinking about things we might face in the future to be very interesting.

smacl

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Babies lives matter

And on that basis perhaps the pro-life brigade could spend a bit more time looking after babies and children in need and a bit less on pregnant women in crisis. There are no shortage of children in need and that need often extremely urgent. My ongoing cynicism with the pro-life movement is that these very young people, real people by that way that everyone acknowledges as people, don't seem to be much interest them. So yes, babies lives matter and so do those of pregnant women. Compassion beyond self interest also matters.

Charles Ingles

smacl wrote: »

And on that basis perhaps the pro-life brigade could spend a bit more time looking after babies and children in need and a bit less on pregnant women in crisis. There are no shortage of children in need and that need often extremely urgent. My ongoing cynicism with the pro-life movement is that these very young people, real people by that way that everyone acknowledges as people, don't seem to be much interest them. So yes, babies lives matter and so do those of pregnant women. Compassion beyond self interest also matters.

We can do both.
Life is precious and a gift from God

amcalester

Charles Ingles wrote: »

We can do both.
Life is precious and a gift from God

Then why don’t they?

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

And on that basis perhaps the pro-life brigade could spend a bit more time looking after babies and children in need and a bit less on pregnant women in crisis. There are no shortage of children in need and that need often extremely urgent. My ongoing cynicism with the pro-life movement is that these very young people, real people by that way that everyone acknowledges as people, don't seem to be much interest them. So yes, babies lives matter and so do those of pregnant women. Compassion beyond self interest also matters.

apart from accusations by some, accusations which in my view are used by a few simply as a stick to beat the pro-life movement with, rather then showing genuine concern (note, i'm not saying this applies to you) i have saw no tangible evidence myself that the pro-life brigade, or at least some of them, don't focus on issues effecting born babies as well as the unborn. people can and do focus on multiple issues at the same time, so pro-lifers can and do focus on born and unborn.
however with a lot of organisations focusing on the born, with not so many on the unborn, it's probably understandable that some pro-lifers will focus more on the unborn, given they believe that the unborn have a right to life and that right is not being upheld as it should, and the fact that there are already plenty doing good work for the born, for which they may feel they would simply be duplicating rather then contributing to.

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I find thinking about things we might face in the future to be very interesting.

Likewise, but that's a good thing. Personally, a keen sense of wonder is one of those gems that makes life worth living. For me, the difference between atheism and honest religious faith is comparable to a game of space invaders. An atheist knows they only ever had one guy to play from the start with and play the game accordingly. Being notably finite makes life more wonderful and moments more precious. I like that this is it, it never was before and will never be again. Being afraid of death risks not making the most of life, as one thing we all face in the future is death. Oh yeah, and dilapidation, jaysus, if I could just get my old body back...

With respect to abortion, I find it utterly deplorable that anyone would seek to instruct a pregnant woman how to behave such that it suits their personal morality.

smacl

end of the road wrote: »

apart from accusations by some, accusations which in my view are used by a few simply as a stick to beat the pro-life movement with, rather then showing genuine concern (note, i'm not saying this applies to you) i have saw no tangible evidence myself that the pro-life brigade, or at least some of them, don't focus on issues effecting born babies as well as the unborn. people can and do focus on multiple issues at the same time, so pro-lifers can and do focus on born and unborn.
however with a lot of organisations focusing on the born, with not so many on the unborn, it's probably understandable that some pro-lifers will focus more on the unborn, given they believe that the unborn have a right to life and that right is not being upheld as it should, and the fact that there are already plenty doing good work for the born, for which they may feel they would simply be duplicating rather then contributing to.

So perhaps you could show us a examples of how the pro-life movement are helping children in need? Specifically, in terms of effort and expenditure when compared to similar resources devoted to preventing pregnant women from making their own choices.

Pherekydes

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Life is precious and a gift from God

If life was a gift from god don't you think the miscarriage rate would be lower?

Cabaal

Pherekydes wrote: »

If life was a gift from god don't you think the miscarriage rate would be lower?

God works in mysterious ways don't you know....

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

So perhaps you could show us a examples of how the pro-life movement are helping children in need? Specifically, in terms of effort and expenditure when compared to similar resources devoted to preventing pregnant women from making their own choices.

a question not possible to answer without gaining access to the accounts of organisations to see what they are spending and on what. this is information that is generally not online from what i can see.

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

a question not possible to answer without gaining access to the accounts of organisations to see what they are spending and on what. this is information that is generally not online from what i can see.

Strange,
You'd think if they cared about children they'd shout from the roof tops about all their good work they've done and how much money they've spent in doing so.

Yet here you are refusing to give evidence because you claim its hidden from you.

Bannasidhe

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Babies lives matter

MOD : As this is a discussion forum posting one liners that read like bumper stickers is below the standard of discussion expected and required. No more of this kind of thing please.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

a question not possible to answer without gaining access to the accounts of organisations to see what they are spending and on what. this is information that is generally not online from what i can see.

Alternatively, I'd suggest that it's not just about money raised but also time and effort invested in, say, getting laws changed or getting publicity for your cause in the media - the kind of thing that has made household names of a number of prolife lobbyists in Ireland. Cora Sherlock, Maria Steen, Caroline Simons, Breda O'Brien and David Quinn, to name just a few of those who were still busy in the last referendum campaign. Going a but further back there's Justin Barrett or Declan Ganley etc etc.

So pick a couple of well known prolifers (not necessarily those I've named) and a few well known child poverty or other activists for children in need and see how much crossover there is between the two groups. Are any of them very involved in both?

I'd say there actually might be one or two people - but only if you included members of religious organisations. Prolifers as a rule are not involved in child poverty action stuff here or in the States.

Cabaal

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/11/us-pundit-ben-shapiro-apologises-bbc-andrew-neil-interview

Ben Shapiro apologises to Andrew Neil after being 'destroyed' in BBC interview

US pundit says he was not prepared for segment, which went viral after he cut it short

Abortion laws discussed so its relevant to this thread.

Seems he couldn't handle being questioned
Rather then answer the questions he started name calling the interviewer.

Pretty pathetic stuff but something we've seen from pro-lifers before so not at all surprising. He holds very extreme views which are simply not based on facts or reality.

Full interview is here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

Charles Ingles

Cabaal wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2019/may/11/us-pundit-ben-shapiro-apologises-bbc-andrew-neil-interview



Abortion laws discussed so its relevant to this thread.

Seems he couldn't handle being questioned
Rather then answer the questions he started name calling the interviewer.

Pretty pathetic stuff but something we've seen from pro-lifers before so not at all surprising. He holds very extreme views which are simply not based on facts or reality.

Full interview is here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VixqvOcK8E

Disgusting interview nothing short of an ambush.
Ben Shapiro is an intelligent man he knew it was a set up no point in debating.

Cabaal

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Disgusting interview nothing short of an ambush.
Ben Shapiro is an intelligent man he knew it was a set up no point in debating.

Intelligent?
The interview shows otherwise, as does the evidence. Time and again he has made claims which have no basis in reality or facts. This is not a sign of intelligence.

So its ok for him to abort an interview?

Charles Ingles

Cabaal wrote: »

Intelligent?
The interview shows otherwise,

So its ok to abort an interview?

Ben Shapiro, are you really saying the man isn't intelligent? He is a lawyer

Timberrrrrrrr

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Disgusting interview nothing short of an ambush.
Ben Shapiro is an intelligent man he knew it was a set up no point in debating.

It didn't go the way he planned/hoped so he spat his dunmy out and skulked off in a huff.

He even admitted himself he wasn't sufficiently prepared .

Timberrrrrrrr

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Ben Shapiro, are you really saying the man isn't intelligent? He is a lawyer

I've know some thick lawyers in my time and some highly intelligent manual labourers. A degree/title does not suddenly bestow you with intelligence.

Charles Ingles

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

It didn't go the way he planned/hoped so he spat his dunmy out and skulked off in a huff.

He even admitted himself he wasn't sufficiently prepared .

Or in other words ambushed, presenter wouldn't take him on in an honest open debate

volchitsa

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Disgusting interview nothing short of an ambush.
Ben Shapiro is an intelligent man he knew it was a set up no point in debating.

A set up? Just because he was unable to defend his views when searching questions were put by someone who had prepared his stuff? He called Andrew Neil a leftie, how much stupider can it get?

Andrew Neil is a rightwing journo, he's on the executive committee of the Spectator FFS! The difference with people like Shapiro is that he's not just a alt-right propaganda mouthpiece but has a coherent set of opinions based on facts not bigotry. Oh and he also prepares his interviews.

Timberrrrrrrr

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Or in other words ambushed, presenter wouldn't take him on in an honest open debate

He was asked questions about his own book and tweets and couldn't answer! Yeah....some ambush :rolleyes:

Cabaal

volchitsa wrote: »

Andrew Neil is a rightwing journo, he's on the executive committee of the Spectator FFS! The difference with people like Shapiro is that he's not just a alt-right propaganda mouthpiece but has a coherent set of opinions based on facts not bigotry. Oh and he also prepares his interviews.

Spot on

Neil was appointed editor of The Sunday Times by Rupert Murdoch, and served in this position from 1983 to 1994. After this he became a contributor to the Daily Mail. He was formerly chief executive and editor-in-chief of the Press Holdings group.[2] In 1988 he became founding chairman of Sky TV, also part of Murdoch's News Corporation. He is the current chairman of Press Holdings Media Group, whose titles include The Spectator,

- The Sunday Times
- The Daily Mail
- The Spectator

All well known left wing papers apparently, lol
:rolleyes:

Shapiro comments show he lashed out to name call, he lashed out because he didn't like being questioned by somebody better informed then him using facts so he decided to name call.

How anybody is defending his toys out of pram antics is hilarious

volchitsa

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Or in other words ambushed, presenter wouldn't take him on in an honest open debate

Eh no, that's not what ambushed means, any more than a kid rocking up to a big exam without having prepared it hasn't been ambushed by the examiners.

He wasn't taking part in a debate, it was an interview, how exactly was it an ambush? Are all interviews ambushes unless they're puff pieces?

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

Alternatively, I'd suggest that it's not just about money raised but also time and effort invested in, say, getting laws changed or getting publicity for your cause in the media - the kind of thing that has made household names of a number of prolife lobbyists in Ireland. Cora Sherlock, Maria Steen, Caroline Simons, Breda O'Brien and David Quinn, to name just a few of those who were still busy in the last referendum campaign. Going a but further back there's Justin Barrett or Declan Ganley etc etc.

So pick a couple of well known prolifers (not necessarily those I've named) and a few well known child poverty or other activists for children in need and see how much crossover there is between the two groups. Are any of them very involved in both?

I'd say there actually might be one or two people - but only if you included members of religious organisations. Prolifers as a rule are not involved in child poverty action stuff here or in the States.

all of those are certainly busy in the media on many issues. if there is cross-over between them and other groups, they are keeping quiet about it, which i think is a good thing. shouting about how great one is because they are involved in this or that issue is not a character trate i like personally.
anyway at least 2 of those on your list have advocated for supports for the born.
Cora Sherlock in this video mentions supports for single parents, all be it the video is about a different topic. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmQgXGJjx1aVMpRMpllgDdA?feature=embeds_subscribe_title

Breda O'Brien advocates that groups should look for more supports for babies with life limiting conditions upon their return home as part of this article https://www.irishcatholic.com/irish-human-rights-groups-campaign-rights-disabled-not-termination/


nothing is turning up for the others on the list, but that means nothing really. as i said, it is understandable that some may feel that their focus is better being on the unborn as there are less advocates for their rights.

Cabaal

end of the road wrote: »

all of those are certainly busy in the media on many issues. if there is cross-over between them and other groups, they are keeping quiet about it, which i think is a good thing. shouting about how great one is because they are involved in this or that issue is not a character trate i like personally.
anyway at least 2 of those on your list have advocated for supports for the born.
Cora Sherlock in this video mentions supports for single parents, all be it the video is about a different topic. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmQgXGJjx1aVMpRMpllgDdA?feature=embeds_subscribe_title

Breda O'Brien advocates that groups should look for more supports for babies with life limiting conditions upon their return home as part of this article https://www.irishcatholic.com/irish-human-rights-groups-campaign-rights-disabled-not-termination/


nothing is turning up for the others on the list, but that means nothing really. as i said, it is understandable that some may feel that their focus is better being on the unborn as there are less advocates for their rights.

Oh I see,
So they are hiding the good they are actually doing because they don't want publicity and you like that in a person.

Right so, sure thing
:rolleyes:

So no actually evidence of them actually doing any good then.

Kidchameleon

I don't agree with everything Shapiro says but he is most certainly intelligent (he's Jewish FFS, average IQ's above anyone here). The BBC interviewer looked to me like he was scraping the barrel for things to throw at him, bringing up tweets out of context from nearly a decade ago for example. Shapiro openly admits to being religious so its no surprise he is anti abortion, he's allowed to be, it doesn't make him stupid.

Igotadose

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I don't agree with everything Shapiro says but he is most certainly intelligent

Harvard Law grad, precocious kid, yep not stupid

(he's Jewish FFS, average IQ's above anyone here).

Uhh, what? Why did you mention his religion?

The BBC interviewer looked to me like he was scraping the barrel for things to throw at him, bringing up tweets out of context from nearly a decade ago for example. Shapiro openly admits to being religious so its no surprise he is anti abortion, he's allowed to be, it doesn't make him stupid.

He ran into a good interviewer, and was destroyed. He even admits it. Such is life in the public eye.

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

he's Jewish FFS, average IQ's above anyone here

Mod: Please avoid generalisations with respect to Jews and comments about the IQs of posters on this forum. Thanks.

smacl

Igotadose wrote: »

Uhh, what? Why did you mention his religion?

At a guess it relates to a study on Ashkenazi Jews discussed further in this article. From that article

Dr. Nisbett, a professor of psychology at the University of Michigan, argues that what we think of as intelligence is quite malleable and owes little or nothing to genetics.

“I think the evidence is very good that there is no genetic contribution to the black-white difference on I.Q.,” he said, adding that there also seems to be no genetic difference in intelligence between whites and Asians. As for Jews, some not-very-rigorous studies have found modestly above-average I.Q. for Ashkenazi Jews, though not for Sephardic Jews. Dr. Nisbett is somewhat skeptical, noting that these results emerge from samples that may not be representative.

In any case, he says, the evidence is overwhelming that what is distinctive about these three groups is not innate advantage but rather a tendency to get the most out of the firepower they have.

robindch

Kidchameleon wrote: »

[...] Shapiro [...] is most certainly intelligent [...] average IQ's above anyone here

Since discussions here on boards are notionally anonymous - the only person you can say this of honestly is yourself :rolleyes:

aloyisious

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Or in other words ambushed, presenter wouldn't take him on in an honest open debate

Most TV interviews like the one just shown are not debates, they are question and answer sessions whereby the host politely puts questions to the guest seeking answers to same. In the one just shown, it was the guest trying to avoid the question put to him by way of putting one to the host instead in an "I'll answer yours if you'll answer mine first" mode, something we're well used to here in TV and radio interviews. The BBC interviewer deliberately chose not to respond to the tactics of the guest.

Kidchameleon

robindch wrote: »

Since discussions here on boards are notionally anonymous - the only person you can say this of honestly is yourself :rolleyes:

He is far more intelligent than me

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

He is far more intelligent than me

Well colour me surprised!

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

all of those are certainly busy in the media on many issues. if there is cross-over between them and other groups, they are keeping quiet about it, which i think is a good thing. shouting about how great one is because they are involved in this or that issue is not a character trate i like personally.
anyway at least 2 of those on your list have advocated for supports for the born.
Cora Sherlock in this video mentions supports for single parents, all be it the video is about a different topic. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmQgXGJjx1aVMpRMpllgDdA?feature=embeds_subscribe_title

Breda O'Brien advocates that groups should look for more supports for babies with life limiting conditions upon their return home as part of this article https://www.irishcatholic.com/irish-human-rights-groups-campaign-rights-disabled-not-termination/

nothing is turning up for the others on the list, but that means nothing really. as i said, it is understandable that some may feel that their focus is better being on the unborn as there are less advocates for their rights.

So it's a good thing that they're active in the media concerning abortion but also a good thing that they don't get involved with media campaigns for child protection issues, right?

Hmm. Okay whatever.

Oh but wait, so is it a good thing or not that Breda O'Brien is "calling for" help for babies born with life limiting conditions? Do you disapprove of that character trait??

And more seriously - how is that not part of her anti abortion activism anyway, since one of the points they needed and failed to answer was why Ireland, with 3 decades of "prolife" law had made less progress on that sort of issue than countries which allow women to terminate pregnancies when a serious disability has been identified?

Basically it comes down to this: you can't find any examples of any of the prolife figureheads investing any comparable level of their time and effort into child protection issues that are not directly related to their stance on abortion.

You wish to portray that as admirable modesty on their part. I suspect everyone else will be as unconvinced by that "logic" as I am. :rolleyes:

Kidchameleon

Igotadose wrote: »

Uhh, what? Why did you mention his religion?

I'll let Ben explain it to you...

tl;dr:


Jews traditionally have a high focus on education, therefore tend to have high IQ's. They also tend to marry and reproduce within the Jewish community (Interfaith marriage is strongly frowned upon by Jews, although that is probably changing in the past few years). IQ is largely genetic therefore Jew's pass gene's down through the generations that favor high IQ.


IQ + genetics:



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/


Jews + education:



https://www.pewforum.org/2016/12/13/religion-and-education-around-the-world/?utm_source=adaptivemailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=16-12-13%20rel&ed%20immediate%20release&org=982&lvl=100&ite=599&lea=109399&ctr=0&par=1&trk=

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I'll let Ben explain it to you...

Jews traditionally have a high focus on education, therefore tend to have high IQ's. They also tend to marry and reproduce within the Jewish community (Interfaith marriage is strongly frowned upon by Jews, although that is probably changing in the past few years). IQ is largely genetic therefore Jew's pass gene's down through the generations that favor high IQ.

IQ + genetics:


https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3182557/


Jews + education:


https://www.pewforum.org/2016/12/13/religion-and-education-around-the-world/?utm_source=adaptivemailer&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=16-12-13%20rel&ed%20immediate%20release&org=982&lvl=100&ite=599&lea=109399&ctr=0&par=1&trk=

Grocers + apostrophes:

https://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2011/02/04/random-apostrophization/


https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/greengrocer%27s_apostrophe

Igotadose

Kidchameleon wrote: »

tl;dr:
<all sorts of things irrelevant to this thread, like conjecture on interfaith marriage in Judaism and whether Jews indeed have higher IQ's due to inbreeding>

I didn't deny that Shapiro was intelligent. He's well educated, was a precocious student and has decided to earn his living by being a right-wing WUM. He even worked for Breitbart (whose founder, the criminal Andrew Breitbart, was Jewish too). Shapiro gets lots of abuse from the alt-right because of his religion.

Shapiro's position on abortion is what matters and the "reasoning" behind it, which I gather is strictly based on his religious background.
There are plenty of otherwise intelligent people who are anti-choice. Shapiro's a professional WUM and using his religion as a basis of his objection to abortion seems to be a convenient way to not apply his intellect to women's rights.

Charles Ingles

It's clear what people's real intentions are here and it's nothing but anti-Semitic nonsense.
He is a good man strong in his faith and very intelligent.
He was on to talk about his book typical BBC sneaky attack.
The BBC are as bad as Rte state sponsored liberal anti Christian and Jewish faith

Kidchameleon

Igotadose wrote: »

all sorts of things irrelevant to this thread

Just to point out, your the one who asked. Yes, I agree, lets get back on topic...


Here's one of many video's of Ben talking about abortion, no real mention of faith just science...

Timberrrrrrrr

Charles Ingles wrote: »

It's clear what people's real intentions are here and it's nothing but anti-Semitic nonsense.
He is a good man strong in his faith and very intelligent.
He was on to talk about his book typical BBC sneaky attack.
The BBC are as bad as Rte state sponsored liberal anti Christian and Jewish faith

And couldn't answer questions about this, he even admits he was "unprepared" for the questions!

amcalester

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Just to point out, your the one who asked. Yes, I agree, lets get back on topic...


Here's one of many video's of Ben talking about abortion, no real mention of faith just science...

I got 1 minute in and he had already misrepresented what Wilde had said, didn’t bother going further than that.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

So it's a good thing that they're active in the media concerning abortion but also a good thing that they don't get involved with media campaigns for child protection issues, right?

Hmm. Okay whatever.

Oh but wait, so is it a good thing or not that Breda O'Brien is "calling for" help for babies born with life limiting conditions? Do you disapprove of that character trait??

And more seriously - how is that not part of her anti abortion activism anyway, since one of the points they needed and failed to answer was why Ireland, with 3 decades of "prolife" law had made less progress on that sort of issue than countries which allow women to terminate pregnancies when a serious disability has been identified?

Basically it comes down to this: you can't find any examples of any of the prolife figureheads investing any comparable level of their time and effort into child protection issues that are not directly related to their stance on abortion.

You wish to portray that as admirable modesty on their part. I suspect everyone else will be as unconvinced by that "logic" as I am.

it is the government's fault that such supports either don't exist or exist in a much lesser form. they make the decisions on what our taxes are spent on and they are the only ones who will know the reasons as to why progress hasn't been made. pro-life can't know what the government's reasons are unless the government tell them, which i can only assume hasn't happened hence their failure to answer the point. you will have to take that up with them.
it is a good thing that Breda O'Brien is calling for help for babies born with life limiting conditions, however it is also a good thing that she simply gets on with calling for such help.

Kidchameleon

amcalester wrote: »

I got 1 minute in and he had already misrepresented what Wilde had said, didn’t bother going further than that.

For sure, he misrepresents and sensationalizes but the point of sharing that video is that it shows his opposition to abortion is not just based on his faith. Plenty of atheists are against abortion also.

Igotadose

That video is full of lies. He
1. Misrepresents what the actress said
2. Mentioned Kermit Gosnell (a go-to for the anti-abortion crowd.) Funny, I'd heard of him as did many. How was it he was 'not covered by the media?'Most prolific serial killer in American History?' Really?
3. And he wags his finger at the camera and spouts "No one has the right" etc etc. Nonsense. He'd love to have the right to dictate to others.
4. Various 'science-sounding' things, like 'detectable brainwaves' and 'finger nails forming' and keeps harping back on 'convenience issue.' As if abortion is a convenience issue.
5. Lots of references to 'morality' 'innocence' and 'sin.' Just because he says he doesn't believe the Bible is right, doesn't stop him from multiple god references.

Basically, another god-bothering woman hater. Nothing new here. Smoother than some of them.

amcalester

end of the road wrote: »

it is the government's fault that such supports either don't exist or exist in a much lesser form. they make the decisions on what our taxes are spent on and they are the only ones who will know the reasons as to why progress hasn't been made. pro-life can't know what the government's reasons are unless the government tell them, which i can only assume hasn't happened hence their failure to answer the point. you will have to take that up with them.

It’s the government’s fault that pro-lifers aren’t more involved in supporting children in desperate situations?

You’d think with the lack of government support the pro-lifers would be more vocal about what is needed.

amcalester

Kidchameleon wrote: »

For sure, he misrepresents and sensationalizes but the point of sharing that video is that it shows his opposition to abortion is not just based on his faith. Plenty of atheists are against abortion also.

But if he’s willing to misrepresent what Wilde said then how can we believe anything else he says.

Igotadose

amcalester wrote: »

But if he’s willing to misrepresent what Wilde said then how can we believe anything else he says.

Lying's o.k. if you're anti-abortion. Just ask EOTR.

Kidchameleon

Igotadose wrote: »

And he wags his finger at the camera and spouts "No one has the right"

I agree with everything you say about that video. Just on your point above, he was talking about a 24 week old pregnancy and its worth noting that in many states (and in Ireland), no one has a right to abort a 24 week pregnancy. I'd imagine many here on this forum would not be happy with abortion at 24 weeks. Personally, I think there are instances where abortion should be available at 24 weeks and beyond.