anyone else fed up hearing about abortion already

ohnonotgmail · 10-01-2017 02:32PM

Grayson wrote: »

https://scontent-ams3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/11140251_951610748244567_4340495879914493500_n.png?oh=d3e6dc3e6418998921ed57508c2ad5fa&oe=592425BF

Be careful, abortion may lead to Buddhism.

good god not buddhism. doomed to a lifetime of loving and respecting their fellow man. *makes sign of the cross*

jameorahiely · 10-01-2017 02:34PM

frag420 wrote: »

Here is my answer for you...

I am Pro-Choice. I believe in the best care for the foetus/child pre and post birth.

However when the care for or presence of the foetus has a direct impact on the life and/or health of the woman then I believe in her choice to terminate the pregnancy. This must be done within a specific time (I am open to discussion on this but would advocate for as early as posible) I do not advocate late abortions unless absolutely required to save the life of the mother.

I do not believe in abortion as a contraceptive. Ideally I would like a world where abortion is not required but sadly it is in some circumstances.

I have made my point as simply as possible for you to understand, good luck trying to twist it but I am sure you manage it somehow!!

This doesn't answer the question you said you would answer which was:

Do the pro abortionists stop wanting disabled children killed once their born?

frag420 · 10-01-2017 02:35PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

Isn't that what the poster was suggesting?

No it wasn't

My mother should have laid in to gin (an old wives tale, gin is supposed to cause an abortion) because my spelling and grammar is inaccurate

I had no idea Gin was used for abortions, I just like Gin.
Maybe use spellcheck if it helps

I was wondering do they see bad spelling/ grammar as justification for abortion, or was it just me they wished was miscarried?)

I dont on the first part as its difficult to gauge a foetus on their level of spelling/grammar when they cant even talk or write unless you have had an email from a foetus recently asking people to not kill it...as for your second question I am open to the idea...

(isn't commenting on spelling and grammar against the ah rules? )

Report me

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-01-2017 02:35PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

How much gin is recommended?

Read my post rather than just hit reply on it. It quite clearly said that WHILE no issues have been identified the "recommendation" from most of the studies, including the one you are willfully misquoting, is generally to play it safe and not risk any.

jameorahiely wrote: »

Do the pro abortionists stop wanting disabled children killed once their born?

You have not established that generally anyone wants them killed before they were born, which renders your question about when they "stop" rather moot.

ohnonotgmail · 10-01-2017 02:37PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Read my post rather than just hit reply on it. It quite clearly said that WHILE no issues have been identified the "recommendation" from most of the studies, including the one you are willfully misquoting, is generally to play it safe and not risk any.

some people read to answer, others read to understand. 'Twas ever thus.

....... · 10-01-2017 02:38PM

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo · 10-01-2017 02:45PM

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Heh I know what you mean. But actually I think if you discount the "Satan dances in the blood of aborted babies" type people who are simply nut jobs on ANY topic....... then jameorahiely is about as extreme as the nonsense gets on the anti side. Though whether that is the reality, or whether I am merely infected with more of the optimism virus than you, I guess we will have to wait and see

Abortion is a topic I have been heavily invested in debating publicly, privately, online and offline and he really is representative of the worst that generally shows up. You do not often get worse. SOME of course, but not enough to be concerned with.

But when the best response one can offer to a thread is to shout "pro murder" and run away.... you would be hard pushed to find TOO MANY examples of it getting worse.

In only the previous 2 or 3 posts he has given perfectly transparent examples we can point back to in the future to show just how dishonest he intends to be. This is useful stuff. The more he does the better so he can "poe" the entire movement for us here.

But lest I be accused of bias the pro-choice side has it's fair share of extreme nonsense too. Even on this forum there are 2 or 3 I have seen suggesting that abortion should be permitted on demand right up to the due date of the baby. Thankfully at least one of those appears to have departed the forum though. And they certainly do not appear to be representative of the pro-choice position and more than James is of the anti.

And I would be as quick to distance myself from those elements on my side as the people being "poe"d by him should on their side. But every side, on every issue, has a few of them.

jameorahiely · 10-01-2017 02:52PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

expect any referendum to bring out all of the pro-choice nutters. that is mild compared to what we can expect.

I agree, the pro abortionist nutters will be out in force

Zubeneschamali · 10-01-2017 03:06PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they stop caring once it is born.

It's originally about souls and baptism in Catholicism. Once they are born and baptised, their ghost is out of Limbo or where ever so who cares.

This is also why Catholic maternity hospitals were "save the baby" and Protestant ones were "save the mother".

Parchment · 10-01-2017 03:07PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

I agree, the pro abortionist nutters will be out in force

You come across as a person with serious hatred inside you. That must be tough to live with.

astrofool · 10-01-2017 03:11PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

I agree, the pro abortionist nutters will be out in force

As will the pro-rapist baby nutters.

jameorahiely · 10-01-2017 03:13PM

Parchment wrote: »

You come across as a person with serious hatred inside you. That must be tough to live with.

You've no point to contribute to the discussion, so just settled for a personal attack. Fascinating.

frag420 · 10-01-2017 03:13PM

Parchment wrote: »

You come across as a person with serious hatred inside you. That must be tough to live with.

He lets it out daily while on boards...its why he uses a laptop made from sponge so that he cant damage it when banging his hatred on the keyboard and it helps soak up the bile...

lawred2 · 10-01-2017 03:19PM

astrofool wrote: »

As will the pro-rapist baby nutters.

do you read your own posts back ever?

you come across as utterly unhinged

Zubeneschamali · 10-01-2017 03:22PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Even on this forum there are 2 or 3 I have seen suggesting that abortion should be permitted on demand right up to the due date of the baby.

Since I can't imagine there are any mother/doctor combinations who would want to do any such thing on a whim, I would be in favour of a Canadian system where we just leave it to the patient and doctor.

We do not want a system where after week x (whatever x is) doctors suddenly start avoiding medical treatment they think is needed for fear of anti-abortion laws which require them to prove this, that or the other to justify it or face criminal charges.

In pro-life world, this means I am in favour of abortion on demand up to birth.

MrVestek · 10-01-2017 03:22PM

Can I abort this thread? Please?!

gctest50 · 10-01-2017 03:28PM

MrVestek wrote: »

Can I abort this thread? Please?!

:eek:

Crazed thread-murderer

jameorahiely · 10-01-2017 03:31PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Since I can't imagine there are any mother/doctor combinations who would want to do any such thing on a whim, I would be in favour of a Canadian system where we just leave it to the patient and doctor.

We do not want a system where after week x (whatever x is) doctors suddenly start avoiding medical treatment they think is needed for fear of anti-abortion laws which require them to prove this, that or the other to justify it or face criminal charges.

In pro-life world, this means I am in favour of abortion on demand up to birth.

You mustn't have much of an imagination. Sure there wad that actress who wished she had had an abortion to be part of the cool gang.

ohnonotgmail · 10-01-2017 03:33PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

You mustn't have much of an imagination. Sure there wad that actress who wished she had had an abortion to be part of the cool gang.

is that supposed to be an argument against all women being allowed access to abortion?

Zubeneschamali · 10-01-2017 03:35PM

jameorahiely wrote: »

You mustn't have much of an imagination. Sure there wad that actress who wished she had had an abortion to be part of the cool gang.

So why would she wait until late term, and where would she find a doctor willing?

Idbatterim · 10-01-2017 03:38PM

when the referendum is held and if it is defeated. How long before another could reasonably be held?

Zubeneschamali · 10-01-2017 03:49PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

when the referendum is held and if it is defeated. How long before another could reasonably be held?

Depends on why. If it is defeated in a straightforward way, like Divorce - maybe 10 years?

If it is defeated thanks to a lot of lies and spoofery like Lisbon, maybe we could clarify wording and try again in a year.

Johnboner · 10-01-2017 03:57PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

expect any referendum to bring out all of the pro-choice nutters. that is mild compared to what we can expect.

I have already seen leaflets being handed out in Dublin city centre and actually got one myself and it is basically a booklet showing how abortion is so wrong and such a crime. I could see this happening on a much greater scale if there would be a referendum (very unlikely) but I bet you if there would be then we would see there booklets everywhere and we would see graphic imagines on every street showing how abortion is the devil even though most of the world does it for valid reasons but I highly doubt this will change due a large amount of people being influenced by religion and medieval thinking.

gctest50 · 10-01-2017 03:58PM

Idbatterim wrote: »

when the referendum is held and if it is defeated. How long before another could reasonably be held?

Too long and criminal gangs will see it all as a way of making money, be selling pills and doing procedures

astrofool · 10-01-2017 04:02PM

lawred2 wrote: »

do you read your own posts back ever?

you come across as utterly unhinged

The great thing about the pro-rapist baby nutters is that they don't understand any level of subtlety at all in ever so slight a way as possible, everything has to be literal and explained to them in minute detail before any semblance of understanding hits them, anything that goes outside of this Neanderthal age brain is blasphemy and should be destroyed as they don't get it. Funnily enough, these are the same group of people who would have tried to destroy rather than use fire, been happy living in a cave, and probably burned the wheel (once the referendum banning fire had been overturned).

This means that the only reasonable course of action is to meet their stupid hyperbolae head on, hence pro-rapist baby nutters.

infogiver · 10-01-2017 04:10PM

Johnboner wrote: »

I have already seen leaflets being handed out in Dublin city centre and actually got one myself and it is basically a booklet showing how abortion is so wrong and such a crime. I could see this happening on a much greater scale if there would be a referendum (very unlikely) but I bet you if there would be then we would see there booklets everywhere and we would see graphic imagines on every street showing how abortion is the devil even though most of the world does it for valid reasons but I highly doubt this will change due a large amount of people being influenced by religion and medieval thinking.

Do you think then that neither side should be allowed to campaign in a referendum?

Johnboner · 10-01-2017 04:20PM

infogiver wrote: »

Do you think then that neither side should be allowed to campaign in a referendum?

Yes, I think so. There is no need to show their outdated mindless opinions which make no sense.

lawred2 · 10-01-2017 04:22PM

astrofool wrote: »

The great thing about the pro-rapist baby nutters is that they don't understand any level of subtlety at all in ever so slight a way as possible, everything has to be literal and explained to them in minute detail before any semblance of understanding hits them, anything that goes outside of this Neanderthal age brain is blasphemy and should be destroyed as they don't get it. Funnily enough, these are the same group of people who would have tried to destroy rather than use fire, been happy living in a cave, and probably burned the wheel (once the referendum banning fire had been overturned).

This means that the only reasonable course of action is to meet their stupid hyperbolae head on, hence pro-rapist baby nutters.

yeah I'm never going to use that

infogiver · 10-01-2017 04:25PM

Johnboner wrote: »

Yes, I think so. There is no need to show their outdated mindless opinions which make no sense.

But do you mean that just the pro life side shouldn't be allowed to campaign then?

gctest50 · 10-01-2017 04:25PM

infogiver wrote: »

Do you think then that neither side should be allowed to campaign in a referendum?

There must be huge money getting funnelled here and there in all this "Pro-Life" stuff

Bit like the refugee/immigrant stuff - huge money

anyone else fed up hearing about abortion already

Comments