Well done Ireland!

The language you use is telling too, given that you use hyperbole such as ‘legalising slaughter’. An early stage foetus is not the same as child, ethnically, morally or biologically.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-...ent-human-embryos-five-year-old-a8016671.html

—-

Over simplifying what is an incredibly difficult physical and emotional decision down to, birth or termination, is crass and shows a basic lack of empathy or understanding.

The early foetus in the womb is not yet human, doesn’t function like a human and has no concept of self like a human. Many more eggs are fertilised than become humans too, even disregarding abortions, therefore fertilisation doesn’t signal beginning of life.

Irish women being forced to travel or undertake dangerous illegal procedures to carry out an abortion is not the pathway to a safer, healthier society. All Ireland’s previous laws did was put innocent women at risk, while criminalising them. That’s nothing short of disgraceful. Decreasing availability of abortion does not decrease demands for abortion. An average of 12 women per day travelled to the UK for abortions, from Ireland. A completely unnecessary financial and emotional burden.

People are entitled to have deeply held beliefs but that doesn’t make their perception of the unborn accurate. A foetus in the early stages of development lacks the developed mind to feel pain or even be aware of its surroundings.

In the case of rape, a woman absolutely has the right to reject the genes of her attacker.

 

Your such a * incel

 

Let's not beat around the bush. Ultimately you do NOT want women to have the choice to carry through with a pregnancy or not. You deliberately use emotive language to describe abortion like "legalise their slaughter". Well I know somebody who did get an abortion, and she sure as * did not SLAUGHTER anybody, despite the viewpoint you and others want to ram down people's throats. A woman having the choice to control her own body and to choose whether or not to proceed with an entire pregnancy IS the most important thing, and it's absolutely a right they should have. Your entire argument, and that of most of the No campaign, absolutely stinks of wanting to have CONTROL over people. CONTROL over what they can do with their own bodies and lives. I'm delighted that control has been taken away from others and given to the women who actually have to go through with the decision. Would a ludicrous idea it is to tell a grown * that they HAVE to go through with an entire pregnancy they don't wish to, because you want to dictate their choices.

 

As I stated previously in the thread, I voted no.
I didn't vote no to try and control women, I didn't try influence anyone on the vote either before or after. I'm not religious, not a member of any particular party. Just an average person.

If the vote had been a straightforward repeal, to allow women whos life was in direct danger or there was irrefutable evidence the child would not survive then I would have voted yes.

I drop into this thread & have engaged in a few conversations to understand, to try and find some reasoning, some argument that will convince me why, the enthusiasm to and celebrating of, voting yes for abortion, was the right thing to do. I haven't found one.
The link above to the fire story, do I save the embryos or the child, is beyond ridiculous yet was latched upon as some sort of philosophical genius at work. It was the epitome of oversimplification.
How about I give the child a name? Adolf seems like a good one, now who do I save?
Everyone can see what I've done there, I've re-framed the story to suit my end point which is all these type of stories do. Any voter, either yes or no, that made their mind up on that dire piece of pseudo intellectualism has done women a great disservice.

 

The correct thing to do would still be saving the child.

 

You wouldn't save a child from a burning building because his name was Adolf?

 

Obviously not

Thats very clever. But it is exactly the point I tried to make. Framing the story in the way you wish the outcome to be perceived.

You're question frames my post in the way you wish me to be perceived. It's not the story that was the point, it's the leading of people in the direction you want them to go while appearing to them that you've let them make their own decision. Exactly as you did with that reply.

I'm not here for *-for-tat mate. I thought I'd explained that.

**And just as an edit, I'm going to stay out of this thread from now I think & go back to sticking to the football. That was why I came to the site anyway. This subject is too tough to discuss on a forum anyway, far too much can be taken up incorrectly.**

 

I don’t think the question is about subjective perception at all. It’s a moral issue about what would be the correct thing to save, which is indisputably the child, in my opinion. The framing of the question can be changed but with the same choice presented, it’ll always be the child.

 

Ok, so the point of the post has been missed it would seem.


There is an old anecdote that the story was plagiarised from. I remember a teacher putting it to us in school many years ago.

There’s a burning building, there are two children in the building. One is named John Smith, the other Adolf Hitler. You can escape with one, who do you save?
The point and I probably wasn’t clear enough why I used the name Adolf but this is why, was to prove to people that they would do horrible things, letting a child burn to death, when faced with horrible decisions. But it presents you with a totally unrealistic situation with an obvious conclusion.

If you are faced in the situation described you grab the child. You don’t even think of it. I suspect 99.99% of the population would.
My point is this that this is a story of no relevance to abortion, framed in such a way as to appear so and ease the mind and conscience of those who struggle with the moral justification of the choice.
It presents an embryo v child situation. This is not what faced the voters of Ireland.


Either way, Adolf gets * up pretty bad.

I’m definitely staying out of here starting now............

 

Whoever edited the thread title is a *.

 

Saw that the other day. Christ almighty.

 

If creepy guys are going to have unprotected * with a prostitute then I don't see how them calling for legal abortions is a bad thing. Her speech and chant were kinda crass but I get her point.

 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/world-latin-america-44469557

Argentina debating abortion now.

 

Never voted in this, but my morale compass would have compelled me to vote No.

Almost every lampost and billboard in Ireland was quoting facts and figures and the debate reached every corner of society . By far the most compelling argument for me by the No side which I read was the that the laws on abortion (before the referendum) have saved an estimated 100k children.

Just think of all the people who would not be walking around this island today had this yes mob got there way in the past.