Christ im all day replying on this thread, some posters have set out very strong arguments and certainly given me food for thought. Others appear almost idiotic. By calling me out here with your my solution post, guess which group you belong in. So what hole did i dig for myself in your mind? Actually dont bother you arent worth talking to
And ultimately a fully innocent human being
Canât disagree with that, but a lot of your argument is based around people taking responsibility for their actions. A bit harsh in this instance, no?
Thanks for not addressing the point, suggest we leave it there, donât want to drag this out
When you want to make a valid point, and arent confused about the law, try again maybe
Iâm not applying that in this case, but itâs not just simply the child of a rapist. It may not have been wanted and it can understandably be a terrible ordeal for the woman but itâs still her child. Itâs not fair to moralise on rape victims and abortions, itâs incredibly difficult situation but there is another life at play as there is with any abortion. The life of the unborn child should be protected and thatâs why itâs the humane thing to do to vote no.
Iâd happily learn a bit more about them. My last and final boss was Opus Dei. Iâm happy to say I put her and her coven well and truly on their arses.
1 Like
Tommy Burns was Opus Dei and an absolute gentleman who won the hearts of many.
The ramblings of a mad man. Ah sure just force the rape victims to give birth, itâs the humane thing to do 
The gas thing is, youâre not even going to bother voting yourself.
And whatâs your alternative, what has the unborn child done to deserve being denied the right to live? Try and stay on topic for once.
The foetus should be aborted at the earliest possible convenience.
That is barbaric and inhumane and shows the callous nature you show to life.
You havenât a clue about life. Trying to force rape victims to give birth is utterly barbaric, only a total fucking headache would advocate doing this.
Chaps and chapesses, can we come back to the No campaignâs regular use of the line âyou are going to abort healthy babiesâ?
Why are the No campaign making the distinction between âhealthyâ foetuses (can one say âfoetiâ?) and, presumably, ânon-healthyâ foetuses?
It seems very weird that they would do that, as they appear to be placing a higher value on âhealthyâ foeti than on ânon-healthyâ foeti.
This is a hard debate, not black and white and posters have their beliefs which colour their opinions. You either consider an unborn a foetus with no rights or a human person with them. This predicates the whole debate. Im not sure rehashing this over and over for the next week serves any good. No ones mind will be changed.
That is some contradiction. You seem to think a life should be extinguished at the earliest possible convenience.
In certain circumstances it should.
Your hatred of women is quite disturbing generally, but youâve reached a new low tonight with this nonsense.
Thatâs not true at all. Being in favour of choice up to a certain cut-off point does not mean you donât favour the foetus having certain rights after that cut-off point.
They certainly shouldnât have an equal right to life from conception onwards enshrined in the constitution though.
Your hatred of children is off the charts so much so that a right to live for them is an affront for you.
I made the distinction earlier as we were discussing healthy unborn babies vis babies that were unhealthy to the extent that they couldnât survive birth, giving grounds for abortion. You missed it earlier.
The reality is that levels of down syndrome births are way lower in countries with abortion, so which side distinguishes between healthy and unhealthy?
1 Like