Planet Rugby Forum

Times, Journal and Examiner all published details of a poll yesterday claiming 75% of doctors in favour of repeal.

The poll was available for the general public to vote in and was shared by pro-choice groups.

Media are doing their level best.

CM11 wrote:Disgusting.

But it was always going to get nasty.

Why are the images disgusting? They're just a foetus aren't they?

Mullet 2 wrote:Times, Journal and Examiner all published details of a poll yesterday claiming 75% of doctors in favour of repeal.

The poll was available for the general public to vote in and was shared by pro-choice groups.

Media are doing their level best.

This article:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/7 ... 66855.html

Which isn't just about repeal but the 12 weeks also and mentions nothing about the public voting.

As for your comment about the images

Both the Times and journal have removed their articles and apologised.

The Examiner, however, say it's not up to them to fact check.

But you're the same lad who takes every poll he reads as gospel so I shouldn't expect any different from you really.

As for the images.

Why do you have a problem with the images? Rolling your eyes isn't an answer when last I checked.

Mullet 2 wrote:Both the Times and journal have removed their articles and apologised.

The Examiner, however, say it's not up to them to fact check.

But you're the same lad who takes every poll he reads as gospel so I shouldn't expect any different from you really.

I wasn't even aware of this poll until you pointed it out and if you remember, I have asked you in the past for the methodology of other polls and have given same to polls I have backed.

Nice try though.

Mullet 2 wrote:As for the images.

Why do you have a problem with the images? Rolling your eyes isn't an answer when last I checked.

I'm not even going to engage with you on this one Mullet. If you think they're ok and not playing nasty then I've misjudged you.

What do you mean nice try?

I pointed out three newspapers printed a false Poll.

That is a fact. Everything else is just you talking your usual brand of ill-informed bollocks.

CM11 wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:As for the images.

Why do you have a problem with the images? Rolling your eyes isn't an answer when last I checked.

I'm not even going to engage with you on this one Mullet. If you think they're ok and not playing nasty then I've misjudged you.

Why aren't they OK? Because they show the reality of an abortion?

Much nicer for you to use words like terminate and procedure isn't it? The women goes in and the baby just disappears.

I find the images sickening frankly.

Mullet 2 wrote:What do you mean nice try?

I pointed out three newspapers printed a false Poll.

That is a fact. Everything else is just you talking your usual brand of ill-informed bollocks.

You brought up the poll, you twat.

And you tried to justify it.

And who is denying I brought it up?

You dozy spa

Mullet 2 wrote:And you tried to justify it.

And who is denying I brought it up?

You dozy spa

Where did I try to justify it? You're really not doing very well this morning.

All I did was point out the factual errors of your own comment (that the poll wasn't just about repeal and that the article mentioned nothing about the public voting).

CM11 wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:Times, Journal and Examiner all published details of a poll yesterday claiming 75% of doctors in favour of repeal.

The poll was available for the general public to vote in and was shared by pro-choice groups.

Media are doing their level best.

This article:

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/7 ... 66855.html

Which isn't just about repeal but the 12 weeks also and mentions nothing about the public voting.

As for your comment about the images

There is where you tried to justify.

Not even the paper is standing over the story anymore but you still are.

Despite knowing absolutely nothing.

I can't tell if you're just being incredibly thick or trying to dig yourself out of a hole but either way, you should really drop it before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

All I did was reply to your post. If you really thought my reply was trying to justify anything then you're much further gone down the rabbit hole on this topic than I thought.

What hole? You're the thick cúnt defending a poll three papers have disowned

You're a fool

Mullet 2 wrote:What hole? You're the thick cúnt defending a poll three papers have disowned

You're a fool

Ok it is that you're incredibly stupid.

I haven't defended anything. I have literally just pointed out the inaccuracies in your own comment. You then manafactured a situation in your mind where I was the one bringing up the poll, not you, and claimed I was taking it as gospel only for me to point out that the very reason (it seems) that the poll was dismissed was the same reason I'd have with any poll (a lack of transparent methodology).

If you're anything close to the face of fighting for a no vote, it'll pass with plenty to spare given the flailing currently on display.

What is inaccurate in my comment? In fact, don't answer that.

You can't follow the basics, fúck off back to pretending you know about rugby

Mullet 2 wrote:What is inaccurate in my comment? In fact, don't answer that.

You can't follow the basics, fúck off back to pretending you know about rugby

Eh, it's in the first reply Mullet.

Did you take stupid pills this morning or something?

You brought up 12 weeks for some reason known only to yourself

Then said it mentions nothing about public voting (the reason the other two papers removed it)

You're a tedious spa who feels the need to stand over an article everyone else is running from.

Why? Well, the first reason you never want to read anything but your own shite in a constant loop.

and the second is that you can't EVER admit your wrong. A ridiculous trait in full grown man.

Now do fúck off.

Ask yourself this.

If even a cabbage like you knows to check the methodology of a poll why would three national news outlets fail in this basic check? Was it incompetence or bias?

That was my original point before you dragged this down to idiot town.

Mullet 2 wrote:You brought up 12 weeks for some reason known only to yourself

Then said it mentions nothing about public voting (the reason the other two papers removed it)

You're a tedious spa who feels the need to stand over an article everyone else is running from.

Why? Well, the first reason you never want to read anything but your own shite in a constant loop.

and the second is that you can't EVER admit your wrong. A ridiculous trait in full grown man.

Now do fúck off.

I haven't stood over the article. When are you going to get that into your thick skull?

I hadn't seen anything about a poll until you brought it up. I linked the article I could find and simply made the distinction between repeal and unrestricted up to 12 weeks along with commenting that there was no mention of the public voting. That's it. Just comments about what you yourself said. No defence, no shouting about it from the rooftops, nada. You have made up a situation in your mind where I have said or implied things that I have not. You do it constantly on this topic and it's incredibly frustrating.

But as I said above, I think I've misjudged you as a person in general so more fool me for thinking I could or should even bother replying to you on this.

The very fact you would make the issue personal speaks far more about you than I.

Grown men can take a difference of opinion without becoming a wailing child.

normilet wrote:https://twitter.com/iAM_AM/status/961889432369590278

Didn't want to post the picture directly on the forum, supposedly taken outside the Department of Education yesterday.

I saw those scumbags down at Independent House during the week. Absolutely shameless, and shows the depths that they'll sink. Shows that their arguments aren't really working either and they're getting desperate. Friend of mine has been getting death threats and, in an ironic twist, being called a murdering c**t.

Can't wait until this thing is done with.

Bullettyme wrote:

normilet wrote:https://twitter.com/iAM_AM/status/961889432369590278

Didn't want to post the picture directly on the forum, supposedly taken outside the Department of Education yesterday.

I saw those scumbags down at Independent House during the week. Absolutely shameless, and shows the depths that they'll sink. Shows that their arguments aren't really working either and they're getting desperate. Friend of mine has been getting death threats and, in an ironic twist, being called a murdering c**t.

Can't wait until this thing is done with.

Let's not have a rush to the moral high ground here from the anybody pro-choice.

I've seen some of the stuff John McGuirk and others are getting. And look at that cúnt Conspicous's and his attack on here.

Mullet 2 wrote:

Bullettyme wrote:

normilet wrote:https://twitter.com/iAM_AM/status/961889432369590278

Didn't want to post the picture directly on the forum, supposedly taken outside the Department of Education yesterday.

I saw those scumbags down at Independent House during the week. Absolutely shameless, and shows the depths that they'll sink. Shows that their arguments aren't really working either and they're getting desperate. Friend of mine has been getting death threats and, in an ironic twist, being called a murdering c**t.

Can't wait until this thing is done with.

Let's not have a rush to the moral high ground here from the anybody pro-choice.

I've seen some of the stuff John McGuirk and others are getting. And look at that cúnt Conspicous's and his attack on here.

Yeah, part of the reason why I'm looking forward to it being over. People are just losing their minds. Not surprising given the subject matter. I think that type of wording and imagery is unacceptable though, and I'm not sure of the purpose it serves other than demonising people who already have faced some serious stigma (from the Irish state no less).

The images are vile.

But they are the reality of abortion. I've been told numerous times on here it's just a bunch of cells.

If your position is that it is just a bunch of cells than the picture isn't any different to a bloody steak.

Shouldn't have them where children can see them however.

Mullet 2 wrote:The images are vile.

But they are the reality of abortion. I've been told numerous times on here it's just a bunch of cells.

If your position is that it is just a bunch of cells than the picture isn't any different to a bloody steak.

Shouldn't have them where children can see them however.

They're not the reality of abortion. That's an outright lie.

Termination at 22 weeks is rare - the vast majority of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks and don't involve gory surgical procedures. At 22 weeks there's a small but still significant chance of viability - any termination of pregnancy at that stage is rare and usually for explicit medical reasons. I don't know where they got that photo from, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't represent what they're implying.

Conservative Eddie wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:The images are vile.

But they are the reality of abortion. I've been told numerous times on here it's just a bunch of cells.

If your position is that it is just a bunch of cells than the picture isn't any different to a bloody steak.

Shouldn't have them where children can see them however.

They're not the reality of abortion. That's an outright lie.

Termination at 22 weeks is rare - the vast majority of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks and don't involve gory surgical procedures. At 22 weeks there's a small but still significant chance of viability - any termination of pregnancy at that stage is rare and usually for explicit medical reasons. I don't know where they got that photo from, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't represent what they're implying.

Is there some contention from these hardcore chaps that they aren't? There will be abortions post 12 weeks after repeal.

There are now.

Mullet 2 wrote:The very fact you would make the issue personal speaks far more about you than I.

Grown men can take a difference of opinion without becoming a wailing child.

Are you you for real? Do you actually read any of the posts you post? Probably the most hypocritical thing I've ever read on here.

CM11 wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:The very fact you would make the issue personal speaks far more about you than I.

Grown men can take a difference of opinion without becoming a wailing child.

Are you you for real? Do you actually read any of the posts you post? Probably the most hypocritical thing I've ever read on here.

I never claimed that I don't have an abrasive style you gobshite.

I, however, haven't changed my opinion of you because you disagree with me about abortion.

You're the only hysterical fool to claim that honour.

Mullet 2 wrote:The images are vile.

But they are the reality of abortion. I've been told numerous times on here it's just a bunch of cells.

If your position is that it is just a bunch of cells than the picture isn't any different to a bloody steak.

Shouldn't have them where children can see them however.

It's not the reality. Images of the 12 weeks is the extreme edge of what we're being asked to vote on, and images of anything past that is just plain dishonest. It's scaremongering slippery slope stuff that has no basis in reality, it strikes me that they've lost and are looking to fight another battle - if they think abortion is so wrong how about putting energy into sex-ed and family planning instead of a hypothetical?

Mullet 2 wrote:

Conservative Eddie wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:The images are vile.

But they are the reality of abortion. I've been told numerous times on here it's just a bunch of cells.

If your position is that it is just a bunch of cells than the picture isn't any different to a bloody steak.

Shouldn't have them where children can see them however.

They're not the reality of abortion. That's an outright lie.

Termination at 22 weeks is rare - the vast majority of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks and don't involve gory surgical procedures. At 22 weeks there's a small but still significant chance of viability - any termination of pregnancy at that stage is rare and usually for explicit medical reasons. I don't know where they got that photo from, but I'm fairly sure it doesn't represent what they're implying.

Is there some contention from these hardcore chaps that they aren't? There will be abortions post 12 weeks after repeal.

There are now.

Do you have any idea what happens at 22 weeks into a pregnancy?

Any termination at that stage will involve medical intervention to ensure the survival of the baby, unless that's already been deemed impossible due to extenuating developmental/medical circumstances. A small minority of babies delivered at 22 weeks survive, most do not. These terminations are performed for medical reasons and not on some whim. Conflating terminations at that stage with terminations in the first 12 weeks (the reality for the vast majority) is utterly disingenuous.

Mullet 2 wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:The very fact you would make the issue personal speaks far more about you than I.

Grown men can take a difference of opinion without becoming a wailing child.

Are you you for real? Do you actually read any of the posts you post? Probably the most hypocritical thing I've ever read on here.

I never claimed that I don't have an abrasive style you gobshite.

I, however, haven't changed my opinion of you because you disagree with me about abortion.

You're the only hysterical fool to claim that honour.

And yet another example to go with the hundreds where you've falsely represented me.

It has nothing to do with your stance on abortion and everything to do with the constant personal attacks and misrepresentation of my posts where you feel the need to manufacture a contrary point so that you can continue to attack me.

You're a liar frankly

You clearly state above you were "wrong" about me because I challenged your view on the pictures.

Life is too short anyway to worry about some cúnt like you being unable to separate out your opinions.

Mullet 2 wrote:You're a liar frankly

You clearly state above you were "wrong" about me because I challenged your view on the pictures.

Life is too short anyway to worry about some cúnt like you being unable to separate out your opinions.

And another. This has nothing to do with the pictures.

As for separating out opinions. Could you try it sometime? Even once would be nice.

CM11 wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:As for the images.

Why do you have a problem with the images? Rolling your eyes isn't an answer when last I checked.

I'm not even going to engage with you on this one Mullet. If you think they're ok and not playing nasty then I've misjudged you.

Go tell your lies to somebody who might actually believe you.

CM11 wrote:As for separating out opinions. Could you try it sometime? Even once would be nice.

Mullet 2 wrote:

CM11 wrote:

Mullet 2 wrote:As for the images.

Why do you have a problem with the images? Rolling your eyes isn't an answer when last I checked.

I'm not even going to engage with you on this one Mullet. If you think they're ok and not playing nasty then I've misjudged you.

Go tell your lies to somebody who might actually believe you.

This though, this is what I'm talking about.

I haven't lied once yet you continually accuse me of doing so. It's pathetic.

If it quacks like a duck


Well in your case you'll just lie and say it's a cow but you get the drift.