Second coming of the Pope to coincide with General Election issue of 8th amendment?

Absolam

Cabaal wrote: »

Jyst something I spotted earlier,
For somebody that says they care about life I find the signature comment of Absolam unusual to say the least
"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition "
The basis of this line is from this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praise_the_Lord_and_Pass_the_Ammunition
Seems unusual for somebody that claims life is important...I guess some life is less important...once its out of the womb.

Darn... all this time I never imagined for a moment that someone might notice the sig at the bottom of every single one of my posts!
If it weren't for you pesky kids I would have gotten away with it too.......

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

I pointed out that "If you propose abortion being available, then you are anti-life. There is no other label that fits." is as nonsensical as "If you oppose abortion being available, then you are anti-choice. There is no other label that fits."
.

It isn't though.

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

Darn... all this time I never imagined for a moment that someone might notice the sig at the bottom of every single one of my posts!
If it weren't for you pesky kids I would have gotten away with it too.......

Nicely ducked.

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

It isn't though.

Yes, it is. The two self-chosen labels fit just as well for a start. You may disagree with one of them, but there are more than enough people who use it and who understand that it fits fine.

Kev W wrote: »

Nicely ducked.

I'm not stopping you opening a 'what do peoples sigs mean' thread.

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

Yes, it is. The two self-chosen labels fit just as well for a start. You may disagree with one of them, but there are more than enough people who use it and who understand that it fits fine.

"Pro-life" does not mean pro-life. It means "pro-forced birth".

[/quote]I'm not stopping you opening a 'what do peoples sigs mean' thread.[/QUOTE]

I'm not stopping you examining the hypocrisy of your sig.

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

"Pro-life" does not mean pro-life. It means "pro-forced birth".

Certainly an opinion, I'll grant you. Not one shared by the vast majority of those who identify themselves with it, so something of a minority opinion. But if you think "pro-forced birth" is a label that fits, then you're definitely proving Seamus's assertion that anti-choice is the only label that fits, quite wrong.

Kev W wrote: »

I'm not stopping you examining the hypocrisy of your sig.

Sure you're not. Though you don't actually know whether it's hypocritical or not, do you? But the thread isn't about me anyway, despite your flattering terms of affection. It's about a prospective Papal visit.

Kev W

Absolam wrote: »

Certainly an opinion, I'll grant you. Not one shared by the vast majority of those who identify themselves with it, so something of a minority opinion. But if you think "pro-forced birth" is a label that fits, then you're definitely proving Seamus's assertion that anti-choice is the only label that fits, quite wrong.

Incorrect. "pro-forced birth" and "anti-choice" are not in any way contradictory. Also just because the majority of self-identifying "pro-lifers" disagree with something does not make it a minority opinion.

Sure you're not. Though you don't actually know whether it's hypocritical or not, do you?

Yes I do. Calling yourself "pro-life" while your sig celebrates murder is hypocritical. How could it not be?

[/quote]But the thread isn't about me anyway, despite your flattering terms of affection. It's about a prospective Papal visit.[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you mean by "flattering terms of affection", unless you're taking "pro-forced birth" as a compliment, which would surprise me very little.

I'm seeing a pattern here. You'll gladly take the thread off-topic with nitpicking and contrarianism until such a point as you've painted yourself into a corner and accrued a litany of unanswered questions, then bemoan the fact that the thread has gone off-topic and take it as an excuse not to answer.

ucseae1

lazygal wrote: »

This post tells me you're martin whateverhescalled. Same.. same tone.

Why is it always the woman and not the baby who's the priority when a life threatening issue arises?

And any chance you can clarify why the morning pill and travelling to kill the unborn is ok? You've been asked this many times, under many guises, at this stage.

And don't make me laugh that treatment doesn't 'directly target' the foetus. Was Ms Y's baby not directly targeted when she was granted a termination of pregnancy because her life was at risk? Or did he experience nothing at all when the pregnancy was terminated? What about ectopic pregnancies, where an embryo is removed? Does that not directly target the unborn child which is supposed to have an equal right to life?

Why did you refer to Catholics and prolife people? Is that because despite claims of myriad prolife atheists you're not actually atheist, but catholic?

Lets deal with the issue at hand.. Instead of going off looking for other points to debate.

You know very well, or you should know that there is NOBODY... N O B O D Y advocating that a doctor should not terminate an ectopic Pregnancy. The constitution is crystal clear on this. That is not directly targeting the unborn, its a necessary procedure that has to be done to save the mother. The intention was not to kill the child. there simply is no alternative. Catholics DO NO BELIEVE a pregnant woman should die.. EVER.

Also I am not sure what you mean about Atheist/Catholic. I am a catholic, I haven't claimed otherwise.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ucseae1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Why are atheists on the Christian forum debating abortion. touché

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

lazygal

ucseae1 wrote: »

Lets deal with the issue at hand.. Instead of going off looking for other points to debate.

You know very well, or you should know that there is NOBODY... N O B O D Y advocating that a doctor should not terminate an ectopic Pregnancy. The constitution is crystal clear on this. That is not directly targeting the unborn, its a necessary procedure that has to be done to save the mother. The intention was not to kill the child. there simply is no alternative. Catholics DO NO BELIEVE a pregnant woman should die.. EVER.

Also I am not sure what you mean about Atheist/Catholic. I am a catholic, I haven't claimed otherwise.

Let's deal with why you think its ok to kill the unborn in some circumstances but not others, and what kind of mental gymnastics makes you claim this doesn't kill a child/target the unborn.
And why is it ok to kill the unborn elsewhere? And use the morning after pill.

robindch

johnny osbourne - any more of that just-deleted nonsense and you'll be receiving a stern card or worse from your friendly moderators.

ucseae1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Tell that your the others then.

lazygal

ucseae1 wrote: »

Tell that your the others then.

Has a word in this sentence been directly targted, thereby saving the words but leaving the life of the sentence a mystery?

ucseae1

Lets get back to the topic at hand. So when is the referendum?

lazygal

ucseae1 wrote: »

Lets get back to the topic at hand. So when is the referendum?

When do you think we should have a referendum? Should we have one on repealing the whole eighth amendment? Or should we directly target the right of women and girls to take the unborn elsewhere to be killed?

Absolam

Shrap wrote: »

Also a line out of a Dixie Chicks song called Sin Wagon. They seem to regularly get in trouble with God-botherers and have a lead singer who both regrets her abortion and is firmly pro-choice, so I'm guessing it's not this song that Absolam's signature references....
Pity. It's a kick ass song

I own Fly on vinyl, and have been known to essay Sin Wagon in Rockband from time to time. I appreciate the quite delicious way the phrase is used in the song, but I can't say it consciously influenced my sig choice. Enough about me though

Absolam

Kev W wrote: »

Incorrect. "pro-forced birth" and "anti-choice" are not in any way contradictory. Also just because the majority of self-identifying "pro-lifers" disagree with something does not make it a minority opinion.

Whether or not they're contradictrory doesn't really matter; if you feel that "pro-forced birth" is a label that fits, then your opinion contradicts Seamus's assertion that anti-choice is the only label that fits.
Regardless of whether either label actually has any value at all.

Kev W wrote: »

Yes I do. Calling yourself "pro-life" while your sig celebrates murder is hypocritical. How could it not be?

Well, if my sig didn't celebrate murder, that would be a way. If my pro-life self identifier only extended to in utero life, that would be another. Since you don't actually know the facts in either case, you don't actually know whether it's hypocritical or not; you're just making assumptions. Still, not about the poster, as I said. All about the posts!

Kev W wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by "flattering terms of affection", unless you're taking "pro-forced birth" as a compliment, which would surprise me very little.

I mean sweetie. Darling.

Kev W wrote: »

I'm seeing a pattern here. You'll gladly take the thread off-topic with nitpicking and contrarianism until such a point as you've painted yourself into a corner and accrued a litany of unanswered questions, then bemoan the fact that the thread has gone off-topic and take it as an excuse not to answer.

Aw now... I responded to Cabaals off topic post, and your own off topic post about a woman being raped, so I can't really take any credit for taking the thread off topic. Though you yourself weren't exactly loquacious when I tried to reintroduce the actual topic, so you can't exactly hold yourself blameless either.
Anyway, if you have a litany of unanswered questions related to my posts rather than me as a poster, feel free to link them and I'll give them some consideration.

ucseae1

lazygal wrote: »

When do you think we should have a referendum? Should we have one on repealing the whole eighth amendment? Or should we directly target the right of women and girls to take the unborn elsewhere to be killed?

What is wrong with the Eight amendment??

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

It respect the rights of everyone.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Kev W

ucseae1 wrote: »

What is wrong with the Eight amendment??

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

It respect the rights of everyone.

You can't possibly expect the people you're addressing to look at that and think "oh yeah, fair point, I hadn't looked at it that way".

You're bordering on trolling now.

ucseae1

Kev W wrote: »

You can't possibly expect the people you're addressing to look at that and think "oh yeah, fair point, I hadn't looked at it that way".

You're bordering on trolling now.

I turn exactly the same point back at you. You can't expect people to say that its fine to kill at child because of a myriad of reasons. We reduce the child to hundreds of subjective views and laws.

Its no small matter, we are talking about a life here.

Take Gianna Jessen born during a failed saline abortion attempt. She has a voice today. How many more children are we turning into medical waste??

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

ucseae1

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

When do they become children?

Kev W

ucseae1 wrote: »

When do they become children?

Are we back on this merry-go-round again?

ucseae1

Kev W wrote: »

Are we back on this merry-go-round again?

You want to debate something as sensitive as a human life but you can't tell me when that life starts?

stinkle

They become children when born. You don't get childrens' allowance when pregnant for example, nor would you get a death cert for a miscarriage. They aren't a legal person until birth, which is why having a constitution which gives a foetus the same right to life to a grown woman is ridiculous.

ucseae1

stinkle wrote: »

They become children when born.

So on day 280 they are a child, but on day 279 they are not and have no rights?

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.