Advertisement
Boards are fundraising to help the people of Ukraine via the Red Cross at this horrific time. Please donate and share if you can, you will find the link here. Many thanks.

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

2456785

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭ robarmstrong


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Well where does your bodily autonomy begin or end and my right to hand out leaflets or pray quietly on the street begin or end?
    That’s the big issue isn’t it? Why do your rights trump my rights? Because they don’t.

    What right do you have to decide what a complete stranger does with her own body?

    Thankfully nothing anymore. Ever since the 8th has been done away with, all but the most extreme and bitter have crawled back into the pits they initially emerged from. Similar to what happened during the SSM referendum.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,421 ✭✭✭ splinter65


    What right do you have to decide what a complete stranger does with her own body?

    Thankfully nothing anymore. Ever since the 8th has been done away with, all but the most extreme and bitter have crawled back into the pits they initially emerged from. Similar to what happened during the SSM referendum.

    And what right do you have to tell me what I can think, what I can say, where I can stand? None. Glory, glory hallelujah.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭ SusieBlue


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Well where does your bodily autonomy begin or end and my right to hand out leaflets or pray quietly on the street begin or end?
    That’s the big issue isn’t it? Why do your rights trump my rights? Because they don’t.

    By that token, I’m sure you support same sex weddings being held in churches & celebrated by priests, condoms being handed out after mass and abortion services information being hung up on the church noticeboard?
    Because we have a ‘right’ to do so?

    Or can we not agree that there is a time and place for everything and with a bit of mutual respect there is no need for either side to impose on the other?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,123 ✭✭✭ amcalester


    it’s kind of ironic that the no crowd are now complaining about potentially having their rights restricted when they’ve actually been restricting the rights of women for years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,977 ✭✭✭✭ Hotblack Desiato


    splinter65 wrote: »
    It’s always very alarming for me when I encounter views which demonstrate to me that some people like you, lucky enough to be living in a democracy, don’t seem to understand what democracy involves.

    So why not accept the democratic decision of the people then....?

    Make our National Maternity Hospital Public and Secular

    #MakeNMHOurs

    Annoy your TDs now!!!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭ robarmstrong


    splinter65 wrote: »
    And what right do you have to tell me what I can think, what I can say, where I can stand? None. Glory, glory hallelujah.

    I haven’t dictated any of the above to you, yet those in favor of the 8th have dictated the courses of many pregnancies across many years.

    Personally I think shunting someone onto a plane or a boat to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because individuals with a pro-life view don’t want it dealt with here (but not enough to go out and prevent the women from traveling either, so it’s a case of “pro-life!! Up until the airport/docks”) is a lot worse than telling people they cannot protest directly outside maternity clinics.

    Not a single protest ended well for the pro-life individuals, especially considering the vast majority would flat out avoid discussing how insensitive it was to hold up graphic images of miscarried fetuses and attempt to deceive passerby’s by telling them they were results of abortions.

    Abortion is here, it’s safe and it’s legislated now. It was time for Ireland to grow up and deal with some problems, instead of pushing them onto a plane or a boat across the waters.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,123 ✭✭✭ amcalester


    I haven’t dictated any of the above to you, yet those in favor of the 8th have dictated the courses of many pregnancies across many years.

    Personally I think shunting someone onto a plane or a boat to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because individuals with a pro-life view don’t want it dealt with here (but not enough to go out and prevent the women from traveling either, so it’s a case of “pro-life!! Up until the airport/docks”) is a lot worse than telling people they cannot protest directly outside maternity clinics.

    Not a single protest ended well for the pro-life individuals, especially considering the vast majority would flat out avoid discussing how insensitive it was to hold up graphic images of miscarried fetuses and attempt to deceive passerby’s by telling them they were results of abortions.

    Abortion is here, it’s safe and it’s legislated now. It was time for Ireland to grow up and deal with some problems, instead of pushing them onto a plane or a boat across the waters.

    Geographical restrictions on the rights of the unborn are ok according to some on the no side, but not on the right to protest.

    Strange logic to have the right to protest outweigh the unborn’s right to life.

    Almost makes one think that the unborn is little more than an afterthought in the no crowd’s quest for control.


  • Registered Users Posts: 35,313 ✭✭✭✭ ohnonotgmail


    amcalester wrote: »
    Geographical restrictions on the rights of the unborn are ok according to some on the no side, but not on the right to protest.

    Strange logic to have the right to protest outweigh the unborn’s right to life.

    Almost makes one think that the unborn is little more than an afterthought in the no crowd’s quest for control.

    they see the unborn as a stick to beat women with


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,421 ✭✭✭ splinter65


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    By that token, I’m sure you support same sex weddings being held in churches & celebrated by priests, condoms being handed out after mass and abortion services information being hung up on the church noticeboard?
    Because we have a ‘right’ to do so?

    Or can we not agree that there is a time and place for everything and with a bit of mutual respect there is no need for either side to impose on the other?

    No no I don’t support that at all. The RCC is not a public service that everyone is entitled to avail of at all. It’s a private club that you are not obliged to join but if you join you have to obey the rules.
    No more then you or I can’t just walk into Ballygobackwards Golf Club and start playing golf, it’s not a public amenity.
    It’s disappointing to see you putting such a pointless argument forward because this is pretty straightforward stuff Susie.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,421 ✭✭✭ splinter65


    they see the unborn as a stick to beat women with

    I see the unborn as human beings entitled to be protected, which is what they are.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 9,421 ✭✭✭ splinter65


    So why not accept the democratic decision of the people then....?

    Where have I not accepted the democratic decision? Of course I accept it. That doesn’t mean though that I will stop fighting for the rights of unborn humans. After all, when the pro abortion people lost in the 80s, they didn’t stop fighting, did they?
    That’s another great thing about democracy. Laws can be and are, overturned if the people will it. And they will.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭ SusieBlue


    splinter65 wrote: »
    No no I don’t support that at all. The RCC is not a public service that everyone is entitled to avail of at all. It’s a private club that you are not obliged to join but if you join you have to obey the rules.
    No more then you or I can’t just walk into Ballygobackwards Golf Club and start playing golf, it’s not a public amenity.
    It’s disappointing to see you putting such a pointless argument forward because this is pretty straightforward stuff Susie.

    The principle is the same though.
    If you demand that others respect your personal decisions and beliefs without interference, you should afford others the same luxury.

    There is a time and place for everything, handing out anti abortion leaflets outside maternity hospitals & picketing doctors offices is no more acceptable than handing out condoms outside mass & sticking up abortion services info on the noticeboard.


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,969 ✭✭✭✭ end of the road


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    Strange how you weren't happy with the democratic result that got rid of the 8th and were happy to use lies to try and undermine the democratic process during the campaign.

    As soon as there is trouble at these protests and going by the past and what occurred in the UK, there will be, they will be reviewed and introduced.

    i wouldn't be so sure. if they could be introduced then they already would be or there would be a plan already in motion to do it. even if introduced, they won't stop the protest. in fact there is a possibility that we may end up with tactics being used as per london this week, by people who may not agree with the protests themselves but who would be against restrictions being placed on protesting because there is always a possibility of restrictions on protesting being extended.
    amcalester wrote: »
    it’s kind of ironic that the no crowd are now complaining about potentially having their rights restricted when they’ve actually been restricting the rights of women for years.

    they haven't been restricting any rights. they have been preventing the introduction of a discretionary allowence which can be taken away at any time.
    So why not accept the democratic decision of the people then....?

    as i see it, a decision that allows the killing of human beings in utero for absolutely any reason rather then simply some very necessary reasons, is not a decision worth accepting or respecting. a decision that has turned ireland from a grownup country to a backward nation as i see it.

    abolish the indirect subsidy to the irish pub known as MUP.



  • Registered Users Posts: 9,421 ✭✭✭ splinter65


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    The principle is the same though.
    If you demand that others respect your personal decisions and beliefs without interference, you should afford others the same luxury.

    There is a time and place for everything, handing out anti abortion leaflets outside maternity hospitals & picketing doctors offices is no more acceptable than handing out condoms outside mass & sticking up abortion services info on the noticeboard.

    Nobody said you can’t hand out condoms on the street outside a church if you want. Knock yourself out. Hand them out and tubes of lube if it makes you happy.
    But you won’t be coming into the church to hand them out.
    You hand out your condoms and I’ll hand out my leaflets and we’ll all be happy.
    But you can’t come into the church (private property) and put items that are contrary to Church law on the notice board.
    Regarding the RCC and SSM the Sacrament of Matrimony is for Catholics only with some small allowances. As the RCC rules doesn’t allow for SSM then the church is of course going to refuse you the sacrament.
    A priest is not obliged to marry anyone he deems not suitable for marriage, you are not entitled to demand a priest marry you and the priest is exempt from the Eqaulity Act in his regard.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,916 ✭✭✭✭ aloyisious


    splinter65 wrote: »
    The RCC is not a public service that everyone is entitled to avail of at all. It’s a private club that you are not obliged to join but if you join you have to obey the rules. .

    Re your last, do most or all people baptised have a choice when it comes to it, given that the usual age for a person to be given the sacrament of baptism is when they are infants and totally unaware of what is going on or in a mental position of cognition as to the import and meaning of the blessing? Did you receive the sacrament of baptism as an infant or as an adult capable of deciding to say yes or no to being baptised?

    If the answer you give honestly to both above questions is that the sacrament was performed on infants including you, then the example you used and the question of obligation you mentioned has no bearing when the infant is not capable of making a decision to join the private club but is involuntarily made a member (co-opted as it were) by at least one other person into the RCC.

    Seeing as you brought baptism into this, and claim that the club is not a public service that anyone is entitled to avail of at al, what are the restrictions you see? IMO baptism has no bearing at all on the topic of this thread.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,990 ✭✭✭ DubInMeath


    splinter65 wrote: »
    And what right do you have to tell me what I can think, what I can say, where I can stand? None. Glory, glory hallelujah.

    Why as a person who isn't Irish, according to your own admission, so intent on interfering with how we go about our lives and how we run our country?

    Your the same in relation to immigrants, which again as your according to your own admission not Irish is a joke and more I'd say to do with your religious bigotry and racisim.
    Your also the same in relation to how we handle our taxes and social welfare. Wanting to sterilize people on social welfare so your taxes aren't spent on children's allowance, preferring to have them spent on the reintroduction of mother and baby homes where these fallen women in your opinion can work off their sin.

    You have the right to stand on the street but your still bound by the public order act, but perhaps you feel the law doesn't apply in this case.

    '


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,990 ✭✭✭ DubInMeath


    i wouldn't be so sure. if they could be introduced then they already would be or there would be a plan already in motion to do it. even if introduced, they won't stop the protest. in fact there is a possibility that we may end up with tactics being used as per london this week, by people who may not agree with the protests themselves but who would be against restrictions being placed on protesting because there is always a possibility of restrictions on protesting being extended.



    they haven't been restricting any rights. they have been preventing the introduction of a discretionary allowence which can be taken away at any time.



    as i see it, a decision that allows the killing of human beings in utero for absolutely any reason rather then simply some very necessary reasons, is not a decision worth accepting or respecting. a decision that has turned ireland from a grownup country to a backward nation as i see it.

    In one word horse****
    You were calling for people including women and children to be baton charged for protesting about a concert on here in the past, so no your not worried about any future affects on the right to protest, you just want to have certain groups you support be able to harass people looking for medical treatment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,105 ✭✭✭ Odhinn


    splinter65 wrote: »
    No no I don’t support that at all. The RCC is not a public service that everyone is entitled to avail of at all. It’s a private club that you are not obliged to join but if you join you have to obey the rules.


    So if I was a liberal protestant in Ireland in 1970, I'd have no problem accessing contraception or getting a divorce?


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,969 ✭✭✭✭ end of the road


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    In one word horse****
    You were calling for people including women and children to be baton charged for protesting about a concert on here in the past,

    yes, in the past. i said in the previous varient of this thread that i no longer believe this should happen. so this attempt to use something i no longer believe against me has again failed, as it has plenty of times before.
    DubInMeath wrote: »
    so no your not worried about any future affects on the right to protest, you just want to have certain groups you support be able to harass people looking for medical treatment.

    i am very worried about future effects on the right to protest. the right to protest is vital and any attempt to restrict it from what we have must be gone against and made unviable to keep. people are not able to harass people looking for actual medical treatment. however, AOD is not medical treatment as you don't, bar cases where another life is at risk of being ended, treat something by ending the life of another human being.

    abolish the indirect subsidy to the irish pub known as MUP.



  • Registered Users Posts: 5,990 ✭✭✭ DubInMeath


    yes, in the past. i said in the previous varient of this thread that i no longer believe this should happen. so this attempt to use something i no longer believe against me has again failed, as it has plenty of times before.



    i am very worried about future effects on the right to protest. the right to protest is vital and any attempt to restrict it from what we have must be gone against and made unviable to keep. people are not able to harass people looking for actual medical treatment. however, AOD is not medical treatment as you don't, bar cases where another life is at risk of being ended, treat something by ending the life of another human being.

    Again horse****.
    Your no more worried about any affects on the freedom to protest than you were about cases of ffa and rape before the referendum.

    Abortion is a medical treatment regardless of how much you want to stamp your feet and say it's not. You might not agree but you don't have the right to harass anyone who wishes to obtain one as per their choice.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 26,969 ✭✭✭✭ end of the road


    DubInMeath wrote: »
    Again horse****.
    Your no more worried about any affects on the freedom to protest than you were about cases of ffa and rape before the referendum.

    Abortion is a medical treatment regardless of how much you want to stamp your feet and say it's not. You might not agree but you don't have the right to harass anyone who wishes to obtain one as per their choice.

    i am worried about the effects on the freedom and right to protest. a vital right which must be protected.
    i was very much worried about cases of rape and FFA before the referendum, hence my disgust at them being used to push through abortion on demand.
    one has the right to protest against the ending of another human being's life and i support that right, as simply protesting is not harassment. if someone is engaging in harassment, then that must be reported to the gardai, who have all of the powers that ever could be needed, to deal with the person engaging in the harassment, who the gardai will deal with.

    abolish the indirect subsidy to the irish pub known as MUP.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,046 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    yes, in the past. i said in the previous varient of this thread that i no longer believe this should happen. so this attempt to use something i no longer believe against me has again failed, as it has plenty of times before.

    Unfortunately given your posting history we dont believe this.

    If its true, what changed your mind?
    Why do you think that the rights of anti abortion protesters to protest in front of certain places is important but thought that other protestors deserved to be beaten and water cannoned?
    Did you previously think that anti abortion protestors deserved to be likewise treated back when you believed that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 26,969 ✭✭✭✭ end of the road


    King Mob wrote: »
    Unfortunately given your posting history we dont believe this.

    it doesn't matter whether you, and it's just you, believe me. what i said is accurate. i no longer believe it and that is that.
    King Mob wrote: »
    If its true, what changed your mind?

    Why do you think that the rights of anti abortion protesters to protest in front of certain places is important but thought that other protestors deserved to be beaten and water cannoned?

    Did you previously think that anti abortion protestors deserved to be likewise treated back when you believed that?

    such questions are irrelevant to abortion. what matters is i no longer believe protesters should be brutalised if i disagree with them.

    abolish the indirect subsidy to the irish pub known as MUP.



  • Registered Users Posts: 22,046 ✭✭✭✭ King Mob


    it doesn't matter whether you, and it's just you, believe me. what i said is accurate. i no longer believe it and that is that.

    such questions are irrelevant to abortion. what matters is i no longer believe protesters should be brutalised if i disagree with them.
    Well again, this doesn't at all seem genuine.
    And in my opinion I think it's indicitive of the nature of the tactic of whining about antiabortion protesters right to protest in specific places.
    (Specific places that just also happen to be the best places to engage in harassment, intimidation and shaming.)


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,247 ✭✭✭ pauldla


    it doesn't matter whether you, and it's just you, believe me. what i said is accurate. i no longer believe it and that is that.



    ....

    Just for the record, I don't believe you either.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,083 ✭✭✭ volchitsa


    it doesn't matter whether you, and it's just you, believe me. what i said is accurate. i no longer believe it and that is that.

    such questions are irrelevant to abortion. what matters is i no longer believe protesters should be brutalised if i disagree with them.

    But if you can't explain this change of heart, it's hard to see why anyone should take it seriously at all. It seems not only random but wildly variable, a bit like a two year old who suddenly claims to hate food that he loved only yesterday.
    It might be wiser for others to ignore much of what you claim to believe - because perhaps tomorrow you'll wake up and believe protestors should be shot on sight.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,219 ✭✭✭ Calina


    splinter65 wrote: »
    Regarding the RCC and SSM the Sacrament of Matrimony is for Catholics only with some small allowances. As the RCC rules doesn’t allow for SSM then the church is of course going to refuse you the sacrament.
    A priest is not obliged to marry anyone he deems not suitable for marriage, you are not entitled to demand a priest marry you and the priest is exempt from the Eqaulity Act in his regard.

    In this case then, the Catholic Church should never have had the right to enter marriages on the civil register.

    On the wider question of access to abortion services, and protests, the right to protest could be limited if it is abused and used to harass vulnerable people. People would still have the right to free association but where they associate could be restricted to exclude certain sensitive locations.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭ robarmstrong


    Referring to correctly legislated abortion as “abortion on demand” also does not help your case.

    Also, it absolutely is medical treatment, anything that requires the intervention of someone who is a medical professional is medical treatment, so again, you’re passing opinion off as fact when it clearly isn’t.


  • Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,035 Mod ✭✭✭✭ Cabaal


    Christians in the USA doing their bit to stop the UN classing rape as a weapon of war

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/22/us-un-resolution-rape-weapon-of-war-veto
    The US is threatening to veto a United Nations resolution on combatting the use of rape as a weapon of war because of its language on reproductive and sexual health, according to a senior UN official and European diplomats.
    European states, led by Germany, the UK and France, have been resisting abandoning the language on access to family planning and women’s health clinics, as they believe it would mean surrendering the gains of recent decades in terms of international recognition of women’s rights.

    Damn right it would, but then thats the big plan by the USA right now...undo rights


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,123 ✭✭✭ amcalester


    i am worried about the effects on the freedom and right to protest. a vital right which must be protected.
    i was very much worried about cases of rape and FFA before the referendum, hence my disgust at them being used to push through abortion on demand.
    one has the right to protest against the ending of another human being's life and i support that right, as simply protesting is not harassment. if someone is engaging in harassment, then that must be reported to the gardai, who have all of the powers that ever could be needed, to deal with the person engaging in the harassment, who the gardai will deal with.

    What about crossing a picket line as a form of protest? Would you respect a persons right to do that?

    Or do you still think such a person should expect to be met with physical force to stop them crossing the picket?


Advertisement