Outlaw Pete wrote: » Haven't seen one user refer to women (who have become pregnant through consensual sex) in that manner, or anything close to it.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » So was their failure to round up opposition due to the fact it was so popular, or did it end up so popular because the anti side were so pathetic?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » But when one side consists of a bunch of hypercatholic pre Vatican 2 dinosaurs, and the other side consists of everybody else, this "balance" is entirely artificial.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » But when one side consists of a bunch of hypercatholic pre Vatican 2 dinosaurs, and the other side consists of everybody else, this "balance" is entirely artificial. Take the SSM referendum - the only way to have a balanced debate would be no debate. The anti crew were mad, just letting them speak destroyed their own side.
AnGaelach wrote: » I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion. Where does this place me in your black/white model?
Geuze wrote: » You'd need to convince me to vote for limited abortion, beyond what is already available.
dav3 wrote: » Where this leaves you, is up to you. But you certainly can’t distance yourself from a religious organisation who were responsible for running a campaign to amend the state constitution 1983, an amendment that we are currently discussing.
seamus wrote: » As a matter of interest; since the vote will be on giving the Dail the comptency to legislate on abortion (more restrictive or less restrictive), what's your opinion on that?
AnGaelach wrote: » It's a pretty standard tactic - they try to paint you as some kind of 70 year old puritan if you're pro-life. I'm only in my 20s and I've been accused of being a sexual puritan who wants to use women as breeding mares before (not in this thread, but other ones certainly). It's ridiculous at this stage.
AtomicHorror wrote: » To be fair, we've seen clear examples of some very unkind characterization of women by some posters on your side of the divide. The responses to those are directed at those who make the comments and those who support those comments.
Geuze wrote: » I agree. I am similar, I am not mass-going, I see myself as a reasonable person. I was against SSM, and would be against abortion-on-demand. You'd need to convince me to vote for limited abortion, beyond what is already available.
AnGaelach wrote: » In this instance, yes, but I have been called puritan and I have been told I want to use women as brood-mares before - when the pro-choice side want nothing more than to discredit your character. There are some unsavoury characters on this side of the aisle as well, granted.
AnGaelach wrote: » Ah, so I'm guilty-by-association? I'll have you know that you're actually infringing on my Constitutional right to disassociation.
keano_afc wrote: » So you can only be opposed to abortion if you're Catholic? What utter tripe.
dav3 wrote: » I'm not saying you’re guilty of anything. Whether people want to hear it or not, the main actor in keeping the 8th in pace is the catholic church. I have no doubt there are many people of different religions that would hold the same view as the catholic church on abortion and perhaps even a few people who have no religion would hold the same view also. The reality is the 8th is there because of the catholic church, they created the monster, they own it. If that makes people who wish to keep the 8th in place uncomfortable, then that is something they will have to deal with themselves.
kunst nugget wrote: » They seem to get a lot of complaints from both sides any time this issue is raised outside of referenda about balance and fairness if only one side of the argument is being favoured. Hasn't Ray D'arcy been stung a couple of times in relation to it?
eviltwin wrote: » does that apply across the board? I can't see ,for example, Spirit FM, which has a strong Christian ethos, taking on a balanced view on this issue
AnGaelach wrote: » If you're generally pro-life (as I am).
notjustsweet wrote: » How can you call yourself pro life if you are ignoring the life that currently exists in favor of one that is dependent on her? Pro life simply means anti choice and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean.
kunst nugget wrote: » And then pro-choice becomes pro-abortion and all it achieves is more bickering…
AnGaelach wrote: » That's a whole lot of waffle for nothing of consequence. Why are you trying to equate me with an old "hypercatholic dinosaur" when I've told you I'm at best a lapsed Catholic? "It doesn't matter why you believe what you believe because other people also believe that too so you're just like them!" Would you ever grow up?
AnGaelach wrote: » … Where does this place me in your black/white model?
dav3 wrote: » The reality is the 8th is there because of the catholic church, they created the monster, they own it. If that makes people who wish to keep the 8th in place uncomfortable, then that is something they will have to deal with themselves.
AnGaelach wrote: » I'm lapsed Catholic at best, I don't look to the Church for moral direction, and I'm in my 20s... Yet I'm anti-abortion.
Murrisk wrote: » Non-religious, pro-life folk piping up does not negate the fact that the countries most vehemently opposed to abortion have large Catholic populations. Anecdotes are not useful, one needs to look at things on the population level. Of course there exists some atheist anti-abortion folk but it's no conincidence that the countries most opposed to abortion are traditionally Catholic.
notjustsweet wrote: » Pro life simply means anti choice and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » so if you are in favour of keeping it, you should probably think about why.
AnGaelach wrote: » Trying to provoke an argument on the grounds of such a stupid point is farcical. "And pro-choice means pro-murder of a foetus and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean." Ad nauseam.