AnGaelach wrote: » My thinking the rights of the unborn to life coming before the wants of a woman doesn't mean I don't value the life of the woman - it means I value the right to life above the "right" to have an abortion.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » You don't think it is odd that you, a lapsed Catholic who does not take moral direction from the Church, agrees with exactly one Irish church on the subject of the 8th? Not the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterians, the Quakers? Just a coincidence that you happen to agree with the Roman Catholic Church on this one? Because I certainly don't think it is.
notjustsweet wrote: » Refusing women choices is always saying no. So it's always putting the lives of a fetus above the walking, talking human mother so you obviously are not pro ALL lives.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Or India? Nepal? Thailand? Bhutan?
Howard Tasteless Bank wrote: » Not that the Hindu or Buddhist lobbies have much clout in Ireland though.
notjustsweet wrote: » While "traditional Buddhists" may say one thing, modern day Buddhists have no view. You left that out....on purpose?? Are you aware can write a Wikipedia page? I could go and amend all of those now with quotes that suit my agenda and post them here.
AnGaelach wrote: » I've already covered why I support keeping it. I don't think the rights of the unborn is something that should be used as a political football.
blanch152 wrote: » It is not just a Catholic view. "Traditional Buddhism rejects abortion because it involves the deliberate destroying of a life.
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.
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.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » so if you are in favour of keeping it, you should probably think about why.
notjustsweet wrote: » Pro life simply means anti choice and should be called such. Don't try to hide what you really mean.
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.
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: » 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.
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.
kunst nugget wrote: » And then pro-choice becomes pro-abortion and all it achieves is more bickering…
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.
AnGaelach wrote: » If you're generally pro-life (as I am).
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?
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
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.
keano_afc wrote: » So you can only be opposed to abortion if you're Catholic? What utter tripe.
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.
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.
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.
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.
