splinter65 wrote: » But the pope wouldn’t be pushing the referendum anywhere. How would he do that?
The Vatican secretary of state, Cardinal Pietro Parolin, has called the result of the Irish same-sex marriage equality referendum a “defeat for humanity”. Until Tuesday night, there had been no official Holy See reaction to the Yes vote in the referendum. When that reaction finally came from Cardinal Parolin, the Vatican equivalent of prime minister, it was nothing if not hardline and outspoken: “This result left me feeling very sad but as the Archbishop of Dublin [Diarmuid Martin] pointed out, the Church will have to take this reality on board in the sense of a renewed and strengthened evangelisation. I believe that we are talking here not just about a defeat for Christian principles but also about a defeat for humanity,” Cardinal Parolin told reporters on the margins of a Centesimus Annus conference in the Vatican. Cardinal Parolin did not further explain the terms of this “defeat for humanity”, but his observations are a logical extension of Catholic doctrine, which teaches that the practise of homosexuality is a sin. Coincidentally, reporters also questioned Cardinal Parolin about an ongoing row between France and the Holy See over the appointment of openly gay Laurent Stefanini as French ambassador to the Vatican. It had been speculated that Mr Stefanini’s nomination by Francois Hollande’s government has not found favour with the Holy See, not so much because of his sexual orientation but rather because, in the past, he publicly supported same-sex marriage, which was introduced in France in 2013. Nominated by the French government in early January, Mr Stefanini’s appointment has still not been ratified by the Vatican. Asked about the matter, Cardinal Parolin would say only that “dialogue is still ongoing” between France and the Holy See.
eviltwin wrote: » There's obviously a mistaken belief that a Papel visit will rejuvenate the Catholic faith here and that people who would have been in favour of abortion will see the error of their ways and vote accordingly It's the last grasp at straws of an organisation that overestimates it's importance and relevance in this country.
roshje wrote: » So would you be agreeable to a non religious group trying to influence the referendum vote?
Fred Swanson wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Sin City wrote: » Even asking the question isnt going to prove anything as no matter what you say unless your in that situation you wont know what youll do Case in point I have a friend who doesnt believe in abortion would argue against it at every oppurtuniy He changed hes mind as soon as he knocked this woman up He was booking flights to the UK as soon as he knew it and was convincing her shes not gonna have hes child
tigger123 wrote: » Kind of illustrates the lack of empathy on the pro life side; all about the principal until it's your problem (and not someone else's), then it's all about the choice.
kylith wrote: » http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/anti-tales.shtml is an interesting read; stories from workers in family planning clinics detailing some of the pro-life protesters that come in for terminations because everyone else is a slutty trollop but they made a mistake, they can't have a baby right now, it's different for them.
RDM_83 again wrote: » Yep preach the truth!Those evil pro-life damn them, I bet if we keep saying they are not only wrong but nasty hypocrites that hate kids that will convince the bulk of the population that is sceptical about a liberal pro-choice regime to put away their concerns. This tactic of demonization and looking down on people has been proven to work brilliantly. I mean look at how we have Hillary Clinton as US President and the UK firmly rejecting Brexit. :-/ Seriously though it does seem like some people are trying there hardest to loose an election that should be winnable
end of the road wrote: » i think we can say all of this or most of it never happened.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » "Doesn't fit EOTR's narrative" = "Never happened" /sigh
end of the road wrote: i think we can say all of this or most of it never happened.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Eh? Where did I tar the entire pro-choice lobby with one brush? I didn't.
I don't think at all that everyone in the pro-choice lobby, or even the majority of them for that matter, are actually anything like that particular wingnut, because the few people I do know who are pro-choice, are entirely reasonable people, perfectly capable of articulating their arguments in a respectful, non-authoritarian way that I could listen to them speak all day on the issue of abortion, or anything else they'd care to share on any issue under the sun.
HD you speak as though a person cannot change their mind? If that is so, then what has all the posturing, pontificating and evangelising in this thread and the many others which came before it been about?
mrkiscool2 wrote: » What are you babbling on about? Both Hillary and Remain thought they were going to win, so didn't turn out to vote as they should have. Also, you can be damn sure the anti-choice side are going to be even more viscous and despicable with their tactics. I am expecting lots of pictures and probably a fake graveyard. .
RDM_83 again wrote: » Like I am personally leaning towards repeal (if your bothered about it I have posted my ideal result before) but on here any hesitation about full freedom of choice up to a late limit is equated with being a member of Youth Defence, despite the fact polling has shown that this is the most bloody common opinion in the country!
RDM_83 again wrote: Like I am personally leaning towards repeal (if your bothered about it I have posted my ideal result before) but on here any hesitation about full freedom of choice up to a late limit is equated with being a member of Youth Defence, despite the fact polling has shown that this is the most bloody common opinion in the country!
volchitsa wrote: » Any hesitation? Really? Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please? I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here. Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence.
MrPudding wrote: » volchitsa wrote: » Any hesitation? Really? Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please? I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here. Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence. The only poster I can recall, in any of the abortion threads, arguing for no restrictions up to a late limit or even right up to birth, was One Eyed Jack. Go figure. MrP
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » What other reason is there to post that video? The opinions of some randomer are irrelevant. But by linking them to a movement you can try to discredit that movement. This trick is as old as the hills. My side = cuddly Argentinian socialist (who happens to be the sole ruler of an authoritarian state, oops) vs. Their side = some wingnut. Great. Which makes your decision to post that particular clip even harder to justify, unless of course your motivation was to paint the pro-choice lobby in a bad light. You tell me. You were previously advocating a pro-choice position far in extreme of anyone else I've seen on boards. Could it simply have been an attempt to discredit pro-choice all along?
MrPudding wrote: » The only poster I can recall, in any of the abortion threads, arguing for no restrictions up to a late limit or even right up to birth, was One Eyed Jack. Go figure. MrP
Consonata wrote: » I mean that seems to be a bit of a strawman..
Consonata wrote: » Personally, my ideal legislation is duplicating the british limit, though I doubt that is possible in the current political climate. Yet I can perfectly understand people who want to keep the limit at 12 weeks because I was once like them, unsure about the whole decision. Regardless, even if it is 12 weeks, something like 80% of all abortions happen before that time so that is a start at least.
thee glitz wrote: » volchitsa wrote: » Any hesitation? Really? Can you find five different posters who have made that claim please? I'm not asking you to go through their posts and post up the evidence, just give us the names and I'll look up some of them myself, because I have seen nothing like that on here. Not one. But perhaps I've missed them, and you'll be able to name several who describe limited pro choice views as being akin to those held by Youth Defence. I'm not saying that I can identify, or that there even are, 5 posters who made that claim. What I will though, is that it's probably thought by many. Pro-repeal posters go very quiet about the prospect of repealing the 8th resulting in abortion in (further) limited cases. What most seem to want is abortion availabilty for lifestyle reasons, with special circumstances being a convenient step to further that goal but not particularly cared about themselves.
end of the road wrote: » the pro-abortion movement
volchitsa wrote: » So your argument is that you know what pro choice posters here really think, regardless of what they may say.
MrPudding wrote: » I know you have been asked this before, but what is the pro-abortion movement. Can you point out some pro-abortion posters to me please? I am most certainly pro-choice, but i am certainly not pro-abortion, and I think that vast majority of pro-choice people are the same. I am pretty sure you know this, as it has been pointed out to you before, but you persist in using the term pro-abortion as you think it casts pro-choice people in a more negative light. it may do that, but what it definitely does is highlight the dishonesty you use in arguing your position. MrP
