Je_suis_Jean wrote: People like you will actually help win the referendum argument for repealing the 8th just as similar dogma shone a light on why the divorce and marriage equality referendums should be approved.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: Your repetitive dogmatic nonsense duress nothing to progress your pro life argument, all it does is highlight how intransigent and stuck in the past you are.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: Please do carry on, you're doing a great job.
end of the road wrote: » the 8th won't be repealed because of a poster on boards. sorry to disappoint you. if it is to be repealed it will be via a very very small majority as there is a large number of people, some who are religious and others not, who disagree with abortion on demand.
end of the road wrote: » the 8th won't be repealed because of a poster on boards. sorry to disappoint you.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » People like you will actually help win the referendum argument for repealing the 8th just as similar dogma shone a light on why the divorce and marriage equality referendums should be approved. Please do carry on, you're doing a great job.
end of the road wrote: » if it is to be repealed it will be via a very very small majority as there is a large number of people, some who are religious and others not, who disagree with abortion on demand.
Cabaal wrote: » wasn't the same claim trotted out about the marriage ref back in 2015? It won't pass or if it will pass it'll be by a tiny amount, cause after all nobody liked the idea of those gays and lesbians getting married and every child deserves and mother and rather (which had zip all to do with it). Or so was claimed by so many on the No side time and time again.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » I'm finished talking to you. Goodbye
end of the road wrote: there was some of that, yes . however, gay people getting married harms nobody, and therefore there was no argument against allowing gay people to get married. the repeal the 8th referendum is different however, repealing the 8th will likely allow the killing of the unborn in this country, where a large number of people disagree with the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances. so i'd suggest that what happened in the marriage equality referendum isn't really relevant this time.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » What about the sins of sodomy?
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » One person? There's an army of dogmatic people who just need to be left rant on so the majority of people can see them and their message for what it is. I didn't claim owenbaloney was alone did I? I actually said:- The more ownenbaloney types there are the better as far as I'm concerned, you couldn't buy that type of help. If it is to be repealed it will be because people debated the issue and made and informed choice. Some people have dogmatic reasons to defend the 8th but within that cohort some will be open to being convinced of it's merit and be convinced by discussions they participate in or observe just like this one. It's an elephant of a task all right but just like eating an elephant you just have to do it one bite (or in this case one person) at a time. We've already established (well the reigning uber christian within the group owenbaloney has confirmed from his/her deep base of knowledge on the matter) that christians who vote for unlimited abortion but then genuinely repent will be forgiven and invited into the kingdom ever after etc etc so that at least opens the door to some christians who may otherwise have been afraid of gods wrath and unwillingness to forgive them if they vote in favour of abortion but then genuinely repent. For that I am eternally (well until I die anyway) grateful to owenbaloney You don't lease out that crystal ball be any chance? Last year my one thought Clinton would win the US presidency by a fair majority and look what happened!! I could seriously use a good crystal ball for Cheltenham in a few weeks time.
end of the road wrote: » just like the majority of people could see the pro-choice message for what it is? after all, there are a huge amount of dogmatic on the pro-choice side
end of the road wrote: » more so then the small minority of dogmatic within the already small religious section of the pro-life side.
end of the road wrote: » by the way, clinton actually did win the people's vote by a decent majority, but lost the electoral college vote. however, that's for another thread.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » You talking to me? If so the only claim I made is that I'm not aware of any evidence that there is anything after death other than being dead. I hardly need to "support" that as there is no evidence to the contrary is there?
antiskeptic wrote: » I recall you saying that all these people who didn't 'repent' were 'doing fine'.
end of the road wrote: » there was some of that, yes . however, gay people getting married harms nobody, and therefore there was no argument against allowing gay people to get married.
the repeal the 8th referendum is different however, repealing the 8th will likely allow the killing of the unborn in this country,
where a large number of people disagree with the killing of the unborn bar extreme circumstances. so i'd suggest that what happened in the marriage equality referendum isn't really relevant this time.
Cabaal wrote: » wasn't the same claim trotted out about the marriage ref back in 2015?
Cabaal wrote: » lets face it, if the catholic church had its way we'd be back to mother and baby homes and no abortions for rape, incest or suicide risk cases...sure you can always tie the women to a bed.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Wow, you're not showing much love to thy neighbour there are ya?
As you conveniently omitted from your little rant I already stated that including material on a range of the major religions in a child's educational curriculum is as valid as learning history or geography so you can withdraw the "intolerant bigot" and "drama queen" (ah, ok leave the drama queen label if you wish, it sounds fun) label at your earliest convenience. Good man.
The point I actually made was indoctrinating children into a specific religion before they are mature enough to reason for themselves is, in my view, child abuse.
You may not choose to distinguish the difference between education and indoctrination as one is often incorrectly used as a label to disguise the other but you're not dealing with defenceless little children here ya know
Nick Park wrote: » For what it's worth, I publicly campaign for secular education and against religious indoctrination in school curricula. Your original question about 'child abuse' referred not only to schools, but to children attending mass on a Sunday - a matter of parental choice. And that is why I pointed out the intolerant bigotry and over-dramatic hysteria of labelling such parental choice as 'child abuse'.
NaFirinne wrote: » The most dangerous place in the world is a mothers womb, that's crazy.
So I state that in my opinion indoctrinating children into a religion (as opposed to providing them with general info on all the major religions as part of their education) before they have the capacity to reason for themselves is child abuse and for that I'm labelled a bigot and a drama queen but J C and owneybaloney have carte blanche to to threaten me with eternal damnation and the wrath of god etc etc unless I repent and that's just hunky dory because it carries the label of "religion"? You seriously need to review how you form your opinions and decide who to pin pejorative labels on.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » BTW, just because an activity imposed on a child is by parental choice does not by itself mean it is not child abuse.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » So you don't deny you misused the statement from the Harvard professor and you've no rebuttal as to why tadpoles are called tadpoles and not "baby frogs" just as fetuses are fetuses and not human beings.
NaFirinne wrote: » The country wants to make it legal to slaughter unborn babies on a massive scale, just like the many countries around the world are doing. I mean the shear numbers of abortions in the world should be enough to show anyone with a heart that there is something very wrong with it. The most dangerous place in the world is a mothers womb, that's crazy.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » So I state that in my opinion indoctrinating children into a religion (as opposed to providing them with general info on all the major religions as part of their education) before they have the capacity to reason for themselves is child abuse and for that I'm labelled a bigot and a drama queen but J C and owneybaloney have carte blanche to to threaten me with eternal damnation and the wrath of god etc etc unless I repent and that's just hunky dory because it carries the label of "religion"? You seriously need to review how you form your opinions and decide who to pin pejorative labels on. BTW, just because an activity imposed on a child is by parental choice does not by itself mean it is not child abuse.
WhiteRoses wrote: » You need to look at the reasons a woman might be compelled to feel she has no other option than to go through such a physically difficult and emotionally draining procedure such as an abortion. In an ideal world abortion would never be necessary. Because every child would be planned and wanted, by their legal age financially stable fully educated parents, and there would be no health concerns. Unfortunately this isn’t the reality of the world we live in, so women find themselves in a position where they need one.
Nick Park wrote: » I pointed out that it is intolerant and hysterical to use the term 'child abuse' with regard to parents choosing to take their children to mass. And, I believe, most reasonable people would agree with me.
Katie Full Leak wrote: » We eat frogs, we generally don't eat babies.....we just want to kill them and dispose of them.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » So tadpoles are called tadpoles and not baby frogs because we eat frogs? Is that seriously what you are saying? I think my head is going to burst :eek:
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Nope, that wasn't me
Katie Full Leak wrote: » I could just as easily say that depriving a child of having a relationship with his/her creator is child abuse.
Katie Full Leak wrote: » I was brought up RC , when I was old enough, I made a decision to follow Christ and left the RCC. My kids will have to make the same choice one day ( but not have to leave the RCC)
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » You sure could but it would be as stupid a thing to say as depriving a child of having a relationship with the flying spaghetti monster or any of the other thousands of alleged gods is child abuse. So what you are saying is that before you were old enough to reason for yourself you were indoctrinated in the RC which clearly wasn't your choice or preference as once you were mature enough to make up your own mind you left and despite that experience you in turn have indoctrinated your own kids into a non RC strain of christianity regardless of their personal choice as they are currently too young to decide for themselves, just like you were too young to decide on the RC flavour of christianity back in the day and you're ok with that?You don't see even the slightest hint of having learned nothing from your own personal experience pre being able to reason for yourself?
Katie Full Leak wrote: » You never answered my earlier question as to whether we should just go the whole hog and abort up to 39 weeks 6 days. After all it's not a baby till it's born...just a foetus!
