BloodBath wrote: » I'm sorry but it's true. I have no problems with anybody being spiritual or what their religious beliefs are but anybody who supports this organisation is a traitor to this country and to the human species. I am born and raised catholic. I still have spiritual beliefs and I believe in a god. What I don't do is support an abomination of an organisation like the RCC. Quite frankly at this stage anybody that does should be classed as a terrorist. Maybe my views are extreme but they are a hell of a lot more valid than anyone who buries their head in the sand and supports the the RCC.
gallifreya wrote: » Why is the compassion only going one way -where is the compassion for women?
There seems to be a blindness to any suffering or injury that could befall women due to pregnancy as long as the foetus is protected.
Should a 12 week limit pass, the unborn will still be protected - just at a later stage of development.
BloodBath wrote: » Fair enough. I understand attacking this is not going to gain me any fans on this forum. Quite frankly I don't give a damn though. More people need to start speaking up against this evil. As for the abortion issue. I'm still on the fence over it. Is abortion where the line in the sand is for the RCC and their followers these days? It's no longer the sperm and egg they protect? So contraception is ok now, just no abortions? I can understand women wanting the freedom to control their lives and bodies. We live in a democracy and if this is something they want then they should be allowed to vote on the issue and they will. We don't get to judge their decisions. The RCC and it's followers have denied the democratic and human rights of people in this country for long enough. If you feel it's morally or religiously wrong then fine. That's your right. Let the people who have to make that horrible choice deal with the consequences themselves. Also do you not feel hypocritical attacking this issue when the RCC were practically performing abortions themselves well after 9 months. How many mothers were stripped of their babies to be sold or let die or killed while the women were completely outcast from society and used as slave labour? How many in Tuam alone which is only 1 of many mass burial sites in Ireland from recent history. Or do you not talk about those issues?
Nick Park wrote: » Much as some would like to make the Referendum all about the RCC, it isn't. A number of the Christian posters in this thread (including JC and myself) are not members of the RCC. So why should I and others like me feel hypocritical because we see unborn children as deserving of human rights?
Arian Strong Lyrics wrote: » Round earth and Christianity collided some centuries ago but they eventually evolved.
DickSwiveller wrote: » Is this poster allowed to continually attack and abuse Catholics with absolutely no punishment?
Gerry T wrote: » One aspect not mentioned, is the rights of the baby/foetus father. Should it not be the case if a woman wants an abortion that where practical the fathers permission should be sought. In fairness the baby needs sperm and egg....the mother doesn't own the baby/foetus. I agree there are exceptions such as the mothers health, but in other cases if the father wants the child then why wouldn't the mother go full term and hand the baby over.
NuMarvel wrote: » The reason no one has mentioned it is because a person's desire to be a parent doesn't override someone else's right to bodily autonomy. A person can't be forced to give blood or donate an organ to save their spouses life, so why in the world would they be made continue a pregnancy they don't want so their spouse could be a parent? It's one thing when people talk about the unborn's rights. I don't always agree with them, but I can understand their reasoning. I can see no reasoning behind the idea that a woman should continue a pregnancy because of the wants or right of someone external to that pregnancy, even if that person played a part in the creation of that pregnancy.
WhiteRoses wrote: » EOTR, don't even go there. You've made a fool of yourself on every single other abortion thread. Numerous arguments have been put forward to you, all of which were intelligent and valid. You reply by shouting the same inane arguments over again, sprinkled with contradictions and NIMBYisms. I just can't take you seriously. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall.
Timberrrrrrrr wrote: » He's not attacking Catholics he is attacking the organisation that is the RCC
Nick Park wrote: » The 'logic' here can easily be demonstrated as defective by applying it to other scenarios. "If we exempt children under 3-years-old from child protection legislation then children will still be protected - just at a later stage of development." "If we remove equality legislation from women under the age of 18 then women will still be protected - just at a later stage of development." The whole point of legislation to protect people's rights is that it protects all people - not just some. And there's nothing to be gained by dishonestly pretending that a concern for the rights of one group of people (the unborn) thereby shows a lack of concern for the rights of another group of people (women).
NuMarvel wrote: The reason no one has mentioned it is because a person's desire to be a parent doesn't override someone else's right to bodily autonomy. A person can't be forced to give blood or donate an organ to save their spouses life, so why in the world would they be made continue a pregnancy they don't want so their spouse could be a parent?
Gerry T wrote: » But it's not about bodily autonomy, the baby is a third person in the equation. In my opinion [prob not shared by many :-)] when a woman gets pregnant she shouldn't have sole say over child during pregnancy....and I keep saying, except where the woman's health is at real risk. To say just because the mother doesn't want the child [excluding health issues] that she can singularly terminate is to ignore the wishes of the soon to be father. Just like if a woman gets pregnant and singularly decides to keep the baby, the father is held responsibly to contribute towards the child's upbringing. If men carried babies, you'd see women argue this case !!
WhiteRoses wrote: » Its everything to do with bodily autonomy. A woman has no power to consent or withdraw consent at any time for any procedure for the duration of her pregnancy. So if a doctor decides to do something, while she is being examined, or is in labour, her consent is neither sought nor regarded. As soon as the baby has the ability to survive by itself outside the womb, without the mother as host, without needing the mother to grow and thrive, I agree that its a 3rd person. While it relies on her body for absolutely everything, it is part of her, and it should be up to her what happens to it.
end of the road wrote: » except it can't be up to her, because technically it's not part of her, but is a life form in it's own right. it relies on her for a period of time yes, but it is still ultimately a separate life.
Gerry T wrote: » But it's not about bodily autonomy, the baby is a third person in the equation. In my opinion [prob not shared by many :-)] when a woman gets pregnant she shouldn't have sole say over child during pregnancy....and I keep saying, except where the woman's health is at real risk. To say just because the mother doesn't want the child [excluding health issues] that she can singularly terminate is to ignore the wishes of the soon to be father.
Gerry T wrote: » Just like if a woman gets pregnant and singularly decides to keep the baby, the father is held responsibly to contribute towards the child's upbringing.
Gerry T wrote: » If men carried babies, you'd see women argue this case !!
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » God does not permit abortion under any circumstances.
NaFirinne wrote: » Given the extent of the problem of unwanted babies in the world today that abortion tries to resolve through convenience. I would be more for fixing our constitution so there is no sex before marriage or if there is then people need to marry whom they have sex with. If people stuck to that rule we wouldn't have many of the problems we have today.
