eviltwin wrote: » I don't believe in sins
end of the road wrote: believe in them as they exist. they don't have to be against a god, they can be against society and the state.
Turtwig wrote: Mod: keep to the topic please and keep substance in the posts. Any more off topic one liners will be deleted.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » All infirmities and illnesses are due to the fallen angel Lucifer and his cohorts, who roam the world, seeking them that they may devour.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Those feckin' disabled people, I knew they were in cahoots with the devil all along. :rolleyes:
end of the road wrote: » believe in them as they exist. they don't have to be against a god, they can be against society and the state.
WhiteRoses wrote: » I actually can’t believe the irony of you posting this when you have already made it clear that you aren’t religious. Seems religious ideals suit you only when they suit your opinion on abortion. The absolute irony.
end of the road wrote: » .my statements on abortion are not simply opinion but actual fact.
end of the road wrote: » the word sin can be used in a number of different contexts not just religious. my statements on abortion are not simply opinion but actual fact. try again.
WhiteRoses wrote: » We’ve been through this before: your opinion is not a fact. They are not facts. They simply are not. They are your perception, they aren’t incorrect (though I may vehemently disagree with them), and you are entitled to hold them, but they are not facts. Repeating it over and over will not make them so.
fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: » God help you, although I doubt He can.
end of the road wrote: » we have been through this before. everything you state in relation to me is incorrect and that cannot be disputed. what i have stated in relation to the killing of the unborn and how outside extreme circumstances there is no justification for it is a fact.
WhiteRoses wrote: » It can be disputed, I’m disputing it right now. You’re opinion is not a fact, and it is extremely arrogant to presume so. If what you were saying were a fact we would not be having this referendum.
end of the road wrote: » it can't be disputed. you have tried to dispute it but have failed each time. of course we would be having the referendum because some in this country think it's okay, unrestricted and on demand, to kill the most vunerable, the unborn. it's not and it never will be whether the 8th is repealed or not. it goes against humanity and all that is right, and everything humanity stands for. this fact unites both religious and non-religious who see unrestricted and on demand abortion for what it actually is
WhiteRoses wrote: » You literally just completely contradicted yourself and proved my point.
end of the road wrote: » this is factually incorrect. you claimed to have disputed the point i made and i have told you that you have failed to dispute it because that is the case. christians and all other religions are united with those of us who are non-religious in knowing that the killing of the unborn unrestricted and on demand is one of the most barbaric acts known to man.
end of the road wrote: » we have been through this before. everything you state in relation to me is incorrect and that cannot be disputed. what i have stated in relation to the killing of the unborn and how outside extreme circumstances there is no justification for it, in my opinion.
J C wrote: » I don't believe that a Christian can morally vote for unlimited abortion. The Sixth Commandment is very simple and very clear ... 'Thou shalt not kill'. It means that you cannot kill yourself or another Human Being, except in self defence (or the defence of another Human Being) where no other option is available. This is the basis for all laws protecting the person and criminalising the killing of other people in Common Law Jurisprudence. Induced abortion is ethically and morally wrong ... except where the life of the mother is directly threatened and there is no other option available to save her. This is the current law in Ireland. Voting to expand Irish Law to allow the unlimited killing of unborn children is not something that any Christian (or other monotheist, indeed) can do in conscience and in clear contravention of the Sixth Commandment of God.
koumi wrote: » I say ye without sin should cast the first stone
NinetyTwoTeam wrote: » Do any of you Christian pro-lifers here actually think there is any chance the 8th won't be repealed? Because from what I am reading here I am kind of concerned that you are going to take it very hard, and you might want to just prepare yourselves as it is practically a dead cert it will be repealed.
Nick Park wrote: » That would be rather hard to legislate for? That only sinless people could kill unborn babies? Or are you saying that only sinless people should express their opinion on human rights?
NinetyTwoTeam wrote: Do any of you Christian pro-lifers here actually think there is any chance the 8th won't be repealed? Because from what I am reading here I am kind of concerned that you are going to take it very hard, and you might want to just prepare yourselves as it is practically a dead cert it will be repealed.
Je_suis_Jean wrote: » Wow!! I'm not going to pretend to speak on behalf of women who have been pregnant but having lived through it with my wife on several occasions I'm of the view that nothing whatsoever about being pregnant is either quiet or automatic!! I witnessed a woman in all kinds of discomfort who had to refrain from certain activity and basically devote herself to being as good a foetus carrier as possible. Saying the process is quiet and automatic makes it sound like its a walk in the park comparable to letting your hair grow. Have you or your partner ever been pregnant?
Peregrinus wrote: » It remains to be seen, of course, what the referendum question will be. If it's a bit like the divorce referendum, with the absolute prohibition being replaced by a provision which accommodates abortion only in defined and constitutionally-entrenched circumstances, then obviously a vote for unlimited abortion isn't being offered, and the question raised in the OP won't arise. If the proposal is simply to delete the prohibition, and leave it up to the Oireachtas to legislate to permit abortion in whatever circumstances it thinks fit from time to time, I don't think that would be a vote for unlimited abortion; it would be a vote to give the Oireachtas power to determine the limits within which abortion would be permitted. Almost certainly, there'd be an explicit proposal as to how the Oireachtas would legislate, at least initially, and I very much doubt that it would be a complete decriminalisation of abortion in all circumstances. The most you could say, I think, would be that someone might vote to give the Oireachtas power to permit unlimited abortion. Can a Christian countenance this state of affairs? Well, yes; it's the usual state of affairs in most countries, and there's no worldwide Christian movement to change this. And it's the current state of affairs in Ireland with respect to many other important moral questions; the Oireachtas can already legislate for which killings of people already born will be regarded as murder, for example, and which will not. In short, I don't think the question raised in the OP has much application in the real world. Depending on the question put to the people in the referendum, the most people will be able to vote for is to permit abortion on terms to be written into the Constitution, or to permit abortion on the terms in which the government has said it intends to legislate, or to permit abortion on the terms in which the voter thinks, or fears, the Oireachtas is likely to legislate. Realistically, I don't think that in any of those cases are we looking at "unlimited abortion".
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. So laws protect the unborn at the expense of women, Christians give their compassion to the unborn at the expense of women and the purported equality and balance are already skewed. Should a 12 week limit pass, the unborn will still be protected - just at a later stage of development.
gallifreya wrote: » There is no dishonesty or pretence in that these supposed equal rights are currently harming women. I asked a question about compassion out of genuine curiosity. The 'love both' concept is just peddling the status quo imo. However, awarding all the concern and compassion for the unborn does indeed indicate a lack of concern and compassion for the pregnant women, 'loving both' notwithstanding. Maybe a balance in compassion could be achieved to repeal this draconian amendment that actually would achieve a balance of rights.
