The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

DubInMeath wrote: »

She speaks for people who support and have committed the sexual abuse of children in my opinion

smokingman wrote: »

...and also that it's fine to kill actual children and stuff them in a septic tank

I don't think that these comments are fair.

People who follow a religious faith, are not responsible for what others - who are involved in that particular faith - have done.

I think that what you both have stated, alleging that she endorses child and sexual abuse, are legally contentious statements.

I would suggest that what you both said, are cases of defamation.

What you allege against her, is a bit like saying that all soccer players endorse having nine year long affairs with their brothers wives.

horseburger wrote: »

She is Catholic, but in debates on TV and radio, she doesn't bring religion into the argument.

She's a card carrying Iona instituter. A member of a Catholic advocacy group. Her very precense in the debate is bringing religion into it.

Pedro K wrote: »

She's a card carrying Iona instituter. A member of a Catholic advocacy group. Her very precense in the debate is bringing religion into it.

You can debate an issue without bringing your religious, or agnostic, or humanist, or atheist beliefs, into the discussion.

I haven't heard her mention her religious beliefs into any of the live TV or radio debates in which she has participated on the issue of abortion.

She addresses religious events, for example she spoke in Knock last August, making an address on the issue of abortion. This was not a debate in that it wasn't one side against the other discussing the issue. She was speaking to people who are of the Catholic religion.

The suggestion that she is trying to ram her religious beliefs onto others, is unfair, I think, considering that when she speaks about issues like abortion, with a religious angle, it is in situations where the audience reading or listening, would be of the same religious belief and outlook.

For example her articles in The Irish Catholic, may include references to religious scripture, but in TV and radio discussions, where she is debating with a person whose perspective differs to hers in relation to religion, I haven't heard her emphasise her religious beliefs.

I haven't heard her bring her religious beliefs into any live TV or radio debate, in which I have heard her participating, with regard to the issue of abortion.

Her religious beliefs may get asked of her during a debate, but I think it is the case, that she doesn't bring it up, unless asked.

She defends the authorities that put children in a septic tank in Tuam.
Your cognitive dissonance is astounding.

smokingman wrote: »

She defends the authorities that put children in a septic tank in Tuam.
Your cognitive dissonance is astounding.

She is Catholic. She has not defended nor justified cases of child abuse, that were carried out by other Catholic people.

You are being unfair.

horseburger wrote: »

I have already stated to you that I have a difficulty with the idea of abortion wihout restriction for three months.

I have already stated that I think that in the case of the risk to the life of the mother, that abortion should be available, if it is sought, on the basis that there is a risk to the mother's life.

I never used the phrase "on the fence".

You could try responding to the arguments made against abortion, in the items I have cited.

What did you ask me about the pro life groups?

robarmstrong wrote: »

Would you care to engage with and enlighten those courteous posters who are very keen to hear what comments you have to make about the pro-life campaign, including the statements and inaccuracies the campaign has made.

As someone who is "on the fence" surely you would have some observations or questions to bring up, no? You're asking all these questions about the pro-choice campaign and the opinions of the pro choice individuals on posts you put up but you never address those who question you, in fact you just keep on regurgitating pretty much the same over and over again.

Are you unable to engage with posters who query you about your standpoint on the pro-life campaign? Has someone forbidden you from engaging with people who want your views and observations on that aspect?

If I was on the fence I'd be readily available to give my thoughts and observations on both sides of the matter, so why can't you?

There ya go, I've asked you at least five times now for your opinion about the behaviour and willingness to spread false and misleading information by the pro-life campaign and you have not bothered your hole once with addressing it. Sure one of your pro-life buddies today suggested that I have a vasectomy, due to my partner having a heart-shaped uterus and weak womb that it was "my responsibility" to take care of birth control. What do you think of comments like that, hmm?

Also, Maria Steen? The woman who compared legalizing abortion with legalizing speeding? Yes, travelling somewhere faster in a car has absolutely everything to do with a debate on abortion, ridiculous comparison and in my opinion has completely discredited her previous reasonable debates and remarks regarding abortion.

horseburger wrote: »

What inaccuracies have been made?

You are the one claiming that inaccuracies have been made.

I didn't state there weren't inaccuracies made.

Because you have dodged every single attempt by people here to get you to comment on them and instead you've just deflected them and continued on your mantra. You're turning a blind eye.

Are you honestly telling me you are completely unaware of any and all inaccuracies spouted out by the pro-life campaign?

"1 in 5 of all pregnancies in England and Wales end in abortion" - this was proven to be an outright lie.

"90% of babies with Down Syndrome are aborted" - a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, 64% of Down Syndrome diagnoses are made prenatally (before birth), the remaining 36% being diagnosed postnatally. 90% of the 64% prenatally diagnosed Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted, are you telling me that you cannot see the blatant intentional misrepresentation of figures here? Can't see the pattern?

All the pictures of "12 week old fetuses" - there have been an unholy amount of these posted, it's an artists rendition to humanise it, the doctored picture being the one I tried so hard to get your opinion on earlier in the thread but you avoided giving your opinion on it, it has absolutely minimal resemblance to what an actual fetus looks like.

That "abortion nurse" that ended up being a shill and getting outed.

And also, I edited my post before your reply, so I'll include it again in case you missed it. One of your pro-life buddies today suggested that I have a vasectomy, due to my partner having a heart-shaped uterus and weak womb that it was "my responsibility" to take care of birth control. What do you think of comments like that, hmm?

Ah here you're taking the piss at this stage.

I said the pro-life campaign have made these inaccurate statements, I've asked for you to comment on them which you flat out refuse to do.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Ah here you're taking the piss at this stage.

I said the pro-life campaign have made these inaccurate statements, I've asked for you to comment on them which you flat out refuse to do.

What inaccurate statements have I made?

DubInMeath wrote: »

She and the Iona institute have consistently defended the likes of cardinal Sean Brady who swore a 14 year old abuse victim to silence, while hiding abuse from the police and moving pedophile priests to other areas to allow them to continue abusing children.
So yes she and the Iona institute do speak for those who support and commit sexual abuse of children, if you speak for a religion that does these things you endorse it.

I've been gracious enough to answer you, so do the same, plenty of posters are waiting on your answers to their questions.

I asked you, why you think that you stating that Maria Steen endorses child and sexual abuse, isn't defamation?

You stated:

DubInMeath wrote: »

She speaks for people who support and have committed the sexual abuse of children in my opinion

Considering she is a member of the Iona Institute, you are now stating as fact that members of the Iona Institute "support and have committed the sexual abuse of children".[/B]

horseburger wrote: »

What inaccurate statements have I made?

Oh look I can repeat myself too.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Deflecting again are we? Like I said, I never said you made these statements, I said the pro-life campaign did, are you the entirety of the pro-life campaign?

Again -

"1 in 5 of all pregnancies in England and Wales end in abortion" - this was proven to be an outright lie.

"90% of babies with Down Syndrome are aborted" - a blatant misrepresentation of the truth, 64% of Down Syndrome diagnoses are made prenatally (before birth), the remaining 36% being diagnosed postnatally. 90% of the 64% prenatally diagnosed Down Syndrome pregnancies are aborted, are you telling me that you cannot see the blatant intentional misrepresentation of figures here? Can't see the pattern?

All the pictures of "12 week old fetuses" - there have been an unholy amount of these posted, it's an artists rendition to humanise it, the doctored picture being the one I tried so hard to get your opinion on earlier in the thread but you avoided giving your opinion on it, it has absolutely minimal resemblance to what an actual fetus looks like.

That "abortion nurse" that ended up being a shill and getting outed.

And also, I edited my post before your reply, so I'll include it again in case you missed it. One of your pro-life buddies today suggested that I have a vasectomy, due to my partner having a heart-shaped uterus and weak womb that it was "my responsibility" to take care of birth control. What do you think of comments like that, hmm?

What are your comments?

So, what are your comments regarding the inaccurate and false statements the pro-life campaign has made (those outlined above) ?

horseburger wrote: »

What inaccurate statements have I made?

You seem to have a problem with reading, let me help you out.

robarmstrong wrote: »

Deflecting again are we? Like I said, I never said you made these statements, I said the pro-life campaign did, are you the entirety of the pro-life campaign?

So what are your comments on the inaccurate statements the pro-life campaign has put out?

robarmstrong wrote: »

You seem to have a problem with reading, let me help you out.



So what are your comments on the inaccurate statements the pro-life campaign has put out?

Answer my question:

What inaccurate statements have I made?

smokingman wrote: »

Unfair?!
Are you that determined in your ignorance of what your peers have done?!

????