splinter65 wrote: » Well where does your bodily autonomy begin or end and my right to hand out leaflets or pray quietly on the street begin or end? That’s the big issue isn’t it? Why do your rights trump my rights? Because they don’t.
robarmstrong wrote: » What right do you have to decide what a complete stranger does with her own body? Thankfully nothing anymore. Ever since the 8th has been done away with, all but the most extreme and bitter have crawled back into the pits they initially emerged from. Similar to what happened during the SSM referendum.
splinter65 wrote: » It’s always very alarming for me when I encounter views which demonstrate to me that some people like you, lucky enough to be living in a democracy, don’t seem to understand what democracy involves.
splinter65 wrote: » And what right do you have to tell me what I can think, what I can say, where I can stand? None. Glory, glory hallelujah.
robarmstrong wrote: » I haven’t dictated any of the above to you, yet those in favor of the 8th have dictated the courses of many pregnancies across many years. Personally I think shunting someone onto a plane or a boat to terminate an unwanted pregnancy because individuals with a pro-life view don’t want it dealt with here (but not enough to go out and prevent the women from traveling either, so it’s a case of “pro-life!! Up until the airport/docks”) is a lot worse than telling people they cannot protest directly outside maternity clinics. Not a single protest ended well for the pro-life individuals, especially considering the vast majority would flat out avoid discussing how insensitive it was to hold up graphic images of miscarried fetuses and attempt to deceive passerby’s by telling them they were results of abortions. Abortion is here, it’s safe and it’s legislated now. It was time for Ireland to grow up and deal with some problems, instead of pushing them onto a plane or a boat across the waters.
amcalester wrote: » Geographical restrictions on the rights of the unborn are ok according to some on the no side, but not on the right to protest. Strange logic to have the right to protest outweigh the unborn’s right to life. Almost makes one think that the unborn is little more than an afterthought in the no crowd’s quest for control.
SusieBlue wrote: » By that token, I’m sure you support same sex weddings being held in churches & celebrated by priests, condoms being handed out after mass and abortion services information being hung up on the church noticeboard? Because we have a ‘right’ to do so? Or can we not agree that there is a time and place for everything and with a bit of mutual respect there is no need for either side to impose on the other?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » they see the unborn as a stick to beat women with
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » So why not accept the democratic decision of the people then....?
splinter65 wrote: » No no I don’t support that at all. The RCC is not a public service that everyone is entitled to avail of at all. It’s a private club that you are not obliged to join but if you join you have to obey the rules. No more then you or I can’t just walk into Ballygobackwards Golf Club and start playing golf, it’s not a public amenity. It’s disappointing to see you putting such a pointless argument forward because this is pretty straightforward stuff Susie.
DubInMeath wrote: » Strange how you weren't happy with the democratic result that got rid of the 8th and were happy to use lies to try and undermine the democratic process during the campaign. As soon as there is trouble at these protests and going by the past and what occurred in the UK, there will be, they will be reviewed and introduced.
amcalester wrote: » it’s kind of ironic that the no crowd are now complaining about potentially having their rights restricted when they’ve actually been restricting the rights of women for years.
SusieBlue wrote: » The principle is the same though. If you demand that others respect your personal decisions and beliefs without interference, you should afford others the same luxury. There is a time and place for everything, handing out anti abortion leaflets outside maternity hospitals & picketing doctors offices is no more acceptable than handing out condoms outside mass & sticking up abortion services info on the noticeboard.
splinter65 wrote: » The RCC is not a public service that everyone is entitled to avail of at all. It’s a private club that you are not obliged to join but if you join you have to obey the rules. .
end of the road wrote: » i wouldn't be so sure. if they could be introduced then they already would be or there would be a plan already in motion to do it. even if introduced, they won't stop the protest. in fact there is a possibility that we may end up with tactics being used as per london this week, by people who may not agree with the protests themselves but who would be against restrictions being placed on protesting because there is always a possibility of restrictions on protesting being extended. they haven't been restricting any rights. they have been preventing the introduction of a discretionary allowence which can be taken away at any time. as i see it, a decision that allows the killing of human beings in utero for absolutely any reason rather then simply some very necessary reasons, is not a decision worth accepting or respecting. a decision that has turned ireland from a grownup country to a backward nation as i see it.
splinter65 wrote: » No no I don’t support that at all. The RCC is not a public service that everyone is entitled to avail of at all. It’s a private club that you are not obliged to join but if you join you have to obey the rules.
DubInMeath wrote: » In one word horse**** You were calling for people including women and children to be baton charged for protesting about a concert on here in the past,
DubInMeath wrote: » so no your not worried about any future affects on the right to protest, you just want to have certain groups you support be able to harass people looking for medical treatment.
end of the road wrote: » yes, in the past. i said in the previous varient of this thread that i no longer believe this should happen. so this attempt to use something i no longer believe against me has again failed, as it has plenty of times before. i am very worried about future effects on the right to protest. the right to protest is vital and any attempt to restrict it from what we have must be gone against and made unviable to keep. people are not able to harass people looking for actual medical treatment. however, AOD is not medical treatment as you don't, bar cases where another life is at risk of being ended, treat something by ending the life of another human being.
DubInMeath wrote: » Again horse****. Your no more worried about any affects on the freedom to protest than you were about cases of ffa and rape before the referendum. Abortion is a medical treatment regardless of how much you want to stamp your feet and say it's not. You might not agree but you don't have the right to harass anyone who wishes to obtain one as per their choice.
end of the road wrote: » yes, in the past. i said in the previous varient of this thread that i no longer believe this should happen. so this attempt to use something i no longer believe against me has again failed, as it has plenty of times before.
King Mob wrote: » Unfortunately given your posting history we dont believe this.
King Mob wrote: » If its true, what changed your mind? Why do you think that the rights of anti abortion protesters to protest in front of certain places is important but thought that other protestors deserved to be beaten and water cannoned? Did you previously think that anti abortion protestors deserved to be likewise treated back when you believed that?
end of the road wrote: » it doesn't matter whether you, and it's just you, believe me. what i said is accurate. i no longer believe it and that is that. such questions are irrelevant to abortion. what matters is i no longer believe protesters should be brutalised if i disagree with them.
end of the road wrote: » it doesn't matter whether you, and it's just you, believe me. what i said is accurate. i no longer believe it and that is that. ....
splinter65 wrote: » Regarding the RCC and SSM the Sacrament of Matrimony is for Catholics only with some small allowances. As the RCC rules doesn’t allow for SSM then the church is of course going to refuse you the sacrament. A priest is not obliged to marry anyone he deems not suitable for marriage, you are not entitled to demand a priest marry you and the priest is exempt from the Eqaulity Act in his regard.
The US is threatening to veto a United Nations resolution on combatting the use of rape as a weapon of war because of its language on reproductive and sexual health, according to a senior UN official and European diplomats.
European states, led by Germany, the UK and France, have been resisting abandoning the language on access to family planning and women’s health clinics, as they believe it would mean surrendering the gains of recent decades in terms of international recognition of women’s rights.
end of the road wrote: » i am worried about the effects on the freedom and right to protest. a vital right which must be protected. i was very much worried about cases of rape and FFA before the referendum, hence my disgust at them being used to push through abortion on demand. one has the right to protest against the ending of another human being's life and i support that right, as simply protesting is not harassment. if someone is engaging in harassment, then that must be reported to the gardai, who have all of the powers that ever could be needed, to deal with the person engaging in the harassment, who the gardai will deal with.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
