nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

robindch

...continuing on from previous threads on abortion (abortion part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

splinter65

Odhinn wrote: »

So if I was a liberal protestant in Ireland in 1970, I'd have no problem accessing contraception or getting a divorce?

If you were a liberal Protestant in 1970 and you had an issue with the law of the land then you needed to lobby your TD to have the law changed. The law of the land is and always was and always will be what the people say it is.

[Deleted User]

splinter65 wrote: »

If you were a liberal Protestant in 1970 and you had an issue with the law of the land then you needed to lobby your TD to have the law changed. The law of the land is and always was and always will be what the people say it is.

Yet you don't agree with the law of the land since the 8th was repealed.

Odhinn

splinter65 wrote: »

If you were a liberal Protestant in 1970 and you had an issue with the law of the land then you needed to lobby your TD to have the law changed. The law of the land is and always was and always will be what the people say it is.

But that situation makes a mockery of your notion

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.

You had to follow RC rules, despite not being a member.

splinter65

Calina wrote: »

In this case then, the Catholic Church should never have had the right to enter marriages on the civil register.

On the wider question of access to abortion services, and protests, the right to protest could be limited if it is abused and used to harass vulnerable people. People would still have the right to free association but where they associate could be restricted to exclude certain sensitive locations.

It wouldn’t bother Catholic clerics in the slightest I’m sure if they were removed from entering marriages in the civil register. Catholics who want the sacrament of Matrimony will still get it, albeit with a separate spin to the registry office.
It might give the HSE a bit of a headache though.

splinter65

Odhinn wrote: »

But that situation makes a mockery of your notion

You had to follow RC rules, despite not being a member.

But the government made the laws. If they made the laws at the time to suit the majority of the voters (that’s what they were doing) then why would you find that odd?
There’s no country in the world where the laws suit everyone. The law on abortion here now doesn’t suit me, and 700000 other people either. But it’s the will of the people and I don’t feel there’s anything unfair about it. The minority can’t dictate to the majority.
That’s how democracy works, no?

robarmstrong

splinter65 wrote: »

But the government made the laws. If they made the laws at the time to suit the majority of the voters (that’s what they were doing) then why would you find that odd?
There’s no country in the world where the laws suit everyone. The law on abortion here now doesn’t suit me, and 700000 other people either. But it’s the will of the people and I don’t feel there’s anything unfair about it. The minority can’t dictate to the majority.
That’s how democracy works, no?

Why doesn't it suit you?

Why do you feel you should have influence and control over some complete stranger's pregnancy?

The entire pro-life argument was picked apart numerous times, now that the argument is null and void, the pro-life movement are now looking to bully, harass and intimidate those who are utilizing the new "legality" of safe and accessible abortions (pending medical sign-off).

Why else do you think these protesters hold up graphic images (which have been proven numerous times to be absolutely misleading and deliberately so) and label it "murder"? Murder is an act of violence, is it not? It is the unlawful killing of another human being, yet a fetus is not a lawful living being in the eyes of the law, so how is it unlawful? Because a bunch of people shouting and screaming falsehoods say so?

I have no problem with people protesting on behalf of the pro-life movement, but these people have a habit of having absolutely no tact, no sensitivity and no integrity in how they carry about themselves so no, I do not agree with them having the privilege to protest. If they wish to protest they should do it away from the maternity hospitals, with factual posters and factual information, not lies and scaremongering.

splinter65

aloyisious wrote: »

Re your last, do most or all people baptised have a choice when it comes to it, given that the usual age for a person to be given the sacrament of baptism is when they are infants and totally unaware of what is going on or in a mental position of cognition as to the import and meaning of the blessing? Did you receive the sacrament of baptism as an infant or as an adult capable of deciding to say yes or no to being baptised?

If the answer you give honestly to both above questions is that the sacrament was performed on infants including you, then the example you used and the question of obligation you mentioned has no bearing when the infant is not capable of making a decision to join the private club but is involuntarily made a member (co-opted as it were) by at least one other person into the RCC.

Seeing as you brought baptism into this, and claim that the club is not a public service that anyone is entitled to avail of at al, what are the restrictions you see? IMO baptism has no bearing at all on the topic of this thread.

If your parents brought you to be baptized and you’re now annoyed that they did then should you not be directing your annoyance at your parents and not the priest?
That’s like being annoyed at the beautician because your parents brought you to have your ears pierced. Ludicrous.
If I join Ballygobacwards Golf Club then there’s no obligation on me to ever go near the Club again. If I never turn up to play a round of golf or go to a meeting or have a drink in the bar then no one is going to chase me about it. Oh my membership will be terminated if I don’t pay my “dues” but if I do I will still be a member.
It’s the same in the church. No one is chasing you to participate.
If you don’t want to be a Catholic then just don’t be one. Adults who present themselves to the priest for sacraments must want to be Catholics otherwise why would they?

Odhinn

splinter65 wrote: »

But the government made the laws. If they made the laws at the time to suit the majority of the voters (that’s what they were doing) then why would you find that odd?

Because we live in a republic and thus should see the minority protected from the majority.

splinter65 wrote: »

There’s no country in the world where the laws suit everyone. The law on abortion here now doesn’t suit me, and 700000 other people either. But it’s the will of the people and I don’t feel there’s anything unfair about it. The minority can’t dictate to the majority.
That’s how democracy works, no?

That's how simplistic democracy works. We live in a republic.

The law on abortion doesn't force you or anyone else to have one. You're free to follow your conscience on the issue.

.......

splinter65 wrote: »

The law on abortion here now doesn’t suit me...

Huh?

How can it not suit you - you are not being forced to have an abortion?

Are you saying that it doesnt suit you not to be legally allowed to interfere in healthcare for women anymore?

Cabaal

splinter65 wrote: »

But the government made the laws. If they made the laws at the time to suit the majority of the voters (that’s what they were doing) then why would you find that odd?
There’s no country in the world where the laws suit everyone. The law on abortion here now doesn’t suit me, and 700000 other people either. But it’s the will of the people and I don’t feel there’s anything unfair about it. The minority can’t dictate to the majority.
That’s how democracy works, no?

Catholic church basically controlled the government, a perfect example of this is the Mother and Child scheme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_and_Child_Scheme

Thats not democracy.

[Deleted User]

Cabaal wrote: »

Christians in the USA doing their bit to stop the UN classing rape as a weapon of war

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/apr/22/us-un-resolution-rape-weapon-of-war-veto

Damn right it would, but then thats the big plan by the USA right now...undo rights

Given the recent changes domestically in the U.S. as to what counts as sexual assault I'm not surprised.

Also given their stance against the ICC again not surprising.

Just goes to show who some "Christians" will support to further their aims, but perhaps best discussed in another thread.

[Deleted User]

Cabaal wrote: »

Catholic church basically controlled the government, a perfect example of this is the Mother and Child scheme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_and_Child_Scheme

Thats not democracy.

Your forgetting that the poster your replying to has said that they would be happy to have the homes brought back and their taxes spent on them, rather than have children allowance being provided to people on social welfare, who should be sterilized in their opinion, after having two kid's.

Personally I think the children's allowance should be overhauled, but I don't think people should be sterilized because of their financial situation.

aloyisious

splinter65 wrote: »

The law on abortion here now doesn’t suit me, and 700000 other people either. But it’s the will of the people and I don’t feel there’s anything unfair about it. The minority can’t dictate to the majority.
That’s how democracy works, no?

On that minority-cant-dictate basis. if you were a protestor on an anti-abortion picket line outside a hospital where abortions were performed and saw a fellow protestor following a person who'd crossed the line toward the hospital declining to stop and listen to the protestor, would you actively call on that protestor to cease and desist in pursuing the person or just stand idly by?

I am presuming from your words and apparent position on hospital anti-abortion protests that you could well be present as a protestor on such an anti-abortion picket line.

Dial Hard

splinter65 wrote:

No no I donâ€™t support that at all.

Quelle surprise.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

But if you can't explain this change of heart, it's hard to see why anyone should take it seriously at all. It seems not only random but wildly variable, a bit like a two year old who suddenly claims to hate food that he loved only yesterday.
It might be wiser for others to ignore much of what you claim to believe - because perhaps tomorrow you'll wake up and believe protestors should be shot on sight.

i can explain it but i'm not going to because it has no relevance to abortion. whether people believe me or not is not of concern to me as what i have said is accurate.

SusieBlue

end of the road wrote: »

i can explain it but i'm not going to because it has no relevance to abortion. whether people believe me or not is not of concern to me as what i have said is accurate.

Not one post you have made on this topic, across the whole of Boards, on any thread, has been honest or accurate.

amcalester

amcalester wrote: »

What about crossing a picket line as a form of protest? Would you respect a persons right to do that?

Or do you still think such a person should expect to be met with physical force to stop them crossing the picket?

end of the road wrote: »

i can explain it but i'm not going to because it has no relevance to abortion. whether people believe me or not is not of concern to me as what i have said is accurate.

Perhaps you could answer my question?

I'm not asking you to explain your views, just if you still hold them or would you respect a persons right to cross a picket without suffering the threat of violence?

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

i can explain it but i'm not going to

Then you can't really be surprised when people continue to not buy your change of heart and don't take your concerns about the freedom to protest seriously.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

i can explain it but i'm not going to because it has no relevance to abortion. whether people believe me or not is not of concern to me as what i have said is accurate.

Weeeell, maybe. The point is that the two positions contradict each other, and if you can't - or won't - explain how you got from one to the other it calls into question either your good faith or else your ability to think logically.

Both of which are important qualities on a discussion site. In fact an assumption of both is pretty much all we've got when deciding whether, and how, to engage with other posters.

end of the road

SusieBlue wrote: »

Not one post you have made on this topic, across the whole of Boards, on any thread, has been honest or accurate.

all of my posts have been honest and 99% of them have been accurate. where i have genuinely got something incorrect i have accepted as such.

King Mob wrote: »

Then you can't really be surprised when people continue to not buy your change of heart and don't take your concerns about the freedom to protest seriously.

i can and i am very much surprised. shocked in fact. people kept going on about this even though i answered it already but when i answer it again, something i have no obligation to do given i already did it, they don't accept the answer. so ultimately it's not my problem, i did my bit.

end of the road

volchitsa wrote: »

Weeeell, maybe. The point is that the two positions contradict each other, and if you can't - or won't - explain how you got from one to the other it calls into question either your good faith or else your ability to think logically.

Both of which are important qualities on a discussion site. In fact an assumption of both is pretty much all we've got when deciding whether, and how, to engage with other posters.

the point is it has nothing to do with abortion. that is why i am not explaining it because it has nothing to do with the thread. if it actually had something to do with the thread or was at least on a relevant thread then it could be explained but this thread is about abortion and not me.

ohnonotgmail

amcalester wrote: »

What about crossing a picket line as a form of protest? Would you respect a persons right to do that?

Or do you still think such a person should expect to be met with physical force to stop them crossing the picket?

I may be misrembering EOTRs previous posts on pickets but i seem to remember that he had no issue with using violence against those who cross picket lines.

splinter65

Cabaal wrote: »

Catholic church basically controlled the government, a perfect example of this is the Mother and Child scheme.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_and_Child_Scheme

Thats not democracy.

The government allowed itself to be dictated to be the Catholic Church because that’s what the people wanted right at that time.
Because it’s what people want right now the government is being dictated to by the liberal left... to the point where the Taoiseach is afraid to comment on the murder of all the Catholics in Sri Lanka (more Catholics were murdered then the Muslims in the mosque in NZ, twice as many) for fear of offending them.
The people will want something else in 15 years or so.
It’s swings and roundabouts really.
No your right it’s not democracy at all, but it’s the best we can manage, so what are you going to do?

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

i can and i am very much surprised. shocked in fact. people kept going on about this even though i answered it already but when i answer it again, something i have no obligation to do given i already did it, they don't accept the answer. so ultimately it's not my problem, i did my bit.

And for something you claim to not care about, you certainly are posting a lot about how you don't care about it and how you're not going to address it.

But this is par for the course. Again, your posting history betrays you.

Your concern about the right to protest is not genuine.
People are going to bring that up when you base your arguments on this concern.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

the point is it has nothing to do with abortion. that is why i am not explaining it because it has nothing to do with the thread. if it actually had something to do with the thread or was at least on a relevant thread then it could be explained but this thread is about abortion and not me.

It's not actually about abortion here either. It's about freedom of expression, ie we're no longer discussing what we think of abortion, but more about the right to protest about it.

Are you saying the rules for freedom of expression should be different when abortion is concerned and if so, what other domains would you make exceptions for and why?

splinter65

Dial Hard wrote: »

Quelle surprise.

Do I have to support things I don’t approve of? Do you support things you don’t approve of? Why would anyone do that?

SusieBlue

splinter65 wrote: »

Do I have to support things I don’t approve of? Do you support things you don’t approve of? Why would anyone do that?

You don't have to support it, you just can't interfere with it. Disagree with abortion all you want but leave those who make that choice for themselves alone. You have no right to impose your own beliefs on their private medical matters.

splinter65

aloyisious wrote: »

On that minority-cant-dictate basis. if you were a protestor on an anti-abortion picket line outside a hospital where abortions were performed and saw a fellow protestor following a person who'd crossed the line toward the hospital declining to stop and listen to the protestor, would you actively call on that protestor to cease and desist in pursuing the person or just stand idly by?

I am presuming from your words and apparent position on hospital anti-abortion protests that you could well be present as a protestor on such an anti-abortion picket line.

Approaching someone going into a public building and hassling them and possibly frightening them is totally unacceptable and if you see someone doing that you should take it upon yourself to stand up and be counted by intervening. The person doing the hassling needs to be excluded from any further protests or pickets.
I haven’t heard of anyone currently protesting abortions here in Ireland doing that though, if you see it you should go to the defense of the person being hassled immediately.
Respectfully standing on a public street with banners and leaflets however is totally acceptable and anyone that wants to protest anything that they think is wrong is free to do so.

volchitsa

splinter65 wrote: »

Do I have to support things I don’t approve of? Do you support things you don’t approve of? Why would anyone do that?

You do actually, or at least put up with it, unless you can persuade enough people to change the law in your favour. And since abortion is one issue that has been thoroughly thrashed out very recently, and voted upon, it's most unlikely that there is any room for the massive change of public opinion that you would need to bring sufficient numbers of people around to your point of view on that subject in the foreseeable future.

robarmstrong

end of the road wrote: »

all of my posts have been honest and 99% of them have been accurate. where i have genuinely got something incorrect i have accepted as such.

Just because you believe them to be accurate does not actually make them accurate. You literally have been proven to have contradicted yourself numerous times and have developed a sitewide reputation for saying one thing, only to say another and then flat out deny you ever said the initial statement in the first time. I have done this with you numerous times and when you're confronted with your own contradictions you flee the thread.

I have never seen you "genuinely get something incorrect and accept it as such" to put it in your terms. Flat out sprint from a thread and go into hiding, absolutely. Own up to your mistake? Never, ever seen you do that.

EOTR, you stated abortion was murder, then stated you never said abortion is murder, you were threadbanned numerous times for making "honest and accurate" statements on this subject and you've been warned several times across the site on this subject for your debating/posting style. Please don't try to give off the impression that you post with the intention of debating openly and honestly, as you have been found out a long, long time now.

Splinter65 has taken this discussion down the route of the right to protest, your previous posts about a right to protest are being highlighted because you've stated many different stances on the subject.

You support the right to protest, yet you wanted armed response to forcefully remove protesters from a site in Tipperary (I think, open to correction here) as they were protesting travelers being given houses there or something, my memory doesn't serve me well on this particular one but I know I have indeed proven you wrong on this.

You support the unborn's right to life, up until the women carrying the unborn are about to board a ferry or a plane (or at least you've accepted your opinion is irrelevant on that front).

You support the unborn's right to life, except in the cases of rape, why? As a pro-lifer I am asking you, what is the difference of significance between an unborn that was conceived out of rape, and one that was conceived with consent? Why do you give your full support to one, but not the other?

You support the right to protest, yet were more than happy in suggesting violence to anyone who crossed a picket line (as it is their right to cross said picket-line, etiquette goes out the window when it comes to actual laws and rights).

Can you see now why people genuinely don't believe a word you post when you've shown time and time again that you just don't engage in good faith?