volchitsa wrote: » The white supremacists who wanted to stop black children being allowed into "white" schools in the US would have thought that described them to a T. Doesn't mean it's true though. What they are doing is as important as why they think they are doing it, and intimidating and demeaning women at a vulnerable moment in their lives makes that a dubious call.
end of the road wrote: » fair point but that is why i said the majority rather then all. there will always be small fringe groups who are not out for the common good. however i don't believe the majority of pro-life are anything other then good people who wish to right a wrong.
end of the road wrote: » yes . as i see it, the majority of people get involved in protest movements for reasons of good. they feel strongly about the issue and want to change things. they care and want to bring about the greater good.
volchitsa wrote: » I'm sure that among those white supremacists in the 1960s there were lots of basically decent people too though. They were the product of their upbringing. Very much like Irish Catholics, or even ex Catholics, are the product of ours. So yes, I agree, but it still doesn't make it right. People protesting because they don't like someone else having a right is retrograde and in this case anti women. We saw that prolifers can't make a solid case for banning abortion, that's why they resorted to so many lies and all the fear mongering about babies being killed right up to birth and even after. So it really doesn't matter what they think they are defending, what they are actually doing is deluding themselves about reality.
King Mob wrote: » But how do you know this when you don't go to the protests? How you reconcile this with the harassment and intimidation that does happen in places in America etc. ? Are you saying that no harassement from these protests ever takes place? How come, if you feel so strongly against abortion, and the protesters are so noble and effective, why do you not go to them?
end of the road wrote: » fair point but that is why i said the majority rather then all. there will always be small individuals and even fringe groups who are not out for the common good. however i don't believe the majority of pro-life are anything other then good people who wish to right a wrong.
end of the road wrote: » being against abortion on demand is not anti women, it's pro women. unborn women are the victims of abortion as well. pro-lifers made an absolutely solid case to ban abortion bar certain circumstances, and i am satisfied that this is the case. people not willing to except the reality of the barbarity and cruelty of abortion on demand is not the fault of pro-life. pro-life can only put the message across. after that, those who do not wish to listen have to live with what they vote for. pro-life's consciences are clear. i personally don't believe the harassment is anywhere near what is being claimed within the US . there have been serious incidents that go beyond harassment but i think those have been carried out by fringe individuals and groups who just want to engage in violence, for which abortion is convenient.
end of the road wrote: » being i personally don't believe the harassment is anywhere near what is being claimed within the US . there have been serious incidents that go beyond harassment but i think those have been carried out by fringe individuals and groups who just want to engage in violence, for which abortion is convenient.
end of the road wrote: » being against abortion on demand is not anti women, it's pro women. unborn women are the victims of abortion as well. pro-lifers made an absolutely solid case to ban abortion bar certain circumstances, and i am satisfied that this is the case.
uptherebels wrote: » Deciding when a woman can and cannot have an abortion including believing that women who have been raped should be forced to give birth to the child of their rapist is about as anti woman as you can get. If they had such a solid case, they wouldn't have had to resort to lies, scaremongering and filibustering in an attempt to persuade people of said case.
SusieBlue wrote: » Stop saying they wish to right a wrong when they have NO authority to make such a judgment on behalf of another person, least of all a TOTAL stranger. Repeating the statement ad nauseum doesn’t make it accurate or true. You are being extremely offensive to those reading who may have had terminations. They did not and do need the guidance of you and your LoveBoat cohorts to make their own choices for their own lives. You have an extremely superior, self righteous attitude if you believe that any person should have to justify their private medical care to you. They don’t and thankfully they never will. You’re simply embarrassing yourself at this stage.
King Mob wrote: » Have you evidence for this? Why do you believe that there is less harassment than is claimed? Are the people claiming harassment not genuine?
King Mob wrote: » Also you seem to have missed my other question. Why do you not participate in the protests yourself? If you intend on avoiding the question as usual, please at least say so. It would save a lot of bother.
King Mob wrote: » End maintains that the anti abortion campaign never lied about anything. Himself included. When shown evidence of these lies, he suddenly finds those facts irrelevant to the discussion and does not respond.
end of the road wrote: » i am sure they may be genuine in that they believe on a personal basis that harassment has taken place, but may not realisz that in reality it may not have been harassment. because i don't specifically agree with the protests. however i absolutely support their right to do so and i agree with the aim they have of ending abortion on demand. because apart from the odd campeigner, i don't believe pro-life in general lied. so i don't believe that it would be worth it for me to respond to simply say i don't agree all the time.
end of the road wrote: » i am sure they may be genuine in that they believe on a personal basis that harassment has taken place, but may not realisz that in reality it may not have been harassment.
end of the road wrote: » because i don't specifically agree with the protests.
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.
splinter65 wrote: » Nobody said you can’t hand out condoms on the street outside a church if you want. Knock yourself out. Hand them out and tubes of lube if it makes you happy. But you won’t be coming into the church to hand them out. You hand out your condoms and I’ll hand out my leaflets and we’ll all be happy. But you can’t come into the church (private property) and put items that are contrary to Church law on the notice board. 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.
end of the road wrote: » being against abortion on demand is not anti women, it's pro women. unborn women are the victims of abortion as well.
end of the road wrote: » pro-lifers made an absolutely solid case to ban abortion bar certain circumstances, and i am satisfied that this is the case. people not willing to except the reality of the barbarity and cruelty of abortion on demand is not the fault of pro-life. pro-life can only put the message across. after that, those who do not wish to listen have to live with what they vote for. pro-life's consciences are clear.
robarmstrong wrote: » EOTR - if you say "abortion is murder", you're saying that it's the unlawful killing of another human being, correct? Except abortion is legal and legislated for, with the definition of human being not applying to those who are unborn. How is it murder? Is it a fact that it's murder (i.e it is defined and set out in the constitution or law that terminating an unborn is murder) or is it your opinion that it is murder? If it is in fact murder, how come we aren't arresting all of these murderers?
a large element of the pro-choice want unrestricted abortion right up to term and they will push hard for that.
splinter65 wrote: » 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?
splinter65 wrote: » 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.
end of the road wrote: » while i won't and don't specifically go out of my way to offend anyone and never would, i make no appology for stating the realities of abortion on demand. the ending of a healthy unborn human being's life is a billion times more offensive then me having a viewpoint as i see it, and i will never make any apollogy for believing the unnecessary ending of a life is wrong.
robarmstrong wrote: » If a person is feeling harassed they are feeling harassed for a reason, you do not get to dictate how other people interpret levels of harassment. If I follow you around with graphic posters and invade what you interpret as your personal space, I have absolutely no right to tell you that your interpretation of harassment is unjustified. Any suggestion otherwise is pig-ignorant, this has been explained to you numerous times so please acknowledge that it is not within your remit to determine someone's justification for feeling harassed.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » Well they need to GTF out of state-funded schools, then.
SusieBlue wrote: » EOTR has a propensity to assume how others interpret things on a regular basis. I recall him making several statements in the run up to the referendum that women who think they need abortions, actually don't need them, they just don't realise it. (can quote if necessary) He was unfortunately unable to explain how he, as a stranger, could possibly know or determine that they "didn't really need the abortion", but still upheld his claim even so, by repeating it several times over. I wouldn't be holding my breath on a satisfactory response if I were you.
end of the road wrote: » the poster you quoted is on ignore so he won't be getting a response to anything he writes from me.
end of the road wrote: » presumably they will do that when it is shown that in actual fact the majority of people are not catholic. while a majority continue to tick the catholic box on the census form then i'd imagine the cc feel they have a perfect mandate to remain involved. as i have said before, if a majority of people want the cc out of schools hospitals etc then they need to show this to be the case. while they continue not to do so then they can't be surprised the cc remain involved. the poster you quoted is on ignore so he won't be getting a response to anything he writes from me.
King Mob wrote: » Hi, you seem to have missed my post again.https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=110005234&postcount=165
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
