Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Sarky · 05-05-2013 12:39AM

Whistlingmilk wrote: »

The problem is that your selective 'quoting' misrepresents data, numbers you state cannot be confirmed or rebutted unless you provide a link. Which, yet again, I'm glad you've learned to do.

I am unsure what basis your other question has. Why exactly would I dislike such a thing, or like it for that matter? Poland made abortion illegal, which reduced the rate of abortion. What is your point?

The Poland thing conflicts with the WHO link he posted, specifically point 9 which states that restrictions on abortion don't affect its incidence. It'd be interesting to see how the rates for maternal deaths and illegal abortions have changed there since that law was brought about. And perhaps also the incidences of women travelling to a less restrictive country. If their piece on Romania is anything to go by (and seeing as he provided the link himself, I'm sure he'll agree), I'd suspect that such figures may have climbed a fair bit. Now where have we seen a country exporting a problem like that before, do you think?

seenitall · 05-05-2013 12:48AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

So we're all agreed then-

It's religion that is irrational, and not necessarily the person.

In my opinion, irrationality is borne of insecurity, and that person will graduate towards what fits with their perception of reality. For some, it's religion; for others, it's a lack of belief.

There's really no semantic wrangling intended, I'm just presenting my opinion based on my own perception, which hasn't so far drawn on my religion in any way, shape or form. If I were to draw on my religion to form my opinion, then rightly I should be dismissed as irrational, and by that same token anyone who draws on their lack of belief to form their opinion, should also rightly be dismissed as irrational.

Yes, and that's why the religious are, by default, irrational. They are required by their religion to suspend own thinking and reasoning and assume the given, the proper, morality and worldview. If you are RC, you know this very well.

If you are a RC who is pro-choice, you have had to square and make some sense in your head of the chasm between what your religion says about abortion, and what your (I won't say rationality because I don't think you'd like that

) er, some other part of you anyway, thinks on the subject. It may have been easier for you than many other RCs. And for many, many more RCs it will never happen. They are too scared of the fire and brimstone, I suppose (and this really is only a supposition, hopefully I'm not offending anyone).

OCorcrainn · 05-05-2013 01:21AM

RayM wrote: »

Having watched and listened to far too many abortion discussions on TV and radio, I can't think of a single anti-choice commentator who isn't a very obvious religious zealot. Even those who purport to be legal or medical experts on the subject (like William Binchy and Patricia Casey) are merely using their professional qualifications to lend some credibility to their religious zealotry.

1. Your use of "anti-choice" implies that people who disagree with you are somehow tyrannical, which itself is an ad hominem. Before you say anything I do not agree with the term pro-life because it insinuates that everyone who disagrees as "pro-death".

2. So you are implicitly suggesting that any commentator or individual who has opposing views to you who isn't a very obvious religious zealot actually is a religious zealot but they are more subtle and better at disguising said religious zealousness and as result there is no such thing (to you) as someone who does not support abortion that is atheistic or agnostic? Thanks for clearing that up for me.

RayM wrote: »

If there really are plenty of atheists and agnostics out there who believe that women shouldn't have the right to control their own bodies, then why aren't they represented in the media?

If you think the issue is as simple in the context that it is solely about one being able to do whatever they want with their bodies than I regret to inform you that is not the case at all.

Those views that you have espoused do not belong in any objective or rational discussion about abortion.

Czarcasm · 05-05-2013 01:22AM

seenitall wrote: »

Yes, and that's why the religious are, by default, irrational. They are required by their religion to suspend own thinking and reasoning and assume the given, the proper, morality and worldview. If you are RC, you know this very well.

OK, I'll see can I make this any clearer at all by using a personal example, though I'm not sure it'll be effective in getting you to see where I'm coming from, but we'll give it a go anyway-

My parents liked to think of themselves as "devout catholics", they were also strict disciplinarians (read physically abusive). Now we're all agreed that physical violence is an irrational behaviour? They used religion as a justification for their irrational behaviour. The pro-life lobby in this instance uses religion as the basis for their irrational point of view. They are unwilling to accept that humanity should trump religion, because of their personal bias. Their personal bias is an irrational behaviour that stems from their lack of humanity, but they use religion to claim the high moral ground so they can justify their point of view.

If you are a RC who is pro-choice, you have had to square and make some sense in your head of the chasm between what your religion says about abortion, and what your (I won't say rationality because I don't think you'd like that ) er, some other part of you anyway, thinks on the subject. It may have been easier for you than many other RCs. And for many, many more RCs it will never happen. They are too scared of the fire and brimstone, I suppose (and this really is only a supposition, hopefully I'm not offending anyone).

I'm certainly not offended anyway seenitall by the fact that you're now beginning to understand that there is indeed more to a person than just their irrational religious beliefs. That person is also capable of compassion for humanity, and can justify their opinions based on their humanity, set apart from their religious beliefs. It may seem irrational at first, but once you get your head around it, it's quite simple really, just like there are people who have had an abortion and had to square that between their humanity and their religion. It's an example that also applies to LGBT people who just happen to be RC. They have to square their humanity with their religion.

The more secure they are in themselves as a person; the more rational they are, and the easier it is for them to square their humanity with their irrational beliefs.

Lingua Franca · 05-05-2013 01:25AM

squod wrote: »

I didn't quote figures from Somalia. I didn't quote figures form 1902. This is what the pro-choicers want. Believe it or not.

You didn't quote the part about Western Europe having the lowest abortion rates in the world either, did you? :rolleyes: What the pro choicers want, squod, is a bit of honesty.

We're not going to go from the 30 abortions we have each year here to 40 or 50. We're going to have thousands more in a pro-choice environment.

Yeah, probably about 4000 or so.

DEFTLEFTHAND · 05-05-2013 01:28AM

Safe sex, practice it and you won't have your fcuking problem!

Mardy Bum · 05-05-2013 01:34AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

I'm certainly not offended anyway seenitall by the fact that you're now beginning to understand that there is indeed more to a person than just their irrational religious beliefs. That person is also capable of compassion for humanity, and can justify their opinions based on their humanity, set apart from their religious beliefs. It may seem irrational at first, but once you get your head around it, it's quite simple really, just like there are people who have had an abortion and had to square that between their humanity and their religion. It's an example that also applies to LGBT people who just happen to be RC. They have to square their humanity with their religion.

The more secure they are in themselves as a person; the more rational they are, and the easier it is for them to square their humanity with their irrational beliefs.

The LGBT Catholic clearly is irrational if they believe themselves to be part of a faith which explicitly forbids them from practicing their sexuality. Its nothing short of stupid. They clearly no nothing about their religion. A good few ended up becoming priests they were so irrational.

Whistlingmilk · 05-05-2013 01:35AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Safe sex, practice it and you won't have your fcuking problem!

Indeed. Let's remind everyone that if a woman's life is threatened during pregnancy, or if she became pregnant through rape she should have just used contraception and then she wouldn't have any "fcuking problem"! Of course!

Lingua Franca · 05-05-2013 01:36AM

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

Safe sex, practice it and you won't have your fcuking problem!

Yes, for contraception is infallible and fellas just love wearing condoms.

jimmycrackcorm · 05-05-2013 01:41AM

Cunning Alias wrote: »

I can't understand why more people aren't calling for this. Since debate/protests/lobbying is getting us nowhere and just seems to be angering each side more and more. Why the hell don't we just have this vote? Are people afraid of the possible results?

Nail on the head. The biggest problem is that the proposals are undermined by specific examples that shown up flaws in the generality.

Lingua Franca · 05-05-2013 01:43AM

I'd say the biggest problem is Enda Kenny has already said there's to be no referendum. I believe the government are deathly afraid of the results.

Czarcasm · 05-05-2013 01:53AM

Mardy Bum wrote: »

The LGBT Catholic clearly is irrational if they believe themselves to be part of a faith which explicitly forbids them from practicing their sexuality. Its nothing short of stupid. They clearly no nothing about their religion. A good few ended up becoming priests they were so irrational.

See this kind of shìte talk is the reason why we'll never be able to have a rational discussion on abortion. Who the flying fcuk are you to tell somebody they aren't "catholic enough". It's that sort of shìt that has enabled pro-lifers to have the stranglehold on Irish society that they do.

You don't think people who happen to be RC struggle with their humanity and feel enough shame at the fact that they are engaging in what they see as morally questionable behaviour and having to square an abortion or the fact that they are LGBT with their religion?

Even more ended up committing suicide because they were "irrational", and even that went against their religion too. Some people will never be able to rationalize their religion with their humanity, but the last thing they need is an irrational atheist jumping down their throats and judging them for not being "good catholics", so I ask you now Mardy-

Where the fcuk is your humanity, that it's more important you prove how "stupid" some people are over giving a shìt about the personal struggles that they go through?

Rational my bollocks.

seenitall · 05-05-2013 01:56AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

OK, I'll see can I make this any clearer at all by using a personal example, though I'm not sure it'll be effective in getting you to see where I'm coming from, but we'll give it a go anyway-

My parents liked to think of themselves as "devout catholics", they were also strict disciplinarians (read physically abusive). Now we're all agreed that physical violence is an irrational behaviour? They used religion as a justification for their irrational behaviour. The pro-life lobby in this instance uses religion as the basis for their irrational point of view. They are unwilling to accept that humanity should trump religion, because of their personal bias. Their personal bias is an irrational behaviour that stems from their lack of humanity, but they use religion to claim the high moral ground so they can justify their point of view.

I'm certainly not offended anyway seenitall by the fact that you're now beginning to understand that there is indeed more to a person than just their irrational religious beliefs. That person is also capable of compassion for humanity, and can justify their opinions based on their humanity, set apart from their religious beliefs. It may seem irrational at first, but once you get your head around it, it's quite simple really, just like there are people who have had an abortion and had to square that between their humanity and their religion. It's an example that also applies to LGBT people who just happen to be RC. They have to square their humanity with their religion.

The more secure they are in themselves as a person; the more rational they are, and the easier it is for them to square their humanity with their irrational beliefs.

Hmmm... being a former RC, I can assure you that I have known since quite a while ago that there is (usually:)) more to a person than their religion. Religion, though, sure tries its best to stifle, direct, or manipulate those other aspects of a person.

Anyway, we seem to have found some agreement in the last couple of posts, so on that happy note... I'm going to go and catch some zz's.:cool:

Mardy Bum · 05-05-2013 02:01AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

See this kind of shìte talk is the reason why we'll never be able to have a rational discussion on abortion. Who the flying fcuk are you to tell somebody they aren't "catholic enough". It's that sort of shìt that has enabled pro-lifers to have the stranglehold on Irish society that they do.

You don't think people who happen to be RC struggle with their humanity and feel enough shame at the fact that they are engaging in what they see as morally questionable behaviour and having to square an abortion or the fact that they are LGBT with their religion?

Even more ended up committing suicide because they were "irrational", and even that went against their religion too. Some people will never be able to rationalize their religion with their humanity, but the last thing they need is an irrational atheist jumping down their throats and judging them for not being "good catholics", so I ask you now Mardy-

Where the fcuk is your humanity, that it's more important you prove how "stupid" some people are over giving a shìt about the personal struggles that they go through?

Rational my bollocks.

I'm not saying that irrationality is some sort of essential part of a person. If you look at my previous posts people are made up of their thoughts. Some thoughts will make people irrational others will not.
RC does not condone homosexual acts. Therefore they are commiting a "sin" if they are partaking in such acts and a grave one according to the previous pope. If a person cannot come to the conclusion that the religion which they feel part of outwardly rejects their practices and fails to realise that the best outcome for their own mental health would be to leave said religion altogether well then that person needs help. They need to be educated on the religions dogmatic and confessional tendencies. Once they know this they should be in a position of mental clarity to leave said religion and find another one if necessary or forget it altogether. Don't start jumping down my throat I am all for helping people overcome idiotic dogmatic ideologies which as you say drive them to suicide which only proves how stupid the teachings are in the first place.
People can be so indoctrinated into a faith horrible things like this can happen and generally it is the parents who need to look at their behaviour in bringing up a child to hate itself for their imaginary friend. Someone who goes on to commit suicide is not in a good place mentally therefore I would say they are not thinking rationally.

squod · 05-05-2013 09:40AM

Lingua Franca wrote: »

You didn't quote the part about Western Europe having the lowest abortion rates in the world either, did you? :rolleyes: What the pro choicers want, squod, is a bit of honesty.

Low yeah?

France 793,420 live births. 208,290 Abortions

Is that low? No.

Italy 561,944 live births. 115,372 Abortions

That low? No.

squod · 05-05-2013 09:42AM

Nodin wrote: »

For me, as many as women want.

Lingua Franca wrote: »

Yeah, probably about 4000 or so.

That's a few bob for the clinics. You two in business together?

Czarcasm · 05-05-2013 10:04AM

squod wrote: »

Low yeah?

France 793,420 live births. 208,290 Abortions

Is that low? No.

Italy 561,944 live births. 115,372 Abortions

That low? No.

squod wrote: »

That's a few bob for the clinics. You two in business together?

Squod if you're going to pull figures selectively out of your àrse hole and then go on to be so facetious about it, can you honestly blame people for not being able to take you seriously?

It comes off like you give less of a crap about the people involved in the issue itself, and more of a crap about you having to prove everybody else wrong with your lack of interpretative skills.

You already had your àrse handed to you by Sarky with your bunkum twisting of statistics to back up your point of view, but when you reduce your opinion to snide shots across the bow of posters who disagree with your opinion, it makes your farcical arguments even less than invalid, and it leaves your opinion open to dismissal as irrelevant waffle.

Grayson · 05-05-2013 11:02AM

Czarcasm wrote: »

Squod if you're going to pull figures selectively out of your àrse hole and then go on to be so facetious about it, can you honestly blame people for not being able to take you seriously?

It comes off like you give less of a crap about the people involved in the issue itself, and more of a crap about you having to prove everybody else wrong with your lack of interpretative skills.

You already had your àrse handed to you by Sarky with your bunkum twisting of statistics to back up your point of view, but when you reduce your opinion to snide shots across the bow of posters who disagree with your opinion, it makes your farcical arguments even less than invalid, and it leaves your opinion open to dismissal as irrelevant waffle.

I think one abortion, to save the life of the mother is too many for him. So quoting 100k makes no difference.

To be fair, this is a whole thread about Squod. In most of the aboertion debates on here there's him and one or two who throw wild facts around and go a bit nuts. Most prolifers are more serious about it.

I see prolifers split into two groups.
1) The group that are just anti abortion. That's their one trick.
2) Others that would be ok with it when the mothers life is at risk etc....

Group 1 tends to say stuff like it is never medically necessary so we shouldn't even legislate.
Group two tends to say, if it's ever proven to be necessary, then there should be legislation to support it.

Group 2 are the kind of people that say "maybe we should have better sex education. That way there will be less unwanted pregnancies".
Group 1 are the people that say "every unwanted pregnancy can end up on adoption. isn't that fair". they'd never support contraception or sex ed because that goes against their religion.

Squod is firmly in camp 1. Throw out statistics without providing a link. It's common courtesy to always provide a link to figures so people can see for themselves. But he won't even do that.

If we could get people like him out of the room, then maybe we could have a vaguely amicable discussion.

Arpa · 05-05-2013 11:51AM

Seen this on the RTE news site today...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0504/390390-knock-prayer-pregnancy/

Sorry are we still living in the 60's? Why the fúck are the church sticking their noses in again?

I'm tired of living in a country where a religious order can influence politics, or even feel they have a right to comment on politics.

Grand, go ahead, believe in what you want, but don't think it gives you the right to try influence political matters, particularly given the track record of the church.

There are too many sheeple who will follow blindly the line that the church takes on any issue. These people should not have a say as citizens as they are not thinking for themselves.

When we can disentangle religion from politics in this country we may eventually begin to move forward and live in a society where we can say, "Yes we made this decision because we feel it is the correct one, not because our religion told us so."

It fúcking angers me when you see Mary, Breda, Josie, Peadar and Assumpta marching down a country road led by Father O'Holier Than Thou, all holding placards with a picture of an unborn foetus, attempting to comment on scientific, medical issues whilst all wearing an icon around their neck of a magic man who was killed and then came back to life 3 days later. - What's that you believe Josie? He can fly and walk on water and we can't use condoms? - NO Josie, you can't have a say.

I Heart Internet · 05-05-2013 02:05PM

Arpa wrote: »

Seen this on the RTE news site today...

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0504/390390-knock-prayer-pregnancy/

Sorry are we still living in the 60's? Why the fúck are the church sticking their noses in again?

I'm tired of living in a country where a religious order can influence politics, or even feel they have a right to comment on politics.

Grand, go ahead, believe in what you want, but don't think it gives you the right to try influence political matters, particularly given the track record of the church.

There are too many sheeple who will follow blindly the line that the church takes on any issue. These people should not have a say as citizens as they are not thinking for themselves.

When we can disentangle religion from politics in this country we may eventually begin to move forward and live in a society where we can say, "Yes we made this decision because we feel it is the correct one, not because our religion told us so."

It fúcking angers me when you see Mary, Breda, Josie, Peadar and Assumpta marching down a country road led by Father O'Holier Than Thou, all holding placards with a picture of an unborn foetus, attempting to comment on scientific, medical issues whilst all wearing an icon around their neck of a magic man who was killed and then came back to life 3 days later. - What's that you believe Josie? He can fly and walk on water and we can't use condoms? - NO Josie, you can't have a say.

I'm gonna quote a response of mine to another thread which I think might explain why the church (and anyone else) has a say in political affairs. It's called civil society. If you don't approve of debate in civil society perhaps somewhere like North Korea would be more appealing to you.

It's amazing, utterly amazing how many people completly misunderstand (or haven't heard of) the concept od civil society.

A strong civil society is at the backbone of a healthy democracy. The strength of civil society is in its diversity. As many points of view as possible is what's needed. Views from academia, trade unions, NGOs, media, charities, citizens, churches, etc, etc.

Time and again people suggest that the church has no role in political debate. Those people need to learn about democracy.

Czarcasm · 05-05-2013 02:07PM

Arpa wrote: »

There are too many sheeple who will follow blindly the line that the church takes on any issue. These people should not have a say as citizens as they are not thinking for themselves.

You lost me at "sheeple". The rest was just regurgitated irrelevant waffle that's been done to death already, dragged over the coals, regurgitated, and spat out again numerous times over as many decades already.

Anyway, here's a more relevant piece I heard this morning on the radio, these are the people you should REALLY be worried about and directing your anger towards-

http://www.newstalk.ie/reader/47.301.341/8828/show_list__0/

The deputies say if the termination rate rises significantly then the new laws should be scrapped.

Fine Gael TDs opposed to the abortion legislation want to be able to repeal the law - if the number of pregnancy terminations rises from the current rate of 20 to 30 per year.

According to The Sunday Times, Cork North West TD Michael Creed raised the proposal with the Taoiseach last month, and has the support of a group of his party colleagues.

They want to see the Bill brought back to the Dáil once a year - where it could be scrapped if the number of abortions rises significantly.

However, Labour ministers are said to be strongly opposed to any changes to the legislation.

Quite frankly, I've never heard of a more assanine, ham fisted way to deal with the issue of legislating for abortion in all my life. This cack handed approach will only mean that in order to save face and keep the abortion legislation in play, only the first forty women will be given consideration, and that's only after the delaying tactics of having them see two counsellors before they are given permission by the state to undergo a medical procedure to abort the foetus.

As Grayson said earlier- this gives reason for people like Squod to say "Ahh, 41! That's a significant rise of one, time to drag the abortion bill by the àrse back into the dail for another nine months and waste more time on it".

The church may have influence, but it has no power, and look what the people in power do! These are elected representatives of the people, feather nesting àrse coverers. This comes only a few weeks after Enda Kenny cried crocodile tears over the disgrace that was the Magdelene Laundries.

Enda would want to have a word with his disciples because one of them just pulled a Judas.

squod · 05-05-2013 02:39PM

Czarcasm wrote: »

As Grayson said earlier- this gives reason for people like Squod to say "Ahh, 41! .

Whereas people like you want fuhken thousands. A disgusting disrespect for human life. I'd be happy if the government legislated and gave a clear understanding to doctors et al.

None of us, not even the Supreme Court, the Church, or the Taoiseach are above the constitution. The unborn have rights. The right to be protected from people like you.

Nodin · 05-05-2013 02:54PM

squod wrote: »

That's a few bob for the clinics. You two in business together?

Hardly.

Now, care to explain - What did you mean by "dark ages" and how does abortion get us there?

pablomakaveli · 05-05-2013 02:57PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm gonna quote a response of mine to another thread which I think might explain why the church (and anyone else) has a say in political affairs. It's called civil society. If you don't approve of debate in civil society perhaps somewhere like North Korea would be more appealing to you.

A modern democracy should be secularist as religious interference in politics has proved disastrous in the past particularly here.

By all means they can express an opinion but to try and influence their followers to make a decision based on religious teaching is something which has no place in a modern democracy.

Czarcasm · 05-05-2013 03:14PM

squod wrote: »

Whereas people like you want fuhken thousands. A disgusting disrespect for human life. I'd be happy if the government legislated and gave a clear understanding to doctors et al.

I don't want anyone to die Squod, but it'd be ridiculous to include in that those that haven't even been born yet, let alone give those unborn more rights than those that are carrying them. Women are not just fertility vessels and baby making machines.

It shows a disgusting disrespect for human life when you lay the guilt trip on thick with a trowel and force a woman to give birth against her will. If that's not the definition of cruelty to humanity, then you can keep your high moral ground to yourself, because I want no part in it.

We both know well that politicians are only interested in feathering their own nest and covering their own àrse. They'll say whatever they think people want to hear, appease and tease them until the next election when they'll make more empty promises in the hope of getting re-elected.

None of us, not even the Supreme Court, the Church, or the Taoiseach are above the constitution. The unborn have rights. The right to be protected from people like you.

The constitution can be changed at the stroke of a pen. The ignorant attitudes of some people towards their fellow human beings, well, that's another matter entirely.

Sarky · 05-05-2013 03:34PM

squod wrote: »

Whereas people like you want fuhken thousands. A disgusting disrespect for human life.

Yes, squod. Everyone wants abortions. Why all my female friends are just itching to get knocked up purely so they can abort the foetus. Sure don't have of them use it as an excuse to do a bit of shopping while they're in the UK?

Jesus. F*cking. Wept.

I'd be happy if the government legislated and gave a clear understanding to doctors et al.

Really? Because almost everything you've ever said on the issue suggests the polar opposite.

None of us, not even the Supreme Court, the Church, or the Taoiseach are above the constitution. The unborn have rights. The right to be protected from people like you.

The already living have rights too, you know. Why are you ignoring the dozen women a day who have to travel to the UK, because the state won't recognise their right to be protected from people like you?

See, emotive claims based on sweet f*ck all can be used by anyone, for any reason. You're as much a monster as the people you decry and fling abuse at. All in the name of your alleged moral superiority.

On that note, seeing as squod was rational enough to put me on ignore for trying to have a rational debate with him (I'm sure he just confused it with trolling, like a lot of people in his camp. It's an easy mistake to make when you're trying to save face), I'd appreciate it if someone could quote me for him, or at least pass the message along. kthx

Arpa · 05-05-2013 03:37PM

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I'm gonna quote a response of mine to another thread which I think might explain why the church (and anyone else) has a say in political affairs. It's called civil society. If you don't approve of debate in civil society perhaps somewhere like North Korea would be more appealing to you.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

It's amazing, utterly amazing how many people completly misunderstand (or haven't heard of) the concept od civil society.

A strong civil society is at the backbone of a healthy democracy. The strength of civil society is in its diversity. As many points of view as possible is what's needed. Views from academia, trade unions, NGOs, media, charities, citizens, churches, etc, etc.

Time and again people suggest that the church has no role in political debate. Those people need to learn about democracy.

Just because you posted something in another thread and reposted it here, doesn't add gravitas to it or make it right. To make such a statement that anybody who thinks the Church has no role in political debate doesn't understand democracy is purile. It's an opinion...it differs from yours...but is no less valid an opinion... Yes in a perfect world everybody would be sound of mind, body and have the best intentions of society in general at heart and in that case everybody should be allowed to make their voice heard. However it's not a perfect world. When people who believe in magic men in the sky can have an impact on a serious issue then we have to re-evaluate.

What has North Korea got to do with anything? That's a schoolyard playground argument. "If you don't agree with something maybe you should go to North Korea." And why particularly North Korea? Do you know so little of world politics that you could only name a country that has been plastered all over the news recently?

My argument is simple. We don't need the Church involved in our politics...in fact it should by the very nature of democracy have no influence over anything in our State. The Church is a state unto itself. It has it's own rules, but they are not the rules of the people of Ireland. Let them play awya there, with their masses and big pompous ceremonies and robes and lovely hats...but no way should they have influence over the issues of our nation. Too long have the poisoned the minds of Irish people, and had them in a vice like grip, following blindly on hands and knees. Why would you want to give such people a voice? They had their chance, failed...now we can, thoise of us who want to, stop believing in fairytales and get on with making our Nation a better place.

St.Spodo · 05-05-2013 03:44PM

Can you imagine the response of the right-wingers when they realise that the result of the 1983 referendum means nothing anymore and the majority of people in Ireland are pro-choice? That'll be a fantastic day. I can't wait to have a referendum on it.

Czarcasm · 05-05-2013 04:08PM

Sarky wrote: »

On that note, seeing as squod was rational enough to put me on ignore for trying to have a rational debate with him (I'm sure he just confused it with trolling, like a lot of people in his camp. It's an easy mistake to make when you're trying to save face), I'd appreciate it if someone could quote me for him, or at least pass the message along. kthx

Noted and quoted, purely for Squods benefit that they may learn ignoring an issue doesn't make it go away-

Quote: squod
Whereas people like you want fuhken thousands. A disgusting disrespect for human life.

Yes, squod. Everyone wants abortions. Why all my female friends are just itching to get knocked up purely so they can abort the foetus. Sure don't have of them use it as an excuse to do a bit of shopping while they're in the UK?

Jesus. F*cking. Wept.

Quote:
I'd be happy if the government legislated and gave a clear understanding to doctors et al.

Really? Because almost everything you've ever said on the issue suggests the polar opposite.

Quote:
None of us, not even the Supreme Court, the Church, or the Taoiseach are above the constitution. The unborn have rights. The right to be protected from people like you.

The already living have rights too, you know. Why are you ignoring the dozen women a day who have to travel to the UK, because the state won't recognise their right to be protected from people like you?

See, emotive claims based on sweet f*ck all can be used by anyone, for any reason. You're as much a monster as the people you decry and fling abuse at. All in the name of your alleged moral superiority.

Whistlingmilk · 05-05-2013 04:11PM

squod wrote: »

Whereas people like you want fuhken thousands. A disgusting disrespect for human life. I'd be happy if the government legislated and gave a clear understanding to doctors et al.

None of us, not even the Supreme Court, the Church, or the Taoiseach are above the constitution. The unborn have rights. The right to be protected from people like you.

Honest question: why do you generalize/accuse so much whenever someone expresses disagreement with your point of view?

Why we can't have a rational conversation about abortion

Comments