Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Can a Christian vote for unlimited abortion?

Options
1…125126128130131…174

Comments

  • Options
    #3812
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,739 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    It's also sad to see such extremist views portrayed with such ignorance.

    It also forbids all the atrocities we Christians committed throughout our entire existence, but sure look we all know you're going to sit there, hateful as ever and do whatever you can to prevent society from leaving that mindset behind.

    When the 8th is amended and repealed I hope you'll take your defeat gracefully.

    If not, I'll be praying for you.

    MOD NOTE

    Less of the personal attacks please.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #3813
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    Delirium wrote: »
    MOD NOTE

    Less of the personal attacks please.

    Thanks for your attention.

    Was nowhere near a personal attack, saying someone is being hateful isn't an attack on them at all, it's merely an observation of a characteristic they're displaying.


  • Options
    #3814
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    SusieBlue wrote: »
    Yes they are, JC made many of them. I can dig through and quote them if you don’t want to search yourself. Are you saying those views are not extreme?

    Oh by all means quote them, absolutely, that would be a great step forward in this particular discussion and I'd love to hear eotr's rebuttals or attempts at rebuttals.


  • Options
    #3815
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    See a lot of pro life people saying why doesn’t the pregnant woman just give birth and give the baby up for adoption.

    Would everyone here be ok if gay couples came forward to adopt the babies? There’s huge amounts of married gay and lesbian couples out there would love to adopt. I know certain factions in the marriage equality campaign fought (nonsensically) against it for Exactly this reason.

    But the baby would get to live.


    So what are all your thoughts?


  • Options
    #3816
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    david75 wrote: »
    See a lot of pro life people saying why doesn’t the pregnant woman just give birth and give the baby up for adoption.

    Would everyone here be ok if gay couples came forward to adopt the babies? There’s huge amounts of married gay and lesbian couples out there would love to adopt. I know certain factions in the marriage equality campaign fought (nonsensically) against it for Exactly this reason.

    But the baby would get to live.


    So what are all your thoughts?

    i would have no issue with it what so ever. just like i have no issue with same sex marriage given i voted yes to it.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3817
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    Here you go eotr, here's some of the ignorance that's been spouted about pregnant women during this thread.
    J C wrote: »
    Yes there is practically no care required until a child is born ... everything proceeds quietly and automatically with little or no conscious input required from the pregnant mother.

    Completely disregarding what women go through physically and mentally during pregnancy.
    Gerry T wrote: »
    Well tough luck, your want is trumped by the baby's need.

    Giving the "tough luck love, you're having this baby whether you like it or not".
    end of the road wrote: »
    except it can't be up to her, because technically it's not part of her, but is a life form in it's own right. it relies on her for a period of time yes, but it is still ultimately a separate life.

    This cracker of misinformation from yourself that I couldn't resist throwing in, it is technically a part of her, fetus attached to u. cord, u. cord attached to placenta, placenta attached to wall of uterus, uterus attached to woman.
    J C wrote: »
    There is a well established principle in law that third parties who cause damage to a baby in utero may bear full criminal and civil responsibility for such damage.
    Society hasn't extended such liability to the mother.

    Nothing like wanting a woman seeking an abortion to bear full criminal and civil responsibility, sure she's definitely a criminal!
    fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »
    Some women look upon it as a lifestyle choice. They are to be severely pitied.

    Another disgusting assumption that women see abortion as a lifestyle choice, of course with absolutely no shred of evidence.
    J C wrote: »
    It all depends on what you call 'motherhood'. If you mean that she should have to be a parent to her child when it is born ... then I'm not saying that ... the option of fosterage or adoption should be available to her.
    If by 'motherhood' you mean that she should continue with her pregnancy to viability of her unborn child, then yes, she should behave as the mother that she has become to her unborn child, as a result of her pregnancy.

    Essentially forcing a woman to continue her pregnancy to become a mother to her unborn child as a result of her pregnancy..
    J C wrote: »
    but do you think that a perfectly healthy woman who aborts has given any meaningful consideration to the killing of her unborn child?

    Because women who abort do it on a whim you see.
    fkx2nspcw9omhg wrote: »
    Because a woman or man does not own their own body, it is the property of the Holy Spirit.

    Apparently women (and men) don't own their own bodies so therefore by proxy can not make claim to having the right to choose what to do with it.
    J C wrote: »
    Why will the abortion laws in this country not be quickly and exactly matched with those of England ... when the main reason for repealing the 8th is to eliminate the reasons for women travelling to England for abortions?

    One can just hear it now ... "Why did this woman still have to travel to England to abort her child with a cleft palate at 8 months?"

    Ugh women, can't believe they'd abort a child with cleft palate at 8 months even though the cut off point is 24 weeks and no clinic in it's right mind would consider this acceptable grounds.

    So eotr, I've outlined numerous examples of the absolutely disgraceful attitude shown by people from your side that you seem to align yourself with (considering you thank the majority of these posts). If I was to go across boards itself in search of more posts like this I'd be banned (banned like you are from these very same threads)

    Am I gonna get an actual response from you or is it soapbox and run away time?

    EDIT: stop referring to unrestricted abortions as unlimited abortion or abortion on demand. Any time you've ever been challenged on this you literally never back it up with any ounce of fact, I genuinely have no idea why you're allowed to even continue debating on this topic let alone boards.

    Now deny that there has been no horrible attitude towards women across this thread, I'll wait.


  • Options
    #3818
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,739 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Was nowhere near a personal attack, saying someone is being hateful isn't an attack on them at all, it's merely an observation of a characteristic they're displaying.
    MOD NOTE

    Please don't argue with a mod instruction on-thread. This is a site-wide rule.

    If you have an issue with a mod instruction, take it to PM.

    Regarding the previous warning, you may dispute the warning. Please bear in mind if you continue to post such personal comments, you will receive further moderator action.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #3819
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    end of the road wrote: »
    i would have no issue with it what so ever. just like i have no issue with same sex marriage given i voted yes to it.

    Any chance you could address my points so we can move forward with this discussion?


  • Options
    #3820
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Any chance you could address my points so we can move forward with this discussion?


    there isn't anything to address.
    the only post that could be considered a bit out there from the examples you gave was the post by owenybaloney. but as he isn't here to defend himself it's ultimately irrelevant. there is a difference between disagreeing with a view and it being "disgraceful"

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #3821
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    end of the road wrote: »
    there isn't anything to address.
    the only post that could be considered a bit out there from the examples you gave was the post by owenybaloney. but as he isn't here to defend himself it's ultimately irrelevant. there is a difference between disagreeing with a view and it being "disgraceful"
    end of the road wrote: »
    that's not on this thread though.

    Plenty on this thread alone, so you're wrong on that one.

    It's not ultimately irrelevant either, you denied there was a horrible attitude shown towards women who pursue abortions on this thread. I've now gone and proven you wrong.

    Why is it all of a sudden irrelevant when you've been proven wrong? Can you actually contribute constructively to a debate?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3822
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    You’ll be left waiting for a response rob.
    Ignore hard questions and facts or call them irrelevant and drop ridiculous statements in reply seems to be the MO here.


  • Options
    #3823
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    Plenty on this thread alone, so you're wrong on that one.

    It's not ultimately irrelevant either, you denied there was a horrible attitude shown towards women who pursue abortions on this thread. I've now gone and proven you wrong.

    Why is it all of a sudden irrelevant when you've been proven wrong? Can you actually contribute constructively to a debate?


    there are no "extreme" views on this thread. 1 poster who was a bit out there but his postings were tame in comparison to some posted by parts of the opposition elsewhere on this site. as he isn't here to defend himself his posts are irrelevant to the discussion. so, you haven't proven me wrong.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #3824
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    end of the road wrote: »
    there are no "extreme" views on this thread. 1 poster who was a bit out there but his postings were tame in comparison to some posted by parts of the opposition elsewhere on this site. as he isn't here to defend himself his posts are irrelevant to the discussion. so, you haven't proven me wrong.

    You denied there was any posts in this thread portraying women seeking an abortion in an ill-manner.

    I showed you a direct contradiction of your statement, backed up with numerous posts.

    That particular users posts are relevant to the discussion as his posts fell under the remit I mentioned.

    So yes, you've been proven wrong.


  • Options
    #3825
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    end of the road wrote: »
    there are no "extreme" views on this thread. 1 poster who was a bit out there but his postings were tame in comparison to some posted by parts of the opposition elsewhere on this site. as he isn't here to defend himself his posts are irrelevant to the discussion. so, you haven't proven me wrong.

    Nobody’s out to prove you wrong. An assumption you consistently make. People would like a reply to the points they’d made in response to you yet you consistently disrupt the discussion by either not answering at all and ignoring the response or answering with irrelevancies.
    That’s isnt ‘wrong’ but it isn’t conducive to an open healthy discussion and on this topic especially, where it’s really needed.


  • Options
    #3826
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #3827
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    You denied there was any posts in this thread portraying women seeking an abortion in an ill-manner.

    I showed you a direct contradiction of your statement, backed up with numerous posts.

    That particular users posts are relevant to the discussion as his posts fell under the remit I mentioned.

    So yes, you've been proven wrong.


    no, you posted posts and claimed they were extreme, and claimed they were portraying women seeking an abortion in an ill-manner. however they were neither of what you claim, so you did not show me a direct contradiction of my statement.
    i'm afraid the posts of a user who is not here to defend himself is not relevant to the discussion, i'm not going to discuss the posts of users who are not here to defend their posts. so no, i have not been proven wrong, because the posts you reposted do not fit the description of what you believe them to fit. if they did then those posts would have been removed.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #3828
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, you posted posts and claimed they were extreme, and claimed they were portraying women seeking an abortion in an ill-manner. however they were neither of what you claim, so you did not show me a direct contradiction of my statement.

    Wrong.

    end of the road wrote: »
    i'm afraid the posts of a user who is not here to defend himself is not relevant to the discussion, i'm not going to discuss the posts of users who are not here to defend their posts. so no, i have not been proven wrong, because the posts you reposted do not fit the description of what you believe them to fit. if they did then those posts would have been removed.

    Wrong.

    Try again.


  • Options
    #3829
    SusieBlue
    Registered Users Posts: 8,029 ✭✭✭SusieBlue


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, you posted posts and claimed they were extreme, and claimed they were portraying women seeking an abortion in an ill-manner. however they were neither of what you claim, so you did not show me a direct contradiction of my statement.
    i'm afraid the posts of a user who is not here to defend himself is not relevant to the discussion, i'm not going to discuss the posts of users who are not here to defend their posts. so no, i have not been proven wrong, because the posts you reposted do not fit the description of what you believe them to fit. if they did then those posts would have been removed.

    Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
    You can't just decide on behalf of everyone that they aren't extremist views.
    I know your pro-life attitude would lead you to believe otherwise, but it isn't the case.
    I myself, and many others, feel many posts here are offensive, mysogynic, disrespectful and extreme.
    You cannot just discredit that because it doesn't support your viewpoint.
    That isn't how personal opinions and discussion/debate works.


  • Options
    #3830
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    end of the road wrote: »
    no, you posted posts and claimed they were extreme, and claimed they were portraying women seeking an abortion in an ill-manner. however they were neither of what you claim, so you did not show me a direct contradiction of my statement.
    i'm afraid the posts of a user who is not here to defend himself is not relevant to the discussion, i'm not going to discuss the posts of users who are not here to defend their posts. so no, i have not been proven wrong, because the posts you reposted do not fit the description of what you believe them to fit. if they did then those posts would have been removed.
    J C wrote: »
    do you think that a perfectly healthy woman who aborts has given any meaningful consideration to the killing of her unborn child?

    Also - show me where I claimed these posts I quoted were extreme.
    robarmstrong wrote: »
    So eotr, I've outlined numerous examples of the absolutely disgraceful attitude shown by people from your side that you seem to align yourself with (considering you thank the majority of these posts). If I was to go across boards itself in search of more posts like this I'd be banned (banned like you are from these very same threads)

    Am I gonna get an actual response from you or is it soapbox and run away time?

    EDIT: stop referring to unrestricted abortions as unlimited abortion or abortion on demand. Any time you've ever been challenged on this you literally never back it up with any ounce of fact, I genuinely have no idea why you're allowed to even continue debating on this topic let alone boards.

    Now deny that there has been no horrible attitude towards women across this thread, I'll wait.


  • Options
    #3831
    .......
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,057 ✭✭✭.......


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3832
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    ....... wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Until he realizes how, when, and why he's been proven wrong, yes, we will have to suffer this soapboxing.


  • Options
    #3833
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    Still waiting eotr.

    It's okay, I'd be afraid to admit I was wrong in public too, especially if I'd been wrong so many times before.


  • Options
    #3834
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    end of the road wrote: »
    your points were dealt with so whatever you are supposibly waiting for, it won't be coming. case closed.

    When and where did you deal with my points?

    I don't see you dealing with them, but rather being very roughly proven wrong and having your argument shut down so you can run away tail tucked between your legs to another thread.

    Case closed indeed, until you pop up spouting more soapbox material on another thread and get shut down and banned... But I digress.

    Very interesting in the read back through this thread of the conflicts Christians are having with themselves regarding this particular topic, asides from the few obvious <snip> stirrers there have been some really good posts and points from Christians for, and Christians against abortion.


  • Options
    #3835
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,739 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    MOD NOTE

    @EOTR any chance you lift the standard of your contributions to something more than "no it isn't" (and there have been other posters equally guilty of this) replies that are essentially ignoring what others post. What purpose do your posts serve to the topic if you're not going to engage with questions from other posters?

    General note:

    The topic deserves a considered discussion that has been lacking in the most recent posts on the thread.

    Lets try and right the course to put the level of discussion back to where it needs to be.

    Thanks for your attention.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #3836
    robarmstrong
    Registered Users Posts: 1,598 ✭✭✭robarmstrong


    Delirium wrote: »
    MOD NOTE

    @EOTR any chance you lift the standard of your contributions to something more than "no it isn't" (and there have been other posters equally guilty of this) replies that are essentially ignoring what others post. What purpose do your posts serve to the topic if you're not going to engage with questions from other posters?

    General note:

    The topic deserves a considered discussion that has been lacking in the most recent posts on the thread.

    Lets try and right the course to put the level of discussion back to where it needs to be.

    Thanks for your attention.

    <snip>

    if the 8th is repealed and unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks is brought in - how do those who voted to save the 8th for religious purposes feel about the direction the country is going in terms of progression? Genuine question.


  • Options
    #3837
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robarmstrong wrote: »
    <snip>

    if the 8th is repealed and unrestricted abortion up to 12 weeks is brought in - how do those who voted to save the 8th for religious purposes feel about the direction the country is going in terms of progression? Genuine question.

    Quite aside from the 8th being repealed or not, I think the world, generally speaking, is going down the toilet - and this country along with it.


  • Options
    #3838
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    I think had the internet and digital media existed centuries ago people would be far more appalled with the world then, than they are now. The progress that has been made in so many ways, technology and society is astounding. Society is always a fragile balance. The vast majority of us though can live without fear and what we fear usually has a miniscule chance of actually occurring. We have more holidays, work less hours than humans did back then. Better diets. Longer lifespans with lower morbidity. That isn't to say none of us will face traumas, many of us has, but as a proportion of the general populace it is much much lower than centuries ago. Especially if you happen to be a non white male heterosexual gender.


  • Options
    #3839
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    All these inputs and yet to see one thought that gives any credence to someone coming from a religious perspective being morally superior to a woman in a crisis pregnancy or facing a fatal foetal abnormality. Nor any help.

    It isn’t about ‘ saving babies’ It’s about the dying last grasp of a dying religion trying to control women’s bodies as it ever has. But no longer.


  • Options
    #3840
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 29,031 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    david75 wrote: »
    All these inputs and yet to see one thought that gives any credence to someone coming from a religious perspective being morally superior to a woman in a crisis pregnancy or facing a fatal foetal abnormality. Nor any help.

    It isn’t about ‘ saving babies’ It’s about the dying last grasp of a dying religion trying to control women’s bodies as it ever has. But no longer.

    i share the same viewpoint as you on the church and religion, however i'd suggest that if catholicism is still trying to control women's bodies, it has failed massively the past couple of decades thankfully, thanks to society supposibly turning away from the religion. the availability of abortion whether it be in england or ireland wouldn't make a difference to any level of control the church and religion had or currently has in my view, because the 2 main areas where the religion still has control, are areas the state is not willing to tackle, and are happy to leave the church run things.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3841
    david75
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,611 ✭✭✭david75


    Regardless of where we are on this issue, can we in good conscience let stories like these keep happening? I wonder but I know not even the most devout of us to those estranged from faith for whatever reason can’t help but be affected by stories like this. This is heartbreaking so be ready

    <snip>
    Mod: you cannot pastr a full article verbatim. Either link to the original content, or paraphrase and quote in short segments the relevant bits appropriately with commentary in your own words.


Advertisement