THEOCRACY WATCH!!! Texas Gov signs anti-gay, anti-choice legislation in church

[Irvine511]

Abortion is also a highly controversial issue in Ireland, and still illegal except in (very) restricted circumstances. I don't know about Italy and Spain but in countries like the Philipines, also heavily Catholic, I understand that it also fairly controversial.

but is it as much of a political litmus test? i know many people who would never vote for any politician based simply on their pro-life/anti-choice vs. pro-choice positions.

does it occupy as much fiery rhetoric in Ireland as it does in the US?

 

[financeguy]

but is it as much of a political litmus test? i know many people who would never vote for any politician based simply on their pro-life/anti-choice vs. pro-choice positions.

does it occupy as much fiery rhetoric in Ireland as it does in the US?

In recent years, probably not. It was much more divisive in the 1980s and early 1990s. We never had shootings or anything like that thankfully. (edited to add: shootings related to the abortion issue, I mean) But then, as I said, abortion is still highly restricted.

There certainly would be people who would not vote for a politician purely because of their abortion position, but it is hard to say how many. Probably mainly older people and traditionalist Catholics.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I am not advocating that 13 and 14 years old, or any irresponsible people raise children. They can put the babies up for adoption, can't they? When I said "when a child is conceived, it's time for the mom and dad to step forward and do right by the baby", sometimes the "right thing" is to give the child to people who will be able to raise it.

It really bothers me how often this is put forward as an entirely neat solution to everything. Really bothers me.

Who is going to decide on the adoption? Society/government, or the couple/mother? If abortion is banned, will we need to enforce stricter nudging toward adoption as the only real viable option? Are you people reading what you are saying here?? Recall the 60s if you will please. Remember the bastards in the Catholic Church who took babies away from mothers, regardless of whether the mother approved or not? You might reply 'this is not what I meant. it has to be done with full consent by the mother.' Of course it needs fucking consent. For THIS reason, lets stop suggesting it happen. Women who wish to put their babies up for adoption will do so. Lets not bring it into the abportion debate. Outlawing abortion is NOT going to increase the numbers in any great way, of adoptions. It is utterly naive to think it will. It is swapping one horrible option for another by leaving women with only the option of keeping a baby they cannot or do not want to raise or handing it over, so easy. Wipe hands. Neat, huh. And I am not saying that adoption is horrible. It is an incredibly wonderful thing for couples who cannot have children, but so unimaginably heartwrenching for the mother.

 

[indra]

i have a question:

why is abortion almost a uniquely American source of near-hysteria on both sides of the political spectrum? it seems like much less of an issue in other countries, even in heavily Catholic countries like Italy or Spain. what makes the US different? is there something about responsibility (or perceived responsibility) and shame and moral outrage that gets tied into this issue, along with that dirty dirty thing we call sex, that is somehow uniquely American?

The US (as opposed to the rest of the Americas, which don't seem similarly infected) does seem to have a strong sanctimonious streak. I think a lot of that has to do with the people who left europe to come here. Most of the early settlers were looking for religious freedom (which was more available), so you would think that the people who came were all looking for more tolerance, but a sizable number came because here they could set up communities that were more restrictive religiously/socially (Puritans) than what they left.

So the promise of religious freedom/tolerance brought out whole groups of very restrictive, intolerant people because they were allowed to be restrictive and intolerant here.

 

[nbcrusader]

You're right, some societies are "intolerant" about killing.

 

[financeguy]

what you are saying here?? Recall the 60s if you will please. Remember the bastards in the Catholic Church who took babies away from mothers, regardless of whether the mother approved or not?

One would wonder if all of these "bastards in the Catholic Church" as you call them were acting with the approval/connivance of the State?

 

[financeguy]

The US (as opposed to the rest of the Americas, which don't seem similarly infected) does seem to have a strong sanctimonious streak.

I would be reasonably confident in saying that in many South American countries abortion is more restricted than in the US.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Cahoots? Undoubtedly. Infact, medical records were conveniently destroyed, sorry misplaced so that later, women couldn't even find where their babies had gone. Dont get me wrong though. I mean no offence to people of Roman Catholic faith, but the leaders of your church once deemed it entirely fit to steal babies and force adoption. The state turned a blind eye.

 

[financeguy]

I mean no offence to people of Roman Catholic faith, but the leaders of your church once deemed it entirely fit to steal babies and force adoption.

Don't worry, I am agnostic. I do not take my orders from the Vatican.

 

[Infinity]

It really bothers me how often this is put forward as an entirely neat solution to everything. Really bothers me.

Who is going to decide on the adoption? Society/government, or the couple/mother? If abortion is banned, will we need to enforce stricter nudging toward adoption as the only real viable option? Are you people reading what you are saying here?? Recall the 60s if you will please. Remember the bastards in the Catholic Church who took babies away from mothers, regardless of whether the mother approved or not? You might reply 'this is not what I meant. it has to be done with full consent by the mother.' Of course it needs fucking consent. For THIS reason, lets stop suggesting it happen. Women who wish to put their babies up for adoption will do so. Lets not bring it into the abportion debate. Outlawing abortion is NOT going to increase the numbers in any great way, of adoptions. It is utterly naive to think it will. It is swapping one horrible option for another by leaving women with only the option of keeping a baby they cannot or do not want to raise or handing it over, so easy. Wipe hands. Neat, huh. And I am not saying that adoption is horrible. It is an incredibly wonderful thing for couples who cannot have children, but so unimaginably heartwrenching for the mother.

Nobody wants to end abortion to increase adoption. People want to end abortion because it is murder. Pro-lifers don't see an increase in the number of adoptions as a success against abortion. We see a decrease in the number of abortions as a success against abortion.

 

[Angela Harlem]

Nobody wants to end abortion to increase adoption. People want to end abortion because it is murder. Pro-lifers don't see an increase in the number of adoptions as a success against abortion. We see a decrease in the number of abortions as a success against abortion.

I did not say people wish to end abortion by increasing adoption. The nuance is that increeasing adoption can somehow lessen abortion. After all, a baby surviving an abortion, can be adopted out, right? This is my problem. I hope you can read the sarcasm.

With your last sentence, if that is how you truly feel, then for crying out loud, please let your side cease with the adoption angle. It is moot.

 

[BonosSaint]

Does anybody think this debate is going to go any differently than it has in a million and one threads or is that a moot point?
(Sorry, this definition of moot has become common usage. Language evolves or devolves all the time.)

 

[financeguy]

Does anybody think this debate is going to go any differently than it has in a million and one threads or is that a moot point?
(Sorry, this definition of moot has become common usage. Language evolves or devolves all the time.)

Your point is, uhm, 'moot'.

 

[BonosSaint]

Your point is, uhm, 'moot'.

 

[Angela Harlem]

The use of the word moot in my above post was absolutely correct!

 

[Angela Harlem]

But for what it's worth, I am pleased we are all spelling it 'moot' and not 'mute' like some have done here in FYM...place of intellectual debate, my arse!

sorry. what were we talking about?

 

[financeguy]

According to this, it would seem that both uses of "moot" are correct:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moot

 

[financeguy]

But for what it's worth, I am pleased we are all spelling it 'moot' and not 'mute' like some have done here in FYM.

Yeah I always cringe when I see that one.

 

[BonosSaint]

The use of the word moot in my above post was absolutely correct!

I was just responding to a post in another thread about the usage of moot. I use moot exactly the same way you do.

 

[Angela Harlem]

I want to take you out for a schooner one day.

 

[Angela Harlem]

And you as well, BonosSaint I type too slow lol.

 

[BonosSaint]

What's a schooner?

 

[Angela Harlem]

I was just responding to a post in another thread about the usage of moot. I use moot exactly the same way you do.

See, if I was a faster typer, and keeping up with this thread as any normal person would be, I could have suggested in one post that we all go out for a beer one night and discuss the English language, FYM, or none of that at all!

 

[financeguy]

I want to take you out for a schooner one day.

Hmmm.....this can be arranged. I'm planning a trip to Oz soon, nothing definite arranged thus far.

 

[Angela Harlem]

See? Slow lol. So much for ADSL lol.
A schooner is a beer size. Um. I think about 360ml? Or we can drink wine. I'm not fussy!

 

[BonosSaint]

Johnny Walker Black and you're on.

 

[OneBadStay]

i can't say i blame her either.

all you had to offer were the same old lines that every other anti-choice/pro-lifer has.

Same old lines?

Seems like you can't counter what I've said. Not the first time I've silenced someone from the pro-baby killing crowd. (Keep using the intolerant, offensive, and incorrect "anti-choice" label, and maybe I'll just make up my own ridiculous labels for you, also. OK?)

Or maybe you probably haven't even read my posts and are confusing me with someone else.

 

[Irvine511]

Same old lines?

Seems like you can't counter what I've said. Not the first time I've silenced someone from the pro-baby killing crowd. (Keep using the intolerant, offensive, and incorrect "anti-choice" label, and maybe I'll just make up my own ridiculous labels for you, also. OK?)

Or maybe you probably haven't even read my posts and are confusing me with someone else.

i have to admit, i respect an ego.

you've silence no one, dear.

we've moved on.

 

[indra]

Not the first time I've silenced someone from the pro-baby killing crowd. (Keep using the intolerant, offensive, and incorrect "anti-choice" label, and maybe I'll just make up my own ridiculous labels for you, also. OK?)

I seriously doubt you've silenced anyone. And you're already making up your own ridiculous labels for others.

 

[pax]

Same old lines?

Seems like you can't counter what I've said. Not the first time I've silenced someone from the pro-baby killing crowd. (Keep using the intolerant, offensive, and incorrect "anti-choice" label, and maybe I'll just make up my own ridiculous labels for you, also. OK?)

Or maybe you probably haven't even read my posts and are confusing me with someone else.

Would it be possible to refrain from language like "pro-baby-killing"?

You have no idea if people right here may have had to face a decision like that once.

Thank you.