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

A vote for Labour is a vote for Abortion - Iona Institute

Options
12467…14

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    A vote for labour is a vote for masterbation!


  • Options
    #93
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Min wrote: »
    It has to be legislated for before it can be allowed, otherwise there are legal difficulties for anyone who carried out an abortion.

    What specific crime could an abortionist be charged with? Under what law?


  • Options
    #94
    Brenireland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Brenireland


    28064212 wrote: »
    Are you saying Ireland should go back to the conservatism of the past? Make homosexuality illegal again?


    Some people in the Catholic church want to rape children. Does that mean it's part of the Catholic Church's position?

    Labour's stated position is that they are going to legislate for something which is already allowed for in the constitution. Throwing around scare-mongering accusations of abortion-on-demand is complete bull****


    So you are for "murdering" the mother to save the child?

    No,I am not saying this is murder,Long before of "Abortion" came about many mothers passed away for many natural reasons while giving birth,this was not murder,this was death while in child birth & is indeed very sad,however the light at the end of the tunnel was the Newborn,who's life & Voice was born to the world.

    Any mother in the world would put their Child 1st if they had to & rightly so.


  • Options
    #95
    RobbieTheRobber
    Registered Users Posts: 6,779 ✭✭✭RobbieTheRobber


    Brenireland wrote: »
    It's o.k I am not standing up for the church,but it is apparent your main problem is with the church.

    we are not taking about entrance to the land of clouds and a 100 virgins.
    We are taking about a law being passed and agreed by the majority of people in the nation

    My main probelm is with your accusation that labour are murders bren!

    You waffled about the church having moral standing, in this thread otherwise I would not have mentioned it.

    I am going to ask you a question you so far refuse to answer for me.
    So I will ask it again and if you can just reply yes or no please!

    I am pro choice, I support abortion. Am I a murderer?
    Brenireland wrote: »
    Ok,Well as far as I am concerned your currently in the land of clouds,
    "A Law Being Passed & Agreed by the Majority of people in the nation",
    If your anti-Fianna Fail,as many are,you will Realise many Voted Fianna Fail into government for the majority of our states history,I wonder do they wish they hadn't?,Our nation is a Cowardly nation,sad,but true,i.e: Lisbon Treaty.


    Huh what?
    bren first you post some quote about getting stoned, then you seem to have got stoned!

    Im not sure what the above passage actually means!


  • Options
    #96
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Skrynesaver wrote: »
    So why should the state have different terminology for two identical contracts. The fact that the church uses this term for their contract (not available to every one, special terms and conditions apply) also should be no impediment to the state marrying couples regardless of their gender. Sure in the eyes of the church they would not be married, but like my wife and I, they wouldn't care what an organisation of deluded medivialist homophobes thought

    They are not identical, that is why labour wants a referendum, same financial and other rights as a married couple but it is not marriage, the current constitution does not allow same sex marriage.

    If one wants to change the meaning of marriage then it is a big deal, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman.
    It is only in recent times that some want to broaden the meaning.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Min, BrenIreland. I wasn't going to vote labour but you have convinced me. Thats for being so concise in your parties beliefs


  • Options
    #98
    Morag
    Registered Users Posts: 8,423 ✭✭✭Morag


    Min wrote: »
    No one is saying about going back to the past.

    I think you will find Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world for pregnant women unlike some countries where abortion is available on demand.
    Go and see for yourself, maybe caring for both mother and baby has led to higher standards than countries where they see the unborn as disposable.

    Really?
    Have you seen the conditions currently in our national maternity hospital?
    First time mothers sent home after 24 hours of giving birth and of women in labour on trolleys in corridors and then there is the mrsa and the tests which are not done here which are done in other EU hospitals, frankly your talking out your hat.


  • Options
    #99
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    What specific crime could an abortionist be charged with? Under what law?

    Technically murder, since there is no legislation to allow it.


  • Options
    #100
    Skrynesaver
    Registered Users Posts: 1,109 ✭✭✭Skrynesaver


    Brenireland wrote: »
    No,I am not saying this is murder,Long before of "Abortion" came about many mothers passed away for many natural reasons while giving birth,this was not murder,this was death while in child birth & is indeed very sad,however the light at the end of the tunnel was the Newborn,who's life & Voice was born to the world.

    Any mother in the world would put their Child 1st if they had to & rightly so.

    Bren, do you mind me asking what age you are and whether you have been in a marriage yet?

    I suspect you may be suffering from the delusion that women are some sanctified non-human species.


  • Options
    #101
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Min wrote: »
    Pro-choice is a cop out.

    You either support abortion happening or you don't.

    Do you think the 14 year old in the X case should be jailed for murder?

    If yes, then you're unbelieveably cruel but at least consistent.

    If no, then you're pro-choice to a certain extent, and then in your own definition, "pro-abortion".

    P.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    sensibleken wrote: »
    Min, BrenIreland. I wasn't going to vote labour but you have convinced me. Thats for being so concise in your parties beliefs

    ...and there was some who said they would not vote on single issues.


  • Options
    #103
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Min wrote: »
    If one wants to change the meaning of marriage then it is a big deal, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman.
    It is only in recent times that some want to broaden the meaning.

    Min this is just plain wrong. Polygamy has been the norm in europe, the east and africa for the majority of mankinds history. Famous christian polygamists include Charlemagne, Brian Boru etc. This has only in the last few hundred years been defined as marriage between one man and one woman.

    Definitions change over time. Get used to it


  • Options
    #104
    Brenireland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Brenireland


    RobbieTheRobber wrote: »
    My main probelm is with your accusation that labour are murders bren!

    You waffled about the church having moral standing, in this thread otherwise I would not have mentioned it.

    I am going to ask you a question you so far refuse to answer for me.
    So I will ask it again and if you can just reply yes or no please!

    I am pro choice, I support abortion. Am I a murderer?




    Huh what?
    bren first you post some quote about getting stoned, then you seem to have got stoned!

    Im not sure what the above passage actually means!

    I actually Answered your question some post's back,but your head seems to have been in the clouds,but here I will answer it again:

    If you are a supporter And vote Yes to allow Abortion/& Euthanasia your are voting Yes to the act of "murder".

    I would say that those who participate in the Act of stopping the Hearth of an other human with the use of a tablet or whatever are indeed Murderers,so Yes.

    Which post did I mention which mentioned getting "stoned"?.


  • Options
    #105
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    oceanclub wrote: »
    Do you think the 14 year old in the X case should be jailed for murder?

    If yes, then you're unbelieveably cruel but at least consistent.

    If no, then you're pro-choice to a certain extent, and then in your own definition, "pro-abortion".

    P.

    She went to England as it would be murder in the Irish state.

    No doctor would have carried it out as they would be charged too.

    The law says that 'yes' they should be charged with murder if it happened on Irish soil.
    We need to uphold the law, let one legal case of murder off, then you have opened up a serious can of worms where anyone who commits any type of murder would use that case.


  • Options
    #106
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,502 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Min wrote: »
    No one is saying about going back to the past.
    Just a return to conservatism? Homosexuality is incompatible with Catholicism, will you vote to outlaw it in a referendum?
    Min wrote: »
    I think you will find Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world for pregnant women unlike some countries where abortion is available on demand.
    Go and see for yourself, maybe caring for both mother and baby has led to higher standards than countries where they see the unborn as disposable.
    I think you'll find that our low maternal death rate is questionable. And the majority of medical advances happen outside this country. You might have a case if we were world leaders in developing new techniques to save the mother, but we're not
    Brenireland wrote: »
    No,I am not saying this is murder,Long before of "Abortion" came about many mothers passed away for many natural reasons while giving birth,this was not murder,this was death while in child birth & is indeed very sad,however the light at the end of the tunnel was the Newborn,who's life & Voice was born to the world.
    And lots of children died of natural reasons that we can now prevent. Is it not murder if we don't treat them?
    Brenireland wrote: »
    Any mother in the world would put their Child 1st if they had to & rightly so.
    No they wouldn't. Many would be upset, but would be aware that they could go on to have another child born to a happy home, not leave a newborn motherless

    Let's just be crystal clear here. You are talking about murdering (by your definition) the mother to save the baby.
    Min wrote: »
    They are not identical, that is why labour wants a referendum, same financial and other rights as a married couple but it is not marriage, the current constitution does not allow same sex marriage.

    If one wants to change the meaning of marriage then it is a big deal, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman.
    It is only in recent times that some want to broaden the meaning.
    They do not get the same rights. They get a fraction of the rights. You seem to think the definition of marriage by the state changes the definition of marriage in the church. It does not

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #107
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    sensibleken wrote: »
    Min this is just plain wrong. Polygamy has been the norm in europe, the east and africa for the majority of mankinds history. Famous christian polygamists include Charlemagne, Brian Boru etc. This has only in the last few hundred years been defined as marriage between one man and one woman.

    Definitions change over time. Get used to it

    Definitions of every word do not change all the time.


  • Options
    #108
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Min wrote: »
    Technically murder, since there is no legislation to allow it.

    That's not the way legislation works.

    It's not illegal to pull funny faces. That's not because the Dail passed a "Funny Faces Are OK" act, it's because nobody passed an act forbidding them.

    The only law on our books which bans abortion is the 1861 "Offences against the Person" act, and it's unconstitutional.

    We have no valid law against abortion on the books, so it's legal.


  • Options
    #109
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,502 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Min wrote: »
    She went to England as it would be murder in the Irish state.

    No doctor would have carried it out as they would be charged too.

    The law says that 'yes' they should be charged with murder if it happened on Irish soil.
    We need to uphold the law, let one legal case of murder off, then you have opened up a serious can of worms where anyone who commits any type of murder would use that case.
    Charged with murder? Yes. Convicted of murder? No, most definitely not

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Options
    #110
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    They are not identical, that is why labour wants a referendum, same financial and other rights as a married couple but it is not marriage, the current constitution does not allow same sex marriage.

    If one wants to change the meaning of marriage then it is a big deal, it has always meant a union between a man and a woman.
    It is only in recent times that some want to broaden the meaning.

    Marriage wasn't even a sacrament until the middle ages or so, and has been, at various times and various places, a 'union' between one man and a number of women, one woman and a number of men, two women or two men (China, Greece and Rome).


  • Options
    #111
    sensibleken
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,650 ✭✭✭sensibleken


    Min wrote: »
    Definitions of every word do not change all the time.

    :confused:

    But definition of marriage does. your trying to say that your idea of marriage is what it has always been. it isnt, not even close.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    oceanclub
    Registered Users Posts: 3,411 ✭✭✭oceanclub


    Min wrote: »
    She went to England as it would be murder in the Irish state.

    No doctor would have carried it out as they would be charged too.

    The law says that 'yes' they should be charged with murder if it happened on Irish soil.
    We need to uphold the law, let one legal case of murder off, then you have opened up a serious can of worms where anyone who commits any type of murder would use that case.

    Ah, so you're OK with women murdering their babies as long as it doesn't happen here?

    That makes you a complete hypocrite.

    P.


  • Options
    #113
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    That's not the way legislation works.

    It's not illegal to pull funny faces. That's not because the Dail passed a "Funny Faces Are OK" act, it's because nobody passed an act forbidding them.

    The only law on our books which bans abortion is the 1861 "Offences against the Person" act, and it's unconstitutional.

    We have no valid law against abortion on the books, so it's legal.

    The constitution upholds the right to life to both the mother and the unborn.

    It is not legislated for what the Supreme court allowed so the right to life of the unborn in the constitution which is legislated for comes above what the Supreme court allowed.


  • Options
    #114
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    Min wrote: »
    It is not legislated for what the Supreme court allowed so the right to life of the unborn in the constitution which is legislated for comes above what the Supreme court allowed.

    Don't give up the day job for Law.


  • Options
    #115
    caseyann
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,941 ✭✭✭caseyann


    I wonder would they tax women for that aswell?


  • Options
    #116
    Brenireland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Brenireland


    28064212 wrote: »
    Just a return to conservatism? Homosexuality is incompatible with Catholicism, will you vote to outlaw it in a referendum?


    I think you'll find that our low maternal death rate is questionable. And the majority of medical advances happen outside this country. You might have a case if we were world leaders in developing new techniques to save the mother, but we're not


    And lots of children died of natural reasons that we can now prevent. Is it not murder if we don't treat them?


    No they wouldn't. Many would be upset, but would be aware that they could go on to have another child born to a happy home, not leave a newborn motherless

    Let's just be crystal clear here. You are talking about murdering (by your definition) the mother to save the baby.


    They do not get the same rights. They get a fraction of the rights. You seem to think the definition of marriage by the state changes the definition of marriage in the church. It does not
    To the first question you put to Min,I would say Yes to this.

    & Yes lots of children did in fact die in the past under natural circumstances,but by your reckoning their would be no need for abortion as according to yourself we can now prevent it?


  • Options
    #117
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    oceanclub wrote: »
    Ah, so you're OK with women murdering their babies as long as it doesn't happen here?

    That makes you a complete hypocrite.

    P.

    I did not say that, I am looking at this from a legal perspective.

    It would be murder if a doctor performed an abortion in Ireland. I have no problem with that, it is my view that all life should be respected and I view abortion as taking away a life which is what it is. To take a life with intention is...murder.

    However we have legalised murder like executions and abortion elsewhere.


  • Options
    #118
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    Don't give up the day job for Law.

    Don't give up yours, you do not understand the constitution, what is legislated for under the constitution come first before what is not legislated for under the constitution.

    If a doctor performed an abortion today if a woman was suicidal, it would not be legislated for.
    Protecting the same unborn is what the constitution says is legal and it is legislated for.

    The conflict would favour what is legislated for.


  • Options
    #119
    TrollHammaren
    Registered Users Posts: 651 ✭✭✭TrollHammaren


    Min wrote: »
    We need to uphold the law, let one legal case of murder off, then you have opened up a serious can of worms where anyone who commits any type of murder would use that case.

    Do you actually believe that, or are you throwing about rhetoric to solidify your point? Assuming the former is true, then you're wrong, as it would set a president for legalised abortion where there is a threat to the mother, not legalised murder where some guy píssed in my cornflakes.

    Brenireland wrote: »
    why do these people have/or decide to have children if their health does not allow for it?,why don't people considering having a child look for advice from the Health Authorities before they decide,rather than have a child & then seek advice.

    No matter what,the life of the unborn,who have no say on the matter,they should be number one priority in such unfortunate situations.

    Woooooow. Is no one else shocked by this comment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy
    How dare those women not foresee such pregnancy complications.


  • Options
    #120
    28064212
    Registered Users Posts: 10,502 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Brenireland wrote: »
    To the first question you put to Min,I would say Yes to this.
    Outlawing homosexuality? So we're going to return to a theocracy. Why have a government at all so? We'll just do what the Bible tells us. Pity, I really liked shellfish
    Brenireland wrote: »
    & Yes lots of children did in fact die in the past under natural circumstances,but by your reckoning their would be no need for abortion as according to yourself we can now prevent it?
    In a case where the pregnancy threatens the mother, we can save her. You are saying we shouldn't. By your definition, that's murder
    Min wrote: »
    I did not say that, I am looking at this from a legal perspective.

    It would be murder if a doctor performed an abortion in Ireland. I have no problem with that, it is my view that all life should be respected and I view abortion as taking away a life which is what it is. To take a life with intention is...murder.
    Again, wrong. He would be charged with murder. In court, it would be raised that such a charge is unconstitutional. He would be found not guilty, and the judge would rule that the legislation must be changed as it is unconstitutional. Although I won't be holding my breath, since it's been 19 years and counting (even though they managed to push the blasphemy bill through in a week when they found out about that)

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    Brenireland
    Registered Users Posts: 1,363 ✭✭✭Brenireland


    TrollHammaren wrote: »
    Do you actually believe that, or are you throwing about rhetoric to solidify your point? Assuming the former is true, then you're wrong, as it would set a president for legalised abortion where there is a threat to the mother, not legalised murder where some guy píssed in my cornflakes.




    Woooooow. Is no one else shocked by this comment? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ectopic_pregnancy
    How dare those women not foresee such pregnancy complications.

    woooooow?,My comment really wasn't a woooooow type comment.

    I do realise that complications to occur in some pregnancies and that's unfortunate & very sad,However I am simply arguing that I am against Abortion,simple as.


Advertisement