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

Dandelion6

MalteseBarry wrote: »

We already have abortion in Ireland. It just takes place in the UK.

Some of it takes place here too.

http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2011/02/making-a-drama-out-of-a-crisis.html

MalteseBarry

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Some of it takes place here too.

http://www.imt.ie/opinion/2011/02/making-a-drama-out-of-a-crisis.html

I'm not sure what the difference is between the so called "morning after" pill and the ones in the article. Presumably the ones in the article are effective up to a later point in the pregnancy than the morning after pill.

From a moral standpoint, to bring an unwanted child into the world is inherently wrong. I also don't like abortion. Does one dislike outweigh the other? I think thats a decision we all have to make for ourselves.

Reilly616

MalteseBarry wrote: »

I'm not sure what the difference is between the so called "morning after" pill and the ones in the article. Presumably the ones in the article are effective up to a later point in the pregnancy than the morning after pill.

The morning after pill prevents implantation in the lining of the womb, as far as I know. The Supreme Court has ruled that an embro is not an "unborn" for the purposes of the Constitution untill implantation has taken place, so that's why the morning after pill isn't abortion.

Reilly616

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/abortion-article-is-very-misleading-2538885.html

"IN his article, "Any vote for Labour is a vote for abortion" (Irish Independent, February 11), David Quinn quotes the World Health Organisation as saying that Ireland is the safest place to have a baby.
This is completely misleading as it does not take into account the number of women who must go abroad for abortions, which is an important factor in accounting for mortality rates during childbirth.
The report also states that: "The first step for avoiding maternal deaths is to ensure that women have access to family planning and safe abortion. This will reduce unwanted pregnancies and unsafe abortions."
Mr Quinn is very selective in his choice of quotations.
Nor have I seen David Quinn opposing the recent budget cuts to single parents, most of whom are women.
Maura Lane
Rathmines, Dublin

Irish Independent"

MrThrifty

I can't believe people are spending their time even discussing this topic. For what it's worth, and I don't mean to be going off-topic here, I would think that poor parenting destroys more lives in Ireland than abortion. I'm not referring here to people who have a child to avoid the abortion option but simply people who aren't prepared to have children or who have a lot of baggage themselves that they haven't dealt with in their lives and then go off having children coz it's 'the done thing'. It's not always the parents fault as typically they are unaware of their 'limitations'. However, bottom line for me is that abortion in Ireland and elsewhere is not so much the issue, but rather people deciding to have children with the thinking that 'ah sure, we'll learn the ropes along the way'. That's like deciding to drive a car without taking lessons, which ironically is not uncommon here!

Rant over. Apologies if too off-topic, but abortion to me is clearly less destructive to someone's life than the damage caused by poor parenting (which leads the children to develop all sorts of issues in later life (addictions etc. etc.).

Morag

MalteseBarry wrote: »

I'm not sure what the difference is between the so called "morning after" pill and the ones in the article. Presumably the ones in the article are effective up to a later point in the pregnancy than the morning after pill.

From a moral standpoint, to bring an unwanted child into the world is inherently wrong. I also don't like abortion. Does one dislike outweigh the other? I think thats a decision we all have to make for ourselves.

Medically and legally a woman is not pregnant until the embryo implants in the womb. The M.A.P. prevents this and is only effective for up to 72 hours.
The abortion pill causes a miscarriage, it ends a pregnancy and can be taken up until 8 weeks.

Irishgoatman

I've been folowing this thread with interest and, unless I missed it, no-one has suggested that yes, have a referendum, BUT WOMEN ONLY get a vote.

As far as "Marriage" is concerned, the catholic church no longer rules this state, I'm pleased to say. As many have pointed out, any civil contract has nothing to do with any church or religion.
I know many people who go to church and I would have a job believing that they are christians, let alone catholics (and I don't believe that the 2 things are the same).

28064212

Irishgoatman wrote: »

I've been folowing this thread with interest and, unless I missed it, no-one has suggested that yes, have a referendum, BUT WOMEN ONLY get a vote

That's ridiculous. You might as well say only fertile women should get to vote, or that only people who were intending to get married should have voted in the divorce referendum

Irishgoatman

Just a further thought that I meant to put in.

In the X case, if the anti-abortion people had got their way and the girl was forced to have the baby, the rapist, the father, would have been legally allowed to go to court and fight for custody of the child. would this have been acceptable to them ?. :eek:

Irishgoatman

28064212 wrote: »

That's ridiculous. You might as well say only fertile women should get to vote, or that only people who were intending to get married should have voted in the divorce referendum

So ?. Why should a priest have a say in how I live ?. I'm not a catholic (or a believer at all).

28064212

Irishgoatman wrote: »

So ?. Why should a priest have a say in how I live ?. I'm not a catholic (or a believer at all).

Why should the 80-year-old woman down the road have more of a say in my girlfriend's pregnancy then I do?

analucija

Irishgoatman wrote: »

So ?. Why should a priest have a say in how I live ?. I'm not a catholic (or a believer at all).

So we should limit voting to any professions that do not influence you life directly? I am firmly in a pro-abortion camp but this is ridiculous.

sensibleken

Abortion is a tricky subject but i think taking the vote away from priests is somethign we can all get behind

Irishgoatman

28064212 wrote: »

Why should the 80-year-old woman down the road have more of a say in my girlfriend's pregnancy then I do?

I agree. I just threw women only into the mix because it has been mentioned on local radio here in Mayo a few times to show what a tricky subject it is.:)

supergowl

No, the point is that the clergy - as a severe minority that is severely irrelevant - should not be the POLICY-MAKERS (or influence the policy) in this matter. As citizens they should still have the right to vote, but if their views are not congruent with the rest of the people in the country they will be rightly out-represented.

Irishgoatman

But unfortunately the priest and bishops will stand in their pulpits and TELL their congregation how they should vote and some will follow his instructions as in the days of yore.:(

sensibleken

Irishgoatman wrote: »

But unfortunately the priest and bishops will stand in their pulpits and TELL their congregation how they should vote and some will follow his instructions as in the days of yore.:(

I wouldnt worry too much. their congregation has less people than a queue in centra

28064212

Irishgoatman wrote: »

But unfortunately the priest and bishops will stand in their pulpits and TELL their congregation how they should vote and some will follow his instructions as in the days of yore.:(

And? If the people choose to listen to them, then that's what the people choose. How is it any different to people listening to a pro-choice supporter?

supergowl

The difference is pro-choice advocates tend to speak from a position of actual reason. Not to mention legal precedent.

28064212

supergowl wrote: »

The difference is pro-choice advocates tend to speak from a position of actual reason. Not to mention legal precedent.

No, some pro-choice advocates speak from a position of reason. Some pro-choice advocates are completely batshit crazy. Some pro-life advocates speak from a position of reason.

Any concept of a referendum where certain sections of society are shut out because you don't agree with them is an incredibly stupid position

gcgirl

Reading this makes me want a world with out religion :-)

Irishgoatman

28064212 wrote: »

And? If the people choose to listen to them, then that's what the people choose. How is it any different to people listening to a pro-choice supporter?

The church tends to tell its people what they should do. Pro and Anti people try to persuade people. There is a difference.

28064212

Irishgoatman wrote: »

The church tends to tell its people what they should do. Pro and Anti people try to persuade people. There is a difference.

No, the church tells people what the church's position is, and what a member of their church should do. If a member doesn't believe that, then they shouldn't be a member of that church

Irishgoatman

gcgirl wrote: »

Reading this makes me want a world with out religion :-)

I heard Richard Dawkins say that without religion good men do good things and bad men do bad things and with religion bad men still do bad things but good men also do bad things. The crusades and the spanish inquisition are good examples of this theory.

Reilly616

Irishgoatman wrote: »

So ?. Why should a priest have a say in how I live ?. I'm not a catholic (or a believer at all).

Because that's how democracy works...

Irishgoatman

28064212 wrote: »

No, the church tells people what the church's position is, and what a member of their church should do. If a member doesn't believe that, then they shouldn't be a member of that church

But, Reilly616, does this sound democratic to you ?
Rome tells the bishops, the bishops tell the priest, the priest tells the congregation. Where's the democracy in that ?

28064212

Irishgoatman wrote: »

But, Reilly616, does this sound democratic to you ?
Rome tells the bishops, the bishops tell the priest, the priest tells the congregation. Where's the democracy in that ?

A church is not a democracy. Fortunately, our country is not a church. If the majority of the population choose to be members of a church, and subsequently choose to listen to what that church says and votes accordingly, it is still a democracy

Reilly616

Irishgoatman wrote: »

But, Reilly616, does this sound democratic to you ?
Rome tells the bishops, the bishops tell the priest, the priest tells the congregation. Where's the democracy in that ?

That's not a democracy... Ireland is. This has nothing to do with the church.

Reilly616

Reilly616 wrote: »

No, it's not inherently "wrong". One human defrauding another human does not in anyway "upset the balance of the universe", or however you'd like to term it. It is just seen by humans as unfair, and can be reasoned as such. Though it is seen by almost everyone as wrong (and is a step away from what we were discussing, ie: a changing moral zeitgeist), outside of the human construction of right and wrong, fair and unfair, there is no inherent wrongness to such an act. Simply put, we're not important enough for our actions to matter in the universal sense, just the communal sense.

EDIT: This is getting rather off topic, but I'd be happy to continue this discussion by "private messages" if you feel like it.

Thanks for the explanation of your viewpoint. I don't agree with it, of course, but I don't expect either of us will change our minds on the other's beliefs on this thread!

But, yes, back on topic...

Dandelion6

Reilly616 wrote: »

The morning after pill prevents implantation in the lining of the womb, as far as I know. The Supreme Court has ruled that an embro is not an "unborn" for the purposes of the Constitution untill implantation has taken place, so that's why the morning after pill isn't abortion.

That's correct if fertilisation has already taken place. If taken early enough the MAP works by either preventing ovulation or preventing fertilisation. So it isn't abortion because there is literally nothing to abort.