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

Zubeneschamali

Brenireland wrote: »

But once they are medical circumstances if you see my point.

Which is exactly what Labour want to clarify in legislation.

28064212

Brenireland wrote: »

But once they are medical circumstances if you see my point.

Which is exactly what Labour are for

Brenireland

the_syco wrote: »

I believe you are trolling. I say this as it is incomprehensible that you think that women magically stay healthy during the 9 months or so just because they are carrying a child.

=-=

BTW, when is the decapitation of the church from the state going to happen? The old fashioned f**ks should be exiled to Rome, and the Pedo priests be decapitated.

Sorry I wasn't trolling,however I understand what your saying their in the 1st half of the post,I realise that things can change in 9 months and I was in the wrong/I now understand like the previous posters were saying what Labour's point is,I read to much into that column at the start.

CokaColumbo

28064212 wrote: »

That's exactly what they did. You claimed Labour were not being clear on this issue, they pointed out that they were perfectly clear.

And unless you were outside Eamonn Gilmore's house a few weeks ago, they did not call you a fundamentalist

It is strange how you can say that Labour is clear on its abortion stance when pro-Labour, pro-choice posters are making the case that the extent of Labour's abortion stance is that it merely wishes to amend the law to reflect the outcome of the 1992 case. It is beyond doubt that Labour wishes to create the same legal conditions for abortion which exist in England.

http://www.choiceireland.org/node/60

Irish Labour Party wrote: »

Despite a wide divergence of views on the issue of abortion, there is a broad concern [within Labour] that there should be some legislative provision for termination of pregnancy in the case of rape or incest.

Our view on that basis is that it is open to the Oireachtas to amend the criminal law so as to exempt from the punishment provided for in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 medical procedures carried out with the aim of protecting a woman’s physical health from a significant risk posed by the continuation of the pregnancy

And yes he did call me a fundamentalist. Read the post again.

Zubeneschamali

CokaColumbo wrote: »

It is strange how you can say that Labour is clear on its abortion stance when pro-Labour, pro-choice posters are making the case that the extent of Labour's abortion stance is that it merely wishes to amend the law to reflect the outcome of the 1992 case.

That's precisely what the bit you quote says:

Our view on that basis is that it is open to the Oireachtas to amend the criminal law so as to exempt from the punishment provided for in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 medical procedures carried out with the aim of protecting a woman’s physical health from a significant risk posed by the continuation of the pregnancy

28064212

CokaColumbo wrote: »

It is strange how you can say that Labour is clear on its abortion stance when pro-Labour, pro-choice posters are making the case that the extent of Labour's abortion stance is that it merely wishes to amend the law to reflect the outcome of the 1992 case. It is beyond doubt that Labour wishes to create the same legal conditions for abortion which exist in England.

http://www.choiceireland.org/node/60

Ehhh.... what? That's exactly what their reply says

CokaColumbo wrote: »

And yes he did call me a fundamentalist. Read the post again.

My mistake

takun

Brenireland wrote: »

Sorry I wasn't trolling,however I understand what your saying their in the 1st half of the post,I realise that things can change in 9 months and I was in the wrong.

I don't know anything about you Brenireland, but I respect you for sticking with this thread and for admitting that in at least some aspects of what you said you were wrong, or maybe that you wrote hastily and didn't think your position through.

I suspect you are young or that at least you have never personally been faced with the sort of decisions that other have been in regard to the whole issue of abortion. I hope you never are.

However I also hope that you take a little time now to question whether on issues like this it is appropriate to take a black and white approach and whether, whatever you think or believe, it is appropriate to automatically assume that anyone with a different view is wrong.

It's riddled with grey areas this whole issue, I hope you will at least take a look at some of them before deciding, finally, where you stand.

Min

28064212 wrote: »

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


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


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)

Wrong, it would be illegal as there is nothing in law to allow it, that is why the European court case meant it had to he legislated for, until then it is illegal and no abortion can happen until the dail legislates for it.

28064212

Min wrote: »

Wrong, it would be illegal as there is nothing in law to allow it, that is why the European court case meant it had to he legislated for, until then it is illegal and no abortion can happen until the dail legislates for it.

So if they put a law into effect tomorrow saying that Catholic mass is outlawed, you can be convicted of it even though the law would be against the constitution?

28064212

takun wrote: »

I don't know anything about you Brenireland, but I respect you for sticking with this thread and for admitting that in at least some aspects of what you said you were wrong, or maybe that you wrote hastily and didn't think your position through.

I suspect you are young or that at least you have never personally been faced with the sort of decisions that other have been in regard to the whole issue of abortion. I hope you never are.

However I also hope that you take a little time now to question whether on issues like this it is appropriate to take a black and white approach and whether, whatever you think or believe, it is appropriate to automatically assume that anyone with a different view is wrong.

It's riddled with grey areas this whole issue, I hope you will at least take a look at some of them before deciding, finally, where you stand.

+1

Brenireland

takun wrote: »

I don't know anything about you Brenireland, but I respect you for sticking with this thread and for admitting that in at least some aspects of what you said you were wrong, or maybe that you wrote hastily and didn't think your position through.

I suspect you are young or that at least you have never personally been faced with the sort of decisions that other have been in regard to the whole issue of abortion. I hope you never are.

However I also hope that you take a little time now to question whether on issues like this it is appropriate to take a black and white approach and whether, whatever you think or believe, it is appropriate to automatically assume that anyone with a different view is wrong.

It's riddled with grey areas this whole issue, I hope you will at least take a look at some of them before deciding, finally, where you stand.

Thanks I appreciate that,yeah when I started off commenting on this thread & on the Article with regards Labours Stance on Abortion I really did go all out without thinking.

I now appreciate and agree with what the previous posters were saying,which is, that for Medical Reason's,Abortion is a valid & understandable option & one nobody should ever have to make.

& in future I will think before I say or write anything,however nothing bad was meant as I am sure you'll understand,from my previous and uneducated post's, as I am pro-life & the protection of Life is always important.

brigette

I am voting Labour because David Quinn's article is the usual pro-life clap trap that they emit at every referenda/election time. It would serve the Catholic Church better to look after the needs of the born, having destroyed so many young innocent lives through their cover up of sexual abuse over decades. Did they feed and clothe the large families born into one room tenement dwellings in the 40s/50s? No, rather they insisted on long suffering mothers continuing to increase their families regardless of the penury in which they lived. That horrendous Alive rag continues to tarnish my letter box when delivered, even though I have requested cessation of it being delivered to me. Such narrow minded, right-wing filth lacking totally in intelligent reporting and merely lifting out of context headlines to make their insubstantial claims.
I am voting Labour because with their social policies they practise real christianity i.e. trying to support the less well off in the community which is totally at odds with the Catholic church's idea of christianity. David Quinn would want to wake up to the real Ireland which is rid of the control of the parish priest and their arrogant bishops. One only had to listen to the eloquence of Michael D Higgins (Labour) this morning on Newstalk, on this subject to recognise where the real intellectualisation exists in our society. Not with those dunderheads in the intellectually challenged contributors in Alive for sure!

Zubeneschamali

Good man, Bren, it's good to see someone step up and post like that instead of going silent.

Brenireland

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Good man, Bren, it's good to see someone step up and post like that instead of going silent.

Well it would have been wrong if I hadn't,I was waffling about something I shouldn't have been waffling about.

And in an uneducated manner to be honest,What I did not consider,(and which you guys thankfully corrected me on),was that of the medical side of things which is the dominant & important side of this topic.

CokaColumbo

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

That's precisely what the bit you quote says:

Our view on that basis is that it is open to the Oireachtas to amend the criminal law so as to exempt from the punishment provided for in the Offences against the Person Act 1861 medical procedures carried out with the aim of protecting a woman’s physical health from a significant risk posed by the continuation of the pregnancy

Perhaps I am mistaken. My understanding of it is that the 1992 case was centred around the potential of the girl committing suicide; that it was not an issue of the physical health, but rather her life.

Zubeneschamali

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

The Alive magazine came in the door a couple of days ago calling Labour's policy on abortion the slaughter of unborn babies on demand.

Are any other parties condemned in Alive, so that I can vote for them, too?

Lockstep

Min wrote: »

What about Labour in the 1980's when people were leaving?

Those were bad times for everyone. It wasn't caused by utter mismanagement of an economic boom like FF did.

Min wrote: »

The upturn had started in the early 1990's, the economy grew at 4.3% in 1990 when it was FF and the PDs in power. 4.1% in 1991.

Source? Checked the PWT for Irish real GDP growth per capita and it was 2.9% in 1991 (compared to 1990) and it was 12% in 1995 (compared to 1994)

Min wrote: »

It is a myth that things started to improve because Labour were in government.

Who cut the corporation tax to 12.5%, bringing in the MNCs?
That's right, a Labour minister for Finance.

Min wrote: »

The banks lending too freely and the regulator sleeping on the job along with the ECB which never said stop led to a property bubble, it goes to show that keeping interest rates down to suit Germany and France to encourage growth also led to cheap money here which was the last thing needed.
I support the Euro, however it is possible that we would not have suffered as much if we had our own currency and much higher interest rates which would have curbed inflation and have made borrowing less attractive.

Light touch regulation during the property speculation was the key cause, along with FF refusing to implement any brakes such as a property tax (the only nod being stamp duty) How is this Labour's fault?

Min wrote: »

No party - not even Labour said stop during the boom.

Yes they did. Labour called for the implemenation of the Kenny Report to ease the speculation of land prices. They also called for a property tax in 2007, which would have eased off the property boom.

Lockstep

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.

The Irish Constitution makes *no* reference to same sex marriage.
It says:
41, 3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.


It says marriage is a special institution on which the family was founded. No mention of what a family or marriage is.

Min

cassi wrote: »

Min and BrenIreland, can I ask you guys a honest question since were on the subject?

How exactly does it effect YOU, if a woman has an abortion? How exactly does it effect YOU, if two people of the same sex in a committed and loving relationship want to get married?

Im not trying to get at you personally, Im just interested in hearing why people are so anti abortion and anti same sex marriage when, as I see it, it should really effect them at all!!

For nine months of my life my home was in the womb of my mother. It was a place where my life was respected by my mother.
I would like others who have no choice but to live in a womb to be given the same respect and to be allowed to be born alive, not intentionally killed.

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for those who claim marriage can mean between the same sex then why do they have to distinguish it by calling it same sex marriage?
Is it because most people associate marriage between people of opposing sexes?

takun

The article from Alive is online in case anyone wants to read it.

http://www.alive.ie/editorsjottings.php#editorsjottings1

The whole article - the whole site really - is pretty awful, but this is a stand out for me.

Labour leader Eamon Gilmore is a self-professed unbeliever. That must profoundly affect his understanding of the value, the sacredness, of each human life. It must also affect his understanding of good and evil.

28064212

Min wrote: »

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for those who claim marriage can mean between the same sex then why do they have to distinguish it by calling it same sex marriage?
Is it because most people associate marriage between people of opposing sexes?

What an utterly meaningless argument. If someone is a Catholic, are they not Christian?

And you didn't answer the question:

How exactly does it effect YOU, if two people of the same sex in a committed and loving relationship want to get married?

Min

Lockstep wrote: »

The Irish Constitution makes *no* reference to same sex marriage.
It says:
41, 3. 1° The State pledges itself to guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded, and to protect it against attack.


It says marriage is a special institution on which the family was founded. No mention of what a family or marriage is.

A family is founded says it all. People of the same sex no how much sex they have with eachother they will never produce a family.
The constitution is therefore saying marriage is between a man and a wwoman and back then there was no such thing as same sex marriage - which is not a basis for a family as it is practically impossible for the two to produce offspring that are from both which comes under the laws of nature.

Civil partnership was brought in as same sex marriage would have been seen as an attack on the meaning of marriage - it is why labour want a referendum to change it.

Min

28064212 wrote: »

What an utterly meaningless argument. If someone is a Catholic, are they not Christian?

And you didn't answer the question:

I did but it did not suit you as usual.

takun

Min wrote: »

A family is founded says it all. People of the same sex no how much sex they have with eachother they will never produce a family.

Sex is not a prerequisite for the foundation of a family!

There are families (under your definition of a union between a man and woman) who have adopted children, or children born as a result of some intervention due to infertility. Are they families or not? The state treats them as families, so it will be a surprise to them if they are not.

28064212

Min wrote: »

I did but it did not suit you as usual.

The question:

cassi wrote: »

How exactly does it effect YOU, if two people of the same sex in a committed and loving relationship want to get married?

Your "answer":

Min wrote: »

I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, for those who claim marriage can mean between the same sex then why do they have to distinguish it by calling it same sex marriage?
Is it because most people associate marriage between people of opposing sexes?

How does that have relevance whatsoever to the question?

sensibleken

Min wrote: »

A family is founded says it all. People of the same sex no how much sex they have with eachother they will never produce a family.
The constitution is therefore saying marriage is between a man and a wwoman and back then there was no such thing as same sex marriage - which is not a basis for a family as it is practically impossible for the two to produce offspring that are from both which comes under the laws of nature.

Civil partnership was brought in as same sex marriage would have been seen as an attack on the meaning of marriage - it is why labour want a referendum to change it.

A family doesn't neccesarily mean children born of teh parents. Or would you say that adopted children are not really part of a family.

Interesting you would bring up nature when your denying people rights based on their nature.

Your meaning of marriage. Its non of your business who any one else loves and wants to commit to

Min

28064212 wrote: »

The question:


Your "answer":


How does that have relevance whatsoever to the question?

Maybe you believe in same sex marriage but would vote against it?

You expect me to support something I don't believe in. What one believes affects them.

CokaColumbo

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Not everyone in Ireland favours your views on abortion. Your views on abortion mainly arise from your religious views, that's fair but not every shares your religious views. Also not all catholics adhere specifically to the views of the Pope. Obviously there would have to be a referendum at which point the Irish public will decide not you or the Catholic Church. Labour's policy on abortion is no secret.

Killer Pigeon, what makes you think that I am religious? Personally, abortion is not a religious debate and I am not religious. You don't need to be a Christian to have a firm and science-based notion as to when life begins and why abortion rightfully remains a crime in this country. That is one of the biggest assumptions of the pro-choice side; you think that all pro-life people are religiously inspired to hold their views.

I agree, not everybody favours my views on abortion, but most do. There have been repeated referendums and the Irish people have repeatedly asserted the moral person-hood of the unborn and have condemned, with their votes, the absolutely deplorable practice of abortion.
And I hate to say it but one cannot ever be a Catholic and be in favour of legalised abortion at the same time.

Min

sensibleken wrote: »

A family doesn't neccesarily mean children born of teh parents. Or would you say that adopted children are not really part of a family.

Interesting you would bring up nature when your denying people rights based on their nature.

Your meaning of marriage. Its non of your business who any one else loves and wants to commit to

So why do Labour need a referendum for same sex marriage?

Does nature deny same sex couples rights because it refuses to allow them to have children together.
Where can one go to protest against nature denying people it's 'rights'?

hotmail.com

Those that rate abortion as a concern for them (something I really cannot understand, but anyway), probably won't be voting for Labour anyway. It's one of the reasons why Labour is so unpopular in rural areas where these social issues seem to bother people.