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

Min

CokaColumbo wrote: »

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.

True, there are atheists who oppose abortion but they must be religious atheists

Lockstep

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.

What of my childless relatives. They are a married man and woman, but they have no kids. Are they not a family?
What of a single parent who adopts a child. Are they not a family?
What of couples who are unable to concieve? Is that not a family?

The Constitution makes no statement as to what marriage is, nor what a family is.

28064212

Min wrote: »

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.

No-one expects you to partake in gay marriage. If two people of the same sex in a committed and loving relationship want to get married on the other side of the country, how does it affect you?

Zubeneschamali

CokaColumbo wrote: »

You don't need to be a Christian to have a firm and science-based notion as to when life begins

All I know is it was sometime before 3.5 billion years ago.

takun

CokaColumbo wrote: »

one cannot ever be a Catholic and be in favour of legalised abortion. It is simply impossible.

Not sure about that. If you'd said "you cannot be a catholic and be in favour of abortion", then maybe, though of course nobody is 'in favour of abortion' as though it was some kind of leisure activity.

Legalised abortion is a very vague phrase indeed, so vague as to be almost meaningless. But I can see how a Catholic who is secure in their own faith does not feel the need to impose it on others or think it needs to be underwritten by civil law could vote to allow other people make up their own minds.

And bear in mind that the of many, many Irish women who have had abortions, many are also Catholic. And they are not, as you might like to believe, tortured souls who spend the rest of their existence berating themselves for their sin. For the most part they are at peace with their decision.

28064212

CokaColumbo wrote: »

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.

Labour want to bring in legislation which will allow for abortion when the mother's life is in danger. This is already in the constitution, by virtue of a referendum

sensibleken

Min wrote: »

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'?

I really have no idea what you are supposed to be arguing here. Are you saying nature has morals now?

TrollHammaren

Lockstep wrote: »

What of my childless relatives. They are a married man and woman, but they have no kids. Are they not a family? What of a single parent who adopts a child. Are they not a family? What of couples who are unable to concieve? Is that not a family?

The Constitution makes no statement as to what marriage is.

+1

I was going to make the very same point. Religious institutions consistently try to monopolise concepts such as morality, marriage, life, and the likes.

Morality is a personal and social concept - if religions were to dictate morality, then morality would be inconsistent. Should blood transfusions be illegal because the Jehova's Witnesses dictate that it's evil?

Marriage has been around in many forms before the formation of the Catholic Church. Unmarried couples living together are considered a family in many European countries. Bunreacht na hEireann in no way specifies that a family must consist of a married man and woman.

Sir Oxman

28064212 wrote: »

No-one expects you to partake in gay marriage. If two people of the same sex in a committed and loving relationship want to get married on the other side of the country, how does it affect you?

Indeed.
If the poster was secure in their own belief system and their own morality, they wouldn't need to interfere in others lives.

Dave!

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.

Wrong -- they'll never produce a child together, but they can form a family by adopting, surrogacy, etc.

tomasocarthaigh

There are no seruis strident anti-abortion candidates that are not mouthpices for the Catholic Church, indeed in Laois Offaly the only anti abortion candidate is a Nigerian Fundamentalist Protestant, and a convert from Islam at that.

ALL the parties, FF and FG included are pro abortion in one way or another, so being no choice, all have to go for the next issue on the agenda: this is a bread and butter election, about bread and butter issues, not theological ones.

So my vote is going Socialist Party.

Where is the church telling government Thou Shalt Not Steal? By being silent they are collaborating in the curruption of the past decades.

The EU is going to force abortion in anyway, and the best way, like Gay marraige not to have it affect you, is not to have one.

Or to go out with anyone who approves of it. Then your kids will never face it.

We are as a species heading back to the monkey in the trees, but this is not an abortion election, this is on the economy.

A vote for the right, amkes the economy bankrupt. A vote for the left saves the workers skin...

CokaColumbo

28064212 wrote: »

Labour want to bring in legislation which will allow for abortion when the mother's life is in danger. This is already in the constitution, by virtue of a referendum

I linked you to choiceireland which contains a statement from Labour in which the party declares its support for the legalisation of abortion in cases of rape and incest; and in cases where the health of the mother is at risk. This is the legal situation in Britain which has, effectively, a system of abortion on demand. This was my point to begin with. Pro-choice, Labour people don't seem to understand the extent of the party's abortion advocacy.

My view on abortion is that it is permissible in cases only where the life of the mother is directly at risk because of the pregnancy.

takun wrote: »

Not sure about that. If you'd said "you cannot be a catholic and be in favour of abortion", then maybe, though of course nobody is 'in favour of abortion' as though it was some kind of leisure activity.

Legalised abortion is a very vague phrase indeed, so vague as to be almost meaningless. But I can see how a Catholic who is secure in their own faith does not feel the need to impose it on others or think it needs to be underwritten by civil law could vote to allow other people make up their own minds.

And bear in mind that the of many, many Irish women who have had abortions, many are also Catholic. And they are not, as you might like to believe, tortured souls who spend the rest of their existence berating themselves for their sin. For the most part they are at peace with their decision.

When I write "in favour of abortion" I mean that you cannot legitimately call yourself a Catholic and support the legalisation of abortion in cases where the life of the mother is not at risk. As far as I am aware, that is the moral teaching of the religion. I understand that nobody actively enjoys abortions. At least most people don't at least.

Whatever about religious people, if you think that pro-life people are comfortable in their views regarding abortion to the extent that they don't feel the need to underwrite it in law, as they have been mandated to do by the majority of this country, you are mistaken. Pro-life people understand that the unborn has a right to life and all efforts must be made to protect that. To us, saying that abortion is personal choice is like saying that homicide and rape are personal decisions and that efforts to counter them don't need to be underwritten by law.

CokaColumbo

tomasocarthaigh wrote: »

Where is the church telling government Thou Shalt Not Steal? By being silent they are collaborating in the curruption of the past decades.

What are you talking about? Socialism is based entirely on theft. You know the part about stealing the money from those who produce it and redistributing it to those who didn't? For this reason, I oppose both socialism and the bank bailouts.

TrollHammaren

CokaColumbo wrote: »

What are you talking about? Socialism is based entirely on theft. You know the part about stealing the money from those who produce it and redistributing it to those who didn't? For this reason, I oppose both socialism and the bank bailouts.

Pig ignorant - that's not what socialism is about, at all. Bare in mind, there are many forms of socialism, but none I can think of involves stealing other people's wealth.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with the topic, so I don't know why you even bothered spewing your uninformed nonsense.

Im Only 71Kg

can people not think for themselves anymore?

CokaColumbo

TrollHammaren wrote: »

Pig ignorant - that's not what socialism is about, at all. Bare in mind, there are many forms of socialism, but none I can think of involves stealing other people's wealth.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with the topic, so I don't know why you even bothered spewing your uninformed nonsense.

O.K., off topic. You are right: socialists don't advocate for the forceful redistribution of the private wealth of individual citizens. Gotcha

mewso

Bible wrote:

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

Where would we get our morals without the good book?

Reilly616

Lockstep wrote: »

What of my childless relatives. They are a married man and woman, but they have no kids. Are they not a family?
What of a single parent who adopts a child. Are they not a family?
What of couples who are unable to concieve? Is that not a family?

The Constitution makes no statement as to what marriage is, nor what a family is.

This is a point which needs to be noted. The Supreme Court has ruled (per Walsh J. I believe) that the Constitution does not determine what "The Family" is. It is up to the legislature alone to determine that.

marmurr1916

Reilly616 wrote: »

This is a point which needs to be noted. The Supreme Court has ruled (per Walsh J. I believe) that the Constitution does not determine what "The Family" is. It is up to the legislature alone to determine that.

If there's no constitutional bar to same-sex marriage, then why is there a need for a referendum on the issue?

OT: abortion is legal in Ireland, a point which seems to escape David Quinn.

The Irish Supreme Court (not the European Court of Human Rights) ruled that Article 40.3.3 of the Irish constitution (put there by the Irish people) gave women a right to get abortions where being pregnant results in a real and substantial risk to their lives, including from the risk of suicide.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that this right, granted by the Irish Supreme Court on foot of an amendment to the Irish constitution made by the Irish people, should be available in practice, and not just in theory.

It essentially ruled that the failure of the Oireachtas to legislate for the Supreme Court ruling (given in the X-case) means that this right is not available in practice and simply remains theoretical.

The Irish people have twice been asked to remove suicide as a ground for getting a legal abortion. Both times they have refused to do so.

David Quinn's preferred solution, to remove the right to abortion completely, would require yet another referendum.

Does he really think that the Irish people will remove this right from women who might die because of being pregnant?

CokaColumbo

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

*I sense ignorance in the force*

Capitalism, according you your analogy of socialism, is just socialism but purely for the rich. Socialism at heart call for the fair distribution of wealth amongst workers. In pure capitalism you could have a business owner (not that I'm against enterprise or anything) sitting around in an office all day making phone calls while his employees do most of the work for him yet he earns a massive salary 10 times greater than his employees. In this case, who would be the greatest producer of wealth - the employer or the employees?

I do want to debate you and demonstrate how you are incorrect but I won't try to because this debate is about abortion... (the most divisive of all debates!)

Reilly616

marmurr1916 wrote: »

If there's no constitutional bar to same-sex marriage, then why is there a need for a referendum on the issue?

There isn't. It's just that practically there would be a referendum, since Governments tend not to want to be responsible for making the decision on such contentious issues.

Pudsy33

what a load of nonsense propoganda

CokaColumbo

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

I'd like debate you also and show you how you are incorrect about socialism. However, as you say, I should remain on topic and show you how your views on abortion are incorrect.

If your arguments in favour of abortion-legalisation are as weak as the arguments in favour of socialism, I won't hold my breath, friend!!

CoalBucket

If abortion is to be introduced in this country it is my understanding that it would require a constitutional ammendement which would require a referendum.

It is something that is within the power of any political party.

28064212

CoalBucket wrote: »

If abortion is to be introduced in this country it is my understanding that it would require a constitutional ammendement which would require a referendum.

Wrong. The referendum was in 1983 (the 8th amendment), which passed 67% to 33%. In 1992, the supreme court ruled that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 (inserted by the 8th amendment) if there was "a real and substantial risk" to her life. This included if the risk was the possibility of suicide. However, no Government has had the integrity to actually introduce legislation, although Dermot Ahern managing to find the time to do the equivalent for a blasphemy law nobody wanted.

CoalBucket

28064212 wrote: »

Wrong. The referendum was in 1983 (the 8th amendment), which passed 67% to 33%. In 1992, the supreme court ruled that a woman had a right to an abortion under Article 40.3.3 (inserted by the 8th amendment) if there was "a real and substantial risk" to her life. This included if the risk was the possibility of suicide. However, no Government has had the integrity to actually introduce legislation, although Dermot Ahern managing to find the time to do the equivalent for a blasphemy law nobody wanted.

The point I was trying to make was that any alteration of the constitution would require a referendum.

TBH I was stunned by the article linked in the OP about the scare mongerring of the Labour Party and abortion. I also seriously disagree with the article in its views that it was wrong for the Labour party to canvas outside a church.

The point you made in relation to no government introducing legislation is a valid one and I would contend that the reason it has not been addressed is because of the closed minded opinions shared with the author of the article.

With reference to the current status of the legislation I stand corrected. I was aware of the supreme court ruling.

Reilly616

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Abortion in the case of a mothers' life being at stake is more or less constitutionally legal but it has never been legislated upon.

No need for the "more or less". It's very clear cut. If the mother's life is at stake, abortion is legal here.

CokaColumbo

Killer Pigeon wrote: »

Abortion in the case of a mothers' life being at stake is more or less constitutionally legal but it has never been legislated upon. The Labour party's position on abortion has been and is still that abortion should be allowed if the mother's life is at stake, a significant risk of physical injury to the mother, and if there are foetal abnormalities that will lead to the foetus never being born alive. The above Labour Party proposal are in line with the constitution.

Please refer me to the article in the constitution which permits women to obtain abortions due to their pregnancies having implications for their physical health. You omit Labour's advocacy for abortion in cases of rape and incest.

One only has to compare the abortion laws in Britain, and the situation of abortion on demand which exists there, with the relevant policy aims of the Irish Labour Party to see how radically at odds the group's position is with the Irish constitution.

Reilly616

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Please refer me to the article in the constitution which permits women to obtain abortions due to their pregnancies having implications for their physical health. You omit Labour's advocacy for abortion in cases of rape and incest.

One only has to compare the abortion laws in Britain, and the situation of abortion on demand which exists there, with the relevant policy aims of the Irish Labour Party to see how radically at odds the group's position is with the Irish constitution.

Britain doesn't actually have abortion on demand.
See: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/87/contents

28064212

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Please refer me to the article in the constitution which permits women to obtain abortions due to their pregnancies having implications for their physical health. You omit Labour's advocacy for abortion in cases of rape and incest.

Once again, Labour's position is that we should legislate for the already existing constitutional amendment. They do not have a party position on cases of rape and incest:

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

That is not a position. They specifically go on to say that:

Comprehensive action on these issues in their own right would require a referendum for a constitutional amendment.

A referendum. Asking the people directly