Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

Peregrinus

Newaglish wrote: »

Wait wait wait

Their press release says: "Surrogacy splits motherhood between up to three women"

Who's the third one? I really thought I understood this birds and bees stuff but there's obviously something vital I've missed.

The genetic mother, the surrogate and the lass who works the test tube and stuff. (That's women's work, it goes without saying.)

Corkfeen

I'm assuming it's a reference to the fear of lesbians using surrogacy. The sky is constantly falling in Iona offices.

PopePalpatine

Because it means de baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyybiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeees can be born to same-sex couples, of course. :rolleyes:

Penn

Newaglish wrote: »

Wait wait wait

Their press release says: "Surrogacy splits motherhood between up to three women"

Who's the third one? I really thought I understood this birds and bees stuff but there's obviously something vital I've missed.

The three mothers (according to them) are:
Genetic - Egg Donor
Biological - Surrogate who gives birth
Social - Woman who raises the child.

Genetic and social are usually the same, and genetic and biological could also be the same.

It is completely ridiculous though. Again, they're not even consistent in what they want. They think there should be one mother (genetic, biological and social). That's it.

Oh, except if the mother doesn't want the child, in which case she shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion, and should instead put the child up for adoption, thereby causing there to be two mothers and causing the problem they're trying to fight in the surrogacy argument.

Maybe, children wouldn't be confused about who their mother is if organisations like Iona Institute weren't trying to make them feel like they should be confused.

robindch

Referring to Quinn and his small circle of confused fundamentalist friends as the "Iona Institute" grants them far too much respect.

What about calling them "The Tooters" instead?

Penn

robindch wrote: »

Referring to Quinn and his small circle of confused fundamentalist friends as the "Iona Institute" grants them far too much respect.

What about calling them "The Tooters" instead?

I just put 'Iona Institute' into an anagram-maker, and the first one was Inanities Tout.

'Tout Inanities' should be both their name and a warning about them.

Other anagrams:
It Tout Asinine
Aunties Into It
It Insinuate To

Galvasean

kylith wrote: »

A teacher (of biology!) in my old school told a Leaving Cert class that it takes three people to make a baby; a man, a woman, and god.

Well in the story of Jesus' conception that was the case... except without the father bit.

From what I'm reading the IONA Institute's argument boil down to, "Surrogacy is confusing. Better ban it just to be safe." That's quite dull, even by their standards.

Doctor Strange

Penn wrote: »

Other anagrams:
It Tout Asinine

Let's go with this one

Or, as I prefer "That bunch of w**kers".

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Referring to Quinn and his small circle of confused fundamentalist friends as the "Iona Institute" grants them far too much respect.

What about calling them "The Tooters" instead?

Penn wrote: »

I just put 'Iona Institute' into an anagram-maker, and the first one was Inanities Tout.

'Tout Inanities' should be both their name and a warning about them.

Other anagrams:
It Tout Asinine
Aunties Into It
It Insinuate To

Naah, I still think Fr Jack's option has the edge on them.

Sarky

Quinn has his panties in a knot over Swedish health care.

Has he finally run out of things to moan about impotently in this country, or is he just branching out into other areas of f*ckwittery?

PopePalpatine

Just had a brief glance at that article, and I struggle to see what actually started the controversy in the first place.

Delirium

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Just had a brief glance at that article, and I struggle to see what actually started the controversy in the first place.

Doctors and nurses aren't allowed to refuse to carry out abortions that part of their job.

Stark

Appalling stuff. Next thing you know, Jehova witness doctors won't be allowed to refuse blood transfusions.

Delirium

Stark wrote: »

Appalling stuff. Next thing you know, Jehova witness doctors won't be allowed to refuse blood transfusions.

better not skip ahead of a surgeon at the local Tesco, the fecker might refuse to operate on you when you need the surgery :eek::P

oceanclub

Sarky wrote: »

Quinn has his panties in a knot over Swedish health care.

Has he finally run out of things to moan about impotently in this country, or is he just branching out into other areas of f*ckwittery?

Oh, Quinn has a permanent bee in his bonnet about Sweden; it must be where the anti-Christ is expected to arise.

P.

the culture of deference

Penn wrote: »

I just put 'Iona Institute' into an anagram-maker, and the first one was Inanities Tout.

'Tout Inanities' should be both their name and a warning about them.

Other anagrams:
It Tout Asinine
Aunties Into It
It Insinuate To

I did it with the Iona Institute


Initiate Then Outs


Nuttie Hesitation


sh1t Eaten Tuition


Atheist Unite Into


Initiate Ethos Nut

Sarky

the culture of deference wrote: »

Atheist Unite Into

So we should all f*ck them at once? They'd hate that.

the culture of deference

A PAPER BY
THE IONA INSTITUTE
THE ETHICAL CASE AGAINST SURROGATE
MOTHERHOOD:

"One of the chief reasons is that surrogacy commodifies the human body. With surrogacy the child becomes the mere object of a legal transaction, while the surrogate mother is used, effectively, as an incubator. Such commodification in itself violates the dignity of both the surrogate mother and the child.

The gestational mother may be the genetic mother; this is the case when she is artificially inseminated. Such manipulations are contrary to the genetic truth. As we know .. the genetic truth is more and more sought and cannot be lightly set aside."

Quick question Dave

How can you publish papers like the above if your core belief is that a 12 year old virgin conceived her surrogate son miraculously by the agency of the holy spirit, when an angel appeared to her and announced her divine selection to be the mother of Jesus.

Sarky

I asked him pretty much the same question. But he's blocked me on Twitter so I don't think he's going to respond.

Galvasean

Using women as incubators? where have we heard that before...

Kiwi in IE

So the situation is that woman who don't want babies must have them, because contraception and abortion should be illegal, but women who DO want babies, but can't conceive should not be allowed to have them, because fertility assistance should be illegal?

Penn

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So the situation is that woman who don't want babies must have them, because contraception and abortion should be illegal, but women who DO want babies, but can't conceive should not be allowed to have them, because fertility assistance should be illegal?

lazygal

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

So the situation is that woman who don't want babies must have them, because contraception and abortion should be illegal, but women who DO want babies, but can't conceive should not be allowed to have them, because fertility assistance should be illegal?

I'm pretty sure that's what Jesus said in his many sermons on reproductive issues.

mikom

Galvasean wrote: »

Using women as incubators? where have we heard that before...

Alien, with Sigourney Weaver?

"David Quinn mostly comes out at night...... mostly"

Bannasidhe

lazygal wrote: »

I'm pretty sure that's what Jesus said in his many sermons on reproductive issues.

Obviously it is completely up to God who gets to reproduce and who doesn't.
As God is omnipotent this ensures that every, single baybee (even in the case of multiple births) is guaranteed to be born into the ideal environment to ensure their future well being.

Now it may seen strange to us that women we believe would be excellent mother's cannot conceive while women who should never be allowed to get closer to a baybee than looking at one on TV can...but we just don't understand the Mysterious Ways..

Also, some women are so egotistical as to believe they should/should not be mothers - how very dare they! God decides that.


This system was also used to decide who got to be Absolute Monarchs (still used for Popes) and it worked very well until until we lost our humility and began to insist that as we are all created in God's image we are equal but that is to take Scripture out of context. If God wanted us to be treated equally he would have made us all exactly the same - but he didn't so we are obviously not equal as some of us are better then others - that's logic that is.

smokingman

mikom wrote: »

Alien, with Sigourney Weaver?

"David Quinn mostly comes out at night...... mostly"

Ah Sigourney, I'd gladly carry her babies...mmmmmmnomnom.

yellowlabrador

I just saw an ad on youtube that seems to come from the iona institute. It's concentrating on the suicide threat in abortion. I made myself watch it, but it makes me sick. I think they are using this to stop all abortions. I just wish they could understand that abortion is not some kind of nice treat and something women do lightly. And I still think they are manipulating statitstics to try to stop abortions. I hope the government stays strong and doesn't cave in to moral blackmail.

lazygal

I'm sick to death of hearing that because we have a 'world class maternity system' (yeah right) we don't need abortion. Of course, women who simply don't wish to remain pregnant aren't weighing up the 'excellent' maternity care when they decide abortion is the best option.

recedite

smokingman wrote: »

Ah Sigourney, I'd gladly carry her babies...mmmmmmnomnom.

WTF... you must be a seahorse.

smokingman

recedite wrote: »

WTF... you must be a seahorse.

She's always floated my boat since Alien. I'd like to say it's all about how a strong woman attracts me but there may be a bit of teenage lust when she was changing out of her spacesuit to do with it