ohnonotgmail wrote: » I doubt there is much insanity when it comes to Bishop Doran. The man is keen for advancement and being the attack dog for the church is a way to do that.
volchitsa wrote: » Which is exactly why all but the most insane/least tuned-in of them (yes I'm looking at you, Bishop Kevin Doran) much prefer to operate through their non clerical mouth pieces like Breda O' Brien and David Quinn. I'm sure there's much tearing of hair and rending of garments among the anti-choice movement whenever Bishop Kevin decides to continue speaking his mind the way priests have always done in Ireland. aka instructing the flock. I see Bishop Eamon Martin had a little foray into the same field a few weeks back, but he seems to be more biddable, and hasn't been heard from on the issue since.
applehunter wrote: » Why scoff?
Edward M wrote: » That's not it though, dehumanise and then it doesn't matter. So if a foetus isn't human until its born then its just a bug like entity, entitled to be squished or trampled on without fear of repercussion. It was funny watching the snooker there lately, the UK championship, they had a few bugs and wasps annoying the players. Players and referees made big arm swings at them and a few were squished by hand on the table or trampled on the floor after being swatted down. Not much made of it indeed laughs from the crowd as it happened. Abortion can be viewed as similar in some respects. Imagine the horror if a dog had strayed in and been given a boot in the hole to get him out. Its hard to gauge human indignation at what is happening sometimes.
Edward M wrote: » So if a foetus isn't human until its born then its just a bug like entity, entitled to be squished or trampled on without fear of repercussion.
Edward M wrote: » Not much made of it indeed laughs from the crowd as it happened. Abortion can be viewed as similar in some respects. Imagine the horror if a dog had strayed in and been given a boot in the hole to get him out. Its hard to gauge human indignation at what is happening sometimes.
applehunter wrote: » Dehumanize Then kill.
applehunter wrote: » Joeytheparrot wrote: » The whole thing is a lie 1 How can 90% of babies be aborted? A baby is born human being 2 Its complete irrelevant nonsense given that the oireachtas is proposing legislation for 12 weeks. Dehumanize Then kill.
Joeytheparrot wrote: » The whole thing is a lie 1 How can 90% of babies be aborted? A baby is born human being 2 Its complete irrelevant nonsense given that the oireachtas is proposing legislation for 12 weeks.
applehunter wrote: » Why scoff? A cursory glance at the last 100 years would show you that anything is possible in the name of progress.
Oldtree wrote: » Bishop Kevin Duran, a "church heavy hitter" is still wading in with his heavy hitting viewpoint Talk about moving the goalposts to encompass all that is "Evil" with the saintly bishop hitting the sheep to the moral rectitudes of the 1930's. What's next from the good bishop? The removal of the eighth to lead to the sterilisation and genocide of the travelling community, or anybody with a squint?https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-referendum/liberalising-abortion-will-lead-to-killing-of-elderly-and-those-with-disabilities-senior-bishop-warns-36558197.html
Liberalising abortion 'will lead to killing of elderly and those with disabilities', senior bishop warns
Bannasidhe wrote: » Personally I think the 1937 Constitution is a complete hames - it seems to me to be the bones of the 22 Constitution with added Roman Catholic interference and an attempt at social engineering to bring about Dev's vision of Ireland. The whole thing needs to be rewritten, not all this continual tinkering and ignoring the bits that are deemed irrelevant.
ForestFire wrote: » That wasn't really the point, anyway a preamble is still very important for what is to come? ARTICLE 6 1 All powers of government, legislative, executive and judicial, derive, under God, from the people, whose right it is to designate the rulers of the State and, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy, according to the requirements of the common good. I am not saying this means anything, it is just interesting that this type of wording is still in there?
ForestFire wrote: » But nearly all laws are based upon the moral beliefs of society anyway so I don't see the issue with a basis in there for the right to life at 12 weeks, so it can be put into law. Also, and again not that I fully agree with thiss, the first words in the Irish constitution read:- BUNREACHT NA hÉIREANN In the Name of the Most Holy Trinity, from Whom is all authority and to Whom, as our final end, all actions both of men and States must be referred, We, the people of Éire, Humbly acknowledging all our obligations to our Divine Lord, Jesus Christ, Who sustained our fathers through centuries of trial Some more food for thought. Good night.
Water John wrote: » That's a preamble, and is not part of the Constitution. You are correct, put the 12 weeks, into law.
seenitall wrote: » Ouch, my eyes!! Touché.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Take this thought with you - the very reason for a Constitution is as a basis for the laws of the land, not as a moral framework.
seenitall wrote: » That's very harsh, now. I can only imagine how you feel about baring legs... you puritan!
Bannasidhe wrote: » Millions with the right to bare arms is a recipe for disaster.
ForestFire wrote: » Has this even been tried, Have these people presented there results and reasons because I am all ears?
Kurtosis wrote: » Since you didn't want to have a try, I gave it a go. The new and improved article 40.3.3:The state acknowledges the right to life of the unborn after the age of 12 weeks from the date of (conception/something else?) and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, except for cases where the unborn is the result of rape or incest, or is suffering from a fatal foetal abnormality, or where the pregnancy threatens the life or health of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right. Really clear, right?
ForestFire wrote: » I think its a bit harder to understand than my point i hope you agree (Simple because mine is about moral beliefs, while yours is about Laws/ etc.,) but its something that I am open to looking into if there is proper debate and information. Alas I will have to leave it there for tonight, no doubt I may be back again with you all at some stage in the next weeks:)
Consonata wrote: » Because by changing the amendment we are legalising the concept of having an abortion by choice by writing it into our constitution as a right. We then legislate by how that right is regulated. Is that hard to understand?
Water John wrote: » Life isn't simple and most of the best legal minds in the country, cannot see what you want to achieve, capable of being worded, in a fool proof way, and inserted in the Constitution.
ForestFire wrote: » Thanks for the effort for a proper reply... But while I agree the Gun law is stupid... Agree The 8th was badly done.... Agree The divorce law for a time of 4 years is unnecessary.... I don't believe the protection of life is stupid... That it can't be done better to ensure it solid... And as A moral life question, does deserve ultimate protection... Is that hard to understand?
