Fighting Tao wrote: » Actually, thinking about it, having a referendum is a great way of getting foreign direct investment. Without the posters it would be significantly less.
spookwoman wrote: » You left a good bit out of the history of the church and abortion. The church was often in favor of abortion through the centuries. I've added the link for you to read as well.http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_hist.htm4th Century BCE TO 1st Century CE Abortion accepted by most Many beliefs most followed the belief of "delayed ensoulment" of Aristotle. This latter event, called "ensoulment," was believed to occur at 40 days after conception for male fetuses, and 90 days after conception for female fetuses. Early in the 1st century CE, a well-known Jewish philosopher -- Philo of Alexandria -- (20 BCE - circa 47 CE) wrote on infanticide and abortion, 2 condemning non-Jews of other cultures and religions for the widespread, unjustified practices.2nd Century CE TO 4th Century CE Abortion accepted by most With the exception of Judaism, most or all of the competing religions allowed women to have abortions and allowed parents to kill new-born babies by strangulation or exposing them as methods of population control.5th TO 16th Century CE Accepted by most St. Augustine (354-430 CE) reversed centuries of Christian teaching in Western Europe, by returning to the Aristotelian Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment." Augustine had little influence over the beliefs of Orthodox Christianity. They retained their original anti-abortion stance.Starting in the 7th century CE not accepted by the west a series of penitentials were written in the West. These listed an array of sins, with the penance that a person must observe as punishment for the sin. Certain "sins" which prevented conception had particularly heavy penaltiesPope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216): Abortion accepted He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated." Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.Pope Stephen V (served 885-891) Abortion not accepted wrote in 887 CE: "If he who destroys what is conceived in the womb by abortion is a murderer, how much more is he unable to excuse himself of murder who kills a child even one day old." "Epistle to Archbishop of Mainz."Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216): Abortion accepted He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated." Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.St. Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) Abortion Accepted also considered only the abortion of an "animated" fetus as murder.Pope Sixtus V (1471-1484) Abortion Not accepted issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" in 1588 which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.Pope Gregory XIV (1535-1591) Abortion Accepted revoked the Papal bull shortly after taking office in 1591. He reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days (about 17 weeks) into pregnancy.17th TO 19th Century CE Abortion not accepted. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to "the fetus." for anyone saying its not a foetus even the church referred to the unborn as a foetus Just because you believe and follow the beliefs of imaginary invisible man floating in the clouds does not mean everyone has to live by those rules as well. you also have to remember this is the 21st century and not everyone is catholic or even follows a religion. I know you are no longer of child bearing age so please explain to me how someone else having an abortion will affect you, howover the years you have helped women in crises pregnancies, have supported any of them financially, have you adopted any of their children?
Kumejima wrote: » Wow great historical research there. Well maybe we should allow child sacrifice? Or people having their beating hearts cut out of their chests? There are historical precedents. Inca society was pretty into that I heard. Or was it the Mayans? Stoning adulterous women was another thing we might bring back too. Very popular back in the day. Still has its fans in other jurisdictions. Why should I have to get on a plane if I want to participate in a good old fashioned stoning? Somebody else having an abortion has no effect on me or my life. Neither does that poor Jastine girl getting abducted and murdered, or Ana Kriegel or that poor Louth lad. I mean my day will still be relatively fine, check my emails, eat my breakfast etc. Guess what though, its not all about me and how smug and comfy my life is going to be if someone else aborts a child, or waits til they're 18 and murders them then. I'd just prefer not to have that stuff get my legal stamp of approval so it can be continued on an even larger scale. I hope thats not too fascistic of me
Kumejima wrote: » Or people having their beating hearts cut out of their chests? There are historical precedents. Inca society was pretty into that I heard. Or was it the Mayans?
spookwoman wrote: » Can you get any lower or more vile by get bringing the names of those murder victims into this. They have nothing to do with this discussion.
Fighting Tao wrote: » Difference...the three people who you unpleasantly dragged into this topic were born. I.e., they were alive and surviving outside of the womb. You know the rest but please do not drag those tragic recent murders into this topic. If abortions were murders, then so are miscarriages...sure maybe even god is the one murdering the babies born with fatal fetal anomalies. As for legal stamp of approval...you don't need to give it. You live in a democracy and the majority voted for repealing the 8th. Laws will be written and if you don't like them, then you can move elsewhere.
fxotoole wrote: » I thought their logic was that all Yes voters are going to Hell? Therefore the babies will be waiting for all eternity because the Yes voters will be burning in Hell
doomshine wrote: » There is a certain logic to this, don't all un-baptised babies go to limbo? Or did they change the rules when I wasn't looking?
swampgas wrote: » Or maybe there just weren't any sensible reasons to oppose repealing the 8th? Maybe the people that were put forward, bad and all as they were, were the best that could be found? There seems to be a sense that a better case could have been put for retaining the 8th. I honestly don't think there was. There is a religious overhang here, with the strongly held notion by many that abortion is a terrible terrible thing that must only be allowed in the most restricted of circumstances. The only arguments I have heard for this POV have been straight out religious or from a pseudo-religious "life is sacred" perspective. I think Ireland has moved to a far more secular, nuanced view of abortion, those still fighting against abortion don't seem to realise just how much the country has moved on without them.
seamus wrote: » The proposed law would allow a termination in an emergency and to preserve the health of the mother. Savita wouldn't have had to request one, it would have been recommended to her. Savita was the case that poured fuel on the fire. The fire had been kept burning since 1983. The lobby was strong, but not that strong. Irish people were generally unhappy with the situation, but unsure of how to deal with it. As recently as 2001, Bertie Ahern's government thought they could convince the public to make abortion on the grounds of suicide, illegal. Politicians continually dodged the issue because the public was non-committal and preferred to pretend it wasn't happening. Through the late 2000s and early 2010s, the campaign managed to shed its reputation of just being a fringe group of crazy, purple-haired lesbians and became a much more "normal" campaign, with more and more women speaking out about their treatment under the eighth. Then Savita happened. And Irish people could no longer pretend. It was right there in front of our faces. She wasn't some promiscuous teenager, or a welfare-class baby factory, or even an hysterical woman who'd changed her mind. Here was a middle-class, professional, intelligent woman with a very much wanted pregnancy that had unfortunately failed, and when she requested that it be terminated, she was denied because "this is a Catholic Country". And that denial ultimately cost her life. Truth is, after that it looks like the "Yes" side barely had to do anything; the exit polls suggest that this referendum would have carried if you'd asked 4 years ago. But the "No" side continuously asked for examples of maternal deaths caused by the eighth. And here was one; so it kept coming up.
Haylee Purple Showboat wrote: » As I said, let's just wait and see the effects on society. We may not see that for 20 years. We've devalued human life with the sweep of a pen. I don't see that as being a good thing. We cry out about injuring a pregnant woman and it's a criminal offence to injure the child she's carrying. Yet it's now ok to kill the child she's carrying.
wexie wrote: » I think they changed that a few years ago
Fighting Tao wrote: » It’s stupid really. It’s the demographic that contains the votes of the future as other generations die off. They should really be their target market.
spookwoman wrote: » don't get me started on the bible lots of killing the unborn there in the name of god Hosea 13:16 The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open.
[Deleted User] wrote: » From what I've read, this isn't entirely true though
Zubeneschamali wrote: » I really like this tweet: <snip>
DubInMeath wrote: » 2007 I believe, only since then will they allow an unbaptised baby including of course stillbirth be buried in a catholic cemetery. I think they still believe in the concept of limbo however.
Itssoeasy wrote: » My issue is that the RCC seem to believe that their moral capital is still like it was decades ago. It isn't due to some very serious scandals which shouldn't be forgotten in any way.
Pugzilla wrote: » It never had any moral capital since the entire insitution is based on a jewish zombie fairytale written by savages.
Pugzilla wrote: » It never had any moral capital since the entire insitution is based on a jewish zombie fairytale written by primitive savages.
captbarnacles wrote: » https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1549439/The-Pope-ends-state-of-limbo-after-800-years.html It's abolished I think much like heaven might be for Irish people if we don't behave
Murray TheDemonic TalkingSkull wrote: » Edgy.
SusieBlue wrote: » I’m sick to my back teeth of seeing people dismiss the 8th having a hand in Savita’s death. It’s infuriating, and the height of disrespect to the woman’s memory.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3e92925f7bde702415f91ea088d4f7a.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wf.vanillicon.com/v2/f07ee44b0b39bbb635066da4046d9475.svg)
