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

18-02-2011 11:28PM

MaceFace wrote: »

And you think someone who thinks abortion is a mortal sin will be as eager to push through legislation allowing for it as someone who is very pro choice?

I'm a straight, white, non-religious male who is personally pro-life. If I was running for public office, some of my central policies would be LGBT rights, women's rights, freedom to worship, and pro-choice. None of those things are related to my personal circumstances.

I think someone who runs with a platform of pro-choice is going to be eager to push through that legislation, and will have a mandate to do it, regardless of their private circumstances.

MaceFace wrote: »

Well we have had politicians tell us their position on things in the past that have been very different from reality.

Then they get voted out. That's how democracy works.

MaceFace wrote: »

That is not hugely relevant to me as they are not my representatives. If Cowen or any of the leaders of the parties had a conviction or had a drink problem (:rolleyes:) it is a concern to me.

A drink problem which affects their work, then yes. A politician who wants to get smashed in their free time, that is no business of mine or anyone elses

MaceFace wrote: »

28064212 wrote: »

So you want a publically accessible database of every aspect of an election-seeker's personal lives where they have to fill in their:
Religion

Sexual orientation

Sexual Fetishes

"Eating beliefs"

What else? Whether they've been divorced? Whether they've ever smoked? Whether they've ever drank? Not a list of their positions, but what they do in their private life? You think that's reasonable?

No, and you are being ridiculous now.

You specifically brought up vegetarianism for the beef farmers. Why are any of those others not relevant? Your whole idea is ridiculous

MaceFace wrote: »

You don't think I should be allowed to ask a politician their religion and quiz them on their beliefs based on their response?
(if they are Muslim or Catholic, what do they think of gay society? - obviously this would not concern me if the politician was a gay person themselves or if they were atheist).

Why do you need to know their personal beliefs before quizzing them on your issues?

MaceFace wrote: »

What? I already stated that I do not represent people and agree on laws that directly influence their personal lives.

No, you represent your employer. Your behaviour directly affects them. Why should they not be able to quiz you on your private beliefs?

MaceFace wrote: »

I find it so offensive that someone can tell me what should be important to me when I vote. Its one step away from telling me who I should vote for.

You don't get to pry into every detail of their lives. You get the information they choose to make available and vote on that.

MaceFace · 19-02-2011 07:41AM

28064212 wrote: »

I'm a straight, white, non-religious male who is personally pro-life. If I was running for public office, some of my central policies would be LGBT rights, women's rights, freedom to worship, and pro-choice. None of those things are related to my personal circumstances.

I think someone who runs with a platform of pro-choice is going to be eager to push through that legislation, and will have a mandate to do it, regardless of their private circumstances.

That is assuming the candidiate is being completely open and honest with the electorate. Why should I believe what a candidate is saying and why can't I ask them my questions?
You never addressed the issue of a TD drink driving - is that none of our business as it happens in their private life.
What about if you find out a candidate is a member of a particular organisation that concerns you (e.g. a freemason). Are you saying that I have no right to question them on that as it is their private business?

I am just watching Vincent Brown now and he is saying that twice recently he had two politicians on his show that told "bare faced lies".
You want to limit the questioning of our candidates to the information they put out in their manifesto and what those policies are.
We are not allowed to ask about who this person is and what they actually believe and stand for?

28064212 wrote: »

Then they get voted out. That's how democracy works.

I honestly don't know if you are just trying to be argumentative or if you believe this stuff, but where have you been over the last 4 years?
We have just had a government that has made many decisions that the majority of the population of this country were against and we have had NO say. The first opportunity we get to give our say is years later after the decision has both been made and also implemented.
Crazy.......

28064212 wrote: »

A drink problem which affects their work, then yes. A politician who wants to get smashed in their free time, that is no business of mine or anyone elses

And it is a concern of mine. It doesn't bother you that pictures of Cowen was on one of the biggest TV shows in America showing him looking very drunk.
Everything a person in public office does affects their work.

28064212 wrote: »

You specifically brought up vegetarianism for the beef farmers. Why are any of those others not relevant? Your whole idea is ridiculous

No, the idea that there should be a database with all this information is ridiculous.
If I am a beef farmer, it may concern me if the leader does not believe in eating meet.
If I am gay, knowing if someone asking for my vote is gay may be relevant to me.
If I am Catholic, knowing is the candidate is Catholic may be relevant to me.

While this thread is a lot about pro-choice, you think I should not have the choice to ask about who this person actually is?

I gave you an example of stem cell research. I don't think that has ever come up in the debates so far. A non-religious person is probably more likely to agree with the advancement of stem cell research, whereas a practicing Catholic is probably not. Considering the vast number of questions like this which people don't get to ask, you have to make a best guess based on knowing more about who that person is.

28064212 wrote: »

Why do you need to know their personal beliefs before quizzing them on your issues?

Because knowing their personal beliefs give me an indication of who that person is.
If I know a candidate is a Muslim, I may want to know their views on Israel. I would not ask that question of a Catholic because I could make a good guess at what the answer would be.
If they are Catholic, I want to know what they think of deals with the church in relation to wrong doing.

28064212 wrote: »

No, you represent your employer. Your behaviour directly affects them. Why should they not be able to quiz you on your private beliefs?

You don't get to pry into every detail of their lives. You get the information they choose to make available and vote on that.

I have never once said that I want to pry into "every detail of their lives". Right throughout this debate, I have said the same thing -
If a person asks you for your vote, you have a right to ask them whatever questions matters to you. They have a right to not answer.
And no one else has a right to tell anyone else what they can or can not ask.

Dandelion6 · 19-02-2011 10:05AM

MalteseBarry wrote: »

No one advocates abortion, or thinks it is a "good" thing in itself.

It's just some believe it is the lesser of two evils, so to speak.

I don't think abortion is an evil. It's unfortunate for the person who needs it, but so are any number of medical procedures. I don't think it should be more stigmatised than any other.

dark crystal · 19-02-2011 10:36AM

Dandelion6 wrote: »

I don't think abortion is an evil. It's unfortunate for the person who needs it, but so are any number of medical procedures. I don't think it should be more stigmatised than any other.

Needs it? In most cases, the mother doesn't need it. She chooses it because the pregnancy is an inconvienient one.

I'm largely pro choice, by the way, not pro abortion (what a horrid term), but I do feel uncomfortable sometimes by the way some pro choicers talk about the procedure as if it was like having a tooth pulled, or an appendix removed. It's really not. It can have devastating psychological effects on the mother for years afterwards, even if she feels she made the right choice.

I agree it should not be stigmatised, but let's not pretend this is a procedure just like any other.

bipedalhumanoid · 19-02-2011 11:34AM

Does anyone actually listen to what the Iona Institute have to say? They're a joke.

Have a read of David Quinn's article written shortly after the CIO released the 2006 census stats on religion. He actually believed that the only atheists in the country were the few who wrote the word 'Atheist' into a box entitled "Other. Write in your RELIGION".

Quinn and his cronies don't have a strong track record for reporting or interpreting anything accurately.

Min · 19-02-2011 12:14PM

Dandelion6 wrote: »

I don't think abortion is an evil. It's unfortunate for the person who needs it, but so are any number of medical procedures. I don't think it should be more stigmatised than any other.

Administering the death penalty via lethal injection is also a medical procedure which has the same aims as an abortion.

Society should be more advanced that we don't need to intently kill human life.
Medical procedures should be about saving life, not taking it.
Thats just my opinion, I know others disagree and I don't have the time for a long debate.

19-02-2011 01:15PM

MaceFace wrote: »

That is assuming the candidiate is being completely open and honest with the electorate. Why should I believe what a candidate is saying and why can't I ask them my questions?

Ask away. How do you know they're not lying about their personal beliefs? What if they refuse to answer?

MaceFace wrote: »

You never addressed the issue of a TD drink driving - is that none of our business as it happens in their private life.

Politicians have the same right to privacy as anybody else. Is your boss allowed ask you about your drink-driving convictions? And fire you based on that?

MaceFace wrote: »

What about if you find out a candidate is a member of a particular organisation that concerns you (e.g. a freemason). Are you saying that I have no right to question them on that as it is their private business?

You absolutely have no right to question them on their private business. You want to address potential issues that may arise from that membership, you question them on those issues

MaceFace wrote: »

I am just watching Vincent Brown now and he is saying that twice recently he had two politicians on his show that told "bare faced lies".

About their personal lives or their positions?

MaceFace wrote: »

You want to limit the questioning of our candidates to the information they put out in their manifesto and what those policies are.

No, that's stupid, and not what I said at any stage. You can question them on the issues. You do not get to pry into their irrelevant personal lives

MaceFace wrote: »

We are not allowed to ask about who this person is and what they actually believe and stand for?

What they actually stand for, yes. Their personal lives, no.

MaceFace wrote: »

I honestly don't know if you are just trying to be argumentative or if you believe this stuff, but where have you been over the last 4 years?
We have just had a government that has made many decisions that the majority of the population of this country were against and we have had NO say. The first opportunity we get to give our say is years later after the decision has both been made and also implemented.
Crazy.......

And you think knowing about their personal lives beforehand would have somehow prevented any of that? Fianna Fail stood on a platform of spending, tax cuts and property incentives. This was where they stood on the issues. That was what they were elected on. How would it have helped in any way to know that some of them were Muslim/Atheist/Vegetarian?

MaceFace wrote: »

And it is a concern of mine. It doesn't bother you that pictures of Cowen was on one of the biggest TV shows in America showing him looking very drunk.
Everything a person in public office does affects their work.

So no-one in public office can ever get drunk again?

MaceFace wrote: »

No, the idea that there should be a database with all this information is ridiculous.
If I am a beef farmer, it may concern me if the leader does not believe in eating meet.
If I am gay, knowing if someone asking for my vote is gay may be relevant to me.
If I am Catholic, knowing is the candidate is Catholic may be relevant to me.

How do you expect to get this information so?

If you're a beef farmer, it concerns you where the leader stands on farming issues
If you're gay, knowing where someone stands on gay rights is relevant to you
If you're Catholic, knowing where the candidate stands on Catholic issues may be relevant to you

MaceFace wrote: »

I gave you an example of stem cell research. I don't think that has ever come up in the debates so far. A non-religious person is probably more likely to agree with the advancement of stem cell research, whereas a practicing Catholic is probably not. Considering the vast number of questions like this which people don't get to ask, you have to make a best guess based on knowing more about who that person is.

Actually, Labour's position on it is in their manifesto. If it concerns you, you ask them what their position is.

MaceFace wrote: »

Because knowing their personal beliefs give me an indication of who that person is.
If I know a candidate is a Muslim, I may want to know their views on Israel. I would not ask that question of a Catholic because I could make a good guess at what the answer would be.
If they are Catholic, I want to know what they think of deals with the church in relation to wrong doing.

Do you have any idea of how diverse the opinions of Israel are in the Catholic faith? Do you have any idea of how diverse the opinions of church payouts are outside Catholicism?

MaceFace wrote: »

I have never once said that I want to pry into "every detail of their lives". Right throughout this debate, I have said the same thing -
If a person asks you for your vote, you have a right to ask them whatever questions matters to you. They have a right to not answer.
And no one else has a right to tell anyone else what they can or can not ask.

Where have you said they have a right to not answer?

MaceFace wrote: »

any person, regardless, running for public office have a duty to answer questions that a person not running for office would deem private.

They do not have a duty to answer questions on their personal lives. You do not have a right to know whether someone is Catholic, vegetarian, a swinger or gay, any more than your boss has a right to know that stuff about you

wfom01 · 20-02-2011 12:10AM

Min wrote: »

Catholics can't vote for same sex marriage. Marriage is seen by catholics as a sacrament between a woman and a man.

If you stop getting the sacramental aspect confused with the civil aspect you'll begin to see the error of your argument. If you understand that when an RCC marriage occurs (sacrament) a civil union (sign the register) also takes place. The state, rightly has no interest in the sacrament and the RCC, rightly, has no interest in the civil union. If you get the hang of that you're making some real progress.

No RCC is being asked to vote for gay sacramental marriage. But citizens of the Irish state are being asked to vote for civil solutions to civil realities and civil rights - nothing to do with religion at all! Read your Bibel: Render undo Caesar that which is Caesar's (the state) and render unto God that which is God's (sacraments, prayer, holiness, redemption etc.).

In short, there is no connection between the two issues.

Dandelion6 · 20-02-2011 10:03AM

dark crystal wrote: »

Needs it? In most cases, the mother doesn't need it. She chooses it because the pregnancy is an inconvienient one.

Having a child is a life-long commitment. Pregnancy and childbirth themselves can have permanent physical and mental consequences. If a woman does not feel prepared to make those kind of changes to her life, it's more than a matter of "inconvenience". The way some people talk about it, you'd think it was like carrying around a heavy rucksack for nine months.

I do feel uncomfortable sometimes by the way some pro choicers talk about the procedure as if it was like having a tooth pulled, or an appendix removed. It's really not. It can have devastating psychological effects on the mother for years afterwards, even if she feels she made the right choice.

I agree it should not be stigmatised, but let's not pretend this is a procedure just like any other.

Look, for some women it is. It's their right to feel that way and I don't understand why anyone (at least anyone who claims to be pro-choice) would want to suggest they ought to feel worse about it than they do. There are some women for whom it can be devastating, obviously, but this is usually linked not to the abortion itself but to the circumstances in which they had it. And childbirth too can have devastating consequences - ever heard of post-partum psychosis?

Women have had abortions for as long as they've known how to have abortions. In many cultures it isn't even a big deal in the first few months, in fact it isn't even considered an abortion, but "inducing menstruation". The only reason it's a big deal in other places is because people who are against it have chosen to make a big deal out of it, often for dubious reasons.

Dandelion6 · 20-02-2011 10:09AM

Min wrote: »

Administering the death penalty via lethal injection is also a medical procedure which has the same aims as an abortion.

No it doesn't. The death penalty is aimed at killing a person. An embryo may be biologically human, but personhood is more than a matter of base genetics.

gcgirl · 20-02-2011 10:19AM

The amount of Catholics I know think there should be full civil marriage for gay people but in saying that they are al la cart catholics which in reality that is what Ireland is made of I was never asked if I wanted to become a catholic and I don't share any of it's beliefs ! Very few al la cart Catholics follow the teachings of the catholic church !

20-02-2011 10:45AM

Dandelion6 wrote: »

Having a child is a life-long commitment. Pregnancy and childbirth themselves can have permanent physical and mental consequences. If a woman does not feel prepared to make those kind of changes to her life, it's more than a matter of "inconvenience". The way some people talk about it, you'd think it was like carrying around a heavy rucksack for nine months.

Thats fair enough but if thats the only reason then why not adoption???

Min · 20-02-2011 11:11AM

Dandelion6 wrote: »

No it doesn't. The death penalty is aimed at killing a person. An embryo may be biologically human, but personhood is more than a matter of base genetics.

We all existed as an embryo, it is a part of our life, without that there is nothing, personhood only exists because the embryo exists as the base, therefore the most important thing for any of us is that our embryo was protected and the lives of all of us in the womb was protected and given the chance of life.
To take it away is more than a medical procedure for the embryo, it is denying it a right, intentional abortion (as opposed to natural abortion like a miscarriage) is the death penalty for the unborn as it's life is intently terminated.
This is similar to the death penalty as the intent is to terminate a life.
In abortion, isn't the aim of a termination also to kill off a life? Isn't that what they are terminating?

20-02-2011 11:13AM

Min wrote: »

In abortion, isn't the aim of a termination also to kill off a life? Isn't that what they are terminating?

So is washing your hands, that's why they talk about personhood and not life

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats fair enough but if thats the only reason then why not adoption???

Adoption is the alternative to raising the child, not an alternative to pregnancy or childbirth

bipedalhumanoid · 20-02-2011 11:16AM

Min wrote: »

We all existed as an embryo, it is a part of our life, without that there is nothing, personhood only exists because the embryo exists as the base, therefore the most important thing for any of us is that our embryo was protected and the lives of all of us in the womb was protected and given the chance of life.

Your premise is correct but your conclusion is merely a statement of your opinion. It certainly doesn't follow from the premise and is therefore a non-sequitur.

The fact that we all had to be embryos before we could become fully formed sentient beings does not mean we must treat the embryo with the same respect, and thus give it the same rights, as a sentient fully formed human being.

The reality is that an embryo is not a sentient, thinking being and no amount fallacious argumentation is going to change that.

20-02-2011 11:18AM

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

The fact that we all had to be embryos before we could become fully formed sentient beings does not mean we must treat the embryo with the same respect, and thus give it the same rights, as a sentient fully formed human being.

I'm going to be old one day can I therefore get my pension and OAP discounts now? :cool:

oceanclub · 20-02-2011 11:21AM

If I know a candidate is a Muslim, I may want to know their views on Israel. I would not ask that question of a Catholic because I could make a good guess at what the answer would be.

Eh? What this mythical position on Israel that Catholics share?

P.

yawnstretch · 20-02-2011 11:22AM

Love it when someone makes an irrefutable prolife argument and the only responses are jokes.

bipedalhumanoid · 20-02-2011 11:27AM

bluewolf wrote: »

I'm going to be old one day can I therefore get my pension and OAP discounts now? :cool:

Non-sequitur. Please learn how to form logical arguments before posting here again.

Min · 20-02-2011 11:28AM

bluewolf wrote: »

So is washing your hands, that's why they talk about personhood and not life

It depends on what life you value.

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

Your premise is correct but your conclusion is merely a statement of your opinion. It certainly doesn't follow from the premise and is therefore a non-sequitur.

The fact that we all had to be embryos before we could become fully formed sentient beings does not mean we must treat the embryo with the same respect, and thus give it the same rights, as a sentient fully formed human being.

The reality is that an embryo is not a sentient, thinking being and no amount fallacious argumentation is going to change that.

You could get a baby and leave it to defend for itself, it doesn't think or know what is safe or what to do, it is just in a line of progression in the development, I don't think many here would remember when they were born, when they were being pushed throught the birth canal or delivered by caesarian section. Do many people remember their first year in the atmosphere of this world?
One could argue it took us a good while to go from not knowing or remembering to the time we remember and knew things which makes the whole sentient being thing is rather irrelevant.

bipedalhumanoid · 20-02-2011 11:36AM

Min wrote: »

It depends on what life you value.

You could get a baby and leave it to defend for itself, it doesn't think or know what is safe or what to do, it is just in a line of progression in the development, I don't think many here would remember when they were born when they were being pushed throught he birth canal or delivered by caesarian section. Do many people remember their first year in the atmosphere of this world.
One could argue it took us a good while to go from not knowing or remembering to the time we remember and knew things which makes the whole sentient being thing is rather irrelevant.

And now we move on to false premises. Congratulations, you graduate twats university of false argumentation.

A baby has an active brain and thus has a much higher likelihood to be sentient than an embryo. The ability to retain long term memories has nothing to do with sentience. Not that it's even relevant, but babies actually do form lasting memories. If they didn't how could they learn anything? New born babies have to learn how to succle for instance. That requires memory.

*Yawn*

bipedalhumanoid · 20-02-2011 11:44AM

Here's a thought. A tad bit of honesty from the pro-life side would be interesting. How about, instead of throwing around disingenuous, fallacious secular arguments you give an honest account of why you think it's more important to protect a non-sentient embryo than the sentient mother?

Lets get down to the unfounded belief in souls and how they're inserted into zygotes by the hand of god shall we?

Min · 20-02-2011 11:47AM

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

And now we move on to false premises. Congratulations, you graduate twats university of false argumentation.

A baby has an active brain and thus has a much higher likelihood to be sentient than an embryo. The ability to retain long term memories has nothing to do with sentience. Not that it's even relevant, but babies actually do form lasting memories. If they didn't how could they learn anything? New born babies have to learn how to succle for instance. That requires memory.

*Yawn*

Unborn babies have been shown sucking their fingers in the womb.
There is a thing known as instinct, the instinct to live is there when the egg and sperm unite and implant in the womb, that is just as relevant as a new born baby suckling the breast of it's mother.
The mother and unborn and then born share natural instincts, these things are natural.
Given there is an instinct to live from the moment we were conceived in the womb, your argument falls down as there are things the unborn does not have to learn, it just knows what it has to do as it is natural instinct.

Min · 20-02-2011 11:50AM

bipedalhumanoid wrote: »

Here's a thought. A tad bit of honesty from the pro-life side would be interesting. How about, instead of throwing around disingenuous, fallacious secular arguments you give an honest account of why you think it's more important to protect a non-sentient embryo than the sentient mother?

Lets get down to the unfounded belief in souls and how they're inserted into zygotes by the hand of god shall we?

It was said in the UK most abortions are simply another form of contraception.
It is only rare cases where the mother's life is at risk for most abortions in western society.

A human life is a human life whatever form it is, we should try and protect all human life and put a value on our lives and those of others.

hotmail.com · 20-02-2011 11:53AM

Min wrote: »

It was said in the UK most abortions are simply another form of contraception.
It is only rare cases where the mother's life is at risk for most abortions in western society.

A human life is a human life whatever form it is, we should try and protect all human life and put a value on our lives and those of others.

So what.

bipedalhumanoid · 20-02-2011 11:57AM

Min wrote: »

Unborn babies have been shown sucking their fingers in the womb.
There is a thing known as instinct, the instinct to live is there when the egg and sperm unite and implant in the womb, that is just as relevant as a new born baby suckling the breast of it's mother.
The mother and unborn and then born share natural instincts, these things are natural.
Given there is an instinct to live from the moment we were conceived in the womb, your argument falls down as there are things the unborn does not have to learn, it just knows what it has to do as it is natural instinct.

Even if you are right about babies suckling instinctively, and you're not (try telling that to mothers who have difficulty getting their babies to latch on!), as I said in my previous argument, it is completely irrelevant because sentience is not guaged by long term memory.

This is therefore a strawman argument, not worthy of any further attention.

bipedalhumanoid · 20-02-2011 11:59AM

hotmail.com wrote: »

So what.

+1

Please help us understand how that is in any way relevant to this debate?

bipedalhumanoid · 20-02-2011 12:02PM

Min wrote: »

It is only rare cases where the mother's life is at risk for most abortions in western society.

YES! AND THOSE ARE THE CASES LABOUR WANTS TO LEGISLATE FOR!

Min wrote: »

A human life is a human life whatever form it is, we should try and protect all human life and put a value on our lives and those of others.

:eek:
Another unevidnced, un-argued, unfounded assertion. This is yet again nothing but a statement of your opinion.

*Awaits the bog standard pro-life slippery slope argument*

theg81der · 20-02-2011 12:09PM

Min wrote: »

A human life is a human life whatever form it is, we should try and protect all human life and put a value on our lives and those of others.

So you just value human life then? what is the difference between a baby and an animal? What you seem to be saying is that you don`t want to devalue your life, which isn`t a great argument in my mind.

I`m not pro-choice by the way, I`m pro going in beofre they get pregnant and doing the work there. Reality is as it is thou.

bipedalhumanoid · 20-02-2011 12:26PM

In the interest of honest and open debate, I will outline my position on this issue.

I am in favour of very early term abortion (at the point before the unborn forms an active brain) and only beyond that point if the mother's life is at risk.

I don't agree with abortion on demand for the entire duration of the first trimester, because brain development begins much earlier than 3 months into the pregnancy.

I don't accept the pro-choice arguments suggesting it's the mother's body and therefore the mother's choice.

I do believe that sentient beings should have a right to life where that right does not infringe on that of a fully formed sentient being.

I do believe this debate is constantly hijacked by pro-life religious nut jobs and pro-choice liberal nut jobs.

I believe there is a resolution to this debate and it requires handing all nut-jobs their hats so that the medical and legal professionals can provide the public with the information they need to make an informed decision on where they stand.

I believe that's what labour is proposing.

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

Comments