David Quinn spouting nonsense again. See Mod Warning post #249.

the culture of deference · 12-01-2013 06:38PM #1

David your opinions are outdated and more suited to the 1950's.

Here are some highlights

Bishop Leo O'Reilly's comment that permitting abortion on the grounds of suicidal intent would be "the first step on the road to a culture of death".We have had Cardinal Sean Brady's reference to the matter in his Christmas message.

Of course, these interventions only anger those on the pro-choice side. Indeed, at the hearings yesterday various politicians fired anti-clerical cheap shots at the Catholic representatives to the effect that male celibates know nothing about women.

The bishops' interventions are really aimed at are ordinary Mass-going Catholics, of which there are still many.

They need to be mobilised, to wake up fully to the fact that Ireland is about to cross a moral Rubicon, to authorise for the first time ever in Irish law the direct and intentional taking of innocent human life.

No law-maker should ever authorise the direct and intentional taking of innocent human life. Permitting the suicide ground for abortion will do this and for no remotely good reason, because pregnant women who are suicidal can always be offered an alternative to abortion.

Bishop Leo O'Reilly was attacked by, among others, Pat Rabbitte, for using "strident" language in saying that permitting abortion on the grounds of suicidal intention would be a "first step on the road to a culture of death".
But in what way was Bishop O'Reilly inaccurate?

Political correspondent Stephen Collins has attacked the bishops' stance as "confrontational". But Mr Collins went much further, also accusing the bishops of mounting a "direct challenge to the authority of the electorate and the Dail".

Mr Collins is not normally given to hyperbole but one would think from the above that the bishops are trying to overthrow the Government.
All they are trying to do is change a government policy, which is something countless other organisations try to do all the time.

Far from this being a threat to democracy, it is simply the normal business of democracy.

In fact, if there is a silver lining in the current debate about abortion it is that the bishops appear to be slowly regaining their nerve and are starting to show clear and decisive leadership to ordinary Catholics again.

So he is personally calling for a mobilisation of people who believe in a sky fairy to directly force our elected reps to ensure we stay in the dark ages.

DAVID ....... ITALY PERMITS ABORTION

More bullsh1t from this lunatic. All I can say is that I am so thankful the cult he adores does not have the power they once had.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-bishops-intervention-is-simply-the-normal-business-of-democracy-3348853.html

orestes · 12-01-2013 06:39PM

Ah c'mon, can we not get though one weekend without this shit?

Czarcasm · 12-01-2013 06:42PM

the culture of deference wrote: »

More bullsh1t from this lunatic.

That was MY first thought too!

the culture of deference wrote: »

All I can say is that I am so thankful the cult he adores does not have the power they once had.

Have you considered a blog?

slippy wicket · 12-01-2013 06:43PM

orestes wrote: »

Ah c'mon, can we not get though one weekend without this shit?

Indeed, we are all mightily sick of David Quinn.

donvito99 · 12-01-2013 06:44PM

Who the shite is David Quinn

the culture of deference · 12-01-2013 06:48PM

orestes wrote: »

Ah c'mon, can we not get though one weekend without this shit?

There are headlines in every paper all week about this sh/t. Therefore it is quite relevant.

This is what Quinn wants

ordinary Mass-going Catholics, of which there are still many to be mobilised, to wake up fully to the fact that Ireland is about to cross a moral Rubicon, to authorise for the first time ever in Irish law the direct and intentional taking of innocent human life.

Death and Taxes · 12-01-2013 06:52PM

Take it to religion forum or conspiracy theory forum

Duckworth_Luas · 12-01-2013 06:52PM

donvito99 wrote: »

Who the shite is David Quinn

Everybody's in despair, every girl and boy.

But when David Quinn gets here,
Everybody's gonna jump for joy.

Come all without, come all within within,
You'll not see nothing like the mighty Quinn

somefeen · 12-01-2013 06:54PM

I hate the way people believe they need to oppose abortion because they're catholic, just as bad as I hate the people who support it because they're atheist.
Abortion debate is full of *****.

Benny_Cake · 12-01-2013 06:56PM

the culture of deference wrote: »

David your opinions are outdated and more suited to the 1950's.

He's on Twitter, you might have better luck getting his attention there rather than on After Hours.

orestes · 12-01-2013 07:00PM

the culture of deference wrote: »

There are headlines in every paper all week about this sh/t. Therefore it is quite relevant.

This is what Quinn wants

ordinary Mass-going Catholics, of which there are still many to be mobilised, to wake up fully to the fact that Ireland is about to cross a moral Rubicon, to authorise for the first time ever in Irish law the direct and intentional taking of innocent human life.

There are headines about this shit, or something like it, every week, that's my point. It's not relevant, it's ranting, repeatedly. Get a blog or something.

squod · 12-01-2013 07:02PM

Lunatic?

How many abortions would you like OP? 1,000 per year? 2,000 per year? Italy currently has a rate of near 10% of pregnancies ending in abortions. US & Russias rates could be 20%. Massive numbers of people. Last year in Ireland 9,000 people were born and about 1,000 Irish people had abortions, 30 of which were carried out in this country (Ireland).

So, thousands of deaths OP. You're calling for thousands of deaths.

.......first time ever in Irish law the direct and intentional taking of innocent human life.

the culture of deference · 12-01-2013 07:12PM

orestes wrote: »

There are headines about this shit every week, It's not relevant, it's ranting, repeatedly.

So the newspapers are ranting ?

Iona group member ????

Sarky · 12-01-2013 07:18PM

Benny_Cake wrote: »

He's on Twitter, you might have better luck getting his attention there rather than on After Hours.

Nah, he's a despicable arsehole on Twitter too. He doesn't want the attention of anyone who doesn't adore him. Ridicule and public denunciation are the way to go, tbh.

Sulla Felix · 12-01-2013 07:27PM

somefeen wrote: »

I hate the way people believe they need to oppose abortion because they're catholic, just as bad as I hate the people who support it because they're atheist.
Abortion debate is full of *****.

I don't think I know any atheists who support it because they're atheists. Atheism just happens to flourish in the same liberal and humanist soil that pro choice does.

orestes · 12-01-2013 07:28PM

the culture of deference wrote: »

So the newspapers are ranting ?

Iona group member ????

You're the one who referred to an article in the media and came on here shouting about the the journalist who wrote it being a lunatic. So yes, like I said, it's just ranting, on both sides.

I'm not an Iona group member, I'm pro-choice, but I think propaganda on either side of the debate makes everyone involved look stupid. If you want to have a reasonable discussion about the subject why start the thread in After Hours rather than the humanities forum/chrisianity forum/etc.?

philologos · 12-01-2013 09:02PM

the culture of deference wrote: »

More bullsh1t from this lunatic. All I can say is that I am so thankful the cult he adores does not have the power they once had.

More sensationalist nonsense on both sides.

Legislating for the X Case has nothing to do with a pro-choice argument. From the pro-life side, it's important to note that this ruling doesn't have anything to do with legalising abortion by choice also.

All that needs to be done is producing the legislation that legislates for threat to the life of the mother.

That's reasonable common sense.

the culture of deference · 13-01-2013 12:42PM

philologos wrote: »

More sensationalist nonsense on both sides.

Legislating for the X Case has nothing to do with a pro-choice argument. From the pro-life side, it's important to note that this ruling doesn't have anything to do with legalising abortion by choice also.

All that needs to be done is producing the legislation that legislates for threat to the life of the mother.

That's reasonable common sense.

Common sense would be that the woman chooses and it's nobody elses business.

philologos · 13-01-2013 12:47PM

the culture of deference wrote: »

Common sense would be that the woman chooses and it's nobody elses business.

I disagree for obvious reasons. There's two set of rights to consider, not just one. That's common sense as I see it.

Intervening in medical emergencies, is and should be a no brainer, but legislating abortion by choice is entirely wrong. Essentially you're saying for whatever reason killing an unborn child should be acceptable. That's where I draw lines and say I disagree.

Death and Taxes · 13-01-2013 12:56PM

philologos wrote: »

I disagree for obvious reasons. There's two set of rights to consider, not just one. That's common sense as I see it.

Intervening in medical emergencies, is and should be a no brainer, but legislating abortion by choice is entirely wrong. Essentially you're saying for whatever reason killing an unborn child should be acceptable. That's where I draw lines and say I disagree.

And your view is informed by your particular moral values, which you are entitled to hold.
Others however, including myself, do not recognise a 12/14/16 week old feotus as a child and as a consequence seen no conflicting right oppossing the right of a woman to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
I fail to see why your moral viewpoint should require woman to be in effect, forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth.
You see this as a moral issue, I see it as a rights issue, there we disagree.

philologos · 13-01-2013 01:10PM

WileyCoyote wrote: »

And your view is informed by your particular moral values, which you are entitled to hold.
Others however, including myself, do not recognise a 12/14/16 week old feotus as a child and as a consequence seen no conflicting right oppossing the right of a woman to choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.
I fail to see why your moral viewpoint should require woman to be in effect, forced to go through pregnancy and childbirth.
You see this as a moral issue, I see it as a rights issue, there we disagree.

It's based on biological fact also. Namely that human life begins at conception.

I agree that there should be legislation sufficient to provide intervention in the case of risk to a mothers life as is being discussed.

I don't agree that pro-choice legislation should be passed at all.

For example - do you really think that people should be free to choose to abort a child just because it is female?

I see it as a rights issue too. There's just two sets of human rights, you're ignoring one.

Death and Taxes · 13-01-2013 01:42PM

philologos wrote: »

It's based on biological fact also. Namely that human life begins at conception.

I agree that there should be legislation sufficient to provide intervention in the case of risk to a mothers life as is being discussed.

I don't agree that pro-choice legislation should be passed at all.

For example - do you really think that people should be free to choose to abort a child just because it is female?

I see it as a rights issue too. There's just two sets of human rights, you're ignoring one.

With respect I am not ignoring one. A 12 week old foetus is incapable of independent life, it is not a child, it is a collection of cells with the capacity to develop into an independent life.
I have no issue with according some rights to a child in the womb , when it is a child capable of independent life outside the womb, which I think is about 24 weeks.
I do not believe that any woman, who is 10 weeks pregnant should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy through to birth.

crockholm · 13-01-2013 01:47PM

WileyCoyote wrote: »

With respect I am not ignoring one. A 12 week old foetus is incapable of independent life, it is not a child, it is a collection of cells with the capacity to develop into an independent life.
I have no issue with according some rights to a child in the womb , when it is a child capable of independent life outside the womb, which I think is about 24 weeks.
I do not believe that any woman, who is 10 weeks pregnant should be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy through to birth.

genuinely not being pedantic, but my 6 month old son is"incapable of independent life" and will be for some time, it really is an emotive issue that im scared to get into

Death and Taxes · 13-01-2013 01:55PM

crockholm wrote: »

genuinely not being pedantic, but my 6 month old son is"incapable of independent life" and will be for some time, it really is an emotive issue that im scared to get into

I don't think anybody should be afraid to contribute, I for one am will to undertake to show proper respect to the arguments of other posters.

the culture of deference · 13-01-2013 02:42PM

orestes wrote: »

You're the one who referred to an article in the media and came on here shouting about the the journalist who wrote it being a lunatic. So yes, like I said, it's just ranting, on both sides.

some of davids quotes

atheism has an exceedingly bloody history and that atheistic regimes have often tried to apply a ‘final solution’ to religion, in that they have tried to eliminate it from the world through violence once and for all.

the morning after pill is putting more pressure on women to have sex when they don’t really want to.

we don’t yet know in any definitive way what the effects of same-sex parenting are on children. Until we do, we shouldn’t even think about redefining marriage. In countries that have had same-sex marriage or civil partnerships for ten years or more, same-sex relationships are still more unstable than opposite-sex relationships.

single mothers were poor anyway, even before they became mothers? This is called the ‘selection effect’ meaning in this case that poorer women are more likely to ‘select’ themselves into single motherhood than better off women.

a referendum on same sex marriage would lose if the campaign is even remotely fair and balanced.

There is hard evidence that in Africa abstinence and fidelity programmes are effective in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

the Catholic Church today has arguably the most robust set of child-protection procedures in the country

Ghost Buster · 13-01-2013 04:18PM

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Take it to religion forum or conspiracy theory forum

Just apply this advice to all the other threads in AH and see whats left...:rolleyes:

Ghost Buster · 13-01-2013 04:21PM

Slightly OT but one Minister was quoted as asking the assembled Bishops how many women have risen to top positions within their institution.
Would love to have been there for that and to applaud lustily!!!

lazygal · 13-01-2013 04:56PM

philologos wrote: »

It's based on biological fact also. Namely that human life begins at conception.

I agree that there should be legislation sufficient to provide intervention in the case of risk to a mothers life as is being discussed.

I don't agree that pro-choice legislation should be passed at all.

For example - do you really think that people should be free to choose to abort a child just because it is female?

I see it as a rights issue too. There's just two sets of human rights, you're ignoring one.

Can I have one of your kidneys so I can maintain my right to life? If you say no, you're ignoring my right to life. Tell you what, when you get pregnant I'll tell you exactly what's OK for you to do with your body.

the culture of deference · 13-01-2013 05:03PM

philologos wrote: »

I disagree for obvious reasons. There's two set of rights to consider, not just one. That's common sense as I see it.

Italy allows abortion, I cannot see what your issue is.

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Slightly OT but one Minister was quoted as asking the assembled Bishops how many women have risen to top positions within their institution.
Would love to have been there for that and to applaud lustily!!!

Why would any woman support the rcc

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Take it to religion forum or conspiracy theory forum

If it bothers you that much then don't read the thread.

philologos wrote: »

It's based on biological fact also. Namely that human life begins at conception. .

What about the biological fact that half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage that are medically referred to as abortions. Does this mean your god allows for abortion anyway? How do you reconcile this

Methody · 13-01-2013 05:25PM

the culture of deference wrote: »

Italy allows abortion, I cannot see what your issue is.

Why would any woman support the rcc

If it bothers you that much then don't read the thread.

What about the biological fact that half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage that are medically referred to as abortions. Does this mean your god allows for abortion anyway? How do you reconcile this

You sound like you have a very big chip on your shoulder with regards the church.

Ghost Buster · 13-01-2013 05:26PM

the culture of deference wrote: »

Italy allows abortion, I cannot see what your issue is.

Why would any woman support the rcc

If it bothers you that much then don't read the thread.

What about the biological fact that half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage that are medically referred to as abortions. Does this mean your god allows for abortion anyway? How do you reconcile this

Oh ****ee.. Now youve asked for it. here comes the waffle

David Quinn spouting nonsense again. See Mod Warning post #249.

Comments