nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Lolek Ltd, Trading as 'The Iona Institute'

lazygal

Does anyone know anything about this organisation? Where it is funded from and by whom? Who runs it? Why it gets such a platform? I've been digging around a bit but its very difficult to find out anything about it.

I'm also mystified as to why David Quinn appears so often representing a relatively new body which seems to be largly self-appointed and why he is allowed such a platform.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Dades

Also, the gheys can have children this way.

Sarky

Bible seems pretty ok with it actually. Maybe I'm not reading this story about girls drugging and shagging their dad so they can have his children because his wife can't with an open heart?

Genesis 19:32-36 wrote:

Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night: and the firstborn went in, and lay with her father; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Behold, I lay yesternight with my father: let us make him drink wine this night also; and go thou in, and lie with him, that we may preserve seed of our father. And they made their father drink wine that night also: and the younger arose, and lay with him; and he perceived not when she lay down, nor when she arose. Thus were both the daughters of Lot with child by their father.

oldrnwisr

Sarky wrote: »

Bible seems pretty ok with it actually. Maybe I'm not reading this story about girls drugging and shagging their dad so they can have his children because his wife can't with an open heart?

She might have had a more open heart if he hadn't offered up his daughters to be gang-raped.

"Lot went outside to meet them and shut the door behind him and said, “No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof.”

Genesis 19:6-8

PopePalpatine

But that's out of context.[/philo]

Knasher

oldrnwisr wrote: »

She might have had a more open heart if he hadn't offered up his daughters to be gang-raped.

And remember, the angels were only in Lots house because he was the only righteous man worth saving in Sodom. Makes you wonder what the rest of the town was into, that the one who suggests gang raping his own daughters is considered the most righteous of them. Luckily for the girls, the men turned them down because they felt that Lot was being a bit judgmental of them.

Sarky wrote: »

Maybe I'm not reading this story about girls drugging and shagging their dad so they can have his children because his wife can't with an open heart?

Lots wife had just been turned into a pillar of salt because she looked back when the angels were killing everyone in Sodom. You try being in the mood when you've been turned into salt.

Nodin

Newaglish wrote: »

I don't have a link as I'm on my phone but I saw today that following the landmark surrogacy ruling today (biological mother is the legal parent rather than the woman who gives birth), the Iona Institute has called for a legal ban on surrogacy. I didn't think they could surprise me any more!

Make of it what ye will....

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=2810

Flier

Presumably they'll be against adoption as well so.

"It forces us to ask whether the ‘true’ mother is the birth (or surrogate) mother, the genetic mother, or if the woman who raises the child is different from the genetic mother, the ‘social mother’?"

So what do we do with all those unwanted babies that women are forced to have because they can't have abortions?

A true moral dilemma.

robindch

And Mr Quinn -- any relation to the equally useful Quinns of Cavan? -- has found time in his busy schedule to write a paper too. Haven't bothered reading it as I don't want to get a headache.

http://ionainstitute.org/assets/files/Surrogacy%20final%20PDF.pdf

Sarky

Oh no, give it a read. In the opening paragraph he starts off with how unfair surrogacy is because it treats women as incubators. I fully expect every pro-choice argument to show up without a trace of irony.

NuMarvel

Nodin wrote: »

Make of it what ye will....

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/index.php?id=2810

I question the amount of research put into the press release when it states that today's decision was correct for the sake of the child (singular), whereas the case involved twins...

ShooterSF

Sarky wrote: »

Bible seems pretty ok with it actually. Maybe I'm not reading this story about girls drugging and shagging their dad so they can have his children because his wife can't with an open heart?

Great series on youtube deals with Lot pretty well

Delirium

And what about a couple that use a sperm donor because the husband/boyfriend is sterile? Is the sperm donor the father? Are mothers and fathers no more than source of the genetic material?

Life is difficult and complex, the answer isn't to ban something because you can't/won't think a scenario through.

I don't see why this is any more problematic than a couple separating and one of them raising the kid with their new partner. What am I missing?

Nodin

koth wrote: »

And what about a couple that use a sperm donor because the husband/boyfriend is sterile? Is the sperm donor the father? Are mothers and fathers no more than source of the genetic material?

Life is difficult and complex, the answer isn't to ban something because you can't/won't think a scenario through.

I don't see why this is any more problematic than a couple separating and one of them raising the kid with their new partner. What am I missing?

Hmmmm - That kind of thinking is Banned. Also "Someone Think Of The Children!!!!!"

Bobby42

What exactly is the iona institute's gripe with surrogacy? Do they want to keep all the tinnneeee babbbbbieeees to themselves?

Do they think that if you can't have children naturally yourself then tough, you don't get to have kids?

5uspect

Why are these clowns on RTE yet again?

Hotblack Desiato

koth wrote: »

And what about a couple that use a sperm donor because the husband/boyfriend is sterile? Is the sperm donor the father?

Doesn't matter, because in Ireland unmarried fathers have no rights anyway.

Bannasidhe

ninja900 wrote: »

Doesn't matter, because in Ireland unmarried fathers have no rights anyway.

This is sadly true.

Ironically it is the result of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 which, by making 'illegitimate' children the sole responsibility of the mother allowed fathers to abdicate all responsibility.

Yet another unjust piece of legislation on our statute books.

DazMarz

Why anyone listens to the Iona Institute or the Youth Defence mob any more is beyond me. They would have been right at home in the Third Reich and hopefully they would have sucked on the end of a pistol along with Der Fuhrer.

They should be classed as a hate group and made wear it with distinction that they are racist, misogynist, homophobic, narrow-minded, right-wing Fascists who have no place in the modern world.

recedite

robindch wrote: »

And Mr Quinn -- any relation to the equally useful Quinns of Cavan? -- has found time in his busy schedule to write a paper too. http://ionainstitute.org/assets/files/Surrogacy%20final%20PDF.pdf

That is rambling nonsense with no valid points being made, but his rationale for this bizarre stance was previously made in the indo;

Some believe that the potential for confusing a child's identity is too great.
Writing in this newspaper, columnist David Quinn, who heads Catholic think-tank the Iona Institute, called for surrogacy to be banned: "No child should ever have to wonder who is my 'real' mother, my birth mother or genetic mother, as a result of the deliberate design of adults.

I personally know several people who were variously adopted/ fostered/ or reared by their granny, all of whom saw their birth mother at least occasionally, and they had no identity problems. I suppose because they had stability in their childhood. And apparently it used to be very common in previous generations for young kids to be sent to live permanently with cousins or aunts, and sometimes babies were "donated" to childless relatives. A lot of this was of course the result of not having either contraception or fertility treatment available to the population. It does seem bizarre for Quinn to argue on the basis that this leads to psychological damage of the child, and then say he is anti-contraception and pro-adoption.

Doctor Strange

5uspect wrote: »

Why are these clowns on RTE yet again?

Because apparently RTÉ has a liberal bias, and since it's run by a bunch of cowing clowns, they give these ****ing lunatics more airtime. :rolleyes: x∞

kylith

Bannasidhe wrote: »

This is sadly true.

Ironically it is the result of the Guardianship of Infants Act 1964 which, by making 'illegitimate' children the sole responsibility of the mother allowed fathers to abdicate all responsibility.

Yet another unjust piece of legislation on our statute books.

Sure, those shameless hoors brought it on themselves with their wanton ways, getting the poor, blameless youngfellas all hot and bothered till they lose the run of themselves.

PopePalpatine

5uspect wrote: »

Why are these clowns on RTE yet again?

That gob****e again! Is he never off the air?!

Turtwig

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That gob****e again! Is he never off the air?!

Seemingly no. I'd love if we could make this a meme.
Everytime Quinn or one of his company appears Father Jack appears :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Yt2CGvcgu8

5uspect

It was that other gob****e, Maria Steen this time.

eviltwin

I saw the Iona lady on Prime Time last night looking like a Stepford Wife with her twinset and pearls. Her saccharin tinged speech about the bond of a mother and baby made me want to puke. I was waiting for violins to kick in.

She's very lucky she can have her own children without intervention- she mentioned she was pregnant - but I wonder does she spare a thought for those couples who can't. Its easy to take your fertility for granted when you have no problem conceiving. I've seen first hand with my family the impact infertility has and its heartbreaking. Then you see the joy of a couple when they finally have a family and you wonder how can people like Iona think its a bad thing??

Newaglish

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.

kylith

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.

It could be HolyMaryMotherOfGod.

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.

eviltwin

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.

In some cases you have an egg donor, surrogate and the woman who will be the mother. A bit like that case in England.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2286873/How-THREE-sisters-oodles-love-combined-make-modern-baby.html

But when I look at that story I don't see anything to be feared or concerned about, just a really wonderful story with a lovely outcome.

Stark

The genetic mother, the surrogate and the wicked witch who snatches the child away.

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.)