Keep abortion out of Ireland

qrrgprgua

1ZRed wrote: »

I thought Ireland was a secular state anyway? Shouldn't that mean that religious matters/beliefs have zero effect on the government's decision making?

Thank God that abortion in Ireland can't be put into law without the consent of the people.. Good old Irish Constitution.

Yes Church and State are separate. but the Question of abortion lies with the people, The same people who said they are 87% Catholic in the last census and the same people who twice rejected abortion in a Vote.


Strange how I saw Sinn Fein call for the vote on the nice treaty to be respected on the 1st referendum. Yet at 2 no votes on abortion they still want a 3 referendum on the issue.

Abortion is wrong, it was voted down twice.. VOX POPULI ...

Turtwig

1ZRed wrote: »

I'm very interested in the whole church vs abortion debate. You're fighting a losing battle, same as gay marriage it will all eventually be granted in due time.
I thought Ireland was a secular state anyway? Shouldn't that mean that religious matters/beliefs have zero effect on the government's decision making?
I think it should be granted. If you're religious, you don't have to do it. Just because we are a predominantly catholic country does not mean that the choices of people who have apposing believes should be taken away from them because the are in the 'minority'.
Even if abortion was granted, I don't think anyone would take the act any less seriously as some religious people fear. If anything the women who go abroad to get an abortion get no therapy or any sort of professional help so it would benefit them better if that was available here.

I think you misunderstand secularism here. There's nothing about secularism that states a religious person's beliefs can't have influence government policy. They can and often do. The thing is those beliefs must be communicated in a language that is common to all humans. So, while Christians believe human life begins at conception they cannot just state this is so because the bible says so. Ok, obviously in this forum they can do that, but in the public domain they'd have to use arguments that thread common ground with others religious and non religious alike.

Also, in the eyes of some, people granting abortion is the equivalent of condoning murder. I know that's not how you take it, or for that matter how I take it, but if human life begins at conception then any process with terminates that development after conception could be construed as murder. So, expecting a religious person to be ok with it because they don't have to do it isn't really understanding their position at all.

1ZRed

qrrgprgua wrote: »

1ZRed wrote: »

I thought Ireland was a secular state anyway? Shouldn't that mean that religious matters/beliefs have zero effect on the government's decision making?

Thank God that abortion in Ireland can't be put into law without the consent of the people.. Good old Irish Constitution.

Yes Church and State are separate. but the Question of abortion lies with the people, The same people who said they are 87% Catholic in the last census and the same people who twice rejected abortion in a Vote.


Strange how I saw Sinn Fein call for the vote on the nice treaty to be respected on the 1st referendum. Yet at 2 no votes on abortion they still want a 3 referendum on the issue.

Abortion is wrong, it was voted down twice.. VOX POPULI ...

The issue of abortion being 'wrong' is highly subjective. And I could argue those 87% (84% actually!) are not practising Catholics and that includes children, therefore that is an inaccurate figure.
Under 6 weeks, there is no brain development so it's basically a ball of cells.
Do you think that abortion will be still illegal here just because of religion. Atheism is growing rapidly and in your life time you'll see a lot of changes that contradict the churches teaching. Abortion is just one of the things that the church didn't want.
Religion is rapidly becoming redundant in first world countries. All the better IMO.

Turtwig

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Thank God that abortion in Ireland can't be put into law without the consent of the people.. Good old Irish Constitution.

Yes Church and State are separate. but the Question of abortion lies with the people, The same people who said they are 87% Catholic in the last census and the same people who twice rejected abortion in a Vote.


Strange how I saw Sinn Fein call for the vote on the nice treaty to be respected on the 1st referendum. Yet at 2 no votes on abortion they still want a 3 referendum on the issue.

Abortion is wrong, it was voted down twice.. VOX POPULI ...

I always find this majority mentality rather scary.

87% should have nothing to do with it. Either it's wrong or it's right. If 99% of the Irish people wanted disabled people killed that wouldn't make it right. Nor would if 99% of Irish people wanting abortion on demand available up to 1 year after childbirth. The numbers shouldn't count, either it is right, or it is wrong.

golden lane

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Respect for human life, from Conception to death, should be above religion.

Going home in the car listening to a women who went into a clinic in the UK saying she wanted an abortion because she was having a Girl instead of a Boy and being told "you want a termination then you want a termination"......

Abortion panders to the lowest elements of lack of humanity... are we such animals that we would kill our young.

I will be voting NO to abortion. Because its wrong, not because of Religion or faith. But because killing a child is wrong.

100%...percent agree.....

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Thank God that abortion in Ireland can't be put into law without the consent of the people.. Good old Irish Constitution.

Wrong, the Constitution already provides the right to an abortion in certain circumstances

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Yes Church and State are separate. but the Question of abortion lies with the people, The same people who said they are 87% Catholic in the last census and the same people who twice rejected abortion in a Vote.

What are you smoking? There were three amendments proposed in 1992:

1. Remove the right to an abortion that already exists in the Constitution: Defeated, meaning the right to an abortion remained
2. Insert the right to freedom of travel: Passed, meaning no-one could be prevented from travelling to obtain an abortion
3. Insert the right to distribute information about services legally available in another state: Passed, meaning no-one can be prevented from distributing information about abortion

There was one amendment proposed in 2002:

1. Remove the right to an abortion that already exists in the Constitution: Defeated, meaning the right to an abortion remained

There have been 4 votes on abortion issues in the state. On every single occasion, the anti-abortion lobby lost

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Strange how I saw Sinn Fein call for the vote on the nice treaty to be respected on the 1st referendum. Yet at 2 no votes on abortion they still want a 3 referendum on the issue.

Abortion is wrong, it was voted down twice.. VOX POPULI ...

So now that you actually have a bit of knowledge of the history of this issue, I take it you'll be protesting the Government's lack of action on implementing the legislation for the right that the people have twice voted for, given your oh-so-democratic stance?

qrrgprgua

28064212 wrote: »

Wrong, the Constitution already provides the right to an abortion in certain circumstances

So does the Catholic Faith. Except we don't call it abortion as that is intentionally targeting the Child, but if the life a Mother is at risk because of the pregnancy (ectopic) then the pregnancy is ended to save her life.

qrrgprgua

28064212 wrote: »

So now that you actually have a bit of knowledge of the history of this issue, I take it you'll be protesting the Government's lack of action on implementing the legislation for the right that the people have twice voted for, given your oh-so-democratic stance?

Its already enacted.... The problem is the "At risk" part... Are you saying that the 4000+ women who have an abortion in UK are at risk or that they just want the on demand solution to an inconvenient problem.

1ZRed

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So does the Catholic Faith. Except we don't call it abortion as that is intentionally targeting the Child, but if the life a Mother is at risk because of the pregnancy (ectopic) then the pregnancy is ended to save her life.

How does the church view other circumstances such as conception via rape, or is this the only exception?

gimmebroadband

1ZRed wrote: »

How does the church view other circumstances such as conception via rape, or is this the only exception?

No exceptions!

Here's a girl who was a virgin, and at age 16 was dragged into a van on the way home and was raped by 3 men. She didn't kill her baby.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1043041/I-raped-left-pregnant-16--I-love-baby.html

barfizz

hattoncracker wrote: »

I couldn't handle the people I love turning their backs on me.

If they turn their backs on you, then they never really loved you.

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

So does the Catholic Faith. Except we don't call it abortion as that is intentionally targeting the Child, but if the life a Mother is at risk because of the pregnancy (ectopic) then the pregnancy is ended to save her life.

Fortunately, the Catholic faith's position has no relevance to state law

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Its already enacted....

Wrong again. Can a woman who is suicidal get an abortion here? You know, the circumstances that your VOX POPULI twice voted for the right to an abortion in. No, there is no legislation allowing for it. Any doctor providing one would be guilty of an offence (under a law which is unconstitutional, but I can't see any doctor rushing to provide one only to be dragged to court)

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Are you saying that the 4000+ women who have an abortion in UK are at risk or that they just want the on demand solution to an inconvenient problem.

Where did I mention anything remotely relating to that?

Are you just going to ignore the fact that the anti-abortion lobby has lost every referendum, despite your bizarre claims to the contrary, and your criticism of Sinn Féin for "not listening"?

qrrgprgua

1ZRed wrote: »

How does the church view other circumstances such as conception via rape, or is this the only exception?

If the life of the Mother is at Risk... i.e. if the mother will not survive the pregnancy.. then she has to be helped. In Ireland the morning after pill is available without prescription. Rape crisis clinics are available and 24hour phone care is available.

X cases are rare. But the bottom principles are the same, If the mothers life is at risk and this has to be determined by professionals.. the same why that they determine an ectopic pregnancy is a risk.

The 4000+ women going to the UK are not x-cases.. they are young women who have an unwanted pregnancy who were not raped and older women who are carrying disabled children they don't want to bring to term.

1ZRed

gimmebroadband wrote: »

No exceptions!

Here's a girl who was a virgin, and at age 16 was dragged into a van on the way home and was raped by 3 men. She didn't kill her baby.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1043041/I-raped-left-pregnant-16--I-love-baby.html

That's disgusting. The church like to think that they are doing the moral thing by not permitting abortion but they indirectly punish girls in these kind of situations:mad: It makes no sense at all.

Corkfeen

gimmebroadband wrote: »

No exceptions!

Here's a girl who was a virgin, and at age 16 was dragged into a van on the way home and was raped by 3 men. She didn't kill her baby.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1043041/I-raped-left-pregnant-16--I-love-baby.html

What an awful point. Some people who were raped believe they're capable of carrying their rapist's offspring for nine months and possibly even raising it. However this does not apply to every bloody rape victim, some may be pushed to suicide if they are forced to go ahead with the pregnancy. It isn't the same for every rape victim and if you had any sense, you'd realise that.

qrrgprgua

1ZRed wrote: »

That's disgusting. The church like to think that they are doing the moral thing by not permitting abortion but they indirectly punish girls in these kind of situations:mad: It makes no sense at all.

The poster is just showing the objective value of an innocent life. If a women who was raped and so traumatised did not search for help and resulted pregnant turned up at 7 months saying she wanted an abortion..? Might it not be better to help the women carry the child to term and give up to adoption?

Catholic faith holds that all life is sacred from conception. Circumstances of how a person was conceived does not determine their value or their lack of value.. All people are equal from conception.

1ZRed

qrrgprgua wrote: »

The poster is just showing the objective value of an innocent life. If a women who was raped and so traumatised did not search for help and resulted pregnant turned up at 7 months saying she wanted an abortion..? Might it not be better to help the women carry the child to term and give up to adoption?

Catholic faith holds that all life is sacred from conception. Circumstances of how a person was conceived does not determine their value or their lack of value.. All people are equal from conception.

Stop going to extremes to justify your argument because I am not talking about getting an abortion that far along.
If a girl was raped and discovered she was pregnant I am sure she would seek to terminate it as soon as possible. I believe in abortion up until the second month, maybe the third.
That scenario you have just described actually could happen in this country for the simple fact that abortion is not available here. Hypothetically, if she didn't have to wait to terminate her pregnancy she wouldn't be waiting until she was a few months pregnant before ending it.
And what if this girl were to keep the child, not out of choice but by the fact that other options were not available and so she harbored resentment toward the child? This has been known to happen, so two lives could be ruined just for the sake of religious ethics.

qrrgprgua

1ZRed wrote: »

Stop going to extremes to justify your argument because I am not talking about getting an abortion that far along.
If a girl was raped and discovered she was pregnant I am sure she would seek to terminate it as soon as possible. I believe in abortion up until the second month, maybe the third.
That scenario you have just described actually could happen in this country for the simple fact that abortion is not available here. Hypothetically, if she didn't have to wait to terminate her pregnancy she wouldn't be waiting until she was a few months pregnant before ending it.
And what if this girl were to keep the child, not out of choice but by the fact that other options were not available and so she harbored resentment toward the child? This has been known to happen, so two lives could be ruined just for the sake of religious ethics.

you are amusing a lot. If a girl is raped there is morning after pill that can be bought over the counter. And Rape clinics will give it free.

Why to you assume that women would abort? Each women is different and will confront the situation differently.

I take it from your post that you would jump to abort after rape? Some women make see this as murdering an innocent life... However terrible the rape was.. Murdering the child is not going resolve much.

Turtwig

qrrgprgua wrote: »

you are amusing a lot. If a girl is raped there is morning after pill that can be bought over the counter. And Rape clinics will give it free.

Why to you assume that women would abort? Each women is different and will confront the situation differently.

I take it from your post that you would jump to abort after rape? Some women make see this as murdering an innocent life... However terrible the rape was.. Murdering the child is not going resolve much.

Hang on! You don't consider the morning after pill an abortifacient? So, when after conception do you disagree with the termination of the process of development?

1ZRed

qrrgprgua wrote: »

1ZRed wrote: »

Stop going to extremes to justify your argument because I am not talking about getting an abortion that far along.
If a girl was raped and discovered she was pregnant I am sure she would seek to terminate it as soon as possible. I believe in abortion up until the second month, maybe the third.
That scenario you have just described actually could happen in this country for the simple fact that abortion is not available here. Hypothetically, if she didn't have to wait to terminate her pregnancy she wouldn't be waiting until she was a few months pregnant before ending it.
And what if this girl were to keep the child, not out of choice but by the fact that other options were not available and so she harbored resentment toward the child? This has been known to happen, so two lives could be ruined just for the sake of religious ethics.

you are amusing a lot. If a girl is raped there is morning after pill that can be bought over the counter. And Rape clinics will give it free.

Why to you assume that women would abort? Each women is different and will confront the situation differently.

I take it from your post that you would jump to abort after rape? Some women make see this as murdering an innocent life... However terrible the rape was.. Murdering the child is not going resolve much.

The morning after pill only works accurately within 3 days is it? Under certain conditions a girl who was raped might not have gotten it in time.
I'm also not saying that all girls would abort, I'm saying that at least under these circumstances abortion should be granted.

And how can you be in favour of the morning after pill and not abortion? Both do the same thing, 'murder a child' as you say.
If you said life starts at conception, yet you are fine with the morning after pill then you're not seeing the fault in your argument.

"I take it from your post that you would jump to abort after rape?"
I'm a guy so raped or not, it would be fairly hard for me to get pregnant.

qrrgprgua

Jernal wrote: »

Hang on! You don't consider the morning after pill an abortifacient? So, when after conception do you disagree with the termination of the process of development?

I do consider the morning after pill as an abortifacient. But if you are raped and you see medical help you are not going to know within the first hours if you have conceived or not. Since it can take a couple of hours to conceive then its probably best to take the pill.

Depends on the woman's state of mind. If she asks for it.. Then it should be given.

Corkfeen

qrrgprgua wrote: »

I do consider the morning after pill as an abortifacient. But if you are raped and you see medical help you are not going to know within the first hours if you have conceived or not. Since it can take a couple of hours to conceive then its probably best to take the pill.

Depends on the woman's state of mind. If she asks for it.. Then it should be given.

Not every rape victim reports their rape immediately. It's well documented on how difficult it is for many rape victims to come forward in the first place.

28064212

qrrgprgua wrote: »

I do consider the morning after pill as an abortifacient. But if you are raped and you see medical help you are not going to know within the first hours if you have conceived or not. Since it can take a couple of hours to conceive then its probably best to take the pill.

Depends on the woman's state of mind. If she asks for it.. Then it should be given.

So abortion is okay in certain circumstances? What's your basis for your cut-off point on when it's not ok?

hattoncracker

barfizz wrote: »

hattoncracker wrote: »

I couldn't handle the people I love turning their backs on me.

If they turn their backs on you, then they never really loved you.

Bullcrap...


See the problem is, people comment on abortion never really think that there may be people in the room that have been there, and done that....

I know what my family's opinion on it is. I just selfishly don't want to lose them all.. I know if I told them, they may eventually accept it but that's a chance I am not prepared to take.

JimiTime

Just revisiting a discussion from earlier in the thread about mistakes being made in diagnosis etc. I have VERY recently witnessed such a misdiagnosis. A couple I know were informed that their baby would most likely be down syndrome. They were heartbroken with the news. 2 weeks ago, a beautiful baby boy was born into the world. The only issue was a very treatable 'club foot'.

1ZRed

JimiTime wrote: »

Just revisiting a discussion from earlier in the thread about mistakes being made in diagnosis etc. I have VERY recently witnessed such a misdiagnosis. A couple I know were informed that their baby would most likely be down syndrome. They were heartbroken with the news. 2 weeks ago, a beautiful baby boy was born into the world. The only issue was a very treatable 'club foot'.

A misdiagnosis is an awful and unacceptable thing to happen but with technology getting better at such a break neck speed I'd argue that in 30 years, things like that will be a thing of the past.
I hope I'm completely wrong but how certain are they that their boy is completely capable at such an early stage? My aunt's friend had a little girl who appeared normal and healthy until she was diagnosed with her condition(can't think of it now but it's similar to down syndrome).
I think you make a valid point but that won't hold up in future when medicine progresses even further and these misdiagnosis figures drop from being very low to near non existent.

doctoremma

JimiTime wrote: »

Just revisiting a discussion from earlier in the thread about mistakes being made in diagnosis etc. I have VERY recently witnessed such a misdiagnosis. A couple I know were informed that their baby would most likely be down syndrome. They were heartbroken with the news. 2 weeks ago, a beautiful baby boy was born into the world. The only issue was a very treatable 'club foot'.

Congrats to the parents! But how does the situation constitute a 'misdiagnosis'?

Brer Fox

doctoremma wrote: »

Congrats to the parents! But how does the situation constitute a 'misdiagnosis'?

Club foot, down syndrome. Bit of a difference, which is not to say that either would be grounds for killing the child before it is born.

doctoremma

Brer Fox wrote: »

Club foot, down syndrome. Bit of a difference, which is not to say that either would be grounds for killing the child before it is born.

The parents were given a probability. That's not a definitive diagnosis.

christmas2012

personally i dont think ireland is ready for abortion,i dont think it is a good idea to have it so available either,but having said that im not totally against it either..and think it should be available in certain circumstances also

Brer Fox

doctoremma wrote: »

The parents were given a probability. That's not a definitive diagnosis.

Probability my arse. A doctor's probability is as good as mine, and me an ignorant man, given the same information.

Anyhow, none of that is grounds for killing off any poor child before it's born.

barfizz

hattoncracker wrote: »

Bullcrap...


See the problem is, people comment on abortion never really think that there may be people in the room that have been there, and done that....

I know what my family's opinion on it is. I just selfishly don't want to lose them all.. I know if I told them, they may eventually accept it but that's a chance I am not prepared to take.

Why do you have to tell them, isn't it a private decision that you can keep to yourself, if you wish?

deathbot

Well, abortion. Lets see. The demonic parody of the Eucharist, that is where she says 'This is my body', an upside down version of what Christ and indeed what Mary said, in submission to Gods will. Lets make womankind (eve) into sluts, and undo what Mary did. It's a mockery of the Eucharist, Gods plan for salvation. Mockery, Something Satan likes to do.

I suppose to prepare the way for anti-Christs, you need to create anti-mothers first, that is feminism. Haven't they done a good job. Women who hate their womb because they want to be as selfish, randy and irresponsible as the men who use and abuse them. Liberation?

But lets look at it from another angle. If sex is the God of today's society, that is, what people turn to for comfort, and 'happiness'. Then like any God it requires a sacrifice, because we're imperfect. well, you know where this is going.. Child sacrifice. Nothing new, it's been going on for thousands of years, and continues to do so.

Once the motor (the sexual revolution) is still running, then sex will continue to be the God of the pagan world. There is no point making abortion illegal when even women hate motherhood, and don't want to raise children. You'll end up finding lots of kids in dumpsters, lets be smarter than that and tackle the root of the problem - the dictatorship of Sex.

Like any heresy which the church has faced, God always provides, and did provide an answer. It's called the Theology of the body. Anyway, it's hearts that need to change not laws. Changes in law come second.

Btw, nobody had any problem accepting that life starts at conception pre- 1973. Funny how this was only challenged when they wanted to kill them. History also shows, when you want to harm another group of people (usually defenseless) you re-label them. That's what the nazis did, that's what the American slave owners did. Black slaves were property, not people. Babies are fetus's etc.

Pro-choice, what a nice term. Like an angel of light. Harmless. Of course if people were intellectually honest, it would be pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Stings, right?

God help us all.

fedor.2.

deathbot wrote: »

Well, abortion. Lets see. The demonic parody of the Eucharist, that is where she says 'This is my body', an upside down version of what Christ and indeed what Mary said, in submission to Gods will. Lets make womankind (eve) into sluts, and undo what Mary did. It's a mockery of the Eucharist, Gods plan for salvation. Mockery, Something Satan likes to do.

I suppose to prepare the way for anti-Christs, you need to create anti-mothers first, that is feminism. Haven't they done a good job. Women who hate their womb because they want to be as selfish, randy and irresponsible as the men who use and abuse them. Liberation?

But lets look at it from another angle. If sex is the God of today's society, that is, what people turn to for comfort, and 'happiness'. Then like any God it requires a sacrifice, because we're imperfect. well, you know where this is going.. Child sacrifice. Nothing new, it's been going on for thousands of years, and continues to do so.

Once the motor (the sexual revolution) is still running, then sex will continue to be the God of the pagan world. There is no point making abortion illegal when even women hate motherhood, and don't want to raise children. You'll end up finding lots of kids in dumpsters, lets be smarter than that and tackle the root of the problem - the dictatorship of Sex.

Like any heresy which the church has faced, God always provides, and did provide an answer. It's called the Theology of the body. Anyway, it's hearts that need to change not laws. Changes in law come second.

Btw, nobody had any problem accepting that life starts at conception pre- 1973. Funny how this was only challenged when they wanted to kill them. History also shows, when you want to harm another group of people (usually defenseless) you re-label them. That's what the nazis did, that's what the American slave owners did. Black slaves were property, not people. Babies are fetus's etc.

Pro-choice, what a nice term. Like an angel of light. Harmless. Of course if people were intellectually honest, it would be pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Stings, right?

God help us all.

Thank god for condoms. You views are clearly insane by the way, i hope you realise that. If there ever is a second coming, id imagine that people like you will have a lot of explaining to do. Religion would be great if it wasnt for man

deathbot

fedor.2. wrote: »

Thank god for condoms. You views are clearly insane by the way, i hope you realise that. If there ever is a second coming, id imagine that people like you will have a lot of explaining to do. Religion would be great if it wasnt for man

You need to explain why these obvious connections are 'insane'? Are you denying the clear connection between people wanting sex without babies and abortion? Are you denying historical fact that pre-1973 no text book in America had any problems with life starting at conception? Are you denying how any group of people in history was relabelled so they could be murdered much easier, like the Jews for example?

Or maybe the attack on your sex religion is too much for you to take. In that case, leave the Christianity forums. Sex without God is sex without love, sex without love is just another idol, which causes millions of child sacrifices of Gods beloved children, every year. If you cannot see the clear damage that the sexual revolution has done to society, then you're not living in reality. You're insane.

Btw, divorce another rotten fruit of the sexual revolution, is suicide, and suicide is murder. The murder of the one flesh created at marraige. But it's tolerated because, it's all about sex. Thank God the Catholic church is the only institution in the world to still say no to divorce. Imagine a society where 50% of the population commited suicide, well that's us.

Turtwig

What is this I don't even. . .

doctoremma

deathbot wrote: »

Are you denying the clear connection between people wanting sex without babies and abortion? Are you denying historical fact that pre-1973 no text book in America had any problems with life starting at conception?

Women have always wanted abortions, from the first recorded instance in 1500 BC. Hardly fair to blame it all on a recent sexual revolution.

deathbot wrote: »

Sex without God is sex without love

I have sex without god all the time. Although I do sometimes take his name in vain. I definitely love the person I'm doing it with.

deathbot wrote: »

Btw, divorce another rotten fruit of the sexual revolution, is suicide, and suicide is murder. The murder of the one flesh created at marraige. But it's tolerated because, it's all about sex.

No. For most of us, it's tolerated because we recognise that people have the right to remove themself from a partner who beats them up, or a partner who drinks too much, or a partner who cheats, or so forth. Condemning those who divorce under sometimes tragic circumstances is dreadful. Equating it to murder will likely get you punched in the face, in some cases.

deathbot wrote: »

Thank God the Catholic church is the only institution in the world to still say no to divorce. Imagine a society where 50% of the population commited suicide, well that's us.

Yes. Thank god that my grandparents disowned a family member for divorcing a physically violent husband. Thank god that the family member's new relationship, one that has thus far lasted 30-odd years, has never been recognised by a swathe of them. Thank god indeed.

Sarky

deathbot wrote: »

Mockery, Something Satan likes to do.

God seemed pretty ok with it too when Elijah was ripping the piss out of those priests of Baal. Oh, but I bet that's one of the metaphorical passages.

MrPudding

I love catholics like you. Your despicable opinions beliefs do more damage to your church than any atheist could. In fact, are you an undercover member of the Atheit underground alliance (TM) / Masons / NWG trying to damage the church from within?

deathbot wrote: »

You need to explain why these obvious connections are 'insane'? Are you denying the clear connection between people wanting sex without babies and abortion? Are you denying historical fact that pre-1973 no text book in America had any problems with life starting at conception?

As Emma has said, abortion has been around a lot longer than since the 70s. There are records of abortions from 500BC and folklore of abortions happening around 3000 BC. In the 18th and 19th century christian churches allowed abortion.

deathbot wrote: »

Are you denying how any group of people in history was relabelled so they could be murdered much easier, like the Jews for example?

What does this even mean?

deathbot wrote: »

Or maybe the attack on your sex religion is too much for you to take. In that case, leave the Christianity forums.

Sex religion? Really?

deathbot wrote: »

Sex without God is sex without love, sex without love is just another idol,

Hmmm, it has been a while since we have had the old, you can't know love without god / there is a hole in you that can only be filled by god. This may be how you feel, but not everyone will have the same inadequacies as you. My life is filled with love and I have a very healthy sex life for which I don't feel in the slightest bit guilty. Nor do I feel in anyway guilty for having sex and four children without being married.

deathbot wrote: »

which causes millions of child sacrifices of Gods beloved children, every year.

Is this where we should mention the even greater number of child sacrifices that happen every year due to spontaneous abortion? Surely his children can't be that beloved if between 50 & 70% of them abort in the first trimester, many without the women even knowing they are pregnant. Yes, clearly his beloved children.

deathbot wrote: »

If you cannot see the clear damage that the sexual revolution has done to society, then you're not living in reality. You're insane.

I think someone on this thread might be insane, but it ain't fedor.2.

deathbot wrote: »

Btw, divorce another rotten fruit of the sexual revolution, is suicide, and suicide is murder.

Could we have a little clarification here please. How is divorce suicide and how is suicide murder. I would really appreciate a little bit of detail around your thinking there.

deathbot wrote: »

The murder of the one flesh created at marraige. But it's tolerated because, it's all about sex.

No. it is tolerated, even by some in your church, because society has realised that it is wrong to force two people who should not be together to stay together.

My mother, who is a catholic, divorced her husband who was unfaithful and beat her on a regular basis. She was very concerned about not being able to go to mass. The parish priest told her not to be worried and to keep attending, and receiving communion, as normal. Now, clearly you will take issue with that, and that is what I love about your kind of catholic. The priest was a decent human being and realised that the kind thing to do was to let my mother continue as normal. When this story people generally react by saying how good the priest was. Your reaction, on the other hand, will turn people from the church, and that is why I love people like you.

deathbot wrote: »

Thank God the Catholic church is the only institution in the world to still say no to divorce.

They say no in theory, but don't care in practise.

deathbot wrote: »

Imagine a society where 50% of the population commited suicide, well that's us.

Imagine a society where a woman was forced to stay with a man that physically and mentally abused her?

MrP

qrrgprgua

Some friends sent me a link... it seems that sadly the women was forced to have an abortion..

What is deeply sad is to see that having a 2nd Child in China is all about money.. If you can pay the 4000+ euros fine you can have as many as you like.

So its all about breeding an upper class.. and to hell with the poor..

and sadly with the wests dependence on china's manufacturing we are supporting indirectly its State.

http://shanghaiist.com/2012/06/14/forced-late-term-abortion-shaanxi.php

Delirium

I just wondering what relevance the linked story has with regards to the discussion of abortion and Ireland?

Atomicjuicer

Abortion is murder.

qrrgprgua

koth wrote: »

I just wondering what relevance the linked story has with regards to the discussion of abortion and Ireland?

Because you sit on the "pro choice" fence you don't like the ugly truth of where the road to abortion could lead?

Its relevant because we still protect the rights of the unborn from conception and its important we never loose this important human right.

Ireland is looking to have China's Trading hub located in Athlone,, are we comfortable getting into bed with a Nation which forces women to abort? The link i provided is not the first time its happened. Many human rights activists have spoken about this..... Having Children in China is about money and power.. the Rich prosper while the poor are oppressed and their children murdered.

Delirium

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Because you sit on the "pro choice" fence you don't like the ugly truth of where the road to abortion could lead?

The term pro-choice is a clue to where I sit, it's about choice. I'm totally opposed to forced abortions, and it only hurts your argument if you're suggesting that the Irish government will impose mandatory abortions.

Its relevant because we still protect the rights of the unborn from conception and its important we never loose this important human right.

but it's not relevant because no-one is suggesting imposing mandatory abortions.

Ireland is looking to have China's Trading hub located in Athlone,, are we comfortable getting into bed with a Nation which forces women to abort? The link i provided is not the first time its happened. Many human rights activists have spoken about this..... Having Children in China is about money and power.. the Rich prosper while the poor are oppressed and their children murdered.

That's a subject for a different thread, this is a thread discussing Ireland and abortion.

Sonics2k

qrrgprgua wrote: »

Because you sit on the "pro choice" fence you don't like the ugly truth of where the road to abortion could lead?

Its relevant because we still protect the rights of the unborn from conception and its important we never loose this important human right.

It's completely irrelevant. I'm Pro-Choice, but I'm not Pro Forced.

You may as well have tried claiming that when divorce was brought in that all couples would be forced into it, or everyone would be forced into gay marriage.

What the Chinese state did is sick, but that's down to a fascist totalitarian state that has no love for it's citizens.

Your point is irrelevant.

Bannasidhe

I assume that all of those who are anti-abortion are worknig tirelessly to ensure that every single child in this country is properly cared for, is warm, well fed, has never suffered either physical or mental abuse, is availing of a good education and is above all loved and cherished.

Or does your interest in what happens to a foetus end the moment they are born and become an actual child?

Bannasidhe

deathbot wrote: »

Btw, divorce another rotten fruit of the sexual revolution, is suicide, and suicide is murder. The murder of the one flesh created at marraige. But it's tolerated because, it's all about sex. Thank God the Catholic church is the only institution in the world to still say no to divorce. Imagine a society where 50% of the population commited suicide, well that's us.

Really? Why did the Catholic Church have no problem annulling my aunt's marriage in 1976 due to her husband's abuse and my sister's marriage in 1981 as her husband had deserted her after he said he didn't want children .
In effect the RCC had stated as far as they were concerned both of these marriages were null and void - is that not the same as granting them the equivalent of a church divorce?

Both my Aunt and Sister later got civil divorces in the UK for marriages the RCC already considered were invalid.

Historically, Rome had no problem annulling marriages - if it was politically expedient - indeed one of the reasons Henry VIII was annoyed at Rome's refusal to annul his marriage to Catherine of Aragon was the fact that Rome had previously annulled the marriage of Henry's elder sister Margaret to James IV of Scotland. Margaret re-married with the blessings of Rome.

PDN

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I assume that all of those who are anti-abortion are worknig tirelessly to ensure that every single child in this country is properly cared for, is warm, well fed, has never suffered either physical or mental abuse, is availing of a good education and is above all loved and cherished.

Or does your interest in what happens to a foetus end the moment they are born and become an actual child?

What a pointless and badly thought question.

So, if I am against murdering Jews, does that mean I have to work tirelessly to ensure that every Jew has a happy life and never suffers in any shape or form?

Come on, think before you post.

Bannasidhe

PDN wrote: »

What a pointless and badly thought question.

So, if I am against murdering Jews, does that mean I have to work tirelessly to ensure that every Jew has a happy life and never suffers in any shape or form?

Come on, think before you post.

Both a strawman argument response and a thinly veiled insult.

If one is against the murdering of Jews - then working to combat anti-Semitism and fascism would be an obvious course of action.

It is not in the slightest a badly thought out post. I see newspaper headlines which tell of children in Ireland who are going to bed hungry. According to a recent front page story in the Examiner 3000 children have witnessed their mother's being raped, threatened or abused in Ireland.
.

These children are here NOW. They are suffering NOW.

What exactly are those who sing from the every life is sacred hymn book doing to protect those who need protection NOW?

It's all very well and good championing the unborn but unless one is prepared to devote as much time and energy to the already born is strikes me as empty rhetoric.

StudentDad

The sooner religion is taken out of public life in Ireland the better. Abortion is a private matter. It should available in Ireland as should all other medical procedures. The fact that anyone would impose their beliefs on another human being is abhorrent. If a woman decides to have an abortion to my mind the only other person who deserves to be consulted is the father. Nobody else.

SD