Government TD blames 'fornication' for unwanted pregnancies

I Heart Internet

robp wrote: »

From a medical perspective, women don't need to leave the country for an abortion.

That's a grey area to be fair to all sides.

robp wrote: »

Medical abortions are abortion where medication is used end the pregnancy.

I know that - I used the phrase "abortions for medical reasons".

robp wrote: »

This debate isn't about this.

Thanks. I know.

Ghost Buster

I Heart Internet wrote: »

A teenager shot in the back in Syria isn't my baby or body either. That doesn't mean I can't object to it.

Do you object to, for example, a maried woman being told that the child she is carrying is 'incompatable with life' and has zero chance of living outside the womb but must either bring her problem to another country because her own govt is spineless and irresponsible or carry the child full term in the self same country?

unfortunately

mconigol wrote: »

Don't forget immaculate conception.

That happens. God is a fecker for it. Going around having babies and then not even being around to raise the child. Scandalous :mad:

Just so you know, the Immaculate Conception was Mary's conception, i.e. when Mary's Da jizzed into Mary's Ma it was "cleansed" of original sin - so that when a few decades later when the Holy Spirit magicked a baby up inside Mary, Jesus wouldn't inherit Adam's sin for eating the apple that God said he should't have by being tricked by a talking snake thus causing God to bring pain and suffering into the world to punish Adam's billion's of unborn descendants.

foxyboxer

If you put down, Jedi as your religion in the census form, you could blame the midichlorians, the force or a hairy lightsabre for an unwanted pregnancy

I Heart Internet

Ghost Buster wrote: »

Do you object to, for example, a maried woman being told that the child she is carrying is 'incompatable with life' and has zero chance of living outside the womb but must either bring her problem to another country because her own govt is spineless and irresponsible or carry the child full term in the self same country?

Yeah. I'd like to see some legislation to clear up this very specific issue which causes enormous pain to parents.

The unfortunate problem there, and a huge part of the reason why the current legislation won;t get passed (regardless of what you think of it as a piece of legislation), is that some people backing it are using it as a trojan horse for further availability of abortion on demand. Clare Daly is on record as wanting abortion on demand with no restrictions - right up to birth presumably. She's a poor representative for moderate, responsible reform.

onlyrocknroll

I'd imagine that there are no real reliable statistics about unwanted pregnancy but I've read people who work on crises pregnancy hotlines say that most of there callers are in their 30s and married.

However people who obsess about the sex lives of strangers rarely think much about truth or accuracy before they make judgmental comments.

How does she or anybody else know what is the main cause of unwanted pregnancy?

BackScrub

First a household charge, then a water charge and now maybe a fornication charge.

Ah well, the money I'm forced to save on the fornication charge, I can spend on the other two.

xflyer

You beat me to it Backscrub, given the way this Fine Gael government is going. It could be next tax. You have to pay a fee every time you fornicate. Being married I'd be exempt of course. It would be a very popular tax with young men particularly if they got a tax cert each time.:D

BackScrub

xflyer wrote: »

You beat me to it Backscrub, given the way this Fine Gael government is going. It could be next tax. You have to pay a fee every time you fornicate. Being married I'd be exempt of course. It would be a very popular tax with young men particularly if they got a tax cert each time.:D

Big Fascist Phil: "I'm here to install the sex meter."
BackScrub: "Tough luck Phil, now this is a metre!"

marty1985

Funnily enough, the majority of people who laughed at her didn't actually understand what fornication meant. Page one of this thread for example. But at least we all learn something new everyday.

token101

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Yeah - that's the "Freakonomics theory". http://www.freakonomics.com/2005/05/15/abortion-and-crime-who-should-you-believe/

I suspect its at least partially true. Abortion does lead to a decrease in crime rates. But does that mean we should legalise it?

Jailing for life anyone who drops out of school before the junior cert might also cut crime rates - does that mean we should do it?

Scumbags are scumbags because, a lot of the time, not all the time, the parents didn't want kids to begin with and end up being totally sh*t parents. That has knock on effects for others in society. If people don't want children, I feel they should have the right to make that choice within a limited period before birth. Much of secular society accepts that and the medical profession has laid timeframes etc. It's enshrined legally in most progressive countries. It's not for religious fundamentalists to decide that God, or whatever deity they reference, can interfere in the real world. Democracy should be about choice. I wouldn't like my GF to go ahead with an abortion personally, but I wouldn't have the arrogance to enforce my opinions on others. We should have a referendum, and if that comes back with a 'no' vote, then fine. That's democracy and people accept that and continue to go abroad. What's not acceptable is religious zealots telling us how society should work according the invisible man in the sky. We've progressed beyond that. Your Junior Cert comparison is a derisory and ridiculous analogy really.

FTGFOP

What are we supposed to be upset about? She says we don't legislate against greed and other sins as grave, religiously, as abortion. That sounds like doesn't support anti-abortion legislation, doesn't it?

Fornication, sex outside marriage, is most likely the leading cause of unwanted pregnancies.

So... boo Michelle?

Nodin

FTGFOP wrote: »

What are we supposed to be upset about? She says we don't legislate against greed and other sins as grave, religiously, as abortion. That sounds like doesn't support anti-abortion legislation, doesn't it?

Fornication, sex outside marriage, is most likely the leading cause of unwanted pregnancies.

So... boo Michelle?

You think sex is a sin?

Stark

According to Tales of the Sky Fairy, yes, sex outside marriage is considered a sin.

iguana

robp wrote: »

From a medical perspective, women don't need to leave the country for an abortion. FACT. Medical abortions are abortion where medication is used end the pregnancy. This debate isn't about this.

What are you on about? Today's debate and vote is about abortions for medical reasons and only about abortion for medical reasons. And it's being spearheaded by four women who had to abort their very much wanted babies for medical reasons and needed to go to Britain to do so.

What the hell this silly woman was doing making comments about unwanted pregnancies when today's issue is medical reasons for abortion I don't know?

I Heart Internet

token101 wrote: »

Scumbags are scumbags because, a lot of the time, not all the time, the parents didn't want kids to begin with and end up being totally sh*t parents. That has knock on effects for others in society. If people don't want children, I feel they should have the right to make that choice within a limited period before birth.

They do have a choice. Don't have children. what you're suggesting is once they have a child (in the womb) they can have the choice to terminate it. That's different from choosing not to have a child.

token101 wrote: »

Much of secular society accepts that and the medical profession has laid timeframes etc.

Politicians have laid timeframes - not the medical profession. In medical terms, human life begins at contraception...it is only societal or philosophical arguments that try to draw a line where abortion is acceptable, when in fact no medical distinction exists....20 weeks....24 weeks...28 weeks.......

token101 wrote: »

We should have a referendum, and if that comes back with a 'no' vote, then fine.

We've had a few i think already.

token101 wrote: »

Your Junior Cert comparison is a derisory and ridiculous analogy really.

I was making the point that the practical benefits of abortion - reducing crime rates - have to, as those freakonomics guys have always pointed out, be weighed with the arguments against abortion.

marty1985

The Irish Examiner article gives very little context, but the Journal goes into some detail.

On second thoughts, she does seem to have very strong religious views that obviously inform her position on abortion. Having said that, the sentence about fornication is not really controversial when you understand what the word means. Even the number of births taking place outside marriage is very high, so it's hardly a stretch to imagine the majority of abortions involve premarital or extramarital sex. I think the confusion in the thread is people are looking at this from different angles. If it's about the specific sentence in the title, I don't see an issue.

FTGFOP

Nodin wrote: »

You think sex is a sin?

I'm not sure if you're asking or saying my post implies this.

I don't think sex is a sin. Inside or outside marriage. Some people think sex outside marriage is sinful but we don't have laws against it. It seems like this is the point the TD was trying to make (unless I'm taking it up wrong or she said more elsewhere, outside the article).

I can't tell if the TD is pro-choice or anti-abortion from the article quoted. I think people are having a reflex response to the use of the word 'fornication'.

marty1985

FTGFOP wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're asking or saying my post implies this.

I don't think sex is a sin. Inside or outside marriage. Some people think sex outside marriage is sinful but we don't have laws against it. It seems like this is the point the TD was trying to make (unless I'm taking it up wrong or she said more elsewhere, outside the article).

I can't tell if the TD is pro-choice or anti-abortion from the article quoted. I think people are having a reflex response to the use of the word 'fornication'.

Exactly my sentimonies.

I Heart Internet

FTGFOP wrote: »

I think people are having a reflex response to the use of the word 'fornication'.

Absolutely.

Same as Myers' "bastard" remarks a few years back. Although. to be fair, I don't really think this TD was actually trying to stir anything up.

MaxSteele

Can't believe we're still debating legislation with these dinosaurs on this issue. It's 2012, we're a f*cking laughing stock at this stage. Secularism Huzzah !!

Mr Benevolent

TDs should not be religious. It clouds people's judgement like nothing else on earth.

notsobusy

I don't have a problem with her use of the word fornication. I didn't laugh at her. I'm raging at her because of her use of the word.

Abortion for medical reasons ie the health of the mother or the health of the child should be allowed, or should be debated.

Another thing I disagree with what she said was that was sex outside marriage is a sin. That is under the eyes of the church......why mention this when this is a society that is increasingly becoming non catholic/protestant. The church/christianity shouldn't even have a mention in this debate.

iguana

notsobusy wrote: »

Another thing I disagree with what she said was that was sex outside marriage is a sin. That is under the eyes of the church......why mention this when this is a society that is increasingly becoming non catholic/protestant.

Why would any politician believe that when 84% of the population ticked Roman Catholic on the census?

bleg

That woman is crazy. What a thing to say.

joseph brand

http://michelle-mulherin.t-ds.mayo-politicians.mayo.tel/

Her mobile no is here. I heard she doesn't 'put out' easy.

notsobusy

Ok fair enough but are they actually practising RC??? I just don't believe that a debate on abortion should involve the church. It's a medical matter not a church matter.

notsobusy

Are 84% of those RC practising catholics? Do they go to mass every Sunday?

forfuxsake

iguana wrote: »

Why would any politician believe that when 84% of the population ticked Roman Catholic on the census?

Or their mammies did.

mackg

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I'd quite like to know what the other 'likely' causes of pregnancy (wanted or unwanted) are as well...

http://www.popjolly.com/woman-says-she-became-pregnant-after-watching-porn-in-3d-365

AwayWithFaries

Morlar wrote: »

Fornication doesn't mean to 'have sex', it means sex between people who are unmarried. That is where the bulk of unwanted pregnancies come from.

A lot people posting seemed to have missed this point.
Oxford English dictionary:

Pronunciation: /ˌfɔːnɪˈkeɪʃn/
noun
[mass noun] formal or humorous
sexual intercourse between people not married to each other:
laws forbidding adultery and fornication

So yeah she probably wasn't too far off with her comment.

I Heart Internet

notsobusy wrote: »

I just don't believe that a debate on abortion should involve the church. It's a medical matter not a church matter.

The church and its adherents are free, in a free society to say what they please.

I would love to have a debate on abortion free from all religious issues. The trouble is that when somebody, anyone, says they are pro-life or anti-abortion, many people who are not shout and scream about religion and tell them to "keep their rosaries off my ovaries" and other ****e.

Being pro-life is in fact an entirely sensible, humanist position even if you've never heard of a god or set foot in a place of worship in your life.

Min

She made an unpopular statement which is her opinion and which does hold truth into why there are a lot of unwanted pregnancies.
I think a lot do not understand the meaning of fornication.

She should feel honoured that Clare Daly laughed at her, a woman who wants everything including abortion but wants people to pay for nothing and to tell the people who are funding this country to go away and take their money with them.

Nodin

FTGFOP wrote: »

I'm not sure if you're asking or saying my post implies this.

I don't think sex is a sin. Inside or outside marriage. Some people think sex outside marriage is sinful but we don't have laws against it. It seems like this is the point the TD was trying to make (unless I'm taking it up wrong or she said more elsewhere, outside the article).

I can't tell if the TD is pro-choice or anti-abortion from the article quoted. I think people are having a reflex response to the use of the word 'fornication'.

She's suggesting that (a) sex is a sin and that (b) its a bad thing. She compares abortion to murder and declares that murder is no more sinful than 'fornication' ie sex -

YeFGTD wrote:

Abortion, as murder, therefore sin, which is the religious argument, is no more sinful, from a scriptural point of view, than all other sins we don't legislate against, like greed, hate and fornication, the latter, being fornication

She deserves all the abuse she gets and more, to be blunt, and nothing to do the use of the word 'fornication'.

iguana

notsobusy wrote: »

Are 84% of those RC practising catholics? Do they go to mass every Sunday?

Nope, only 35% of those who claim to be Catholic go to mass according to a recent survey conducted by the Church. However as far as the politicians and religious pressure groups are concerned Catholics make up a huge majority of this country, as they only have the census (and the still very high yearly baptismal records) to go on. Even if they know it's not true any politician with a Catholic agenda just has to point to the census to back up their actions.

I Heart Internet

Nodin wrote: »

She's suggesting that (a) sex is a sin and that (b) its a bad thing.

No she isn't.

Nodin wrote: »

She compares abortion to murder and declares that murder is no more sinful than 'fornication' ie sex -

No. Get a dictionary. Fornication ≠ all sex

Nodin wrote: »

She deserves all the abuse she gets and more, to be blunt,

Care to expand or just gonna let the crude threat hang in the air?

marty1985

Nodin wrote: »

She deserves all the abuse she gets and more, to be blunt, and nothing to do the use of the word 'fornication'.

I disagree here.

I have some sympathy for non-religious people feeling irked, but this goes too far. She is a Christian and her faith informs her decisions, and while you might feel aggrieved at that, that's democracy for you. She doesn't seem to hide her faith, or be involved in any clandestine groups trying to turn the country into a theocracy. When laws have a moral or ethical dimension, I would prefer people of every faith and none speak their mind rather than be afraid to speak openly for fear of abuse, or their phone number being posted on AH for trolls.

notsobusy

I Heart Internet wrote: »

The church and its adherents are free, in a free society to say what they please.

I would love to have a debate on abortion free from all religious issues. The trouble is that when somebody, anyone, says they are pro-life or anti-abortion, many people who are not shout and scream about religion and tell them to "keep their rosaries off my ovaries" and other ****e.

Being pro-life is in fact an entirely sensible, humanist position even if you've never heard of a god or set foot in a place of worship in your life.

Yes I hear you but when a TD starts quoting the bible and says sex outside marriage is a sin it's very hard not to get upset and start saying anti-church sentiments. Yes she is entitled to her beliefs but I think she should have left the bible quotes at home and took on a humanist non religious view.

Pherekydes

marty1985 wrote: »

Having said that, the sentence about fornication is not really controversial when you understand what the word means.

Fornication originally referred to prostitution, back in Roman times, and is used these days in an entirely pejorative sense to refer to pre- or extra-marital sex.

She equated it with sins, such as greed and murder, so you can hardly claim it was uncontroversial.

notsobusy

iguana wrote: »

Nope, only 35% of those who claim to be Catholic go to mass according to a recent survey conducted by the Church. However as far as the politicians and religious pressure groups are concerned Catholics make up a huge majority of this country, as they only have the census (and the still very high yearly baptismal records) to go on. Even if they know it's not true any politician with a Catholic agenda just has to point to the census to back up their actions.

This is perhaps why the census needs a major overhaul.

I Heart Internet

iguana wrote: »

Nope, only 35% of those who claim to be Catholic go to mass according to a recent survey conducted by the Church. However as far as the politicians and religious pressure groups are concerned Catholics make up a huge majority of this country, as they only have the census (and the still very high yearly baptismal records) to go on. Even if they know it's not true any politician with a Catholic agenda just has to point to the census to back up their actions.

So the census is wrong, the baptisimal records are wrong but your happy with a ball-park figure of 35% mass attendance as representing the size of the catholic population in this country?

You're either a very, very strict Roman Catholic with no time for a la carte or cultural catholicism (kudos to you) or you're someone without the sense to realise that how people describe themselves is a little bit more complex than where they spend their sunday mornings.

I don't get it. On the one hand you encourage us to break free from the chains of the repressive catholic church and on the other you claim those who have, and don't go to mass every sunday should buck up their ideas and go back or else they're not real catholics.

WoollyRedHat

Oh hello 1950s Ireland, how's Dev and the lads?

forfuxsake

if you don't think sex is sinful, then you aren't doing it right.

but on a more serious note.


sex, willies and moo-moos, tee hee.

Nodin

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No she isn't.?

Yes, yes she is.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

No. Get a dictionary. Fornication ≠ all sex?

Labelling the sexual act a sin - be it committed inside or outside some ceremony - is primitive thinking of the lowest order. In fact, the idea that the Big Guy In The Sky gives a shag a thumbs up because of some magic ceremony drags to the whole thing to an even worse level of farce.

Marty1985 wrote:

I have some sympathy for non-religious people feeling irked, but this goes too far. She is a Christian and her faith informs her decisions, and while you might feel aggrieved at that, that's democracy for you.?

I never suggested that she be silenced for all time, thrown in a laundry, branded a "slut", forced to leave the country or any similar measure. I just carry on with the fairly reasonable idea that if you come out with shite, you can expect to be called on it. Equate sex (pre-magic ceremony or otherwise) to sin, and declare that sin to be on the same level as murder.....? For fucks sake....

iguana

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So the census is wrong, the baptisimal records are wrong but your happy with a ball-park figure of 35% mass attendance as representing the size of the catholic population in this country?

You're either a very, very strict Roman Catholic with no time for a la carte or cultural catholicism (kudos to you) or you're someone without the sense to realise that how people describe themselves is a little bit more complex than where they spend their sunday mornings.

I don't get it. On the one hand you encourage us to break free from the chains of the repressive catholic church and on the other you claim those who have, and don't go to mass every sunday should buck up their ideas and go back or else they're not real catholics.

No, I believe that those who do not believe in the teachings of the Catholic church should not claim that they are Catholic because if they do they give power to those who believe we should live by laws influenced by those teachings.

It's really, really simple and if you do not 'get it' then perhaps 'you're someone without the sense to realise that how people describe themselves' needs to be 100% accurate when written on political documents.

iguana

I Heart Internet wrote: »

So the census is wrong, the baptisimal records are wrong but your happy with a ball-park figure of 35% mass attendance as representing the size of the catholic population in this country?

Oh and no I'm not. I don't believe for one tiny second that 1,352,400 people in this country attend a weekly mass. And neither does anybody with a pair of working eyes. Those figures are more than a bit loose.

token101

I Heart Internet wrote: »

They do have a choice. Don't have children. what you're suggesting is once they have a child (in the womb) they can have the choice to terminate it. That's different from choosing not to have a child.

Well once they are in the situation, what if they don't want it? Or can't afford it? Or what if it's disabled? there are countless reasons people don't want children. I don't like a situation where there's abortion on demand, I think adoption would always be preferable, but enforcing a child upon someone is wrong and detrimental to everyone involved.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Politicians have laid timeframes - not the medical profession. In medical terms, human life begins at contraception...it is only societal or philosophical arguments that try to draw a line where abortion is acceptable, when in fact no medical distinction exists....20 weeks....24 weeks...28 weeks.......

Surely under the advice of the medical profession? I doubt they pulled that out of the air?

I Heart Internet wrote: »

We've had a few i think already.

When was the last one? I don't remember it so it must have been the 90's? Irish society has changed dramatically since the mid 90's. We aren't controlled by religious fundamentalism anymore. We are the one of the only countries in the Western world with this ban. It's archaic. Something like this is a personal choice. That's what democracy is about. If you feel it's wrong, a ban won't affect you anyway so it's irrelevant to you. It's not up to you or anyone like you to enforce this upon people.

I Heart Internet wrote: »

I was making the point that the practical benefits of abortion - reducing crime rates - have to, as those freakonomics guys have always pointed out, be weighed with the arguments against abortion.

But that should be the choice of the potential mother. Not you.

hatrickpatrick

iguana wrote: »

Why would any politician believe that when 84% of the population ticked Roman Catholic on the census?

It's 100% completely irrelevant. I'm a Catholic myself but that doesn't mean I support shoving my views down other people's throats.
Separation of church and state, anyone? :mad:

Nevermind_

she reminds me of this guy from the new beavis and butthead series..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=loK3OJEp-SQ

Nodin

iguana wrote: »

Oh and no I'm not. I don't believe for one tiny second that 1,352,400 people in this country attend a weekly mass. And neither does anybody with a pair of working eyes. Those figures are more than a bit loose.

Decline in Church attendance in Ireland happened long before revelations about abuse and the subsequent cover up. Polls show that in 1981 a staggering 88 per cent of Irish people attended Mass at least once-a-month with 82pc attending weekly. By 2006 that figure had slipped to just 48pc for weekly Mass attendance while that figure climbs to 67pc when those who attend at least once-a-month are factored in. Subsequent polls have been fairly consistent putting weekly Mass attendance somewhere between 45pc and 48pc. These are remarkably high figures by western European standards (the latest figures for Italy are 22pc and approximately 10pc for France).

http://www.irishcatholic.ie/site/content/where-now-weekly-mass-attendance-michael-kelly

Of course thats country-wide. Dublin and the cities are going to be generally well under that.