Government TD blames 'fornication' for unwanted pregnancies

Pottler

If waffly feckin TD's took a bit more care of the children that are actually already born and living in poverty/being abused/being denied the basics of a dignified existance/suffering poor healthcare and having no real chance of an education/in life, I would have more time for all those whinging about the rights of the unborn. Start looking after the already born, when ye have that sorted, and by God thats a long way from sorted yet, then I will start worrying about the unborn.

Napper Hawkins

When there is not one single unwanted child left on this Earth, then I will listen to the Pro-life argument.

You all bleat on and on about the rights of the unborn, what about the born?

What about the millions of children all over the world currently living in orphanages or with parents who resent their very existence?

What about their rights? "**** em" is all I hear from the Pro-life crowd.

"We'll defend your rights to the end until you leave that vagina, but once you're outside in the cold, harsh realty of the world, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN, KIDDO! GOOD LUCK! WE'RE OFF TO TELL A BUNCH OF OTHER STRANGERS WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO WITH THEIR BODIES! HOORAY FOR FASCISM!

philologos

notsobusy wrote: »

There you go, shoving it down our throats.

If the government said it was illegal to steal, is that shoving something down the throats of thieves?

There are reasonable limitations to behaviour, as to what is to the detriment of others.

notsobusy wrote: »

I respect your opinion Phillogos but abortion is not murder. It's all about choice. I am pregnant, I'm not married either but the child was wanted and it will be brought up in a loving enviroment. I don't feel that being married makes a difference or not to whether the child feels loved or not.

I think abortion is very clearly taking someone else's life.

I think it does make a difference, but I very much wish the best for you and for your child. I think marriage as a commitment between a man and a woman is the strongest situation in which a child can be raised in. There's plenty of statistics to back up that position and I'm going to stick by it.

It's important to note that I never said that children can't be raised in alternative arrangements, but that I regard marriage as the best for a child.

notsobusy wrote: »

I feel that I should have the right to have an abortion if I want one. It's my body and my foetus. Not yours.

The child, is an individual and has rights as far as I'm concerned. It's crossing boundaries when people start to suggest that they have the right to take someone else's life for any reason at all.

That same logic does not apply ex-utero, so I don't see why it should apply in-utero. We would balk at the suggestion that one would kill a child ex-utero out of choice. I'm simply suggesting that perhaps it is reasonable to balk at the suggestion of killing a child (foetus means 'young one' in Latin) out of choice.

I think there are certain things which go too far, and I think abortion-by-choice is one of those things and I will express that. Abortion-by-choice is a denial of the most important and fundamental human right, that is the right and liberty to life. Without that you have no rights at all.

I've been given this liberty, and I think it should be given to others also.

vicwatson

I dunno, I think they suit her really.

Viral Vector

I know her personally....totally embarrassing for all involved!

philologos

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

When there is not one single unwanted child left on this Earth, then I will listen to the Pro-life argument.

You all bleat on and on about the rights of the unborn, what about the born?

This is why I'm a huge advocate for adoption. If I were married, and not single, I would definitely think of it.

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

What about the millions of children all over the world currently living in orphanages or with parents who resent their very existence?

See above.

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

What about their rights? "**** em" is all I hear from the Pro-life crowd.

Or all you imagine I suspect. There are plenty of people with pro-life views that have actually taken in kids via adoption, and not only that, but people who can't conceive themselves often adopt.

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

"We'll defend your rights to the end until you leave that vagina, but once you're outside in the cold, harsh realty of the world, YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN, KIDDO! GOOD LUCK! WE'RE OFF TO TELL A BUNCH OF OTHER STRANGERS WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO WITH THEIR BODIES! HOORAY FOR FASCISM!

Nonsense. We're in agreement on one thing, that is that children shouldn't be left in such situations. That means we need to think about how such situations arise. How can we reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies? One mechanism would be to be more considered about sexuality and the risks that sexual expression particularly outside of a marriage (with or without the use of contraceptives) can take.

I don't feel that killing children is the way to solve this, there must be something better and I aspire to look for what is best rather than settling for something which is a fundamental denial of rights.

If people simply were more considered about sexual expression in relationships, I doubt many of these issues would even arise. We need to realise what the fallout of our philosophy on this subject is.

vicwatson

Viral Vector wrote: »

I know her personally....totally embarrassing for all involved!

Including herself?

Pottler

philologos wrote: »

Nonsense. We're in agreement on one thing, that is that children shouldn't be left in such situations. That means we need to think about how such situations arise. How can we reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies? One mechanism would be to be more considered about sexuality and the risks that sexual expression particularly outside of a marriage (with or without the use of contraceptives) can take.

I don't feel that killing children is the way to solve this, there must be something better and I aspire to look for what is best rather than settling for something which is a fundamental denial of rights.

If people simply were more considered about sexual expression in relationships, I doubt many of these issues would even arise. We need to realise what the fallout of our philosophy on this subject is.

Yet its funny how easily governments resort to killing people, often millions of people, to resolve disputes. Declare a war, all bets are off and its fine to bomb and maim. Go find somthing better to stand for. MYOB when it comes to what individuals do with their own bodies, IMO. And that's all it is, just my opinion.

philologos

Pottler wrote: »

Yet its funny how easily governments resort to killing people, often millions of people, to resolve disputes. Declare a war, all bets are off and its fine to bomb and maim. Go find somthing better to stand for. MYOB when it comes to what individuals do with their own bodies, IMO. And that's all it is, just my opinion.

I agree, that should distress us also.

You say that I should find something better to stand for. The fact is that there is a lot that I feel that is wrong, the fundamental denial of human rights in this case is disturbing and should be spoken out against.

It's not about what individuals do with their own bodies, it's what they do to someone elses. I.E - The child that is being carried. I oppose it 100% for that reason. If no life was being destroyed, it would be an entirely different kettle of fish.

So no, I'll speak on this issue just as you speak on it, because I think it's hugely important to make it clear that the issue is more complex than talking about one party, as there are two lives involved, not just one.

Why shouldn't I express my POV on this? That's what's significant. Why aren't you countering what I am saying as opposed to essentially telling me to be quiet on it? That's very telling IMO.

Sea Filly

Did anyone hear her on 'The Last Word' today, with her schizophrenia comments? Scarle' for her!

notsobusy

Sea Filly wrote: »

Did anyone hear her on 'The Last Word' today, with her schizophrenia comments? Scarle' for her!

I was listening, I nearly threw the radio at the wall.

vetinari

Sorry but there's a lot of people looking very bad in this thread. I'd be pro choice myself and really can't see how someone could have an issue with the quote in the OP's thread.
Is all this outrage just over using the word fornicate ????

I'd say this is up there as one of the most misguided rants I've seen on AH.

Napper Hawkins

philologos wrote: »

This is why I'm a huge advocate for adoption. If I were married, and not single, I would definitely think of it.

Cool.

philologos wrote: »

See above.

Cool.

philologos wrote: »

Or all you imagine I suspect. There are plenty of people with pro-life views that have actually taken in kids via adoption, and not only that, but people who can't conceive themselves often adopt.

I'm not imagining anything, I've had many an argument with Pro-lifers on here and in real life who, when asked would they consider adopting to back up their stance and give it some weight, usually respond with the same "that's irrelevant" cop out.

The people you describe, on the other hand, are saints in my eyes so fair enough. They are in a considerable minority though.

philologos wrote: »

Nonsense. We're in agreement on one thing, that is that children shouldn't be left in such situations. That means we need to think about how such situations arise. How can we reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies? One mechanism would be to be more considered about sexuality and the risks that sexual expression particularly outside of a marriage (with or without the use of contraceptives) can take.

I don't feel that killing children is the way to solve this, there must be something better and I aspire to look for what is best rather than settling for something which is a fundamental denial of rights.

If people simply were more considered about sexual expression in relationships, I doubt many of these issues would even arise. We need to realise what the fallout of our philosophy on this subject is.

You see, I like reading what you have to say despite us not agreeing on a lot of issues, as you are one of the few Christians I've encountered who doesn't come off as an intolerant, small minded, bigoted space cadet.

Which says to me that you are a genuine Christian who takes your religion seriously and that's great. The problem here is that you see abortion as killing children. I don't.

That's the problem here. Where do we draw the line? Whose opinion on where life actually begins holds more weight?

Is it birth? Conception? Somewhere inbetween? In the mans testicles?

Where?

I believe (Irish) society needs to seriously fix itself in a big way before we start calling innocent people murderers, because that's just way over the top I think.

libnation

Fornication will always be the funniest sounding word in the English language

DanWall

We were on to our 4th child before we found out what was causing it

Nodin

Sea Filly wrote: »

Did anyone hear her on 'The Last Word' today, with her schizophrenia comments? Scarle' for her!

What did she come out with...?

shopaholic01

[QUOTE=philologos;78227390

Scripturally sin is sin. As for what manifest effects that sin can have, it depends on the situation. Ultimately all sin leads us to be separated from God (Isaiah 59:2, Ephesians 2), and as a result has the same consequence. You say that has nothing to do with the Christian position, but actually it does. All Christians should be standing clearly against sin in equal measure, irrespective of what it is.[/QUOTE]

I have regularly fornicated and with more than one man - only one at a time though!. I always used contraception and the sole purpose of this fornication was sinful pleasure. The men in question were willing participants and left unharmed . I dearly hope to have many more opportunites to fornicate in the future also.

So, imagine I die and I stand at the pearly gates waiting to see if I qualify for Heaven. Beside me is Larry Murphy. A man who abducted, terrorised, vaginally, orally and anally raped a woman, and then tried to kill her. He has no doubt left that poor woman traumatised and will effect her for the rest of her life.

Now, both of us are sinners. The only difference I didn't harm anyone.

Do you honestly believe my sin is equal to Larry Murphy's?

Is there anyone who has not sinned - taken the lord's name in vain, coveted aperson/thing etc? Did Jesus not say ' Let he without sin cast the first stone'?

If I am already damned what is my incentive not to sin again? I may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. So, if I did happen to get pregnant I may as well have an abortion. After all, what have I got to lose now?

lestat21

shopaholic01 I will be outside specsavers first thing tomorrow morning... genuine mistake, soo shamed, and not just cos I admitted to voting for her

shopaholic01

lestat21 wrote: »

shopaholic01 I will be outside specsavers first thing tomorrow morning... genuine mistake, soo shamed, and not just cos I admitted to voting for her

Could be a lot worse - you might have agreed with her

Sea Filly

Nodin wrote: »

What did she come out with...?

Matt was questioning her on her beliefs and views on abortion and said she agreed with abortion in some cases (though it wasn't believeable when she that TBH) and when Matt basically said "WTF?" she said "I'm not completely schizophrenic on the issue". Cringe. Think there was more, but that's what I remember.

robp

iguana wrote: »

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.

The problem is that the "mother's life at risk" claim is entirely opaque. pregnancies end in Irish hospitals when the both mother and unborn would die without intervention. that’s quite different to this case.

If is was really just about improving health, proponents of the bill like Mick Wallace wouldn't have emotionally pleaded as he did withs case where abortion was purely unrelated to health (he referred to anencephaly). Often the risk is claimed to be mental health grounds but many physiatrists dispute any health benefit to an abortion.

Dostoevsky

BaZmO* wrote: »

A Fine Gael TD said today...

Fine Gael, TD and Mayo in one sentence: it's not looking good. At all.


And to think the alternative is Fianna Fáil, TD, Beverly Cooper Flynn, Pádraig Flynn and Mayo....

vicwatson

lestat21 wrote: »

shopaholic01 I will be outside specsavers first thing tomorrow morning... genuine mistake, soo shamed, and not just cos I admitted to voting for her

Will ya bring her with you and get her fixed up with some new glasses !! see my post a age or two back !!

vicwatson

robp wrote: »

The problem is that the "mother's life at risk" claim is entirely opaque. pregnancies end in Irish hospitals when the both mother and unborn would die without intervention. that’s quite different to this case.

If is was really just about improving health, proponents of the bill like Mick Wallace wouldn't have emotionally pleaded as he did withs case where abortion was purely unrelated to health (he referred to anencephaly). Often the risk is claimed to be mental health grounds but many physiatrists dispute any health benefit to an abortion.

And so many more don't dispute the benefits.

Solair

Did I just step into some kind of temporal rift in subspace or something?

Didn't "fornication" drop out of common use as a term in the 1890s?!

shopaholic01

vicwatson wrote: »

Will ya bring her with you and get her fixed up with some new glasses !! see my post a age or two back !!

Christ, there's an image that would kill any thoughts of fornicating:D.

shopaholic01

Solair wrote: »

Did I just step into some kind of temporal rift in subspace or something?

Didn't "fornication" drop out of common use as a term in the 1890s?!

It's still very popular in Mayo by all accounts

Nodin

Sea Filly wrote: »

Matt was questioning her on her beliefs and views on abortion and said she agreed with abortion in some cases (though it wasn't believeable when she that TBH) and when Matt basically said "WTF?" she said "I'm not completely schizophrenic on the issue". Cringe. Think there was more, but that's what I remember.

O. I thought it was going to be something about schizophrenia not being a real disease or a test by god...some such shite.

Immaculata

philologos wrote: »

I think abortion is very clearly taking someone else's life.

Abortion is murder. And?

Abortion is murder. And I'm in favour of it. Because every woman has the right to decide what happens in and to her own body, and that right supercedes the right to life of any baby she might be pregnant with, because by the nature of pregnancy itself, that baby is inside her and therefore she gets to make the decisions. If/when the day comes that all or some pregnancies are carried by an external to the body incubator, then I'd be willing to entertain the possibility that the fact that abortion is murder is any bar to any woman having an abortion whenever she chooses.

And apparently, whether they are pro-choice or not, the majority of the Irish people agree with me, because that was their decision in the X-case referendum. A woman whose life is in danger due to a pregnancy, including the risk of suicide, is entitled to have an abortion. The Irish people have spoken and they say that a woman's life is more important than the life of the baby she is pregnant with.

As the private members' bill today pointed out, it was decided by the Irish people back in 1992, so why hasn't the legislation to enact that decision been produced yet?

If I have a problem with that TD talking about fornication today, apart from disagreeing with her views, then it's that what she's saying is irrelevant. Who cares what the marital status of the couples whose sexual intercourse leads to the pregnancy is? The question is when is the X Case legislation going to be put into law.

Incidentally, this expression 'abortion-by-choice' is a bit apropos as it implies that some women are having abortions not by choice, i.e. someone's holding down pregnant ladies and forcing them to have terminations. Really? Are you saying that it's okay to terminate a pregnancy if the woman *doesn't* want an abortion?

And incidentally, once again, is the right to life actually the most important and fundamental human right? I'm sure that there's people fighting for certain freedoms, such as the right to kill themselves or have assistance in dying, such as Tony Nicklinson, who would disagree with you there. Not to mention the debate about conjoined twins such as Rose and Grace Attard, where one could well die upon separation but both will die if the separation does not take place. In cases such as these, pursuit of the right to life of both children equally will result in the death of both. The fact that one child's life can be considered as a priority over the life of the other points to the falsity of the claim that the right to life is the most important and fundamental right of all. As does the right of persons who have had a living will to have their wishes carried out should they be rendered into a persistent vegetative state by medical events: another example where the right to life is not the trump card. The right to choose is the most important and fundamental right.

So yeah. Get your finger out, Dail members! And get on with it.

riclad

Hold on , she s saying girls having sex may get pregnant, i,m SHOCKED,
next she,ll say people who drink might get drunk,
sometimes it rains in ireland,.Smoking cigarettes maybe bad for your health.
The internet is made of tubes.
Gosh i thought all these single mothers just found a baby under a cabbage leaf.
This fornicating must be popular ,i see an awful lot of pregnant women around.
IS there loads of irish women trying to get pregnant
without having sex? IS she implying its fine to get
pregnant as long as you dont enjoy the sexual act.

Mr.Biscuits

Guy:Incognito

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.

Is it though? I'd say theres quite a number of married people who's children would technically fall in to the catagory of unwanted pregnancy but over time migrate to become wanted ones. Most probably wont admit it though. They are usually described as "unexpected" or somethign similar.

Min

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I have regularly fornicated and with more than one man - only one at a time though!. I always used contraception and the sole purpose of this fornication was sinful pleasure. The men in question were willing participants and left unharmed . I dearly hope to have many more opportunites to fornicate in the future also.

So, imagine I die and I stand at the pearly gates waiting to see if I qualify for Heaven. Beside me is Larry Murphy. A man who abducted, terrorised, vaginally, orally and anally raped a woman, and then tried to kill her. He has no doubt left that poor woman traumatised and will effect her for the rest of her life.

Now, both of us are sinners. The only difference I didn't harm anyone.

Do you honestly believe my sin is equal to Larry Murphy's?

Is there anyone who has not sinned - taken the lord's name in vain, coveted aperson/thing etc? Did Jesus not say ' Let he without sin cast the first stone'?

If I am already damned what is my incentive not to sin again? I may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. So, if I did happen to get pregnant I may as well have an abortion. After all, what have I got to lose now?

Well you could repent...

This is what the bible says so you know if you meet Larry Murphy on the way...

1 Corinthians 6:9-20

New International Version (NIV)

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with menURL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-20&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28477a"]a[/URL 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. Sexual Immorality

12 “I have the right to do anything,” you say—but not everything is beneficial. “I have the right to do anything”—but I will not be mastered by anything. 13 You say, “Food for the stomach and the stomach for food, and God will destroy them both.” The body, however, is not meant for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16 Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, “The two will become one flesh.”URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-20&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28484b"]b[/URL 17 But whoever is united with the Lord is one with him in spirit.URL="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6%3A9-20&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28485c"]c[/URL 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. 19 Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.

ToddyDoody

I'd say nearly all pregnancies are unwanted. Not all new borns are, however. *confused* (unless the mother is training for the pregnancy olympics?)

nursextreme

Sea Filly wrote: »

Did anyone hear her on 'The Last Word' today, with her schizophrenia comments? Scarle' for her!

Yeah according to this TD people with Schizophrenia jettison everything they believe in. Next junior minister for mental health in the making here :rolleyes:

Mulherin added that she did not believe she was required to “jettison everything that I believe in” after being elected to the Dáil. “I’m not schizophrenic,” she said. “We are holistic beings, and that includes taking in that aspect of ourselves.”

http://media.todayfm.com/podcast/61920/?uniqueID=1888587

gosuckonalemon

This girl is obviously a totally deranged nutjob to think like this.

And also highly sub-intellectual.

However, one thing I'll say about her, she knows how to splash the cash...

http://www.mayonews.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14451:five-mayo-tds-claimed-168k-last-year&catid=23:news&Itemid=46

From March to November 2011, Ms Mulherin claimed over €1,000 per week, which equates to over €300 more than the average weekly industrial wage in expenses alone. The average weekly industrial wage stands at €693 per week, according to the Central Statistic Office.

I wonder how many bibles, crucifixes and chastity belts you can buy with a grand a week expenses?

philologos

shopaholic01 wrote: »

I have regularly fornicated and with more than one man - only one at a time though!. I always used contraception and the sole purpose of this fornication was sinful pleasure. The men in question were willing participants and left unharmed . I dearly hope to have many more opportunites to fornicate in the future also.

So, imagine I die and I stand at the pearly gates waiting to see if I qualify for Heaven. Beside me is Larry Murphy. A man who abducted, terrorised, vaginally, orally and anally raped a woman, and then tried to kill her. He has no doubt left that poor woman traumatised and will effect her for the rest of her life.

Now, both of us are sinners. The only difference I didn't harm anyone.

Do you honestly believe my sin is equal to Larry Murphy's?

Is there anyone who has not sinned - taken the lord's name in vain, coveted aperson/thing etc? Did Jesus not say ' Let he without sin cast the first stone'?

If I am already damned what is my incentive not to sin again? I may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. So, if I did happen to get pregnant I may as well have an abortion. After all, what have I got to lose now?

Jesus also said that He came to die so that we might be rescued from our sin if we believe and trust in Him. Indeed, Christians are told by Jesus that they should go throughout the world telling people that God loved them so much that He sent His only begotten Son to die in their place, so that they might be dead to sin, and rise to life, so that people might be born again through Him.

Personally, I'm not going to be judging anything. Firstly, yes, I've sinned against God, I'm not saying otherwise. I've repented and I'm trying to live step by step as God wants me to in the world. Part of this naturally means that Christians are told to stand up for what is good, and reject what is evil.

So yes, you're correct that Christians are told to give people mercy and forgiveness. I.E - Forgive wrongdoing in order to bring people to God. It doesn't mean ignore wrongdoing, it doesn't mean accept wrongdoing as acceptable. That's both in our own lives, and in the world around us. You're incorrect to suggest that that means that Christians shouldn't stand up for what is right.

I don't believe you're "already damned". At least nobody has to be. The fundamental reason why Jesus came into this world as man was that we might be rescued, and forgiven of our sin and be able to begin to put that behind us to live for the living God.

I hope that makes sense, I'm more than happy to give you more of an insight into this. Personally, I never could praise or condone abortion because it is taking someone else's life away. If it didn't take away human life, I'd be much more receptive of it.

You're right, there's nobody who hasn't sinned. That's very clearly what the Bible says (Romans 3:23, Psalm 14). However, it also says that Jesus came to pay the price for sin so that we might live for God rather than for ourselves and our selfish interests. I.E - Forgiveness comes through His name.

Doc Ruby

philologos wrote: »

Personally, I'm not going to be judging anything.

Awesome. Meanwhile the long and the short of it is I'll be having lots of sex and you'll be having none.

Have a nice day!

gurramok

Alot of religious preaching here, what has religion got to do with fornication? Trying to impose a will on others it seems.

Royal Legend

philologos wrote: »

Jesus also said that He came to die so that we might be rescued from our sin if we believe and trust in Him. Indeed, Christians are told by Jesus that they should go throughout the world telling people that God loved them so much that He sent His only begotten Son to die in their place, so that they might be dead to sin, and rise to life, so that people might be born again through Him.

Personally, I'm not going to be judging anything. Firstly, yes, I've sinned against God, I'm not saying otherwise. I've repented and I'm trying to live step by step as God wants me to in the world. Part of this naturally means that Christians are told to stand up for what is good, and reject what is evil.

So yes, you're correct that Christians are told to give people mercy and forgiveness. I.E - Forgive wrongdoing in order to bring people to God. It doesn't mean ignore wrongdoing, it doesn't mean accept wrongdoing as acceptable. That's both in our own lives, and in the world around us. You're incorrect to suggest that that means that Christians shouldn't stand up for what is right.

I don't believe you're "already damned". At least nobody has to be. The fundamental reason why Jesus came into this world as man was that we might be rescued, and forgiven of our sin and be able to begin to put that behind us to live for the living God.

I hope that makes sense, I'm more than happy to give you more of an insight into this. Personally, I never could praise or condone abortion because it is taking someone else's life away. If it didn't take away human life, I'd be much more receptive of it.

You're right, there's nobody who hasn't sinned. That's very clearly what the Bible says (Romans 3:23, Psalm 14). However, it also says that Jesus came to pay the price for sin so that we might live for God rather than for ourselves and our selfish interests. I.E - Forgiveness comes through His name.

Not sure how that sentence above makes any sense, you disagree because it is taking away life, but if Abortion did not take away life, you would be more receptive to it??????????? you are as confused as our Evangelical Mayo TD me thinks

philologos

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

The people you describe, on the other hand, are saints in my eyes so fair enough. They are in a considerable minority though.

The logical consequence of being pro-life, is simply that I support the defence of the right to life where it is clearly being trampled upon. It's not that complicated.

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

Which says to me that you are a genuine Christian who takes your religion seriously and that's great. The problem here is that you see abortion as killing children. I don't.

That's the problem here. Where do we draw the line? Whose opinion on where life actually begins holds more weight?

Is it birth? Conception? Somewhere inbetween? In the mans testicles?

Biologically a distinct human life comes into being at conception. It isn't sperm, because sperm in and of itself does not grow and develop to childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death. A sperm in and of itself cannot logically constitute a human life.

An embryo contains both biological prerequisites (requirements) in order for a human life to grow and develop in the womb. As soon as it starts doing that, it is a life.

That's common sense. Christianity isn't required to believe in that.

Napper Hawkins wrote: »

I believe (Irish) society needs to seriously fix itself in a big way before we start calling innocent people murderers, because that's just way over the top I think.

I think it is still profoundly wrong to take away someones life. That could be definition be referred to as murder in a sense. I understand the difficulties involved in this issue, but taking life is still a very serious issue IMO.

Immaculata: I'll come to your post later.

efb

vicwatson wrote: »

Will ya bring her with you and get her fixed up with some new glasses !! see my post a age or two back !!

Never mind her going to specsavers- her mother should have taken the boat to England...

theg81der

ToddyDoody wrote: »

I'd say nearly all pregnancies are unwanted. Not all new borns are, however. *confused* (unless the mother is training for the pregnancy olympics?)

Speak for yourself, six months pregnant with a baby we longed and tried for! And if people are having sex without protection they are making a default decision to "see what happens" whether thats conscious or not, they`re not idiots they are aware that it may result in pregnancy. I should have been one of those "accidental" single mothers I`d be a hell f a lot better off - for all there comments the government doesn`t support marriage.

Sea Filly

Nodin wrote: »

O. I thought it was going to be something about schizophrenia not being a real disease or a test by god...some such shite.

Heh. Still though, what she said about it was pretty dumb and ignorant for an elected representative.

nursextreme

Sea Filly wrote: »

Heh. Still though, what she said about it was pretty dumb and ignorant for an elected representative.

She obviously doesn't know anything about Schizophrenia cant believe there is still so much ignorance surrounding mental health.

IT-Guy

philologos wrote: »

The logical consequence of being pro-life, is simply that I support the defence of the right to life where it is clearly being trampled upon. It's not that complicated.

It is complicated when pro-lifers use inflammatory language such as the above bolded bit. Neither your nor mine or anyone else's right to life is being trampled upon. Sense of entitlement much, clearly?

Biologically a distinct human life comes into being at conception. It isn't sperm, because sperm in and of itself does not grow and develop to childhood, adolescence, adulthood and ultimately death. A sperm in and of itself cannot logically constitute a human life.

An embryo contains both biological prerequisites (requirements) in order for a human life to grow and develop in the womb. As soon as it starts doing that, it is a life.

That's common sense. Christianity isn't required to believe in that.

Having been involved in the other abortion thread in the christianity forum I think we need a term to differentiate between living people and potential people in the womb. You recognize it as a life, I don't, how does referring to it as a zygote/fetus suit? Would you say it's common-sense to acknowledge a zygote/fetus in this stage of development is vastly different to you and I at every level?

I think it is still profoundly wrong to take away someones life. That could be definition be referred to as murder in a sense. I understand the difficulties involved in this issue, but taking life is still a very serious issue IMO.

Immaculata: I'll come to your post later.

Absolutely it's an extremely serious issue but of greater concern to me are the rights of the mother. If a woman wants an abortion then she should be entitled to have one without neither having to travel to another country to get one nor being pressured into alternatives that she has already considered and passed up. It's shameful that a modern society feels it has a right to have any say in what a woman does with her body.

I Heart Internet

Just catching up on this thread.

The level of ignorance - freely admitted - by some is tragic.

Someone who tells us that their whole office had a great laugh over this but then tells us that they (the poster) didn't actually know that fornication wasn't just all sex.

And another poster who is amazed at the sight of a full church on a sunday morning. Others claiming 35% of people don't really atttend sunday mass because, presumably, none of their buddies do so it couldn't possibly be true.

Seriously people, open a book and step out from behind the computer and speak to people who don't hold the same views as you. Might learn something. God forbid, even sit at the back of a chuch on a Sunday morning and see what actually goes on there.

mikom

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Seriously people, open a book and step out from behind the computer and speak to people who don't hold the same views as you. Might learn something. God forbid, even sit at the back of a chuch on a Sunday morning and see what actually goes on there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC6kcDYOPls

Sea Filly

I Heart Internet wrote: »

Someone who tells us that their whole office had a great laugh over this but then tells us that they (the poster) didn't actually know that fornication wasn't just all sex.

Not knowing the exact technical definition of an archaic, almost obsolete word is not being ignorant, TBH. Her statement was ridculous and laughable either way.

Also, I have no issue with Michelle Mulherin's personal beliefs, but they have no place in the Dail.

I Heart Internet

Sea Filly wrote: »

Not knowing the exact technical definition of an archaic, almost obsolete word is not being ignorant,

It is, and certainly joining the gang laughing at it while not knowing what the laughing is about is ignorant.

Sea Filly wrote: »

Also, I have no issue with Michelle Mulherin's personal beliefs, but they have no place in the Dail.

TDs personal beliefs are all over the Dail. They even join into political parties with like minded people with similar personal beliefs. They put personal beliefs on little cards and posters at election time. Until such time as we can elect an actual robot devoid of all personal belief then public representative's personal beliefs will inform their thinking.