Government TD blames 'fornication' for unwanted pregnancies

mikom

philologos wrote: »

The unborn children's rights here in Britain are being ignored.

This is Ireland.
A comment made by a FG rep.......... being discussed on boards.ie.

The mother with no other choice is having her rights here in Ireland ignored.

philologos

Read my location to your left underneath my avatar. When I say here, I mean here from my perspective.

mikom

philologos wrote: »

Read my location.

Read mine.

keano_afc

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Perhaps read all previous posts and realise that this point has been made and addressed

3 posts above mine is from a user who's misinformed, its still obviously prevalent.

shopaholic01

keano_afc wrote: »

3 posts above mine is from a user who's misinformed, its still obviously prevalent.

Actually no, that humour. A lot of people have a sense of humour, the clue was in the attached link.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how this question is relevant to my position to be honest with you. That behaviour is perhaps the least Christlike thing I can imagine. I don't agree with very much that the RCC as an institution did in the past. I don't agree with it entirely in the present. Indeed that's probably why I'm not a Roman Catholic.

So, simply put, that does count as a broken family, but the institutions were at fault. It's not particularly relevant to the position that marriage is the best situation for children to be raised in. Or that modern Western philosophy surrounding sexuality has resulted in a huge increase in broken families.

........

You've presented zero evidence that "broken families" have increased due to same, and we have evidence that large numbers of - quite literally - broken families existed in times hitherto....unless you can come up with some statistical comparisons for your case, I'd suggest your on a road to nowhere with this.

mikom

Nodin wrote: »

You've presented zero evidence that "broken families" have increased due to same, and we have evidence that large numbers of - quite literally - broken families existed in times hitherto....unless you can come up with some statistical comparisons for your case, I'd suggest your on a road to nowhere with this.

*Ponders how many broken families resulted from the 2 million deaths over the course of the crusades*

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

I don't see how this question is relevant to my position to be honest with you. That behaviour is perhaps the least Christlike thing I can imagine. I don't agree with very much that the RCC as an institution did in the past. I don't agree with it entirely in the present. Indeed that's probably why I'm not a Roman Catholic.

So, simply put, that does count as a broken family, but the institutions were at fault. It's not particularly relevant to the position that marriage is the best situation for children to be raised in. Or that modern Western philosophy surrounding sexuality has resulted in a huge increase in broken families.

........

O....it was the big bad institutions was it? Weren't they run by people, who, along with the 'great and the good', believed that

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

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

O....it was the big bad institutions was it? Weren't they run by people, who, along with the 'great and the good', believed that

Christianity is based on a lot more than a pro-life position. One can be pro-life, and one can live in a manner that couldn't be any further than what Jesus exemplified. Christianity is inherently pro-life as a faith, but it is so much more than that.

By the by, my standard for whether or not something is Christlike, is simply by looking to Jesus' example and see if it was consistent with that. If it isn't consistent with Biblical Christianity, then I'd have to say it was more fuelled by mans sin rather than a genuine faith in Jesus.

Looking back that legacy seems similar to the religion of the Pharisees which Jesus strongly criticised. Mere legalism, no mercy.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

Christianity is based on a lot more than a pro-life position. One can be pro-life, and one can live in a manner that couldn't be any further than what Jesus exemplified. Christianity is inherently pro-life as a faith, but it is so much more than that.

By the by, my standard for whether or not something is Christlike, is simply by looking to Jesus' example and see if it was consistent with that. If it isn't consistent with Biblical Christianity, then I'd have to say it was more fuelled by mans sin rather than a genuine faith in Jesus.

Looking back that legacy seems similar to the religion of the Pharisees which Jesus strongly criticised. Mere legalism, no mercy.

.....I was reiterating the TDs statement that puts 'fornication' on the same level as murder....you know....the one you were agreeing with earlier. Thats rather obviously the kind of mentality that led to those institutions and that kind of society.

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

.....I was reiterating the TDs statement that puts 'fornication' on the same level as murder....you know....the one you were agreeing with earlier. Thats rather obviously the kind of mentality that led to those institutions and that kind of society.

Not really. It's the powerhungry mentality that leads to institutional corruption, and by the by, mankind institutions even secular can go down that path.

Christianity IMO, should inherently be a grassroots movement concerned with the salvation of mankind. It should be bottom up, rather than top down if you will. That's the way it was pre-Constantine.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

Not really. It's the powerhungry mentality that leads to institutional corruption, and by the by, mankind institutions even secular can go down that path.

.........

Yep, self righteouness, social exclusion and punishments over sexual morality in this country have had nothing to do with religion. Nothing at all, at all, at all, at all.



I believe ye. Honest I do.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

Christianity IMO, should inherently be a grassroots movement concerned with the salvation of mankind. It should be bottom up, rather than top down if you will. That's the way it was pre-Constantine.

Christianity has historically been whatever people have read into it. I doubt thats going to change.

GarIT

Step 1: See post in AH to do with sex so thinking it might be a bit of craic, I read it.

Step 2: Read page one and think of a witty post to make.

Step 3: Skip to last page and read.

Step 4: See philologos on the last page and realise this is another serious religious debate clogging up AH.

Step 5: Don't post anything to avoid having hours of defending my position that only really started as a joke anyway.

Ellis Dee

keano_afc wrote: »

Still a lot of posters in this this thread who havent a clue on the definition of the word fornication. Perhaps consult a dictionary before posting to avoid embarrassing yourself?

Perhaps you should follow your own good advice. ROFLMAO:):):)

http://www.yourdictionary.com/fornication

As you can see, the definition of fornication is flexible, and also depends a good deal on how much into bible-thumping one is.:rolleyes:

It might also be a good idea for our lawmakers to try to avoid using words that are not part of the everyday vocabulary of the Lumpenproletariat (like me - and perhaps you?) who are ultimately their employers, no matter how much contempt for them those same politicians may feel and even demonstrate (except at election time).:):)

jiltloop

Fornication is the biggest cause of unwanted pregnancies????
My god I thought it was IVF!!

GarIT

Fornication is a sin?

We'll I'm f***ed already.

jiltloop

GarIT wrote: »

Step 1: See post in AH to do with sex so thinking it might be a bit of craic, I read it.

Step 2: Read page one and think of a witty post to make.

Step 3: Skip to last page and read.

Step 4: See philologos on the last page and realise this is another serious religious debate clogging up AH.

Step 5: Don't post anything to avoid having hours of defending my position that only really started as a joke anyway.

I was just on step 3 when I read your post.

shopaholic01

GarIT wrote: »

Fornication is a sin?

We'll I'm f***ed already.

Read back through the posts. All you have to do is acknowledge your sin and repent.

Apparently :rolleyes:

GarIT

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Read back through the posts. All you have to do is acknowledge your sin and repent.

Apparently :rolleyes:

It was a play on the word f***ed.

I might consider going in to repent, I think it would go like this, "Hey father I rode the girlfriend last night she was great, she was on the pill and she swallowed, I'm honestly very sorry. She is staying over again tonight and she said she is bringing handcuffs, so what time can I see you tomorrow?"

philologos

Nodin wrote: »

Yep, self righteouness, social exclusion and punishments over sexual morality in this country have had nothing to do with religion. Nothing at all, at all, at all, at all.



I believe ye. Honest I do.

I never said it didn't have anything to do with religion. It did, insofar as it was human religion rather than based on Biblical Christianity.

44leto

That TD is the result of fornication.
Fornication Love that word.

I could do with a little for-nor-cat-ion.

shopaholic01

44leto wrote: »

That TD is the result of fornication.
Fornication Love that word.

I could do with a little for-nor-cat-ion.

Alas, you only want what you can't have

kenmc

there's someone whom i can only suppose is this stupid wench on the tonight show. she's a freak! How the hell did she get elected, she can't hold a train of thought for seconds! Yer man had to prompt her back onto her story at one stage. "I'm not a holy joe". seconds later " I've studied scriptures in an ecumenical situation"
WTF????

philologos

It might be useful to link to the debate in the Oireachtas, and quote what was actually said in full rather than in part:

Deputy Michelle Mulherin: I welcome the opportunity to speak on what is a very sensitive issue, particularly for women because women do not own their own personal physical integrity and sexuality in the same manner that men do. Therefore, it is an issue that has to be handled with care. I see the introduction of this Bill not only as premature but, unfortunately, as serving not to enhance any debate but just to rehash traditional entrenchment of positions. Given the country has been dogged by this issue for decades, waiting until the expert group reports back would have been more helpful and would allow dialogue across the board, not just among politicians in this Chamber.

It is a tough issue. When one thinks about it, one immediately thinks about the people affected, in particular the 4,500 women who feel they have to travel to the UK to undergo termination procedures. These are the people we represent, so it is not a case of “them and us”. As legislators in Parliament, we try to think of all our citizens and take everything into account as we make laws and decisions on behalf of the nation.

We are moving and have moved away from an Ireland where morality was shoved down people’s throats. The question is whether responsibility for people’s moral conduct falls on the shoulders of Government or whether we go down the road of talking about the personal responsibility of the individuals involved.

We have heard strong arguments why there might or should be abortion in circumstances beyond the X case, including cases of diagnosed problems with the foetus, which could see the baby die shortly after birth or during the pregnancy. There is no point in repeating the details of those sad cases. They were personal experiences and they cannot be used entirely as a basis to change what amounts to the fundamental principles of a country. Legislating purely on the back of hard cases does not necessarily make for good and proper laws.

I will be voting against the Bill, which I believe is untimely. However, it does open a debate and I welcome that aspect. There are some questions I would raise during the debate. The major objection to abortion in Ireland is religious but the rest of the Western world has no objections in this way. In the book Free and Female, dating from some decades back, Ms Barbara Seaman put abortion as part of the lifelong struggle of women for effective contraception and to be able to take control of their own bodily integrity. That is both liberal and feminist. When we legislate, we do it with an all-inclusive paradigm for our society. In short, it is not for the majority alone.

I am against abortion in any form. The grace of God is so liberating and provides so many options to get the best out of life despite our fallen nature, and we all have that. Having said that, it is an ideal to aim for. In an ideal world, there would be no unwanted pregnancies and no unwanted babies. However, we are far from living in an ideal world. An honest and a scriptural view is that things are getting harder for people, so what then for the weak in our society?

The western or First World is championing a freer and more autonomous society. The freer and more autonomous people become, the more responsibility they assume for their lives. They exercise that freedom by rejecting authority that seeks to nanny them. Therefore, the dialogue we have has to be, first and foremost, about taking responsibility, particularly for women because, in fact, they are left carrying the baby or not. In the first instance, there is a need for dialogue about not getting to the situation where abortion is contemplated. In fairness, in this day and age, nobody should be having unsafe sex, with AIDS and all the sexually transmitted diseases we know about. That has to be questioned as well. How well and how much are we respecting our own lives and our own bodies in the process?

There was certainly a time when much was prohibited on moral, religious and “the good of all” grounds. To cite an example, contraception was limited to married couples on a doctor’s say in the Ireland of not too long ago, but that is no longer the case. It is hard to believe that not so long ago, notwithstanding our knowledge of the rise of AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases, it was illegal to sell condoms from a vending machine to encourage safe sex, but we changed the law in that area also. What changed in our society that allowed us to get to that point where we would change the law? Moreover, how destructive was that change, if at all, given these were foundations of our religious beliefs in the past? Homosexuality is yet another example of this.

Perhaps the Irish, like the rest of the world, are maturing to the point that they can be trusted with freedom of choice. In fact, although divorce became legal, marriage still remains very popular in Ireland and throughout the world, including the USA. It could be argued that when people are free to abort, they will fight harder to keep their unborn babies by choice and they will value their pregnancies. For those who do not, and I believe them a minority, they will be free to choose what to do with no legal pressure. In other words, any legislation will not make a good Catholic choose abortion against her conscience.

Abortion as murder, and therefore sin, which is the religious argument, is no more sinful from a scriptural point of view than all other sins we do not legislate against, such as greed, hate and fornication, the latter - fornication - being probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country. At the end of the day, however, it is the nature of religion to fuss over appearances above the truth and the inner state of the person.

I don't think she's right in saying that the main objection to abortion is religious. It's a human rights issue. However, I do think that she was actually a lot more gracious in presenting her opinion than people have made it appear like. She doesn't seem like an arch-conservative dinosaur either.

K-9

It is a tough issue. When one thinks about it, one immediately thinks about the people affected, in particular the 4,500 women who feel they have to travel to the UK to undergo termination procedures. These are the people we represent, so it is not a case of “them and us”. As legislators in Parliament, we try to think of all our citizens and take everything into account as we make laws and decisions on behalf of the nation.

We have heard strong arguments why there might or should be abortion in circumstances beyond the X case, including cases of diagnosed problems with the foetus, which could see the baby die shortly after birth or during the pregnancy. There is no point in repeating the details of those sad cases. They were personal experiences and they cannot be used entirely as a basis to change what amounts to the fundamental principles of a country. Legislating purely on the back of hard cases does not necessarily make for good and proper laws.

I will be voting against the Bill, which I believe is untimely. However, it does open a debate and I welcome that aspect. There are some questions I would raise during the debate. The major objection to abortion in Ireland is religious but the rest of the Western world has no objections in this way. In the book Free and Female, dating from some decades back, Ms Barbara Seaman put abortion as part of the lifelong struggle of women for effective contraception and to be able to take control of their own bodily integrity. That is both liberal and feminist. When we legislate, we do it with an all-inclusive paradigm for our society. In short, it is not for the majority alone.

Find that very self contradictory.

mikom

There Michelle Mulherin was on the Saturday night show....... "We're not human beings, we're human doings" ....."Everybody is an individual".

Ah, yeah, so let them be individuals.

Nodin

shopaholic01 wrote: »

Read back through the posts. All you have to do is acknowledge your sin and repent.

Apparently :rolleyes:

Yep, having acted in accordance with nature, gone off and enjoyed yourself, you have sinned, so feel guilty, otherwise its pitchfork up the ass for all eternity. And not in a good way.


Unless you're a woman, in which case your harlotry is unforgivable, outside of a few years in a laundry, and a lifetime of shame.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

.........

I don't think she's right in saying that the main objection to abortion is religious. It's a human rights issue. However, I do think that she was actually a lot more gracious in presenting her opinion than people have made it appear like. She doesn't seem like an arch-conservative dinosaur either.

Putting 'fornication' on the same level as murder, use of the term 'fornication' = arch-conservative dinosaur.

We're in Western Europe, not the fucking third world.

Nodin

philologos wrote: »

I never said it didn't have anything to do with religion. It did, insofar as it was human religion rather than based on Biblical Christianity.

...according to your reading of it. Your 'human religion'.

mikom

Nodin wrote: »

Putting 'fornication' on the same level as murder, use of the term 'fornication' = arch-conservative dinosaur.

We're in Western Europe, not the fucking third world.

Seems her partner is a "murderer"............ The irony....

The boyfriend of Michelle Mulherin – the Fine Gael TD who contro­versially attacked ‘fornication’ this week – has a lovechild with a girl 17 years his junior.
Kenyan migrant Danson Kole met the Dublin-based girl when she was just 18. The pair split soon after they had a child together.
Since then, Mr Kole, now 55, has enjoyed a close relationship with Ms Mulherin, 40, who hit the headlines this week over her ­comments regarding casual sex.


In an in-depth interview published in yesterday’s Irish Daily Mail, the Mayo TD merely confirmed that there was a ‘special person’ in her life – but did not name him.
However, the Irish Mail on Sunday can reveal that the man she is referring to is Mr Kole, a devout born-again Christian educated in Mombasa, Kenya.


The couple have enjoyed an extremely close relationship since 1997 – two years after he fathered a son with his teenage girlfriend. This weekend, the mother of Mr Kole’s son spoke to the MoS about her feelings at the comments made by Ms Mulherin.


Asked how Ms Mulherin’s controversial comments this week had made her feel, the woman said: ‘It was funny to hear her talking like that and suggesting that fathers should be responsible. She is with a man for 10 years who does not know his own son.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2133351/Fornication-row-TDs-little-secret-Deputys-partner-lovechild--girlfriend-17-years-junior.html#ixzz1sm1YYNlD

Sorry for the mail link.

Nodin

...at least shes not a racist.....

mikom

Nodin wrote: »

...at least shes not a racist.....

Seems a good judge of character though.........

lividduck

philologos wrote: »

It might be useful to link to the debate in the Oireachtas, and quote what was actually said in full rather than in part:


I don't think she's right in saying that the main objection to abortion is religious. It's a human rights issue. However, I do think that she was actually a lot more gracious in presenting her opinion than people have made it appear like. She doesn't seem like an arch-conservative dinosaur either.

" I am against abortion in any form. The grace of God is so liberating and provides so many options to get the best out of life despite our fallen nature"
That quote sounds very very religious to me.

shopaholic01

Ah, hypocisy and ignorance

As they say 'once you go black........';)

Perhaps there's a biblical passage that excuses/encourages fornication as an aid to multicultural relations :rolleyes:



philologos, are you there?

Nodin

mikom wrote: »

Seems a good judge of character though.........

Like her leader
http://files.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/data.jpg

mikom

The FG joke shop rolls on.................... "The power of Christ compels you"

Nodin

lividduck wrote: »

" I am against abortion in any form. The grace of God is so liberating and provides so many options to get the best out of life despite our fallen nature"
That quote sounds very very religious to me.

Yep, we're "fallen". Like a pair of saggy bosoms.

I wonder how that quote applies to the condition where the baby will be born without a brain and die.....

peterwaldron11

I am from Ballina and I have recently been told that her new parliamentary assistant/adviser has come from the Enda Kennny Re-election Campaign. He obviously has the experience but this blunder has cost her dearly. Why has no one questioned the staff on how they handle her? They are nick-named the "Handlers" for a reason. Some one of authority should really look into it.

Chain_reaction

Anyone else think they look a bit similar?

http://www.anvari.org/db/cols/The_Simpsons_Characters_Picture_Gallery/Maude_Flanders.png

Chain_reaction

I'd be laughing if it wasn't so serious though.

I'm watching that interview from last night...

Oh. The horror.

Does she hate women?

PrincessLola

She hates other women. That can be my only conclusion.

From broadsheet transcript:

Mulherin: “I think that some people are using it as birth control, yes.”

NO. Just no. Women do not have unprotected sex thinking "ah sure I can always fly over to England to go through with an abortion".


EDIT: no-one ever warned me that FG were the right-wing Christian party. In my ignorence I had no idea. Sorta just assumed they were a less corrupt FF.

Nodin

PrincessLola wrote: »

She hates other women. That can be my only conclusion.

From broadsheet transcript:
NO. Just no. Women do not have unprotected sex thinking "ah sure I can always fly over to England to go through with an abortion"..

....but wimmin who have sex outside marriage are fornicators, fornication is as bad as murder, so they're obviously all vile she-hags who only have babies in order to either turn them into gays, liberals or a quick snack.

(Unless they enjoy it, in which case they're worse.)

PrincessLola wrote: »

EDIT: no-one ever warned me that FG were the right-wing Christian party. In my ignorence I had no idea. Sorta just assumed they were a less corrupt FF.

There are factions within FG and one is indeed deeply conservative, right wing and 'christian'.

....there was one beauty who condemned Mandela as a terrorist, said he had no sympathy with Wilde getting sent to Reading jail...dead now, can't remember his name...

....here's another....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_J._Flanagan

Then there's Mr Popular....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_Mitchell

this one....
http://www.irishexaminer.com/election/analysis/calls-for-kenny-to-sack-creighton-over-gay-marriage-remark-146354.html

BackScrub

Nodin wrote: »

Like her leader
http://files.broadsheet.ie/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/data.jpg

Looks like dreamy-eyed Enda is about to slip her the tongue there. What would Michelle say?

efb

Watching Edward Scissorhands on E4, didn't realise Michelle Mulherin had a cameo...

philologos

lividduck wrote: »

" I am against abortion in any form. The grace of God is so liberating and provides so many options to get the best out of life despite our fallen nature"
That quote sounds very very religious to me.

You could read my post again. I said I disagreed with her speech. I disagree with this section, because I don't think it's true:

The major objection to abortion in Ireland is religious but the rest of the Western world has no objections in this way.

mikom wrote: »

Seems her partner is a "murderer"............ The irony....



Sorry for the mail link.

Again, her partner has messed up in the past. I don't see how this has anything to do with what she said. It sounds like an ad-hominem to me, with little to no substance.

So, you're saying because her partner did something wrong in the past, that this has something to do with her reputation? - That's pure nonsense. Each person is accountable for themselves, firstly he deserves nobody's judgement particularly if he has changed since.

mikom

philologos wrote: »

Each person is accountable for themselves, firstly he deserves nobody's judgement particularly if he has changed since.

Tell that to the women forced to travel to the UK who have no other choice.
Someone judged them for this situation to result.

philologos

mikom wrote: »

Tell that to the women forced to travel to the UK who have no other choice.
Someone judged them for this situation to result.

I'd say that to anyone, who has done wrong and clearly has turned their lives around, that includes even the most grievous of crimes.

There's no judgement at all in saying that human rights should be defended. There's reasonable limitations to what human beings can and cannot do to one another. I think this is simply one of them.

I'll defend the rights of any mother insofar as they do not infringe on the rights of other human lives, that includes the unborn child.

mikom

philologos wrote: »

I'll defend the rights of any mother insofar as they do not infringe on the rights of other human lives, that includes the unborn child.

You could easily say........

I'll defend the rights of any unborn child insofar as they do not infringe on the rights of other human lives, that includes the mother.

See how that works......... or doesn't in the case of catholic Ireland.

philologos

mikom: The right to life is fundamental, without it you have no other rights. The reason why I will never agree with abortion-by-choice is because I don't agree that a persons life should be taken away by a mere choice. That's why I suggest that there should be a middle ground reached between the rights of the child, and the rights of the mother. That's the reasonable way to look at it.