Page 1 of 2

What year is this again? 1952?

Posted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:54 pm
by HarryO'Criosna
I was a little stunned when I read this (from today's IT, on Dáil debate on abortion legislation):
During the debate, Fine Gael TD for Mayo Michelle Mulherin said “fornication” was the single greatest cause of unwanted pregnancies in Ireland.

“In an ideal world there would be no unwanted pregnancies and no unwanted babies. But we are far from living in an ideal world,” she said. "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, I would say, is probably the single most likely cause of unwanted pregnancies in this country.”
Its not like she's some oul one, she's only a few months older than myself. I was actually naive enough to think that this kind of viewpoint was the preserve of the over 60s in this country. We are well and truly fucked with people like this running the show. Herself and Ruairí Quinn must get on just great!

NB I'm not saying I'm necessarily in support of or against any particular piece of legislation. Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my management. The value of your investment may go down as well as up. Etc.

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:08 am
by mambazo
Am I missing something, or are they forgetting the whole concept of contraception? Surely 'lack of using adequate contraception while not intending to cause a pregnancy' is the biggest cause, which likely has a strong correlation to 'being very drunk'. Maybe I'm crazy.

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:11 am
by aZerogodist
I actual had to look up what fornication meant in the dictionary. So according to her there should be a law against an unmarried couple having a child. :roll:

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:26 am
by Bik
I'm still not sure what she was getting at. I think she is a lawyer by trade so was she using legalise to say that based on scripture an abortion or murder is no worse than greed or fornication which are not legislated for? But if so, I'm not sure what point she was trying to make in the context of the debate.

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:40 pm
by HarryO'Criosna
mambazo wrote:Surely 'lack of using adequate contraception while not intending to cause a pregnancy' is the biggest cause
But of course using contraception would also be wrong I presume by her account.
Bik wrote:I'm not sure what point she was trying to make in the context of the debate.
I think her point was (and you may need to try and regress your brain to some kind of Neanderthal state here to get it) is that if no-one was riding each other outside of marriage then there'd be no need for abortion. Perfect sense. I'm converted, Michelle. Point me at the nearest church.

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:38 pm
by bipedalhumanoid
I don't have a problem at all with what she has said.

Her argument, paraphrased is basically this.

There are lots of "sins" in the bible we don't legislate against, so why should we legislate against the sin of abortion?

It's essentially an argument suggesting that if good catholics don't want abortions then good catholics can choose not to have abortions without forcing the rest of the populace to comply their religious beliefs.

Of course the media, with its amazing gold fish-like attention span, has picked up on one thing she said and allowed that to distract from what is an extremely important and overdue debate.

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Posted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:24 pm
by Tulip1
I actually read it the same way as Bip.

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:18 pm
by Dr Raskolnikov
Tulip1 wrote:I actually read it the same way as Bip.
Whatever she meant, it does come across a bit insensitive, in equating those who are in loving relationships "outside of marriage" with greed and hate.

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Posted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:54 pm
by Tulip1
Dr Raskolnikov wrote:
Tulip1 wrote:I actually read it the same way as Bip.
Whatever she meant, it does come across a bit insensitive, in equating those who are in loving relationships "outside of marriage" with greed and hate.
But she doesn't want to legislate for it though! :wink:

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Posted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:04 am
by Beebub
bipedalhumanoid wrote:I don't have a problem at all with what she has said.

Her argument, paraphrased is basically this.

There are lots of "sins" in the bible we don't legislate against, so why should we legislate against the sin of abortion?

It's essentially an argument suggesting that if good catholics don't want abortions then good catholics can choose not to have abortions without forcing the rest of the populace to comply their religious beliefs.

Of course the media, with its amazing gold fish-like attention span, has picked up on one thing she said and allowed that to distract from what is an extremely important and overdue debate.
You have it right but I'm surprised you don't have a problem with it. She's an elected representative and one of the people empowered to vote on issues like this. She doesn't see the need to legislate on this issue even though it's long overdue, because we don't legislate on other sins. WTF! She's not calling for us to legislate agaisnt fornication. So what?

On what planet should 'sin' be used as a basis for legislation at all?