What year is this again? 1952?

Discuss church-state separation issues that are relevant in Ireland.

What year is this again? 1952?

Postby HarryO'Criosna » Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:54 pm

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.
HarryO'Criosna
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Postby mambazo » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:08 am

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.
"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position." - Bill Maher
mambazo
 
Posts: 6
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:25 pm
Location: Clonakilty, Cork

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Postby aZerogodist » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:11 am

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:
aZerogodist
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:04 pm
Location: Co. CORK

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Postby Bik » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:26 am

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.
"Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion." Superintendent Chalmers
Bik
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
 
Posts: 637
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:02 pm
Location: Baile Átha Cliath

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Postby HarryO'Criosna » Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:40 pm

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.
HarryO'Criosna
 
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:43 pm

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Postby bipedalhumanoid » Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:38 pm

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.
"The fact of your own existence is the most astonishing fact you will ever have to face. Don’t you ever get used to it." - Richard Dawkins... being shrill and offensive again I suppose.
bipedalhumanoid
 
Posts: 2675
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Postby Tulip1 » Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:24 pm

I actually read it the same way as Bip.
Pope says atheists pick & choose their morals. Correct. Today I will be frowning on child abuse & not having a problem with homosexuality.
Tulip1
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Sligo

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Postby Dr Raskolnikov » Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:18 pm

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.
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins the movie by telling you how it ends. Well, I say there are some things we don't want to know. Important things. - Ned Flanders
Dr Raskolnikov
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 pm
Location: "In the beginning there was the word, and the word was "word up biatch""

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Postby Tulip1 » Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:54 pm

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:
Pope says atheists pick & choose their morals. Correct. Today I will be frowning on child abuse & not having a problem with homosexuality.
Tulip1
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
 
Posts: 1529
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:07 pm
Location: Sligo

Re: What year is this again? 1952?

Postby Beebub » Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:04 am

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?
Beebub
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
 
Posts: 1014
Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:22 pm

Next

Return to Separation of Church and State

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests