AI logo

Atheist Ireland Forum

Building a rational, ethical and secular society free from superstition and supernaturalism

Chat Room?

It is currently Tue Jun 18, 2013 8:12 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: What year is this again? 1952?
New postPosted: Thu Apr 19, 2012 10:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 12:43 pm
Posts: 90
I was a little stunned when I read this (from today's IT, on Dáil debate on abortion legislation):

Quote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What year is this again? 1952?
New postPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 9:25 pm
Posts: 6
Location: Clonakilty, Cork
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What year is this again? 1952?
New postPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:11 am 
Offline
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 29, 2008 6:04 pm
Posts: 1278
Location: Co. CORK
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:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What year is this again? 1952?
New postPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:26 am 
Offline
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:02 pm
Posts: 636
Location: Baile Átha Cliath
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What year is this again? 1952?
New postPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 12:40 pm 
Offline

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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What year is this again? 1952?
New postPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 3:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:55 pm
Posts: 2675
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What year is this again? 1952?
New postPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2012 8:24 pm 
Offline
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:07 pm
Posts: 1529
Location: Sligo
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What year is this again? 1952?
New postPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 1:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 11:16 pm
Posts: 197
Location: "In the beginning there was the word, and the word was "word up biatch""
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What year is this again? 1952?
New postPosted: Sat Apr 21, 2012 4:54 pm 
Offline
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2009 1:07 pm
Posts: 1529
Location: Sligo
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What year is this again? 1952?
New postPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 10:04 am 
Offline
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member

Joined: Mon Jul 13, 2009 1:22 pm
Posts: 1014
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What year is this again? 1952?
New postPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:15 pm 
Offline
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jul 11, 2009 9:10 pm
Posts: 914
Location: Dublin
D'arcy has gone up in my book.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news ... 88278.html

_________________
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/mencken.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What year is this again? 1952?
New postPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:49 pm 
Offline
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 1:02 pm
Posts: 636
Location: Baile Átha Cliath
Dev wrote:


And he has refused to apologise (some of the comments below the story are entertaining)

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/presenter-darcy-refuses-to-apologise-for-church-comments-548623.html

_________________
"Prayer has no place in the public schools, just like facts have no place in organized religion." Superintendent Chalmers


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What year is this again? 1952?
New postPosted: Mon Apr 23, 2012 7:17 pm 
Offline
Atheist Ireland Member
Atheist Ireland Member
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 24, 2011 3:58 pm
Posts: 257
I didn't know Ray D'Arcy was an atheist.

Fair play to him for speaking out and furthermore, for continuing to stand up for what he believes. He's done nothing wrong.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 13 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group