Fight For Womens Right To Choose.

by EHG Sat Jun 02, 2007 19:13

Well done to Choice Ireland for keeping this on the agenda.

by Heather Tue Jun 19, 2007 10:24

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6750887.stm

by B - Choice Ireland Wed Jun 20, 2007 11:27 choiceireland at gmail dot com

Among the speakers confirmed for this are Senator David Norris and Ivana Bacik.

by B - Choice Ireland - personal capacity Wed Jun 20, 2007 12:13

By the way, thanks for the information link Heather - it's a crazy situation and just shows how out of touch and hypocritical the hierarchy of the catholic church can be on this issue. That they would wish to limit the resources of a group that fight for human rights for the living shows that they see life as a theoretical thing, not something to be cherished and protected and fought for. They seem to care more for the life of the unborn than the born.

Many people in Ireland who consider themselves to be catholic have come to realise that it is more useful if they think for themselves on issues of sexual health. Few young catholics in Ireland today would argue against using contraception for example - even though it is absolutely prohibited by the vatican. That is because outside of the state of councils of celibate men with their heads in the clouds, real catholics have the ability to exercise common sense and compassion about the real lives of other real people. We hope this will eventually extend to the issue of abortion.

Noone wants to go out and promote abortions, we just want to face reality, stop traumatising women and start respecting that their own difficult choices are their own. The article you posted the link to shows just why even catholics should start showing a healthy disregard for what the vatican dictates.

by Erika Sun Jun 24, 2007 15:52

"That they would wish to limit the resources of a group that fight for human rights for the living shows that they see life as a theoretical thing, not something to be cherished and protected and fought for"

Surely you jest? The pro-life are the ones that believe ALL life is sacred and should be protected. Pro-choice believes that one outweighs the other.

"Many people in Ireland who consider themselves to be catholic have come to realise that it is more useful if they think for themselves on issues of sexual health"

Are you suggesting that abortion should be considered as contraception? And how is abortion connected to sexual health? A child/embryo/etc is not an STD.

"real catholics have the ability to exercise common sense and compassion about the real lives of other real people. We hope this will eventually extend to the issue of abortion."

I agree however I personally consider a living, growing child to be real life also including pre-birth. Where do you consider life to begin?

"Noone wants to go out and promote abortions, we just want to face reality, stop traumatising women and start respecting that their own difficult choices are their own. "

Too suggest that no one is promoting abortions flies in the face of reality. Many many pro-choice believe in abortion on request regardless of reason. That is promoting it and a difficult decision for the woman does not outweigh the effect it has on another life.

"The article you posted the link to shows just why even catholics should start showing a healthy disregard for what the vatican dictates."

Naturally people should think for themselves, especially in cases where the church speaks without experience.

Personally I consider myself pro-life in that I loath the death of a child through abortion in the same way that I lament a still-birth. Its a life lost. However I dont appose abortion on medical grounds. I dont believe a woman should be forced to carry a terminally ill child with no chance of life or to continue where their own death is a very real danger however abortion based on social decisions is in my opinion selfish and wrong. To have an abortion because you dont want children or because it would interfere with your social life is selfish. Now I know people ask whats the alternative well there are alternatives, if you never want children use effective contraception or better yet, both people use them. This would greatly reduce the number of abortions worldwide.

If however you still find yourself pregnant then is adoption really going to destroy your life forever? Remember, 9 months for you is a life for the child and no greater gift can be given. You can still walk away and return to your life, an aborted child has no life.

Having said that I have never understood why there appears to be only 2 sides, your either pro-life or pro-choice but there really are many grey areas where individuals can change their stance. Also, the arguement isnt if you agree or dont agree with killing a child. I doubt anyone does believe this. The arguement is what you consider the baby/embryo/feutus/etc too be.

I believe once life begins it should be nurtured and given the oppurtunity where possible. Others think that 3 months is the important moment, others 6, etc. Therefore even pro-choice supporters may not always be pro-abortion. I mean, where does it stop being acceptable? If abortion at 6 months (too use a defined 'its a baby' time period) is acceptable then is 9 months? Is killing a newborn that different? Should we be allowed to make this decision based outisde or medical grounds? The US supreme court asked these very questions. Also remember that the woman that took the case, Daly???? Not too sure, that allowed abortion in the US is now firmly pro-life and believes that she killed her own child. Likewise does a pro-life always believe that abortion is never an option? Again we are now into the grey areas that are never used when either side is shouting.

Now let me leave by making a comment on both sides that campaigned. Neither side showed genuine compassion or support. Both used this case to further an agenda regardless of the pawn being used. Everyweek we see both sides campaigning in an aggresive manner often displaying graphic images that no one need see and I am often left wondering how much support they lose by distressing parents, their children and women that have been through an abortion with their actions. I also wonder how many have actually been in the situation of being pregnant and what decision they made. Are the campaigners, like the church, speaking without experience? Did a pro-lifer consider abortion when they were faced with the option? As for pro choice, I know that the most recent study showed that pregancy related suicide was higher in women that had abortions that those that gave birth within 5 years of the suicide. So is abortion really to a womans medical benefit in the long term?

I can say that I did face the decision, it was a short decision and I have never regretted it despite the trials that parenthood brings whereas I dont think I could live with myself had I terminated a healthy pregnancy.

by Anon Sun Jun 24, 2007 17:06

"the most recent study showed that pregancy related suicide was higher in women that had abortions that those that gave birth within 5 years of the suicide"

What study is that?

"I believe once life begins it should be nurtured and given the oppurtunity where possible. Others think that 3 months is the important moment, others 6, etc."

In other words there is no consensus. So why should the law impose your belief on the rest of us.

by Theophan - None Sun Jun 24, 2007 22:14

The real question is whether we consider the unborn child to be just that...a seperate life forming in the woman's body or else just another part of that woman's body which would make abortion on the same ethical level as tatooing.

As an Orthodox Christian I am aganist tatooing as I am aganist cremation however I would not fight on to make these things illegal as hateful as they are too God.

Abortion is different because it amounts not to disfiguring what was formed by God but to actually destorying the image of God- personal human life. It involves someone putting enforcing their views on another person to the point of destorying them.

Theophan.

by Secularist Mon Jun 25, 2007 06:19

Last I checked this state was not supposed to be run according to the laws of "God". Perhaps you have confused it with Afghanistan.

by also secularist Mon Jun 25, 2007 09:52

The remit of the Catholic/christian churches is in the spiritual realm.
not in the political realm and not on an open newswire.

It is not allowed access to the biological and/or spiritual functions of woman, because the
hierarchies are male and they know nothing of being a woman. It is not allowed access
to the privacy and medical advice between the woman/child and her doctor. it should not
be allowed to determine the democracy of a country through its obvious interference in
political processes in many countries. Those who are catholic and accept the canonical law
are tolerated for their belief, it is time that they tolerated and adapted to the idea that their
belief system and its obvious contradictions regarding women is not something that
we all ascribe to and most specifically in relation to the view that a woman is:
1. Inferior.
2.Biologically determined.
3.Morally passive.
4.Less equal than a male because universal ideologies of equality are not grounded
in the notion that yes women and girls are biologically different and true equality
acknowledges and celebrates this.

This is nothing to do with the truly laughable statements and opinions of the 'sacred feminine'
that are propounded by the oligarchy of the church, women and girls are living breathing
human beings and the sexual hang-ups of a few celibate and philosophically challenged
males will not change the fact that some women cannot or do not want to go the maternal route.
Indeed some 12-17 year old girls whose human rights have been offended by the view of the
church of them as sexual beings deserve apology for the abuse of their integrity and privacy
by a church that really needs to dialogue with women on an equal basis. Of course the
fundamentalism of an all male system of religious belief would not admit of the need for change
nor accept its responsibility in the ethnic cleansing of woman from the philosophical
structures that it has made up from the donation of Constantine to present where the business
of the church has been the decimation of the female and the accquistion of money.

by bj Mon Jun 25, 2007 10:53

Abortion is not a religious / secular issue. It is far more important than that.

It is a human rights issue, just like slavery, racism and poverty.

Future, wiser generations will condemn us for our wilful ignorance.

by siobhan Mon Jun 25, 2007 12:43

It is CRAZY that a woman in 2007 in Ireland still DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT OVER HER OWN BODY.

If she finds out that she is pregnant - whatever the circumstance- it is the woman who will have to deal with everything

and so it should be she and she alone who decides what she wants to do with HER OWN BODY !!! LEGALLY!!!!

really isnt too much to ask.

PEACE UP TO THE PRO-CHOICE Rally on Saturday..
We'll get there in the end
Much Love
Siobhan xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

by fg Mon Jun 25, 2007 14:45

Its not the control over her own body that some of us have a problem with it is the negative control over the body within her body.
To say a woman is merely exercising control over her own body by having an abortion is disingenuous and flies in the face of the facts.

by siobhan Mon Jun 25, 2007 15:15

dont agree with you at all - as many millions of people dont agree with you.

I dont agree that one speck of potential for life is as important as a woman who is already fully alive and living and having to deal with issues which in the end effect her and her alone.

Full legal rights hsould be given to the woman.

end of.

by fg Mon Jun 25, 2007 15:27

"one speck of potential for life"

come on now! a foetus/child of say, 20 weeks is hardly that, is it?
What about at nine months? What about partial-birth abortions?

by siobhan Mon Jun 25, 2007 16:30

I see what you mean about the 20 weeks-

ah but 'come on now' what about the YEARS AND YEARS old the woman is?

That counts way more.

you can keep bringing arguements back to the possibility of the foetus having life but I will always ALWAYS respect that it is THE WOMAN who has right to a legal right over her own body.

she is first and foremost EVERYTIME.

no argument.
no stats.
no placards.
will ever change that beleif in me.

Abortion is different in everycase and whether you think a woman is right or not to have an abortion,

to argue against women having legal rights to choose what they want to do with their own bodies is an arguement against Human Rights.

by left observer Mon Jun 25, 2007 16:38

I'm pro choice but i don't believe an abortion should be allowed (unless there like a medical danger or something) after the point where the baby would be able to survive by itself outside the womb. What do the rest of the contributers think?

by dee Mon Jun 25, 2007 20:33

"the possibility of the foetus having life"

I suspect siobhan that you will find yourself in a very small minority if you attempt to argue whether the foetus has life. That argument was conceded, a long time ago, by even the most staunch pro-choicers.
It has life, it can only be human life, so lets move on.

by fg Mon Jun 25, 2007 20:39

'I don't believe an abortion should be allowed after the point where the baby would be able to survive by itself outside the womb'
I can understand your opinion but the question we all want answered is - why do you think that? Why is independence the determining factor?

by siobhan Tue Jun 26, 2007 09:29

lets move on indeedy dee
to the notion that the woman herself has a life that should be inherently respected by giving her a legal right over her own body and life.

by socmot Tue Jun 26, 2007 23:58

Niav Keating of Choice Ireland was on Newstalk tonight at 10pm, putting forth the views of her group.
One the people who rang in to disagree stated that if a woman was raped "that's her problem". A man who texted in said women should "keep their legs together".

Incredible to think that such totally warped thinking still exists in Ireland today.

Best of luck to Choice Ireland on Saturday, I will be there to support them.

by left observer Wed Jun 27, 2007 00:40

"why do you think that? Why is independence the determining factor"

Tough one, as i suppose is the whole abortion question.

I agree with choice because i don't think we should force women to have children if they don't want them especially in a world where women as expected to take more or les full responsiblity for bringing up a child.

People who find themselves in abortion positions are for the VAST MAJORITY from lower working class or deprived backgrounds, ignorant, poor education, low self esteem, easier to manipulate or feel under pressure to "put out". These women suffer enough and should not be made to suffer more because people from wealtier (but still working class) backgrounds look down their nose at them. Abortion is never an easy decision and they should be allowed abortions if they want them in the short term

but a long term policy would be ending poverty and social alienation, advancing womens liberation/equality, making child care free, being more socially open about sex, free contraception available on demand and a better sex ed education (the one i got was that all contraception is really unsafe and the only way to not get pregnancy or diseased was abstinence).

As regards the "independance" issue i just believe that in the early months, although the child has life, it is entirely dependant on the mother. After that point i feel the mother has left it too late and will just have to either keep it or give it up for adoption as the child is capable of independant life.

But as i say, its a tough question, roll on socialism and eventually communism, where such a discussion will be pretty much irrelevant

by Erika Wed Jun 27, 2007 19:16

Well I hoped that a debate of note could be entered but it appears that there is only one arguement that pro-choice will always go back, it goes something like this:

I am a woman, I dont want to be pregnant, Im more important than a baby and pregancy is LIKE SOOOOOO hard and traumatic so I should be allowed have an abortion.

Thats a selfish and immature attitude as it allows abortion to be used as a form of contraception. Im not suggesting that people will disregard the pill, etc and opt for this but by allowing free for all abortions that is the result.

I may be swayed to agree that abortions should be allowed under certain circumstances but not any circumstance.

Lets also be honest, while the comments mentioned above may be crude and unkind the fact is most pregnancies are a product of our own choices and actions. Are we not adults? Has responsibility gone completely?

And please, lets drop the whole arguement about putting women through something so traumatic as child birth, is abortion any less traumatic?

9 months for a woman allows a lifetime for a child. Has the world become so selfish that another life is now not even worth 9 months? Lets remember that people have and do die for the sake of another life. the child only wants 9 months from you.

Oh and the most recent survey is STAKES which was performed in Finland. The US also did a similar study. Abortion followed by suicide has a far higher figure per 10,000 than birth or in fact, the national average. This was mirrored in the US.

So again I ask, is abortion really a better option than birth for unwanted children AND their mothers?

by C. Wed Jun 27, 2007 19:35

There is no debate on the newswire about the reality and necessity for medical abortion,
nor is there a recognition by those (mainly women) who think that it is enormously clever
to subjugate their own sex through attack and abuse. There is no discussion by those
in YD and the pro-life movement about the lack of care for the 12-17 year old girl
who in the eyes of the Catholic church is a woman who is co-equal with the foetus
she is carrying, nor is there debate on the lack of infrastructure and development of
abuse and rape centres. There is a consistent attempt to direct the argument for the
necessity for abortion services into a lifestyle choice issue and a series of abusive
reports and an image of a foetus- which displays a completely undignified and
propagandist approach to the issue of foetal death. Whilst that may seem clever to
those who use hatred and their own fear of anything beyond the control nexus of
religion, it is unworthy of the theological basis in that religion which to me does not
teach arrogant contempt for other human beings rights to have family support and
medical care in times of great distress. It is truly upsetting to see the vicious attacks on
the women who are seeking to have a debate on crisis pregnancy by those who have
submitted their individuality to a closed systemised and male dominated religion.

I think that Choice Ireland have brought the issue of the necessity for medical abortion and
related services into the public domain, they have worked incredibly hard to do so and
deserve support , not infantile attack. Infants die, it is a fact and the mother of the
infant who is diagnosed with severe anomaly deserves structured support, not some
uneducated, fear-driven person to wave images in their faces. I found this abuse today
disturbing having supported friends through illness and death, including stillbirths
and cancer -related death.

by AM Wed Jun 27, 2007 21:33

"Thats a selfish and immature attitude as it allows abortion to be used as a form of contraception. Im not suggesting that people will disregard the pill, etc and opt for this but by allowing free for all abortions that is the result."

How is it the result? What evidence do you have that anyone anywhere is disregarding the pill and opting for abortion as a form of contraception instead?

"Lets also be honest, while the comments mentioned above may be crude and unkind the fact is most pregnancies are a product of our own choices and actions. Are we not adults? Has responsibility gone completely?"

So forced motherhood is an appropriate punishment for irresponsibility. Well that makes sense.

"And please, lets drop the whole arguement about putting women through something so traumatic as child birth, is abortion any less traumatic?"

Pro-choicers don't believe women should be forced to go through abortions either.

"the child only wants 9 months from you"

The "child" doesn't know or care at that stage of its development.

As for the STAKES study I googled it and here is an excerpt from what I found:

"Long term follow up studies [on abortion], however, have documented more positive reactions and fewer undesirable feelings than short term studies....Abortion might mean a selection of women at higher risk for suicide because of reasons like depression. Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons. Increased risk for a suicide after an induced abortion can, besides indicating common risk factors for both, result from a negative effect of induced abortion on mental wellbeing. With our data, however, it was not possible to study the causality more carefully."

In other words, the study didn't control for other factors besides the abortion itself that might have caused the suicide - so it's effectively useless for arguing your point.

by S Thu Jun 28, 2007 10:51

i just wanted to express my views on this emotive and difficult issue...

I believe that abortion ends a life. I believe that it is a sad occurance. But I still believe it should be an individual choice.

Since time began, women have used herbs and mechanical remedies to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancies, this has always been, it will always be, and shouting about it and making it illegal will not make it go away.

I think what is at the base of this issue for a lot of people is a black and white judgement - that abortion is wrong - so these women are automatically judged by them as being bad people. But as Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

We can't know the situation of someone's life that means they have to make this difficult decision -
maybe they were raped
Maybe they are in a domestic violence situation and not allowed access to contraception (not a rare as you might think) and don't want to bring more children into violence.

Then there are all the other factors which lead to abortion - these are the social factors - like that there is no free childcare, like that women are victimised in their jobs for having children, like the stigma and lack of support for single mothers. Like the fear and lack of options surrounding pregnancy and birth. Loads and loads - these are the causes, abortion is the symptom, i think.

I would like abortion to be rare - because it is sad that a potential life has to end.
But i don't think i can make that decision for a woman. and my shouting that abortion is wrong is not going to stop a single woman from going to england - it is only going to make them more ashamed and traumatised - across the board - whatever the reasoning - and i don't have the right to hurt other people in that way.

The only way to make abortion rarer is to enable and empower women to take control of their bodies and their lives - pushing for proper sex education and more free impartial pregnancy counseling - so that women don't rush off because they are ashamed.
Openly talking about the issue here is the way forward i think. taking the pro-life stance back from the too-religious who do not believe in contraception, or would force miss D into bearing a baby with no brain. Common sense open discussion. developing services for parents here, ending stigma around crisis pregnancies. Respect for individual well-informed and supported choices and - really - i would like there to be a consensus that a woman has a greater right to life and well-being than a foetus.

I have thought about this a lot.. and i think that it is something that most people hold to be true even if we don't acknowledge it...

A vast majority of Irish people say they would legalise abortion in the case of rape.
This means that they are being compassionate to the well being of the mother - acknowledging that even though they believe the foetus to be alive (and innocent of any crime) - the mother's life and well being is more important.

I think this is always the case. and as i cannot walk in someone elses shoes, i cannot judge for them. i can only respect and trust them and give them all the information to make the right decision for themselves.

Sorry for being long-winded and i hope it makes sense

Choice Ireland are campaigning for all of these other things as well as for free safe legal abortion if you look at the website www.choiceireland.blogspot.com

by siobhan Thu Jun 28, 2007 11:54

s your above post is the nearest to my own beliefs ive heard yet.

thanks for taking the time to write that - my agreement with nearly all of what you say has clarified some of my own thinking.

good luck to the pro- choicers on saturday in dublin. - i'll be there with you in spirit

by gurgle ribbid spit in your eye Thu Jun 28, 2007 13:52

1. under catholic (& it seems most Irish people who oppose assisted abortion are catholic) canon law an aborted foetus is a lost life which rather than going to Limbo goes directly to Heaven. The difference between Limbo and Heaven being quite small - both include grace but only one allows the full knowledge of God. Limbo no longer exists so all aborted zygotes enjoy Heaven.
2. under catholic and christian theology all mortal human beings once they have achieved the age of reason are endowed free will - meaning they make choices which lead them to Heaven (The knowledge of God) or Hell (no knowledge of God).
Do you have to be a mensa 2 year old to see that under catholic thinking it is better to avoid life and the temptations of free will which damn most of us and condemn us to not enjoy heaven? Are people so retarded that they can't see the ethics and morality are utterly illogical? It is pointless entering into the "life" debate with "pro-lifers" the only wish more beings alive so they can be excluded from heaven. In short they want more people in hell. Which is where they are going if it exists. Meanwhile... those who do not build their morality and superstitious hypocrisy around unproven speculative notions of an afterlife and thus focus on only one life appear to understand perfectly that people make choices every day.

Some of those are big choices - some are small. You buy an equity mortgage, you drive a hydrocarbon fuel car, you snort cocaine, you terminate a foetus..... which causes the worst damage?

It is utterly pointless entering into discussions with "pro-lifers" they just want more people alive so less people go to heaven. They like Hell perhaps more than they liked Limbo which is why they held onto it for so long. Just ignore them. No-one is going to change their mind on this. Either you believe there is "one life" or you don't. + either you believe there is "free will" or you don't .:.

by Johnatan Thu Jun 28, 2007 16:35

What I don't understand about the decision to support abortion by Amnesty International is that it is totally opposed to the death sentence in every other circumstance, except when it applies to the unborn!

So even the most murderous, genocidal maniac has a right to life, that will be defended by Amnesty, but a child in the womb, that is guilty of nothing, can be terminated.

If someone on this BB can explain their logic, I'd be interested in hearing it.

by very simple Thu Jun 28, 2007 16:48

So even the most murderous, genocidal maniac has a right to life,

Very simple to explain.

A blastocyst is not yet a human life.

Saddam Hussein was a human being.

by gurggle ribbid spit in your eye Thu Jun 28, 2007 17:35

-Which is pretty much what the flimsy warped arguments of "pro-life" & "right to life" are all about. If you base these notions on christian concepts of the soul - the zygote is saved - bingo - dressed in white, little wings, harp and name in the book but the woman who terminated it is not - if she had brought it to full term with all the cells requisite for a seperate life and then squeezed it successfully through a dilated cervix or had it cut out by caesarian section then regardless or not if it grows up into a willfully murderous mass murderer (as opposed to a determinist as of yet to proven genetically predisposed monster) or for sake of argument a celibate nun in an enclosed order who spends her life using slave labour produced goods whilst praying for us & only emerges to vote in referenda - the mammy might go to heaven and the baby too.

it's bullshit. Either all life is sacred or none is. it's such bullshit that contemplation of christian judeo-hellenic "life is sacred" but only that of humans because they alone are gifted with "ensoulment" brings you to wondering at what stage in evolution did the soul get into our distant ancestors' gig?
Of course we got around that before with Limbo. But now there's no Limbo. So....,
we mostly agree that all life is not sacred & it's ok to kill mosquitos regardless of what the dalai lama says since he comes back every time anyway as a Tibetan male representing less than 3% of total human existence "alive" at any one time. However, we all know that killing people is taboo. as in "people" - the more cute & cuddly - the bigger taboo unless of course they live in hot countries and the people their parents ought pay tax to are our enemies. Hence - we have ethics.

Now is there any part of that which bigots still find difficult to get?

Yes- you all have a right to decide your own minds on whether or not assisted abortion ought remain illegal in the Eire state. You're not Polish. Yes - many of you feel strongly about it. Yes - an awful lot of you get it utterly and religiously warped. Telling women they are going to Hell for sending their foetuses to Heaven - or they are going to suicide from depression provoked by looking at your propaganda photos is not Christian. It doesn't get you into Heaven.
Yes - abortion has meant the poorest and most vulnerable see their fertility controlled in aspects and with consequences not reflected in other socio-economic classes. But not a single one of you on either side of the debate have so far earned their little gold star on your now daily gurgglings.

so at end this is all about Irish society and its painfully slow adaption to 21st century secular acceptance & medical practice. No matter they still stone people in mid-Asia & claim the prophet (PBUH) told them it was ok while even closer to our holy shores people still think it's ok torture an animal in a ring and on telly because its a cultural relic of the very religion (Mithraism) which was absorbed into early christianity yet they think they're kathurlick too.

IF I had not been brought into this life - If I had been miscarried or stillborn - I would have been a focus of grief only if I had been wanted. Yet who could want what they didn't know? I for one would have been quit ehappy in Limbo till 2007 and its abolition and the subsequent transfer of all innocents and rightous yet ignorant pagans (& muslims) to Heaven..... looking down on ye and weeping at your hypocrisy & small understanding.

cast that stone.
write that comment.

by Theophan Thu Jun 28, 2007 21:09

Firstly secularist I am not a Roman Catholic and I strongly disagree with them on many things such as the nature of the Holy Trinity, the importance of Tradition, purgatory, whether the Blessed Mother was concieved without sin or not. Most of which you would probably find obscurantist drivelings- as I find Marxism hopelessly niave. I am Greek Orthodox.

Secondly- God has laws, man has freewill but God created man and if man goes aganist the laws of God which he is always free to do he goes aganist his own innermost nature and so destories it, ultimately eternally so if he does not repent burning in agony in his futile rebellion without burning out unto the ages of ages. God will not stop you or anyone from disregarding his laws and organizing your life and lives of other around anything but Him- you are free to do so but there will be eternal consequences. There is not and has never been a cielestial tyrannt. Ya'll wanted to throw away what you regarded as chains (though they were infact supports) and ya'll were given the opportunity to dive into the abyss.

THAT SAID; It is the duty of every Christian to pray to God for the establishment or re-establishment of a God-loving Authority that will seek the eternal aswell as temporal good of its subjects. However such a blessing cannot and will not come down on those who dont deserve, who would regard it as a curse.

So there will be NO Christian Taliban that will come along and bash you over the head for messing around with your girl friend or being a Marxist or whatever. If enough people repent and pray and fast as opposed to pass out leafets and organise in the way the reds do (Moa studied the Legion of Mary you know!) than God Almighty will peacefully send us a Christian King.

But the way things look it isnt going to happen soon.

by Theophan. Thu Jun 28, 2007 21:21

"I believe that abortion ends a life. I believe that it is a sad occurance. But I still believe it should be an individual choice."

Siobhan,

What is that supposed to mean? Abortion means the deliberate killing of a human person, it shouldnt happen but if someone wants to end the life of human person this way well its up to them because I dont want to seem like big-bad-youth-defense or some imagined Counter-Reformation fiery eyed Spanish jesuit and still be respectable with nice lefty pals? Sorry for being sarcastic but I hope you will understand what I am getting at.

The deliberate ending of human life, however small or degraded (would you have the same attitude to people seeking to kill elderly relatives or long term drug addicted off spring?) is something that I believe is more than a sad occurance, it is wrong- every human being is an unrepeatable mystery.

If you didnt consider the unborn child a seperate human life but a part of the mother's life than I could understand you, I could respect your opinion in that case, but as it stands well...please just think.

Theophan.

by AM Fri Jun 29, 2007 06:24

Who the hell cares whether you're Catholic, Orthodox, whatever. The point is you think your religious beliefs on when human life begins should be law. I don't share your beliefs - why should I be subject to a law based on them?

by gurggle mutter ribbid spit in your eye Fri Jun 29, 2007 14:02

Quite right you've got a completely different take on the homouisia and don't accept either transubstantiation or trinity (both of which subjects have got their thread) you have also suffered dictatorships in the 20th century in the name of your religion & like the most oppressive of western European states saw mis-minded christians impose authoritarian regimes in the name of god. However, that said :- you accept one of the refrain of the psalter and psalms & issue on a weekly basis (if a practicant) the lines "world without end Amen". That without end means without end . No hollywood style apocalypse - no dramatic ends. You have never accepted the notions of either purgatory or limbo & have not formulated any position on where non-catholics go when they die beyond mouldering in the grave / ashpot. You also accept the concepts of free will and through your canonisation of the early doctors of the church the pre-Aquinine notions of ensoulment = a zygote is not a human life.
But for most intensive purposes your beliefs in ensoulment are the same as western christians & in the past have been routed in Aristotlean thought and based on a notion that mankind alone capable of reason and thought may be held to have a soul. Then came the great simians who could add, substract and manipulate language & express emotions....,
(c/f [christian] theological objections to the "turing test" which was mentioned on another thread yesterday by Coilin - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test)
so yet more bullshit with longer beards. By the way I was for a short time a key-holder of one of the sites used by the greek orthodox church in Ireland. Alas it wasn't pretty enough a building for them, being more into smells and bells than any of the large Christian denominations besides perhaps the coptics - who as well as opposing abortion and contraception still have not objected to female circumcision..,

There will be no Christian King - no feeble rehash of Aristotlean political utopia - & all talk of such to justify a position taken against assisted abortion in the Eire state is as lame as a Wiccan pushing a rhubarb leaf potion mixed with potato leaf as a morning after pill. Yes- they are abortificants - but any substanvce which stops oxyhaemoglobalisation is...,

Is there not a single person capable of throwing the stone?

Not one amongst you who an argue that any Christian can being true to their beliefs hound and abuse the women who aborted foetuses and thus sent them straight to heaven? Any Christian who can justify their prejudiced rightous and abusive propaganda? without the vague half-baked statements of faith? obviously your christian communions were desperate to keep up numbers - none of you ought have been allowed pass confirmation. Except those who remain silent. Those who have not thrown the stone. Those who know they may not judge either the woman at the well of Samaria or any living today.

Now. This isn't a religious site and modern Ireland in her international context of EU membership and responsibilities is not beholden by any thing other than preamble to grant privilege to religious notions of life - so this is a subject of ethics - not God.

Who's next?
any rebellious maronites or ahmish on indymedia ireland who want to go bible chat?

by wow Fri Jun 29, 2007 23:16

'gurggle ribbid spit in your eye'

subject apart (just this once) is this guy the greatest ranter on Indy? I mean just imagine being stuck in a lift together.

by He's right Sat Jun 30, 2007 08:00

Heres my stone:-
The catholic church sexualises children for profit and for misery. The Irish Constitution backs
it up by refusing to transpose the Basic human rights of the Child into law. The 12-17 year old
girl has no right to dignity or privacy in the necessity for abortion services. The co-equality
clause insults woman by making her co-equal in law with a zygote. Ireland has the worst record
on human rights abuses against women since the foundation of the state and lags behind
both the EU and Africa in terms of protections against pornography. people trafficking. child abuse
charges against catholic priests. there is no infrsastructural support for rape trauma and the
minister for health refuses to create regulations against catholic rogue agencies. In fact Ireland
is a haven for those who view women and girls as fodder be it through utilising state laws to
keep women in violent relationships or to abuse their bodies for the sake of a camera for
mass consumption. (please note that a man got 18 months for abusing chernobyl survivors
and taking photographs). all attempts by people to remove the view of women and girls
as sexual by-products of male dominance from the constitution have been resisted, as have
the programmes to educate children about sexual abuse by Catholic Family lobbies.
catholic family lobbies intend that the sexual abuse and refusal of abortion rights to minors
will continue because it ensures both profit and male dominance.

by BBK Sat Jun 30, 2007 22:31

"all attempts by people to remove the view of women and girls
as sexual by-products of male dominance from the constitution have been resisted"

Have you viewed modern 'liberated' culture recently?
Have you watched t.v., read newspapers or listened to radio?
Everywhere women are treated as sexual objects, much of it in the name of 'liberation'.
It's not the fault of the RC Church or the Constitution. It's Western Culture, which is fast divesting itself of the few Christian standards and mores which it once possessed.
You're not seeing the big picture. Why not? Could it be that 'liberal' means nothing of the sort?

Much of this site is taken up with individuals who, like spoiled brats, condemn and revile the very culture which has given them the freedom they are, even now, throwing away.

With what do you propose to replace an evolving culture founded on Christianity? Where is there such a culture? Show it to me and I will show you persecution, intolerance and death.