This coming from a church who’s holy book states their merciful god killed all the first born in Egypt during the time of Moses . There’s irony there somewhere.

The who said what now?? Oh its the men in funny hats and smocks. Can we move on now please, pretty sure these types had their hands on the reigns for long enough.

I don’t care if this gets into the weekly readers views. It’s more the truth than anything ever said about the dichotomy of religious belief.

Hats off Mr. Mooney, hats off..

to Cal 1
yes and the same church the sexual abuse of children, whom they whole so dear, was hidden, the same church which through fear stopped the children telling of the abuse.
The same church which ran the Magdilans’s, the same church who took the babies from unmarried mothers by force.
the same church which covers up and protects the perps of of sexual abuse.
the same church that would rather see a woman die than abort a fetus.
the same church run by men who have held the power over the poor and uneducated , the same church which have political power.
their days have to be numbered.

Why are we not voting on this big change to our country? Is it because the european self apointed Government won’t let us.
We would be a lot better off out side the EU in the long run.

Two referenda Eddie, TWO, and both with the same result.

it’s the concern of everyone

Greater availability of abortion was voted down in that referendum Irish Red. Let’s not alter the facts to better suit our argument, that makes us hypocrites.

No we wouldn’t Eddie, trust me.

Say what you want about the EU and economics, but they seem to be the only ones capable to giving our politicians a kick up the arse and saying “the 21st century is that way”.

But if you want to ignore what others try to tell us, why not listen to those old men some more. You know those old men who covered up the crimes of rapists, worked their hardest to keep contraception out of Ireland and believe that you and me are inferior to an unseen, genocidal lunatic in the sky who destroys towns and turns people to salt when he’s pissed off.

In truth, this legislation will be limited. The so called “pro-lifers” will call it “opening the door” when the truth is the horse has bolted already – to the UK.

In Ireland we are to some extent lucky in our geography. If laws like ours (wrt abortion) existed in the US then there would be thousands of deaths of pregnant women who would otherwise get a legal abortion who would end up killing themselves or losing the “facilities” to have children because they would be forced to use one of the termination methods that are neither medically safe nor addressing the issues surrounding the event itself.

When I was a teen our 2ndry school religion teacher showed us videos which were propaganda against abortion. “silent scream” was the name of one of them. None of them showed honesty about abortion. All were designed to demonise women who made that choice regardless of why they made that choice. I hope at the very least that people abandon religion around this debate because it just does not fit. If you believe in God, I don’t want to disrespect you but just take a second and imagine that there is no God – and lets talk about the arguments there are after that because that’s the level playing field.

Also, however hard this may be to digest, what we really need is another referendum and to insist on legislation that fits with a society that has changed over the last 20 years.

Legislate on X NOW, ask the people NEXT, legislate immediately.

well said Tatjana. It really is time for the church to keep out from politics.

Tomy did you have an abortion that makes you say silent scream does not represent an abortion?

I’ve seen abortions performed – no screaming. Could you point to the academic research to indicate vocal cords develop before 12 weeks?

bpdeasy – there is more surrounding the truth of abortion than the abortion itself. It was nothing but so called “pro-life” propaganda addressing only the facet that suited the agenda of Sister Susan…..

I don’t mind being challenged on such comments – but you make it far too easy when you show how utterly two-dimensional the “pro-life” argument is.

Something that I found very helpful in informing my own viewpoint on the subject was a film by Tony Kaye called “Lake of Fire”. I would be lying if I were to claim this film is not flawed also but it certainly addresses a lot more areas around the topic than any “pro-life” propaganda.

@Eddie, love it how you don’t understand the difference between the European Convention of Human Rights, which is interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights, and the European Union, the laws of which are determined by the European Court of Justice. The former was drafted immediately after WW2 and Ireland signed it in 1953; the latter Ireland became a member of in 1973. They are completely separate. Nice to see your ignorance expands on many areas.

@gary what was signed in the 50s was for trade and peace, not to have more than 75% of Irish laws made in eu. Think about this Gary if that law was in Ireland when your mother was haven you,maybe you would not be here today or me either there are going to wipe out bloodlines

In case anyone has forgotten the disgraceful details

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Cardinal-Brady-settles-latest-claim-by-abuse-victim-he-swore-to-secrecy-134741158.html

He should be serving time for not reporting crimes against children
….

Catholic Bill of Human Rights:

1. Right to life
2. Right to innocence as a child ❌cancelled❌
3. ….

Finally, a sermon from the mount. Was wondering what those venerable folk were up to.

I must admit I do have my own ideas …consulting with lawyers, playing golf …with lawyers, having lunch… with lawyers, setting up shelf companies in Liechtenstein for pedophile priests… with lawyers, trading in CFD’s on behalf of the Brendan Smyth Benevolent Fund… with lawyers, re-locating pedophile priests to far flung and exotic 3rd world destinations… with lawyers, paying lawyers with suitcases packed full of church donations and sending encrypted emails to senior partners of prestigious law firms with a view to getting them on the team so as they can all hold hands together and come in for the big win.

No doubt they got a serve from the IONA institute for hanging back in the trenches whist the front line troops took a hammering. But I suppose they were after all busy doing Gods work, that is assuming that God is happy enough to provide a pedophile re-location and financial advisory service. But God forgives apparently, he especially forgives bishops their sins. So on that basis we ought to consider the gravity of that which they now condescend to share with us…..an unconditional concern for the life of the unborn.

It’s just the complete disregard for the life of the unborn after it’s born that has me puzzled.

In any case, it’s nice to hear from them again. Ireland needs to stop what it’s doing and pause to consider the benefits inherent in giving such individuals their undivided attention. After all they have worked so very very hard…with their lawyers, in assisting those that fell victim to the many colorful and charismatic members of their elite little club.

God has clearly absolved them of their sins and we should as a nation now welcome them back into the fold and in doing so give them another run at the management of Ireland INC. Clearly we, “the fallen” as Michelle Mulherin would describe us, are no longer capable of managing it ourselves.

Well said @Sinead Cosgrave, totally agree, should I ever be in the position where My life or health is at risk and a termination would be required I want it to be MY decision, not based on the morality of old men who will NEVER be in that position.

How is that relevant ? The baby is well wrapped up. In many countries where the winter temperatures are well below zero they allow their babies to sleep in their prams outside as long as they’re well wrapped up.

Using her child as emotional blackmail for her cause and these people seek to give lessons in morality.

i have a child myself and the child is only 13 weeks old they havent got as much body fat and because they dont move around they need more than just one of those bear suits and a hat in a cold winters evening. if she wanted to take her child then she should have put her child in a pram and put blankets around him . what if it started raining she risks her child getting a cold or sick . personally i dont think children should be out at protests . what does that child know about the issue of abortion nothing .

It’s funny how a few delusional types on websites such as this believe they speak for the majority. If you come out from behind your computer screens then you will see that the views of the church reflect those of the real world. And thank God we still have people who are willing to stand up for the defenceless innocents who can’t protect themselves.

She looks a bit unhinged…

http://www.savitaslaws.com/1/category/galway%20pro%20choice/1.html

just saying. its wrong one both sides

Sandra in 2 referendums the Irish voting public said that they wanted suicide to be a reason for abortion. The people were asked and answered twice. Maybe it’s you who needs to come out from behind your computer screen and meet the real world you know those who voted?

Apologies I green thumbed you by mistake. I think that you will find if there was a vote on this issue tomorrow that the views of the majority do NOT reflect those of the church.

Sandra you old fossil. If there was a referendum tomorrow the pro choice side would win at a canter. Thankfully.

Funny how you are all so worried about the poor child being cold on a winters night yet you have no problem with having them aborted i.e. Killed ……… Just saying.
#contradiction.

Funny how bishops want to protect unborn kids but cover up adults raping them once they are born….

Ty journal for deleting my comment. Was merely making the point that the Catholic church were the biggest kiddy fiddlers ever. What are u afraid of?

Funny how you criticise and ridicule the Catholic Church about child abuse but support abortion , which is far worse as it involve the killing of the child ! You bloody hypocrite

I don’t regard it as funny AT ALL. You might and you’re welcome to – who am I to deny you your viewpoint.

However, it seems to me that the pro-life argument is epitomised not by being pro life at all but by being pro-foetus. There are more factors at play and if you want to continue blinkering yourself to facts then that’s up to you. If that is the case then you will always be angry and always upset by the truth.

I hope you can at some point see the truth.

Mr magoo
You are indeed lucky to have 4 children what if your wife’s life had been in danger during one of those pregnancies would have liked those children brought up motherless to save an unborn sibling?
I know who I would want my mother as opposed to someone I didn’t know.

Anthony; there is nothing worse than sexually, physically, emotionally abusing a child. Nothing. And anyone who carries it out should be hung, drawn and quartered for it.
Comparing child abuse to termination is silly, immature, nonsensical and shows you haven’t the first clue of what it is you’re talking about on either termination or child abuse.

Sandra by what right do the Bishops have to dictate to the populace? The Bishops like every other voice in this country has a right to express an opinion but they cannot for one minute think they speak for the majority anymore. We are a free thinking citizenry and we threw off their yoke thank God!

You my dear are often on here spouting dogmatic claptrap that is as far from Christs message as you can get. While it would be easy to brand you a troll I actually think you are just a zealot dogmatic ubber catholic that cannot see anything else in the world apart from your religion and the power of your magisterium. I actually feel sorry for you.

Really sandra? I could name a referendum that begs to differ. Noone wants to be part of the church, because it ended up being the biggest paedophile machine ever, and the new church mantra appears to be ‘love thy neighbour, except us we will bitch about everything and rape your children’ and have morals like ‘two men together is wrong but is raping children is friendship that wen too far’ please please please continue to be so proud of your morals

If people are Catholic, and believe that abortion is morally repugnant, then that is their right to hold that view. They can tell it to their friends. They can encourage it through their family. They can even tell complete strangers that it’s morally wrong. However, that does not mean, and cannot mean, that your may us the law, our country’s law which applies to every single person, to enforce your dogmatic beliefs. What right do you have? How could any person say without doubt that human life begins at conception when there is no, and never will be, a consensual moral, ethical, religious, or scientific view as to the question. The only thing one can do is to allow each person to make their own decision. Otherwise, you’re imposing a particular world-view on other people which cannot be objectively determined.

Keep your rosaries off their ovaries.

neither do you Paul

You have a guy fawkes mask as your picture and you support the Church trying to impose its belief system on others? You might need to reconsider that choice of picture.

Ehhh Tom, I believe he does own the country, along with you and I. (Please no “banks own the country” comments, you know what’s implied).

why stop there invite all mirority groups like pro choice too

So much for being “pro life”……

My thoughts exactly .

Yes and she was on her mobile too, shoved between her ear and shoulder! She was also applying lipstick at the same time too using a passing motorists wing mirror as it drove by, shame on her.

Like your namesake you need stronger glasses if that is what you saw. However I was there , I saw her , and I just think it is double standards on her part . I saw the risk she took , and I was not the only one to comment on it either. Any way , I am pro choice .Abortion is decision between a woman and her spouse/ partner if she wishes to include him in that choice. I would not dream of walking in some one else’s shoes , but I would respect their decision.The bishops really have no business dictating to women , unless the women want to be dictated to by elderly celebate men.

Eileen. it was obvious from your first posting you where pro choice as your assessment of the risk gave it away.

My assessment of the risk gave me a way as a practical and caring mother who can not stand double standards.

wanting to kill the unborn but concerned about a child that was born under the protection of the state.
beautiful photo of mother and child

Whatever about the child being born under the protection of the state , he certainly was not being protected by his mother in her arms while she was taking chances with the traffic this evening. I do agree that it is a lovely photo of mother and baby .
By the way Tom , I am not pro abortion nor do I want to kill the unborn. I am PRO-CHOICE.

their is no nice words for choosing to kill a unborn child, terminate, abortion, pro choice.
pro choice sounds more palatable than pro abortion but all are calling for the killing of a unborn child.

Yes Tom, so is it to call yourself pro-live and then allowing women to die to satisfy your believes.

I was listening to that senator Mullen on the radio this morning and my goodness his comments were disgraceful , and so disrespectful to women.There are a lot of misogynists about.The claim that women can be duplicitous and will lie and do not know their own minds is quite frankly medieval. You are indeed entitled to your own opinion Tom , but do not accuse those of us, who believe that women may make decisions for themselves ,of being pro – abortion. I know of no one who wants to kill babies…. Certainly as a mother I do not , but I do not judge people either , I leave that to our maker.

What standard do you apply when dealing with moral issues Stephen?

Not listen to child rapists for a start I should image.

Well Bob, I don’t listen to people who represent an organisation which abused children and activly worked to cover their steps. I believe a woman and her partner should be able to make a choice, which is a very difficult one either way. My moral compass also tells me its a bad thing to bury our head and pretend this does not happen here while thousands of Irish women go to the UK each year.

Well said Stephen!

Bob…. definitely not DOUBLE standards.

Paul: That’s hardly an ultimate standard. You have views regarding ethics (what’s right and wrong) that you use every day to determine the moral value of certain issues, including abortion. What people, who profess to be Christians do, is irrelevant to the truth of Christianity. It is merely men acting inconsistently to their professed beliefs.

So my question to you is, when you are deciding if something like abortion is morally acceptable or not, what standard are you utilising?

@ Stephen
“Well Bob, I don’t listen to people who represent an organisation which abused children and activly worked to cover their steps.”

Neither do I Stephen. What is your ultimate authority?

” I believe a woman and her partner should be able to make a choice, which is a very difficult one either way. ”

Why is it a difficult choice to make?
If abortion is simply a matter of just getting rid of a foetus, lets just carry out the procedure and move on. You see, you just cant live that way, your conscience will not allow you to, as it bears witness to the fact that abortion is murder.

“My moral compass also tells me its a bad thing”

This statement assumes a standard of right and wrong. Who sets this standard and why should anyone agree to it?

“to bury our head and pretend this does not happen here while thousands of Irish women go to the UK each year.”

I certainly do not advocate this, I’m against killing full stop, be it in Ireland, England, France etc.
Abortion is murder full stop.

@Stephen & Paul,
Bob is well practiced at this, going by his previous comments on this and other stories. The MO is basically to continue down this line of questioning so that he can hopefully get to a point that you can’t explain and then rush in to “save” you by offering God and the Bible as the answer.

@ Tomy
Thanks for commenting.

The abortion issue (and many other modern day issues) is an issue of competing worldviews. I don’t just master this line of ‘questioning’ as a stunt to bring in the Biblical worldview. Everyone has certain views about what they believe to be right or wrong when it comes to reality. The reason I take this approach (known as presuppositional reasoning) is because this is a worldview debate. It’s about who’s worldview can account for unseen, unchanging, universal entities such as ethics. I ask the question, “what standard do people use when deciding wether a moral issue is right or wrong?” because I have found that the only position that can account for ethics is the Biblical one and therefore should be the ultimate authority when defining legislation.

It’s interesting that you have pointed out that you have seen me use this approach before. But I’ve yet to hear a logical response from anyone representing the pro-abortion view. I encourage you to provide a basis for ethics without the use of the God of the Bible. I’m not looking for just another ridicule of the Bible, I’m looking for a pro-abortion response to the philosophical inadequacy of your worldview to account for ethics.

I look forward to your response,
Bob.

If you think that the bible is a “logical position” then I think you need to ask the question more of yourself.

If you have not been satisfied with the answers you have heard it doesn’t mean you have to fill in what you don’t understand with the bible.

The bible is one seriously f***ed up standard to hold yourself to. The idea that that is where one can turn for moral guidance is not unacceptable to me, though I find it odd that such a contradictory text can do so – however, morality is not dependent on religion.

@BobBoyle Ethics and what is the right answer to a question, in this case the issue of abortion, is dependent on subjective viewpoints. It would appear that you have your view and others have their view. That is not to say either is wrong as each will have their own justification and basis for having a particular view/opinion on an issue.

Even you saying that you can only imagine the bible as the starting point for ethics is your subjective view.

A lot of the discussion on the abortion issue seems to forget what Art 40.3.3 states and how it has been interpreted. Pro-life should mean pro mother and unborn. As I have said in a post below both abortion on demand or an absolute abortion prohibition would arguably require a referendum given the interpretation of Art 40.3.3.

The interpretation of Art 40.3.3 provides balance. I don’t think anyone can truly say that instances do not exist where a mothers life is at such risk and where the life of the unborn is medically beyond survival and saving. Any legislation that will be proposed will almost certainly be put through constitutional scrutiny by the Supreme Court prior to its enactment (art 26 reference) and the purpose of such legislation will be to provide clarity to the law.

All of us as citizens deserve a level of legal certainty and clarity before the law. The existing legislation which existed before the 1983 referendum and long before the X case in 1992 and the interpretation of Art 40.3.3 can’t conceivably accord with one another.

@ Eileen
Thanks for your comment, I appreciate the way in which you have responded.
I have answered you in separate sections below as its easier to follow.
Bob

“Ethics and what is the right answer to a question, in this case the issue of abortion, is dependent on subjective viewpoints.”

I agree that a person’s view on ethics depends on their particular worldview; this has been my point all along. But to say that ethics is subjective is simply mistaken. I’m sure you wouldn’t accept if i were to claim that it’s morally acceptable to murder another person? You would expect me to respect your views of morality over mine in this instance. But if you reduce ethics to personal opinion then I could happily assert that it’s fine to commit murder and you’ve got no rational complaint. This is why we must deal with worldviews and investigate which view of the world can account for a standard that’s unchanging and all authoritative.

I’m saying that without first assuming the truth of the all knowing, all powerful and all personal God of the Christian worldview your view of the world in terms of ethics and logic is simply arbitrary.

“It would appear that you have your view and others have their view. That is not to say either is wrong as each will have their own justification and basis for having a particular view/opinion on an issue.”
This is exactly what I’m trying to get at. What standard or ‘justification’ do we ultimately apply when deciding right from wrong? Cont…

I’m saying that the maker of heaven and earth sets and upholds the standards. He has revealed those standards to us through His Word in order that we might know and use them. If I apply the standard that you propose (subjectivism), then there can be no right or wrong and it therefore follows that you could not have ethics.

“Even you saying that you can only imagine the bible as the starting point for ethics is your subjective view.”

No, it’s not that simple. What I’m saying is that without first assuming the law giver as revealed in the Bible, you have no basis for unchanging standards to know the truth value of any claim whatsoever, not to mention ethics alone. You are unable to account for things like ethics, laws of logic or anything immaterial or law like; your worldview is simply reduced to philosophical absurdity.

I agree with many of your points and I strongly support legal clarity regarding these issues. Its how we resolve these conflicts that I’m concerned about. We must ensure that our views on ethics actually make logical sense before we start amending laws, otherwise there will be more confusion and less advancement. I trust this makes sense.

Ethics is the philosophy of morality. Morality most certainly is subjective with different facets for situations given weight by different people based on their assessment of what the morality of the situation is.

For you Bob, that morality appears to be linked with a God that you believe in as ultimate authority. For billions of others it lies either with a different god or with no god at all.

Trying to get to the “ultimate authority” on such a situation is absolutely pointless in my opinion. It allows those who seek it out to distance themselves from questioning, applying and taking ownership for their morality based actions.

I prefer to think and challenge things and try to allow myself to be challenged (though this is of course extremely uncomfortable) and have found myself challenged on what I have discovered around this particular issue. My opinion has been formed around hearing claims and trying to find (reliable) research that confirms or rubbishes such claims.

I won’t find that in the bible and I don’t believe in god so we go back to the start…. My world view doesn’t include these things and given that my opinion differs from yours on the subject of abortion it’s pretty obvious that my morality differs from yours. Morality is subjective, just because people would generally agree that causing harm to another is immoral in no way means that such situations stand alone and does not mean that an individual’s subset of morality crosses over with everyone else’s.

Sorry Bob – I’m really finding it hard to take you seriously now…..

So basically all ethics/morality comes from God? That appears to be your starting point.

Your basing everything on God’s existence? I in no way mean to insult you but if that’s the foundation of your point then your point fails.

@Tomy
How do you explain the existence of immaterial entities (like laws & ethics) if all we are is matter in motion?

Bob – you’re using the Argument from morality. Morality is as much Darwinian as we are. It has developed and adapted over time to where we are now; thus my point about subjectivity and my lack of credence in your absolute morality.

And again, the idea that you can see no other source for morality does not mean that you need to fill the gap with god. It doesn’t naturally follow.

@Tomy
If this true, well then the opposite is also true. That’s the problem with subjective morals; they’re not absolute and are therefore arbitrary and reversible. Unless you have someone upholding those standards, someone who is all powerful, who knows everything and who never lies, you just simply can’t have morals.

If I take the Darwinian approach to ethics, I have no complaint to make about the morality of others. Its just one chemical reacting with another. I have no right to impose my views upon anyone else-ever. I know you don’t live your live that way. You profess one thing with your mouth but in your heart you believe another. Morals are not subjective.

I don’t fill the ‘gap’ with God. Morals, and laws for that matter, demand a law giver. Their very presence presupposes God. Your view of the world can’t account for them, because all you have is matter.

I’ll ask the question again, please think about your response before answering.
How is it possible for the materialist to have immaterial entities such as laws and ethics?

@Bob & Tomy The debate appears to be quite circular (ie potentially never ending) and it does appear that ethics is extremely subjective. I would agree with Tomy with respect to the idea and weight of circumstance playing a factor. Things are for the most part not black & white.

If debates like this continued, as there is so many conflicting views as to what a justificatory starting point ethics should derive from, we will get nowhere.

@Bob you may find the following case quite interesting, you may of course already know about it and have read it (Re Article 26 and the regulation of information on the termination of pregnancies bill, I think 1995, Supreme Court) Essentially the court stated that Natural law is not anterior or superior to positive law.

The X Case really is quite narrow, in my opinion, with respect to its scope. The government cannot prohibit all abortion neither can they allow abortion at will. The suicide issue seems, at least to me, to be the most contentious aspect. I am sure that a measured response will ensue, it has to due to the equal right under the Article (here again as Tomy alluded to, circumstance may play a role, things are usually not black and white). I doubt very much it is an easy road to take for a woman or to even consider. I certainly would not wish it upon anyone.

Do these women and their families who may potentially find themselves in such a situation including where there is an immediate risk of suicide, not deserve clarity? The current laws do not vindicate and respect any such rights. Remember Art 40.3.3 says the rights are equal not competing and that the state will vindicate and respect these rights. The current laws which existed before the referendum took place in 1983 cant even be worthy of consistency, moreover when the X case and the interpretation of Art 40.3.3 was even later again, in 1992.

The article has been interpreted as being where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother including risk of suicide that an abortion is lawful in this jurisdiction. This is what the legislation needs to achieve and there is your real source. (Ethics may inform your opinion but the law is the law. It is how the constitution, in particular Art 40.3.3, has been interpreted.

It is arguable you require a referendum.

@Eileen – Personally, I think we do need another referendum. That may sound unpalatable to most but the X case was very limited and we’ve moved on 20 years. I reckon we need legislation now, then a referendum, then legislation to follow shortly after.

@Bob – the biology of morals may be “one chemical reacting with another” but that does not take away from the fact that people are just amazingly beautiful in their own right without determining that such stunning beauty is due to a creator. I will not attribute anything I have achieved to a god. I did it all myself – I owe much more to my parents, brothers and peers than I do to a god.
You again insist on building your argument on very weak foundations. I don’t want to hammer your beliefs but when you place your point on such assumptions then it’s very hard to take anything in after such assertions.

@Eileen
“Tomy The debate appears to be quite circular (ie potentially never ending)”

I think you’re spot on Eileen. When it comes to argumentation, there are certain rules each side of the argument assume in order to make their argument. You could call them the rules of engagement (laws of logic). The reason this moral debate keeps going around in circles (and will continue to do so) is because my rules of engagement differ from yours (our views on ethics are incompatible).

I’m saying that ethics are absolute, they remain consistent throughout time, and they apply everywhere and are therefore useful when determining the truth value of any moral discussion. If they are subjective they loose their necessity and become somewhat useless to us in our efforts to determine right from wrong.
We need to decide who’s view of the world can have an unchanging view of morals; I’m saying that the Christian view can, and that your view can not. Yes you do use morals but in doing so you are borrowing from my worldview, you are assuming the truths of Christianity and then denying the very foundation of it.
I have made this point a number of times so perhaps my explanations have been unclear; so let me illustrate why morals can not be subjective. Here’s a simple example:
Continued below…

Assume ethics are subjective:
Mr A: I’m going to kill Mr Z.
Mr B: You can’t do that!
Mr A: Why not?
Mr B: Because it’s not right, it’s morally unacceptable.
Mr A: Em, it might be in your view, but not in mine. In my view, I can do what I want as long as I can get away with it.
Mr B: Yeah but it’s illegal to kill someone!
Mr A: The law doesn’t concern me as long as I can avoid it.
Mr B: But it’s wrong to kill someone.
Mr A: Well thankfully morals are subjective, and are therefore open to individual bias; my view on morals tell me that it’s ok to murder Mr Z….

“and it does appear that ethics is extremely subjective.”

Apologies Eileen, but you’re going to have to provide a logical reason as to how anything certain, like ethics, can be subjective. I think I’ve demonstrated, without rebuttal, that ethics can not be subjective. You keep making the assertion that they are, but I don’t find this statement by itself at all convincing.

“I would agree with Tomy with respect to the idea and weight of circumstance playing a factor. Things are for the most part not black & white.”
Of course circumstances play a role in deciding right from wrong, but ultimately ones view of morals will be the deciding factor.

“If debates like this continued, as there is so many conflicting views as to what a justificatory starting point ethics should derive from, we will get nowhere.”

So you are expecting everyone to accept your view and just get on with it. Continued below

That’s certainly not how things are decided in reality. This is a worldview debate and until you can provide a solid foundation for unseen, unchanging law-like entities (ethics, laws of logic), there’s no need to take your views seriously.

“Do these women and their families who may potentially find themselves in such a situation including where there is an immediate risk of suicide, not deserve clarity?”

They certainly do, but not without the use of sound ethics. To say that the murder of an innocent baby is a plausible solution in most cases is absolutely absurd and completely immoral. There are many ways to deal with things like suicide and depression without reverting to murder.

‘The article has been interpreted as being where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother including risk of suicide that an abortion is lawful in this jurisdiction.”

I find this a little odd that you have such a big problem with a mother taking her own life (which is horrific) but you don’t seem too concerned with the killing of innocent children at the hands of a medical practitioner.

“(Ethics may inform your opinion but the law is the law.” It is how the constitution, in particular Art 40.3.3, has been interpreted.
The law is supposed to be founded upon sound ethics. I’m not so sure what you are trying to say here, are you saying that the law decides ethics?

@Tomy

“the biology of morals may be “one chemical reacting with another” but that does not take away from the fact that people are just amazingly beautiful in their own right without determining that such stunning beauty is due to a creator”

I never said that people were not amazingly beautiful.
What I do want to know is; how can a chemical be moral or immoral? What can you do to stop the laws of physics from taking over and causing you to shoot another person? Would you get angry for baking soda for reacting with vinegar or jail the loin for eating the antelope? Why do you treat humans different as if we we’re nothing more than a bunch of chemicals?

@Tomy I like your straight to the point-ness

@Bob here we go again ‘circular’ and your subjective opinion.

If it were not for the ECHR the death penalty may still be in Europe or likewise if not for our Constitution. It would therefore seem morally conflicting for you if you lived in Texas for example as an intentional death is permissible if you are on death row. Or for instance in other jurisdictions women can be stoned or you may lose a limb, not so long ago it was ok to behead people in a not so distant land. If ethics is a constant as you seem to suggest explain these occurrences and overriding in its eminence explain that one. It is likely had you existed in the 1600’s your view of ethics may be different.

We really are going to have to agree to disagree. Your source for authority is YOUR opinion. No offence but us mere mortals cannot decide the ultimate source of rights and wrong, we can just have an opinion and decide for ourselves what our values are and those we think are right given the circumstance. Also who is to say there is a right or a wrong in a black and white sense? Things are for the most part not so simple, in my opinion. Maybe they are for you, that’s your choice.

By all means keep making your points but you are not going to convince me, I equally don’t expect to convince you. Embrace diversity Bob and accept its existence.

@Bob – the following quote may be of interest to you and it is one I ascribe to.

“Certainty is unattainable. The best one can do is aim to diminish uncertainty to an acceptable degree” – Dr. Neil MacCormick

Times change and evolve, the death penalty (an intentional killing) was previously accepted, it still is in many jurisdictions. As are other, what I feel you would find morally and ethically wrong, acts against people.

You say the Christian standpoint is the number one constant, yet in many Christian countries over the centuries the way in which attitudes existed have certainly changed. This flies in the face of ethics as being a constant and as a primary basis for law(s). Again, all in my opinion. Like I said previously maybe for you things are black and white.

And I again repeat MacCormick as above.

And no I am not saying that it is ok to decide because ethics tells me something different at a different time that it is ok or not ok to kill someone. The law guides me on that one. was/is the law influenced by ethics, most definitely.

But look how laws have changed, with the assistance of the ethics (if you wish to call them that or principles or majority opinion, it is not my intention to get into a semantic type discussion) of the day, through the centuries. This prohibits ethics as a constant, in my opinion. Again maybe not for you. If not for you, you may want to set up your own State as this one allows and provides a Constitution that is a ‘living document’ and one whose interpretation is not to be accepted as final for all of time. (As far as I recall that’s the dictum of Walsh J in McGee v Attorney General, Supreme Court, 1974)

And I have never suggested that my opinion is the correct assertion of anything. Likewise to use your point against you, you surely cannot believe that your assertion is correct.

Again see MacCormick.

It’s about balance Bob. Otherwise things are and will forever be circular, in my opinion.

Eileen, you appear to be mistaking the laws of the land for the laws of ethics. Ethical laws must remain constant otherwise they are no longer meaningful. Of course the laws of the land vary from place to place and the standards of man, including Christians; differ. But I’m not talking about the consistency of man. I’m talking about the unchanging standard of God, our maker. If we were to remain consistent with His views, we wouldn’t be facing the troubles that we face today. Which is why I’m saying that when we’re making decisions with regards these issues, we need to consult someone who’s mind never changes….but we don’t.

“Your source for authority is YOUR opinion. No offence but us mere mortals cannot decide the ultimate source of rights and wrong”

Finally we’re getting somewhere. Firstly God is my source, not my own opinion… But you’re completely correct in saying that mortals can not decide right from wrong, that’s why to have ethics you must believe that there’s a God.

“Certainty is unattainable. The best one can do is aim to diminish uncertainty to an acceptable degree” -Dr. Neil MacCormick

I must admit that Im a little concerned about your understanding of philosophy. The use of this quotation tells me that you really haven’t given much consideration into the nature of worldviews at all.

If certainty is unattainable, then this statement itself can not be true as it claims with certainty that certainty doesn’t not exist; this is a self refuting philosophy.

You need to address the question of ethics and stop skirting the issue. How is it possible to have an authoritative stance on ethics without a law giver?

Firstly that philosophy is self-refuting in your opinion.

Secondly, may I return you to a previous comment I made with respect to our Supreme Court stating that Natural law is not anterior or superior to positive (man-made) law. I would believe a corollary of this would include ethics and, in your view, natural (god defined and granted) ethics.

Law is reactionary, ethics appears to be a constant. They can not however be void of circumstance. Law most definitely is influenced by ethics, whatever their source. Perhaps law is to us mortals as ethics is to divine power. If one believes in a divine power. I believe balance has to be obtained to reduce uncertainty and that at present with respect to women and their families that we are not presently diminishing uncertainty to an acceptable degree.

The X case provides that where there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother including suicide that a termination is lawful in this jurisdiction. However there is no certainty on the statute book with respect to this interpretation of Art 40.3.3. When I stated this earlier you said the following “I find this a little odd that you have such a big problem with a mother taking her own life (which is horrific) but you don’t seem too concerned with the killing of innocent children at the hands of a medical practitioner.” The right to life between mother and child as per its interpretation is EQUAL.

My concern for the life of the mother stems from where there is a real and substantial risk to her health this may not have to be suicide. In such an instance the mother’s right to life may not be upheld, where there is a real and substantial risk stemming from the unborn.

We await to see the report on Savita. I believed legislation was required long before that case which may have nothing to do with abortion. However in medical law it often deals in what are foreseeable risks. So a question which may arise “at what point was it foreseeable that a real and substantial risk threatening the life of Savita or any woman arose, and is her life in the circumstances being threatened by the unborn. So firstly can we save both? Secondly, is either or both lives sadly beyond saving? Can a life be saved?

This is what the legislation needs to achieve respect for both lives.

I understand Tomy in is wish for a referendum as while I feel the X case is a balance between views (pro-life/pro-choice) the X case is arguably an Irish solution to an Irish problem. As thousands of Irish women every year travel for terminations.

@Bob – so what you’re basically saying then is that only believers in God can act ethically/morality?

Once again, shaky foundations.

@Bob and while you say that God is the source and not your opinion. He is in YOUR opinion the source. And I do not accept for one moment that in order to have ethics a person must believe in God. Again that’s your opinion.

How is certainty completely attainable? Laws and opinions change, granted maybe ethics informing an issue might not. But if the ethics are constant how come the laws are always changing on mostly a reactionary basis and it was morally acceptable to behead or say someone was a heretic back in the day? This may highlight that historically and presently that a balance between what you perceive as God sourced ethics and man made circumstance needs to be achieved. It’s not as simple as Yes or No.

I appear to be addressing the laws with ethical input, you appear to be stuck to your version and your source of ethics and not cognisant of the law(s) or of man made circumstance and its role. Yes it’s role exists. To some it may be the only role if they do not believe in a divine creator. You even said yourself circumstance has a factor. You also said the Christian view/source provides an unchanging view of morals/ethics. You then go on about God as the source. Yet your points intersperse God and Man. If god is your ethics and you are a man maybe your own argumentation is reflective of what appears to be the historical and present development of laws ie a mix between ethics (whatever the source is in the opinion of the law maker) and man and circumstance.

Is it ethically correct to prohibit a woman from her right to life in what could be potentially a life saving procedure, where the unborn is unable to survive, where the risk to her life may arise by virtue of the unborn, and that a termination in the circumstance could vindicate her right to life?

Again it’s about balance, in my opinion.

Natural law (natural type ethics as you believe them to be the true source arguably as a corollary) is not anterior or superior to man made law in this jurisdiction. 1995 Supreme Court. You said in an earlier post in your narrative between Mr A and B that it is immoral to not follow the law. You better start heeding the Supreme Court otherwise you are going against the innate morality of heeding to the law. But I’m guessing that particular dictum is repugnant to your philosophy but you know what? that is fair enough as this man made, living document, reactionary Constitution we have, also allows you a freedom of expression.

Embrace difference, accept that your own opinions are your own opinions and that while ethics may inform the law appears to have to react to circumstance and has always done so.

If you strive for ethics and ethics alone as your barometer you are arguably in the wrong country. Furthermore, if god is the source of ethics and I am assuming they are sourced from the bible if he is the source. I presume man wrote the bible it didnt just appear. Man also wrote laws. Are both fallible and likely to change as was/is their writers? probably as much as the wind does! Does the wind change depend on circumstance most likely.

Should we therefore delimit uncertainty to as best a degree as we possibly can as mortals as both ethics and laws influence us. Yes is the answer, in my opinion.

And just to reiterate I am talking about law and the interaction with ethics. You seem to simply be addressing ethics as a over-ruling barometer unopened to change. Circumstances always change so interactions need to adapt.

Read some constitutional case law see how laws work and interact, if you have not already done so.

And please just take all of that as my opinion as otherwise its all just circular. A lot of your points have conflicted. I have tried to address this in the point I raise with respect to your points interspersing god and man and your justification as ethics as absolute.

Perhaps some of my points conflict but guess what I am human just like you.

If you are going to maintain a circular debate, while fair enough and I respect that, there is really no point in replying as we will simply have to agree to disagree.

Again I reiterate MacCormick and his concept of attaining certainty in a legal sense. We are currently not delimiting anything.

@ Tomy:
“@Bob – so what you’re basically saying then is that only believers in God can act ethically/morality?
Once again, shaky foundations.”

I never said that Tomy. If you read my posts again, what I said was that everyone assumes ethics, but in doing so they are assuming the truths of Christianity and are therefore being inconsistent with their own professed beliefs. I understand that you don’t accept this. But you’re going to have to explain the use of laws without a personal, all knowing God then, or else continue to claim that ethics are subjective, which renders them useless and so why bother talk about them.

Up until now you’ve demonstrated that you don’t like my worldview and that you don’t agree with it. But what philosophical relevance does your autobiography have to do with the existence of God?

@ Tomy & Eileen

You both seem like intelligent people, who in my view are well able to defend your position up to a certain point. So I’m not being smart when I say this; but I think you need to read up on the nature of worldviews. The philosophical problems that I’ve been raising are not just something that I made up yesterday. Philosophers throughout the centuries have had to face these issues including Plato, Hume etc. The need to account for things like ethics, the laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability of the mind to understanding the world, the relationships between different people and different events and so on, are issues that every worldview has had to face, including Christianity.

I didn’t just wake up one day and say “hey I want to be a Christian!” I found that Christianity must be true in order for anything to makes sense. My studies of the various worldviews led me to conclude that only Christianity is capable of accounting for logic and is therefore the only rational worldview. I know neither of you will agree with this, and that’s ok. I don’t expect anyone to lay all their beliefs down because they are unable to immediately answer my questions and account for logic or ethics. But what this conversation should achieve in all our minds is a desire to search for truth. It should cause us to internally critique our own views. This is difficult but absolutely necessary if we want to be rational.

I must admit, I enjoyed your comments and our conversation.
Thanks and talk again soon
Bob

@Bob lmao

“You both seem like intelligent people, who in my view are well able to defend your position up to a certain point. So I’m not being smart when I say this; but I think you need to read up on the nature of worldviews.” I suppose you too seem like an intelligent person. But perhaps you need to read up on the law.

“The philosophical problems that I’ve been raising are not just something that I made up yesterday”
Likewise are the legal issues I raise were not imagined yesterday

“I didn’t just wake up one day and say “hey I want to be a Christian!” I found that Christianity must be true in order for anything to makes sense. My studies of the various worldviews led me to conclude that only Christianity is capable of accounting for logic and is therefore the only rational worldview. ”
This is all just your opinion it is not a fact, it may be fact to you but only in your opinion.

“I know neither of you will agree with this, and that’s ok. I don’t expect anyone to lay all their beliefs down because they are unable to immediately answer my questions and account for logic or ethics.”
While ethics are great and all, they do not of themselves provide a solution. there are great philosophical minds who flourished but still did not reach ultimate conclusions or fully answer questions.

In a legal sense we need to delimit ambiguity but circumstance must play a role, you even said this yourself. A lot more exists than just ethics.

Nice speaking witty you.

OK, now I see the difference. All ethics exist only because god exists and if you don’t believe in god, it doesn’t matter because you can’t change the fact that it all comes from god…. That seems to be it….

IF that’s the strength of your argument you took a lot of words to debate it. And it makes me even happier to be an atheist….

Thanks Eileen, all of your points have been covered off already.

Regards Bob

If that’s your understanding of what I’ve been saying, perhaps I gave you more credit for your intelligence than I should have.

It is nice to know though that I was I involved in the happiness of another bunch of chemicals.
Merry Christmas :-)

Take it easy Bob
Merry Christmas

You too Eileen, Merry Christmas!

And try not to be so patronising as you do come across, in my opinion.

“Thanks Eileen, all of your points have been covered off already.”

You have answered nothing

I certainly wasn’t being patronising Eileen. You must have misunderstood me. Just like I seem to have misunderstood your ‘take it easy’ comment to mean have a nice break.

I was actually going to say nothing to your earlier comment but I thought that was a little rude or perhaps even patronising, which is why I responded by saying something like you had been saying all along (circular arguments) that all had been covered. I did answer things by the way if you read over our comments, you just didn’t like my answers.

It is interesting though, how you want to take the ‘each to their own’ or all is subjective approach and then tell me not to be patronising!

Take care, and I am sincere when I say; have a happy Christmas.

And the circle starts again. I did mean take it easy in the sense you initially interpreted it. I just had not seen your comment about things being covered, which I interpreted as being dismissive.

Take it easy Bob

Just like any other religion, head count is all they truly care about. They don’t give a rats arse once your born, just the fact that there is one more member to their flock, very old school mentality and very disingenuous to the current debate.

@Sarah They need vulnerable children to satisfy their sexual needs

Geez Bob you stole my comment, they need their access to vulnerable kids to continue their fiddling .

No. They propose regulation to deal with the issue within the current laws as the expert group put forward as a viable option too. This is without doubt opening the door to abortion on demand.

Listen Conor the church knows only too well the devastation abortion brings on a woman. The church acts out of love for the life of the mother and the baby. Those who say abortion has no effect on women are the ones who really attack women.

Sorry David got your name wrong.

Is this the same church that systematically, covered up for and facilitated paedophiles? Strange way to show love for children!

Please explain how you think savita being denied an abortion which would have saved her life, isn’t responsible for her death?

Les, why are you a Catholic then?

I am catholic bob. but these people who teach the religion these days don’t deserve to teach it.

Have you any idea what your religion teaches about abortion? I’m not talking about the people who represent the church, I’m talking about Biblical doctrine?

he without sin cast the first stone so guess your religion is squeaky clean that you feel you can throw stones

Your a real apologist for child and woman abusers Arn’t you Tom. Strange.

Tom is an out if date joke.

Tom at least I had the moral courage to do what was right.I managed to escape from the catholic church and have my baptism revoked over the Murphy report.You know the one Tom where grown men put their dicks into young children’s mouth’s and backsides and didn’t know that it was wrong.I never said that I am without sin as you put it (by the way try to read a more up to date book every now and then instead of the bible Tom)but I can hold my head up high and say to the Bishops ” not in my name you bunch of hypocrites”

And who is anyone to decide whether that reason is viable? Lets say a woman in poverty with an abusive husband who cant afford a child and will be locked into the relationship, do you agree she should have an abortion? If not is your way the right way? If you do agree is your way the right way to moral judgement? Pro choice!

I’m pro abortion on demand, and I disagree with your comment.

Like em or loath em, the bishops represent a significant amount of people in this country. Whether or not it’s appropriate to have guardians of morality, for those that accept indoctrination and don’t make up their minds, is neither here nor there. Plenty of people in this country still look to the church to provide their moral compass, and will feel better this morning knowing that their religious leaders are standing up for them.

Me? I want the legislation. But not as much as I want free speech and balanced media coverage.

Regardless of the relevance of the church in your eyes, they are still relevant to many people in this country.

The right to murder your own child as a human right. It just shows how off track the whole human rights thing has gone!

@david halliwell So Vulnerable children should be brought in to the world and be subjected to emotional, psychological, physical and sexual abuse by sadistic paedophiles which is then covered up by their fellow paedophiles and the state??

There were children found in the Magdalene laundries in Drumcondra that had not gone full term and had no birth or death certs(illegal) can you positively state the nuns there did not perform abortions through the abuse of the children’s mothers?? Again covered up by Bertie Ahern on behalf of the paedophiles in the catholic church

Kellyanne I actually feel sorry for her now. You and I both have seen the stuff she comes out with. As much as I’d like to brand her a troll, shockingly I think she might actually be for real!

Sure try another rosary there Aidan that’ll fix it all. Time for a referendum, let the people decide, religious fundamentalism’s day is done here in Ireland.

Reagan is not a guy you want to be quoting dude

And all of the people who oppose abortion are already born.

What’s your point?

All of those who oppose X case legislation have never died in childbirth.

Must be desperate to quoting Ronald Reagan! What a typically stupid quote anyway.

Jaysus lads better stop having an auld tug every now and again. Half a billion future people just destroyed. And what about women? They have to stop having periods. Think of the unborn children! What would the Pope and the bearded sky fairy think?!?

I have to agree on this point

Arsehole.

Well I suppose letting a mother die by negligence could be considered murder alright!

Savita didn’t die because she was denied an abortion. The media are twisting everything. All the economic hardship with Anglo and everything is nothing compared with the suffering this will bring on this country.

bpdeasy you do talk some sanctimonious crap. I support the woman’s right to choose.