Hear hear!

Neither does thejournal.ie

Voting “Independent” in my view at the next election will only help get Fianna Fail in (with Sinn Fein support). Then we’ll have a real danger of a rerun of the absurd 2002 abortion referendum with a few academic changes.

Fine Gael is actually the least right wing of the 4 conservative parties in the Republic of Ireland: Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour and Sinn Fein.

One could categorize Fine Gael and Labour as pragmatic conservative parties and Fianna Fail and Sinn Fein as populist conservative parties. There is a significant difference here.

Populist conservative parties are more apt to pass hypocrites’ laws, laws that completely ignore the reality on the ground, for example a law banning abortion ignoring the reality that women will go abroad for an abortion anyway or a law banning the purchase of sex and therefore prostitution. Hypocrites’ laws are passed by politicians who think they should be setting a moral example. In fact, they are just avoiding the problem. Pragmatic conservative parties, on the other hand, are less apt to pass such laws. They are more inclined to look at the reality on the ground and then legislate in a way to improve the circumstances of that reality.

The real terms the socio-ideological difference between Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour and Sinn Fein, is the same as the difference between a satsuma and a mandarin, which is feck all.

I don’t agree. Poland has a similar “right and righter” political dispensation to us. There you’ve got Jaroslaw Kaczynski’s “Law and Justice”. They’re basically idiots and then you’ve got Donald Tusk’s “Civic Platform”. They’re basically intelligent Christian Democrats. Just like the difference between Fianna Fail (Law and Justice) and Fine Gael (Civic Platform). Civic Platform is slightly more secular and slightly more liberal than Law and Justice, just like Fine Gael is slightly more secular and slightly more liberal than Fianna Fail.

You think a Fianna Fail Taoiseach would have made that hard hitting Cloyne speech, harshly and justifiably criticizing the Catholic church in Ireland and Rome, last year? No, feckin’ way! Never in a month of Sundays.

@Paul – I agree with your points in relation to abortion. In the short term, we must meet our legal obligations and legislate for X. But the hypocrisy of exporting our abortion ‘problem’ to Britain must eventually come to an end and this highly personal decision should be a matter solely between the woman and her doctor, and if a termination is agreed on, then that should be provided for here in Ireland.

I would disagree with your comparison between the Irish and Polish political systems however. The political scene in Poland is much more socially conservative than here and Law and Justice in particular are a nasty group of homophobes, anti-semites and all round bigots. I’m certainly not a fan of FF in any way shape or form, but their ideology (or lack of it to be more precise) is no where near as extreme as LAJ, even if they did once form part of the same nationalist grouping in the European Parliament.

Fianna Fail is every bit like Law and Justice. The only difference is that Fianna Fail speak like us; they don’t speak Polish. Just a few weeks ago, Michael Martin was calling prosttution a blight on society. That’s a very extreme position to take. Generally speaking, one seeks to eliminate a blight.

http://paulpcarr.net/?p=1067

Fianna Fail is a member of the Group of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe in the European parliament. Does the ALDE do any background checks at all on its members? I don’t think do. Fianna Fail, Law and Justice and the British Conservative party should join a new European Parliament group called the Headbangers’ Triumvirate.

@ Ed Appleby

Here’s the thing Ed, by the extension of your logic, I despise abuse of minors, but if you wish to abuse them that’s ok, why should I object!
Additionally abortion is not carried out on the mothers body, it carried out on the baby’s body.

You hypocrite.. You talk about Eds logic and then use the slippery slope fallacy?

The foetus depends on the mother to survive. Therefore she has the absolute last word on whether the foetus lives or dies. To deny her that choice is to attack the very foundation of democracy.

When you start talking about independence as a precondition to life, you are on a very slippery slope. What about the paralysed person who cannot feed them self? What about the person who can feel and see but cannot breathe without the help of a respirator? Should these people be simply killed off?

I’m talking about a very specific kind of dependence when the foetus is not a conscious sentient being. This is not inconsistent with end of life persistent vegetative state patients they are no longer conscious sentient beings either. A next of kin can decide to end their life and even harvest their organs. A developing foetus has no more capacity for acknowledging its existance than a sperm.

Are you suggesting that abortion should be used as a means for controlling births among the poor. Sounds like eugenics. The value of persons is surely more than their dollar worth.
This is a big issue in America where abortion is rampant among the black community.

It’s a shocking indictment of a societys’ values when you choose lifestyle over life itself. Many people come from low income families and make their way in the world. They should at least be given a chance.

Abortion is not a lifestyle choice, Mark. There is no category of women who just want to have a bun in the oven for 6 months to then abort it just for the fun of it. You display an appalling ignorance of the opposite sex.

@Paul

I was replying to the implication from Stephie Fitz that a child who would be born into a low income family should be aborted. That is a lifestyle choice. Please point out where I said that having an abortion is a lifestyle choice and then maybe I can be relieved of my ignorance of the opposite sex.

That’s a pretty awful comment there Stephie. An abortion is a massive decision for any woman and it’s not one taken lightly. There are several reasons why a woman may decide that abortion is the right decision for her, but I can’t imagine standard of living being one of them, at least not in the majority of cases.

They have some semblance of a point though..
We have all these people on about the right to life, but the concern seems to end at birth.
Single mothers are a favourite target for people who whine about welfare.
Low income families with large numbers of kids are seen as “having babies to get more benefits”.
Then there’s the many children in orphanages the world over in desperate need of a loving home who don’t really seem to matter.. We should force women to carry to term here because there’s people waiting to adopt!! (or maybe we should cut the red tape and let them help those who are already born to have that right to life we hear so much about)

I just think it would rule out unnecessary suffering..

There’s a link between reduced crime and abortions. Sad but true.

I think you’ll find David Higgins covered that point very well above. Ireland is the safest place in the world for a mother or baby. I don’t believe we should soil that record.

David Higgins is a minority within Fine Gael and he certainly is a minority within the Fine Gael/Labour party coalition government.

PJ: We are not the safest, not by a long shot. At least 4,000 women are heading to the UK for an abortion every year and that’s those we know of. We would be advocating our sovereign responsibility if we turned our backs on these Citizens of the Republic of Ireland.

That should read “abdicating” not “advocating”.

Well Paul it depends from which side of the fence you are looking from. I weep for the 4000 Irish citizens, which I would defend, but which England facilitates the execution of. I sure many of those mothers now regreat their decision and there are many deprived fathers.

Pj you are absolutely incorrect in your claims regarding Ireland being one of the safest places in the world to give birth. from what I remember fRom a recent study we don’t come in the top 10 and only just within top 20. Also the stats used to calculate supposed safety in Ireland are not the full or true picture at all are being consistently criticised. Active Management of labour, overcrowding in hospitals, lack of adherence to recommended best practice means increasing numbers if women and babies are suffering injury, stress, trauma and post natal problems. Our options on how and where we give birth are consistently undermined and threatened by poor practices, greedy consultants, ignorant attitudes and disrespect towards womend right to have choices. PJ go to AIMS Ireland website and read some occurring the women’s stories and then try to persuade that Ireland is such a safe place to give birth. Easy to tell you’ve never laboured in hospital with a curtain between you and another woman while they queue you up for delivery like something out of a third world documentary!

@ EMD
Your criticisms of out gynaecologists are coloured by your real agenda, the infamous pro-choice voice. God knows our services are under strain, however the interest of our doctors has been toward preserving life, and our maternity wards have stayed places for life and not death. This motivation has led practice here to best in world status.
As for pro-choice, certainly not the babies choice. There is a difference between freedom and licence. Freedom is “freedom to do the right thing”, licence is freedom to do whatever I like regardless of the right or wrong of it.

I think we are pretty high on the safe list! http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1265572/British-women-likely-die-childbirth-communist-states.html

Your words describe you PJ. You admonish the woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body.
No one will ever force you to have an abortion (they can’t), but nor will they force any woman to abort. Pro choice means that while your right to never have an abortion is catered for, another persons right to choose should be honoured too. Pro life just means imposing your ideals upon others who do not agree. Instead, as a result of these archaic laws we force women to either carry to term or go to the UK. We ignore the fact that some women are pregnant as a result of rape. Some women are pregnant as a result of contraceptive failure – it was not their choice to conceive so why should they be forced to carry?

In case you were unaware, pregnancy carries a number of health risks for some people. The excess oestrogen is a factor in many health problems (including breast cancer, just look at the contraindications for oral / injected / implanted contraceptives) and for that reason some women choose not to become mothers.
Then there’s the effect the hormonal changes associated with pregnancy can have on some women. If a woman suffered terribly with mental health issues as a result of her last pregnancy, she may not wish to put her child through that if she finds herself pregnant again.
Abortion is not always a selfish act.

The majority of abortions carried out in the UK are carried out before 12 weeks are up. At this stage nature even sees it as merely a potential life. The foetus has no lungs and cannot survive outside the womb, in fact many pregnancies don’t last past the first 12 weeks as up to this time spontaneous abortions are extremely common. Most women have had a miscarriage at some point, many do and never even realise it.

I would not wish to ever have to make that choice. But it’s not my place to judge anyone who has, or wishes to. I think it’s disgraceful that rather than just deal with reality this country continues to export the problem.

PJ obstetricians care for womens reproductive health while pregnant, gynaecologists when not pregnant.

WHO promotes a midwife led care model which we do not follow here. The problems associated with the obstetric led system is linked with the safety of our system, obstetrics is a medical based system which is not required in most pregnancies. As you said yourself earlier “Pregnancy is not an illness needing treatment”.

Daily Mail Condulmer? Not even opening link………. See below for links to Irish Times piece in 2011 on ESRI report, I’ve also linked directly to the ESRI report.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/health/2011/1122/1224307943124.html
“The latest ESRI Perinatal Statistics Report 2009 , published in June this year, shows that Ireland is in 14th place among 22 EU countries with a perinatal mortality rate of 6.9 per 1,000 births. Spain is the safest place to give birth in the EU with a mortality rate of 3.6.

Also worrying is Ireland’s growing Caesarean section rate. The World Health Organisation (WHO) says that nowhere in the world should this be more than 10-15 per cent of all births. The ESRI report shows that the Irish figure is now 27 per cent.” ESRI report here http://www.esri.ie/UserFiles/publications/SUSTAT36.pdf

So safest place in the world eh PJ?, The record is soiled daily in maternity units around the country where women are treated with disrespect, are subjected to procedures with little or no informed consent, unecessary intervention, unecessary trauma and psychological damage due to birth trauma. Again I direct you to AIMS Ireland where you can read many stories from women around the country. So why are we continuing to force women to birth babies they don’t want in conditions that are far from safe or woman friendly. Surely the most humane answer is to give the choice in all aspects of pregnancy and birth.

Finally my criticism of the maternity system is based on my own experiences and those of my female friends which is why I am pro-choice in all aspects of womens reproductive health both mental and physical.

@ Shanti Om
Hi Shanti, you cover a lot of ground and I’ll only address points not already covered. Within limits I believe the woman has rights over her own body, but she should not for instance have the right to self harm. Additionally and more pertinent is that she does not have the right to deliberately harm another human being, her child. She docent have this right after birth and she should not have that before birth. Everything is included in the child from the point of conception, all that defines that unique human. Just add comfort and food, the same as after birth.
The idea of a “right to choose” is grounded firmly an relativism, a system devoid of absolute truths. make up your own truths as you go along. Why tomorrow, the wind blowing in the right direction, we might decide that teenagers should not be tolerated in society. They are so inconvenient! I’m afraid those of us who try to apply reason see this as a dead end philosophy.
Rape is indeed a heinous crime. But there are many great people alive today who are the result of a rape, they are fully human and adding murder to rape is not a good solution.
Your contraceptive argument is particularly sad. Everybody knows today that contraceptives fail. Using abortion as a backup to “contraception” is sad. If you are unwilling to have the child perhaps you should not copulate? The consequences of this mentality on the HIV and STD situation are also appalling.
Your oestrogen argument is also poor. When the mother becomes pregnant the body usually knows what to do. The problem with pregnancy chemistry occurs mostly when the baby is removed and the body continues to produce the chemistry.
You seem to think you are arguing on behalf of women, but the effect of your argument is to devalue women, turn them into objects of pleasure without the natural consequences. Men then treat their women just like another organ. Devoid of their own personhood.
My wife and myself lost one of our own children at 12 weeks through a natural abortion. Her name was Anna any we remember her every year on valentines day. She should be twenty now, but we love her personhood then and now.

Stories of abortion http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/weekend/2012/0225/1224312358012.html#.T0lN3T9M-7E.twitter

“Within limits I believe the woman has rights over her own body, but she should not for instance have the right to self harm.”

Please explain, I cannot see how this is relevant. Self harming is a completely separate issue. 

“Additionally and more pertinent is that she does not have the right to deliberately harm another human being, her child. She docent have this right after birth and she should not have that before birth. Everything is included in the child from the point of conception, all that defines that unique human. Just add comfort and food, the same as after birth.”

Er, no, it’s not. Simple human biology shows the opposite. As I said before up until 12 weeks the baby has a high chance of spontaneous abortion. If it were delivered it could not survive without a womb. That womb is a part of the woman, and if she didn’t choose to be pregnant, NO ONE has the right to force her to carry. That’s enforced pregnancy – the exact opposite of your eugenics argument.
A living baby is a separate issue. To equate the two is disingenuous.

“The idea of a “right to choose” is grounded firmly an relativism, a system devoid of absolute truths. make up your own truths as you go along. Why tomorrow, the wind blowing in the right direction, we might decide that teenagers should not be tolerated in society. They are so inconvenient! I’m afraid those of us who try to apply reason see this as a dead end philosophy.”

And your reasoning involves applying the slippery slope fallacy and an appeal to fear. Of course that would never happen! That’s just fearmongering by exaggerating something to a completely different situation. you talk about truth and then use fallacy, you obviously have no understanding of logical reasoning.

“Rape is indeed a heinous crime. But there are many great people alive today who are the result of a rape, they are fully human and adding murder to rape is not a good solution.”

I know a man who was a product of rape who was dumped In institutions, his life was destroyed. You think it’s better for a woman to live with a constant reminder of that horrific situation? That she may always view the child that way if she cannot cope with it?
As someone who has been raped (and thankfully miscarried) I find that quite compassionless. How dare you write off the trauma of the mother with this red herring. And how dare you call it murder! This is a direct appeal to emotion and a further fallacy, from the context it is safe to assume that this is a direct attempt at manipulation of those you appeal to.

“Your contraceptive argument is particularly sad. Everybody knows today that contraceptives fail. Using abortion as a backup to “contraception” is sad. If you are unwilling to have the child perhaps you should not copulate? The consequences of this mentality on the HIV and STD situation are also appalling.”

Er, so married couples who do not wish to procreate should abstain? You call this argument sad, I call your response deluded.

“Your oestrogen argument is also poor. When the mother becomes pregnant the body usually knows what to do. The problem with pregnancy chemistry occurs mostly when the baby is removed and the body continues to produce the chemistry.”

Again, WRONG. Excess oestrogen can cause breast cancer, it caused my sister to go deaf and is the reason I cannot take oral contraceptives. I obviously know more about this than you because you think the body just looks after itself.. It doesn’t. There are numerous conditions for which pregnancy is dodgy territory, high blood pressure, high blood triglycerides, high homocysteine, actually – the list is too long for here, I referred you to the contraindications for hormonal contraceptives, you obviously didn’t bother looking and as a result made this ill informed statement. 

“You seem to think you are arguing on behalf of women, but the effect of your argument is to devalue women, turn them into objects of pleasure without the natural consequences. Men then treat their women just like another organ. Devoid of their own personhood.”

Oh do I?! For your information, I AM a woman, thank you very much. One in a long term relationship who chooses not to procreate for health reasons, I think I know more about what it’s like to be a woman in this situation than you do thanks. And your suggestion that I should abstain is laughable. 

“My wife and myself lost one of our own children at 12 weeks through a natural abortion. Her name was Anna any we remember her every year on valentines day. She should be twenty now, but we love her personhood then and now.”

I am very sorry to hear of your loss. But it is apparent that you had wanted that baby to be born, and have other kids that you want. Like I said, your choice to have children is not affected. My choice not to have children could be affected by a faulty condom. And you would force me to either carry to term or travel to England if I did not discover it in time for the morning after pill.
Cheers.

@EMD, that first story is one that hadn’t even crossed my mind – but is yet another reason why our failure to deal with this issue is deplorable.

Disregard the word ” not” .

The right of a bunch of cells is paramount above the right of the living breathing adult who may already be a parent with enough children, may be depressed, suicidal, gravely ill? Wow the skewed priorities of anti-choicers truly take some beating.

Ah sure Sam we are merely the receptacles for children what do we matter? Oh right yeah perhaps our existing children and spouse/partner might need us to be there for them? So life of a foetus over that of living children, father and mother, messed up perspective ot what. Why can people not accept that others may need to make choices that they would not make, “before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes” .

None of the anti-choice men attempting to impose their offensive doggerel on women’s bodies in these comments will ever walk a mile in a woman’s shoes, that’s the problem. Paradoxically, although I have some ideas, I’m not going to tell them what to do with their scrotums, because I don’t have one.

That’s it exactly. Compassion for the woman finding herself pregnant against her wishes is completely absent from the anti choice stance. They have plenty of compassion for a foetus incapable of survival ex-utero, but once that baby comes kicking and screaming into reality the compassion ends.
There’s too many unloved, abused and messed up children in the world as it is. Surely the anti choice camp would do more good and ultimately show more compassion by focusing upon resolving this?

:rolleyes:

and your inability to spell foetus correctly let alone draw a distinction between a foetus and a ‘baby’ really makes me wonder

This issue is more serious than spelling but just to clarify there’s many accepted ways of spelling it.
I did google the spelling before typing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus

Fetus is the American way of spelling it, not that it’s in any way relevant

Right, so some people on Vincent Browne know better than the judges who ruled that as a result of the A, B & C cases Ireland needs to legislate?
I refer you to the abortion stories posted below by EMD, what if the child will be a still birth or die after birth, should the mother be forced to carry a child who has no hope of living?
Should she be forced to carry the product of rape?
If her life is in danger as a direct result of the pregnancy, should we force her to carry?

You dinosaur

Yes Richard. Because the desire to protect life is archaic and the the killing of babies (because that’s what they are) is a sign of progress!

It’s called the medical treatment bill because in all the abortion cases in Ireland and taken to the ECHR the woman’s life was at risk. Without access to safe legal abortion in the UK these women would be dead. Presumably you think that is the preferable option? Is that actually what you would want for any woman in your life?

@ Sam Rhodes
Well Sam I see your understand of the development of the human being in the womb is self serving. If you can refer to the child as “a bunch of cells” you just might convince yourself that killing it is meaningless.
If you wish to persuade me that all of the Irish babies killed in England were to save the lives of their mothers, then your delusion has found new depths. Is it not more likely that these girls needed help and support rather than a pushing boyfriend, parent or friend, leading them on the destructive path.

The Legislation being debated here is the provision of abortion where the life of the woman is in danger. You appear to be attempting to equate this with abortion on demand which is disingenuous and you haven’t answered my question.

With respect sir, pregnancy IS a medical condition which often needs medical treatment, hence the regular follow ups by midwives, doctors, phlebotomists, ultrasonigraphers etc. during normal pregnancy. This Bill is to discuss one particular treatment

@ Stadler Waldorf
Stadler to me a medical condition equates to sickness. I don’t believe pregnancy is a sickness. One can become sick during pregnancy and require treatment, rightly so, and as I understand it if following radiation or kemotheropy to save the mother, the child dies, this is considered ok. So long as the purpose of the intervention was not to deliberately harm the child.

@ PJ. If you would care to look at the cases which facilitated a need for our government to legislate was of a woman who had cancer, needed chemotherapy (not kemotheropy whatever that is) and needed to terminate her pregnancy. Our state would not provide and this was found to be in direct conflict with her human rights.
Please stop ignoring facts in order to push your anti choice stance. You still haven’t answered Sams question, would you have preferred she die rather than terminate that pregnancy?

Yours points are well made but cannot agree with 24 week availability.

Well you are consistent in you’d views. I will only say with respect to sex education: sex education sexualises our children. The kind of sex education you mean encourages children to have sex. The result is more contraception, more abortion, which of course is fixed again by more sex education. But perhaps that is your ambition, sex without commitment, have you children of your own? Perhaps you would value them more than you propose for society at large.

Things were so much simpler when we didn’t have contraception and sex education! We just had massive families, abject poverty and the Magdalene Laundries to take care of all those pesky hussies. Tell you what us women will rescind our right to vote too! And we’ll bring back rickets and TB, it’ll be brilliant!

Oh PJ.. Ignore reality to make your case why don’t you..
Abortions, contraception and LOTS of sex education starting from a much younger age is the direct reason why countries like France, Germany and the Netherlands have far lower teen pregnancy rates per capita than the UK, Ireland and US.
Their abortion rates are lower too as a result. Their approach is far more open, less nannyish – rights, respect, responsibility. That’s their approach. It works a damn sight writer than what you are advocating which is more of the same.

Damn sight better, how did autocorrect get writer?

Just think, before the mass immigration of the past decade, the Netherlands had the lowest teen pregnancy and abortion rates in the world, and had maintained them for decades.
This is a country with unionised prostitutes and weed cafes.. They don’t have to put rails and signs around the edges of their canals because the people have the sense not to fall in! Their government treats the electorate and the teenagers as people rather than problematic children and whadaya know? They have a far more responsible society in general (with a few oddballs mind). Plus, their age of consent is 14 because they realise that teenagers have sex. Several studies have shown that the abstinence only approach to sex education actually leads to a rise in teen pregnancies.. Seriously, just google sex education, maybe you will learn something..

No kids, PJ Scully. I’m nearing middle age. I sleep alone in my bed at night. I masturbate every night. But all that is irrelevant. I am still entitled to give my opinion here. It’s common sense that we give our kids comprehensive sex education in our schools. Broadly speaking, we should teach our kids about the responsibilities and rights of citizenship, about active citizenship, about advocacy. We certainly should not be teaching our kids fairytales from the bible. That’ll just serve to confuse and frighten the kids. In the Book of Deuteronomy, God tells Moses to ethnically cleanse those tribes that had the great misfortune to live beside the Israelites. God has an issue with his temper. Moses was a brute of the depths of Slobodan Milosevic and Radko Mladic. He ordered the killing of 100,000 men, boys and women. He ordered the rape of tens of thousands of virgins. It’s all in the bible. This is not a guy you’d like to meet in a dark alley at night. Abraham heard a voice on his head telling him to kill his son, Isaac. He had him bound on the slab of rock before another voice in his head told him to stop and that God now knew that Abraham did indeed love him. I’d refer both God and Abraham to the psychiatrist for an evaluation. We shouldn’t be exposing our little children to these frightening stories. Not the little children!

Perhaps, we can teach about religion as a module within the module of “beliefs and superstitions” within the school subject of philosophy. Let’s give our children an objective overview of the various religions which they can then critically evaluate.

@ Sam Rhodes
@ Shanti Om
@ Paul Carr
That was some bile. Well Sam what we are now committing ourselves to in Europe, without the “large families” is the “Demographic Winter”. You should look up that one, the result of our Ego culture. Just saying Magdalene Laundries and a list of diseases sarcastically proves nothing. The Female of the species has been sold a pup in abortion, their unique possibility of bearing a child has been belittled, it does not free them it lessens them.

Shanti, I think you’ll find that they have a much lower birth rate, I wouldn’t be so sure about pregnancy rate. Others have addressed the Europe issues. Just to say I believe children should be educated in sexuality, it’s beauty, it’s purpose, it’s giftedness. But what passes for sex education today summarises to “how to wear a condom”.
As for the Netherlands, if you take the beauty and function out of sex, and replace Love with lust, then it’s only a matter of time before it becomes uninteresting. This is a big part of why there is so much dysfunction and sickness in the sexual arena today. Viagra etc. are doing very well.
You say the abstinence only approach leads to pregnancies, look again, in my parents time there were relatively few unwanted pregnancies, this was before widespread contraception. In my youth the teenage pregnancies rose as we became more contraceptive. Today teenage pregnancies have spiralled, contraception, abortion, sex education. It’s not working, let’s do more of the same.
The Netherlands have unfortunately extended their approach to life and now kill their elderly. Therefore Shanti, you should perhaps consider your view because even though you missed the grim weeper in the womb the culture of death we are now embracing may decide you don’t deserve to be old, a drain on the children you decided not to have and all of that.

Paul Carr. What can I say, you know me so well. For the record I’m happily married, and four children survived. I prefer not to bring God into these, when I’m discussing with people i don’t really know. You can have have your gripes out with Him on judgement day, and by the way on that day it is He who will be God.

PJ Scully: If you were a Christian, you’d be praying to God to let me in through the front gate.

@ Paul Carr
Your entry or otherwise is in your own hands, but the views you express here are not very promising in that respect. I myself will do my flawed best.
Your go at scripture is your own take on a big story. Don’t get bogged down in the micro and miss the macro

PJ Scully: You write that my entry or otherwise into heaven is in my hands and then you write that the views I express here are not very promising in that respect.

It sounds to me, PJ Scully, that you are implying that you have a direct phone line to God. If that’s so, can I have his phone number, please? I like to have a word with him before I go up there.

I’ll say to God: “God, now what I was saying about you on the journal.ie about having an issue with your temper and all. Look, I didn’t say *you* wrote the bible. Perhaps, the Hebrews mistranslated your true word. I was just going by what I read in the book. Come on. We all mistakes. We’re all human.”

Sorry no number, but I wish you well with that discussion.

Oh PJ.. What an alarming amount of fallacy, misconceptions and ego you have spouted..

1. Ego.
I’m afraid as a Christian you are in no place to talk ego. Egolessness relies upon the person losing the need to grasp, to realise that this body, this life, is all a construct of the mind. And that the consciousness of the mind is infinite and connected – our bodies are transient and mean little in the grand scheme of things. Death is merely a phase in life, and life is merely lessons en route to enlightenment. Mind you, enlightenment and knowledge are sins in Abrahamic religions, after all, it was eating from the tree of knowledge that got Adam & Eve kicked out (mind you, the story that was plagiarised from tells the story a little differently.. In that version YHWH is the bad guy, go figure..)
The Abrahamic religions are no more than an exercise in ego promotion.. Monotheistic, insistent that it is the “only way”, it teaches that you – as you are now – go to heaven, it teaches you to grasp, dominate and control. That is ego and nothing more.. Your position as anti choice is rooted in the ego and requiring YOUR beliefs be forced upon others. Don’t fool yourself into thinking it is not.

2. As a woman, the ability for me to use contraception or indeed opt for an abortion if needs be does free me. Please stop making ill informed statements about something you couldn’t possibly know anything about. You’ve already tried to make out I don’t understand women in your hasty generalisations (I notice you couldn’t answer me on that.. Just like you couldn’t answer Sam in the thread before that..)

3. Birth rates vs teen pregnancy rates.. The fact that these are both lower in the Netherlands show’s one thing and one thing only. 
There is generally a more responsible approach to procreation in the Netherlands. 
I know I’m constantly being asked when I’m going to have kids, it’s still expected of you as a woman here. Obviously they aren’t so sexist in the Netherlands and women are not pressurised into their role as baby factory.

4. I think you will find that in the EU countries with the lowest teen pregnancy rates, sex ed is far more comprehensive than you assume. May I refer you to the “SAFE” project. It’s not just how to put on a condom (which we didn’t even get here), it’s about self respect, not bowing to peer pressure, the psychological impact of all those hormones, and personal responsibility and consequence. Whereas over here it’s the biology and let’s ignore the fact that hormonal changes make teens overly aroused. Your lack of actual knowledge about this in spite of your lofty attitude is rather shocking.

5. More hasty generalisations.. Now you say the Dutch have an unhealthy attitude toward sex, and don’t understand love.. Give me a break, what a massively ill informed sweeping generalisation.. And yet another fallacy.
They have far less rape. Far less sexual abuse. Far less pedophilia.. They have an open and honest approach toward sex, and you think that’s devoid of love, why? Because it doesn’t suit your egotistical need to push your view? I know a few Dutch people who would beg to differ..

6. I was talking about scientific research into whether abstinence only programmes work, and the conclusions of the meta analysis by Dicenso et al was that no, they don’t, and in fact were more likely to produce teen pregnancies than comprehensive sex ed.. But that’s just pesky scientific evidence isn’t it? Irish schools (according to SAFE) have a very lax approach to sex ed and contraceptive education.. Up until after I left school it was still “no sex before marriage” that was taught, and to this day kids receive not much better (indeed, my 13 yr old nieces sex education at school this year has been appalling, thank goodness her mother has spoken to her about it). So we ARE continuing on with the same, it’s just that we have preventative measures available that our holy catholic schools refuse to give sufficient instruction on. Then we have a media encouraging people to have sex, equating sex with desirability and affection.. It’s a confusing message for kids, and one doomed to fail – as all available evidence shows.. It wasn’t that long ago teenage girls were sent away to have babies – it was still happening when I was at school. 

7. Your reference to euthanasia shows that you have no compassion and are, in fact, firmly trapped by your ego.
I work with the elderly. I meet people daily who are in excruciating pain, people who because of dementia are lost and frightened, people who because of Alzheimer’s their brains have departed leaving only their bodies behind. I meet people who have spent the last decades of their life praying to their god to deliver them from their suffering (but obviously that god wanted them to suffer), who cry daily because their lives are so unbearable. And you would prefer to deny them the dignity to say “enough is enough”? 
Like the situation of a woman who finds herself pregnant after rape, you obviously haven’t even tried to put yourself in their shoes. This is what compassion means. To truly take on the suffering of another, to feel how they feel, and realise that the barrier of the body is an illusion – their pain is your pain because we are all one. THAT is egolessness. You sir refuse to even try. I support the right to enuthanasia, in this country we treat terminally ill and fatally wounded animals better than we do humans. 

Every one of the spiritual practices that predate your ego bound religion taught the same thing about death. That it will be you who judges you, once you see your actions from the point of view of those around you, once the ego is disolved and you reconnect.. This is reaffirmed by the entheogenic experiences of tribespeople, and the reports of near death experiences.. I’d advise you learn about compassion and crucify your ego before its far too late.

Pj are you for real ? How many kids were born and were not loved or even giving a chance, my mum and her 2 sisters were treated like dirt where as the boys of the family were treated like kings go figure

Oh, and Ps PJ..
In your mums day she had no choice. If she wanted the baby or not she had no choice, and she was forced to have it, and possibly came to accept that. But if you were able to truly speak to her about it no holds barred, you may find your perception changes. You hark back to a bygone era where women were merely chattel and ther sole role was procreation and housework..

Thanks but no thanks, I’m a self employed independent woman. I choose not to have kids, as is MY right. Your desire to force yourself and your ideals upon me belongs back in the stone age.

@Shanti I must admit I’m often guilty of giving you the red thumb treatment but, on this issue I have to say you make very sensible arguments and I am in agreement with you on most of them ;)

Thank you Stadler, and as for the red thumb thing that is completely fair enough. After all you are entitled to disagree :)
The difference is that our disagreement does not force other beings into situations that they did not ask for like the anti choice brigades’ does!

@ Shanti Om

Hello Shanti, I’ll try to respond to some of your points, not that your looking for any convincing as you appear to be set in your ways, just like me really, only different ways.
1) You seem to have been exposed to a mixture of eastern and New age influences, but I’m not an expert. I’m very happy with my ego T.G., humility is big in Christianity contrary to your understanding. And there is nothing like humility for putting one in their place. Of course I’m making the general point about Christianity, I won’t make any claims for myself. Individuals succeed and fail at application to different degrees. But it does have very clear guidelines.
2) You say contraception/ abortion frees you, my view is that it enslaves you to your passions. You are governed by desires an feelings both of which should be your slaves rather than your master. True freedom only comes, in my faith, from Christ. Without knowledge of Christ this principle is of course nonsense. So it is reasonable for you to be annoyed with me.
3) Your term “responsible” is interesting. Is it responsible for nations to breed themselves out of existence? Is it responsible to fly in the face of nature and treat copulation as an end in itself? I’m sure it allows more holidays and cafe lattes.
4) I know that as they role out ever more sociology/psychology based sex Ed. the problems continue to increase. Any programme devoid of moral, ethical and restraint principles is doomed to fail. I understand the hormone and biology issues very well thank you. I’m not a prune! I have no idea of what lofty attitude I could display that would make me ignorant of the facts of life?
5) I spoke about the overall national approach in the Netherlands which in my view is disastrous. I was working with two from the Netherlands on Friday, most pleasant people, as are you I’m sure face to face. But I don’t push my views, just present an opposite view to you, in case people think there is not another way. We are all bound by our own conscience. Preferably an informed conscience. I don’t consider you pushy, just opposite.
6) Some of what you say here I agree with. Our school sex education is poor. Of course I am in favour of the abstinence approach. It’s success in certain parts of Africa is proof positive. But I’m afraid, from my point of view, the UN goes along with your point of view. I also agree that the main responsibility lies with the parents for education. Of course we will teach what we believe ourselves.
7) I did not realise that you were also an advocate of euthanasia, but I suppose a lack of respect for life at both ends of the spectrum is to be expected. Most of the euthanasia is convenience killing. And you accuse me of egotism!
I come from a faith based on the suffering of one Man, the only faith which gives meaning to suffering for all of us. But I don’t expect you to appreciate that. I understand very well the situations you describe, but you see I can’t look at you or the sick, suffering persons without knowing they are more than a shell, more than their pain. their pain is not my pain because of “egolessness”, but because of compassion. For example Mother Teresa. If you think we lack compassion as a group, remember the catholic church is the biggest provider of health care in the world. They take care of more than half of the HIV suffers in the world and they take care of those within and without of their faith. So I think your argument in that respect is without foundation.
I wish you well Shanti. I hope my views won’t offend you as that is not their purpose. You are quick to judge. Excuse my spelling, dyslexia is my excuse. We have strayed quite far from the original article.

PJ
My only issue with your stance is that it enforces itself upon others by default. 
By denying the option, you are restricting others. I would prefer to avoid pregnancy, and never have to make the decision to have an abortion, but I have no right to tell another woman she must carry because I don’t agree.
While you see it as life from conception, not everyone does. That’s the rub. You call it murder because that is *your* view, but as you can see, it is not shared. 
In my faith sex is seen as something natural. If we were not supposed to take some enjoyment from it we would have a season like other mammals. They do not copulate outside of procreation, unless the female is in heat, they are not interested. On the flipside, Dolphins do it for fun just like us.. There are differences in biology – in this sense you are blatantly ignoring nature, something I cannot.
Your opinion of what contraception does or doesn’t do for me is, I’m afraid, complete assumption.. Because you don’t know me. It is an opinion, to which you’re entitled, it doesn’t mean it’s correct..
Breeding yourself out of existence is what China is doing with the one child policy. Responsible breeding takes into account the fact that all these people are going to get old and they’re going to get sick as our morbidity rate is appalling. We are destroying our home and our natural resources and even the very nutrients in our soil are depleting at an accelerated rate.. Big families are not needed anymore as infant mortality has reduced significantly. Modest sized families are perfectly adequate and sustainable. We must live in synergy with nature, not try to dominate it, otherwise we won’t breed out of existence, we’ll simply die off.
In direct contravention to your statements, as the level of fully comprehensive sex ed is rolled out, the teenage pregnancy rates drop. In contrast to covering the basics and treating it like some forbidden fruit..  
Your lofty attitude referred to claiming that sex ed was “sexualising children” when the evidence shows the exact opposite.
Not sure what the holidays and cafe lattes comment was, but it seems a tad snide.. Insinuating that I am some jet setting materialistic type are we? Couldn’t be further from the truth, and latte? Yuk. 
As I said, by being pro life, you push your views by default. To be pro choice means that everyone has their own choice catered for. No one will ever force you into an abortion clinic PJ, but you force women to travel.
With regards some patchy success in Africa, would these be in largely catholic countries? Where condoms have not been allowed and so abstinence is the ONLY way? 
I referred to a meta analysis, as in, the research analyst looked at all the research out there and drew conclusions from the results.. It trumps some isolated cases I’m afraid, that’s how research works.
I love the way you twisted the euthanasia point to be lack of respect.. Then went on to in not so many words advocate the excruciating pain some of these people I care for very deeplys’ experience.. These are people who say that they want to die, I know I would not like to experience Alzheimer’s or dementia – I know what it can do. Same goes for all other gerontology disorders.. There are many who would not choose euthanasia, and I respect and admire their courage, but should I deny the right to someone who wants to go? No, it’s their body, their life and THEIR choice. That is respect..
NOWHERE, I repeat, NOWHERE is euthanasia treated lightly. For you to suggest any different is disingenuous. For you to suggest only Christianity covers suffering is also disingenuous and also incredibly ignorant (Christianity if anything has been responsible for a lot of it).
Mother Theresa was a fine woman, but not indicative of the church as a whole. I know aid workers for 3rd world countries who would tell you about the vile corruption the church is party to in Africa and India, and some of their aid agencies are far from trustworthy. And I’ll leave the current controversies out as they go without saying.. Jesus I have no problem with, just the crap that gets carried out in his name.
I wish you well too PJ, you say I am quick to judge but in reality I have only judged you on your words, whereas you have judged my whole life, not to mention all the fallacies.. Hopefully you will see that for you to exert your will over others is wrong, and honour the fact that not everyone must live by your rules. That is the only issue I have with the anti choice stance. 

@ Shanti Om
Well Shanit it shouldn’t surprise you that I would like to “enforce” this particular stance. You don’t seem to grasp that I consider abortion to be murder. If you chose to kill me tomorrow I’d expect you to be prosecuted. Our constitution enshrined the right to life of the unborn. If anyone is trying to enforce an opinion contrary to the laws of the land it’s you. To put it too strongly one could say you’re inciting violence toward the unborn!
With respect to me “enforcing my will on others”, I’m actually just defending the law of the land as it stands. You can see my opinion is not popular here but the law represents the peoples choice.
Your condescending attitude toward me, my right to express myself, and your very high perch from where you preach, make me look like a lamb being led to slaughter.
Catholicism has always being opposed by the secular. Thank god you have stopped feeding us to the lions, just because we choose and encourage others in a better way.
As for the rest of the diatribe, let him who has eyes judge for himself.
P.S. Women are the best thing god ever created.

Our country and or constitution has Catholicism stamped all over it because Catholicism forced itself upon us.

Please, I have already told you I have a different faith, don’t dismiss me as secular.. It’s just that those of my faith got burned and tortured by your guys for having the gall to try and heal the sick and maintain a personal relationship with the creator..

Not only that, they placed a satire, the highest form of black magick upon us.. And the sad thing is the majority of Catholics have no idea that those who run your church are black shamen and they don’t even try to hide it..

So no.. I don’t really put much stock in what those murderers have to say, thanks..

@ Shanti Om
Very interesting, it does show however that your hate for life and the church is based on a faith of some sorts. You know I’m Catholic, perhaps you would put your cards on the table and then I won’t have to guess your lineage. If the priests are “black” in your terminology I presume you have a “white”. As a matter of record it was primarly the German calvinists, to the best of my knowledge, that burned most of the “witches”.

Please ditch the fallacy. I have no hate for life, that’s another appeal to emotion, and an accusation about me personally to boot.. I do not have any hatred for life. How dare you suggest I do. I merely don’t view life as life until nature deems it so. Eg – until the body stops reacting to it as a parasitic invasion (the reason that spontaneous abortions are so common in the first 12 weeks).

The word that was translated in the bible to mean “witch” was pharmakeia, which means drugs. Because according to the bible only praying can heal the sick. The word “witch” comes from an anglo Saxon word, Wicce – meaning wise one. Wise of the herbs and gifts of the earth that heal.

My faith doesn’t tell me that I have to kill those who don’t believe as I do. If anyone has a hatred for life it’s the Abrahamic religions (as Paul pointed out to you above). The ones who have two giant vigils to the Amanita Muscaria smack bang in the middle of St Peters square and the popes ceremonial robes are a dead giveaway too..
When one of the dead sea scrolls scholars published a book about the fact that it was a combination of the ancient Sumerian fertility cult (which bemoaned the waste of semen as a grave trespass – this is where the catholic churches hatred for contraception comes from, it’s where the word “sin” originates from) and worship of that mushroom, his book was banned and his career was destroyed, by the church.. he was satired, but others have confirmed his work now, the jig is almost up..

My objection is to a fraudulent religion claiming dominion over the lives of so many – I have no issue with you personally besides your reliance upon fallacy and your choice to use personal attacks on me.. My criticism has remained about the words you have typed and the church.
Simply because that is the correct way to debate, the logical way.

As you said quite rightly yourself, now we have veered way off subject.. I shall leave you here. And hope that those on the expert panel are not so blinkered by a religion (note, not faith – faith is belief in a god, religion is just beliefs about that god) that is based on lies.

How our political leaders quickly forget reports that provide insight into the real Ireland! One such report was the Sexual Abuse and Violence in Ireland report of 2002. Their survey showed that a staggering 28% of men had suffered sexual abuse over the course of their lifetime. And the women? 42%. And this survey doesn’t even take into account all the violence without the sexual element.

We live in a patriarchal society, PJ Scully, and this is stunting the development of our people. By providing abortion on request to all our female citizens here in the Republic of Ireland up to the 24th week of pregnancy (generally considered the point where the foetus becomes viable outside the mother’s womb with present day medical technology), fully funded by the Irish taxpayer, with a one day statutory waiting period for anyone seeking an abortion, with no requirement for the women or girls to inform next-of-kin, we provide a powerful weapon for women and girls in this country (not just those who seek abortions) to fight back against patriarchy. Ultimately, everyone benefits. 

In fact, PJ Scully, it is no exaggeration to say that our Species, Homo Sapiens, is f^*ked, if we don’t. 

Perhaps in the distant future a equally pernicious world order will emerge, a Matriarchy, where we’ll have female versions of PJ Scully, who will openly claim or insinuate that they know what God’s admission policy to Heaven is. I doubt it.

@ Shanti Om
Well I’m afraid if you will kill the baby in the womb, and if you’ll kill the old, in my language that is a hate for life. Your points are emotive, and so are mine.
You refused to say who or what you are exactly. Are you a wicker yourself? I think any follower of our script is entitled to know! I too am a great admirer of the great creator, but I wonder if my creator is in opposition to yours?

@ Paul Carr
Welcome back Paul. We certainly as a species have a very dark side as your statistics, and I’m don’t challenge them, imply.
I’m not sure if this is a patriarchal society. I’m slightly of the view that it is matriarchal but that the women want to keep us thinking otherwise. You know the old joke, “When did you ask your wife to marry you, when she told me!”.
I don’t agree however with your jump from here to abortion. Fifty years ago babies could not survive before 30 weeks, are you saying that it was ok they were only life after 30 weeks back then. And what if we succeed scientifically to have babies from conception without the womb in the future, does that bring an end to abortion?
I believe many of the arguments are already made and there is no need to repeat.
By the way all Christians know the entry card to heaven, not just Catholics, is through JC, and I’m afraid He is not a supporter of abortion

The bible doesn’t even mention abortion, though various passages have been used to affirm that a foetus is a living human being or isn’t.

http://www.twopaths.com/faq_abortion.htm

PJ..
Yes, both of our points are emotive, it is a subject that’s close to both of our hearts but for entirely different reasons. What I said was that you were using an *appeal to emotion* which is different, it is a logical fallacy, either an error of reasoning or a deliberate attempt to manipulate the reader. Me thinks the second. Your personal attacks are what’s known as ad hominem and circumstantial ad hominems, you’ve thrown in I don’t know how many straw men, slippery slopes etc.. In short your entire argument has been fallacious.. It results in you coming off as disingenuous, as I have pointed out to you repeatedly.

I will allow for dyslexia, when you wrote wicker were you referring to Wicca? because that’s Gerald Gardiner (Aleister Crowleys buddy – they’re off on a different plain altogether), I have nothing to do with them.. My faith comes from my heart, it was not indoctrinated by anyone else, (not like how they tried to force me into catholicism via the education system and changed canon law to prevent me and many others from exercising our freedom of religion).. There isn’t a definitive name, because Gardinerian followers call themselves witches too.. And thats like the difference between Protestant and Catholic.. I use hedge witch, but don’t expect that to explain much, we are solitary, and you will find as many definitions as you will hedge witches themselves..

I will say I disagree with the 24 week cut off except for cases where it has been determined that the baby could not survive. For me I’d prefer a limit of 12 weeks, because at this point there isn’t any chance the foetus could survive because it has no lungs and the body is trying to get rid of it itself.
If we make synthetic wombs would the church not be massively opposed to that?
They should be, given their aversion to drugs as “witch craft”, and surely this would be in the same vein as cloning and “playing god”.

That comment about knowing the entry card to heaven is funny.. Remember, if you do not follow the bible to the letter you are not a true Christian, and will not go to heaven yourself.. In fact, according to the christians I have spoken to, Catholics arent even christian, just “followers of the commandments of men”, like the Pharisees.. If the bible is the word of god then it has to be adhered to strictly, if it’s just a metaphor then Jesus didn’t exist.. You can’t have it both ways.. Mind you, if you knew the true origins of your holy book, I don’t think you would identify as Catholic, or even Christian for that matter..

I find it odd that you think we live in a matriarchal society already.. Ignoring the fact that equality still very much evades us.. Granted – there are areas where men’s rights are ignored, but these are in places where the discrimination is in favour of the woman, it’s still discrimination. It’s still wrong. But then again, if you have to live by the rule of the bible, your attitude to a woman’s place would be a tad skewed..

@ Paul Carr
I don’t like bringing religion into these discussions as the child is a human being from the moment of conception, with the inviolable right to life, and that is true without any reference to religion or scripture.

However as you asked, this is the best I can do from my limited knowledge. Jeremiah 1:5 “before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you”.
The law specifically addresses the issue of taking the life of a fetus in the book of Exodus:
“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life.” (Exodus 21:22-23)

There are some other famous instances such as when John the Baptist was 6 months in the womb and Christ was in his first weeks, but John leaped to announce Christs presence.

The oath of Hippocrates (460-357 BC) gives evidence that not everyone readily accepted abortion. The oath includes the phrase “…Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly, I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion.”

The Didache states: “Thou shalt not slay thy child by abortion, nor kill that which is begotten”

All of these show us that abortion is an old problem, and that it has been condemed from a long time. We dismiss the wisdom of old at our peril.

Sadly the implications for the medical profession are grea,t for them and for us, as they turn their backs on the Hippochratic Oath.

Doctors don’t swear the hippocratic oath anymore as most pharmaceutical drugs classify as poisons.. Especially chemotherapy, digoxin, etc..

May I ask.. Why is it ok for God to “murder” a child in the womb (spontaneous abortion or still birth) and a woman is not allowed to induce miscarriage before 12 weeks?

@ Shanti Om

Thanks for the information Shanti. Knowing you are a “hedge witch” explains your dislike for the catholic church. I taught it might be something I wrote.
You have accused me on several occasions of “a logical fallacy”. I have been a honest as I can in my approach. I certainly don’t wish to mislead anyone. But! I have attempted to be as reasonable as I can in all I’ve written. I’m a fan of faith and reason. No apology for strong views. But I’m neither a theologian, a philosopher or a logician. So if I get things wrong occasionally, so what, I’m human, and that’s true for so many years and nine months.

Abortion is not mentioned in the bible. Therefore, Jesus didn’t take a position on it. If Jesus did feel as strongly as you about it, where is the relevant passage in the bible? Where in the gospels do we find “The Parable of the Pregnant Girl”?

————————-

“THE PARABLE OF THE PREGNANT GIRL”

A pregnant girl of young age approached Jesus. “Father, I carry within my belly the child of my uncle who raped me. I want to get rid of it”. Jesus replied in a stern voice: “Verily, I tell you, if you kill this unborn child, you commit murder. Even if it is just a bunch of cells, it is still murder, it is still the killing of unborn life. And, upon Judgment Day, you will stand before Him and he will say unto you “Down this instant to the eternal fires of hell with you”". The girl, with pained expression, turned to walk away. “And one more thing”, Jesus called after her. “Do not talk of this with strangers”.

———————–

Find me this parable in the gospels, PJ Scully.

It appears that Jesus was much more concerned with the uneven distribution of wealth in the Palestine of his day”. There is plenty of evidence he was a Socialist, even a Communist.

Lawrence O’Donnell gave a comprehensive rundown on this on this MSNBC show.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VB1T7IaK6g8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

There are so many passages to back up the contention that Jesus was a Socialist/Communist. Mark 10:17 – 10:25 will suffice for now where Jesus tells the rich man who wants to help Jesus to sell everything he has and give to the poor.

You gave a passage from Exodus as evidence that the Bible is against abortion. That passage, in full, is as follows:

“And if men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him; and he shall pay as the judges decide. “But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (NAS, Exodus 21:22-24)

This appears to be implying that human life before birth is not as important as human life after birth. If the foetus dies as a result of battery of the woman, the penalty is a fine, with the judge deciding how much. But, if the mother dies, then the man pays with his own life.

Abortion, child abandonment and infanticide was permitted under Roman law at the time of Jesus. Insofar as Jesus didn’t take a position on abortion, it’s not unreasonable to conclude he implicitly approved of the Roman law at the time. 

PJ, of course it’s not you personally – I don’t know you, I cannot make a judgement of you personally for this reason.
I have kept my judgement for the church and the anti choice movement – these are simply things that you ascribe to and I have explained this to you several times.

As far as logical fallacies go, as I explained earlier, a logical fallacy is merely an error of reasoning. Sometimes logical fallacies are used as arguments maliciously, sometimes they are honest errors.. But they are errors all the same, because they do not make sense.
Politicians use them all the time as a means of manipulating public support, they rely on the fact that the majority have no idea what they are or how to spot them.
In that case it is done with malicious intent.

I have pointed these errors out to you, and I have even pointed out why they don’t work or make sense (like the slippery slope about killing teenagers – although god was happy to kill all the first born – after they were born, so that proves god has less issue with killing babies than you seem to wish to recount), and when I reckon their intent may have been malicious (such as the ad hominem attacks).

I don’t think you are aware of most of them, perhaps this will help you:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies

Knowing how to spot these will serve you well in life, it saves you from being manipulated by those who seek to control you with their words, we all deserve the truth PJ, and that is what I object to in Christianity.. It claims to be the truth, but it’s littered with contradictions, and when you weigh it up against what it is based on (Sumerian Tablets of Creation, Astrotheology & Entheogen Worship) it actually makes more sense, the paradoxes are resolved and the bits that sound insane no longer do.

Yahweh and Adonai are two different people. Yahweh is jealous, vengeful and war hungry, Adonai cares for us humans.. En.Ki and En.Lil were their original names. It wasn’t two of every animal it was the seed of every animal (as in, sperm and eggs – interestingly the word for semen was “chrism”). There was a whole race of Adams instead of just the two (so their sons weren’t incestuous or bestialists). The Elohim / Nephelim were the previous race of Igigi who were on Adonai / En.Ki’s side. The sun being born of a virgin (Virgo) in Bethlehem (which means house of Bread and was the Hebrew name for this constellation – the virgin with the wheat chaff), dying and rising after 3 days (winter solstice and Candlemas / Christmas), having 12 apostles / constellations. All the references to Bulls (Taurus), Rams (Aries) and Fish (Pisces), Jesus even tells them to look for the Water Bearer (Aquarius) before the last supper..
Then there’s eating the body and blood of Christ who is meant to be god – the Amanita Muscaria was known as the gods flesh, when it goes into its grail phase the morning dew collects in it and the pigment from the mushroom makes the water look like blood.. Hence the Holy Grail and the shape of Chalices. There’s 2 giant fountains depicting this mushroom in St Peters Square and the Popes robes resemble the mushroom..

Seriously, the Sumerian tablets predate the Babylonians and Egyptians. And it’s all the same stories.. Long before the Bible was ever even conceived. These stories are not unique to the Bible, similar stores exist everywhere – but the Bible tells the story from the point of view of Yahweh, he’s considered the bad guy in every other version.

They want to highlight this pressing issue. That is commendable.

There are two terms there that should raise immediate red flags. “committee” and “established by the government”.

The Government will move. Otherwise, they would be breaking precedent. Irish Governments have historically acted on the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights within a few years.