Well researched Tipper, unusually I’m at a loss for words.

Based on Tipper’s comment, I did a google. VERY interesting and pretty disgusting statements made by this Doran guy- who, btw, got promoted in 2014 by the ‘all good’ Pope Francis.

Kevin Doran, has previously said that “rape victims who seek abortions do so to “get back” at their attackers.” He also said “homosexuality – like Down’s syndrome or spina bifida – “was not part of God’s plan.”

http://www.irishcentral.com/opinion/cahirodoherty/Bishop-Kevin-Dorans-anti-gay-remarks-spark-international-outrage.html

As far as I’m concerned an authortian demand that we must accept their point of view with no debate or proof should be dismissed out of hand.

if this lot is true you’d have to query why they are giving this complete kook airtime…

Yep – the religious still retain control of the ‘ethos’ of many of our major hospitals, while we all – via the HSE – pay for the buildings, staff, management, the whole shebang!

It is only the government who can end the disgraceful situation where a private religious organisation retains privileged control over the ethos of so many of our key state services – from health and social services to education, youth services and marriage guidance – where the state is paying for everything, and yet the church is allowed to discriminate in service delivery in line with its ethos – while contributing nothing.

When will the state act to end this virtual theocracy?

This issues is starting to get some daylight but needs to be aired more… who do we think is the patron of our National Maternity Hospital – yep, the Archbishop! Who do we think controls the ethos of, for example, St. Vincent’s Hospital? But we built, run, manage, staff, pay for the whole shebang via the HSE, I hear you cry! Absolutely right, but an order of nuns retains control of the board and the ‘ethos’ – their mission is: “To bring the healing love of Christ to all we serve”.
“The affairs of the hospital are managed by a Board of Directors, which is responsible to the Shareholders of the company which are the Sisters of Charity. The Board, as part of its responsibility develops the hospital and its services in accordance with the principles and ethics of the Congregation of the Religious Sisters of Charity.”
How is this possible in a modern hospital built by, funded by and run by the HSE?

The state should demand that the religious orders hand over their ‘ownership’ of these hospitals in return for the 1.5 billion bailout that the state gave to religious orders for payments for redress payments to victims of the orders’ past abuse. We have all taken on that debt and the religious orders said they would pay (in cash and assets) a token 350 million towards these costs (which are THEIR debt), but they still have not done that – this could be a great way to get back the assets that morally belong to all of us anyway.

This is exactly why you shouldn’t let brainwashed, religious idiots run our schools and hospitals. It’s incredible how many people still don’t see the harm in the Catholic Church being involved in state affairs.

Carl, the good Lord (praise him) monitors social media across the planet in realtime while compiling your personal eligibility to enter the gates of heaven.

Your comments above have done serious damage to your already one-star rating on ‘rate-my-gimp’, the favourite heavenly website of deceased prophets, saints and Angels in determining who they’ll pick to enter the eternal funpark.

I suggest you get down to your local church pronto and be seen to do the right thing.

The language I’d use to describe this ‘man’ is not suitable to publish here. That’s boiled my blood. How are these ‘people’ allowed to have any say in the modern age???

The institution of the Roman Catholic Church is a fascist, authoritarian, dogmatic and fundamentalist institution which seeks to dictate to the citizens of an independent republic.

Pope Francus met in private with and gave gifts to the US Court official who refused to process same sex civil marriage procedures.

This is a civil law not a religious issue. Those who are compliant members if the Roman Catholic Church are free to chose to follow the teachings if of their Church. The rest if us should be free to make our choice.

My god absolutely amazing information the church certainly has a lot to answer for

Maybe we should castrate him first and then voluntary euthanise him too. The world would be a better place without people like him. What a pr*ck!

You flock might have got away with the same sex marriage referendum and the Children’s Referendum but this time we are serious. We are not going to permit any Government introduce a Referendum on the 8th Amendment.

Now do as you are told, toe the line and none of that liberal stuff.

You have been warned.

Tipper, I checked on what you stated above because it just seemed so horrible and unbelievable. You are actually correct. It is hard to believe, totally shocking, but true.

Tipper is not dealing with the article. What is wrong about what he specifically says in the article. Answer is nothing is wrong and that he is spot on.

Rewop, there is no sensible of logical comparison or analogy between the termination of a foetus or many foetuses, on the one hand, and the attempted genocide of an entire race of people, the elimination of socialist and communist sympathisers, homosexual people and Romany people.

The Bishop has invoked one of the greatest crimes against humanity in the twentieth century in an invalid and hyperbolic attempt to build an emotive case against abortion.

Michael read the article again his point is that by euthanasia for humans that are considered to hold sub par value is akin to a culture where we embrsce the idea that humans with conditions such as DS or chromosome disorders or life limiting conditions can be disposed of because our culture permits and accepts it. He is not equating the totality of nazi Germany to abortion.

The bishop is equating genocide with abortion, failing to recognise that the holocaust by the Nazis attempted to exterminate adults and children of the Jewish faith, homosexual people, communists and socialists, and Romany people. There is no valid comparison.

The basis of the Bishops thesis is absurd and actually minimising of the true horror of the holocaust.

Abortion prevents human life coming into existence by aborting the foetus and preventing birth.

Your paraphrase is inaccurate and distorted. It skips over the Bishop’s fundamental premise.

The Catholic Church should be wound up,membership made illegal,and have its assets seized,it has committed far more crime both in volume and depravity than any criminal drug gang.

Doran is a monster, end of…

It’s a bit rich of a Catholic bishop to compare abortion to genocide especially when you consider that the Roman church is responsible for one of the greatest genocides in history – the genocide of the Cathars. If the bishop doesn’t agree with abortion, well that’s fine with me. He will never be in a position were his partner or daughter has a decision to make with regards giving birth to an already dead foetus or baby with severe mental or physical impairments that may not live beyond a few days or weeks or worse may spend years in severe pain. He will never have a partner or daughter who becomes pregnant due to being raped and can not face the prospect of bringing her rapists child into the world. Therefore the bishop is free to have his own beliefs with regard abortion but he should not try and tell the rest of us what we should do.

The Nazi’s introduced abortion up-to-birth into Poland March 1943 and Josef Menegele was a professional abortionist for most of his life in South America. It’s reasonable for the Bishop to make a comparison.

As I’ve previously said, Hitler was anti-choice just like yourself

The Nazis forced abortion on ‘Non-Aryan’ women and banned abortion for ‘Aryan’ women who were meant to be breeders for the ‘Master Race’. Both of those scenarios are abhorrent to anyone who is Pro-Choice, both of those scenarios were about controlling women so as to control reproduction.

Tweed from what I can make out priests in general are becoming a rare thing.

@Ryan I went with Pastafarian.

@Ryan, if they put ‘lapsed Catholic’ as an option on the Census it would give a clearer picture.

can we still be Jedis?

Except when pro-choice libtards want to condemn anyone that disagrees with them as a Nazi, or wants to compare Donald Trump to a Nazi. Apparently then it’s the height of rationality.

Why is the Roman Catholic Church so keenly and stridently interested in a fresh supply of the maximum possible number of young children? Is it about more than souls?

Link to …lets say… three examples. Ill wait.

Not for the children buried in the septic tank in Tuam, children in Besboro and many others.

An organisation which allowed the children of unmarried mothers and orphans die of neglect and sold the others, which imprisoned and abused young women, lectures about the ‘evil’ of aborting non-sentient embryos and foetuses. The hypocrisy is stunning.

So Marion, do you think that its all rapists forcing women to have abortions? Do you not think women are capable of making decisions for ourselves? Has it not occurred to you that pregnant rape survivors may not want to carry a pregnancy that a rapist forced on them? Do you think pregnant rape survivors should be forced to go through with a pregnancy against their wishes? Actually, it doesn’t matter what you think because its none of your business what other people choose to do with their own lives and bodies.

It has everything to do with it Jay

If you can’t even comprehend the point he’s making then I can’t help you, the subject of the discussion is beyond your ability to engage with.

i guess maybe the clergy’s idea of ‘Children First’ differs from that of the lay people?

No doubt there are many people out there with information that have yet to come forward because they are too scared, have been intimidated or just cannot accept that the local holy man would do such a thing.
Faith/fear can make people do monstrous things, protect those in power and turn a blind eye.
Men like this bully have for years carried on like old English Lords, making the rules up as they go along, ensuring everything works to their advantage.
This country has a long way to go to leave behind the awful legacy created by a church that has behaved in a most un-Christian like way.
Love one another was the original message that seems to have been forgotten. Abuse, terrorise and put down one another is the Catholic way.

Deep breath! What would he compare the hundreds of child skeleton remains, found in a septic tank, in Tuam Galway home for children under the Catholic Church too.

Not one bone was found in any septic tank in Tuam.

It is black or white. You are either for it or against it being allowed.

Every abortion is a tragedy – but I trust the people make the decision to have one and I would not, should they meet all the requirements for one, deny them the right to have it nor deny them the ability to have it done safely (be that by removing the pathetic requirement for them to go overseas for one or in the worst cases endanger their lives though back-street procedures or unsupervised use of abortifacient drugs).

I’m against abortion, I could never ever imagine being in a situation where, were it down to me, I could choose it as an option for a child I had a part in conceiving I could never condemn someone for making the choice themselves, deny them the option of making that choice or drive them to extreme lengths while in a fragile physical and emotional situation to have one. It is utter madness and incredibly inhumane.

People need to stop pussyfooting about on this issue, it’s gone on far too long.

If only everyone with pro-life beliefs was as decent and humane as you Phil.

“It is black or white. You are either for it or against it being allowed…. should they meet all the requirements for one”.

Do you not see the contradiction in these statements?

It is a medical and circumstantial choice to be made by the pregnant woman in consultation with those whom she wishes to consult with. It is inappropriate for the law and the Irish Constitution to impose its blunt choice by means of civil law.

Religious dogma mixes badly with politics, law, social policy and the practice of medicine.

We need to have a secular republic and remove religion from this complex issue.

Michael
This is not a religious issue. It’s an issue of morality and the right to life.
If every religious institution closed down tomorrow the question remains.
Do we have the right to destroy life?

It’s easy to slap it down because it’s from a bishop but don’t shoot the messenger.

A foetus is not a human being. It has the potential but only if the foetus is successfully delivered through a bath process.

The issue is primarily religious as shown by the the role of the Roman Catholic Church and RCC sponsored groups back in 1982 and 1983 in foisting the 8th Amendement on the people. The role of the RCC in preserving the 8th Amendment cannot sensibly be denied.

Bishop Doran Roman Catholic bishop, speaking as a member of the Roman Catholic hierarchy and invoking arguments in favour of a religiously motivated position.

Not true. Multiple infant remains are still in situ in a disused sewerage system. Ask the neigh.

*neighbours

“It’s perfectly intellectually consistent for an anti-abortion person.”

I know. He was preaching to the choir (ever was it so apt) but that doesn’t excuse the use of Nazi comparisons which, as someone else put nicely, is a “poor substitute for substantive debate”.

Doran should have researched the organisation better then Phil, if you consider the head of the ‘Family & Life’ group is headed by one Peter Scully, one time fiancé of a Niamh Nic Mhathuna then head of Youth defence now Niamh Ui Bhroin head of the ‘Life Institute’ , remember Justin Barrett of youth defence and his high praise for Franco, he actually regretted Franco had not been harsher on ‘liberals’ I imagine some of the audience shifted rather uncomfortably when Doran criticised the Nazi’s

Malachi, you’re an unbelievably dim person, you need to fully understand that some day. So by your logic a profoundly mentally disabled person can be killed because they don’t have the ability to give or deny any meaningful consent. You need a swift kick to the head.

No, you’re a mouthbreathing moron who doesn’t understand the difference between the two.

Severely mentally disabled people are not able to make a decision on their own welfare, but by withholding consent from them you are not obstructing another party from a decision on their own welfare.

When a foetus is unable to object to their own abortion, putting it in the hands of the state and preventing the mother from getting her way infringes on her own welfare and her choice to do so.

The dishonesty it took to compare those two situations makes me think you’re trolling.

For Doran to have to quote a pre-Nazi 1920 publication is worrying, as is his role on the boards of hospitals…

It is interesting the stance taken by the bishop to defend the life of the unborn. However a child can only be baptised after it is born, so the right of admission as a member of the Catholic church does not extend to the unborn. So why is it theologically that the unborn has no right to be baptised while still in the womb? Surely the right to life should also encompass the right to a spiritual life where the unborn child is concerned if the bishop is to follow through on his own rationale. At present I think the paramount reason the Church wishes not to allow for abortion/termination is that the birth enables the child to have through Baptism membership of the Church, after all a Catholic doctor can conditionally baptise the child in the few minutes it is alive. The right to life exists from conception for the child/foetus/ zygote according to the Church, so the right to membership of the Church should then derive from the moment of conception rather than from the moment of birth. What is the real basis for abortion/termination? Is it allowable before the foetus is growing long enough to survive outside the womb with medical assistance? If this is so then with medical development is it not possible at some time in the future that a child could survive from 12 or 10 weeks? Should people whose existence is derived from conception then be able to deprive that same thing to another?

Are you incapable of reading a comment? I already acknowledged that severely mentally disabled people cannot consent or reject to their own killing.

What is your point?

Abortion involves two parties making a decision on their welfare, not one like in the example you’ve given of a severely disabled person.

In the case of abortion the mother is able to consent to the abortion, the fetus is unable to consent. In the case of the disabled person no one is able to consent.

How are these things in any way related you utter philistine?

Good post MS. And in the Church’s view, you have to be married to even try procreating. Not that Doran will ever know about it!

Malachi, you absolute simpleton, you are mind-bogglingly stupid Malachi. In both cases there is an option for the state to leave it to a family member or guardian to decide the fate of the subject who is unable to consent, or to decide that the state must step in. These are basic concepts you facile moron. I’m surprised you can operate a computer you’re that dim.

Thomas, you seem to have some anger management issues. If you wish to be taken seriously, act like a mature and reasonable adult rather than a 12 year old bully.

I’ve explained this already, it’s like you’re reading the words off the screen but your brain cannot process them.

The two situations are fundamentally different because the disabled person isn’t *inside someone else who is able to give consent on their own welfare*.

Oh my word. This level of stupidity takes an almighty effort, I’ll give you that.

It’s not about stupidity in a direct sense. Fiercely held dogma simply disables cognitive capacity and the capacity to engage in rational discussion. It is not possible to reason with a zealot. The zealot believes he or she is imbued with divine inspired fallability.

The principles of rational discourse disappear when a religious absolutist starts on an issue.

In utero baptism would open another can of medieval worms. (Pardon the anachronism.) Who would want a diet of worms?

You’re a remedial idiot Malachi, you’re so dim you can’t even follow your own argument. The initial comment you made was about how because a foetus could not consent then other agents could deny it the right to life. Then I outlined the case of the mentally disabled person who could also not give or deny meaningful consent. Please stop and think for one second you monumentally idiotic person. Use your critical faculties for once instead of misunderstanding both your own and my arguments. Don’t ever procreate you dimwit.

Socrates you’re an absolute clown who’s never made an ounce of sense on here, so really your opinion of me is laughable.

…yeah I have to agree with Malachi. You’re a top-notch prize specimen of an imbecile, Thomas. Malachi explained time and time again how and why the situations of a foetus and a mentally-handicapped person are NOTHING alike…and STILL you keep reverting to Spinal Tap’s “Yeah but ours goes up to 11″ defence.

“Other agents could deny it life”

In the case of an abortion, the “other agent” is the mother who is essentially sharing a body with the foetus. Therefore her consent matters.

In the case of a mentally disabled person other agents get no say because they aren’t sharing a body with the disabled person. The other agents’ decision is irrelevant.

It is perplexing to me how either religion or some other factor has eaten away at your critical faculties (assuming they were there to begin with) to the point that you do not understand this fundamental difference.

I’m not explaining it to you again.

No you absolute simpleton harry, he didn’t explain it at all he totally contradicted himself. So now you have to go sit in the dunce corner with him until you can learn to reason at even a basic level you moron.

“Don’t ever procreate”!!! The irony of that from a pro life extremist.

Thomas Delaney is doing an excellent job for the pro choice side. Keep up the good work Thomas. You tell us. Go on, go on, go on.

Thomas, you do realise that using words like ‘contradicted’ in a completely wrong context doesn’t make you look clever, right? It actually does the opposite. Indeed, your whole contribution to this thread has been one enormous train wreck played in slow motion…

God you are so thick Malachi. But now you are coming around to what you initially said you complete twunt. You were saying that the consent of the child was irrelevant because it shares a body with the mother. It’s not irrelevant you idiot, and I outlined to you why you don’t have the right to murder someone based on whether they can consent or not. Sharing a body with another being does not give them the right to murder you, if you consider abortion murder. There needs to be a legitimate life threatening reason , in the eyes of some people, or it shouldn’t be done at all, in other people’s opinions. But dismissing a foetus’ right to life outright by reducing it to who can or consent to the killing is mentally deficient of you. You have zero grasp on even rudimentary reasoning skills you incorrigible clown

Harry, you’re irredeemably dim. It’s not my fault you don’t understand what the word contradiction means you moron. Go and educate yourself.

Not actually a pro-lifer dimwit. If anything I’d side with pro-choice.

Your comments make you look like a bumbling idiot.

“yeah so anyway abortion is essentially murder you idiot because reasons”

“oh by the way I am also basically pro choice”

Amazing. Maybe you should stop posting for the night, Thomas. Your pathetic tirade is getting boring.

Malachi, you’re a pathetic imbecile. I love how you couldn’t deny that your argument has been taken apart you dimwit. Now who is misunderstanding who you simpering dunce. I never said that abortion was murder, only that it is perceived as such by some, and the inability to deny or confirm consent is not a valid reason to kill a foetus, even if they are sharing a body with another person. You are beyond repair Malachi. You’re so idiotic you don’t actually realise how stupid you are. I recommend typing in “jam-thick people” into YouTube , then you might approach some miniscule understanding of how beyond the pale simple you are.

Thomas, I’m actually embarrassed for you.

Stand back from this I suggest. Read your comments. Do you have any self awareness?

Just look at yourself. It is really cringeworthy.

I hate seeing any human being self inflicting so much damage.

Michael, you’re pathetic, go and look in the mirror and be embarrassed by what a total clown you are and reflect on what you can do to change so that you can be a semi-decent human being you piece of human excrement.

Thomas, a contradiction is a logical paradox. Malachi argues that a mother can consent on behalf of a foetus, whereas a mentally-handicapped person has nobody who can consent on their behalf. Malachi’s arguments do not oppose each other out, ie he has not contradicted himself. You disagree with his arguments on a moral level but cannot objectively prove they are incorrect; this infuriates you so you try making out there are logical fallacies where there are none. By all means try again, it’s hilarious watching a pseudointellectual arguing himself into Faildom…

Michael
You need to get out more.

Thomas, all you’ve done is come in here and insult people because you disagree with them. You’ve actually added nothing to the conversation, all you’re doing is slinging mud. Recalibrate your aim, it’s all landing on you

was in a subsequent post. Also I’m not pro-life, so it had nothing to do with morality. So now go back, read all those posts very slowly and admit to yourself that you are a towering mountain of thickness. It’s never too la No you absolute moron, the contradiction te to stop being an imbecile. With some hard work you might graduate to just being very dim Harry, there’s a good lad.

No, I insulted one guy initially because he was contending that the inability to confirm or deny consent was enough of a reason to kill a foetus. Then others insulted me after that, and I responded.

The contradiction was in a subsequent post. Also I’m not pro-life, so it had nothing to do with morality. So now go back, read all those posts very slowly and admit to yourself that you are a towering mountain of thickness. It’s never too late to stop being an imbecile. With some hard work you might graduate to just being very dim Harry, there’s a good lad.

Yes, when you insult people Thomas they tend to either block you or give you the same back. I did the latter.

The point was you were the one coming in here like a child, your posts are 90% insults and 10% logical fallacy.

Get a grip man, you’re making a show of yourself. It’s okay that you don’t understand why a foetus being inside someone’s body doesn’t equate to a mentally disabled person as far as consent goes.

By the way, nice job on saying I contradicted myself and then not saying how I contradicted myself. That’s always gas craic.

I outlined how you contradicted yourself already you slug. Go and read it again. Your whole stance is 100% a logical fallacy, but you’re too dumb to realise it. It doesn’t equate exactly you moron, but I was using an analogy to show you how absurd your reductive position about the ability to consent of the subject was. You are unbelievably thick. Did you check out “jam-thick people” yet? I can link you because you need to see this , it might be a moment of anagnorisis for you to change your imbecilic ways.

Thomas, he said it was enough to defer the decision to the parents. Not that because a foetus can’t be consulted it should be killed. But you already knew that

So weird that people are still members of a child-raping cult and international paedophile ring.

Dave, you’re really splitting hairs here. We’re talking about right to abortion , so that’s the context. Of course I wasn’t saying that he was contending that the foetus should be killed.

“he was contending that the inability to confirm or deny consent was enough of a reason to kill the foetus” that’s what you said Thomas

Yes, enough if a reason if you wanted to. That is what he was contending. He didn’t mention anything about the circumstances of the mother or her health status.

The contradiction was not in any subsequent post. There was no contradiction at all. You’ve just been squawking ‘CONTRADICTION!’ non-stop without actually sayong what the contradiction was. At the rate you’re digging that hole of yours Thomas, you’ll need a JCB before long. Either highlight, copy and paste the part where Malachi ‘contradicted’ himself or admit you’re out of your depth. And no, you can’t make up quotes – they’re all there for everyone else to read. Time starts now – tick, tick, tick, tick…

Did you hear that noise, Thomas? Don’t worry if you couldn’t, no one else could either. That’s the sound you make when you fart in a hurricane.

Go read the posts again you vile slug harry. Not going to meet the demands of imbeciles. If you’re too dim to figure it out, can’t help you. But remember , it’s not too late to stop being a total imbecile, good lad.

Thomas, the inability of the foetus to give or deny consent means to responsibility reverts to who? The point was being made that it should revert to the parents, that’s what you’ve been railing against and hurling abuse at people about

If it’s considered murder, and not considered an option due to that perception , then the responsibility lies with the state obviously. The ability if the subject to consent or not is irrelevant in this scenario.

“Go read the posts again you vile slug harry. Not going to meet the demands of imbeciles”. Translation: “I can’t answer”. Face it Thomas, you had a chance to prove yourself (well, we all knew you couldn’t answer it unless you lied through your teeth, but it was only sporting) and you bottled it. Hint for the future Thomas – screaming yourself blue in the face in front of a mirror might seem a good way to win an argument, but when you try it with others it’ll just get you eviscerated.

Harry, I still don’t meet the demands of imbeciles, not even if you shout until you’re blue in the face. Now go and read what was written very slowly again and realise what a pathetic idiot you are, good lad.

Thomas, it’s not considered murder, not even legally