66 thoughts on “The Surrogacy Debate”

  1. Mysterymeat

    Reminds me of the old joke in school: On one side of the page write “How to confuse an idiot. PTO”. On the other side write the same.
    Ah the laughs….

    1. ivan

      meanwhile, how to confuse an intelletual was fun as well

      side 1 of the paper “the statement on the other side of this piece of paper is true”
      side 2 “the statement on the other side of this piece of paper is false”

        1. Joe the Lion

          Technically Joey was the foster-dad. I’M OUTRAGED

          A SON OF CHRIST NEEDS A FATHER AND A MOTHER

          1. Don Pidgeoni

            What we really need to know is what was the Jesus granny situation? Were they luxury grannies or standard grannies? How about the grandads?

          3. Clo

            The son of God was very well set up with two fathers and a mother. And two grandparents who managed to conceive his mother without having sex (divine sanction for IVF methinks?)

          5. Clo

            Nope, God had no parents, he just was. No parents at all. And look at how he turned out. Absolutely fine. Apart from the jealousy and the wrath and the smiting. Otherwise fine.

  3. Der

    I believe there are some people that have heartfelt concerns about Marriage Equality and they should be listened to, engaged with and reassured. I also believe that Jim Walsh is not one of these people and should be given plenty of rope.

  6. St. John Smythe

    No, you read it right: role.

    As in, his mouth should be filled with dinner rolls.

  7. Odis

    Whilst I disagree strongly with the views expressed by John Walsh.
    Fintan O’Toolbox, seems to be deliberately (or stupidly), confusing marriage with the marriage referendum.

    I wonder if we are being shown all of the conversation here?

      1. Odis

        They ask him (in an inquisitional manner) why he is NOT campaigning against marriage for all.
        The implication being you are a thick catholic eejit. Why are you not behaving in the stereotypical manner, which we would wish to ascribe to all of your sort.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            I think it might be. I see SSM=surrogacy, all surrogacy=bad, ergo all marriage must be bad, which is a bit of leap but ultimately proves Fintan’s point that this guy IS an eejit, Catholic or not.

          3. Odis

            I see. and you don’t think confusing the institution of marriage, with a referendum, as Fintan does here, is stupid or wrong.
            I mean you are right in one sense. I’ve very little time for the arguments proffered by John Walsh.
            But, I’ve also got very little time for the stupidity of Fintan.
            Also, to backtrack, a little. I thought being against surrogacy was a catholic thing? Though I may be wrong. I gave up on studying any wisdom, proffered by the catholic church, quite a long time ago.

          4. Don Pidgeoni

            The very referendum is about the institution of marriage and whether you think it should just be between a man and woman, as the No side do, or if it should be two adults regardless of gender. Is it just that you don’t like Fintan? I haven’t seen his Twitter feed before but I like what he has done, which is engaging John, touched or not, in debate that actually makes him think about what he is saying and where that leads. That is not bullying, that is the nature of debate.

            I don’t know about how the Church feels about surrogacy, I’m not Catholic. But they are probably against it as they are against most things.

          5. Odis

            Don, the institution of marriage isn’t the same as a referendum on marriage. trust me on this one. I’m married twice.

          6. Don Pidgeoni

            It is, because the referendum will change who can enter the institution of marriage. Ergh, I’m getting bored of this now.

      1. Odis

        Sorry, it looks like bullying to me. Granted, I don’t agree with John Walsh but he is perfectly entitled to his opinions.
        Wouldn’t it be better to debate the issues he raises, with him, rather than acting like a prick, (Fintan O’Toolebox) ?

          1. Odis

            “How is asking someone to think through their argument bullying”
            Implying John Walsh has thought through his argument. I don’t think so, do you? He is basing his views on his personal beliefs.
            They aren’t asking him to “think thorough” his argument though, are they? They are ridiculing him because of their own personal beliefs.
            They aren’t asking him to “think through” anything. They are telling him he is a ****.
            This may be the case but it is hardly likely to induce constructive thought.
            One side is as bad as the other.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            Are you being deliberately blind today or something? None of that has happened, not all of it is Fintan, there is someone else in that conversation.

          3. Odis

            “Are you being deliberately blind today or something?
            No, maybe I’m just sensitive on Tuesdays. Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible. ;-)

          4. Clampers Outside!

            Odis, I don’t think John Walsh’s choice to have his religious belief as his central point of argument is a case for saying he doesn’t ‘think through’, which is basically what you are saying.

            He did think, he did make a choice, and his thinking was, ‘Ill go with my personal (religious) belief’. And that was his choice.

            Whether there is a depth to that or not is neither here nor there. That’s his choice and if his choice is ridiculous it should be pointed out.

            It’s not bullying.

        2. Wayne.F

          Odis, asking someone to explain their argument is not bullying, it’s called reasonable debate.

          1. Odis

            Wayne, whats reasonable about confusing the institution of marriage (essentially, a contract between two people) with a referendum? As Fintan does in his last two comments.

          3. Odis

            Wayne, yes indeed he does.
            All I can say in defense, of your observation, is that I don’t think two wrongs make a right.

          4. Nigel

            I think that, in fact, was the whole point. It was an effort to expose the weakness of this particular No argument. And it worked.

        3. Jordofthejungle

          Or possibly ignore John Walsh who does appear to be a bit “touched”?

          Given the amount of time John Walsh can devote to obsessively tweeting about gay people and marriage for same-sex couples, surely this is evidence that he doesn’t have much going on and is best left to his own devices? Let poor John and his friends rant and rave on twitter but make no mistake, it is wasted energy and unquestionably unproductive to interact with him.

          2. Don Pidgeoni

            Except John and his friends are out making silly remarks about surrogacy and won’t someone save the children rather than about what SSM marriage might actually mean. They should be challenged on it.

          3. Jordofthejungle

            Don, John Walsh is well known in the South East as touched and a bit odd. He is more to be pitied than scorned. Give people some credit.

          4. Odis

            Why? To what end? For what purpose?
            I mean, I don’t know who John Walsh is, but reading his comments, I most sincerely doubt you are going to alter his beliefs. I think Fintan and John Collins are wasting their time.

            It’s like arguing with ABM FFS.

          7. Jordofthejungle

            That’s exactly what I meant. His supporters are small and I would advise you to listen to the other councillors view of John Walsh. Although I’m not at all sure there is a hilarious rumour of an impromptu performance by John of “Faith of our Fathers” to his colleagues. Suffice it to say his colleagues view of him is not complementary to put it mildly. Most keep their distance. There are a lot of harmless loons like John Walsh out there in low-level political office all over the world. The best that can be done for them is refusing to acknowledge or meaningfully engage with them.

          10. Odis

            @ Don “@Jord – not that touched if he can stand for council”

            And wasn’t Ian Paisley first minister in Northern Ireland. Are you trying to suggest that politicians need sane views in order to be elected?

            Right I’m off !! Enough of this ****.

          11. Don Pidgeoni

            Odis, you flip-flop between comments more than a fish just pulled from the sea, I’m not sure you even know what you are on about half the time.

          12. Odis

            It must be great to go through life with all the answers too it. I guess I’m just not a fortunate as you Don.

  11. Blublu

    HA! Reminds me of Ali G – WS: “West side is the best”, ES: “No East side is the best”, WS “East side is the best” ES: “No, West Side is the best” WS: “AHA You admitted West side is the best”

  13. Jane

    I’m finding the idea that respecting someone’s opinions/beliefs means never asking any questions in case the believer finds it inconvenient to believe something based on anything other than a statement of this-is-what-I-reckon a bit depressing.

    The idea that asking someone why they think what they think is actually bullying is bizarre. OK, so if you’re operating on the level where “this is what I believe, so whatever”, I can imagine that someone saying “but why do you believe that? What process led to that belief? Why do you think it should govern the lives of other people” would be disconcerting and inconvenient, but it’s a bit much to ask other people to pipe down and let this kind of nonsense alone to pass for reasoned public discourse.

    1. Kieran NYC

      + So Much One

      “Now, now, you uppity gays. Can’t be asking questions of religious people who are trying to decide your fate. It’s bullying and rude!”

Comments are closed.

Broadsheet.ie