Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Bishops set to lobby politicians in abortion campaign

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,539 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Irish persons in Churches and religious orders have the right to join (as Irish Citizens) in any debate about abortion here the same as any other Irish citizen. What I can't accept is a claim that, due to their positions, they have a better or more moral understanding about abortion than other Irish citizens, and seek to instruct us on it.

    Using the pulpit or altar to make such speeches is NOT debating the issue, it's using a privileged position to propagate a fixed position, saying that what a pregnant Irish woman believe's she want's and needs is irrelevant. If a churchman want's to use his civil right to debate the issue, he should do so in a public venue on a level field not wearing church gowns.

    I read today in the Irish Examiner that David Quinn, director of the Iona Institute, has said that it is not realistic to expect a new referendum on abortion. Mr Quinn said: "Are we going to have a repeat of 2002? It is extremely unlikely. What he (Cardinal Brady) is saying is, from his own point of view, logically correct. I mean the only way to properly rescind the 'X Case' decision is by having a referendum. "The alternative is to some way legislate for the 'X Case' which would be enormously controversial, but it is also controversial not to do it, and then the third alternative is to continue the present limbo."

    To me, that sound's like David is either saying that the Cardinal is wrong, that there is NOT going to be a referendum (so Cardinal Brady has nothing to worry about) or David is being disingenuous and trying to bluff us into believing that we here in Ireland won't have to meet and make any decision on a change to our constitution and a right to abortion, outside court decisions.

    When he uses the term "controversial" it sound's like he's trying to scare the politicians into doing nothing and leave it all to a select few in the courts to make decisions that we can make for ourselves in a referendum. David's use of the words "Are we going to have a repeat of 2002? It is extremely unlikely" can also be read to mean that he might fear the 2002 vote would result in a massive loss to the Pro-life Anti-abortion side.


  • Options
    #33
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    28064212 wrote: »
    I'm happy to let the church lobby away as best they can. When you have people like this coming out and saying "you can't be Catholic and open to abortion", it might encourage people to actually look at whether they are Catholic, which can only be a good thing

    It is true, and it would be no harm to lobby politicians who say they are Catholic but who may not be in their public life. If you are one thing privately and another publicly well then you are being two faced.
    I think this is what worries Pat Rabbitte, it might not be such a big issue in his party, but I bet he was thinking of his Fine Gael partners who don't have a former communist element in their party and whom seem more in tune with expressing their personal beliefs, rather than being Jekyll and Hyde characters.

    Pat Rabbitte is simply worried that Fine Gael TDs and Senators where most are Catholic, that they are lobbied and reminded about the right to life of the unborn and their duties to protect life.
    Pat would like the church censored and silenced on the issue when it comes to the people whom represent us rather than the freedom to lobby which is a right for any side in this debate.

    Though going on stuff in the media in the last while, it does appear there are people in FG who won't need any lobbying when it comes to opposing abortion.
    I think it would be a bad political move by FG if they play a part in the legalisation of any abortion, and I think they know this already, without any lobbying.


  • Options
    #34
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    aloyisious wrote: »
    Irish persons in Churches and religious orders have the right to join (as Irish Citizens) in any debate about abortion here the same as any other Irish citizen. What I can't accept is a claim that, due to their positions, they have a better or more moral understanding about abortion than other Irish citizens, and seek to instruct us on it.

    Using the pulpit or altar to make such speeches is NOT debating the issue, it's using a privileged position to propagate a fixed position, saying that what a pregnant Irish woman believe's she want's and needs is irrelevant. If a churchman want's to use his civil right to debate the issue, he should do so in a public venue on a level field not wearing church gowns.

    I read today in the Irish Examiner that David Quinn, director of the Iona Institute, has said that it is not realistic to expect a new referendum on abortion. Mr Quinn said: "Are we going to have a repeat of 2002? It is extremely unlikely. What he (Cardinal Brady) is saying is, from his own point of view, logically correct. I mean the only way to properly rescind the 'X Case' decision is by having a referendum. "The alternative is to some way legislate for the 'X Case' which would be enormously controversial, but it is also controversial not to do it, and then the third alternative is to continue the present limbo."

    To me, that sound's like David is either saying that the Cardinal is wrong, that there is NOT going to be a referendum (so Cardinal Brady has nothing to worry about) or David is being disingenuous and trying to bluff us into believing that we here in Ireland won't have to meet and make any decision on a change to our constitution and a right to abortion, outside court decisions.

    When he uses the term "controversial" it sound's like he's trying to scare the politicians into doing nothing and leave it all to a select few in the courts to make decisions that we can make for ourselves in a referendum. David's use of the words "Are we going to have a repeat of 2002? It is extremely unlikely" can also be read to mean that he might fear the 2002 vote would result in a massive loss to the Pro-life Anti-abortion side.

    It is highly controversial, FG will not need any lobbying to show how controversial this is going to be, FG and FF would be the two parties with most pro-life voters.


  • Options
    #35
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    ..............
    I think it would be a bad political move by FG if they play a part in the legalisation of any abortion, and I think they know this already, without any lobbying.

    Considering that the public support abortion in limited circumstances and that has been ruled on by the supreme court, they've no choice in the matter, other than resign. The duty of the elected represenatives is not to subvert the expressed will of the people in order to satisfy some imagined religous obligation, regardless of what nonsense Brady and co might think.


  • Options
    #36
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    I think Pat Rabbitte is being quite hypocritical in this issue. I'm sure he has no problem with the Labour Trades Union lobbying politicians in an organised manner, so why on earth should that right not also be afforded to the Church? Either prohibit lobbying of all kinds, or allow it to all. To do otherwise is merely discrimination based on personal biases.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,857 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    I'm surprised that James Reilly was so committal on the subject, saying that 6 previous governments have failed to legislate for the X case, and that this won't be the 7th. Another reason Enda wants a trapdoor to open beneath JR!


  • Options
    #38
    Laminations
    Registered Users Posts: 4,693 ✭✭✭Laminations


    I totally agree with Nodin. I had thought it was at an earlier stage of deliberation but given the court ruling and subsequent referenda, talking is over, it is beyond time for action. Let them lobby, but at this stage it should be a mechanical duty of the Dail to legislate, and not an action that requires debate.


  • Options
    #39
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Dave! wrote: »
    I'm surprised that James Reilly was so committal on the subject, saying that 6 previous governments have failed to legislate for the X case, and that this won't be the 7th. Another reason Enda wants a trapdoor to open beneath JR!


    Given that the European court has now ruled on it, failure to legislate presumably means they're open to legal action with the attendant costs and risk of financial penalty, which is the kind of thing that focuses the mind.

    And of course theres the risk labour will walk on them.


  • Options
    #40
    Einhard
    Registered Users Posts: 6,920 ✭✭✭Einhard


    To be honest, I'm pretty confused as to the reasons given for procrastination on the issue. Surely the politically Catholic constituency isn't so large in this country that any of the parties could expect a serious backlash in the polls? Is it the private beliefs of TDs then that is causing all the delay?


  • Options
    #41
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Einhard wrote: »
    To be honest, I'm pretty confused as to the reasons given for procrastination on the issue. Surely the politically Catholic constituency isn't so large in this country that any of the parties could expect a serious backlash in the polls? Is it the private beliefs of TDs then that is causing all the delay?


    ....it might have been. Certainly Bertie Ahern was (by many accounts) somewhat cowed by the church, allegedly to do with a certain amount of guilt over his personal arrangements. He would hardly be the one, therefore, to push the matter. And of course there'd be objections amongst some of the rank and file. Given the choice between strife and putting it on the long finger, the latter route was taken.

    FG were and are always far more socially conservative than is often perceived to be the case, due I suppose to the era of "Garret the Good" and the divorce referendum, though that being said, I was suprised that some of the more conservative voices have been from the younger TD's of the party.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    I think most of the lobbying will by voters, a poll last year showed a majority were in favour of protection for the unborn. It was done by "Milward Brown Lansdowne on behalf of the Pro Life Campaign, asked 984 adults: “Are you in favour or opposed to constitutional protection for the unborn that prohibits abortion but allows the continuation of the existing practice of intervention to save a mother’s life, in accordance with Irish medical ethics?"

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1118/1224307766628.html

    The thing is this is not a cut and dry issue, Labour will be lobbied hard by people who want abortion in this country, FG will be targeted more by people who don't want it.

    In the Dáil, the ULA, Sinn Fein and Labour would vote for abortion to be allowed along with some independents and some in FG who want power, a bit like Enda Kenny's speech in the Dáil last year to show his committment to Gilmore.
    Throw in all those who will be lobbying and it is a very interesting time ahead whether one is for or against abortion.


  • Options
    #43
    Silvio.Dante
    Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    There are also many non-Catholics who are abhorred by abortion.

    This is a human rights issue. All pro-life people should strongly lobby their politicians to make their feeling clear as crystal...


  • Options
    #44
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Einhard wrote: »
    Surely the politically Catholic constituency isn't so large in this country that any of the parties could expect a serious backlash in the polls? Is it the private beliefs of TDs then that is causing all the delay?
    FG & FF's bread-and-butter comes from the older generations, still rather conservative and ideologically catholic if not strictly so. Upsetting them can lose someone the next election.

    The abortion debate is kind of a hard one because the pro-life side will tend to be more likely to shun anyone who's not pro-life (regardless of their other policies), whereas the pro-choice side is less staunch and will still vote for a politician who is pro-life, provided that they're otherwise sound people.

    From the political point of view, being pro-life is safer because it will retain more votes, regardless of the politician's actual views.

    However, there's not really a debate here. Abortion must be legislated for in certain circumstances because the ECHR says so. There's a sword which someone needs to leap on, and I suspect Enda is hoping that Labour will do most of the legwork here and FG will pretend that they're being dragged helplessly along.


  • Options
    #45
    Actor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 348 ✭✭Actor


    Be very careful with some of the commentary.

    Cardinal Brady has not been charged with any crime.


  • Options
    #46
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    Min wrote: »
    I think most of the lobbying will by voters, a poll last year showed a majority were in favour of protection for the unborn. It was done by "Milward Brown Lansdowne on behalf of the Pro Life Campaign, asked 984 adults: “Are you in favour or opposed to constitutional protection for the unborn that prohibits abortion but allows the continuation of the existing practice of intervention to save a mother’s life, in accordance with Irish medical ethics?"

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1118/1224307766628.html

    The thing is this is not a cut and dry issue, Labour will be lobbied hard by people who want abortion in this country, FG will be targeted more by people who don't want it.

    In the Dáil, the ULA, Sinn Fein and Labour would vote for abortion to be allowed along with some independents and some in FG who want power, a bit like Enda Kenny's speech in the Dáil last year to show his committment to Gilmore.
    Throw in all those who will be lobbying and it is a very interesting time ahead whether one is for or against abortion.


    If I read that poll correctly, it is suggesting that there is a majority in favour of legislating for the current constitutional provision.

    It was not a poll about changing the constitution or not.

    The "no" vote in that poll would constitute an "unholy" alliance of those who want abortion on demand and those who oppose abortion even in the case of "X".


  • Options
    #47
    RichardAnd
    Registered Users Posts: 3,629 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Abortion is one hell of a mine field. There are huge moral arguments for and against it and it really, really riles people up one way or another. Generally, I don't think the "abortions on demand" approach is ethical but equally, the opposite is just as bad. A middle ground wherein abortions could be offered in exceptional cases such as pregnancies arising from rape or where there is a significant threat to the life of the mother would seem the most reasonable path between the two extremes. Of course, when it comes to extremes, the middle way only serves to piss them both off . . .

    Anyway, it's my opinion that the Church has every right to lobby the government, regardless. I don't agree with them on alot of things but that's not what matters. They have an opinion and they should have the chance to express it.


  • Options
    #48
    Lantus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,027 ✭✭✭Lantus


    I've never understood the religous interest in abortion. During the great flood god would of murdered a great many pregnant women so to then say we shouldn't do it because God wouldn't like it is a startling contradiction they gloss over.

    Also, why only abortion? During times of war pregnant women, children, men and all people get indscriminantly killed. If they were really pro life they should campaign against all useless deaths, why only focus on abortion? I'm sure that the 10,000 innocent civilians during the Iraq conflict whose lives were terminated against their wills would like to have a say.

    Th religous mind lacks a rational and scientific approach to the world and so while they should betolerated they should not be allowed to make any decisions in society. In time with education and help we can help outgrow many of the myths and superstitions that society has built around it.


  • Options
    #49
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Lantus wrote: »
    I've never understood the religous interest in abortion. During the great flood god would of murdered a great many pregnant women so to then say we shouldn't do it because God wouldn't like it is a startling contradiction they gloss over.

    Also, why only abortion? During times of war pregnant women, children, men and all people get indscriminantly killed. If they were really pro life they should campaign against all useless deaths, why only focus on abortion? I'm sure that the 10,000 innocent civilians during the Iraq conflict whose lives were terminated against their wills would like to have a say.

    Th religous mind lacks a rational and scientific approach to the world and so while they should betolerated they should not be allowed to make any decisions in society. In time with education and help we can help outgrow many of the myths and superstitions that society has built around it.

    This is going off topic in a way.

    But from a religious perspective it is God the creator of life who is also the God who calls people from this life.
    President Bush visited the Vatican before the invasion of Iraq and was told that it was wrong to invade Iraq, they were vehemently against the war.
    A couple of weeks before the invasion the Pope told Bush this: "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified. The Pope also questioned the President's statements invoking God's name as justification for the invasion.
    "God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said. "Man cannot march into war and assume God will be at his side."
    http://archive.truthout.org/article/pope-bush-go-iraq-and-you-go-without-god


    One could argue Bush went to lobby the Pope for support over Iraq but didn't get it.


    People with religious minds have been at the forefront of science and advancement of science for the betterment of humanity.

    Some have the view that people with a religious conviction shouldn't lobby because they have nothing to offer or are against science which is not the case.


  • Options
    #50
    Silvio.Dante
    Site Banned Posts: 4,066 ✭✭✭Silvio.Dante


    Min wrote: »
    This is going off topic in a way.

    But from a religious perspective it is God the creator of life who is also the God who calls people from this life.
    President Bush visited the Vatican before the invasion of Iraq and was told that it was wrong to invade Iraq, they were vehemently against the war.
    A couple of weeks before the invasion the Pope told Bush this: "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified. The Pope also questioned the President's statements invoking God's name as justification for the invasion.
    "God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said. "Man cannot march into war and assume God will be at his side."
    http://archive.truthout.org/article/pope-bush-go-iraq-and-you-go-without-god


    One could argue Bush went to lobby the Pope for support over Iraq but didn't get it.


    People with religious minds have been at the forefront of science and advancement of science for the betterment of humanity.

    Some have the view that people with a religious conviction shouldn't lobby because they have nothing to offer or are against science which is not the case.


    Great post Min...:)


  • Options
    #51
    getz
    Registered Users Posts: 5,255 ✭✭✭getz


    Silvio.Dante wrote: »
    Great post Min...:)
    is not the biggest reason for catholic unwanted pregnancies in ireland, the catholic church stance on birth control,some one tell them to get their own act together,


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,539 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    Silvio.Dante wrote: »
    Great post Min...:)

    Agree with both posters on this. Leonardo Da Vinci is a classical example.

    Now as to the topic, most people likely to vote in any referendum on abortion availability in the republic might already have made up their minds on it, and would probably be annoyed with others seeking to offer them "guidance". It's quite possible that any attempts by clergy-persons may have a rebound-effect.


  • Options
    #53
    southsiderosie
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,565 ✭✭✭southsiderosie


    MOD NOTE:

    Again, this thread is about LOBBYING, not abortion. There have been multiple infractions and deleted posts already, so if you do not want to be banned, then please stay on topic.


  • Options
    #54
    swampgas
    Registered Users Posts: 3,535 ✭✭✭swampgas


    Shouldn't Catholic religious leaders just lobby their own congregations, rather than lobbying politicians though? If their position is faith based, then surely the position of the church should be Catholics should not have or perform abortions, rather than the State should ban abortion?

    Also, if a TD is personally opposed to abortion, how far do they let that impact on the fact that they are not legislating for themselves but for the whole electorate? If the electorate want legislation to allow abortion, and a TD finds that they cannot vote for that legislation because of personal beliefs, then surely the only honourable option is to resign their position, rather than obstruct such legislation?


Advertisement