Polictial Party stances on abortion for upcoming election

pprendeville

Does anyone know which parties are pro-life for the upcoming abortion? I was told today that Enda Kenny is pro-life.

Wolfe Tone

SF have no stated position as far as I know.

Xizors Palace

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

SF have no stated position as far as I know.

In NI they are not trustworthy on this issue. They favour a liberalised abortion regime, but they are careful not to say it publicly too much.

Greens and Labour are both pro-abortion.

pprendeville

so how about Fine Gael?

Michael G

SF took a "pro-choice"position during the last debate. Micheal Martin supported funding for embryo-based stem cell research. Labour have Ruairi Quinn and Ivana Bacik. The Greens, as far as I can tell, believe that homosexual couples should be the same in law as married people.

Fianna Fail have no view, as far as I know, as to whether Catholic schools should be supported by the state. Labour, Sinn Fein and the Greens appear to think that Catholics should be excluded from public debate.

For Catholics, the best bet seems to be Fine Gael, unless a better independent candidate is available. But if I get Fine Gael canvassers at my door, I will be looking for unequivocal commitments on these issues.

Xizors Palace

pprendeville wrote: »

so how about Fine Gael?

I don't know about FF or FG. Whatever the case regarding any official policy, I would watch them carefully. They're as slipperier as fishes. They will ultimately do what they think will get them the most votes.

If they come to the door, ask them what their stance is on women's abortion rights. They will ask you ''What do you think?'' They need to know what you think so they can tailor their answer just for you. But be smart - say, ''I'm asking you.'' Insist on an answer. Then you'll know what their stance is. Vote for the party or candidate who you think will best protect the unborn.

strobe

Michael G wrote: »

Fianna Fail have no view, as far as I know, as to whether Catholic schools should be supported by the state. Labour, Sinn Fein and the Greens appear to think that Catholics should be excluded from public debate.

Sinn Fein think Catholics should be excluded from public debate? Is that not a little like claiming Fianna Fail think publicans and property developers should be unable to donate to political parties?

Slav

Always thought it's the people of Ireland who decide on the abortion issue, not a political party.

Dan133269

Michael G wrote: »

Labour, Sinn Fein and the Greens appear to think that Catholics should be excluded from public debate.

Source?

JimiTime

What Slav said. Don't we have to have a referendum to change our abortion laws? I understand that if the powers that be are for it, they can push it as an agenda and campaign for it etc using their governmental powers. However, it still must go to the Irish people IIRC.

Don't be patsies for politicians promises. Its no good having a government say No to abortion, while at the same time letting our health service die, having no policy for special needs children etc etc.

gimmebroadband

If any future government has no respect for life at it's earliest stages, how can they have respect for life in all stages, sick, old or otherwise. I belive that Labour will be pushing for abortion and gay marriage.

Manach

Labour mentioned that they would like to legislate based on the C case.
However, given the political hot-potato this subject is, they are likely to bury it in a committe stage, or else make it part of their proposed new constitution convention.

Collegebhoy

pprendeville wrote: »

Does anyone know which parties are pro-life for the upcoming abortion? I was told today that Enda Kenny is pro-life.

Pearse DOherty of SF is pro-life.

PDN

JimiTime wrote: »

Don't be patsies for politicians promises. Its no good having a government say No to abortion, while at the same time letting our health service die, having no policy for special needs children etc etc.

This is a great point. I have a lot of friends in the US who were suckered into voting Republican for years because windbags like George W Bush claimed to be pro-life.

gimmebroadband

PDN wrote: »

This is a great point. I have a lot of friends in the US who were suckered into voting Republican for years because windbags like George W Bush claimed to be pro-life.

Who's to know it wouldn't have been much worse had the pro-abortion lot got elected! Barack Obama isn't too popular either!

gimmebroadband

Sent off an email to FG and here is the reply:

**********************************************

Many thanks for your email. These are important issues and we in Fine Gael share your concern and sincerely held views on this issue.

Fine Gael is opposed to research on human embryos. Instead we support those forms of stem cell research that do not harm human embryos, such as umbilical cord research.

Secondly, Fine Gael is opposed to abortion and has no plans to extend the law on abortion any further than the people agreed by referendum in 1983.

Thirdly, while Fine Gael supported the civil partnership process, we have no plans to legalise same sex marriage.


I hope this allays your concerns and thank you for your communication.

Fine Gael Campaign 2011

Fanny Cradock

Thanks for posting that!

gimmebroadband

You're welcome!

Festus

The Republican Party in American is vocally Pro-Life. It's even part of their manifesto
http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Values.htm

The Democratic Party in American is demostrably pro-abortion.

Both Al Gore and John Kerry are known to be pro-choice.
Obama is so pro-choice he is pro-partial birth abortion and voted accordingly as senator.

For those with an entitlement to vote in US Presidential elections there is not much choice. If you are pro-life the only vote is Republican regardless of what claims are made of the candidate.

28064212

JimiTime wrote: »

What Slav said. Don't we have to have a referendum to change our abortion laws? I understand that if the powers that be are for it, they can push it as an agenda and campaign for it etc using their governmental powers. However, it still must go to the Irish people IIRC.

Yep. The issue being that the referendum has already happened, in 1983. The ruling from the Supreme Court in 1992 stated that the constitution gives a woman the right to an abortion when there is a "a real and substantial risk" to the her life. However, no government in the intervening time has legislated for this right

Wolfe Tone

28064212 wrote: »

Yep. The issue being that the referendum has already happened, in 1983. The ruling from the Supreme Court in 1992 stated that the constitution gives a woman the right to an abortion when there is a "a real and substantial risk" to the her life. However, no government in the intervening time has legislated for this right

And nor should they, the courts need to decide.

28064212

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

And nor should they, the courts need to decide.

Read my post again - the court has already decided

Wolfe Tone

28064212 wrote: »

Read my post again - the court has already decided

They need to define what that is. "real and substantial risk" Its pointless making any legislation until the court defines what these are, its not open for the oireachtas to interpret the constitution.

IngazZagni

It shouldn't matter what party supports what. If there is significant public support to legalise abortion (which I think there is) up to x weeks then a referendum should be held so the people of Ireland, not just the politicians can make that decision.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

They need to define what that is. "real and substantial risk" Its pointless making any legislation until the court defines what these are, its not open for the oireachtas to interpret the constitution.

A doctor could make that decision just as a doctor makes the decision that someone's life is at risk. In which case an abortion may be carried out here.

Wolfe Tone

IngazZagni wrote: »

It shouldn't matter what party supports what. If there is significant public support to legalise abortion (which I think there is) up to x weeks then a referendum should be held so the people of Ireland, not just the politicians can make that decision.



A doctor could make that decision just as a doctor makes the decision that someone's life is at risk. In which case an abortion may be carried out here.

Too much responsibility for a doctor there imo. It needs to be defined what a real and substantial risk is, they should define "unborn" when they are at it too.

28064212

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

They need to define what that is. "real and substantial risk". Its pointless making any legislation until the court defines what these are, its not open for the oireachtas to interpret the constitution.

The court has interpreted the constitution. Real and substantial are definable terms. Any legislation which doesn't contradict this is within the constitution.

More specifically, the Supreme Court said that the X case girl should have been been able to avail of an abortion in this country. 19 years later, a 14-year-old suicidal rape victim can not do so

Wolfe Tone

28064212 wrote: »

The court has interpreted the constitution. Real and substantial are definable terms. Any legislation which doesn't contradict this is within the constitution.

More specifically, the Supreme Court said that the X case girl should have been been able to avail of an abortion in this country. 19 years later, a 14-year-old suicidal rape victim can not do so

The court hasnt, they have just passed the book, they said its for the legislature to decide, and its not, simple as.

28064212

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The court hasnt, they have just passed the book, they said its for the legislature to decide, and its not, simple as.

They in no way said it was for the legislature to decide. They set out the circumstances where a woman has a right to an abortion.

What's your response to the second part of my post? The very specific circumstances that the ruling was delivered on?

Wolfe Tone

28064212 wrote: »

They in no way said it was for the legislature to decide. They set out the circumstances where a woman has a right to an abortion.

What's your response to the second part of my post? The very specific circumstances that the ruling was delivered on?

Finlay CJ [55]: “I am satisfied that the only risk put forward in this case to the life of the mother is the risk of self-destruction. I agree with the conclusion reached by the learned trial judge in the High Court that that was a risk which, as would be appropriate in any other form of risk to the life of the mother, must be taken into account in reconciling the right of the unborn to life and the rights of the mother to life.”

… “it is common sense that a threat of self-destruction such as is outlined in the evidence in this case, which the psychologist clearly believes to be a very real threat, cannot be monitored in that sense and that it is almost impossible to prevent self-destruction in a young girl in the situation in which this defendant is if she were to decide to carry out her threat of suicide … I am, therefore, satisfied that on the evidence before the learned trial judge, which was in no way contested, and on the findings which he has made, that the defendants have satisfied the test which I have laid down as being appropriate and have established, as a matter of probability, that there is a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother by self-destruction which can only be avoided by termination of her pregnancy.”

The test which emerged from this "real and substantial" is clearly subjective. You need legislation to put this test into place, ie what is "real and substantial" threat to life. They DID NOT define what "real and substantial" was, they left that up to the legislature.


On that case I agree with the dissenting Judge.

Note that Hederman J dissented in the Supreme Court:
“The extinction of unborn life is not confined to the sphere of private life of the mother or family because the unborn life is an autonomous human being protected by the Constitution. Therefore the termination of pregnancy … requires a special responsibility on the part of the State. There cannot be a freedom to extinguish life side by side with a guarantee of protection of that life because the termination of pregnancy always means the destruction of an unborn life. Therefore no recognition of a mother's right of self-determination can be given priority over the protection of the unborn life. The creation of a new life, involving as it does pregnancy, birth and raising the child, necessarily involves some restriction of a mother's freedom but the alternative is the destruction of the unborn life. … The State must, in principle, act in accordance with the mother's duty to carry out the pregnancy and, in principle must also outlaw termination of pregnancy.”

… “The duration of the pregnancy is a matter of months and it should not be impossible to guard the girl against self-destruction and preserve the life of the unborn child at the same time. The choice is between the certain death of the unborn life and a feared substantial danger of death but no degree of certainty of the mother by way of self-destruction.”

28064212

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

The test which emerged from this "real and substantial" is clearly subjective. You need legislation to put this test into place, ie what is "real and substantial" threat to life. They DID NOT define what "real and substantial" was, they left that up to the legislature.

If a woman can demonstrate that there is a real and substantial threat to her life, she has the right to an abortion. One example of which would be a 14 year old suicidal rape victim, who most definitely has the right to an abortion in this country.

Real and substantial are not legal, technical or medical terms. By your standards, every law in the country should be repealed because the language used was not defined by the Supreme Court

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

On that case I agree with the dissenting Judge.

Which is incredibly irrelevant. You can argue that our constitution is wrong (I certainly do), but it's irrelevant to the legislature's responsibilities

Wolfe Tone

28064212 wrote: »

If a woman can demonstrate that there is a real and substantial threat to her life, she has the right to an abortion. One example of which would be a 14 year old suicidal rape victim, who most definitely has the right to an abortion in this country.

Real and substantial are not legal, technical or medical terms. By your standards, every law in the country should be repealed because the language used was not defined by the Supreme Court

You just dont understand, a shame really. I suggest studying some constitutional law, try Oran Doyles text.
Tell me, whats a real and substantial risk? Give me your interpretation there please, oh wait, it doesn't matter because the only interpretation which counts is that of the Supreme court, and they have declined to define it. How can you legislate for something when you don't know what it is?

Which is incredibly irrelevant. You can argue that our constitution is wrong (I certainly do), but it's irrelevant to the legislature's responsibilities

You asked for my opinion, I gave it, she should not have been allowed to travel.

Onesimus

Labour Party were outside mass the other day handing out leaflets that stated they were for abortion and same sex marriage.

Disgraceful behaviour.

The cheek of them.

Donatello

Onesimus wrote: »

Labour Party were outside mass the other day handing out leaflets that stated they were for abortion and same sex marriage.

Disgraceful behaviour.

The cheek of them.

Sounds a bit dumb. It seems they were not happy with a certain article in the newspaper, the Independent, about them and their aims. Then they go and hand out leaflets to let all know it is indeed true - they want abortion. They really are quite stupid.

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You just dont understand, a shame really. I suggest studying some constitutional law, try Oran Doyles text.
Tell me, whats a real and substantial risk? Give me your interpretation there please, oh wait, it doesn't matter because the only interpretation which counts is that of the Supreme court, and they have declined to define it. How can you legislate for something when you don't know what it is?

20456781 (or whatever his username is...) is correct; you are wrong. A doctor can & does interpret what a real & substantial threat to life is. They have been doing so for years. And the Medical Council guidelines certainly envisage doctors making such an assessment.

Most of the time, it is a very very straightforward decsision. Sadly, sometimes it is a very difficult decision and that is one of the major problems with the current situation.

Second, there is nothing stopping the Oireachtas from defining what the words mean, so long as it doesnt contradict what the SC have said.

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

they should define "unborn" when they are at it too

They have done:rolleyes:; they defined the 'unborn' as the post-implantation embryo recently in the Roche case. Looks like you need to update your library of constitutional law books.....:D

28064212

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You just dont understand, a shame really. I suggest studying some constitutional law, try Oran Doyles text.
Tell me, whats a real and substantial risk? Give me your interpretation there please, oh wait, it doesn't matter because the only interpretation which counts is that of the Supreme court, and they have declined to define it. How can you legislate for something when you don't know what it is?

From a recent supreme court decision:

Because of the absence of evidence on this last point, it is unknown to the court whether or not provisions regarding destruction of finger prints contained in s.8 of the Act of 1984...

Where is the "destruction of finger prints" defined by the Supreme Court. Hell, where are "finger prints" defined by the Supreme Court? Is all legislation based around those terms null and void?

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

You asked for my opinion, I gave it, she should not have been allowed to travel.

I did not. I asked you whether, based on that ruling, she had a right to an abortion here. She did btw, this is crystal clear

Onesimus wrote: »

Labour Party were outside mass the other day handing out leaflets that stated they were for abortion and same sex marriage.

Disgraceful behaviour.

The cheek of them.

Except for the many people within the church who do support those policies.

We would need a referendum to remove the right to an abortion from the constitution

panda100

I am very surprised to see this thread I must admit.Is abortion really a big issue for Christians in determining who they vote for?

I would have thought political party stance on equality and social justice would have been far more important to those who follow Jesus teaching?

Wolfe Tone

Well, murder is a pretty big deal

panda100

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Well, murder is a pretty big deal

Ok fair enough.
I'm atheist and pro choice, but was very religious for a number of years, and never quite understood the mentality of someone who would vote for a party who may have policies that cause gross inequality,such as FF, yet vote for them because they keep abortion illegal. As far as Im concerned abortion stance is pretty far down the list of what defines a good Christian.

PDN

panda100 wrote: »

Ok fair enough.
I'm atheist and pro choice, but was very religious for a number of years, and never quite understood the mentality of someone who would vote for a party who may have policies that cause gross inequality,such as FF, yet vote for them because they keep abortion illegal. As far as Im concerned abortion stance is pretty far down the list of what defines a good Christian.

And people voted for the Nazis because their policies on Jews ranked pretty far down their list.

eblistic

PDN wrote: »

And people voted for the Nazis because their policies on Jews ranked pretty far down their list.

Does mod Godwinning count double?

Wolfe Tone

panda100 wrote: »

Ok fair enough.
I'm atheist and pro choice, but was very religious for a number of years, and never quite understood the mentality of someone who would vote for a party who may have policies that cause gross inequality,such as FF, yet vote for them because they keep abortion illegal. As far as Im concerned abortion stance is pretty far down the list of what defines a good Christian.

Oh Im not religious myself either, this is a perfect example of someone lumping in abortion with the very unpopular church ad ignoring the moral and ethical questions "We cant let church dictate rabble rabble"


How murder can be viewed by some as progressive and liberal is terrifying

gimmebroadband

panda100 wrote: »

Ok fair enough.
I'm atheist and pro choice, but was very religious for a number of years, and never quite understood the mentality of someone who would vote for a party who may have policies that cause gross inequality,such as FF, yet vote for them because they keep abortion illegal. As far as Im concerned abortion stance is pretty far down the list of what defines a good Christian.

If there was no God, there would be no Atheists!

eblistic

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

How murder can be viewed by some as progressive and liberal is terrifying

Abortion is complex and difficult ethical territory. Shouldn't it be discussed in a slightly more measured and rational way than this?

Fanny Cradock

panda100 wrote: »

Ok fair enough.
I'm atheist and pro choice, but was very religious for a number of years, and never quite understood the mentality of someone who would vote for a party who may have policies that cause gross inequality,such as FF, yet vote for them because they keep abortion illegal. As far as Im concerned abortion stance is pretty far down the list of what defines a good Christian.

And you summed it up nicely when you said "As far as I am concerned". Besides, I think the objection to abortion is quite a bit more fundamental than being a "good Christian".

Your surprise at why the issue of abortion remains such a hot topic is itself surprising. The immorality of abortion has long been maintained by (broadly the majority of) Christians. As a former Christian (I guess that is what you mean by "religious") I would have thought that this was self-evident.

Wolfe Tone

eblistic wrote: »

Abortion is complex and difficult ethical territory. Shouldn't it be discussed in a slightly more measured and rational way than this?

Lets see where you stand then, when does life begin? Conception? Implantation? Where are you?


Although the mods may wish to avoid this debate

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Lets see where you stand then, when does life begin? Conception? Implantation? Where are you?

Im not sure that question embraces the complexity to which eblistic refers......:rolleyes:

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

Im not sure that question embraces the complexity to which eblistic refers......:rolleyes:

Its a good start I would have thought.

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Its a good start I would have thought.

Not especially; most sensible justifications for abortion are on the basis of rights-balancing and such arguments are predicated on the embryo/foetus being 'life' and having 'rights'. So even if it is 'life' that really doesnt get you anywhere.

Wolfe Tone

drkpower wrote: »

Not especially; most sensible justifications for abortion are on the basis of rights-balancing and such arguments are predicated on the embryo/foetus being 'life' and having 'rights'. So even if it is 'life' that really doesnt get you anywhere.

Not always, many would justify IVF or the morning after pill by saying what is destroyed isnt really life

gimmebroadband

In my book it's a child, not a choice! Mother may be pro-choice, child has no choice!

drkpower

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Not always, many would justify IVF or the morning after pill by saying what is destroyed isnt really life

Sure, some do. Many dont.

But when 99% of people talk of 'abortion', they are not referring to 2-3-4 day old embryos.