A vote for Labour is a vote for Abortion - Iona Institute

nesf

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-any-vote-for-the-labour-party-is-a-vote-for-abortion-2535719.html

All I can do is laugh about this. I mean, do they really think that the average person who listens to the Iona Institute would even remotely consider voting Labour with its liberal social outlook?

SafeSurfer

What a deeply, deeply cynical article.

28064212

Heading into Mass on Sunday I spotted the local Fine Gael and Labour candidates canvassing outside. The presence of the Labour candidate struck me as odd, to put it mildly. Labour party policy is pro-abortion. Therefore, on a very important issue Labour is utterly at variance with the beliefs of the vast majority of serious-minded practising Catholics.

What do "serious-minded practising Catholics" have to do with mass? The majority of mass-goers are not "serious-minded practising Catholics"

Retail Hell

good enough reason to vote for labour then

NothingMan

For Mobile users.

David Quinn: Any vote for the Labour Party is a vote for abortion


Eamon Gilmore on the campaign trail yesterday


By David Quinn

Friday February 11 2011

Heading into Mass on Sunday I spotted the local Fine Gael and Labour candidates canvassing outside. The presence of the Labour candidate struck me as odd, to put it mildly. Labour party policy is pro-abortion. Therefore, on a very important issue Labour is utterly at variance with the beliefs of the vast majority of serious-minded practising Catholics.
Politicians seek votes where they may, but given the profound gulf between Labour and the Catholic Church on this issue, it seemed particularly cynical to be canvassing for votes in this way.
I've been amazed in the last few weeks at the number of practising Catholics I've come across who are considering voting for Labour. Given that Labour is pro-abortion, how do they justify this?
It turns out a lot of them haven't the first clue about Labour's position on abortion. Amazing, but true. They don't know, for example, that Labour wants to legislate for the X case ruling of 1992.
That ruling allows for abortion, and furthermore, it permits abortion simply on the say-so of a medical practitioner -- it doesn't have to be a doctor or psychiatrist -- who is willing to say that his or her patient is suicidal.
In addition, Eamon Gilmore favours abortion where the 'health' of the mother is in danger. In practice, this would replicate in Ireland the British abortion law. In Britain, abortion is permitted where a woman's life or health is at risk. Health includes mental health. In practice, this translates into abortion-on-demand.
Gilmore favours this policy despite the fact that Ireland is the safest place in the world for a woman to have a baby, according to World Health Organisation figures.
And from a Catholic and Christian point of view, it is not only Labour's stance on abortion that is problematic. It favours same-sex marriage and same-sex adoption. Its attitude towards denominational schools is also a problem.
If the first category of Catholics and Christians thinking of voting for Labour are those who don't know the party's position on abortion, there is a second category that somehow manages to rationalise away the Labour position, to say that it doesn'tmatter, or that there are more important issues to be considered.
Some Catholics I've come across seem to think Labour doesn't really mean it. Sorry, it does. If it gets a chance -- and that will be up to FG -- we will have abortion in this country.
Others protest that they are not single-issue voters. But no one is asking them to be. However, some issues are of first-order importance and one of them is the right to life.
Still others will say that Labour's position on abortion must be balanced against its position on other issues also of importance to Christians, namely those that generally fall under the heading of 'social justice'.
They claim that Labour's policies on such issues as poverty, health and education outweigh its policy on abortion.
At a stretch this might be true if Fine Gael and Fianna Fail were championing policies that would definitely and deliberately harm the poor and the sick and the uneducated.
But the differences between the three main parties on these issues are actually rather small, protestations to the contrary notwithstanding. We can argue 'til the cows come home about which set of policies will do more harm or more good to this or that set of people. But this is a prudential judgment, not a moral one.
At a minimum, neither Fine Gael nor Fianna Fail is setting out to do harm to the poor and the sick, whereas Labour's policy on abortion would do very deliberate harm to the unborn. That is not a prudential judgement. That is a fact.
- David Quinn

My expert analysis is David Quinn is an idiot. I'll be voting Labour for all the reasons he says people shouldn't.

Morag

That same claptrap was printed in the Alive magazine which is then availble in chruches and shoved into the letter boxes of many homes.

CokaColumbo

Labour is canvassing a site of holy worship and a central aim of the party is to legalise and institutionalise the entirely inhuman killing of unborn babies. This is entirely at odds with the beliefs of Catholics. Labour should admit their policy to Catholics instead of attempting to deceive them into casting a vote for such a group. I think it's akin to a political party which promotes eugenics deciding to canvas outside an event for Down Syndrome people and attempting to squeeze a few votes out of them.

lyverbird1

Sharrow wrote: »

That same claptrap was printed in the Alive magazine which is then availble in chruches and shoved into the letter boxes of many homes.

Alive magazine: Perhaps the most offensive publication I've ever read. I can no longer read it as the bile it so often spews makes me sick. I always hope to catch the delivery person putting it through my door so I can hand it back to them. Otherwise it goes straight to the recycling bin because I wouldn't even use it for floor covering when polishing shoes...

28064212

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Labour is canvassing a site of holy worship and a central aim of the party is to legalise and institutionalise the entirely inhuman killing of unborn babies. This is entirely at odds with the beliefs of Catholics. Labour should admit their policy to Catholics instead of attempting to deceive them into casting a vote for such a group. I think it's akin to a political party which promotes eugenics deciding to canvas outside an event for Down Syndrome people and attempting to squeeze a few votes out of them.

There are many, many mass-going Catholics in this country which are pro-choice, so it would appear to not be "entirely at odds with the beliefs of Catholics"

PES activist

A depressing and deeply cynical article by David Quinn attempting to replicate in Ireland the same culture wars tactics that have disfigured political discourse in the United States. What we can be sure of, however, is that the cynical exploitation of a hot button issue like this has little or no traction in this Republic execpt amongst people who already dismiss Labour as godless communists and other such nonsense.

bleg

That would actually make me want to vote Labour.

PES activist

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Labour is canvassing a site of holy worship and a central aim of the party is to legalise and institutionalise the entirely inhuman killing of unborn babies. This is entirely at odds with the beliefs of Catholics. Labour should admit their policy to Catholics instead of attempting to deceive them into casting a vote for such a group. I think it's akin to a political party which promotes eugenics deciding to canvas outside an event for Down Syndrome people and attempting to squeeze a few votes out of them.

This is an example of the emotional exploitation that is associated with much of the so-called pro-life movement. Labour's plans are to legislate for the existing constitutional rights of Irish citizens to access abortion in this State in certain limited circumstances as already defined by the Supreme Court. Labour has been very clear in expressing its view on this matter unlike as Coka claims.

Again, unlike Coka's claim, Labour expresses its position on this issue in non-emotive, clear and reasoned language based on Irish constitutional law. Given a choice between Coka's fundamentalist approach and Labour's reasoned approach it is any wonder that this issue is having little traction in this election, in spite of the game attempts by David Quinn to stir up an Irish version of US culture wars.

The fundi pro-lifers that sought to intimidate Eamon Gilmore's family by protesting outside his home a couple of weeks ago should take note.

annascott

ditto

Bottle_of_Smoke

Wouldn't a referendum be required to legalise abortion?

The cynic in me says Quinn is more scared that labour might make the educational system fairer to non-Catholics and is pulling the stronger abortion card to do so

28064212

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Wouldn't a referendum be required to legalise abortion?

No. The constitution allows for abortion where the mother's life is in danger, and this has been confirmed by the Supreme Court (the X case). However, even though this happened in 1992, no government in the intervening time has actually legislated for it (despite finding time to create legislation for blasphemy on the same grounds)

CokaColumbo

PES activist wrote: »

This is an example of the emotional exploitation that is associated with much of the so-called pro-life movement. Labour's plans are to legislate for the existing constitutional rights of Irish citizens to access abortion in this State in certain limited circumstances as already defined by the Supreme Court. Labour has been very clear in expressing its view on this matter unlike as Coka claims.

Again, unlike Coka's claim, Labour expresses its position on this issue in non-emotive, clear and reasoned language based on Irish constitutional law. Given a choice between Coka's fundamentalist approach and Labour's reasoned approach it is any wonder that this issue is having little traction in this election, in spite of the game attempts by David Quinn to stir up an Irish version of US culture wars.

The fundi pro-lifers that sought to intimidate Eamon Gilmore's family by protesting outside his home a couple of weeks ago should take note.

Your insulting and condescending post is unnecessary. Calling somebody a fundamentalist and engaging in other shít-slinging is not only inappropriate, it is also distinctly hypocritical as you are the very person who is claiming to be the voice of clear, unemotional reason. Please, if you take issue with my comment, deal with a point that I actually made, instead of being hypocritically confrontational. That would be the 'clear', 'rational', and 'logical' thing to do, my friend.

28064212

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Your insulting and condescending post is unnecessary. Calling somebody a fundamentalist and engaging in other shít-slinging is not only inappropriate, it is also distinctly hypocritical as you are the very person who is claiming to be the voice of clear, unemotional reason. Please, if you take issue with my comment, deal with a point that I actually made, instead of being hypocritically confrontational. That would be the 'clear', 'rational', and 'logical' thing to do, my friend.

That's exactly what they did. You claimed Labour were not being clear on this issue, they pointed out that they were perfectly clear.

And unless you were outside Eamonn Gilmore's house a few weeks ago, they did not call you a fundamentalist

Lockstep

I'm a Catholic and I'll be voting Labour.

Focussing on abortion is silly, especially given the current climate. Thwere are many other issues to consider. Catholic social teaching is very compatible with the Labour party, given that it criticises both unrestrained capitalism and communism. Papal encyclicals like Rerum Novarum echo a lot of what Labour espouses.

PES activist

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Wouldn't a referendum be required to legalise abortion?

The cynic in me says Quinn is more scared that labour might make the educational system fairer to non-Catholics and is pulling the stronger abortion card to do so

Beyond the existing Supreme Court rulings allowing abortion in very limited circumstances (threat to life of mother, including suicide, and severe foetal abnormality such that it woud not survive birth or much afterwards), yes a referendum would be required.

Your point on Labour's education proposal is spot on. This will have a significant effect on the Catholic chuirch's role in public education in Ireland. The intersting thing is that changes to the church's role in education are also being proposed by the Archbishop of Dublin!

johnie89

nesf wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-any-vote-for-the-labour-party-is-a-vote-for-abortion-2535719.html

All I can do is laugh about this. I mean, do they really think that the average person who listens to the Iona Institute would even remotely consider voting Labour with its liberal social outlook?

I have lost the last remaining respect I've ever had for the Irish Independent.

Min

Lockstep wrote: »

I'm a Catholic and I'll be voting Labour.

Focussing on abortion is silly, especially given the current climate. Thwere are many other issues to consider. Catholic social teaching is very compatible with the Labour party, given that it criticises both unrestrained capitalism and communism. Papal encyclicals like Rerum Novarum echo a lot of what Labour espouses.

I don't think Labour is compatible with Catholic teaching, in their manifesto they promise a referendum to change the meaning of marriage so to allow same sex marriage.
Ivana Bacik is always on wanting abortion legalised, complaining about Catholic schools when most Irish people would have got no education if it was not for these schools in the past.

I wouldn't vote for Labour.

bernardo mac

David Quinn and his supporters are working hard to ensure their seats in Heaven:rolleyes:

Min

bernardo mac wrote: »

David Quinn and his supporters are working hard to ensure their seats in Heaven:rolleyes:

To save the lives of those who have no say, Labour don't have to worry about the unborn that are killed in the womb - they will never have a say.

28064212

Min wrote: »

I don't think Labour is compatible with Catholic teaching, in their manifesto they promise a referendum to change the meaning of marriage so to allow same sex marriage.

The state's definition of marriage. Nothing to do with the sacrament.

Min

28064212 wrote: »

The state's definition of marriage. Nothing to do with the sacrament.

I am talking about compatibility between both.

28064212

Min wrote: »

I am talking about compatibility between both.

There's no compatibility issue. Does the Catholic church recognise Muslim marriages? Of course not. The state recognises both, just like it will recognise gay marriage

han090

CokaColumbo wrote: »

Labour is canvassing a site of holy worship and a central aim of the party is to legalise and institutionalise the entirely inhuman killing of unborn babies.

Central aim of the party?

What planet do you live on?

Like others, if labour are pro abortion, that's all the more reason to vote labour.

Additionally, why does it matter what labour's position on it is? The worst they can do is instigate a referendum...and then the people will speak. If abortion is as unpopular as this fool thinks it is, then it won't get passed anyway.

Morag

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Wouldn't a referendum be required to legalise abortion?

Right now the HSE are paying for women to go to the UK to have medical proceedures which are legal here. Due to the cowards we have had in the Dáil who have stalled and refused to legislate for the abortions which are not on demand abortions but where the woman is going to die where there is an immediate medical risk, which the High Court says said is grounds for a legal abortion, where the HSE due to their duty of care is sending women to the UK.

Who ever the next government is they can't stall on this issue any longer, they have been hypercritical long enough and are causing undue pain and hurt to couples who find themselves in a horrendous situation.

This is how it is, but many want to keep their head in the sand on this, or else use it as a political football to try and scaremonger people and derail the discussions in this election.

bernardo mac

Min wrote: »

To save the lives of those who have no say, Labour don't have to worry about the unborn that are killed in the womb - they will never have a say.

Pregnant women who smoke and drink alcohol to excess do not appear to worry about their unborn too

Morag

Min wrote: »

I don't think Labour is compatible with Catholic teaching, in their manifesto they promise a referendum to change the meaning of marriage so to allow same sex marriage.
Ivana Bacik is always on wanting abortion legalised, complaining about Catholic schools when most Irish people would have got no education if it was not for these schools in the past.

I wouldn't vote for Labour.

Fine don't vote for labour if their polices to not align with your morals.
But Ireland is changing and the relics of the past don't serve us now and won't in the future either.

The situations of the schools is again successful governments ignoring the rights and parents and children.

Catholic is no longer the default for everyone.

Zubeneschamali

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Wouldn't a referendum be required to legalise abortion?

We already passed one, back in 1983. My first time voting for anything.

Mind you, nobody knew that was what it would do and I voted against it, since it was supposed to copper-fasten our legal ban on abortion, and I was in favour of legalized abortion.

In fact, the amendment was so badly written that made our previous anti-abortion law unconstitutional, and abortion has been legal (but unavailable) ever since.

Zubeneschamali

Min wrote: »

I don't think Labour is compatible with Catholic teaching, in their manifesto they promise a referendum to change the meaning of marriage so to allow same sex marriage.

They are talking about civil marriage, they aren't trying to change the meaning of the Roman Catholic Sacrament of marriage.

Min

28064212 wrote: »

There's no compatibility issue. Does the Catholic church recognise Muslim marriages? Of course not. The state recognises both, just like it will recognise gay marriage

What?

Are Muslims allowing same sex marriage?

28064212

Min wrote: »

What?

Are Muslims allowing same sex marriage?

Are straight Muslims married in the eyes of the Catholic church? No, they are not, they have not gone through the sacrament of marriage as the RCC defines it. Are they married in the eyes of the state? Yes, they are

Min

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They are talking about civil marriage, they aren't trying to change the meaning of the Roman Catholic Sacrament of marriage.

Catholics can't vote for same sex marriage. Marriage is seen by catholics as a sacrament between a woman and a man.

If it comes down to a referendum then Catholics are expected to follow what they profess and believe marriage to be - which is between a man and a woman.

sceptre

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

We already passed one, back in 1983. My first time voting for anything.

Mind you, nobody knew that was what it would do and I voted against it, since it was supposed to copper-fasten our legal ban on abortion, and I was in favour of legalized abortion.

In fact, the amendment was so badly written that made our previous anti-abortion law unconstitutional, and aborthion has been legal (but unavailable) ever since.

That's a pretty good sum-up of what the 1983 amendment effectively did. Ironically, instead of pushing for a constitutional amendment, had the people pushing for the amendment done absolutely nothing back in the early 80s after some scaremongering that the decision in McGee was going to result in an Irish Roe v Wade [1], the legal position would currently be precisely what they wanted.


[1]On the grounds that Roe v Wade was influenced by the US contraception case, Griswold v Connecticut.

28064212

Min wrote: »

Catholics can't vote for same sex marriage. Marriage is seen by catholics as a sacrament between a Catholic woman and a Catholic man.

FYP

Min

28064212 wrote: »

Are straight Muslims married in the eyes of the Catholic church? No, they are not, they have not gone through the sacrament of marriage as the RCC defines it. Are they married in the eyes of the state? Yes, they are

The point is Muslims like the catholic church do not believe on same sex marriage.

Lockstep

Min wrote: »

I don't think Labour is compatible with Catholic teaching, in their manifesto they promise a referendum to change the meaning of marriage so to allow same sex marriage.
Ivana Bacik is always on wanting abortion legalised, complaining about Catholic schools when most Irish people would have got no education if it was not for these schools in the past.

I wouldn't vote for Labour.

The State won't be involved in forcing Catholics to perform homosexual marriages. It'll allow state marriages to include homosexuals.
Render unto Caeser and all that.

Plus, I'm referring to Catholic social teaching (especially the Preferential Option for the Poor) rather than its moral teaching. What's the point in voting for FF as a party of family values when they're policies are ripping
apart families due to emigration, unemployment and misery?
None of this is compatible with the human dignity that Catholicism recognises as integral to the human person.

Min

28064212 wrote: »

FYP

You did not fix my post, you turned it into a lie. I think you will find a catholic can marry a person of a different faith. I have relations who are catholic who married people of other religions in a catholic church.

Morag

Min wrote: »

The point is Muslims like the catholic church do not believe on same sex marriage.

Then they could not marry someone who is the same gender, there are precluded to by their religion.

There are people who are not precluded by their religion or their lack of their religion so if they want civil marriage they should be let marry.

Civil marriage does not equal the catholic sacrament of marriage.
Two people who are excommunicated can avail of civil marriage but not the sacrament of marriage.

takun

Min wrote: »

Catholics can't vote for same sex marriage. Marriage is seen by catholics as a sacrament between a woman and a man.

Not only can they, but many will. Remember that in the wind up everyone's faith is a personal thing. There are very few Catholics who adhere to every aspect of their faith, they make personal choices all the time about whether or not to toe their church's line.

In any case such a vote is nothing whatsoever to do with being a Catholic, or any other religion. It is not trying to, and will not, have any effect on the Catholic Sacrement of Marriage or who can (or cannot) receive it. It's an entirely civil matter.

Min

Lockstep wrote: »

The State won't be involved in forcing Catholics to perform homosexual marriages. It'll allow state marriages to include homosexuals.
Render unto Caeser and all that.

Plus, I'm referring to Catholic social teaching (especially the Preferential Option for the Poor) rather than its moral teaching. What's the point in voting for FF as a party of family values when they're policies are ripping
apart families due to emigration, unemployment and misery?
None of this is compatible with the human dignity that Catholicism recognises as integral to the human person.

Catholics will have to vote on it, they don't owe Ceasar a yes vote.

People have emigrated under labour in government. Their talk isn't going to change much, it all comes down to our European partners, the ECB and the IMF.

Min

takun wrote: »

Not only can they, but many will. Remember that in the wind up everyone's faith is a personal thing. There are very few Catholics who adhere to every aspect of their faith, they make personal choices all the time about whether or not to toe their church's line.

In any case such a vote is nothing whatsoever to do with being a Catholic, or any other religion. It is not trying to, and will not, have any effect on the Catholic Sacrement of Marriage or who can (or cannot) receive it. It's an entirely civil matter.

Why do they call themselves catholic if they do not follow it?

It is down to what one believes, a person true to what they believe will vote with their conscience.

Morag

So Min which one consubstantiation or transubstantiation?

28064212

Min wrote: »

You did not fix my post, you turned it into a lie. I think you will find a catholic can marry a person of a different faith. I have relations who are catholic who married people of other religions in a catholic church.

Oh yes, I forgot about that. Of course, their kids have to be raised Catholic. Regardless, a Muslim cannot marry a Muslim in a Catholic church. A Muslim marriage is not recognised by the RCC.

Lockstep

Min wrote: »

Catholics will have to vote on it, they don't owe Ceasar a yes vote.

yes, and they render unto Caeser what is Caeser's, keeping an arms length from government.
Catholics can't dictate the moral values of the entire nation any more so than Protestants or Muslims can.

Min wrote: »

People have emigrated under labour in government. Their talk isn't going to change much, it all comes down to our European partners, the ECB and the IMF.

Are you *honestly* equating the 1000 people leaving every week with the last time when Labour was in government (it was a Labour finance minister who oversaw the creation of 1000 jobs a week/the 12.5% corproation tax) FF took over in 1997 and turned the Celtic Tiger into destruction.

Labour/Fine Gael both support renegotations of the IMF/ECB deal. FF do not, and agreed to it.

Zubeneschamali

Min wrote: »

If it comes down to a referendum then Catholics are expected to follow what they profess and believe marriage to be - which is between a man and a woman.

At this stage, I think the Hierarchy instructing catholics to vote against a gay marriage amendent would help it to pass.

takun

Min wrote: »

It is down to what one believes, a person true to what they believe will vote with their conscience.

That's exactly the point - people vote (indeed live) in accordance with their conscience.

Conscience belongs to the individual - doesn't the church teach that? So a vote in accordance with your conscience does not necessarily mean a vote in accordance with Church doctrine.

Next time you attend a Catholic Church service, look around. Do you believe that none of the people worshipping with you took a contraceptive pill before they went to mass? That none shared a bed the night before with someone to whom they are not married? That none has ever travelled abroad for an abortion?

Just like many Catholics examined their conscience and found that they believed it was right for them in their particular circumstance to use contraception or to have an abortion, many will find that it will guide them to allow a right denied to others in society, even if they have no desire to avail of that right themselves. Others will find they are guided to the opposite way of voting. Both are voting in accordance with their conscience.

Brenireland

And many say they wont vote SF because their murderers!,Labour are just as bad and more cowardly killing the Unborn.

Do Not Vote Labour,Vote Labour,Vote For Murder.

nesf

Oh dear, what did I begin... :pac: