Abortion as a political issue

Denerick

This thread is NOT intended to argue for or against the various moral challenges abortion throws up. Instead I am interested in how political parties and individuals view abortion and how they employ it as an electoral strategy. Pro life views play very well in the select audiences of many rural TDs, but in reality there is clearly a majority opinion in this country in favour of abortion pretty much on demand (Just for the record I myself am against abortion except in the case of rape or health risks to the mother) Why is it then an accepted part of the political establishment that abortion will remain illegal? With the exception of left wing parties, abortion is not going to be an issue with either FF or FG. The European court decision only played a tangential role in this election, but all the same the pro lifers were out in force and may have caused Labour a few headaches outside the Dublin area.

Any thoughts?

dlofnep

I'm unsure if it should be a party issue, given how polarizing it is. I think we should hold a referendum on it soon - let the people decide.

mikemac

Denerick wrote: »

but in reality there is clearly a majority opinion in this country in favour of abortion pretty much on deman

Where are you getting that from?

I agree with dlofnep, parties shouldn't be getting involved in this.
Have a referendum on it.

If it fails you can maybe have another referendum in a decade or so. Maybe less time

Denerick

feelingstressed wrote: »

Where are you getting that from?

Knowing the opinions of my peers, and the opinions of my parents peers, which together combine to create a decent national sampling. I'd say a referendum would be about 60-40 in favour of limited abortion.

Overheal

Social Controversies are things politicians introduce when they are trying to distract from something else. They call it a Shiney.







Thats my take, anyway.

K-9

On demand?

I would say there is a general consensus on enacting the X case, after all that was voted on by a Referenda and interpreted by the Irish Supreme Court.

The ECHR just wants Ireland to actually legislate for that.

I'd say Labour were honest on it in that respect, let's just bloody enact the the X case decision and hammer it out through a referendum.

FG and FF avoid it like the plaque. FG want a committee and it'll gather dust.

Wouldn't have happened under Garret and why I feel let down by Enda, he might as well be FF. Garret set out why FG were different, Enda made them the same!

To don the politicians cap, I don't blame them for ignoring the issue!

Denerick

I don't understand why there is such faith in referendums. If a referendum was held tomorrow on the following, there would be a strong vote, especially once the tabloids managed to mobilise the rabble:

A) That paedos should be burnt at the stake following a grilling by Jeremy Kyle

That travellers be forced to live in homes, out of the way of the rest of society

C) the return of capital punishment.

Some issues transcend democracy. Liberties, human dignity and freedoms are better served by strong constitutions, not the immediate whims of the people. I'm a bit of a Hegelian, just so you know.

K-9

Denerick wrote: »

I don't understand why there is such faith in referendums. If a referendum was held tomorrow on the following, there would be a strong vote, especially once the tabloids managed to mobilise the rabble:

A) That paedos should be burnt at the stake following a grilling by Jeremy Kyle

That travellers be forced to live in homes, out of the way of the rest of society

C) the return of capital punishment.

Some issues transcend democracy. Liberties, human dignity and freedoms are better served by strong constitutions, not the immediate whims of the people. I'm a bit of a Hegelian, just so you know.

Fair point.

Indeed, there is an argument that this referendum was 25 years ago or so and still we don't recognise it!

I hate sending women over to England to have abortions, hate it. We should take responsibility for our own problems and not export it!

Admit abortions happen here and provide advice and counselling. Other countries have reduced their abortion rate. The UK hasn't!

Bottle_of_Smoke

It makes electoral sense to be anti-abortion

Being openly pro-abortion can stop a lot of people voting for you and have pressure groups bad mouth you.

Being openly anti-abortion won't stop many from voting for you

Being ambiguous but not call for change in the laws gives you the best electoral advantage.

reinald

I don't think legislating for the X Case would necessarily require a referendum, though this was tried a few years ago I think by the Ahern Government.

Firstly I think it's important that the legal position is clarified before we can properly dicuss the political element:

AFAIK the main finding in the ABC case at the ECtHR is more limited than some think. The claims of A and B were thrown out in that case. The claim of C was upheld but it was found that the ambiguity arising due to lack of legislation/regulations/specific guidelinesarising after X, which forced C to travel abroad, was what breached her human rights, rather than necessarily the actual substance of the Supreme Court judgement in X itself. Ironically and tragically, it seems that C would probably have qualified for an abortion in Ireland under the X test anyway if there existed clear legislative guidance, given that C's pregnancy increased the liklihood that she would contract terminal cancer. So here the pregnancy was a threat to the life of C under the X test.

The ECtHR's main finding therefore was that the Government had failed to operationalise the X Case through legislation setting out clear guidance, which contravened the Convention in this case. Instead, the Government has basically just left the Medical Council to try and decipher the text of the judgement in X since 1992, when attempting to decide whether or not to permit an abortion in an Irish hospital in each individual case coming before them.

In response to OP, a referendum is probably not warranted at all if any political party is simply intent on legislating strictly for the X Case. The real issue arises where a political party or parties wants to row back or expand on the findings in X and enact a much more restrictive or expansive abortion law. In either situation, mostly due to potential constitutional issues, especially arising under Article 40.3, it would be very difficult not to hold a referendum and any such failure would likely be challenged in the courts. In that sense, this question may be more of a legal rather than political issue.

If any party wants to choose the least politically worst option in the short/medium term, the most sensible thing would probably be to legislate for the X Case without a referendum, do no more or no less than that and blame the original judgement of the Supreme Court in X if sectional interests start to the put the pressure on.

Either way, it looks as if this whole thing will be referred to some sort of Constitutional Convention or committee by a new government, basically a delaying tactic. The last thing a new government wants is a divisive referendum campaign on this issue

sarumite

Denerick wrote: »

Knowing the opinions of my peers, and the opinions of my parents peers, which together combine to create a decent national sampling. I'd say a referendum would be about 60-40 in favour of limited abortion.

Limited abortion is such a cop out when people say they support it in cases of rape. Either abortion is right or its wrong. Either you are destroying a fetus or killing a human being....the means by which conception occurred doesn't change the status of the fetus.

OhNoYouDidn't

There was an attempt made by the lunatic fringe Catholic right to make this an election issue. David Quinn wrote an article that a vote for labour was a vote for abortion, then all of a sudden their posters got defaced with the slogan and Dana held a press conference to that effect.

Failed of course, because they are a failed ideology, but the intent was there.

Min

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

There was an attempt made by the lunatic fringe Catholic right to make this an election issue. David Quinn wrote an article that a vote for labour was a vote for abortion, then all of a sudden their posters got defaced with the slogan and Dana held a press conference to that effect.

Failed of course, because they are a failed ideology, but the intent was there.

i don't think it really failed in the sense that people are intelligent and could see that Labour wanting to throw out the current constitution for a completely new one is a backdoor way of allowing abortion to be legalised.

A new constitution will be very divisive if it does not offer protection to all life from the womb to be born and having a natural death.

We know abortion will be an issue for the new government because of the European courts, but a new constitution would also make it an issue if the unborn aren't protected, if Labour want a new constitution then they will have to protect the unborn.

Denerick

sarumite wrote: »

Limited abortion is such a cop out when people say they support it in cases of rape. Either abortion is right or its wrong. Either you are destroying a fetus or killing a human being....the means by which conception occurred doesn't change the status of the fetus.

I don't actually consider a fetus to be a human being, but it certainly is somewhat human. The key for me is that in many countries abortion has become disturbingly common, a form of contraception almost. It needs to be rare and it needs to be a tragedy. Even if it isn't technically 'human', as we know it, society should have the respect and humility to play it safe.

For example, if a mother was going to die if she were to give birth(IE, if doctors knew giving birth would literally kill her) would you support aborting the fetus in that case? Not to do so would be highly unethical.

RandolphEsq

Being pro-abortion will result in absolute nutters being violent towards you. It is no wonder politicians don't bring it up often