Anti-Abortion "Pro Life" candidates running in the General Election 2016?

dobz95

With the general election coming up I am wonder what candidates are running that will canvass/carry/"promise"/etc they they are against abortion, like not a politician who's just against repealing the 8th amendment, but solidly against abortion.

I have being using smartvote.ie and 'googleing' to try find candidates a such but I haven't found any.
To date the only TD's of this nature I know of would be the likes of Mattie McGrath, Peter Mathews, Lucinda Creighton, Peadar Tóibín (allegedly), Terence Flanagan and I imagine some rural TD's rather then urban.
If there's a list or anything a such for this topic send it my way or so.

Cheers.

Lockstep

Tommy Roddy in Galway West is making pro-life rhetoric the centre of his campaign. Alongside mental health support.

Muahahaha

Paddy Manning announced today that he is running as an independent in Carlow Kilkenny. He is very much pro-life. He was also probably the only gay man in Ireland to campaign against the Gay Marriage Referendum.

Renua can also said to be a pro life party. At their manifesto launch the 18 candidates were asked where they stood on repealing the 8th, 14 of the 18 candidates said that they opposed repealing it. Also David Quinn of the Iona Institute advocated voting for Renua in an Indo article last week.

Canadel

Lockstep wrote: »

Tommy Roddy in Galway West is making pro-life rhetoric the centre of his campaign. Alongside mental health support.

Well that makes sense I suppose, in a kind of sick, sadistic way.

Charles Babbage

Canadel wrote: »

Well that makes sense I suppose, in a kind of sick, sadistic way.

I suppose it might, if you didn't regard abortion as a sick and sadistic practice.

Canadel

Charles Babbage wrote: »

I suppose it might, if you didn't regard abortion as a sick and sadistic practice.

It doesn't matter what a person's personal views on abortion are. To centre a political campaign around pro-life rhetoric alongside mental health support is perverse in this country.

culloty82

Even though FF has no official policy on the matter, many of their candidates are openly pro-life, and this week Kerry FF councillors proposed a motion (that passed) stating opposition to any change to the 8th Amendment.

BoJack Horseman

There is Billy Timmons of course, in Wicklow.

c_man

You could just ask them when canvassing kicks off?

nice_guy80

James Bannon FG might as well be running on a Pro Life agenda

he does f all else

feargale

Canadel wrote: »

It doesn't matter what a person's personal views on abortion are. To centre a political campaign around pro-life rhetoric alongside mental health support is perverse in this country.

Do you mean that all pro-life people have mental health problems?

BoJack Horseman

feargale wrote: »

Do you mean that all pro-life people have mental health problems?

One just has to look to Lucinda.

The voices in her head told her that the concept of a suicidal mother seeking a termination was too abhorrent to tolerate, so she quit the government.

One might insert the word 'faith' instead of 'voices'.... but when it's the dude with the beard sitting in clouds giving the orders, questioning compos mentis is understandable!

PopePalpatine

feargale wrote: »

Do you mean that all pro-life people have mental health problems?

More like that pro-lifers are largely unwilling to consider the damage to mental health an unwanted pregnancy can do.

FreudianSlippers

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

One just has to look to Lucinda.

The voices in her head told her that the concept of a suicidal mother seeking a termination was too abhorrent to tolerate, so she quit the government.

One might insert the word 'faith' instead of 'voices'.... but when it's the dude with the beard sitting in clouds giving the orders, questioning compos mentis is understandable!

That's my major problem with her and Renua. For all their economic and social policy that seems to make sense, I'm having a bit of trouble actually trusting them not because of her position necessarily (as I understand she wants a free vote) but her attitude and actions involving same.

mccalld

I too am looing for a pro- life candidate in Dublin North West.

keane2097

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's my major problem with her and Renua. For all their economic and social policy that seems to make sense, I'm having a bit of trouble actually trusting them not because of her position necessarily (as I understand she wants a free vote) but her attitude and actions involving same.

The idea of 'freedom of conscience' in Dail votes drives me ****ing bananas.

Your job is to represent the people of the constituency (in Lucinda's case the constituency most strongly in favour of the opposite position to her on abortion in the entire country).

Voting with your conscience is what you do in a referendum, representing your constituency is what you do in the parliament.

Canadel

feargale wrote: »

Do you mean that all pro-life people have mental health problems?

While that's an interesting theory, what I meant was that in a country in which a woman's reproductive system is more heavily regulated than fraudulent banks, it seems slightly insane to me that someone would promote pro life policies together with mental health. Unless of course they mean the mental health of the unborn child..

Robbo

Diarmuid O'Flynn from "Ballyhea Says No" is quite staunchly pro-life and blocks anyone on Twitter who reminds him of this. I suppose the clues were there in their weekly marches which revolve around going to/coming from mass.

mansize

Kate Bopp v anti abortion says she's running for the dial, sorry, daill in Offaly

Water John

Keane, your argument against exercising a freedom to vote in the Dail is contradicted by your assertion that you should vote as the majority of your constituents would.
Less again by taking the whip of a party that may promote something that either you don't agree with or is not in the general interest of your constituents.
These are contradictory positions.
Our whip system is extreme and other countries can govern well with more flexibility.
Of course, that might give some power to backbenchers and we couldn't have that.

keane2097

Water John wrote: »

Keane, your argument against exercising a freedom to vote in the Dail is contradicted by your assertion that you should vote as the majority of your constituents would.
Less again by taking the whip of a party that may promote something that either you don't agree with or is not in the general interest of your constituents.
These are contradictory positions.
Our whip system is extreme and other countries can govern well with more flexibility.
Of course, that might give some power to backbenchers and we couldn't have that.

Can you rephrase I can't follow this?

RobertKK

Water John wrote: »

Keane, your argument against exercising a freedom to vote in the Dail is contradicted by your assertion that you should vote as the majority of your constituents would.
Less again by taking the whip of a party that may promote something that either you don't agree with or is not in the general interest of your constituents.
These are contradictory positions.
Our whip system is extreme and other countries can govern well with more flexibility.
Of course, that might give some power to backbenchers and we couldn't have that.

That is true, we se it over in Westminster where MPs have freedom of vote on social issues.

Water John

Keane I am simply pointing out that as a TD you don't have a focus group of constituents to consult and vote accordingly.
You are elected because they trust your judgement on issues.
That line originally comes from Edmund Burke in some variation.

FreudianSlippers

I just find it unfortunate (in the case of Renua in particular) that I can agree with their economic policy in theory, but I end up voting against my own interests in that regard because they can't be trusted not to put their personal and oppressive religious beliefs ahead of the common good.

If this was someone talking about free votes of conscience on polygamy or circumcision or head-coverings, we'd have riots in the streets.

Water John

Yes Slipper, that's a case where you (and I) would not trust an elected TD (Renua) to vote in our interest. That is legitimate.
Doesn't largely matter in that case whether whip is applied or not. I think most Renua candidates will trump personal beliefs over any whip on a conscience issue.

keane2097

Water John wrote: »

Keane I am simply pointing out that as a TD you don't have a focus group of constituents to consult and vote accordingly.
You are elected because they trust your judgement on issues.
That line originally comes from Edmund Burke in some variation.

In Lucinda's case she had the results of not one but two referendums to draw on, both of which told her the views of her constituents were as far in the other direction from her own as are to be found in the country.

Instead of representing these views she did the exact opposite, which is a terrible indictment of a public representative.

She had the opportunity to exercise her conscience vote at the same time as everyone else, i.e. during the referendums.

Fair enough if she hadn't a clue what her constituents wanted her to do on some issue or other (well, not really fair enough but whatever), but it's a bit of a laugh to suggest she didn't know right well that the only person she was representing on the abortion issue was her own self. Focus groups my arse.

Lockstep

There was a GE hustings for Galway West/South Mayo last night. Out of the candidates there on repealing the 8th, O'Mahoney (FG) and Connolly (FF) both said they were personally pro-life but felt it would need to be a democratic decision. Fidelma Healy Eames is avowedly anti-repealing the 8th as is Tommy Roddy (both independents)
All the other candidates there support repealing the 8th (although Kyne (FG) said he supported abortion for incest, rape and fetal abnormalities rather than abortion on demand)

Canadel

Lockstep wrote: »

Fidelma Healy Eames is avowedly anti-repealing the 8th

She's also avowedly anti-thinking so I wouldn't take much note of her stance on anything tbh.

Water John

Keane you're reading me wrong. I don't agree with Lucenda. But she represents the minority in her constituency, who are entitled to be heard.
By your reasoning all five TD's in the constituency should vote the way the majority voted in the referendums. That's not how it works.

The total anti abortion campaigners have lost a good bit of their clout, but many candidates would still be wary of strongly supporting a contrary view in the run up to an election. Candidates worry about every vote.

RobertKK

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I just find it unfortunate (in the case of Renua in particular) that I can agree with their economic policy in theory, but I end up voting against my own interests in that regard because they can't be trusted not to put their personal and oppressive religious beliefs ahead of the common good.

If this was someone talking about free votes of conscience on polygamy or circumcision or head-coverings, we'd have riots in the streets.

Does it matter where their beliefs come from, I mean if someone was a militant atheist and hated everything religious and voted against the interests of religious people would that be any different?

I have read postings by atheists elsewhere who are against abortion, some believe it must be about religion. It is about life and that is far bigger than religion.

I prefer politicians to vote for what they believe, rather than what they are told to do. I think politicians who are likely to be open to corruption are those who can put what they know and believe to be right aside and do what they feel is wrong for personal gain.
Lucinda showed she was a straight shooter and lost a junior minister's job over what she believed to be right.
That is someone I would vote for, someone who has principals and will make personal sacrifices to uphold them.
Lucinda actually lost money by what she did, makes a difference to those who ask 'whats in it for me?', and there were some in FG who voted for 'whats in it for me'.

Lockstep

Canadel wrote: »

She's also avowedly anti-thinking so I wouldn't take much note of her stance on anything tbh.

Agreed. She's taken being a curtain twitcher and made a political career from it.

wes

No fan of Lucinda, but surely people who vote for her, would be well aware of her position, and I am pretty sure that Fine Gael, pretty much promised no changes to abortion law during the last election.

So if you voted for her, considering the platform her party was running on, you can't exactly be surprised at her position vis a vi abortion. Basically, if her constituents voted for her, they should have bothered to see what her position and her parties position at the time was.

BTW, I am in her constituency and didn't vote for her, but others clearly did and our proportional representation system is pretty much designed to ensure minority views are represented. So as much as I personally think her current party are a bit out there, her positions probably represented a minority of the local electorate.

Atlantis50

keane2097 wrote: »

The idea of 'freedom of conscience' in Dail votes drives me ****ing bananas.

Your job is to represent the people of the constituency (in Lucinda's case the constituency most strongly in favour of the opposite position to her on abortion in the entire country).

Voting with your conscience is what you do in a referendum, representing your constituency is what you do in the parliament.

How do you know she was not representing her constituency also?

We will find out before the end of the month whether or not she was out of step with her constituents when the results of the Dublin Bay South constituency are revealed.

Manach

If not already mentioned, Paul Bradford in Cork East.

Lockstep

wes wrote: »

No fan of Lucinda, but surely people who vote for her, would be well aware of her position, and I am pretty sure that Fine Gael, pretty much promised no changes to abortion law during the last election.

Fine Gael made no such claims. They said they'd institute a panel to examine the medical and legal issues. They did say to Youth Defence that they were opposed to the legalisation of abortion but also that they would implement whatever measures were necessary to safeguard the mother's life.

AlexisM

Atlantis50 wrote: »

How do you know she was not representing her constituency also?

We will find out before the end of the month whether or not she was out of step with her constituents when the results of the Dublin Bay South constituency are revealed.

We won't find out whether she was out of step with her constituents on the abortion issue. We'll find out if her constituents are okay with her as an overall package. Her constituents may weigh up her economic policies and decide that those outweigh their disagreement with her on the abortion issue. If Lucinda could be cloned, I suspect Lucinda-Renua-Pro-choice would beat Lucinda-Renua-anti-choice in her constituency which is one of the most liberal in the country. Abortion just isn't important enough of an issue to most people in the general election - it's all about the economy.

I'm struggling with this in my constituency. I don't like the Renua candidate's anti-choice stance but I prefer their economic policies so I'll probably vote for him. Doesn't in any way mean I support his anti-choice stance.

donspeekinglesh

James Lawless in Kildare North and Sean O Fearghail in Kildare South (both FF) are running as pro life.

feargale

Have any candidates anywhere been anti-life at anytime, now or in the past?

Charles Babbage

feargale wrote: »

Have any candidates anywhere been anti-life at anytime, now or in the past?

All of the Labour party and other lefties.