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

MalteseBarry · 18-02-2011 09:19AM

No one advocates abortion, or thinks it is a "good" thing in itself.

It's just some believe it is the lesser of two evils, so to speak.

Some who don't believe in abortion for themselves also appear to believe others should be prevented, by force of law, from choosing abortion.

As far as I am aware, no one who believes in the right to choose believes that others should or should not be denied that right, for example if they want to be denied that choice by listening to what their church has to say.

As far as I can see, the RC church's teaching is now irrelevant to the vast majority of people in Ireland, and I welcome that, bearing in mind the misery and servitude it subjected us all to for years, while it was covering up for its own members' torture, rape and widespread abuses of others.

Auctionmcd · 18-02-2011 11:07AM

Brenireland wrote: »

Thanks I appreciate that,yeah when I started off commenting on this thread & on the Article with regards Labours Stance on Abortion I really did go all out without thinking.

I now appreciate and agree with what the previous posters were saying,which is, that for Medical Reason's,Abortion is a valid & understandable option & one nobody should ever have to make.

& in future I will think before I say or write anything,however nothing bad was meant as I am sure you'll understand,from my previous and uneducated post's, as I am pro-life & the protection of Life is always important.

Well maybe this thread should be renamed or removed?
It is severely misleading to say the least when you see the title on the front page.

oceanclub · 18-02-2011 03:02PM

Auctionmcd wrote: »

Well maybe this thread should be renamed or removed?
It is severely misleading to say the least when you see the title on the front page.

I think it's fine as long quotation marks are put around the quote; to be honest, it shows the "Iona Institute" (which as far as I can make out is David Quinn and another bloke), associated with the National Forum, is just indulging in negative campaigning and spinning against Labour since it's the party most associated with secularism, something that Quinn despises.

Indeed, Quinn has just published his third Labour-bashing article in a row:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/david-quinn-labours-education-policy-is-to-attack-religious-freedom-2546237.html

In an article where even he admits "Labour does not want to bring an end to denominational schools, or to public funding of such schools", he still manages to sum up that Labour want to oppress the relgious.

P.

MaceFace · 18-02-2011 03:19PM

They say never discuss politics or religion as you'll never agree.
A few more subjects can be added to that.

I was actually surprised this morning when I heard Eamonn Gilmore was Athiest and it made me wonder of the implications of having an athiest in charge of the country.
He tried to fob it off saying it is a private matter to an individual and is not important.

Now, I am in no way a religious person, but I do believe in a higher power that can not be explained (so don't ask).
But, to be athiest means you actually don't believe in a God.

I actually think this is very important as many of the decisions he would have to make would be influenced by his believe is no God (and I will guess no soul or afterlife etc).
(btw: I am very ignorant of the subject and an open to correction on many points)
So, his beliefs are most certainly not private and I think deserve to be debated in public if he is seeking to be Taoiseach (snigger).

18-02-2011 03:24PM

MaceFace wrote: »

I was actually surprised this morning when I heard Eamonn Gilmore was Athiest and it made me wonder of the implications of having an athiest in charge of the country.
He tried to fob it off saying it is a private matter to an individual and is not important.

It is a private matter to an individual, unless he's advocating laws which prevent religious freedom, which he is not

MaceFace wrote: »

I actually think this is very important as many of the decisions he would have to make would be influenced by his believe is no God (and I will guess no soul or afterlife etc).

Are you saying that the concept of souls and the afterlife should be considered by politicians when making decisions? That's bizarre. Which definition of souls? Which afterlife? Hindu? Muslim? Christian? Which branch? Presbyterianism? Roman Catholicism?

oceanclub · 18-02-2011 03:34PM

MaceFace wrote: »

So, his beliefs are most certainly not private and I think deserve to be debated in public if he is seeking to be Taoiseach (snigger).

While I have no problem with a politician talking openly about their religion or beliefs; let's be straight - do you think someone who doesn't believe in a God or heaven should be elected Taoiseach?

P

Zubeneschamali · 18-02-2011 03:42PM

oceanclub wrote: »

do you think someone who doesn't believe in a God or heaven should be elected Taoiseach?

Sure, why not?

Which of Bertie or Biffo's policies were improved by a belief in God or heaven?

Reilly616 · 18-02-2011 03:45PM

oceanclub wrote: »

Do you think someone who doesn't believe in a God or heaven should be elected Taoiseach?

...Yeah. Why not?

theg81der · 18-02-2011 03:52PM

This thread bothers me because although people are calling for abortion to be legalised and saying its a reason to vote for labour I don`t see any plan in any manifesto to stop these women getting pregnant in the first place.

It just doesn`t seem balanced to me. Isn`t this part of the problem, putting stopgaps in place and not treating the root cause. This is the prevailing attitude that got us into this mess, although their giving it loads of "going forward" I don`t see any actually forward planning.

Access to contraception needs to be improved, aswell as sex education and particular focus clearly needs to be placed on risk areas. Young women with hopes for their future and education are less likely to get pregnant - how do we get there?

I worry that this is indicative of Labours attitude in general, I don`t want stopgaps I want people who see the whole picture.

MaceFace · 18-02-2011 04:03PM

28064212 wrote: »

It is a private matter to an individual, unless he's advocating laws which prevent religious freedom, which he is not

It is not just religious freedom, but say he does become Taoiseach (snigger), and in a years time he has to deal with a crisis that deals with abortion, or euthanasia, we have no idea of what his position would be.
We have just seen from the last Government that once we elect them we are powerless until the next election (apart from Consitutional issues).

28064212 wrote: »

Are you saying that the concept of souls and the afterlife should be considered by politicians when making decisions? That's bizarre. Which definition of souls? Which afterlife? Hindu? Muslim? Christian? Which branch? Presbyterianism? Roman Catholicism?

I never said that. What I said is that it should be debated in the open and his religious beliefs should be part of the wider discussion.
I think that any elected officials beliefts, religious or otherwise, should be well known.

oceanclub · 18-02-2011 04:06PM

MaceFace wrote: »

It is not just religious freedom, but say he does become Taoiseach (snigger), and in a years time he has to deal with a crisis that deals with abortion, or euthanasia, we have no idea of what his position would be.

You wouldn't know what his position is if he said he was a Christian either. Christians have diverse beliefs on most moral matters too.

P.

MaceFace · 18-02-2011 04:07PM

oceanclub wrote: »

While I have no problem with a politician talking openly about their religion or beliefs; let's be straight - do you think someone who doesn't believe in a God or heaven should be elected Taoiseach?

P

I should not have a problem with it, but I have no idea what his level of beliefs are.
If he believes that there is no such thing as a soul, or death is something painful to the affected (family, friends etc) but not of consequence to the wider situation, then that is very important.

Now, whether you think this is important to you or not is irrelevant - it is very important to a great many people in Ireland and should be debated as much as any other issue.

18-02-2011 04:14PM

MaceFace wrote: »

It is not just religious freedom, but say he does become Taoiseach (snigger), and in a years time he has to deal with a crisis that deals with abortion, or euthanasia, we have no idea of what his position would be.
We have just seen from the last Government that once we elect them we are powerless until the next election (apart from Consitutional issues).

Yet you name two topics that are constitutional issues. We know what his positions are, they are set out in his party's policies, the same as every other politician

MaceFace wrote: »

I never said that. What I said is that it should be debated in the open and his religious beliefs should be part of the wider discussion.
I think that any elected officials beliefts, religious or otherwise, should be well known.

Even more bizarre. You think we should have the right to know what a person's private beliefs are? What about their sexuality? Every politician should have to reveal their orientation? Their fetishes? It's absolutely none of your business.

You can be a Christian and be pro-choice and pro-euthanasia. You can be an atheist and be pro-life and anti-euthanasia. No politician's individual beliefs are part of the wider discussion, just their positions on the issues

wolfpawnat · 18-02-2011 04:16PM

So Labour are pro-choice? Gilmore, you'll get no. 2 off me for that!!!!!!

MaceFace · 18-02-2011 04:48PM

28064212 wrote: »

Yet you name two topics that are constitutional issues. We know what his positions are, they are set out in his party's policies, the same as every other politician

There are many issues that are not in the consitution, but I use these because they are the easiest to understand.
What does he think about stem cell research? Not just in his manifesto, but the whole pre-birth life debate.
What about his thoughts on religious involvement in the the everyday life of people.
What are his thoughts on the issue of having to have your child baptised to get into many schools - will he ban that?
We saw Bertie agree a deal with the religious orders to let them off the hook for the years of child abuse and cover ups. How would Gilmore react to that.

A matter of fact, even if it is constitutional, he may believe that abortion should be allowed up until X number of weeks, and if he has to deal with this issue in 2/3 years time, he may very well put public money into advertising for a particular vote.

There are so many issues that are hypothetical today but may very well be reality during his tenure as Taoiseach (snigger).

28064212 wrote: »

Even more bizarre. You think we should have the right to know what a person's private beliefs are? What about their sexuality? Every politician should have to reveal their orientation? Their fetishes? It's absolutely none of your business.

Who are you to say what I want to know about the person who is asking for my vote?
I think it is a valid question to ask a public representative their sexuality. If it is important to you, you can ask. If you don't like the reply you get, at least you get the reply.
Does he believe Gay people have the right to adopt?

28064212 wrote: »

You can be a Christian and be pro-choice and pro-euthanasia. You can be an atheist and be pro-life and anti-euthanasia. No politician's individual beliefs are part of the wider discussion, just their positions on the issues

I agree you can be anything you want and you most certainly have the right to be, but in my opinion, if you are going for the highest office in the land, you have an obligation to inform the public of your values and beliefs so they know the type of person they are electing.
The alternative, as you suggest, by only voting on their policies only gets you so far. You know what they are pretending they will do, you have no idea of the actual person.

The reason this has never really been an issue in Ireland is because in the past, the Taoiseach was always a middle aged practicing catholic white male.
With the secularlisation of society, religious people see religion as a very important topic.

Whether you like it or not, religion is important to many people, and just because it one issue may not be important to you does not mean it should be off limits.

If you want to have a private life, don't go for public office.

Zubeneschamali · 18-02-2011 05:00PM

MaceFace wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, religion is important to many people, and just because it one issue may not be important to you does not mean it should be off limits.

So , you know all about Biffo's religion? Micheál Martin's? Enda Kenny's? How about Alan Shatter? He's Jewish, do you know how that informs his views? Who are the Protestant TDs and candidates, and how do their beliefs affect their policies?

Personally, I think this is a big red herring: I'll vote for parties and policies, not religions.

18-02-2011 05:01PM

MaceFace wrote: »

There are many issues that are not in the consitution, but I use these because they are the easiest to understand.
What does he think about stem cell research? Not just in his manifesto, but the whole pre-birth life debate.
What about his thoughts on religious involvement in the the everyday life of people.
What are his thoughts on the issue of having to have your child baptised to get into many schools - will he ban that?
We saw Bertie agree a deal with the religious orders to let them off the hook for the years of child abuse and cover ups. How would Gilmore react to that.

What does any politician think about any of those points? There is absolutely no reason that an atheist one has more responsibility to answer these than a religious one.

MaceFace wrote: »

Who are you to say what I want to know about the person who is asking for my vote?
I think it is a valid question to ask a public representative their sexuality. If it is important to you, you can ask. If you don't like the reply you get, at least you get the reply.
Does he believe Gay people have the right to adopt?

Gay people can think that they shouldn't have the right to adopt. Straight people can think that gay people should be allowed to adopt. Their orientation is completely irrelevant, and a massive breach of their right to a private life.

MaceFace wrote: »

Whether you like it or not, religion is important to many people, and just because it one issue may not be important to you does not mean it should be off limits.

A politician's position on religion is very important to me. A politician's position on LGBT rights is very important to me. I couldn't care less what a politician believes, I couldn't care less what orientation they are. If a straight weekly mass-goer runs on a platform of secularisation and equality, I'll vote for them. If a gay atheist runs on a platform of theocracy and discrimination, I won't vote for them

MaceFace wrote: »

If you want to have a private life, don't go for public office.

Are you ok with your boss firing you for being a Catholic? Why should someone in public office have to reveal their private beliefs?

Reilly616 · 18-02-2011 05:05PM

MaceFace wrote: »

A matter of fact, even if it is constitutional, he may believe that abortion should be allowed up until X number of weeks, and if he has to deal with this issue in 2/3 years time, he may very well put public money into advertising for a particular vote.

So? The same amount of public money would be put into advertising for the opposing vote.

Per Denham J, at p52 of the Coughlan case: "To fund one side of a campaign in a referendum so as to enable media coverage and communications to promote a specific outcome, is to treat unequally those who believe to the contrary whether they may be a majority or a minority. For the Government to fund one side of a campaign is to treat unequally those citizens who hold the opposite view. It is irrelevant what view the Government takes. To fund one side in a national referendum campaign, even if only to partially so fund, is to breach the spirit of equality."

Sponge Bob · 18-02-2011 05:09PM

The loonies are out in force in Galway and chasing all 3 labour candidates around for the whole weekend as well as picketing their offices.

R28 · 18-02-2011 05:13PM

Sponge Bob wrote: »

The loonies are out in force in Galway and chasing all 3 labour candidates around for the whole weekend as well as picketing their offices.

I blame the Novena. It just brings the crazies out as well as making traffic in Galway much worse.

Actually the traffic thing may be proof of a supernatural involvement-it really shouldn't be possible to make the traffic in Galway any worse then it is.

oceanclub · 18-02-2011 05:17PM

I suppose it was important we knew that Bertie was a Christian, for example, as therefore he couldn't possibly be a lying ****.

P.

wfom01 · 18-02-2011 05:28PM

In case anyone is interested, Labour's policy of abortion is IDENTICAL to all the other parties' namely, that legislation is essential given the Supreme Court judgement. Personally, I'm against abortion (in most instances) and will speak my mind on the subject. However, I do respect the right of others to hold different views. My wife has a completely different view to mine and she's entitled to that view. We have the odd heated argument but still love each other very much. If there's a vote I'll vote one way and she'll vote the other. I can live with that. I suggest others do the same.

MaceFace · 18-02-2011 05:35PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So , you know all about Biffo's religion? Micheál Martin's? Enda Kenny's? How about Alan Shatter? He's Jewish, do you know how that informs his views? Who are the Protestant TDs and candidates, and how do their beliefs affect their policies?

Personally, I think this is a big red herring: I'll vote for parties and policies, not religions.

I do as well the beliefs of a person running for public office is very important as it will help explain who they are and what they stand for.

28064212 wrote: »

What does any politician think about any of those points? There is absolutely no reason that an atheist one has more responsibility to answer these than a religious one.

I agree - any person, regardless, running for public office have a duty to answer questions that a person not running for office would deem private.

Do people not understand that we are electing people to represent us and if you only go on their manifesto that will only explain what they stand for now. Once that election is over and they are in power, they will be acting on our behalf on a huge number of issues that have not been discussed prior to the election.

28064212 wrote: »

Gay people can think that they shouldn't have the right to adopt. Straight people can think that gay people should be allowed to adopt. Their orientation is completely irrelevant, and a massive breach of their right to a private life.

A persons orientation may be important to some people and if that person is voting for someone to represent them, they may not be happy with a straight or gay person to be that person (it is very possible a gay voter may want to vote for a gay candidate and is perfectly entitled to ask the candidates orientation and their beliefs on gay people).

Wasn't it Jim McDaid who was out of his head on drink driving up the wrong way of a motorway - do you think that this is irrelevant and should not be taken into account when you are voting - after all, what difference does it make what he does in his private life?

28064212 wrote: »

A politician's position on religion is very important to me. A politician's position on LGBT rights is very important to me. I couldn't care less what a politician believes, I couldn't care less what orientation they are. If a straight weekly mass-goer runs on a platform of secularisation and equality, I'll vote for them. If a gay atheist runs on a platform of theocracy and discrimination, I won't vote for them

And you will know if a person is a practising Catholic, or a Muslim or a Jew or a vegetarian or a swinger - you will have a very good idea about what they believe and stand for (a trivial e.g. a vegetarian may think eating meat is cruel and this may be an issue to beef farmers)

28064212 wrote: »

Are you ok with your boss firing you for being a Catholic? Why should someone in public office have to reveal their private beliefs?

The person seeking public office is seeking to represent the people of their country. If they believe that God does not exist, they may be more inclined to listen to and favour those whose beliefs are similar.
Do you honestly believe that a politician will remain completely objective to their beliefs through the course of their work?

Reilly616 wrote: »

So? The same amount of public money would be put into advertising for the opposing vote...

Ah yes, just like the government advertised for a No to Lisbon?

To be clear: I don't have an issue with anyones sex, race or religion, but if I was in favour of a Muslim being Taoiseach I have the right to ask that question of the person seeking that position.

Reilly616 · 18-02-2011 05:36PM

wfom01 wrote: »

In case anyone is interested, Labour's policy of abortion is IDENTICAL to all the other parties' namely, that legislation is essential given the Supreme Court judgement.
[*] Personally, I'm against abortion (in most instances) and will speak my mind on the subject. However, I do respect the right of others to hold different views. My wife has a completely different view to mine and she's entitled to that view. We have the odd heated argument but still love each other very much. If there's a vote I'll vote one way and she'll vote the other. I can live with that. I suggest others do the same.

* The Supreme Court judgment which was given 19 years ago!

An if it wasn't for the recent ECtHR judgment, the next government might have ignored it too!

Reilly616 · 18-02-2011 05:45PM

MaceFace wrote: »

Ah yes, just like the government advertised for a No to Lisbon?

Didn't you read my quote from the Supreme Court in Coughlan?

18-02-2011 05:55PM

MaceFace wrote: »

I do as well the beliefs of a person running for public office is very important as it will help explain who they are and what they stand for.

No, it won't. Their personal beliefs are not synonymous with their positions. One can believe in the right to an abortion, while simultaneously believing that abortion is a mortal sin. That is not a contradiction.

MaceFace wrote: »

I agree - any person, regardless, running for public office have a duty to answer questions that a person not running for office would deem private.

You missed the point. They have a duty to answer questions on their positions. They do not have a duty to answer questions about their personal lives.

MaceFace wrote: »

A persons orientation may be important to some people and if that person is voting for someone to represent them, they may not be happy with a straight or gay person to be that person (it is very possible a gay voter may want to vote for a gay candidate and is perfectly entitled to ask the candidates orientation and their beliefs on gay people).

Only the bolded parts are true or relevant.

MaceFace wrote: »

Wasn't it Jim McDaid who was out of his head on drink driving up the wrong way of a motorway - do you think that this is irrelevant and should not be taken into account when you are voting - after all, what difference does it make what he does in his private life?

How many politicians have convictions? Do you know? How many have parking fines, or had civil cases taken against them?

MaceFace wrote: »

And you will know if a person is a practising Catholic, or a Muslim or a Jew or a vegetarian or a swinger - you will have a very good idea about what they believe and stand for (a trivial e.g. a vegetarian may think eating meat is cruel and this may be an issue to beef farmers)

So you want a publically accessible database of every aspect of an election-seeker's personal lives where they have to fill in their:

Religion
Sexual orientation
Sexual Fetishes
"Eating beliefs"

What else? Whether they've been divorced? Whether they've ever smoked? Whether they've ever drank? Not a list of their positions, but what they do in their private life? You think that's reasonable?

Are you ok with your boss firing you (or not hiring you in the first place) for being a Catholic? Not because you're bad at your job, or unqualified, or your views conflict with the requirements for the job, but specifically because you are a Catholic?

burrentech · 18-02-2011 06:16PM

What a load of claptrap. "neither Fine Gael nor Fianna Fail is setting out to do harm to the poor" What country is this guy in?

Isn't it about time the Gards started investigating the scroungers inhabiting the Dail, and our local council offices?

MalteseBarry · 18-02-2011 06:39PM

oceanclub wrote: »

While I have no problem with a politician talking openly about their religion or beliefs; let's be straight - do you think someone who doesn't believe in a God or heaven should be elected Taoiseach?

P

I'd go further and say it might even be a positive benefit to have someone who puts their duty to their fellow citizens above their own personal religious beliefs.

Ireland has suffered for decades as a direct result of those in charge of the state being in hock to the RC church. For example, children and women in particular, have died as a result of the church, and state's, cozy relationship.

Think about that.

burrentech · 18-02-2011 06:48PM

MalteseBarry wrote: »

I'd go further and say it might even be a positive benefit to have someone who puts their duty to their fellow citizens above their own personal religious beliefs.

Ireland has suffered for decades as a direct result of those in charge of the state being in hock to the RC church. For example, children and women in particular, have died as a result of the church, and state's, cozy relationship.

Think about that.

Totally agree, isn't it about time that we had a selective access to charitable status? By all means let those that are performing charity work, but allowing religions to afford of full charitable status is surely wrong. Tax the places of worship as places of business, and VAT rate their services to their congregations. Its about time that religion started paying their way in society. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

MaceFace · 18-02-2011 07:19PM

28064212 wrote: »

No, it won't. Their personal beliefs are not synonymous with their positions. One can believe in the right to an abortion, while simultaneously believing that abortion is a mortal sin. That is not a contradiction.

And you think someone who thinks abortion is a mortal sin will be as eager to push through legislation allowing for it as someone who is very pro choice?

28064212 wrote: »

You missed the point. They have a duty to answer questions on their positions. They do not have a duty to answer questions about their personal lives.

Well we have had politicians tell us their position on things in the past that have been very different from reality.

28064212 wrote: »

Only the bolded parts are true or relevant.

To you maybe, but don't dictate what is relevant to anyone else when they are casting their vote. This is a democracy after all.

28064212 wrote: »

How many politicians have convictions? Do you know? How many have parking fines, or had civil cases taken against them?

That is not hugely relevant to me as they are not my representatives. If Cowen or any of the leaders of the parties had a conviction or had a drink problem (:rolleyes:) it is a concern to me.

28064212 wrote: »

So you want a publically accessible database of every aspect of an election-seeker's personal lives where they have to fill in their:
Religion

Sexual orientation

Sexual Fetishes

"Eating beliefs"

What else? Whether they've been divorced? Whether they've ever smoked? Whether they've ever drank? Not a list of their positions, but what they do in their private life? You think that's reasonable?

28064212 wrote: »

No, and you are being ridiculous now.
You don't think I should be allowed to ask a politician their religion and quiz them on their beliefs based on their response?
(if they are Muslim or Catholic, what do they think of gay society? - obviously this would not concern me if the politician was a gay person themselves or if they were atheist).

28064212 wrote: »

Are you ok with your boss firing you (or not hiring you in the first place) for being a Catholic? Not because you're bad at your job, or unqualified, or your views conflict with the requirements for the job, but specifically because you are a Catholic?

What? I already stated that I do not represent people and agree on laws that directly influence their personal lives.
Maybe women want women to represent them, or gay people want other gay people, Muslims want a Muslim, etc etc.

I find it so offensive that someone can tell me what should be important to me when I vote. Its one step away from telling me who I should vote for.

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

Comments