Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

FF opportunism on abortion

  • 23-07-2012 01:19PM
    #1
    Boulevardier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭


    I presume I am not the only person this morning who is nauseated by Micheal Martin's statement that he is "not convinced" of the need to legislate on the X case.

    Translation: FF wants the pro-life vote and does not care what they have to do to get it.

    Oddly, this item has disappeared from some news websites since I saw it earlier.


«1345

Comments

  • #2
    mikemac1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,395 ✭✭✭✭mikemac1


    If they were going to legislate what would that mean?

    Genuinely asking, I'm not sure what Martin means when he says that

    The wiki page is good and I remember the three options in the referendum
    But I'm not sure what the current topic is
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X


  • #3
    Boulevardier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭Boulevardier


    Legislating on the X case would mean allowing abortion where there is a threat to the mother, including (because of the Supreme Court X Case decision in 1992) the threat of suicide.

    The point made by many legislators is that such legislation is needed in order to bring the law into line with court decisions. An attempt to go the other way - that is, to have an amendment to cancel out the supreme Court ruling - was defeated by popular vote a few years ago.

    I think that FF's view on this, however, is not motivated by anything other than an opportunist atempt to grab the pro-life vote from under the feet of Fine Gael. It is political posturing of a particularly despicable kind.


  • #4
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Boulevardier wrote: »
    I presume I am not the only person this morning who is nauseated by Micheal Martin's statement that he is "not convinced" of the need to legislate on the X case.

    Translation: FF wants the pro-life vote and does not care what they have to do to get it.

    Oddly, this item has disappeared from some news websites since I saw it earlier.

    Saw this earlier.
    Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin says he "remains to be
    convinced" that the Oireachtas should legislate for the X case on abortion
    despite a 20-year failure to do so.

    He fears such legislation could allow for abortion in more widespread
    circumstances than envisaged by the 1992 Supreme Court judgment.

    In an interview with the Irish Examiner, Mr Martin said that legislation could create "an open-door situation" that would turn out to be "very difficult to hold back".

    His comments came as a Labour junior minister Kathleen Lynch
    predicted the Government would ultimately have to legislate.

    http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/martin-disputes-need-for-law-on-abortion-201680.html

    It's rather a surreal statement. The Supreme court has ruled that the referendum requires legislation for abortion in limited circumstances. A referendum to remove suicide as a reason was rejected. He hasn't a leg to stand on.


  • #5
    hallelujajordan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,080 ✭✭✭hallelujajordan


    Boulevardier wrote: »
    Legislating on the X case would mean allowing abortion where there is a threat to the mother, including (because of the Supreme Court X Case decision in 1992) the threat of suicide.

    The point made by many legislators is that such legislation is needed in order to bring the law into line with court decisions. An attempt to go the other way - that is, to have an amendment to cancel out the supreme Court ruling - was defeated by popular vote a few years ago.

    I think that FF's view on this, however, is not motivated by anything other than an opportunist atempt to grab the pro-life vote from under the feet of Fine Gael. It is political posturing of a particularly despicable kind.

    I don't agree with MM's view on this but it is hard to argue that this is an opportunistic position given that successive FF governments have had the chance to legislate on this for the last 20 years and did not.


  • #6
    C14N
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,656 ✭✭✭C14N


    Boulevardier wrote: »
    I think that FF's view on this, however, is not motivated by anything other than an opportunist atempt to grab the pro-life vote from under the feet of Fine Gael. It is political posturing of a particularly despicable kind.

    Is that really a big vote though? Could it cause more dislike of FF than support? It seems that people who oppose abortion are a dying breed (and I say that as one of them). I have seen a lot of hate for public figures who go against abortion too, so I could easily imagine it driving many voters firmly away.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Sierra Oscar
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 8,790 CMod ✭✭✭✭Sierra Oscar


    I fail to see how the state cannot legislate for it considering the outcome of the Supreme Court case.


  • #8
    Actor
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 348 ✭✭Actor


    Papal Knighthood in the bag for anyone who stands up to the hard left on the issue of abortion.

    I'd say Enda Kenny will have the good sense to tell the Labour ****-stirrers that this issue is off the agenda. We have more important things to be worrying about.


  • #9
    MadsL
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    Actor wrote: »
    We have more important things to be worrying about.

    Ah, the famous excuse for doing nothing. I'm getting heartily sick of this phrase.


  • #10
    SocSocPol
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,043 ✭✭✭SocSocPol


    Actor wrote: »
    Papal Knighthood in the bag for anyone who stands up to the hard left on the issue of abortion.

    I'd say Enda Kenny will have the good sense to tell the Labour ****-stirrers that this issue is off the agenda. We have more important things to be worrying about.
    What could be more important than the civil rights of women which have been ignored for decades, the right to choose is a civil right, especially when your life depends on it.


  • #11
    Dirk Gently
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,779 ✭✭✭Dirk Gently


    Actor wrote: »

    I'd say Enda Kenny will have the good sense to tell the Labour ****-stirrers that this issue is off the agenda. .
    I'm hoping Labour will have the backbone to tell FG conservatives to STFU tbh. Labour need some kind of success if they are to survive as a viable party after the next election so I'd expect them not to back down too easily on certain non economic issues.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    hallelujajordan wrote: »
    it is hard to argue that this is an opportunistic position given that successive FF governments have had the chance to legislate on this for the last 20 years and did not.
    The legislation required would allow abortion to be provided in this country in limited circumstances.

    This makes certain groups of people unhappy, they cite the slippery slope fallacy that this will allow for abortions on demand to be brought in. Primarily the over-50 conservative Catholics. And this group makes up the core of both FF and FG's votes. They've been fighting over this vote for years, and this is the only reason why we haven't seen the legislation - neither party give a toss about the morals or ethics, it's all about the vote.

    The government who legislates as they are required to do, is the Government that will lose this vote at the next election, and therefore lose the election. This is why it's opportunism on FF's part - they can smell the blood in the water, they know that there's a good chance the current government will have to legislate during their term in office, and FF are stating their "no legislation" policy now so that they can mop up the core conservative vote at the next election.

    The other non-conservative parties should be on the offensive against FF and trying to get FF's pro-choice voters to jump ship by painting them out as backwards conservatives.


  • #13
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Actor wrote: »
    Papal Knighthood in the bag for anyone who stands up to the hard left on the issue of abortion.

    I'd say Enda Kenny will have the good sense to tell the Labour ****-stirrers that this issue is off the agenda. We have more important things to be worrying about.


    The electorate voted for limited access to abortion. The supreme court ruled that legislation should be brought forward. The electorate subsequently rejected removing risk of suicide as a reason for access to abortion. I'm not seeing where "hard left" comes into that.


  • #14
    hallelujajordan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,080 ✭✭✭hallelujajordan


    seamus wrote: »
    The legislation required would allow abortion to be provided in this country in limited circumstances.

    This makes certain groups of people unhappy, they cite the slippery slope fallacy that this will allow for abortions on demand to be brought in. Primarily the over-50 conservative Catholics. And this group makes up the core of both FF and FG's votes. They've been fighting over this vote for years, and this is the only reason why we haven't seen the legislation - neither party give a toss about the morals or ethics, it's all about the vote.

    The government who legislates as they are required to do, is the Government that will lose this vote at the next election, and therefore lose the election. This is why it's opportunism on FF's part - they can smell the blood in the water, they know that there's a good chance the current government will have to legislate during their term in office, and FF are stating their "no legislation" policy now so that they can mop up the core conservative vote at the next election.

    The other non-conservative parties should be on the offensive against FF and trying to get FF's pro-choice voters to jump ship by painting them out as backwards conservatives.

    It's hardly a "no legislation policy" . . it was a one-off comment from the party leader saying that he wasn't convinced of the need to legislate. .

    I don't agree with him but I am simply pointing out that his position is entirely consistent with previous FF governments who didn't see the need to legislate so to describe his statement as opportunistic is somewhat unfair.


  • #15
    Manach
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators, Paid Member Posts: 9,864 Mod ✭✭✭✭Manach


    Having read the X-case myself,given the action for this seems to be spurred on from the ECHR of a 2010 case, there are no significant negative consequences at a political level for retaining the status quo.


  • #16
    28064212
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,130 ✭✭✭✭28064212


    Sierra Oscar wrote: »
    I fail to see how the state cannot legislate for it considering the outcome of the Supreme Court case.
    It was 20 years ago, and they haven't legislated yet. Not that hard to see them ignoring it yet again
    Manach wrote: »
    Having read the X-case myself,given the action for this seems to be spurred on from the ECHR of a 2010 case, there are no significant negative consequences at a political level for retaining the status quo.
    Except for the fact it makes a total mockery of the Constitution

    Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.

    Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/

    Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce



  • #17
    Dave!
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,856 ✭✭✭✭Dave!


    Didn't Fianna Fáil see fit to introduce a blasphemy law in the interest of constitutional consistency?


  • #18
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Manach wrote: »
    Having read the X-case myself,given the action for this seems to be spurred on from the ECHR of a 2010 case, there are no significant negative consequences at a political level for retaining the status quo.

    ...other than it ignoring the result of a constitutional referendum and a supreme court decision.


  • #19
    Boulevardier
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,383 ✭✭✭Boulevardier


    "... there are no significant negative consequences at a political level for retaining the status quo."

    Exactly. Hence my point about FF. That was the philosophy of FF governments to a T.

    That is still the way they think, but, added to that, there is the cute hoor thing about picking up the (still strong) pro-life vote while committing themselves to nothing.


  • #20
    nuac
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,767 ✭✭✭nuac


    FF should consider allowing a free vote.

    It would cut out a lot of discussion.

    I don't know how good teh average TD FF or otherwise is on theology and gynaecology - politicos strayed into those areas last time out


  • #21
    seamus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 68,173 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    nuac wrote: »
    FF should consider allowing a free vote.

    It would cut out a lot of discussion.
    Considering that a FG TD was on Matt Cooper last night making proclamations about "God's law" and "Natural law" superceding all other laws, my suspicions is that any FF or FG party member wouldn't dare vote in favour of it lest their constituents find out.

    An anonymous free vote would cover it, but even then I reckon they're just too scared ****less of their traditional vote to give it their approval. The party members will vote on what they think is best for the party, not what they think is best for the country.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    It must be remembered there are politicians who support the human rights of the unborn.
    There are politician who believe there is a right to choose if the unborn are killed.

    This is the issue and I believe it is more than simply pandering to certain voters, believe it or not politicians are people too and some will go with their own conscience rather than allow the unborn to be killed, for others their conscience tells the it is fine to allow the unborn to be killed.

    One would expect FG and FF being centre right parties to be on the side of the rights for the unborn.
    Labour and SF and socialists being on the left, would favour the right to choose and allow the unborn to be killed.

    There is nothing surprising here.

    I think the state is rather haunted by the girl whom they sent to England for an abortion after she had been raped and put in state care, she told the HSE she didn't want the baby. After the abortion, the girl asked to see her baby, not knowing an abortion killed the unborn, she simply wanted to give the baby away after it was born.


  • #23
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    It must be remembered there are politicians who support the human rights of the unborn.
    There are politician who believe there is a right to choose if the unborn are killed.

    This is the issue and I believe it is more than simply pandering to certain voters, believe it or not politicians are people too and some will go with their own conscience rather than allow the unborn to be killed, for others their conscience tells the it is fine to allow the unborn to be killed.

    One would expect FG and FF being centre right parties to be on the side of the rights for the unborn.
    Labour and SF and socialists being on the left, would favour the right to choose and allow the unborn to be killed.

    There is nothing surprising here..

    "pandering to certain voters"? You do realise that this is the result of two referenda and a supreme court decision?

    Secondly, the legislation being brought forward is for abortion in a very limited set of circumstances, where the life of the mother is endangered.
    Min wrote: »
    I think the state is rather haunted by the girl whom they sent to England for an abortion after she had been raped and put in state care, she told the HSE she didn't want the baby. After the abortion, the girl asked to see her baby, not knowing an abortion killed the unborn, she simply wanted to give the baby away after it was born.

    You've a source for that story...?


  • #24
    Shea O'Meara
    Closed Accounts Posts: 960 ✭✭✭Shea O'Meara


    Min wrote: »
    It must be remembered there are politicians who support the human rights of the unborn.
    There are politician who believe there is a right to choose if the unborn are killed.
    So could I counter with; "There are politicians who support human rights and those who believe there is a right to choose killing women and young girls for the sake of the unborn"? Both viewpoints are simplictic and nonsense.
    Min wrote: »
    This is the issue and I believe it is more than simply pandering to certain voters, believe it or not politicians are people too and some will go with their own conscience rather than allow the unborn to be killed, for others their conscience tells the it is fine to allow the unborn to be killed.
    So it's as simple as Kill babies or don't?
    Min wrote: »
    One would expect FG and FF being centre right parties to be on the side of the rights for the unborn.
    Labour and SF and socialists being on the left, would favour the right to choose and allow the unborn to be killed.

    There is nothing surprising here.

    To return to, (although not quite free yet) an Ireland governed by crooked inbred FFailers and child rapist, women eslaving catholics would really buck up the country in these uncertain times.
    Not saying all FFailers are crooks, nor all members of the catholic church into relations with children, but seeing as we're talking in broad strokes here...
    Min wrote: »
    I think the state is rather haunted by the girl whom they sent to England for an abortion after she had been raped and put in state care, she told the HSE she didn't want the baby. After the abortion, the girl asked to see her baby, not knowing an abortion killed the unborn, she simply wanted to give the baby away after it was born.

    This would be one of the wee horror stories young girls are told by way of sex education.
    That's the big problem with being closed minded. Young girls having abortions not knowing the full details prior to requesting one because conservative religious folk give simplictic one sided 'facts' and like to keep people plain and simple so they can more easily manipulate them, get them to vote for the churchiest party out there.


  • #25
    rightwingdub
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭rightwingdub


    I'm against abortion myself but I wouldn't Fianna Fail in a million years ever again as they presided over the economic destruction of Ireland. The conservative wing of FG need to stand up to Labour over abortion, also suprisingly there are a few Labour TDS who are opposed to abortion, Arthur Spring for one also as well Colm Keavney.


  • #26
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    rightwingdub wrote: »
    I'm against abortion myself but I wouldn't Fianna Fail in a million years ever again as they presided over the economic destruction of Ireland. The conservative wing of FG need to stand up to Labour over abortion, also suprisingly there are a few Labour TDS who are opposed to abortion, Arthur Spring for one also as well Colm Keavney.


    ...its not about Labour. There was a referendum 20 years ago and a supreme court decision following that. They're obligated to bring in a law for abortion in limited circumstances.


  • #27
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Nodin wrote: »
    "pandering to certain voters"? You do realise that this is the result of two referenda and a supreme court decision?

    Secondly, the legislation being brought forward is for abortion in a very limited set of circumstances, where the life of the mother is endangered.



    You've a source for that story...?


    No mother dies in Ireland as the doctors work to save both lives, and with no abortion we have lowest maternity deaths levels in the world.

    This is what the people who have no problem allowing the unborn to killed allowed to happen.
    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2009/0717/breaking35.html
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055624490
    It was on the Pat Kenny where I heard it, I was shocked listening to how she was taken to England as a 16 year old against the wishes or her parent and given an abortion.
    She said even years after the abortion, she is tramatised that her unborn baby was killed. It was very sad to listen to.

    I agree with the FG position.
    Harris reiterated Fine Gael’s general election commitment that pregnant women should receive whatever treatments are necessary to safeguard their lives – while upholding the duty of care to preserve the life of a baby.


  • #28
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Shea O'Meara wrote: »
    So could I counter with; "There are politicians who support human rights and those who believe there is a right to choose killing women and young girls for the sake of the unborn"? Both viewpoints are simplictic and nonsense.


    So it's as simple as Kill babies or don't?



    To return to, (although not quite free yet) an Ireland governed by crooked inbred FFailers and child rapist, women eslaving catholics would really buck up the country in these uncertain times.
    Not saying all FFailers are crooks, nor all members of the catholic church into relations with children, but seeing as we're talking in broad strokes here...



    This would be one of the wee horror stories young girls are told by way of sex education.
    That's the big problem with being closed minded. Young girls having abortions not knowing the full details prior to requesting one because conservative religious folk give simplictic one sided 'facts' and like to keep people plain and simple so they can more easily manipulate them, get them to vote for the churchiest party out there.

    Yes it is as simple as killing the unborn.

    The girl never wanted her unborn to be killed, never asked for an abortion, she simply told the HSE she didn't want to keep her baby and they put 2 and 2 together and got 5, when all she meant was she wanted to give her baby away for adoption, not kill it before it was born.


  • #29
    Min
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,550 ✭✭✭Min


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...its not about Labour. There was a referendum 20 years ago and a supreme court decision following that. They're obligated to bring in a law for abortion in limited circumstances.

    They are not obligated to bring in a law for abortion, they can have another referendum.


  • #30
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    No mother dies in Ireland as the doctors work to save both lives, and with no abortion we have lowest maternity deaths levels in the world..

    ...and because women travel abroad when nessecary.
    Min wrote: »
    This is what .............listen to.

    I agree with the FG position.

    The times article is archived, so I can't comment. Do you have another source?
    It would seem at the time it was her wish that the procedure be carried out.
    http://www.independent.ie/national-news/abortion-case-girl-treated-for-stress-460193.html

    FG can have whatever "position" they like. However the electorates decision and subsequent legal rulings mean that the government is obliged to bring in legislation.


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Min wrote: »
    They are not obligated to bring in a law for abortion, they can have another referendum.


    A fourth, you mean. Why do you think the results going to be any different this time?


Advertisement
Advertisement