Bishops set to lobby politicians in abortion campaign

Dave!

Bishops set to lobby politicians in abortion campaign

DEAGLÁN de BRÉADÚN, Political Correspondent

Mon, Aug 27, 2012

DÁIL DEPUTIES and Ministers will be lobbied by bishops and priests as part of a full-scale campaign of opposition if there is any attempt by the Government to legislate for abortion.

The Church’s position was confirmed by the Catholic Primate of All-Ireland, Cardinal Seán Brady, yesterday who suggested another referendum on abortion was possibly the only solution to deal with the controversial issue.

His comments drew a swift response from Minister for Communications Pat Rabbitte, who said it would be a retrograde step if the Catholic Church went back to dictating to elected representatives how to address the issue of abortion.

Previous referenda on the issue proved extremely divisive and involved often bitter clashes between Church and State figures.

The Government last year established an expert group, chaired by Mr Justice Seán Ryan of the High Court, to examine how best to implement the 2010 decision of the European Court of Human Rights that the State had violated the rights of a woman who had cancer who said she was forced to travel abroad to get an abortion, and to provide a legislative basis for the Supreme Court’s ruling in the X case.

A report from the expert group has not yet been delivered to Government but if it is seen to recommend legalising abortion, the Catholic Church has made clear a strong drive will be launched to persuade the Government not to take any such action.

As to the form this campaign would take, informed church sources told The Irish Times priests would be equipped with ample, high-quality “pro-life” material for preaching and personal contact with parishioners.

The church would also co-operate with lay organisations, including non-Catholic ones, in such a campaign. Church members, the source said, would be “encouraged to contact their local public representatives to say they do not want abortion in Ireland and pointing out that this country is recognised as the safest place in the world to have a child”.

Priests and laity would lobby public representatives with a view to “raising awareness among the political class with material consisting of reasoned argument and correct facts”. Bishops would also speak to politicians.

“Why not? They are citizens like you and I,” the well-placed source close to church thinking said.

A Fine Gael Government TD, speaking on condition of anonymity, claimed lobbying on the issue by priests and laity, as well as the bishop of the diocese, had already been taking place for about six months.

A number of Fine Gael TDs have already made clear they would also oppose abortion legislation.

When asked yesterday how the church would react if the Government decided to legalise the carrying out of abortions, Cardinal Brady told RTÉ’s This Week radio programme that the response would include a “media campaign” and “lobbying public representatives”.

Mr Rabbitte, on the same programme, said he would be “somewhat surprised at the cardinal’s reference to lobbying and engaging with, canvassing, public representatives and so on, on the matter.

“I don’t have any objection to any of the churches stating its position and making it clear, but I think it would be a retrogressive step if we were to go back to the days of the Catholic Church dictating to elected public representatives how [they] should address an issue,” he said.

Responding to the remarks, Dr John Murray of The Iona Institute said: “It is Minister Rabbitte’s comment that is actually retrograde. First of all, lobbying is not the same as dictating.

“Secondly, why should business organisations or farming organisations or trades unions be allowed to lobby politicians but the churches cannot do this?”

What do we think?

I have to say my initial reaction was in line with the boldened part. I'm sure that Pat Rabbitte isn't suggesting that the Church shouldn't be allowed to lobby, but nevertheless it's a bit ill-advised for a cabinet minister to single out one organisation and tell them to shut up. They're perfectly entitled to lobby politicians if they want. It's up to the politicians to have enough moral courage to make hard decisions regardless of what the Church says. If the politicians are too easily swayed by their Bishop, then we need better politicians.

This from an atheist with no time for the Church BTW...

Boulevardier

I can only say that Cardinal Brady, the paedophile's friend, has some neck in lobbying our elected government on anything.

Manach

I'd support the Bishops' right to get involved and express views via the political process, as per any stakeholder in this issue.

seamus

Well you can tell from reading between the lines what Rabbitte's concern is. He's not concerned that TDs will be lobbied, he's concerned that TDs will be "dictated" to. That is, that the more closed-minded of our Dail will allow their opinion to be decided by what the Catholic church tells them, rather than actually speaking to their own constituents and working in accordance with their wishes.

It is a little bit of a sideswipe at Rome, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Labour's commentary on the topic will revolve around encouraging people to make up their own minds rather than falling in line with the catholic church.

Laminations

seamus wrote: »

Well you can tell from reading between the lines what Rabbitte's concern is. He's not concerned that TDs will be lobbied, he's concerned that TDs will be "dictated" to. That is, that the more closed-minded of our Dail will allow their opinion to be decided by what the Catholic church tells them, rather than actually speaking to their own constituents and working in accordance with their wishes.

It is a little bit of a sideswipe at Rome, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of Labour's commentary on the topic will revolve around encouraging people to make up their own minds rather than falling in line with the catholic church.

I'd imagine part of people making up their own minds will be squaring it with their religion. I'm pro-choice but I find it bizarre that the minister is asking people to disregard their religious views on this subject. And what is 'your own mind'? Some secret mental sanctuary immune from external influence?

There IS a big difference between lobbying and dictating. What next from Rabitte? Telling Muslims to disregard their Imams direction on the issue?

seamus

Laminations wrote: »

I'd imagine part of people making up their own minds will be squaring it with their religion. I'm pro-choice but I find it bizarre that the minister is asking people to disregard their religious views on this subject. And what is 'your own mind'? Some secret mental sanctuary immune from external influence?

You're probably reading a bit too much into it - for a start Rabbitte never said anything about people making up their own mind, that was me
Yes, people will have to square their opinion with their religion, but I think in most quarters the phrase "making up your own mind" involves taking the facts and opinions from various sources and then coming to a conclusion as to what it is that you believe as an individual.

Not "making up your own mind" is where you ask your wife/husband/brother/imam/priest/cardinal/hairdresser what the correct answer is and then just follow their direction without considering whether they may or may not be correct.
Even if you conclude in the end that they are correct, at least you have considered the issue.

Irish politics still suffers a lot from the curse of people doing what they've been told to do, rather than thinking about it for themselves. Rabbitte is right - the church "dictating" policy is a retrograde step, belonging to the fifties. TDs should consider the church on the same level as any other lobby group and not give them any additional weight.

Laminations

seamus wrote: »

You're probably reading a bit too much into it - for a start Rabbitte never said anything about people making up their own mind, that was me
Yes, people will have to square their opinion with their religion, but I think in most quarters the phrase "making up your own mind" involves taking the facts and opinions from various sources and then coming to a conclusion as to what it is that you believe as an individual.

Not "making up your own mind" is where you ask your wife/husband/brother/imam/priest/cardinal/hairdresser what the correct answer is and then just follow their direction without considering whether they may or may not be correct.
Even if you conclude in the end that they are correct, at least you have considered the issue.

Sorry seamus, my reply was directed at you as well as at Rabbites comments. The thing with religion is, it is supposedly the word of God for those who believe, so unless Rabbite is asking people to question their faith, your point on people considering whether a view is correct isn't really applicable to religion.

Boulevardier

Lets not forget that in the 1950s, the Hierarchy never admitted they were dictating poliitcal matters. What was supposedly happening was that Catholics were being led in "matters of faith and morals." The reality of course was that as soon as the Bishops spoke, Catholics felt obliged to accept what they were told, and the politicians immediately caved in.

That is the reality of what "direction" from the clergy is like. It turned us into a theocracy in the 1950s. We should not let that happen again.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

I'd imagine part of people making up their own minds will be squaring it with their religion. I'm pro-choice but I find it bizarre that the minister is asking people to disregard their religious views on this subject. And what is 'your own mind'? Some secret mental sanctuary immune from external influence?
........

Presumably legislators would be expected to do so, as the twice voted on amendment on abortion allows for it in limited circumstances. Thus the dail/government is obligated to pass law on the matter.

Benny_Cake

There entitled to make their views known as is any other organisation or citizen. I'd love to know what the thought process was though when they decided that Sean Brady was the man for the job - he has zero credibility and is completely compromised. Someone like Diarmuid Martin would have been a better choice, they really know how to shoot themselves in the foot...

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

Presumably legislators would be expected to do so, as the twice voted on amendment on abortion allows for it in limited circumstances. Thus the dail/government is obligated to pass law on the matter.

I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws on this matter. And I do think a states laws should supersede religious doctrine (e.g. allowing same-sex marriage, outlawing female genital mutilation, and IMO allowing abortion in particular cases). My point is that expecting people (even TD's) to make up their own mind while denying that for some (or many) a part of their own mind will be their religious beliefs, is a silly position. You cannot tell people to ignore their religion while considering what most consider a moral issue, and by extension, you can't tell leaders of a religion to refrain from comment.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Min

I believe everyone has a right to lobby, it is the essence of freedom, it shouldn't be based on whether he agrees or disagrees with the position of whoever is doing the lobbying.

We supposedly live in a republic and to exclude the voice of anyone or group from the public representatives of this country would be a bad move.

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

I'm not saying there shouldn't be laws on this matter. And I do think a states laws should supersede religious doctrine (e.g. allowing same-sex marriage, outlawing female genital mutilation, and IMO allowing abortion in particular cases). My point is that expecting people (even TD's) to make up their own mind while denying that for some (or many) a part of their own mind will be their religious beliefs, is a silly position. You cannot tell people to ignore their religion while considering what most consider a moral issue, and by extension, you can't tell leaders of a religion to refrain from comment.

The fact of the matter is that the electorate via the referenda have decided on the issue, and certain members of the Government may have religous objections to the fact. As a result, they're obligated to enact the will of the people, perhaps over the dictates of their personal religous belief. While it would be fair enough for them to resign, blocking the process would strike me as an abuse of their position.1

Silvio.Dante

Poor old Pat.

He never did get his Communist Utopia did he? Where he could have sent every Priest, Bishop and Cardinal off to a Ghulag for re-education...:D

Silvio.Dante

In all seriouness though, Ireland in one of the last bastions of saftey for unborn babies and we (Religous and non-religous) Irish People must do all that we can to continue this proud and noble fact...

Nodin

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

In all seriouness though, Ireland in one of the last bastions of saftey for unborn babies and we (Religous and non-religous) Irish People must must do all that we can to continue this proud and noble fact...

...no idea what that has to do with anything. Abortion here is only to be provided for in very limited circumstances.

Silvio.Dante

Nodin wrote: »

...no idea what that has to do with anything. Abortion here is only to be provided for in very limited circumstances.

One abortion is too many...

seamus

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

One abortion is too many...

I see you've clearly researched this topic in-depth and understand all of the circumstances under which an abortion may be sought.

You're in favour of forcing women to carry a dead foetus to term so?

Nodin

Nodin wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that the electorate via the referenda have decided on the issue, and certain members of the Government may have religous objections to the fact. As a result, they're obligated to enact the will of the people, perhaps over the dictates of their personal religous belief. While it would be fair enough for them to resign, blocking the process would strike me as an abuse of their position.1

Exactly! We don't need the Catholic Church with all of their bizarre beliefs blocking the legitimate will of the people in Ireland, 2012.

Laminations

Nodin wrote: »

The fact of the matter is that the electorate via the referenda have decided on the issue, and certain members of the Government may have religous objections to the fact. As a result, they're obligated to enact the will of the people, perhaps over the dictates of their personal religous belief. While it would be fair enough for them to resign, blocking the process would strike me as an abuse of their position.1

Is this legislation not (terribly overdue as it is) off the back of a Supreme Court ruling and not a referendum? Isn't that the point Brady was making, that it should go to a referendum? Not that I agree with him, I'm happy to accept the interpretation of the Supreme Court. Of course I think that politicians should abide by the will of the people despite their internal beliefs....but they must have the luxury of having reservations and the space to air those reservations - otherwise they only represent the populist majority. Saying 'they're obligated to enact the will of the people, perhaps over the dictates of their personal religious belief.' would mean that politicians would have little room to object personally if the majority of the country held some backward notion on some issue, which the Irish electorate have done and still do on many things.

Silvio.Dante

seamus wrote: »

You're in favour of forcing women to carry a dead foetus to term so?

No. The removal of an already dead unborn is not an attack on life...

eyescreamcone

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

In all seriouness though, Ireland in one of the last bastions of saftey for unborn babies and we (Religous and non-religous) Irish People must do all that we can to continue this proud and noble fact...

Bollox!
Let the government bring in laws that reflect the Supreme Court judgement.
And anyone that disagrees with it can arrange a protest mass (or a march whichever suits)

28064212

Laminations wrote: »

Is this legislation not (terribly overdue as it is) off the back of a Supreme Court ruling and not a referendum? Isn't that the point Brady was making, that it should go to a referendum?

It's off the back of both:

• In 1983, the constitution was changed by the 8th referendum to protect the rights of the unborn and its mother
• In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the 8th referendum meant a woman had a right to abortion in certain circumstances
• Later in 1992, there was a referendum to remove the right to an abortion. It was defeated. This is when the legislation should have been implemented. It wasn't
• In 2002, there was another referendum to remove the right to an abortion. It was defeated. Again, legislation was required. Again, it was ignored

When people go on about "what the people of Ireland want" in regard to abortion, it's worth noting that, since the SC ruling, there have been 4 referendums on abortion issues. The pro-life side have been defeated in all 4

28064212

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

No. The removal of an already dead unborn is not an attack on life...

And if they're just brain-dead? Say, in cases of anencephaly?

What about a case where a pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer and needs chemotherapy straight away, even though the chemotherapy will kill the baby?

How about a case where a fourteen year old girl had been raped by a neighbour and became pregnant, and told her mother of suicidal thoughts because of the unwanted pregnancy? You know, the case where the Supreme Court and, not one, but two subsequent referendums decided she should have the right to an abortion?

I would like to remind everyone that this thread is about the right to lobby and the actual lobbying of politicians. This is NOT an abortion thread.
Further nonsense one liners and discussion of abortion will be treated as derailing

poeticseraphim

I am saying they should not be allowed to lobby.

The Catholic church is discouraged from getting involved in politics elsewhere.

Everyone should have the right to lobby...except if it endangers a strong separation of church and state.

When you look at what is happening in the states it is frightening how religion drives politics.

The catholic church controls too much regarding eduction already.

Their input is no longer welcome in Ireland as i am concerned. They have done enough damage with their fairy tales and scams.

Laminations

28064212 wrote: »

It's off the back of both:

• In 1983, the constitution was changed by the 8th referendum to protect the rights of the unborn and its mother
• In 1992, the Supreme Court ruled that the wording of the 8th referendum meant a woman had a right to abortion in certain circumstances
• Later in 1992, there was a referendum to remove the right to an abortion. It was defeated. This is when the legislation should have been implemented. It wasn't
• In 2002, there was another referendum to remove the right to an abortion. It was defeated. Again, legislation was required. Again, it was ignored

When people go on about "what the people of Ireland want" in regard to abortion, it's worth noting that, since the SC ruling, there have been 4 referendums on abortion issues. The pro-life side have been defeated in all 4

Well in this case, let the church lobby but the legislators have an obligation to uphold the Supreme Court ruling and the will of the people (as evidenced in the referendum outcomes), an obligation they have quite obviously been shirking.

Silvio.Dante

28064212 wrote: »

And if they're just brain-dead? Say, in cases of anencephaly?

What about a case where a pregnant woman is diagnosed with cancer and needs chemotherapy straight away, even though the chemotherapy will kill the baby?

How about a case where a fourteen year old girl had been raped by a neighbour and became pregnant, and told her mother of suicidal thoughts because of the unwanted pregnancy? You know, the case where the Supreme Court and, not one, but two subsequent referendums decided she should have the right to an abortion?

I would happily discuss the immorality of killing the unborn in any or all of those intances but we've been warned already so i'll nt go into it any more in this particular thread.

Of course the Church should and will, vigourously, lobby and campaign against any form of introduction of abortion.

Pat Rabbitte had better get used to the idea...

28064212

I'm happy to let the church lobby away as best they can. When you have people like this coming out and saying "you can't be Catholic and open to abortion", it might encourage people to actually look at whether they are Catholic, which can only be a good thing

Nodin

Laminations wrote: »

Is this legislation not (terribly overdue as it is) off the back of a Supreme Court ruling and not a referendum? Isn't that the point Brady was making, that it should go to a referendum?.

It's gone to a referendum twice. Three times if you count the 2002 one over threat of suicide as a legitimate reason. It's disengenous of Brady to suggest that another referendum is needed, given that the electorate decided to allow the latter to remain as cause for abortion.

Laminations wrote: »

Not that I agree with him, I'm happy to accept the interpretation of the Supreme Court. Of course I think that politicians should abide by the will of the people despite their internal beliefs....but they must have the luxury of having reservations and the space to air those reservations - otherwise they only represent the populist majority. Saying 'they're obligated to enact the will of the people, perhaps over the dictates of their personal religious belief.' would mean that politicians would have little room to object personally if the majority of the country held some backward notion on some issue, which the Irish electorate have done and still do on many things.

They can "air" reservations all they want. It's the notion regarding blocking of legislation wherein the problem lies. Theres never been much effort to protect minorities in the past in this country, so its a bit rich for any such defence to enter the question now.

And I might add that as only a minority will ever have an abortion, and that as there's no plan to make them mandatory, passing the legislation is in the minority interest.

aloyisious

Irish persons in Churches and religious orders have the right to join (as Irish Citizens) in any debate about abortion here the same as any other Irish citizen. What I can't accept is a claim that, due to their positions, they have a better or more moral understanding about abortion than other Irish citizens, and seek to instruct us on it.

Using the pulpit or altar to make such speeches is NOT debating the issue, it's using a privileged position to propagate a fixed position, saying that what a pregnant Irish woman believe's she want's and needs is irrelevant. If a churchman want's to use his civil right to debate the issue, he should do so in a public venue on a level field not wearing church gowns.

I read today in the Irish Examiner that David Quinn, director of the Iona Institute, has said that it is not realistic to expect a new referendum on abortion. Mr Quinn said: "Are we going to have a repeat of 2002? It is extremely unlikely. What he (Cardinal Brady) is saying is, from his own point of view, logically correct. I mean the only way to properly rescind the 'X Case' decision is by having a referendum. "The alternative is to some way legislate for the 'X Case' which would be enormously controversial, but it is also controversial not to do it, and then the third alternative is to continue the present limbo."

To me, that sound's like David is either saying that the Cardinal is wrong, that there is NOT going to be a referendum (so Cardinal Brady has nothing to worry about) or David is being disingenuous and trying to bluff us into believing that we here in Ireland won't have to meet and make any decision on a change to our constitution and a right to abortion, outside court decisions.

When he uses the term "controversial" it sound's like he's trying to scare the politicians into doing nothing and leave it all to a select few in the courts to make decisions that we can make for ourselves in a referendum. David's use of the words "Are we going to have a repeat of 2002? It is extremely unlikely" can also be read to mean that he might fear the 2002 vote would result in a massive loss to the Pro-life Anti-abortion side.

Min

28064212 wrote: »

I'm happy to let the church lobby away as best they can. When you have people like this coming out and saying "you can't be Catholic and open to abortion", it might encourage people to actually look at whether they are Catholic, which can only be a good thing

It is true, and it would be no harm to lobby politicians who say they are Catholic but who may not be in their public life. If you are one thing privately and another publicly well then you are being two faced.
I think this is what worries Pat Rabbitte, it might not be such a big issue in his party, but I bet he was thinking of his Fine Gael partners who don't have a former communist element in their party and whom seem more in tune with expressing their personal beliefs, rather than being Jekyll and Hyde characters.

Pat Rabbitte is simply worried that Fine Gael TDs and Senators where most are Catholic, that they are lobbied and reminded about the right to life of the unborn and their duties to protect life.
Pat would like the church censored and silenced on the issue when it comes to the people whom represent us rather than the freedom to lobby which is a right for any side in this debate.

Though going on stuff in the media in the last while, it does appear there are people in FG who won't need any lobbying when it comes to opposing abortion.
I think it would be a bad political move by FG if they play a part in the legalisation of any abortion, and I think they know this already, without any lobbying.

Min

aloyisious wrote: »

Irish persons in Churches and religious orders have the right to join (as Irish Citizens) in any debate about abortion here the same as any other Irish citizen. What I can't accept is a claim that, due to their positions, they have a better or more moral understanding about abortion than other Irish citizens, and seek to instruct us on it.

Using the pulpit or altar to make such speeches is NOT debating the issue, it's using a privileged position to propagate a fixed position, saying that what a pregnant Irish woman believe's she want's and needs is irrelevant. If a churchman want's to use his civil right to debate the issue, he should do so in a public venue on a level field not wearing church gowns.

I read today in the Irish Examiner that David Quinn, director of the Iona Institute, has said that it is not realistic to expect a new referendum on abortion. Mr Quinn said: "Are we going to have a repeat of 2002? It is extremely unlikely. What he (Cardinal Brady) is saying is, from his own point of view, logically correct. I mean the only way to properly rescind the 'X Case' decision is by having a referendum. "The alternative is to some way legislate for the 'X Case' which would be enormously controversial, but it is also controversial not to do it, and then the third alternative is to continue the present limbo."

To me, that sound's like David is either saying that the Cardinal is wrong, that there is NOT going to be a referendum (so Cardinal Brady has nothing to worry about) or David is being disingenuous and trying to bluff us into believing that we here in Ireland won't have to meet and make any decision on a change to our constitution and a right to abortion, outside court decisions.

When he uses the term "controversial" it sound's like he's trying to scare the politicians into doing nothing and leave it all to a select few in the courts to make decisions that we can make for ourselves in a referendum. David's use of the words "Are we going to have a repeat of 2002? It is extremely unlikely" can also be read to mean that he might fear the 2002 vote would result in a massive loss to the Pro-life Anti-abortion side.

It is highly controversial, FG will not need any lobbying to show how controversial this is going to be, FG and FF would be the two parties with most pro-life voters.

Nodin

Min wrote: »

..............
I think it would be a bad political move by FG if they play a part in the legalisation of any abortion, and I think they know this already, without any lobbying.

Considering that the public support abortion in limited circumstances and that has been ruled on by the supreme court, they've no choice in the matter, other than resign. The duty of the elected represenatives is not to subvert the expressed will of the people in order to satisfy some imagined religous obligation, regardless of what nonsense Brady and co might think.

Einhard

I think Pat Rabbitte is being quite hypocritical in this issue. I'm sure he has no problem with the Labour Trades Union lobbying politicians in an organised manner, so why on earth should that right not also be afforded to the Church? Either prohibit lobbying of all kinds, or allow it to all. To do otherwise is merely discrimination based on personal biases.

Dave!

I'm surprised that James Reilly was so committal on the subject, saying that 6 previous governments have failed to legislate for the X case, and that this won't be the 7th. Another reason Enda wants a trapdoor to open beneath JR!

Laminations

I totally agree with Nodin. I had thought it was at an earlier stage of deliberation but given the court ruling and subsequent referenda, talking is over, it is beyond time for action. Let them lobby, but at this stage it should be a mechanical duty of the Dail to legislate, and not an action that requires debate.

Nodin

Dave! wrote: »

I'm surprised that James Reilly was so committal on the subject, saying that 6 previous governments have failed to legislate for the X case, and that this won't be the 7th. Another reason Enda wants a trapdoor to open beneath JR!

Given that the European court has now ruled on it, failure to legislate presumably means they're open to legal action with the attendant costs and risk of financial penalty, which is the kind of thing that focuses the mind.

And of course theres the risk labour will walk on them.

Einhard

To be honest, I'm pretty confused as to the reasons given for procrastination on the issue. Surely the politically Catholic constituency isn't so large in this country that any of the parties could expect a serious backlash in the polls? Is it the private beliefs of TDs then that is causing all the delay?

Nodin

Einhard wrote: »

To be honest, I'm pretty confused as to the reasons given for procrastination on the issue. Surely the politically Catholic constituency isn't so large in this country that any of the parties could expect a serious backlash in the polls? Is it the private beliefs of TDs then that is causing all the delay?

....it might have been. Certainly Bertie Ahern was (by many accounts) somewhat cowed by the church, allegedly to do with a certain amount of guilt over his personal arrangements. He would hardly be the one, therefore, to push the matter. And of course there'd be objections amongst some of the rank and file. Given the choice between strife and putting it on the long finger, the latter route was taken.

FG were and are always far more socially conservative than is often perceived to be the case, due I suppose to the era of "Garret the Good" and the divorce referendum, though that being said, I was suprised that some of the more conservative voices have been from the younger TD's of the party.

Min

I think most of the lobbying will by voters, a poll last year showed a majority were in favour of protection for the unborn. It was done by "Milward Brown Lansdowne on behalf of the Pro Life Campaign, asked 984 adults: “Are you in favour or opposed to constitutional protection for the unborn that prohibits abortion but allows the continuation of the existing practice of intervention to save a mother’s life, in accordance with Irish medical ethics?"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1118/1224307766628.html

The thing is this is not a cut and dry issue, Labour will be lobbied hard by people who want abortion in this country, FG will be targeted more by people who don't want it.

In the Dáil, the ULA, Sinn Fein and Labour would vote for abortion to be allowed along with some independents and some in FG who want power, a bit like Enda Kenny's speech in the Dáil last year to show his committment to Gilmore.
Throw in all those who will be lobbying and it is a very interesting time ahead whether one is for or against abortion.

Silvio.Dante

There are also many non-Catholics who are abhorred by abortion.

This is a human rights issue. All pro-life people should strongly lobby their politicians to make their feeling clear as crystal...

seamus

Einhard wrote: »

Surely the politically Catholic constituency isn't so large in this country that any of the parties could expect a serious backlash in the polls? Is it the private beliefs of TDs then that is causing all the delay?

FG & FF's bread-and-butter comes from the older generations, still rather conservative and ideologically catholic if not strictly so. Upsetting them can lose someone the next election.

The abortion debate is kind of a hard one because the pro-life side will tend to be more likely to shun anyone who's not pro-life (regardless of their other policies), whereas the pro-choice side is less staunch and will still vote for a politician who is pro-life, provided that they're otherwise sound people.

From the political point of view, being pro-life is safer because it will retain more votes, regardless of the politician's actual views.

However, there's not really a debate here. Abortion must be legislated for in certain circumstances because the ECHR says so. There's a sword which someone needs to leap on, and I suspect Enda is hoping that Labour will do most of the legwork here and FG will pretend that they're being dragged helplessly along.

Actor

Be very careful with some of the commentary.

Cardinal Brady has not been charged with any crime.

Godge

Min wrote: »

I think most of the lobbying will by voters, a poll last year showed a majority were in favour of protection for the unborn. It was done by "Milward Brown Lansdowne on behalf of the Pro Life Campaign, asked 984 adults: “Are you in favour or opposed to constitutional protection for the unborn that prohibits abortion but allows the continuation of the existing practice of intervention to save a mother’s life, in accordance with Irish medical ethics?"

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/1118/1224307766628.html

The thing is this is not a cut and dry issue, Labour will be lobbied hard by people who want abortion in this country, FG will be targeted more by people who don't want it.

In the Dáil, the ULA, Sinn Fein and Labour would vote for abortion to be allowed along with some independents and some in FG who want power, a bit like Enda Kenny's speech in the Dáil last year to show his committment to Gilmore.
Throw in all those who will be lobbying and it is a very interesting time ahead whether one is for or against abortion.

If I read that poll correctly, it is suggesting that there is a majority in favour of legislating for the current constitutional provision.

It was not a poll about changing the constitution or not.

The "no" vote in that poll would constitute an "unholy" alliance of those who want abortion on demand and those who oppose abortion even in the case of "X".

RichardAnd

Abortion is one hell of a mine field. There are huge moral arguments for and against it and it really, really riles people up one way or another. Generally, I don't think the "abortions on demand" approach is ethical but equally, the opposite is just as bad. A middle ground wherein abortions could be offered in exceptional cases such as pregnancies arising from rape or where there is a significant threat to the life of the mother would seem the most reasonable path between the two extremes. Of course, when it comes to extremes, the middle way only serves to piss them both off . . .

Anyway, it's my opinion that the Church has every right to lobby the government, regardless. I don't agree with them on alot of things but that's not what matters. They have an opinion and they should have the chance to express it.

Lantus

I've never understood the religous interest in abortion. During the great flood god would of murdered a great many pregnant women so to then say we shouldn't do it because God wouldn't like it is a startling contradiction they gloss over.

Also, why only abortion? During times of war pregnant women, children, men and all people get indscriminantly killed. If they were really pro life they should campaign against all useless deaths, why only focus on abortion? I'm sure that the 10,000 innocent civilians during the Iraq conflict whose lives were terminated against their wills would like to have a say.

Th religous mind lacks a rational and scientific approach to the world and so while they should betolerated they should not be allowed to make any decisions in society. In time with education and help we can help outgrow many of the myths and superstitions that society has built around it.

Min

Lantus wrote: »

I've never understood the religous interest in abortion. During the great flood god would of murdered a great many pregnant women so to then say we shouldn't do it because God wouldn't like it is a startling contradiction they gloss over.

Also, why only abortion? During times of war pregnant women, children, men and all people get indscriminantly killed. If they were really pro life they should campaign against all useless deaths, why only focus on abortion? I'm sure that the 10,000 innocent civilians during the Iraq conflict whose lives were terminated against their wills would like to have a say.

Th religous mind lacks a rational and scientific approach to the world and so while they should betolerated they should not be allowed to make any decisions in society. In time with education and help we can help outgrow many of the myths and superstitions that society has built around it.

This is going off topic in a way.

But from a religious perspective it is God the creator of life who is also the God who calls people from this life.
President Bush visited the Vatican before the invasion of Iraq and was told that it was wrong to invade Iraq, they were vehemently against the war.
A couple of weeks before the invasion the Pope told Bush this: "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified. The Pope also questioned the President's statements invoking God's name as justification for the invasion.
"God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said. "Man cannot march into war and assume God will be at his side."
http://archive.truthout.org/article/pope-bush-go-iraq-and-you-go-without-god


One could argue Bush went to lobby the Pope for support over Iraq but didn't get it.


People with religious minds have been at the forefront of science and advancement of science for the betterment of humanity.

Some have the view that people with a religious conviction shouldn't lobby because they have nothing to offer or are against science which is not the case.

Silvio.Dante

Min wrote: »

This is going off topic in a way.

But from a religious perspective it is God the creator of life who is also the God who calls people from this life.
President Bush visited the Vatican before the invasion of Iraq and was told that it was wrong to invade Iraq, they were vehemently against the war.
A couple of weeks before the invasion the Pope told Bush this: "defeat for humanity" and would be neither morally nor legally justified. The Pope also questioned the President's statements invoking God's name as justification for the invasion.
"God is a neutral observer in the affairs of man," the Pope said. "Man cannot march into war and assume God will be at his side."
http://archive.truthout.org/article/pope-bush-go-iraq-and-you-go-without-god


One could argue Bush went to lobby the Pope for support over Iraq but didn't get it.


People with religious minds have been at the forefront of science and advancement of science for the betterment of humanity.

Some have the view that people with a religious conviction shouldn't lobby because they have nothing to offer or are against science which is not the case.

Great post Min...:)

getz

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Great post Min...:)

is not the biggest reason for catholic unwanted pregnancies in ireland, the catholic church stance on birth control,some one tell them to get their own act together,