I find it hard to sympathise with people who find their vote for abortion didn’t work out as they expected. “Safe, legal, and rare” was always nonsense. Bill Clinton invented the term in 1992 to imply that he was pro-choice but not pro-abortion. Hillary repeated it in her own campaign. But even she only said she wanted abortion to be “safe, legal and rare”. It takes idiots and liars like Varadkar and Harris to baldly state that this would be the case. How could they possibly know?
The message is aimed at a public who generally instinctively recoil from the idea that anyone would want more abortion. But if the history of abortion advocacy tells us anything it is that those behind the campaigns never, ever reveal their true aims. These are, after all, the people who barefacedly lied that Savita Halappanavar died because of the lack of abortion. The idea that abortion should be rare stigmatises those women who choose it, according to them. The phrase that Varadkar and Harris were parroting is already passé. Democrats in the US have moved beyond it to just “safe and legal”.
The genie is out of the bottle for Ireland. The poster who told me abortion rates would go down after legalisation also claimed we were culturally different from the UK and therefore would not match their rates. I don’t believe it for a moment, but can only hope it is true. Otherwise we are heading for the UK rate of 24% of all pregnancies aborted. That would equate to 16,000 abortions in Ireland, a 150% increase over last years number. But I find little reason to suppose that the first year after legalisation is anywhere close to the eventual rate. The UK had sharp increases for three years after legalisation, followed by a steady upward trend for the next three decades.
I remember that there had been a poll conducted around the time of the Referendum which suggested that the majority were in favour of liberalisation but not to the extent of what was on offer. As the choice on offer was a binary one, those in favour of some liberalisation were then forced to go the whole way ie there is still hope in cultural term (IMO
I know you disagree but I would still maintain that the No side were their own worst enemies ie an agreement to cede ground in the case of certain ‘hard cases’ could have avoided the current human rights catastrophe.
The conservative bloc in Ireland needs to come into the 21st century and engage along the same lines as their opponents.
To quote Tom Barry, “They had gone down in the mire to destroy us and our nation and down after them we had to go”
How do you figure that? It wasn’t a negotiation. The department of health drew up guidelines for legislation before the referendum, which included abortion without restriction up to twelve weeks. That’s what everyone knew they were voting for.
In any case, why are you calling it a human rights catastrophe? There is no right to life of the unborn in the constitution anymore. Do you mean you think there is an innate right to life regardless of the constitution? Then why do you maintain than the No side should have voted to overturn it “a little bit”? It’s like saying if we had only let Hitler gas a few people he might have spared the rest.
Ideally if there was a ‘good Soros’ or ‘good Chuck Feeney’ he would have funded a divide & conquer strategy on the Yes side. And gotten clear water between the rape incest Yes voters and rest.
IIRC the Pro Life crowd actually campaigned AGAINST
I remember them “winning” and being in the same room as Ivana Bacik cheering in happiness.
I think we’ve been through this before.
My position remains that Im in favour of abortion under certain limited circumstamces on the basis that I simply see it as the lesser evil, as I said, in some rare circumstances…as well as being the more viable position in political terms for those of us who oppose the slide toward unrestricted access to same…or indeed what we have now.
I accept that there exists some philosophical contradictions contained within such a stance. But the likelihood is that a lot less than 6,666 unborn children would have been exterminated last year if such a stance had been adopted prior to the Repeal movement getting fully into its stride. As Ive said the lesser of two evils.
It seems to me that your actual point is that you weren’t on the No side, but you still blame them for not voting the way you would have. That’s not really coherent. I understand your point of view, but disagree with it. For a start, I think you are deluded that an earlier small capitulation would have plugged the dike. You think abortion advocates would have just thrown in the towel? If so, I think you have not studied the history of abortion advocacy. And from a moral point of view I don’t agree that accepting the lesser of two evils legitimises actually voting for it. And here I will quote from a certain document, not because I think it will carry any moral weight with anyone else, but just to outline where I’m coming from:
As far as the right to life is concerned, every innocent human being is absolutely equal to all others. This equality is the basis of all authentic social relationships which, to be truly such, can only be founded on truth and justice, recognizing and protecting every man and woman as a person and not as an object to be used. Before the moral norm which prohibits the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being “there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the ‘poorest of the poor’ on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal”
Now the first and most immediate application of this teaching concerns a human law which disregards the fundamental right and source of all other rights which is the right to life, a right belonging to every individual. Consequently, laws which legitimize the direct killing of innocent human beings through abortion or euthanasia are in complete opposition to the inviolable right to life proper to every individual; they thus deny the equality of everyone before the law. … Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. … In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to “take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it”.
(Evangelium Vitae, 1995, # 58,72, 73).
I agree with your position…
But the opponents of this position will say that these notions of morality are mere cultural constructs.
What’s morally unacceptable in one culture might be perfectly acceptable in another.
eg ancient Sparta
[As well as the natural law argument for the protection of life, I would also be of the opinion that humans playing God have a very high chance (almost certain) of making a major cock up without actually realizing it.]
Having reread the first few books of the Bible over lockdown, and repeatedly seen how God instructed the Israelites to kill every man woman & child of their enemies it’s difficult to argue that the product of rape is somehow sacred. Given that Exodus instructed that Rapists and sometimes victims should be killed, it’s hard to argue that had the capability existed fetuses would be sacred.
I wish this was sarcasm, you posit that ‘abortionists’ exist widely as a grouping that are ideologically driven to exterminate all fetuses?
Because no middle ground was to be found.
The no side ‘giving ground’ in the case of FFA, incest, rape would have taken a lot of middle ground from the referendum and it might never have happened if they did. Doctrine however absolute or righteous from your perspective has been shattered by medical realities, since you reference WWII, were RAF pilots dropping bombs on Germany committing murder?
There are no absolutes, abortion as murder is a subjective truth.
In a nutshell
All “unwanted” fetuses. Hitler only killed unwanted people too.
It follows that all murder is a subjective truth. So we should stop giving Hitler a hard time.
I would posit that there is a proportion, albeit small, of the ‘pro-choice’ lobby that are would opt for that.
Look at the ‘Green’ movement - wanting less births, increased contraception and abortion.
They are a death cult and they dont realise it.
- because the ecological probelms are caused by consumption, not population and
- because the simplest way to implement the solutions they espouse is for they themselves to commit suicide. It cant be long until we see our first green ‘inspired’ mass suicide.
Fringe lunatics exist in all walks, like the people who would be happier if the contraceptive pill didn’t exist and condoms were illegal or that all marriages were arranged and all adult women wore a burqa.
The Greens are dangerous though, they would have us milling gluten free flour by hand.
Not the first “comedy” to run with this as the basic premise.
The ould people were fierce smart, werent they?
The stories they told werent legends, they were prophecies of Irelands future,.
Cuchulain was Cú Na Cullain - the Hound of Collon - Collins.
The Children of Lír shows the future of Ireland.
The old song shows why and how Ireland dies…