Join Our Community!
Share
Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum > Abortion Issue & British Election (Page 1)
Avatar
Q: Abortion Issue & British Election
asked by: Izzy on March 18th, 2005
Active User, very eHealthy
V.O.T.E. Conservitive - .V.O.T.E. Pro. Life

cardinal tells catholics to reject labour over abortion
by ruth gledhill, religion correspondent and david charter, chief political correspondent



the roman catholic church made a dramatic entry into the election campaign yesterday by backing michael howard’s stance on abortion and withdrawing its traditional support for labour.
Cardinal cormac murphy-o’connor ensured that abortion would play a greater part in the coming election than any other by praising the tory leader’s call for a cut in the legal abortion limit from 24 to 20 weeks.



The archbishop of westminster went on to admit that labour was no longer the natural party of choice for the uk’s six million catholics.

His views could be particularly significant in marginal constituencies with large catholic populations such as the west midlands, the north west and parts of london.

Cardinal murphy-o’connor spoke out after the three main party leaders gave their personal views on abortion — traditionally a matter for conscience rather than party policy — to cosmopolitan magazine.

Mr howard’s commitment to find parliamentary time for a debate on cutting the legal time limit contrasted with mr blair’s view that there was no pressing need for a change. The prime minister made clear that there would be no change under labour, arguing that women would be “criminalised”.

The cardinal said: “i am very pleased that this has been brought out on to the public agenda and that there is going to be a debate about it, both in the lead-up to and after the next election. It is a key issue. The position is that we are totally opposed to abortion.”

praising mr howard’s commitment to reducing the time limit, he said: “this is something we can commend on the way to a full abandonment of abortion.”

the cardinal’s words will come as a personal blow to the prime minister who regularly attends catholic services and whose wife, cherie, is a practising member of the church.

He spoke out as the catholic bishops of england and wales issued their general election letter advising their flock on how to cast their vote.

The issues included marriage and the family, criminal justice, education, the global common good and immigration. Asked which were his priorities, he put respect for life first.

Cardinal murphy-o’connor said that the renewed emphasis on anti-abortion could mean a break from the church’s traditionally perceived backing for the labour party. “as bishops, we are not going to suggest people support one particular party,” he said. Ultimately, the catholic bishops are not being party political. A catholic would not be expected to vote for a conservative with liberal views on abortion.

“there has been a notion in the past that catholics would be more in support of the labour party because they were working-class people who felt that the labour party stood for many of their needs. I’m not so sure that would be quite as true today.”

the bishops’ support for crucial elements of conservative policy confirms the eruption of us-style politics of abortion into the centre stage in the uk election.

The us catholic lobby cost john kerry, the democrat candidate, himself a catholic, thousands of votes from his country’s 50 million catholics.

Although mr kerry argued that the us should do more for the poor and the environment, two traditional planks of catholic policy, his support for abortion counterbalanced this.

Tory high command believes that the cardinal’s inter- vention will help one of its election themes — portraying mr howard as a man of principle against tony blair as a “man of tactics”.

Liam fox, the tory co-chairman, admitted that it would be hard to find a constituency that could swing on the catholic vote, but said that people at least knew where michael howard stood. “tony blair as ever puts tactics before principle — that is why he has lost so much trust in this country.”

peter kilfoyle, a catholic labour mp for liverpool walton, a strongly catholic area, dismissed the idea that these voters would suddenly switch. He said: “there is a strong pro-life group of labour mps just as there are high catholics on the tory benches. Catholics will have exactly the same concerns as everyone else.”

but geraldine smith, labour mp for morecombe and lunesdale, said that she welcomed mr howard’s decision. Ms smith, who has put down a commons motion calling for the abortion limit to be cut from 24 to 18 weeks, said: “i think people look at a whole range of issues and labour has a lot of policies that catholics welcome such as international development.

“in one respect michael howard is in touch with public opinion on this one but I do not think it is a party issue, it is one that goes beyond party boundaries.”

cardinal murphy-o’connor reiterated the church’s rejection of cloning of human embryos and euthanasia, giving warning that efforts may be made in the next parliament to legalise “mercy killing”.

So far there has been no guidance from the bishops serving the 700,000 catholics in scotland or the 850,000 catholics in northern ireland.

However, although their emphasis might be slightly different — if anything they are even more outspoken on their anti-abortion stance — they are expected to take a generally more supportive view of the stance of the bishops of england and wales.

It is traditional for the bishops of england and wales to issue a pastoral letter to their flock before a general election. In the past, these have been seen as pro-labour.

The strongest statement of socialist catholic political theology came in the 1997 document, the common good, where the bishops condemned the rhetoric of greed that, in their view, had characterised the previous decade.

Yesterday’s statement indicates the determination of the church to engage fully in pre-election politics.

Cardinal murphy-o’connor said: “sometimes people say religion and politics do not mix and they should not mix. Religion is about the love of god and the love of our neighbour. It is clearly the second of those where religion and politics do mix.”


v.O.T.E. Conservitive - .V.O.T.E. Pro. Life
Did you find this post useful?
|
Replies(22)
Avatar
Izzy
replied on March 18th, 2005
Active User, very eHealthy
Bbc news

in the us, abortion is the political hot potato.

But at westminster it rarely gets a mention. Until now.

Could abortion become a big issue in the coming general election?

In the united states, abortion has long been the issue that divides the left from the right.



Pro-life, pro-right in the usa

president george w bush, keen to draw a line under the clinton era, made it his first achievement to block state funding for overseas pro-abortion groups.

As he signed off the executive order, thousands of pro-lifers held their annual march in washington to protest against the 1973 supreme court ruling that legalised abortion across the us.

Yet in the uk, abortion has never been a party political issue. Until now, perhaps.

The big issue

the uk legalised abortion in 1967

the shadow health secretary, liam fox, has called on his party (conservitive) for a "huge restriction, if not total abolition" of the practice.

His views, outlined in the new conservative christian fellowship prayerbook, are seen as the latest attempt by the tories to secure the religious vote.

Is the stage set for us-style anti-abortion tactics to be used over here?

.V.O.T.E conservitive - .V.O.T.E. Pro. Life
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
FISHX
replied on March 18th, 2005
Active User, very eHealthy
I always do :wink:
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
2ferano
replied on March 18th, 2005
Extremely eHealthy
In an american election, if you are going to vote for a politician only for their views on abortion then you shouldn't be allowed to vote! There are so many other issues and one must educated themselves before taking part in a vote that determines the fate of our country.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
FISHX
replied on March 18th, 2005
Active User, very eHealthy
My vote had nothing to do with termination this is the first time that micheal h oward has spoken out .
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Izzy
replied on March 18th, 2005
Active User, very eHealthy
"in an american election, if you are going to vote for a politician only for their views on abortion then you shouldn't be allowed to vote! There are so many other issues and one must educated themselves before taking part in a vote that determines the fate of our country."

in a democracy one can vote on multiple issues, or a single issue.... It is the right/duty of the people to vote..... As they...Not you...See fit.

Your opinion is facist, your forcing your opinion/morality on everyone else.... It is there right to vote on single issues and it is a christians duty to prioritise those issues and respect for the human person from conception to natural death is the major one.

This covers many areas from war to the death penalty.. However abortion is the major concern in this area and outweighs other issues.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
steen
replied on March 18th, 2005
Extremely eHealthy
hotasfrick wrote:
in an american election, if you are going to vote for a politician only for their views on abortion then you shouldn't be allowed to vote! There are so many other issues and one must educated themselves before taking part in a vote that determines the fate of our country.
in the us, the rightwing and the fundies have it duped so 1/2 the population votes against abortion and homosexual marriage. Then the ones they vote in can start wars and get contracts for their friends, steal other countries oil and so on and the voters don't care as long as they are against abortions or homosexual marriage.

What a nice racket, eh!
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Izzy
replied on March 18th, 2005
Active User, very eHealthy
To tell you the truth...

I would rather be unemployed, over taxed, sent to war and diddled by my government than see my own people dismember our children. Your right to a degree we dont care so long as our leaders are pro life, obviously I dont want to go to war but if thats what it takes to stop abortion, so be it!

And obviously millions of others think the sameway too.
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
sandyallen
replied on March 18th, 2005
Extremely eHealthy
If you think abortion is about killing children then you are wrong again, as usual, that point has already been proven wrong several times before, so why must you keep repeating the same false statements.
Catholics are against abortion but they are sure for raping and molesting little boys, that is pretty sad.
Sincerely,
sandy
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
foreverblue
replied on March 19th, 2005
Active User, very eHealthy
sandyallen wrote:
if you think abortion is about killing children then you are wrong again, as usual, that point has already been proven wrong several times before, so why must you keep repeating the same false statements.

Catholics are against abortion but they are sure for raping and molesting little boys, that is pretty sad.

Sincerely,
sandy



i was baptised a catholic and I have never ever even considered molesting little boys.Would you like to be classed the same as scott peterson,i dont think so but yet you come out and put all catholics in the same basket,very clever of you
Did you find this post useful?
|
User Profile
sandyallen
replied on March 19th, 2005
Extremely eHealthy
Foreverblue, I know that I could not be classified as the same as scott peterson, get real. I do not care what you were baptized as. I did not say anthing about you molesting little boys, I did not say, all catholics.
Sincerely,
sandy
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
2ferano
replied on March 20th, 2005
Extremely eHealthy
I am pushing my views on people? Whatever izzy, you are the one saying that people should vote on one issue. Is that not pushing your opinion? Yes, it sure is.
Sure, in america we all have the right to vote as long as we are over the age of 18. But, in my opinion which I am not pushing, only stating, is that if you vote on one issue you have not done your country any service. There are far too many issues to vote on one, and if you don't pay attention or if you only "know" what is told to you in commercials you should not vote. Do you have the right to, yes, should you, no. God bless america and all the idiots therin.

Nice izzy that you would rather us be at war and killing innocent people than to have a woman have the right to abort a fetus. Quite hypocritical.

Fishx...I was not accusing you of voting for anything. I was simply commenting on izzy's remarks about voting.

I have no problem if people want to (if they could) vote on a bill or sign petitions or whatever they want to do on a specific issue. But to vote for the leader of the free world simply because of their views on abortion is quite ridiculous.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Izzy
replied on March 22nd, 2005
Active User, very eHealthy
"nice izzy that you would rather us be at war and killing innocent people than to have a woman have the right to abort a fetus. Quite hypocritical. "

no! I would rather we were at war (for a reason) and killing around 100,000 people than comiting the act of genocide on 1.2 million of our own people.


"if you vote on one issue you have not done your country any service."

what happens if that one issue is the legalisation of genocide?


I ask you one question, do not evede

tell me would you vote for a racist party that had most views that you respected

or

would you vote for an equal oppotunities party with most views that you disrespected.


"to vote for the leader of the free world simply because of their views on abortion is quite ridiculous"

not quite, when that is the main issue destroying the free world for unborn babys!
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
2ferano
replied on March 22nd, 2005
Extremely eHealthy
I wouldn't vote for either!
I still think it is foolish to vote on one issue, but yes, unfortunately it is every americans right.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Izzy
replied on March 23rd, 2005
Active User, very eHealthy
Izzy wote:

"tell me would you vote for a racist party that had most views that you respected

or

would you vote for an equal oppotunities party with most views that you disrespected."

hotasfrick replied:

"i wouldn't vote for either!"

you know they say to not vote or abstain from voting is the first step in the destruction of democracy, and your saying single issue voting is not helping the country.

Lets put this another way....

Question 1


say you were living back in the day when slavery was legal, its election time, its a two horse race!

Democrats policy is to abolish slavery but the rest of there policies seem a little off to you

republicans policy is to promote slavery, yet the rest of their polices you whole heartedly support.

Do you

a. Vote on wider issues, thus strengening/backing the current slavery laws and keeping it leagal

b. Vote single issue, to end slavery and hope for the best with other isssues?

Or

c. Abstain, reject the opportunity to free human beings from the bondage of slavery because a few jobs are on the line.

2nd question

its the year 2525 (if man is still alive) its election time, its a two horse race (always is) the two parties are

a) the venus party who's policy is the continued "irradication of the growing problem of homlessness" via the use of lethal injection, all of their other policies you whole heartedly agree on

b) the saturn party who's policiy is the abolishon of the irradication of the homeless law, but the rest of their policies you find a little suspect.

Do you

1. Vote venus because there policies seem better, thus keeping the "irradication of homeless" law legal.

2. Vote saturn to stop the barbaric killing of the homeless and hope for the best on the other suspect policies.

3. Abstain, reject the opportunity to save the lives of the millions each year that are killed due to the "irradication of the homeless" law because you feel a few jobs maybe lost if you vote saturn.

1st question

a, b or c

2nd question

1, 2 or 3

dont wimp out on me, now will you?
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
2ferano
replied on March 23rd, 2005
Extremely eHealthy
That is a really tough question and I do see your point. I suppose that if an issue is that whole heartedly important to you then you will vote on that issue.
I would vote to abolish slavery
and I would vote for the one that didn't involve killing the homeless.

I still don't like that people vote on one issue though, but I do see your point. I was talked out of voting against the bush for his views on abortion. My sister explained to me that although he would try it wouldn't happen and not to worry much about it. And I hate his views on homosexuals also, but I agreed with him on many other issues and did vote for him. So, although I feel very strongly about the first two things I mentioned, ultimately I still voted for him because I looked at the whole. In hind site, I should have voted for one of the third party candidates. In my mind, no person will ever be elected president of the us that will do us any good whatsoever. This is the first year I voted because every year prior I didn't like either candidate and therefore did not vote. I see that I was still in the wrong, and chose from the two morons this year which I should have chosen another.

What I don't like is when they try to get people to vote (that part is fine) by stating info on one issue and then persuading them to vote on it when they don't even look into it to see if it is true or not. I mean, in an election there are so many lies and exaggerations to make people vote a certain way and it bothers me that misinformed or uninformed people are allowed to vote. Yes, there right and thus it should be, but people should be responsible enough to at least look into who they are voting for. If I had voted for the first thing I heard of either of the two, I would be ashamed of myself, but so many do it.
Of course, no system is perfect, but I still think that one should take little test prior to voting. I feel that you should be atleast somewhat educated about the parties in the election before you are allowed to just pick one.
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Izzy
replied on March 23rd, 2005
Active User, very eHealthy
Well thank you for understanding why we pro lifers vote on a single issue, you see, we believe what is happening to the unborn is the same as what happened to the slaves, (rights taken away and classed as none persons) and also what theoreticly in my senario happens to the homeless (killed because of unwantedness, inconvienience or shame of problem)....

I am dead against the war in iraq and weilding our military might on unsuspecting smaller countries like bullies and if both candidates were pro choice or pro life, then it would have been kerry for me.


Now perhaps you may also understand why we seem fanatical, radical and often agressive, I think perhaps you finally understand where the pro life mentality is, perhaps you finally understand us, if so, my job is done
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
bd1012
replied on March 23rd, 2005
Extremely eHealthy
So you rather have a war where real people who have families and children die, than abortion, in which the only thing that is destroyed.. Isn't even aware of it's own existence most of the time and can't feel a thing?! How prolife of you.. :roll:
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
Izzy
replied on March 23rd, 2005
Active User, very eHealthy
Now you know that isnt the case, why do you do that, if I believed as you do that the unborn baby is not a "real" person then of course I wouldnt believe as I do.

So I would rather have a war where a lesser number people who have families and children die, than abortion, in which the child that is destroyed.. Is a human baby, a vulnrable being uncapable of defending themselves like the soldiers are able to, I would prefer to die in a war than that to continue, it may happen, draft an all that!
Did you find this post useful?
|
Avatar
foreverblue
replied on March 24th, 2005
Active User, very eHealthy
The problem with elections is that all politicians lie,they lie about what they plan to do,they lie about what the other side will do,they lie about the figures,manipulate them,take unemployment in great britain for example,they say 2 million unemployed,yet this does not take into account three lots of people.
1 the disabled,anyone on disability does not get counted.
2 anyone on sickness benefit,people on incapacity benefit do not get counted.
I can understand that maybe these two groups might be excluded from the figures,but, the biggest lie of all is.
3 if two people both unemployed claiming benefits,start a relationship then they have to claim as one,they must claim as a couple but only one name is put on the claim,thereby halving the numbers of people classed as unemployed.

This is just one example of how the political partys lie,what we need to do is decide which of the statements they have made are lies and which are true.
Did you find this post useful?
|
12 >>
Quick Reply
Search