Abortion Issue & British Election Posted: 03-18-05 04:28am
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
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 03-18-05 04:42am
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
|
FISHX
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 920 Location: UK
Posted: 03-18-05 07:22am
I always do :wink:
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 03-18-05 15:29pm
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.
|
FISHX
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 27 Dec 2004 Posts: 920 Location: UK
Posted: 03-18-05 15:44pm
My vote had nothing to do with termination
this is the first time that micheal h
oward has spoken out .
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 03-18-05 17:26pm
"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.
|
steen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 18 Nov 2004 Posts: 1797 Location: Upper Midwest
Posted: 03-18-05 19:07pm
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!
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 03-18-05 21:00pm
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.
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Posted: 03-18-05 22:16pm
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
|
foreverblue
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 577
Posted: 03-19-05 06:51am
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
|
sandyallen
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Feb 2004 Posts: 4580
Posted: 03-19-05 17:53pm
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
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 03-20-05 19:40pm
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.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 03-22-05 13:20pm
"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!
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 03-22-05 13:49pm
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.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 03-23-05 12:45pm
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?
|
2ferano
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 23 Dec 2003 Posts: 3717
Posted: 03-23-05 13:07pm
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.
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 03-23-05 14:35pm
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
|
bd1012
Extremely EHEALTHy
Joined: 31 May 2004 Posts: 1998
Posted: 03-23-05 15:59pm
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:
|
Izzy
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 16 Oct 2004 Posts: 883 Location: Earth
Posted: 03-23-05 16:43pm
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!
|
foreverblue
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 17 Jan 2005 Posts: 577
Posted: 03-24-05 05:19am
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.