I conducted this interview immediately before the TalkBack debate (the abridged version) with David McNarry. There is no connection between the two events, but the tone of the first struck me as being markedly different from the second. Judge for yourselves…
OK to.kill those who’ve been born but not the unborn?
When someone says Sinn Fein and their supporters have lost their republican ideals over matters such as this, you should ask them which is more important, that the party respects democracy and evolves with the ideals of the current generation of younger republicans who think for themselves and who’s views differ greatly from their elders in particular on issues like abortion or is it more important to uphold the republican ideals of a previous century?
To say fatal foetal abnormality does not exist, I believe would be a devastating thing to hear from an elected representative for a woman unfortunate enough to suffer the loss of a child in this way. They were right to exit politics I think.
As the Brollys explain it, Jessica, an issue so fundamental to the consciences of people as abortion transcends politics and goes to the very core of our humanity . Thus to talk about it in terms of party majorities and how this generation differs from previous ones on it’s morality, does not cancel out the intrinsic evil of it when it is examined objectively. Thus the truth of a matter like abortion does not of itself change whatever the time-frame or popular view on it.
The term “fatal foetal abnormality” sounds like a invented condition to give cover to those who are pushing for abortion in “limited” circumstances but whose real aim is to eventually have it on demand. Of course there are tragic cases when the life of the baby is ended by such birth defects as anencephaly but one does not need to legislate in favour of abortion to deal with these situations in a sensitive and civilized fashion. The Brollys, as true Republicans, refer people back to the Proclamation and the high-minded ideals which it embodied as in the words “cherishing all the children of the nation equally”.
Personally, I don’t think abortion was on the minds of the signatories of the Proclamation in the slightest and while I would support the “high-minded ideals which it embodied as in the words “cherishing all the children of the nation equally”” as you say Gearoid, I would very much disagree that a hard line religious approach based on morality makes someone “true Republicans” as you claim. In fact quite the opposite, it means they put their religious ideals first, which actually goes against what I consider to be the “true republican” ideals.of doing ones duty first, which will include killing in times of conflict.
To me true republicanism is about unifying the cultural diversities that have existed in Ireland, and to bring everyone together based on equality into a new Ireland that is proud to take its place in the world. The source of that division has always been external forces of occupation but also from within to which when needed “true republicans” have taken up arms against.
Whether we trust our doctors as to whether “fatal foetal abnormality” exists or is invented is irrelevant. It is a fact that many Irish women are distraught over pregnancy, and many regularly leave these shores to seek abortion and have done for many years now. One woman died through our refusal to allow her have an abortion according to medical opinion, so the belief that medical opinion has an agenda has already cost at least one woman her life. So much for cherishing all the children of the nation equally.
Let us not forget that it was these exact same high morals that allowed Irish parents to put children born to many young girls into Magdalene Laundries where they suffered systematic child abuse.
Well, the implications to me Jessica, of the words “cherishing all of the children equally” are clear. The child in the womb qualifies here for the protection of the state if that ideal is to be respected. I must disagree with you on the “hard line religious approach” which you ascribe to my take on abortion. It is a perfectly reasoned and well-found argument which has anthropological, social as well as religious underpinnings. One does have to be necessarily religious to back it, as atheists can be counted among those who oppose the horrendous act of abortion. In fact it’s opponents come from all sectors of society in Ireland and across the world. It seems that you believe that being pro-life acts as an impediment to being a “true” republican but nothing could be further from the truth. I would contend that living up to “true” republicanism involves living out civic virtues which have a strong moral basis to them and that would obviously include opposition to such evils as abortion. As to your point regarding the use of violence to pursue republican aims, it is a fact that people seen this as the only alternative in the face of state violence. My pro-life views covers life in all of it’s stages and make no apology for that. When it comes to the use of arms, sometimes people have no other resort. But when it comes to abortion, people do have more holistic choices other than disposing of nascent life like hospital waste e.g. adoption, medical and financial support to help them through difficult pregnancies.
In cases where a baby faces certain death due to life-threatening conditions or birth abnormalities, I believe that he/she should receive the best medical care up to the natural end of his/her life. I do not believe that they should be put to death before that with all the eugenicist undertones this carries. Many mothers secretly grieve that they cannot bond with their child during the last few moments of his/her life and this is a very natural maternal instinct.
The realities of the Magdalene Laundries were a very sobering reminder of the abuses of religious power of the Church in the past but abortion is the ultimate injustice as it destroys innocent human life when it is totally defenseless and dependent on the mother.
I once read medical law & ethics, I shall admit at the outset I am wholly opposed to the termination of life of the unborn, yet am wholly supportive of the right to choose, in this case, to choose to be cautious, where a couple choose such, there should be no problem, where such choice is not made, like all decisions, we must live with the consequence.
If one takes a drink, then drives, then kills or injures another, the perpetrator must live with their decision, and should take their punishment, where one’s decision, to engage in intercourse, results in creation of life, the actor’s should live with their consequence, despite the stress parenthood causes, and in my case hair and money loss however, to terminate a life, simply because you did not take adequate precaution is, to me, wrong.
Some will say, ‘well, what about rape’, going back to my studies of last century, this constituted c. one point five of cases resulting in pregnancy, that is a small amount.
The new stick to neat the drum with is a non-medical term, ‘fatal foetal abnormality’ in my studies above, I came across examples of children being terminated because they had a hare lip, is such a fatal or even an abnormality?
I am with Ann Brolly on this one, republicanism is about treating everyone equally, even if they’re only,a few weeks gestation and have not yet reached ‘quickening’, we were previously through massive angst on this topic, prior to, and subsequent to the X case, here we go again, once more onto the slippery slope.
sometimes the self importance of some people is hard to believe.what girl going for an abortion would listen to these middle class lefties nonsense,it would suit them better getting a hobby than trying to hold the tide back on civil rights for women.
“sometimes the self importance of some people is hard to believe.what girl going for an abortion would listen to these middle class lefties nonsense,it would suit them better getting a hobby than trying to hold the tide back on civil rights for women.”
Good man Billy, the champion of ‘civil rights for women’, unless of course you are a woman from Syria or Libya. Perhaps you should rephrase that and call you a champion of ‘civil rights for white women’?
I agree with M.T. (a rare enough thing),. I don’t claim to be a pacifist myself, but I do feel that if b you regard the foetus as a full human, and the mother as a murderer/ criminal worthy of punishment; , then you should in conscience,regard all life as sacred. If you can regard someone who kills a soldier as a brave victim of circumstance, forced into their act by living in an unfair society, why not extend the same level of benevolence to a woman who doesn’t feel that she can bear a child at a particular point in their lives? To advocate punishing one and at least partially excusing the other is pure hypocrisy and misplaced sentiment- ” pity the poor foetus/the soldier/politician etc knew what they were getting into”.rather than principled opposition to murder as an undesirable thing. No one’s going to be less likely to have an abortion because other people oppose it – no woman would go
within 100 miles of Mr and Mrs Brolly to tell them that they intended to have/ have.had an
abortion, because they know that they would want to see them imprisoned or perhaps locked up in a secure hospital “for their own good ” if they did.
I say this as someone who would have no objection to church groups or anyone else providing practical or financial help to anyone considering an abortion – it should be an act of last resort, and I believe that it is, in the vast majority of cases. People who genuinely want to help the vulnerable shouldn’t want to punish .those same vulnerable people if they feel that they can’t avail of that help.
“If you can regard someone who kills a soldier as a brave victim of circumstance, forced into their act by living in an unfair society,”
The killing of any human being is murder Patrick.
The difference would be that MT would consider the human beings killed by the british during the conflict was people doing their duty and those killed by the IRA were murdering criminals.
The IRA killed no one for “living in an unfair society”, they killed as a participating armed force in a conflict that they did not start.
Should every single person, including many nations soldiers sent into conflict be locked up for murder as criminals?
What about politicians involved in the cover up of state murders?
Is remembrance Sunday a mass adoration of murderers?
And back to abortion.
If our doctors agree that an unborn child is already brain dead or has virtually no chance of life outside of the womb, is this any different from switching off a brain damaged human beings life support system?
Should the doctors be charged with murder for turning off life support systems, or those who remove such a foetus for an unfortunate mother who is already heartbroken. You think she should be all locked up also?
It would certainly create plenty of jobs building all the prisons we would need.
To replay to Jessica, I wouldn’t agree with M.T in the situation outlined – I bI all all acts by state or other armed forces should be treated equally under the law, and I don’t doubt thatthis certainly hasn’t happened in Northern Ireland.
I do object to the odium thrown at women whose choose to abort by people of any political/religious standpoint and none who regard the tak ig of life in one instance asw a regrettable necessity, and abortion as a selfish/thoughtless act worthy of n criminal censure. I would agree with all of your points about prison overcrowding etc — my main objection to the line taken by Mr and Mrs Brolly (and doubtless the likes of Jim wells, Sammy Wilson etc ) is that they regard some murders/murderers as “more equal than others” .
I also feel that any woman who chooses to have an abortion – I’ve known severasl – is as brave as anty policeman/paramilitary who has taken a life, and that people who themselves aren’t unimpeachable morally , and don’t pretend to pacifism, should at
least not take the hypocritical line of “some murders bad – some murders good”. as I feel the vast majority of people outside abortion clinics with placards do.
Anne would need to be very wary of some of those I saw at the Dungiven event in my local paper.Gerry McGeough in particular has a very waped world view on other issues outside of the very complicated abortion issue.
“Anne would need to be very wary of some of those I saw at the Dungiven event in my local paper.Gerry McGeough in particular has a very waped world view on other issues……..”
Blackening people’s name and mud slinging isn’t cool. In fact it’s very Sinn feinish to bad mouth people who may oppose their policies.
What about the civil rights of the foetus,Billy?
what about them.
You’re the man always rabbiting on about women ‘s civil rights. Do foetuses not have rights?
i wouldnt know the legal ins and outs what rights they have or have not.its down to the ma at the end of the day,these religious freaks dictating how people should live have had their day,its over for them the few trying to hold back the tide now are only after a few quid opening centres,charities ect.
When does the foetus become a human being,billy, in your opinion? As Mr Tone says you do not have to be religious to find abortion disgusting.
your and mr tone finding it disgusting doesnt really come into it millions around the globe find it disgusting also but its none of their business.all the antis are doing is making it more costly turning it into a class issue,even wee eck in scotland has offered help to bring travel costs down.as for when do i think a foetus become a human being,i dont know i doubt you know either i do know its none of my business if somebody has an abortion.
“i do know its none of my business if somebody has an abortion”.
Well said Billy!! Neither church nor state has any role to play in regulating women’s bodies.It should be a matter for the woman and her doctor 8and partner if he’s around).
Why should people who do not share these principles be forced to live by them?
Why should these beliefs limit another person’s freedom to choose or add distress to the choice and make it cost thousands of euros?
Why are these principles more important than living, breathing, working women?
Again SF is simply being populist and Anna Brolly, thankfully, has shown a bit of backbone and has decided to think for herself. Btw, you don’t have to be religious to be against abortion.
If Anne Brolly is a proponent of the ‘seamless garment” principle, or something similar (and for all I know, she might be) then I would respect her point of view, if not actually agree with it. But, given her associations (and you could say that about practically every politician in Northern Ireland, and certainly those in the DUP and Sinn Fein) her view of the “right to life” seems to be highly qualified. I have no quarrel with “Thou shalt not kill” as a rule, it’s when people say “Thou shalt not kill, except for her, and him, and him obviously, and them, and he was a mistake,sorry but what can you do'” that I smell hypocrisy and doublethink. To that end , I would applaud Sinn Fein for moving to a more nuanced and sustainable view, and hope that they don’t allow themselves to be negatively influenced by backwoodsmen (and women).
In too many cases, here and elsewhere, opposition to abortion is just a figlleaf for disliking women making choices, and more a matter of sentiment, vague benevolence and social
conservatism (which is no better than any other kind), than a genuine desire to help unborn children.
I don’t think that many people, in their heart of hearts, on this island or anywhere else with punitive laws, would report their daughter to the police,if she told them that she’d hadt to have an abortion. However, if she’d told them that they’d shot someone in the neck with a crossbow bolt because of a gambling debt, (to use an unlikely example) they probably would. That’s because although the end result in both cases would be the same), most parents, whatever their views on abortion , would instinctively know that in the first instance, their daughter had taken a decision, most likely through desperation. that only she could take, and was neither a criminal or deserving of condemnation of any sort. And, if they wouldn’t report their own daughter, they shouldn’t report anyone else’s.
We recognize that women find themselves in difficult situations during pregnancies, but they need the right kind of help which does not include abortion. Pro-life supporters are not in the main driven by the stereotypical motivations which you attribute to them such as using it as a “figleaf for disliking women making choices etc”. Many of those who oppose abortion are in the front-line offering practical and holistic “choices” to pregnant women such as financial support during/after the pregnancy, counselling etc and not the “vague benevolence and social conservatism” which you unfairly accuse them of.
Women who make the decision to abort in desperate circumstances should receive our understanding and the appropriate counseling and should not be put in the dock. But we must educate the public on the abhorrent nature of abortion and thrive to eliminate it as a choice. No civilized society worth it’s name should have such any laws supporting such barbaric practices on it’s statute books..
Thanks for your thoughtful and considered replay, Gearoid.
I ‘ve got no objection to anyone being anti-abortion, or ttying to bring their children up that that way, or seeking to persuade society that that’s the way to go, and I couldn’t stop them thinking that way if I did. Freedom of choice should also mean that any parent of any child that doctors know will live for only a short time, or who might live for a long time with a very limited quality of life, should be alloweds to bear that child if that’s what they want to do, and be given every societal help to parent that cihild for as long as they might live -doctors should lay out the facts as they know them, and not ‘edItorialise’ one way or the other.
)
But (particularly in cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality, or similar conditions), to force by law someone who doesn’t feel able to give birth to do so if order that a child might be born dead or live for ten minutes in order to satisfy some unquantifiable notion of the “common good” and avoid “slippery slopes”, would be a greater cruelty – a greater evil, of you like – than that which it seeks to prevent. For some , it might provide closure, and they should obviously be allowed to have that closure if they want it – but for others, it could send them into a padded cell. Women know what they’re capable of doing.
I am grateful that you personally have ruled out imprisonment (and presumably sectioning), for women who would seek an abortion, since when you hear Bernie Smyth, Joe Brolly etc. it seems to be desirable almost as an end in itself II’ve no problem with people wanting to change minds, and I’d be perfectly happy if no child was ever aborted again, though I don’t see that ever happening anywhere. II’m not looking for anyone to approve of abortion, what I object to is people stigmatizing and criminalising other people who would no more commit a crime than they would.
Apologies, the “Joe Brolly” I refer to in the third paragraph of my reply to Gearoid should of course have been be Francie Brolly.
Do SF make there MLA’s take the whip on this issue? I thought all political parties gave there members a free vote on issues of conscience?
Well you seem to be paying more attention of him than most of us. We all have our views on the ‘peace process’ but that shouldn’t stop us having a view on other issues that may go contrary to whatever SF declares. I can tell you there were a lot of people who had concerns about the ‘outworkings of the peace process’ and meekly rolled in behind SF and said nothing. Me personally, I’d prefer someone who was open and honest about what they think. Might not agree with them but respect their honesty.
Same here WT.
Though, every time I lose faith in Sinn Fein I eventually see the method in their madness and end up agreeing with their strategy.
It is not easy to have blind faith in others, especially if you are a thinker.
I believe we all should at least allow Sinn Fein to take the road they have to take, respect the IRAs decision to stand down and if anyone is unhappy with them, offer an alternative option.
Personally I would like to see a more robust republican opposition to unionism, but I accept Sinn Fein cannot take this approach.
So long as there is no attempt to bring conflict back to our communities, I would be interested to hear as many different views as possible.
I would love to see Gerry do a blog here.
I would love to see Gerry do a blog here.
Gerry McGough I mean
WT,his views about race and religion are totally off the wall.
On the issue of doctors and ‘big Pharma’ making a profit from abortion, this is a situation that could only be dealt with by politicians agreeing to maker it safe as possible, free and available to all that feel they need it on the N.H.S. Since this isn’t going to happen, and any future fundamentalist prohibition would lead only to an upswing in the sales of gin and knitting needles , not save a single life, and may well end up taking a few (I sometimes think pro-choice campaigners, rather than complaining about ‘Precious Life’s’. tactics should themselves source and use photographs of botched self- abortions from not that long ago – I agree with the right to choose, not the sanitising of an unpleasant procedure), the Marie Stopes Clinic (and yes, Marie Stopes was a truly horrible person, but sometimes horrible people can accidentally do good things) is the best option available.
worth watching to see another point of view
Well Ben in the interests of balance I await a few videos of actual abortions being carried out. After all most people would like to see for themselves what all the fuss is about.
Btw, if men(and even women) didn’t encourage women to be sex objects perhaps the need for abortion would be greatly reduced. If we encouraged our people to respect women then overall we would have a far more compassionate society. One final thing, I have two daughters and I listen to their views and they are of the opinion free for all abortion is wrong. And it their views are not down to religion or politics. Preventing the problem is far better than treating the problem.
Thanks Ben. Often it’s the voices of those (middle aged men like myself and older) who wouldn’t ever be in the position of feeling that they had to have an abortion that are the loudest and most often heard.
In the UK last year, of all the thousands of abortions that were carried out, only three were done to save the life of the mother. What does that say? I’m for choice in most things but should a woman – who in most cases got herself into this situation – have the choice to kill another human being? It’s really none of my business if people want to bait badgers or fight dogs but as a thinking society we have to have an opinion about its’ presence in our society. Because you are to be bridesmaid at a wedding and your condition would show is hardly a decent reason to snuff a perfectly formed human life. You can tell a lot about a society from its laws and a lot about people who say’ nothing to do wif me,guv’.
If the sanctity of life was so important to the Brollys why did they join Sinn Fein? A party that suported murder and continues to glorify those murderers.
” A party that suported (Sic) murder and continues to glorify those murderers”.
You mean like the British MT?
“You mean like the British MT?”
No. ‘The British’ aren’t a party and didn’t support murder or continue to support it.
I didn’t say the British party, I said ‘like the British’ who glorify their murderous history each November.