Two interesting events happened yesterday, one on either side of the Irish Sea. In the south of Ireland Leo Varadkar became Taoiseach and leader of the Fine Gael Party; in England Tim Farron resigned as leader of the Lib Dem Party.
Farron first. He resigned as leader, he said, because he found it impossible to reconcile his Christian faith with his position as Lib Dem leader. This was in reference to his opposition to abortion and his views on homosexuality, which he appears to consider sinful.
Leo Varadkar was made Taoiseach and leader of the Fine Gael Party. Varadkar, who was raised as a Catholic, is half-Indian and openly gay. In his acceptance speech, he thanked the Fine Gael party for allowing him to be fully himself.
Many politicians and members of the public in the south are quietly congratulating themselves for having been non-racist and non-homophobic in electing Mr Varadkar. It’s even possible some voted for him as leader because they wanted to display their liberal credentials. That’s balanced by the speed with which both the Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin and the Sinn Féin leader Gerry Adams commented critically on Varadkar’s right-wing proclivities.
It’d be safe to say that Varadkar will concern himself with political matters and won’t attempt to impose laws making homosexuality or abortion mandatory. Farron declared himself “a liberal to my fingertips” and presumably…Well, what? Would he have sought to support gay rights? Would he have sought legislation to curb abortion? It seems doubtful. Certainly he has spoken of his Christian beliefs regarding homosexuality and abortion, but he hasn’t suggested he would compel others to see these matters as he does. But he still felt sufficient pressure, because of his Christian beliefs, to resign as Lib Dem leader.
His resignation raises an interesting question: can and should politicians allow their religious beliefs to shape their political actions? On the face of it the answer would seem to be yes. But where does that leave tolerance of those with differing viewpoints? Bluntly put: if I believe abortion is murder and homosexuality an appalling sin, can I in all conscience vote for laws which will make it easier for abortion and homosexuality to flourish? Or can I, as John F Kennedy promised he would do, leave my faith at the political door?
I find these matters genuinely complex and difficult to answer. But two final thoughts occur. If someone who believes in abortion and gay rights had resigned from a party in favour of both, would it have attracted the same attention and media tone as the resignation of Mr Farron, who appears to be opposed to both? Secondly, does any of this provoke thought among DUP politicians, who hold views on both matters almost identical to those of Mr Farron.
Can we expect a few high-profile DUP resignations on similar grounds to Mr Farron? Only askin’, like…
At last, the twenty six counties has an Eoin O Duffy as Taoiseach.
I have said before, I have enormous regard for India, while it was all one in the 1840’s they, despite suffering hunger themselves, sent us over two boatloads of rice to alleviate our suffering during an gorta mór.
Of course the then brit in charge received the said boats and sold the contents on,at personal gain, leaving our population starving despite the best intention of the poor people of India whom had afforded us great kindness.
Leo, an Taoiseach nua, is however shaped in the mould of the one time Fine Gael hero, south Ulsterman, Eoin O Duffy, whether he’ll be welcomed in that part of Ireland remains to be seen, given changing politics but, it would be beneficial to discover how much support he obtained in the race from Cavan Monaghan.
Farron on the other hand, I’ve always considered something of a rat, he did however endear himself to me yesterday be quitting.
” Or can I, as John F Kennedy promised he would do, leave my faith at the political door?”
Well that’s like saying I wont be the person I really am. If faith/religion must be left at the door, why shouldn’t a persons other views/beliefs be left at the door? Its almost like a person promising to be an empty shell or a robot, its ridiculous and doesn’t make sense.
Why Farron joined a Liberal Party if he has such views doesn’t make sense, unless he has just recently acquired those views, such as opposition to abortion. I strongly disagree with abortion, I think its terrible. I understand some women can be in a difficult situations (such as rape victims) but I still don’t agree that murdering a child is the answer. What abortionists often don’t mention is the problems women have AFTER they had an abortion, many regret it, many suffer health problems, both physical and mental. Obviously its not just about the mother, its about the right to a child to life. If that child had a voice do you think it would want to die? Just because it doesn’t have a voice yet doesn’t mean it shouldn’t have rights, especially the most basic: the right to life.
Ryan
Are you not a supporter of Sinn Fein?
Do they not support access to abortion in some cases?
Same sex marriage and abortion while I wholeheartedly agree are important, difficult and divisive issues seem to be the touchstone by which all politicians are judged. These two issues seem to suck all the political oxygen out of a room and become the only way to judge someone on their liberal credentials.
I repeat I’m not underestimating the importance of these issues but I do feel they become disproportionately important when judging our politicians and are often the only subjects we know/judge our politicians on.
In a way it’s a continuation of the Americanisation of U.K. politics, where a nomination of a Supreme Court judge is often followed by the question is he pro or anti abortion when that office involves so much more than just that issue.
Perhaps it’s partly the medias fault to. Gay marriage and abortion make better tv/radio than say health reforms or tax policy.
I take my hat off to Tim Farron for having the courage of his convictions.
You won’t have to take your hat off too often.
I agree fiosrach.
Anne Brolly left Sinn Fein last year over their position on abortion. What surprises me is why there are not many more.
Those who believe abortion to be the taking of innocent life (not my own position) are supporting a party which sanctions that very taking of life. How many hundreds of lives would that amount to?
What could be more important or urgent than that?
The DUP position is against in all circumstances I believe so I don’t see why there would be any resignations in their case.
I think a reasonable position would be that incest/rape cases should be allowed to go full term and then the child could be offered for adoption. Many childless couples would be more than welcoming. FFA I would leave to a panel of doctors. I realise this is a broad brush and the exceptions would disprove the rule but it seems human and humane to me. It seems to me to be a bit hypocritical to be totally against and then turn a blind eye to the people who go to England.
I would have to disagree fiosrach. It seems cruel to have a woman, who has suffered the abuse of rape to suffer further by being forced to carry and deliver the baby of her abuser against her wishes.
I think abortion should be allowed in the early stages of pregnancy in cases of rape. Perhaps up to 12 weeks.
It’s a difficult one though and there is no clear good outcome just a search for the least worse outcome. It’s one I struggle with.
But you get the argument that why should an innocent baby be punished for the rapist’s crime. What we
Don’t want to see is social abortion because I’m going on my holidays and/ or my dress won’t fit.
Indeed fiosrach that is of course the counter to the “pro abortion” argument in cases of rape. I respect and understand that point, however I disagree with it.
I agree that we shouldn’t have late term abortion on demand or for the reasons you outlined.
Can I commend the discussion thus far on this issue? Truly thoughtful and adult – maith sibh! I know I shouldn’t throw in more stuff, but I can’t help myself. Two quick points, then silence, I promise:
(i) If we’re opposed to abortion (at any stage in a pregnancy) because it’s taking human life, how is it we’re not equally upset over paying to train men (and women) to kill, and then in many cases sending them overseas to do that? I always find it odd that abortion provokes much concern/horror, but rarely does deploying an army cause the blink of an eyelid.
(ii) While one would naturally like everyone to be happy, preferably all the time, we know that we sometimes have to do things that make people unhappy. For example, we punish/imprison criminals for the greater good. We assign government funding to one area rather than another, which presumably makes those not assigned funding unhappy. So with regard to abortion: if abortion is seen as killing an innocent human, while it’s unfortunate a woman carrying a pregnancy created by rape must undergo the truly painful experience of carrying that child to full term, doesn’t that unhappiness/pain necessarily be subordinate to taking the innocent child’s life?
(iii) (Yes I know I said (ii) but I lie a lot) Re supporting political parties: given that all parties have a range of planks in their platform, are there some planks that are vote-breakers while others are not? Do we prioritise some items on a manifesto before others? Like I said, just askin’…
I think your second point gets to the heart of the divide on the abortion issue Jude. If we were all in agreement that a foetus was a life the same way that say a two year old was there would be no question about the abortion issue. No one in there right mind would advocate the killing of a two year to alleviate the mental or physical suffering of a woman, as we all accept that the child’s life is of equal value to the mothers.
The whole abortion debate centres around the question when is a foetus a “life” in the same sense a born baby is. The opinions range of course with some believing it’s from the moment of conception to some (including the UN I think) believing that it’s not until birth. Many people believe it’s somewhere in between and many don’t know.
I personally believe in those early stages, before the 12 week mark, a foetus is not a formed sentient life. The welfare of the woman is paramount then and shouldn’t be sacrificed to protect the foetus.
As I said though it’s something I struggle with, it’s a issue we’re there is no right or wrong answer.
(i) Would this apply equally Jude to members of na Oglaigh whom, bravely, took on a better equipped army for fourty quid a week then slept underneath floorboards or in haysheds to avoid capture?
(ii) There is a cure for rape, if instituted by a government, things would change dramatically, rape would be a greatly reduced issue, in any event, when reading medical law this was an issue, 0.4% of pregancies were caused by rape, not a lot.
(iii) Yes.
I’m against war, the arms industry, the killing of anyone unless it is self-defence. I am also against abortion. Many abortions are sought because of lifestyle choices rather than rape or FFA. Abortion is no different to any other contentious issue: we will never agree.
Be careful what the ‘liberals’ wish for; we could end up looking more like Nazism if we are not careful. Btw, Hilary liberal Clinton agreed with full term abortions……just saying.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/9113394/Killing-babies-no-different-from-abortion-experts-say.html
There are certain people who are using the abortion issue to try and influence voting intentions. Note the letter writing campaign attacking SF for their position which is consistent with what was voted for by the vast majority of TDs in Leinster house.The SDLP is cynically behind much of this for electoral purposes and only this week aletter was published which has the East Derry’s fingerprints all over it.
The Nordic countries (or some of them) allow abortion of foetuses with Downs syndrome. One of their prime ministers was on radio boasting that only two DS babies had been born last year. What do yiz think of that? Still, if my wife/daughter was carrying a baby with no head I don’t know how I would feel so I’ll not legislate for anybody only the amoral.