Petition to Philippe, the King of the Belgians

Please sign the petition asking the King of the Belgians to do his duty before God and refuse to the sign the law on children's euthanasia.  You need a name and email address. 

Petition is here.  Don't have to be Belgian, but based on text should be European.  The text of petition is below:

Your Majesty:

You are the King of the Belgians and as such committed to your people. You are used to signing every law that has been adopted by the democratically elected Parliament, even if you do not agree with them. However, there are laws that will affect not only Belgium but also Europe in the long term.

This law is unique and it serves as a sign to other countries that it might be permissible to introduce such laws. Please listen to the many voices at home and abroad, warning you of the dangers of this law - your Episcopal Conference and the members of parliaments across Europe who have spoken up clearly against this law.

As concerned citizens of Europe, we write to you to urge you not to sign this bill, even if it will be a challenge for you to defend this decision. Please do not say yes to the most frightening law on euthanasia worldwide.

Listen to your conscience and stand as a monarch with ethical principles. Show yourself worthy of the challenge for which you have been prepared throughout your life.

"Be Ye as Shrewd as Serpents, as Innocent as Doves"

Mercy sister, Sr Eugene Nolan has decided to go down the confused old lady route in defence of the Mater Hospital's Catholic ethos [Ed: may not be the worst approach.]

The Irish Times reports that:

 Sr Eugene, a former midwife who worked in England and Kenya before returning to the Mater in 1981, said of Fr Doran’s resignation: “It’s a tragedy that’s he’s gone. We will certainly miss him. He has been with the hospital for many years. He is a huge loss.”



She too expressed concerns about the Act at the time of Fr Doran’s statement in August, saying it was “against our ethos”.


Asked her position now, she said: “I don’t know where we go now. I’m going to see. I will see what is said.”


However, she said: “The Mater won’t be performing abortions. This is a matter of how we deal with complicated situations.”


You see what she's done there.  Yes, we'll comply with the Act;  no we won't perform abortions.  Confuse them, keep taking the money, don't perform abortions, see how it goes.

Here's the better approach which the Mater Hospital should have done. 

Issue a statement reconfirming:

1. that the hospital is a Catholic hospital with a Catholic ethos;
2. that all employees of the hospital are required by contract to operate according to the ethos of the hospital;
3. that all employees of the hospital have the right under law not to carry out abortions.

That's all you say.  You don't say anything further.  You don't seek judicial reviews of the legislation. 

More Loyalist irony?

What do you say when words are not enough, as Johnny Logan used to sing? 

Willie Frazer turned up in court dressed as Abu Hamza to show that loyalists are being treated the same as mad one-handed clerics.  I suppose you could make it up, but not any better than this.

Not exactly sure, but I think Jamie Bryson might be a character from The Wig, or maybe one of the Corrs.

Stupid things I've said to my kids

I was giving out to my youngest the other day about something - can't remember what it was.  She was giving me grief and refusing to respond to questioning.  I found myself shouting "Don't wait for the translation
" which is, mildly funny if you have a reasonable knowledge of Cold War history, but incomprehensible if you are six.  I didn't try to explain.

In other news, a sad day in the Catholicus Nua household as the last of the gold fish has died (that sound you can hear is my wife singing and dancing with joy at the prospect of no longer having a large, often smelly, fishtank on the counter in the kitchen).  He was quite a fighter and gave us four good years but finally succumbed to a fish bladder condition.  It took him four days to die.  Goldie (or whatever your name was), we'll miss you (welll not really;  maybe a little bit).

Loyalist irony

Remember that old separation of Church and State we keep hearing about?

Richie Culhane, Mayor of Drogheda, representing Fine Gael, the Pro-Choice Party

I've been away for a while.  It was for the good of my soul.  As usual Patsy Mc Garry makes me mad enough to come back.  Well Patsy and Iggy and Flannery.

Iggy has been moved from Drogheda.  Every summer thousands of priests in dioceses and religious orders across the globe are moved by their superiors.  The same thing happens with bank officials and civil servants.  In the vast majority of situations they react with docility and move.  It goes with the job.

Iggy of course has to be different and he has to trash the Catholic Church in the process.  Read about it here and here.

Bad enough as Iggy is, worse is the fine Gael Mayor of Drogheda, Richie Culhane.  According to the Irish Independent "At the conclusion of the mass the Mayor of Drogheda, Richie Culhane, addressed the congregation and said he believed Fr Iggy was leaving because, “ultra-conservative elements within the Church have forced the hierarchy to push Iggy further afield and out of Drogheda here.”

Cllr Culhane said: “I hope and pray to God that you are never silenced.”

He received a standing ovation when concluded: “I will call on the hierarchy ‘Give him back to us.”

In another sign of support for Fr Flannery, Fr Iggy presented the Mayor with a copy of Fr Flannery’s book at what may have been his final mass at a Church for some time."

If you feel that the Mayor of Drogheda has abused his position and sought to inferere in an issue which is not the concern of civil authorities then feel free to contact him:

Richie Culhane,
34 Melrose Avenue,
Stameen,
Drogheda,
Co Louth.


Richie.Culhane@droghedaboro.ie

The most fun you can have as a peeler

This is surely destined to become an iconic press photograph, up there with Buddhist monks setting themselves on fire, and well I can't think of any other examples as it's almost 2am.  Let's have a caption competition in the comment box.

(It's by David Fitzgerald and was in the Belfast Telegraph)

The Glorious Twelfth

• It was on the Twelfth,
• When Nigel Dodds wet himself,
• In the middle of the Woodvale Road.
• He was hit by a brick,
• Wasn't thrown by a Mick,
• And yet it still wasn't caused by the loyalist protesters, bandsmen, drunken louts or the Orange Order but apparently was the fault of Parades Commission.

Enda Kenny, Schrödinger's Catholic

So now we know the true inspiration for the beloved leader; Enda Kenny is modelling himself on Schrödinger's cat.  He is simultaneously a Catholic and a non-Catholic, in fact the first non-Catholic Taoiseach.  Presumably since he's not a "male Taoiseach", but a Taoiseach who happens to be a male he's also the first non-male Taoiseach. I wonder what toilets he uses in Leinster House.

Terence O'Neill, the last proper Prime Minister of Northern Ireland, once said, "Our faith is meant to enrich our lives - too often our lives impoverish our faith".

St Paul said, in the Mass readings on Saturday:  "We are ambassadors for Christ".

C.S. Lewis said:  "Where the tide flows towards increasing State control, Christianity, with its claims in one way personal and in the other way ecumenical and both ways antithetical to omnicompetent government, must always in fact ( though not for a long time yet in words) be treated as an enemy. Like learning, like the family, like any ancient and liberal profession, like the common law, it gives the individual a standing ground against the State.”

Epistle to Diognetus (2nd/3rd Century): "the Christian is to the world what the soul is to the body".

Lumen Gentium (Ch. 4):  "Because of the very economy of salvation the faithful should learn how to distinguish carefully between those rights and duties which are theirs as members of the Church, and those which they have as members of human society. Let them strive to reconcile the two, remembering that in every temporal affair they must be guided by a Christian conscience, since even in secular business there is no human activity which can be withdrawn from God's dominion....Each individual layman must stand before the world as a witness to the resurrection and life of the Lord Jesus and a symbol of the living God."

Enda Kenny:  "I'm a Catholic when it's convenient and non-Catholic when it counts".

Wanna prove you're a Christian?

Pray for Enda Kenny

More on Crown the Clown

A few weeks ago I described my outrage at a sordid article by John Crown in the Sunday Independent encouraging hatred against Catholics for daring to have views different from his own.

I made a formal complaint to the Sunday Independent on 20th May and received no response whatsoever.  So today I have made a formal complaint to the Press Ombudsman.

I am not hopeful of a resolution but better to use one cliché than curse the darkness.

If you haven't read Crown's article it's here.  And if you haven't complained to the Sunday Independent please, please make the small effort involved and do so.  The only real way to measure public outrage is by numbers.

Archbishop Eamon Martin on RTE

Listening to Archbishop Eamon Martin on RTE.  Did fairly well before hostile questioning. 

When he tried to mention the thousands at the Pro-Life Rally in Dublin on Saturday the interviewer cut across him - "yes, that was well reported".  Really?

He started asking the bishop about previous referendums which rejected the removal of suicide as basis for abortion.  But as soon as the bishop began to answer he was interupted with "I supposed you're going to start explaining about the other reasons".  Eamon Martin didn't get a half a sentence out.

The bishop refused to let himself be pinned down on two issues - what Catholic hospitals will actually do, and whether Catholic politicians can be Catholics in good standing if they vote for this.  His answers were decent enough but personally I'd prefer a bit more clarity at this stage. 

So, a fairly decent spokesman to put out.

The Kenny-Martin catechetical failure

Mssrs Kenny and Martin, Taoiseach and Leader of the Opposition are fine examples of what is wrong with the faith in Ireland and with religious formation over the last number of years.

I don't want to repeat their banalities, nor to trouble myself with finding their specific comments in response to statements made by Irish bishops or a Monsignor from the Vatican.  But there are three key things they appear not to undertand:

1.  Ecclesiology.  They declare themselves to be Catholics but give no indication that they understand what that means.  When they refer to "The Church" it is always in reference to something else, something external to them.  It is an NGO, a lobby, a pressure group.  We are constantly being told by liberal Catholics about the bad old days before Vatican II when ordinary Catholics thought the Church meant "the bishops".  Well, I don't buy that.  If you read remarks from politicians of old it is obvious they had a far clearer notion of their place within the Church than people do today.

2. Conscience.  This means only doing what you want.  Unless The Party decides otherwise.  The generation of Catholics who took their lead from Professor Paddy Hannon and the Irish Episcopal Conference.  When asked to discuss the real issue they fall back on platitudes of "complex" and "sensitive", "divisive" and "divergent".  And yet still try to impose your own view without a free vote.

3.  Morality.  If something is wrong in itself then it can't be made right by legislation, or by doctors or psychiatrists or the ECHR.  And if it is wrong in respect of even one child, then it is irrelevant if it opens the floodgates or not.  If a bad law allows the direct, intentional, killing of only one child in a century, it remains a bad law.  In this past week we have seen the heroic efforts to rescue a new born baby from a sewage pipe, in the same country that would have had no problem killing her before birth.  Wales saw the biggest search in its history last year to find one lost child, April Jones.  We value every child, whether conceived in rape or incest, whether a genius or a genetic failure. 

Abortion, FF, Colm Keaveney and the Archbishop of Dublin

How lucky we are to live in a democracy.  The Fianna Fáil leader, Micháel Martin's attempts to overturn FF pro-life policy and to reject recent Ard Fheis votes has collapsed and he has been forced into "allowing" a free vote.  Imagine, our public representatives will be allowed to vote according to their own views rather than have them imposed on them by party leadership.

Except in this case their should be no free vote for either FG or FF as both parties committed themselves to opposing abortion legislation before the last election.  They are now renaging on their promises.

The legislation will undoubtedly pass and without amendment of any significance.  We can only hope that we can scrape together 10 TDs to at least force a vote.  An unholy alliance of some pro-lifers and pro-abortionists may force the issue.  The Government would love to get this one through without a vote.

I hesitated to comment two weeks ago on the intervention by the Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin;  I wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and see how things panned out.  It was a very odd letter from a bishop as it began

"I write as a citizen of Ireland who happens also to be the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin. Independent of the role of politicians and of judges, the Constitution of Ireland belongs in the primary place to all the citizens of Ireland, whose right to express their views should not just be respected but encouraged."

I get the point he is trying to make, that he is not arguing from authority, but as a fellow citizen.  But the fact is, he is the Archbishop of Dublin and he signed the letter "Diarmuid Martin, Archbishop of Dublin".  He has a particular responsibility to provide leadership for the Catholics within his diocese, and, as Primate of Ireland, within the whole country, including to the members of the government and Oireachtas who are Catholics.  It was a bad start.

The rest of the letter has a good point, I think, and a bad one.  The good point, and he has been successful in this, is forcing clarity that any termination of pregnancy provided for in this legislation would not be allowed to deliberately force the killing of an unborn child.  So that in late term terminations, there could be no question of scissors in the neck a la our American friends, but rather some form of induced labour or caesarian section followed by full medical attempts to save the life of the unborn.  I think it has been good to show that the constitutional protection would not allow otherwise.  This has given rise to considerable discussion as to what will happen to such children, the disabilities that could follow, the failure of the State to consider these matters etc.  It has prompted the Chairman of the Labour Party, Colm Keaveney, TD, to announce that he will be opposing the abortion legislation.  These are positives.

The negative, however, flows from the same issue, as it brings up issues of time limits and viability.  The message goes out that if you are going to terminate your pregnancy, you should do it early enough to ensure the baby dies.  This can hardly have been the message that the Archbishop of Dublin would intend.

Once viability comes into the mix as a criterion, then we have the fatal foetal conditions being brought up.  If it's okay to kill a child early because it's non-viable, then surely it should be okay to kill a child who is non-viable after birth?  And so the door opens another little bit.

John Crown in breach of Press Code - complain to the editor of Sunday Independent

The anti-Catholic John Crown

Doctor, Professor, Senator, Newspaper columnist John Crown [Ed: when does he do any work?] had a vicious, nastly, vile article in the Sunday Independent.  You can read it here.  It was the sort of thing written by anti-Catholics in Britain and the United States a hundred years ago.

I read it and fumed and then I wrote a letter of complaint to the editor.  Have a read below and I suggest you do likewise (though please write your own version).  The only way to prove that someone has caused "grave offence" is to be gravely offended and to indicate that in numbers to the editor and subsequently the Press Ombudsman.  Email address is sunday.letters@independent.ie and the Press Code is here.

My letter of complaint below:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/john-crown-a-thoroughly-irish-coup-29278129.html


Dear Editor, I wish to complain about the above article by Professor John Crown in your newspaper on 19 May, 2013. I believe it to be in breach of the Press Code of Practice, Principle 8 – Prejudice, which states that:

Newspapers and magazines shall not publish material intended or likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against an individual or group on the basis of their race, religion, nationality, colour, ethnic origin, membership of the travelling community, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, illness or age.

I believe the tone and content of the article was intended to and likely to cause grave offence or stir up hatred against Catholics.

Catholics are called a “cabal of insurrectionists, sympathetic to the agents of a foreign state are….plotting and executing a coup d'etat”. We are “agents of this oligarchic dictatorship” [the Vatican] who “are interfering in our democracy as surely as, but thankfully much less effectively than did the Italians and Germans in aiding the overthrow of the Spanish Republic in the 1930s.”

We are likened to “Gunpowder Plotters” the “recently demilitarised Provos”, the “Contras” and “anti-constitutional Keystone Phalangists”.

We live in a state (the constitution never actually calls it a republic) which guarantees religious freedom, which declares authority comes from God and that public worship is due to Him. We live in a state in which my right to live as a Catholic is protected. Part of being a Catholic is the belief that the head of our church on earth is the Pope. That does not make us foreigners in our own country.

Crown is entitled to his opinion, but under the Press Code of Practice he should express that opinion in a way that is not intended or likely to cause grave offence.

If Abraham Lincoln had been Enda Kenny - a thought experiment

Enda: Take this out to my plantation and start planting, boy.

Enda Kenny keeps promoting the line that he has no choice but to bring in abortion legislation (even though he said the exact opposite before the election).  He is of the opinion, or so he says, that the judgment in the X-case is forcing his hand (even though, as he also keeps repeating, other governments didn't feel so compelled for twenty one years).  

The Taoiseach said the people’s wishes had been determined and set out by the Supreme Court, which determined what the Constitution actually meant.  “People have given their views on this already but it’s now a process that we’ve entered into as a legislature and that’s our responsibility in this Republic,” he said.

The same line has been repeated ad nauseam by Eamon Gilmore and the other pro-aborts.  I listened to Pat Kenny grill a pro-life TD last week and the X-case judgment was presented as in the same manner as the unbreakable last word on abortion and suicide.

Two words came into my head listening to all this - Dred Scott.

In 1857 the United States Supreme Court ruled, in the case Dred Scott v. Sandford, that that African-Americans were not citizens, and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court.  They also ruled that the federal government had no power to regulate slavery in any territory acquired subsequent to the creation of the United States.  it was an appalling decision, the X-case judgment of its day.

Three years later, in November 1860, Abraham Lincoln was elected 16th President of the United States.  

So if Abraham Lincoln had been Enda Kenny what would have happened next?  Well firstly he would have established an expert committee comprising lawyers and slave owners to bring forward recommendations on preparing legislation and regulations to implement the Dred Scott judgment with a view to removing citizenship from African Americans in those States where they were citizens and to end any regulation of slavery by the federal government.

Abraham Lincoln would then have forced the Senators and Congressmen from his party (The Republican Party) to support new laws enforcing slavery and removing citizenship from African-Americans.  

There would be no Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 freeing slaves in territory occupied by Union forces.  There would be no 13th Amendment in 1865 outlawing slavery.  

Instead there would have been legislation copper-fastening a bad, immoral, judgment.

When Catholics would remind Abraham Lincoln of Pope Gregory XVI's 1839 bull, "In Supremo Apostolatus" (which reiterated papal opposition to enslaving "Indians, blacks, or other such people" and forbade "any ecclesiastic or lay person from presuming to defend as permissible this trade in blacks under no matter what pretext or excuse.") Lincoln would, Enda Kenny style, shrug his shoulders, and say "this is a Republic, the Pope is entitled to his opinion but I have a responsibility to implement the judgment of the Supreme Court.  This isn't new legislation, this is about protecting slaves and their owners."

So when you next hear "X-case" just reply "Dred Scott".

In which Catholicus Nua tries to restrain his annoyance at Cardinal Sean Brady and how the ghost of Paddy Hannon haunts the episcopal conference

Shortly after the bishops issue a strongly worded statement attacking the draft abortion legislation (expect to hear RTE, Irish Times and government parties insisting on "Protection of Maternal Life" legislation) Cardinal Brady is asked by a journalist:

"Have the bishops discussed whether politicians who advocate support for the legislation should be barred from communion, as has happened in some US dioceses?"

What answer should he have given?

Well there's short and truthful - "No, we didn't discuss that"

There's longer and useful - "No, we didn't discuss that.  The legislation is in a draft form and we want to ensure that people are aware of the full moral implications of what is involved before they consider voting.  We want people to realise that this represents a distinct movement from necessary medical practice to the deliberate killing of an innocent unborn child....."  And so on.

Instead what did Cardinal Brady say:

"There would be a great reluctance to politicise the Eucharist....I say that they (politicians) have an obligation to oppose the laws that are attacking something so fundamental as the right to life and they would have to follow their own conscience."

Here endeth the Church's contribution to the debate.  Follow your own conscience (understood as do what you like), there will be no repurcussions for you as a Catholic politician and we will ignore Canon Law as we did on child abuse for many years.

Canon 915 makes crystal clear that a Catholic politician who votes for abortion must be refused communion and the onus is on the person distributing communion to refuse.  It's got noting to do with politics - it's everything to do with integrity of the sacraments.

Contrast the statement by Cardinal Burke courtesy of EWTN:
Cardinal Raymond Burke says that local Catholic politicians who support the procedure should be refused Holy Communion in hopes of inspiring their conversion.
“There can be no question that the practice of abortion is among the gravest of manifest sins,”Cardinal Burke told the Irish newspaper Catholic Voice in an interview published Feb. 1.

Once “a Catholic politician has been admonished that he should not come forward to receive Holy Communion,” the cardinal added, “as long as he continues to support legislation which fosters abortion or other intrinsic evils, then he should be refused Holy Communion.”

The American cardinal heads the Apostolic Signatura, the Vatican’s highest legal tribunal that rules on canon law.

Cardinal Burke said that the local bishop and parish priests must ensure that Holy Communion is properly received to avoid “the grave sin of sacrilege” from those like Catholic politicians who receive Communion in spite of “grave moral evil.” The bishops and clergy must also prevent the “scandal” caused by this kind of reception because it “gives the impression that the Church’s teaching on the intrinsic evil of abortion is not firm."
  He also addressed the issue in academic detail back in 2007 - worth a careful read here.

Why do Fianna Fáil even need to consider this abortion legislation? They gave a clear pre-election commitment to oppose abortion legislation.

Official Statement from Fianna Fáil to the Pro Life Campaign


Dr Joseph McCarroll
Chairperson
Pro Life Campaign
104 Lower Baggot Street
Dublin 2

17th February 2011
Dear Dr McCarroll,

Thank you for your letter dated 11th February 2011. I note that you are reviewing the views of the different political parties on abortion and the protection of embryos on Tuesday next.

I set out my response our position as below:

Fianna Fáil’s position on abortion remains unchanged and will maintain Ireland’s ban on abortion. [Couldn't be clearer?]

Fianna Fáil will uphold the right of the Irish people, and the Irish people alone, to decide on Ireland’s abortion laws. [i.e. not the ECHR] We will oppose moves to legalise abortion in Ireland. Our track record in this regard is clear.

Fianna Fáil Taoisigh negotiated legally binding guarantees, which were attached to the Treaties of Maastrict and Lisbon, ensuring that nothing in those reaties, or in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, affects the operation in Ireland of Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution.

The Government mounted a robust defence of Ireland’s abortion laws before the European Court of Human Rights in A, B and C vs. Ireland. The Court found that the Irish Constitution is not incompatible with the ECHR, and that States enjoy a margin of appreciation regarding protecting the right to life of the unborn, thereby affirming the Government’s view that it is the Irish people who have the right to decide on abortion.

Fianna Fáil will ensure that any new regime put in place in respect for assisted human reproduction fully respects the right to life of the unborn. [So presumably the definition of "unborn" must include embryos outside the womb which is excluded in this legislation.] In this context, Fianna Fáil in Government has insisted that all EU research funding programmes respect Ireland’s national position in relation to embryo research through the ethical subsidiarity clause.

We have ensured that no embryo research in Ireland has been or can be funded by the EU. In the negotiations on the 7th EU Framework Research Programme, Ireland played an influential part in crafting a compromise whereby the Commission undertook not to submit proposals for research activities that destroy human embryos.

I can also confirm that we are opposed to research on embryos and will not support moves to legalise this in Ireland. [Again, presumes the definition of "unborn" covers these embryos.]

Yours sincerely,

Micheál Martin TD
Leader Fianna Fáil

Pro-life Rally, Leinster House, 5pm today (Wednesday 1st May)

I don't have any other information beyond this.  If you can, get along to the Dáil and let them know what you think of the plans to kill the unborn children of suicidal women.

I haven't had a chance to read the legislation carefully so haven't checked the hidden language.  But clearly a line has been crossed with abortion for suicide, irrespective of the doctors and and panels put in place.  From a pro-choice perspective this is clearly a foot in the door.  And never mind who hates the analogy, but that's exactly how the Nazis operated.  You cross a line and then the line moves and move it will.

The panels are clearly designed to appease moderately pro-life (whatever that means) politicians who presume that in practice no one will get an abortion by this means.  Firstly because the procedure will be too complex and women will prefer the relative ease and anonymity of going to England.  Secondly because pro-life doctors or psychiatrists will be able to scupper the scheme by saying "no" at the panel stage.  Thus you satisfy the X-case judgment and the ECHR in theory but really nothing changes.

The problem with this argument is that you will have conceded the prinicple and when the practice doesn't work from the pro-choice perspective, the pressure, including judicial pressure, will begin again.

Let's look at the second issue, pro-life doctors on the panels.  Well firstly, some will refuse to serve on the basis that they won't facilitate abortion.  If they adopt that approach then only pro-choice doctors will be on the panel.  Alternatively they agree to serve with a view to vetoing abortions.  But will they be allowed?  On United States juries, where there is a trial for a capital crime which could attract a death sentence, you will not be allowed to serve if you oppose the death penalty.  US juries always comprise supporters of the death penalty.  I suspect the same approach will be taken here with abortion panels. 

While there are many fine practitioners, the medical profession across the world has collapsed in the face of demands for abortion.  And remember, midwives here often take their lead from the Royal College in England.

The conscientious objection clause is relatively weak.  Institutions aren't protected.  Medical practitioners have some protection, but are still expected to provide referrals.  There is no protection for administrative or ancilliary staff.  There is no clear protection for management along the lines of the recent Scottish judgment.

That's all I've had time to glean for the moment.

Lucinda Creighton slams Olivia O'Leary on abortion

A couple of pro-life protests for those who can attend:

Friday 26th April at 9.30am, 
Outside Paschal Donohoe, T.D.'s office, 
344 North Circular Road, 
Dublin.

Friday 26th April, 10.30am - 2.30pm, (Campaign for Fairness and Balance)
Front of RTE Studios,
Donnybrook.

I think Lucinda Creigthon, T.D., Minister of State for European Affairs is pinning her colours to the mast.  Her public statements are becoming clearer and more obviously pro-life;  she will not be able to vote for abortion legislation based on the X judgment. 

In her blog she takes on the favourite of RTE, the liberal media in general and the whole Dublin 4 intelligentsia, Olivia O'Leary.  The whole post below:


The debate on abortion became a bit surreal this week. Olivia O Leary in a radio piece on Tuesday urged that we “kick the Taliban out of our constitution” while proclaiming that “Ireland is no country for young women.”

I beg to disagree. I am a relatively young woman and I consider Ireland to be a fantastic, safe, free and open country in which to live. I am proud of my country and I will defend Ireland to the last. We are extremely fortunate to live in a country where human rights are protected by a constitutional and legislative system which is second to none.

To compare Ireland or our Constitution to the Taliban is grossly misleading. Olivia O’Leary should, and I’m fairly sure does, know better. Could she really believe that the Shia women of Mazar-e-Sharif, whose husbands were executed and had their throats slit before their eyes and those of their children, would agree that Ireland is a terrible, oppressive place to live? Many of those same women saw their children stuffed into containers and sent to unknown destinations, left to suffocate in a slow and painful death. Would those women, I wonder, condemn the Irish legal system which strives to protect the lives of all children?

Does Olivia also wish to compare Ireland and our treatment of women with the Taliban leaders who routinely abduct women and sell them into sex slavery like animals?

I would kindly ask Olivia O’Leary and the many other people who have been using this Taliban analogy in recent days, to take the trouble to inform themselves.

Perhaps read the chilling report ‘The Taliban’s War on Women’ which was published by the organisation Physicians for Human Rights. It graphically outlined the total oppression of women in Afghanistan by the Taliban, with over 50% effectively under house arrest, with no freedom to travel, to drive a car, to wear what they choose, marry whom they wish, with no sexual freedom or economic freedom or any real freedom.

She should reflect on just how lucky we are – how privileged we are to live in the free, open, caring, tolerant society that is Ireland. And perhaps reflect on how much we take this for granted.

I respect the views of the many people who disagree with me on the question of how we should handle the issue of abortion. But I cannot respect the sort of hysteria and incitement which poured forth from Ms. O’Leary on RTE radio the other day. You may want abortion to be brought in Olivia, but please do not suggest that ours is a country comparable with one ruled by an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist movement. Get a grip.

For my part, I am genuinely trying to have a reasoned and rational debate on this issue.

I hope that, notwithstanding the strong and genuinely held views on both sides of the debate, we can respect the right of everyone to speak freely and honestly about their hopes and their concerns.

I fully support steps (regulatory or legislative) to give certainty to pregnant mothers and doctors in cases where there are medical complications and a woman’s life is at risk. That makes absolute sense. Why would I, or anybody else, want to see a woman’s life endangered in any circumstance?

I do have concerns about the proposal to legislate to for suicide as a ground for abortion. Legislating for suicidality worries me, because as 113 consultant psychiatrists said clearly today, such a step has “no basis in medical evidence”. Surely we should legislate on the basis of medical facts, and be guided by the experts who know their patients and their conditions better than anyone else.

The statement of the 113 consultant psychiatrists reads:
“As practising Psychiatrists we are deeply concerned at the Government’s stated plan to legislate along the lines of the X-Case, as this will mean legislating for suicidality. We believe that legislation that includes a proposal that an abortion should form part of the treatment for suicidal ideation has no basis in the medical evidence available.”

I have been accused repeatedly of being some sort of a fanatic or fundamentalist. Anyone who knows me – my friends, my family, my colleagues – knows that is simply nonsense. For the record, I do not come to this debate with any religious or idealogical ‘hang-up’. Like 85% of the population I have been brought up as, and describe myself as a Catholic. I am not a particularly devout one and I am not diligent in attending religious ceremonies. So I suppose I am like most Irish Catholics in that respect.

My support for human life is not based on any blinkered ideology. When I was a student, I would have regarded myself as liberal on the issue, being in favour of abortion. I suppose I simply bought into the accepted notion that a foetus is simply an extension of a woman and not a person.

However, I have come to believe that I was wrong. And I don’t change my view lightly. My opinion is, I suppose, shaped by a number of factors, personal experience with family members and friends, a more objective analysis of the arguments on both sides and of course the facts, which are all important. The clear view of those practicing psychiatrists is most convincing. I cannot ignore either, the very compelling experience of having dealt with so many parents going through adoption procedures, who have been through IVF and are doing everything they can to support human life. Life is precious. We cannot change that.

I personally consider this debate, on a very basic level, to be a human rights issue. It is about the human rights of women and of their unborn babies. The fact that a baby is not born does not mean that it is not a life and therefore worth defending. There is a great irony in the fact that we throw all the resources in the world (and rightly so) at saving the life of a premature baby born at 23 or 24 weeks, and yet some may consider the abortion of that baby, at the same stage to be right and just. I don’t.

I oppose all intentional taking of human life. I consider the use of the death penalty to be barbaric because essentially it bestows on certain human beings a higher power to determine the right to life of other human beings. I think most of us agree that no person has the right to end the life of anyone else. If we somehow modify that basic core value of humanity, then we start to calculate human life in terms of worth. Is your life worth more than mine? If you are “unwanted” are you fair game? Is one life somehow ranked higher than another? If so who decides? And where does this ranking of human beings end?

For me this is a very important core question – whether we choose to protect the fundamental rights of all people, men and women, young and old, babies and adults. Whether we do or not very much informs how we view abortion.

I am so glad that I live in a country which does defend life with the full rigour of the law. I accept that there is a need to provide clarity for doctors so that they can ensure that they legitimately defend the lives of pregnant women without fear of legal or criminal sanction. I believe that the medical profession has done this admirably for a long time, within the parameters of the existing Medical Council guidelines. I have no fear of the Oireachtas giving legal underpinning to this. It is of course, also in full alignment with our clear constitutional obligation under Article 40.3.3 to defend and vindicate the rights of the mother and unborn child equally.

Unlike Olivia O’Leary, I believe that the Ireland of today is a great country for young women. Thankfully it is also a great country for all people, including young babies.