Monday, May 19, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Mayor challenges pope during Genoa visit

by Reuters

Thanks to Peter Waine for the link.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKL1828381920080518

Mayor challenges pope during Genoa visit
By Philip Pullella

GENOA, Italy, May 18 (Reuters) - The pro-abortion mayor of this large northwestern port city suggested to Pope Benedict in a public address on Sunday that the Church could not impose its views on the personal choices of citizens in a lay state.

Speaking during a visit by the pope to a children's hospital, Mayor Marta Vincenzi told him a democratic state had to "work for the common good so that citizens can orient their lifestyles without impositions or inappropriate limitations".

Earlier in the week, the Pope had condemned Italy's abortion law, while Vincenzi, a leftist, had attended a pro-abortion rights demonstration in Genoa, one of Italy's biggest cities.

The election of the new right-wing government led by Silvio Berlusconi has brought abortion, legalised in Italy 30 years ago, to the forefront again.

In his inaugural speech last week, Berlusconi included a promise to combat "the causes of abortion" and invoked "the help of God".Conservative Catholics are hoping his government will go further and usher in changes to restrict abortion.

Last Monday, the pope told Italy's pro-life movement that three decades of legalised abortion in Italy had devalued human life and left a wound on society.

Benedict's words drew criticism from the centre left, which largely supports the 1978 legislation allowing abortion on demand in the first 90 days of pregnancy and until the 24th week if the mother's life is at risk or if the foetus is malformed.

Vincenzi told the pope the challenge in governing was to "restate principles while at the same time avoiding transforming ethics into a political battlefield".

Critics of the existing law, mostly in the centre right, say abortion has replaced contraception and rules should be tightened in light of medical advances allowing the survival of some foetuses born before 24 weeks.

The day before the pope arrived in Genoa, a bustling port and industrial city with a host of social problems, Vincenzi, a former member of Italy's former communist party, attended a sit-in by women who want the law to stay as it is.

She was quoted in a national newspaper on Sunday as saying she attended the demonstration to show her solidarity with "the battle to defend the (abortion) law". (Editing by Philippa Fletcher)

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Monday, May 19, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 47 of 47 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #182092 by Pattern Seeker on May 19, 2008 at 8:07 am

When I read the title of the article I thought the "challenge" was going to be a boxing match or a drinking game or something.

Dang it.

Nonetheless, it's nice to see the good people of Italy stand up to this overblown transvestite.

Other Comments by Pattern Seeker

2. Comment #182093 by flobear on May 19, 2008 at 8:07 am

The pro-abortion mayor...

Uh... don't they mean "pro-choice"? Maybe this is an Americanism but saying "I'm pro-abortion" is kind of like saying "I'm pro-slaughter" instead of "I like steak."

Other Comments by flobear

3. Comment #182097 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 8:10 am

Abortion isn't a binary issue. Nobody is for or against abortion. People are for it within limits and against it (usually) within limits.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

4. Comment #182111 by DamnDirtyApe on May 19, 2008 at 8:33 am

I think we're going to agree on the media phrasing of this being rather stupid...

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

5. Comment #182116 by brian faux on May 19, 2008 at 8:41 am

"Critics of the existing law, mostly in the centre right, say abortion has replaced contraception ..."

A statement I have seen before that I would guess does not stand up to any research: do the anti-abortionists really believe that the number of abortions is greater than the number of condoms sold? (not to mention the Pill etc). Perhaps Messrs Durex & Co could provide us with the figures.

Other Comments by brian faux

6. Comment #182122 by mordacious1 on May 19, 2008 at 8:50 am

No one is pro-abortion. Gee, I'm getting knocked up so I can have an abortion, because I like them so much. If one needs a medical procedure, one needs it, period.

This mayor would get my vote and I'm sure she'll be re-elected. When I was in Italy years ago, I was suprised that most Italiens were not that religious.

Other Comments by mordacious1

7. Comment #182123 by rod-the-farmer on May 19, 2008 at 8:51 am

Re ThoughtsonCommonToad

People are for it within limits and against it (usually) within limits.

Hmm. Not sure I agree with you here. While I believe most people who support abortion do so "within limits" (typically time), but I never heard of someone who was opposed to abortion, except under certain "limits". This is not a binary situation here. Anti-abortionists are usually, in my reading, totally opposed under any and all circumstances. But the opposite side of the argument has almost no one who supports abortion is ANY circumstance.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

8. Comment #182125 by Auraboy on May 19, 2008 at 8:53 am

Abortion replacing contraception...which Old scary eyes disapproves of too. So maybe they can hand out free condoms to every Italian citizen who loses their right to a civilized pro-choice. Sure that would be a concilliatory step, right? Vatican Vasectomy's maybe if it's going to be long term.

Other Comments by Auraboy

9. Comment #182131 by Geoff on May 19, 2008 at 9:00 am

I'm with rod-the-farmer on this one - the vast majority of the anti abortion lobby seem to think a fertilised ovum is an "unborn child" and quite deliberately use that emotive phrase in their propaganda.
As far as they're concerned, abortion is a sin right from day one.
The pro-choice lobby have their differences, true, but as rod says it's typically over the latest time it should be allowed.

Other Comments by Geoff

10. Comment #182135 by Auraboy on May 19, 2008 at 9:05 am

I think the only real variation in the anti-abortion lobby side is whether to allow it in cases of rape, incest or possible harm to the mother. Although generally a good solid religious standing can see through those little trivial details.

Other Comments by Auraboy

11. Comment #182138 by al-rawandi on May 19, 2008 at 9:10 am

An abortion comment:

The Hypocrites of religion, are just that....

They always seem to say "abortion is acceptable in the case of rape."

So they are saying that if a woman is raped, then killing the child is acceptable, but if she is not raped, then it is murder. Killing an unborn fetus is either murder or it isn't. I wish they would get their shit together and figure it out. I also wish they would stop pretending they care about women's rights.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

12. Comment #182141 by mordacious1 on May 19, 2008 at 9:13 am

The thing about the pope is, that most of his "flock" ignore what he says. He sits in his palace, surrounded by luxuries that the church has stolen for centuries from the poor, thinking it is still the 14th Century. This is pathetic. I wish the news media would quit reporting on every thing he says. If they did I think he would fade into obscurity.

Other Comments by mordacious1

13. Comment #182142 by Auraboy on May 19, 2008 at 9:14 am

Well the increasingly fundamental position is to push for the complete repeal of abortion access EVEN in the case of rape, incest or possible death for the mother. I've seen this argument pressed for in various places and I imagine there must be some U.S states with such intention.

I suppose it's a case of religious hypocrisy or religious fanatacism. Not much of a choice to work with.

Other Comments by Auraboy

14. Comment #182147 by ukvillafan on May 19, 2008 at 9:22 am

If you like steak, then you ARE pro slaughter; it stands to reason unless your intention is to eat only road kill or some such.

Sorry, but eating steak involves the prior slaughter of the animal concerned, there is no getting away from it.

So, not a relevant example to the topic in question.

Other Comments by ukvillafan

15. Comment #182166 by hungarianelephant on May 19, 2008 at 10:14 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attorney_General_v._X

Footnote: Successive Irish governments have made three attempts to hold a constitutional referendum to ... wait for it ... reverse this decision. It's lost the lot, and since most of the abortion hypocrites (who think abortion is OK as long as you have to go to England to get it) are literally dying out, they will probably give up now. That hasn't stopped people talking the Lisbon Treaty into another abortion referendum. Actually I wonder what referendum wouldn't be regarded as having anything to do with abortion.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

16. Comment #182167 by liberalartist on May 19, 2008 at 10:21 am

"...suggested to Pope Benedict in a public address on Sunday that the Church could not impose its views on the personal choices of citizens in a lay state."

YEAH! I wish we had politicians saying that sort of thing in the US.

"Critics of the existing law, mostly in the centre right, say abortion has replaced contraception"

If they didn't fight access to contraception, abortions would decline. The hypocrisy of these idiot men in skirts just astounds me at times. Keeping reproductive rights from women isn't just immoral, it's criminal.

Other Comments by liberalartist

17. Comment #182179 by al-rawandi on May 19, 2008 at 10:40 am

liberalartist,

criminal and immoral aside.... it is stupid. Just plain stupid. But religion has nearly cornered the market on criminal, immoral and stupid.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

18. Comment #182181 by Jesse. on May 19, 2008 at 10:41 am

I don't mind the pro-abortion. I think it is an accurate description. However, I always cringe when I read "pro-life". As if their opponents are against life or something. I think that's a huge distortion of reality.

Other Comments by Jesse.

19. Comment #182185 by Severus Snape on May 19, 2008 at 10:51 am

Pro Death by George Monbiot: http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/02/26/pro-death/

Conclusion: "These people spread misery, disease and death. And they call themselves pro-life."

Other Comments by Severus Snape

20. Comment #182187 by al-rawandi on May 19, 2008 at 10:53 am

Jesse,

These pro-lifers supported sanctions of Iraq that killed about 4,500 children per month.

Pro-life is simply a lie. That don't have any respect for life at all. They just seek to control women.

Other Comments by al-rawandi

21. Comment #182189 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 19, 2008 at 10:57 am

I agree I'm teetering on the edge of a contradiction but that is why I put usually in brackets. I would imagine someone opposed to abortion would perhaps allow it if the mother's life was in danger.

Other Comments by ThoughtsonCommonToad

22. Comment #182204 by calyx on May 19, 2008 at 11:32 am

My ex-girlfriend had an abortion, for social reasons I suppose, I mean her life wasn't in danger or anything, we just didn't want it.

I suppose this would be seen as immoral by most people right?

This is Illegal in Italy aswell?

Im in Australia.

Other Comments by calyx

23. Comment #182206 by emmet on May 19, 2008 at 11:36 am

Nobody likes abortion. I've yet to hear anyone say "abortions are great, everyone should have two". I think I probably aspire to the the "safe, legal, and rare" idea, with the caveat that I don't think I have any right whatsoever to decide for anyone, but I think there are some circumstances where abortion is actually a moral good, such as anencephaly. Even in Ireland, I think, there's broad recognition outside the lunatic fringe that such cases are a no-brainer (no pun intended).

Other Comments by emmet

24. Comment #182210 by Auraboy on May 19, 2008 at 11:48 am

I imagine it's quite fine to have a debate between those who think abortion is a simple social and medical choice and those who think there are genuine objections. But the religious position is relatively little to do with genuine objection, as with most things, it's about following the party line. Divorcing morality from the here and now decisions of real social human need and applying it to an afterlife judgement means even fairly rational medical professionals can come out with the maddening rubbish that even an underage rape victim is blessed to have a baby.

Other Comments by Auraboy

25. Comment #182211 by mrjonno on May 19, 2008 at 11:58 am

Pro life/pro choice are generally American terms which are simply not used outside the country.

Generally people in the UK are prepared to have an abortion or are not prepared to have one.

There are debates in most of Europe about the age limit but on the whole these are generally based on err science.

Through if I had to choose I am pro abortion as opposed to pro choice. Abortion is the very best weapon against poverty and crime

Other Comments by mrjonno

26. Comment #182218 by Auraboy on May 19, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Actually I'm in the UK and I've experienced more than a little problem with fundamentalist Christian anti-abortionist 'views'. Admittedly the scenario is vastly different to the U.S and the generally less acceptable view of fundamentalism in the UK helps but it's easy to underestimate the lengths these people will go to.

Other Comments by Auraboy

27. Comment #182230 by ukvillafan on May 19, 2008 at 12:39 pm

"Pro life" is most definitely a term in full use in the UK by the anti abortion pressure groups and lobbyists. Just look at the web pages of such organisations as the Prolife alliance or united for life or the society for the protection of the unborn child (which I like to call "SPUnC" for short). You can get to all of these simply by Googling pro life uk.

Other Comments by ukvillafan

28. Comment #182236 by Valiant on May 19, 2008 at 1:01 pm

The world is over populated anyway...

Other Comments by Valiant

29. Comment #182244 by mrjonno on May 19, 2008 at 1:56 pm

"Pro life" is most definitely a term in full use in the UK by the anti abortion pressure groups and lobbyists. Just look at the web pages of such organisations as the Prolife alliance or united for life or the society for the protection of the unborn child (which I like to call "SPUnC" for short). You can get to all of these simply by Googling pro life uk.

Well I guess that last comment I made was a bit simplistic but the pro-life organsations are about as politically significant as the Trainspotters alliance.
Moral issues are just far more of a personal no business of politicans choice in Europe

Other Comments by mrjonno

30. Comment #182248 by OhioLen on May 19, 2008 at 2:03 pm

mordacious1 wrote:
"I wish the news media would quit reporting on every thing he says. If they did I think he would fade into obscurity."

It would be nice, but as long as the Catholic Church exists, it will never happen. The Pope is not only a religious figure, he's also officially the head of a sovereign state (the Vatican). Even without the religious aspect, if (for example) Cincinnati's mayor criticised a foreign Head of State during an official visit, it would be stunningly rude and thus newsworthy.

Other Comments by OhioLen

31. Comment #182268 by Teratornis on May 19, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Critics of the existing law, mostly in the centre right, say abortion has replaced contraception and rules should be tightened in light of medical advances allowing the survival of some foetuses born before 24 weeks.

One wonders if these critics will demand a further tightening of the rules when medical advances allow the survival of individual sperm cells?

I'm also trying to understand why the Catholic Church relies on technology to argue for a legal definition of when "life" begins, and yet objects to using technology to create more life through human cloning.

Every cell in a human body could potentially become another child. Surely the people who value "life" must value its expansion to the greatest degree?

If it is immoral to use technology to give ordinary human cells, which would otherwise die, the opportunity to become another person, then why is it moral to use technology to give an underdeveloped foetus, which would otherwise die, the opportunity to become another person?

Other Comments by Teratornis

32. Comment #182275 by huzonfurst on May 19, 2008 at 2:58 pm

Instead of Iraq, perhaps we should have invaded the Vatican and got rid of this cancerous boil once and for all!

Other Comments by huzonfurst

33. Comment #182283 by Serdan on May 19, 2008 at 3:15 pm

I support these guys:
Church of Euthanasia

Save the planet - Kill yourself

Other Comments by Serdan

34. Comment #182290 by Pythagoras on May 19, 2008 at 3:28 pm

flobear wrote:

Uh... don't they mean "pro-choice"? Maybe this is an Americanism but saying "I'm pro-abortion" is kind of like saying "I'm pro-slaughter" instead of "I like steak."

Yes, it's an Americanism. They've distorted your reality and they've got you on the defensive.

You question implies that you think abortion is evil.

Other Comments by Pythagoras

35. Comment #182299 by Grantaire of JC on May 19, 2008 at 3:55 pm

Pythagoras,

Yes, the politically correct phrasing here is "pro-choice" which allows the option to choose to the pregnant person. It leaves open both options, however the choice is still the woman's. We've gotten a tad sensitive around here with pro-abortion even though we do mean the same thing. Here "pro-abortion" would imply the intentional push to seek abortion over childbirth and would been seen as an abomination both morally and politically. It would greatly hurt the future for women trying to get an abortion here in the States so we tread lightly.

Other Comments by Grantaire of JC

36. Comment #182351 by acs on May 19, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Can we please stop referring to people as "pro-life" - that phrase is a misleading euphemism which is technically illogical as we do not know their opinions in relation to all "life".

They should be referred to as the "anti-abortion" lobby.

After all - they are against the act of abortion. They could still be in favour of the death penalty. As we do not know their opinion in that regard "pro-life" may be misleading and technically, incorrect.

Other Comments by acs

37. Comment #182359 by King of NH on May 19, 2008 at 8:49 pm

"Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate." -Monty Python (Meaning of Life)

How can the base of the "pro-life" movement criticize abortion when their policies banning contaception, sex education, and family planning have led to many (I lack the numbers to say most, but I would think most by a large margin) abortions in the first place.

Other Comments by King of NH

38. Comment #182376 by nonfictions on May 19, 2008 at 10:01 pm

Sorry to break it to you, but there's no magical way to get steak. You gotta slaughter the animal. And most often, it ain't humane or pretty. And I'm pro-choice and pro-birth control.

Other Comments by nonfictions

39. Comment #182425 by calyx on May 20, 2008 at 4:46 am

Most people don't like to associate themselves with the slaughtering process, I think it's the same reasoning that leads me to like pro-choice as a phrase over pro-abortion.

I don't like abortion, but if it's necessary then I'm for it.

I don't like killing animals either, but I'm not gonna let that get in the way of me eating a fine steak :)

Other Comments by calyx

40. Comment #182426 by Colwyn Abernathy on May 20, 2008 at 4:53 am

I don't like killing animals either, but I'm not gonna let that get in the way of me eating a fine steak :)

Tho, I've a far greater appreciation for the animal kingdom after feasting on freshly hunted & butchered venison. Deer burgers anyone? ;)

EDIT:

"Every sperm is sacred. Every sperm is great. If a sperm is wasted, God gets quite irate." -Monty Python (Meaning of Life)

"Look at them. Bloody Catholics! Filling the bloody world up with bloody people they can't bloody feed..." ;)

Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy

41. Comment #182430 by calyx on May 20, 2008 at 5:12 am

I watched a Louis Theroux Documentary on hunting last night, about game animals in Africa farmed exclusively for hunting.

They were using crossbows to kill the animals for fear of scaring the others with the loud noises of guns :).

I would prefer a lion burger if your keen on a trip.

Other Comments by calyx

42. Comment #182436 by irate_atheist on May 20, 2008 at 6:01 am

Here's one challenge I'd like put to Pope Natzinger:

Staaaaand and deliver!!!!!!!!
Your money or your life!!

Other Comments by irate_atheist

43. Comment #182443 by Tezcatlipoca on May 20, 2008 at 6:16 am

Even though you fool yourself,

your conscience will be mine...

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

44. Comment #182444 by hungarianelephant on May 20, 2008 at 6:18 am

I've read this article several times in the hope that it might say something important that I've missed.

What the blue fuck does "restate principles while at the same time avoiding transforming ethics into a political battlefield" mean? Anyone? Bueller?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

45. Comment #182466 by Dinah on May 20, 2008 at 7:40 am

When it comes to abortion, I am pro-choice. Believing a woman has the right to choose whether or not to go through with a pregnancy does not mean that I would always agree with that decision, no matter what the circumstances. I would not, for example, agree it was right for her to have an abortion just because the foetus had a very minor physical defect or was the 'wrong' sex. Nevertheless I would still defend her right to make that choice, because I would think it equally wrong for her to be forced against her will to give birth to a child she did not want.

Other Comments by Dinah

46. Comment #182478 by padster1976 on May 20, 2008 at 8:10 am

'Last Monday, the pope told Italy's pro-life movement that three decades of legalised abortion in Italy had devalued human life and left a wound on society. '

No - the wound would be from protecting child raping priests.

Other Comments by padster1976

47. Comment #182561 by Mitchell Gilks on May 20, 2008 at 1:35 pm

The current law seems reasonable to me. I thought that it was the case that political bills require secular justification. After they show their claims about abortion replacing contraception (though they are against that too, so it seems like a moot point coming from them) and other such absurd claims, to be just that, absurd. Then the legal system should just ignore their rants and ravings, until they want to start legislating people's preferences. How many people do you think I would need on my side to ban onions? Damn I hate them so much.

Also I don't understand the logic of allowing abortion for incest and rape. Isn't that punishing the child for the parents' crimes? Besides, if it was ok to abort incestuous children, then those that believe in bible creation would have to concede that humanity would never have gotten started. We're all the product of incest according to that fable. Not that there is anything particularly wrong with incestuous relationships between consenting adults.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks