Spanish bishop makes inflammatory comments about women who've aborted <title-edited>

robindch

^^^ Ouch.

I can't post all of my friend's reply, since I can't easily establish the marital status of the bishop's parents at the time of the bishop's birth.

However, I think I'm ok to say that the bish is not very popular in the region and is the subject of an ongoing investigation into claims of (non-sexual) harassment of one of his former employees, claims for which some believe he may end up in jail.

The relevant quote from my mate's reply is:

a local native speaker wrote:

"that gives males absolute, unlimited license to abuse the woman's body..." it sounds a bit biblical, but that is what the f*t b******d said [... ] the bit where it says "sin límites" is particularly scary.

So yes, the worst-possible meaning of the translation is accurate.

Nice one, bish.

fisgon

Hubo
en la Edad Media -en esa preciosa Edad Media que nadie se atreve a
recordar porque tampoco es políticamente correcto- una orden militar
cristiana.......

The above is another quote from this troglodyte. I read Spanish and had a look at the whole text. There is nothing surprising in it, it's the usual medieval bullsh1t, the usual misogynist nonsense about the glory of the church etc...

The above quote is literally..."There was in the Middle ages - this beautiful Middle ages which noone dares to remember because it's not politically correct - a military christian order..."
The man is looking back to the Middle Ages with nostalgia as a glorious time. This is his mindset, not untypical in the Spanish church. There is lots of other blathering nonsense in it, but nothing we haven't heard before.

The quote in the OP does not, to me, refer to rape specifically, and doesn't necessarily advocate it. It seems to me to be saying that a woman has given up her right to bodily integrity by having an abortion. Still sick and evil and woman-hating, but not quite an invitation to rape. Anyway, I repeat, the man is clearly a troglodyte.

guerito

fisgon wrote: »

The quote in the OP does not, to me, refer to rape specifically, and doesn't necessarily advocate it. It seems to me to be saying that a woman has given up her right to bodily integrity by having an abortion. Still sick and evil and woman-hating, but not quite an invitation to rape. Anyway, I repeat, the man is clearly a troglodyte.

"Eso le da a los varones la licencia absoluta, sin límites, de abusar del cuerpo de la mujer"

The Spanish version translates as saying that allowing abortion itself gives this "right" to abuse a woman. But the word "varones" means "males" as opposed to "men" or "people", and it implies rape. If he had said "eso le da al hombre la licencia absoluta..." that would say the same thing, but would imply something else completely ("this would give man the absolute right...").

He knew exactly what he was saying. It's just inflammatory bulls*t from an opportunistic clergyman looking to take advantage of the new conservative government's stated opposition to abortion.

[-0-]

So if a woman who was raped has an abortion she should be raped again? Great logic there Bishop Old Testament.

We have an old man who has no experience with relationships, sex, marriage, children, spouting ridiculous rhetoric. Why is this news worthy? People like him should be ignored. I would pay more attention to the drunk whine-o (get it?) on the street than this out of touch old fart who is just a hater in a cape.

I wish there was a hell for this bastard to suffer in.

fisgon

"la cruz estorba, los cristianos y la Iglesia
estorban a los que tienen la pretensión del poder absoluto"

In one sense I find this guy's sermon jaw-dropping in its revisionism and nonsense and delusion, in another, what do we expect? He is a cleric in the catholic church, they really believe their own bullsh1t.
The above made me laugh. ...."The cross obstructs, christians and the church obstruct those who aspire to absolute power"

This coming from a church which backed, one hundred per cent, Franco's fascist totalitarian state from the 30s to 1975, a state that took for itself 'absolute power', a state that employed slave labour to construct its monuments to itself, that did all the usual imprisoning and banning that a dictatorship does, all with the connivance of this church.
It's clear that this guy is a pathetic, self-serving, deluded extremist.
I still think, though, that the title of the thread is a little sensationalist.

Tonyandthewhale

Can we change the thread title so since we've established that the bishop didn't actually use the word 'rape?'

For instance we could change it to say something like 'Spanish bishop says it's okay for men to disregard the humanity of women who've had abortions and violate their bodies without limits through abuse, sexual or otherwise.'

Dades

I've gone for something shorter.

sensibleken

Denegrates? It sounds like he called them poopie heads.

Dades

Sure, the gravity may not be conveyed by the thread title - but that's what the thread content is for.

People can make their own minds up what he meant, as clearly there's differences in opinion, all of which are put forward in the thread.

Mark Hamill

A question for those who think the guy wasn't talking about rape when he said a woman who has an abortion "gives males absolute, unlimited license to abuse the woman's body...". What exactly do you think he was talking about?

MrPudding

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A question for those who think the guy wasn't talking about rape when he said a woman who has an abortion "gives males absolute, unlimited license to abuse the woman's body...". What exactly do you think he was talking about?

Hmmm, absolute license... perhaps he was talking about making copies... that or rape. One of the two , I can't decide.

MrP

Bannasidhe

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm, absolute license... perhaps he was talking about making copies... that or rape. One of the two , I can't decide.

MrP

Perhaps he meant they can say the woman in question has a fat ass without fear of repercussions?

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A question for those who think the guy wasn't talking about rape when he said a woman who has an abortion "gives males absolute, unlimited license to abuse the woman's body...". What exactly do you think he was talking about?

Abortion. He was saying that the very act of choosing to have an abortion was given men a license to abuse her body - the abortion was the abuse.

I agree that the language, at least as translated, is less than clear. But given that the bloke is a Catholic archbishop, that is far and away the most plausible interpretation of what he said. The alternative interpretation - that men in general have a standing permission to rape a woman who has opted to abort in the past - would involve a flat contradiction of a number of very well-established and strongly-held Catholic teachings.

Sonics2k

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Perhaps he meant they can say the woman in question has a fat ass without fear of repercussions?

Truly a golden ticket for people world wide.

sponsoredwalk

Huge mistake giving in and changing the title of the thread:
Not only was the title copying the title of the link in the OP but a
sentence like 'a woman who has an abortion gives a man absolute
licence to abuse her body without restrictions because she has
committed a sin as if she had a right to do so' actually includes rape as
only one of many sick possibilities, in other words the title is actually a
tame expression of how sick such a comment is - when interpreted in
the obvious way 99% of the posters interpreted it. It actually restrains the
anti-Christian agenda lurking around every corner on boards.ie

Comments telling us Hitler & Stalin's crimes were 'less dreadful than
abortion' if anything justify the obvious interpretation of such a
comment, whether or not it's accurate, but it's far too vague for me
to simply be swayed by declarative statements - especially when
we're talking about someone nostalgic for the militarily minded middle
age christian times...

28064212

Peregrinus wrote: »

Abortion. He was saying that the very act of choosing to have an abortion was given men a license to abuse her body - the abortion was the abuse.

I agree that the language, at least as translated, is less than clear. But given that the bloke is a Catholic archbishop, that is far and away the most plausible interpretation of what he said. The alternative interpretation - that men in general have a standing permission to rape a woman who has opted to abort in the past - would involve a flat contradiction of a number of very well-established and strongly-held Catholic teachings.

Ah, a classic "no true Scotsman" argument, haven't seen one of those used in a while.

Perhaps you can give your translation of

Eso le da a los varones la licencia absoluta, sin límites, de abusar del cuerpo de la mujer,...

and explain how that fits in with your interpretation-bending?

MrPudding

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Huge mistake giving in and changing the title of the thread:
Not only was the title copying the title of the link in the OP but a
sentence like 'a woman who has an abortion gives a man absolute
licence to abuse her body without restrictions because she has
committed a sin as if she had a right to do so' actually includes rape as
only one of many sick possibilities, in other words the title is actually a
tame expression of how sick such a comment is - when interpreted in
the obvious way 99% of the posters interpreted it. It actually restrains the
anti-Christian agenda lurking around every corner on boards.ie

Comments telling us Hitler & Stalin's crimes were 'less dreadful than
abortion' if anything justify the obvious interpretation of such a
comment, whether or not it's accurate, but it's far too vague for me
to simply be swayed by declarative statements - especially when
we're talking about someone nostalgic for the militarily minded middle
age christian times...

I have to say I agree and I am very disappointed with the decision to change the thread title.

MrP

Dades

MrPudding wrote: »

I have to say I agree and I am very disappointed with the decision to change the thread title.

MrP

Seriously people - it's a thread title. The entire thread has encompassed a disagreement about what the statement means. It's clearly open to interpretation.

What bloody difference does it make that one interpretation of the text is not represented in a tabloid headline fashion. The thread itself and the arguments within it exist for people to make their own minds up.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

Abortion. He was saying that the very act of choosing to have an abortion was given men a license to abuse her body - the abortion was the abuse.

That wouldn't make any sense, read the quote again:
"But to kill a defenceless child,...
...and to do his own mother! (ie "to have an abortion)
That gives men the absolute licence, without limits, to...
...abuse the body of the woman/women...
...because she swallows the tragedy,...
...swallows it as if it were a right."
He is saying that by having an abortion, a women gives males absolute license to do abuse her anyway they want. You are trying to say that the bishop meant "if a woman has an abortion then she gives men power to give her an abortion" which would be a moronically redundant thing to say, not to mention that it still wouldn't make any sense, given that he describes it as "absolute license, without limits", which doesn't really describe abortion at all. I dont see why you would think he meant this ......

Peregrinus wrote: »

But given that the bloke is a Catholic archbishop, that is far and away the most plausible interpretation of what he said.

Oh, I see, he couldn't possibly be a misogynistic cretin because he is a Catholic archbishop :rolleyes:. Anything better than a "no true scotsman" defense?

Peregrinus wrote: »

The alternative interpretation - that men in general have a standing permission to rape a woman who has opted to abort in the past - would involve a flat contradiction of a number of very well-established and strongly-held Catholic teachings.

And what possible difference would that make? Its not like there aren't a plethora of cases of priests doing or saying things against strongly held Catholic teachings.

robindch

Right folks, thread title changed again.

Now, discuss!

28064212

robindch wrote: »

Right folks, thread title changed again.

Now, discuss!

"inflammatory" could be interpreted as him actually setting fire to the words. And the title-edited disclaimer is a bit wishy-washy....

Oh wait, discuss the topic? nm

Bannasidhe

28064212 wrote: »

"inflammatory" could be interpreted as him actually setting fire to the words. And the title-edited disclaimer is a bit wishy-washy....

Oh wait, discuss the topic? nm

I think the new title thread implies that a Spanish bishop advocated return of Auto-de-fe and the burning of women who have had abortions.

What was the topic again?

robindch

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What was the topic again?

Aggressive Spanish bishop.

Inflammatory comments.

Women who've aborted.

It's all in the title

Bannasidhe

robindch wrote: »

Aggressive Spanish bishop.

Inflammatory comments.

Women who've aborted.

It's all in the title

Cheers - I was getting distracted by the hair-splitting .

Galvasean

We should give him an anti-inlammatory

Galvasean

I spell it wrong, they thank it anyway :pac:

Sarky

It's the main reason I didn't thank it. >_>

Turtwig

Sarky wrote: »

It's the main reason I didn't thank it. >_>

The lack of the period at the end of his sentence was mine.

Bannasidhe

Jernal wrote: »

The lack of the period at the end of his sentence was mine.

I prefer to call it a 'full stop' - not being of an American persuasion.

Now, did you actually mean because he didn't have a period?

or maybe a sentence at the end of his period?

or even a period is not a sentence for him?

Honestly jernal - could you be a tad more exact!

:pac:

Turtwig

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I prefer to call it a 'full stop' - not being of an American persuasion.

Now, did you actually mean because he didn't have a period?

or maybe a sentence at the end of his period?

or even a period is not a sentence for him?

Honestly jernal - could you be a tad more exact!

:pac:

Precision is definitely something I need more of.:o (With reliable accuracy of course!)
Although I am almost certain the "the" before period should have ruled out the notion that I was referring to a female's biological period.:)

Turtwig

Meh, weekends...weekdays same thing really.
Edit : Rob just did a ninja delete on me.

sensibleken

Peregrinus wrote: »

Abortion. He was saying that the very act of choosing to have an abortion was given men a license to abuse her body - the abortion was the abuse.

.

I've heard some spinning and head in the sand things before. But this is the most rediculous interpretation of what is a fairly unambiguous and hideous statement.

Seriously, you would do christianity a much bigger favour by being calling the guy out on his disgusting statements rather than defending them with such a terrible argument

wandatowell

Sure who really cares what the RCC says anymore?


Its grip on society is weakening.

Sarky

It's weakening because people care enough to call bullsh*t on the stupid things religious people say.

robindch

wandatowell wrote: »

Sure who really cares what the RCC says anymore?

Lots of catholics do, though god(*) knows why.












(*) Referred to for rhetorical purposes only.

Dades

sensibleken wrote: »

Seriously, you would do christianity a much bigger favour by being calling the guy out on his disgusting statements rather than defending them with such a terrible argument

Was that a defence? Looks like an interpretation to me.

The Quadratic Equation

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A question for those who think the guy wasn't talking about rape when he said a woman who has an abortion "gives males absolute, unlimited license to abuse the woman's body...". What exactly do you think he was talking about?

This :

In the first 15 weeks, suction-aspiration or vacuum abortion is the most common surgical method. From the 15th week until approximately the 26th, other techniques must be used. Dilation and evacuation (D&E) consists of opening the cervix of the uterus and emptying it using surgical instruments and suction.

The UK abortion limit is 24 weeks. Premature babies can survive at 24 weeks and cases of 21 week survival are known.

Pic of 16 week old foetus in the womb :

The Mad Hatter

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

In the first 15 weeks, suction-aspiration or vacuum abortion is the most common surgical method. From the 15th week until approximately the 26th, other techniques must be used. Dilation and evacuation (D&E) consists of opening the cervix of the uterus and emptying it using surgical instruments and suction.

The UK abortion limit is 24 weeks. Premature babies can survive at 24 weeks and cases of 21 week survival are known.

Pic of 16 week old foetus in the womb :

What does that have to do with Mark's question?

Galvasean

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

What does that have to do with Mark's question?

Dont you get it? Picture of serene fetus = abortions are bad!

....wait, I still don't see a whole lot of relevance :P

Sonics2k

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

In the first 15 weeks, suction-aspiration or vacuum abortion is the most common surgical method. From the 15th week until approximately the 26th, other techniques must be used. Dilation and evacuation (D&E) consists of opening the cervix of the uterus and emptying it using surgical instruments and suction.

The UK abortion limit is 24 weeks. Premature babies can survive at 24 weeks and cases of 21 week survival are known.

Pic of 16 week old foetus in the womb :

le snip

I'm sorry, but what part of this thread made you think this was a debate on whether Abortion should be legal/illegal or ethical?

To my reading, it was a thread about the nonsensical and malicious thing a Bishop said publicly.

Dades

The Quadratic Equation, any more flaming and you're going on holidays.

This is not a debate.

The Quadratic Equation

Dades wrote: »

The Quadratic Equation, any more flaming and you're going on holidays.

This is not a debate.

We were asked the following question :

Mark Hamill wrote: »

A question for those who think the guy wasn't talking about rape when he said a woman who has an abortion "gives males absolute, unlimited license to abuse the woman's body...". What exactly do you think he was talking about?

I responded with what I believe the abuse he was referring to was. As far as I am concerned abortion is abuse of a woman's body, and an innocent child's, that is the pure and simple truth. I would hold this view regardless if I was Theist or Atheist. Of course I didn't expect many here to agree with any such stance, but how dare I debate this attitude, hence the infraction. So ban me all you want, after all it's very clear 'this is not a debate' as you say.

Sarky

<buys popcorn and puts some beer in the fridge for inevitable Feedback thread>

robindch

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

I responded with what I believe the abuse he was referring to was.

I don't believe you did.

Instead, you tried to introduce abortion into a debate concerning -- as Mark made quite clear -- what exactly a Spanish bishop meant when he said that a males acquire "absolute, unlimited license to abuse the woman's body", because that woman chose to abort. Maybe he meant rape, maybe he meant pouring a cup of boiling water over them, maybe cold, or perhaps daub them with out-of-date chocolate body-paint. Who knows, since he hasn't clarified.

For the sake of clarity, this thread's about a Spanish bishop who's made inflammatory comments about women who've aborted, as I believe the thread title makes clear.

If you'd like to debate abortion, feel free to open another thread, but please be aware that you will be banned if you introduce abortion into this thread again.

robindch

BTW, I believe the bish clarified his own comments here, a couple of days after his 2009 christmas "homily":

http://www.elcorreoweb.es/andalucia/079125/arzobispo/granada/mujer/aborta/varon/abusar

Don't have time to translate it just now, but I presume he didn't back down. This letter is equally shocking, but 30 seconds with google doesn't produce a reliable source.

BTW, a thread appeared over in AH on Thursday on the same topic.

Sonics2k

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

We were asked the following question :



I responded with what I believe the abuse he was referring to was. As far as I am concerned abortion is abuse of a woman's body, and an innocent child's, that is the pure and simple truth. I would hold this view regardless if I was Theist or Atheist. Of course I didn't expect many here to agree with any such stance, but how dare I debate this attitude, hence the infraction. So ban me all you want, after all it's very clear 'this is not a debate' as you say.

The discussion was very very clearly about what the Bishop said, not the matter of Abortion and it's ethics. Deal with it.

MagicMarker

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

Pic of 16 week old foetus in the womb :

Looks delicious.

The Quadratic Equation

Sonics2k wrote: »

The discussion was very very clearly about what the Bishop said, not the matter of Abortion and it's ethics. Deal with it.

And I very clearly stated that I believe the abuse he was referring the abortion procedure abuse of the womans body and the childs. Deal with it.

MagicMarker

The Quadratic Equation wrote: »

And I very clearly stated that I believe the abuse he was referring the abortion procedure abuse of the womans body and the childs. Deal with it.

Even so, you could have just said that, instead of giving us all a lecture on abortion itself.

The Quadratic Equation

MagicMarker wrote: »

Even so, you could have just said that, instead of giving us all a lecture on abortion itself.

Thanks for your lecture, but I did say that, many would try to claim abortion is not abuse of the woman and childs body, but the procedure clearly is.