Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm shocked that anyone thinks this Govt is actually able to work up a conspiracy. For C, read PJ Mara-style coincidences of the political type - eg; there might just happen to be money and a blank date on the political calendar for a referendum or Govt decision around the time the Pope was on a family-get-together visit :-)

I wasn't suggesting that the Govt would work up a conspiracy... more that some posters would see a conspiracy in a confluence of events which might lean public opinion away from their own preference.

For instance, the suggestion that someone in the Govt has taken money from the Church to ensure a referendum takes place in the same timeframe as a Papal visit would be an example of a conspiracy theory from a poster, rather than an actual conspiracy between the Government and the Church. Or, as learn_more points out, the suggestion that someone from the pro choice side would do the same thing, thinking it would actually further their ends, would also be one.

Qs

"You know what would rally the troops against repeal, a visit from the pope" I mean its not exactly faking a moon landing or hiding aliens in the desert for half a century is it? I think they could manage it.

Absolam

Sure... I think the Church would be on fairly solid ground in thinking that a visit by the Pope to any territory is likely to improve sentiment amongst it's followers. That obviously goes for just about any organisation; getting out and pressing the flesh is a large part of pretty much every leaders job isn't it, whether we're talking politics, religion, or business? And that's what so many leaders spend so much time doing it; it works. And choosing the places where such a visit will have a significant effect also works, whether that's Missouri, Ireland, or Dreamforce '17.

However, proposing that the Government is co-ordinating such a visit with the Church with the intent of favouring a particular outcome? Yes, that's the same ballpark as faking a moon landing or hiding aliens in the desert for half a century.

aloyisious

Qs wrote: »

"You know what would rally the troops against repeal, a visit from the pope" I mean its not exactly faking a moon landing or hiding aliens in the desert for half a century is it? I think they could manage it.

Pardon my cynicism, the rock on which the troops placed their faith proved to be very soluble. The question surely is; could the Pope wash away the disillusionment of the troops you write about in a miraculous way.

The visitors from abroad to the event would probably be the more inclined to believe the Vatican line, where-as the locals might be more cynical. The visitors won't be voting in any referendum or election. It's possible that local politics may have an effect on the situation at the time, as the natives are in an unhappy mood and inclined against belief in speech from Leinster House.

Qs

aloyisious wrote: »

Pardon my cynicism, the rock on which the troops placed their faith proved to be very soluble. The question surely is; could the Pope wash away the disillusionment of the troops you write about in a miraculous way.

The visitors from abroad to the event would probably be the more inclined to believe the Vatican line, where-as the locals might be more cynical. The visitors won't be voting in any referendum or election. It's possible that local politics may have an effect on the situation at the time, as the natives are in an unhappy mood and inclined against belief in speech from Leinster House.

I know elderly people who stayed at home for the marriage equality referendum because they both wanted their gay nieces, nephews, grand kids, neighbours etc to be allowed to marry but also didn't want to cross the church. I think the pope could have moved some of them to vote against it if he made the visit. This one is going to be a lot closer too.

And its not just about getting people out to vote. Its about whipping them up enough to campaign etc too. It all adds to the end result.

aloyisious

Hopefully the national mood of cynicism lasts for the next few years, helped on by idiot politicians and senators putting their feet in their mouths.

Absolam

aloyisious wrote: »

Pardon my cynicism, the rock on which the troops placed their faith proved to be very soluble. The question surely is; could the Pope wash away the disillusionment of the troops you write about in a miraculous way. The visitors from abroad to the event would probably be the more inclined to believe the Vatican line, where-as the locals might be more cynical. The visitors won't be voting in any referendum or election. It's possible that local politics may have an effect on the situation at the time, as the natives are in an unhappy mood and inclined against belief in speech from Leinster House.

Sooo... you're saying there's no need to worry about a Papal visit having any effect on a referendum? Good to know

robindch

The Satanic Temple says that a new Texas law which requires aborted foetuses to be cremated or buried (and paid for by the woman) is not compatible with Satanic religious beliefs concerning bodily integrity and is planning to sue the state.

https://thesatanictemple.com/

http://www.dallasnews.com/life/faith/2016/12/04/satanic-temple-says-members-comply-new-texas-abortion-law-requiring-burial-aborted-fetal-tissue

The Satanic Temple has filed state and federal lawsuits against Missouri which requires women seeking an abortion are given reading material which claims that life begins at conception, and who must then wait for three days between their initial appointment and their actual procedure. Again, the ST is claiming that the Missouri law violates Satanic religious beliefs concerning bodily integrity.

Both lawsuits require funding and there's a payment link on the ST website above for anybody who wants to contribute.

Absolam

Would it be overly cynical to wonder when the Satanic Temples religious beliefs concerning bodily integrity were arrived at?

Their tenets only set out the belief that "One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone." That belief, on the face of it, doesn't seem to be a reason to object to the burial or cremation of a body, whether aborted or otherwise. Does anyone know, are adherents of the Satanic Temple generally disposed of in sanitary landfills upon their deaths? Or does the belief in some unspecified way distinguish between the remains of those whose lives are terminated in different ways?

It also seems rather odd to object on the same basis to a law that requires all women seeking to terminate their pregnancy be given reading material showing (claiming is a bit of a stretch here, especially since Missouri State law has for some time specified that life begins at conception) that life begins at conception; how does being provided with information violate a belief in the inviolability of one’s body?

At first glance these lawsuits really seem pretty close to the definition of 'frivolous', unless the Satanic Temple is in the process of developing a far more comprehensive religious ideology around the notion of bodily inviolability.... and even so, probably still.

robdonn

Absolam wrote: »

It also seems rather odd to object on the same basis to a law that requires all women seeking to terminate their pregnancy be given reading material showing (claiming is a bit of a stretch here, especially since Missouri State law has for some time specified that life begins at conception) that life begins at conception; how does being provided with information violate a belief in the inviolability of one’s body?

I'd be interested to know if the reading materials specify that "life begins at conception" is a legal position and is given as a necessity of Missouri State law and may not be the medical position of the facility or the broader medical field. Missouri State law may state that life begins at conception and the reading material may show this, but if trying to pass as medical knowledge then it is just a claim (whether true or not) as it is not in a position to make that assertion.

Medical knowledge is not at the whim of legislation, nor should the two be confused.

Absolam

robdonn wrote: »

I'd be interested to know if the reading materials specify that "life begins at conception" is a legal position and is given as a necessity of Missouri State law and may not be the medical position of the facility or the broader medical field. Missouri State law may state that life begins at conception and the reading material may show this, but if trying to pass as medical knowledge then it is just a claim (whether true or not) as it is not in a position to make that assertion. Medical knowledge is not at the whim of legislation, nor should the two be confused.

Well... I'm not sure that the notion is a medical one; arguably it's a scientific one, or at least one based on scientific evidence, and it would be kind of at odds with the purpose to caveat the statement with a provisio that it's a legal fact rather than a philosophically acceptable fact to everyone, don't you think? Regardless, yes, it is a legal requirement in the State of Missouri, regardless of the feelings of workers in the medical facilities or the broader medical field.
The relevant legal requirement is that
"(2) The physician who is to perform or induce the abortion or a qualified professional has presented the woman, in person, printed materials provided by the department, which describe the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics of the unborn child at two-week gestational increments from conception to full term, including color photographs or images of the developing unborn child at two-week gestational increments. Such descriptions shall include information about brain and heart functions, the presence of external members and internal organs during the applicable stages of development and information on when the unborn child is viable. The printed materials shall prominently display the following statement: "The life of each human being begins at conception. Abortion will terminate the life of a separate, unique, living human being.""
So the required statement is quite specific, if one that some people might be inclined to disagree with, at least philosophically. It's definitely tricky to see how being provided with the statement could possibly violate a belief in the inviolability of one’s body, don't you think?

Hotblack Desiato

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/complaints-upheld-against-ray-d-arcy-show-abortion-coverage-1.2914348

Looks like we can forget about any mention of abortion in future on Irish broadcasters except for during formal current affairs programming.

PLC want women to be silenced and BAI are more than willing to help them.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/complaints-upheld-against-ray-d-arcy-show-abortion-coverage-1.2914348

Looks like we can forget about any mention of abortion in future on Irish broadcasters except for during formal current affairs programming.

PLC want women to be silenced and BAI are more than willing to help them.

Hardly silenced.... wouldn't it have been allowed if the political messaging had been balanced by the opposing viewpoint? I'm sure none of us want our State broadcaster to be presenting biased political coverage.

rainbow kirby

So every case where someone is telling their personal story needs an Ionanist to "balance" them? Ridiculous.

volchitsa

rainbow kirby wrote: »

So every case where someone is telling their personal story needs an Ionanist to "balance" them? Ridiculous.

Really really wish they would do that, I can't imagine anything more guaranteed to show up the inhumanity of the "prolife" side than to have Breda O'Brien or Cora Sherlock talking down to someone like Deirdre Conroy, or more likely, squirming because they haven't got the guts to say to her face what they claim to think about women like her.

Alas I think it's far more likely that RTE will just chicken out and stop covering the issue.

Absolam

rainbow kirby wrote: »

So every case where someone is telling their personal story needs an Ionanist to "balance" them? Ridiculous.

Personally, I wouldn't have said so, no, because you're right that would be ridiculous. On the other hand, if a show is regularly featuring guests presenting material which only ever leans towards one side of a political discussion, especially such a fraught one, then that is assuredly bias, and a State broadcaster has a responsibility to balance it. Trying to fly under the radar by claiming its only people telling their personal stories seems rather disingenuous.

aloyisious

volchitsa wrote: »

Really really wish they would do that, I can't imagine anything more guaranteed to show up the inhumanity of the "prolife" side than to have Breda O'Brien or Cora Sherlock talking down to someone like Deirdre Conroy, or more likely, squirming because they haven't got the guts to say to her face what they claim to think about women like her.

Alas I think it's far more likely that RTE will just chicken out and stop covering the issue.

Shutting down the other person because he/she fears being accused of bias on the public taxpayed airwaves and of costing RTE money through legal fees fighting nonsensical IBA and court cases is all the rage in tactics now of the opposition to allowing women the right to decide their own future. RTE is shutting down anyone who calls a spade a spade cos it's afraid of the honest truthful person using the word LIAR to properly call out the other person telling lies on the air costing it money on fines imposed by the IBA "you can't call the O/P that now".

Absolam

I don't think anyone has come out and said they're opposed to allowing women the right to decide their own future, nor yet any that have brought court cases. Still, if it is as you say all the rage perhaps the fashion will pass like all others.

I imagine anyone who calls someone a liar that isn't would be unlikely to win a court case anyway, so maybe RTÉ can rely on the justice system.

Hotblack Desiato

Already it's been demonstrated that you can't call homophobes homophobes on RTE without them folding like a cheap suit at the first half-assed solicitors letter.

RTE love medical misery stories, it's the stock in trade of the Late Late Show. Except for women who are pregnant and don't wish to be, or have a life threatening problem, or one seriously injurious to their health. We will hear no more from them.

To call this 'political' is bollocks. It's a health issue and a human rights issue. There is no referendum campaign ongoing, there is no bill before the Oireachtas calling for a referendum. The forces of oppression can use this 'political' label to shut down discussion on the airwaves on any topic which they dislike, and the BAI will roll over.

Absolam

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Already it's been demonstrated that you can't call homophobes homophobes on RTE without them folding like a cheap suit at the first half-assed solicitors letter. RTE love medical misery stories, it's the stock in trade of the Late Late Show. Except for women who are pregnant and don't wish to be, or have a life threatening problem, or one seriously injurious to their health. We will hear no more from them.

I can't say I'm in a good position to tell if it was a half-assed solicitors letter, and given your own post history you'll forgive me if I don't take you at your word. Still, that RTE is risk averse when it comes to lawsuits means they're as wary of pro choice as pro life advocates suing them...

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

To call this 'political' is bollocks. It's a health issue and a human rights issue. There is no referendum campaign ongoing, there is no bill before the Oireachtas calling for a referendum. The forces of oppression can use this 'political' label to shut down discussion on the airwaves on any topic which they dislike, and the BAI will roll over.

Hmm. This is an issue which could precipitate a referendum, the coverage of which will undoubtedly influence such a referendum, which will divide governments and drive legislation. I can't help but feel you're trying (and failing) to claim it's not political in order to push biased coverage of the issue. That sounds much more like a force of oppression than someone asking for balanced coverage to be honest. The Broadcasting Authority of Ireland seem to agree that it should be balanced, though I suspect because they're not rowing in with your narrative they're to be tarred as 'anti choice' rather that just doing their job in an even handed manner.

aloyisious

I reckon anyone who wears priestly garb and declares the abortion issue is political should wear ordinary, not priestly, garb when doing so in order to make his point genuinely politically. To include one's priestly profession and/or garb while doing so is direct interference in matters political. It is making a visual statement about morals while claiming the issue under discussion is political. Ditto for anyone who declares the two can pass as one.

Absolam

I can't see any reason why a priest can't be as genuinely involved in politics as anyone else.... regardless of how he garbs himself. I'd be quite wary of anyone wanting to infringe on people's engagement with the democratic process based on their religion.

recedite

Technically there is the issue of religions being automatically classified as "charities", while at the same time "charities" cannot engage in political lobbying where it does not affect the charity directly.

Under the Charities Act 2009, charitable status may be granted to certain organisations. Section 2 of that Act defines a charitable organisation, and specifically excludes from charitable status the following types of body (among others): a political party, a body that promotes a political party or candidate, and a body that promotes a political cause, unless the promotion of that cause relates directly to the advancement of the charitable purposes of the body.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Technically there is the issue of religions being automatically classified as "charities", while at the same time "charities" cannot engage in political lobbying where it does not affect the charity directly.

Notwithstanding the fact that a priest is not a religion, and expressing an opinion on a political subject, even promoting that opinion, doesn't neccasarily fall within the bounds of political lobbying, the Act doesn't actually say that religions are automatically classified as charities. Organisations whose purpose is the advancement of religion may be registered as charities, but you won't find the Chuch of Ireland or the Catholic Church on the register required by the Act, for instance. Plenty of charitable organisations associated with those religions, certainly, like the Charities Of The Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, or the Church of Ireland Diocese of Dublin, and as you say, such organisations are restrained from lobbying that does not directly affect their purpose. Members of those organisation are in no way prohibited from expressing or promoting their own opinions on political subjects though. Nor should they be, to my mind.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

...as you say, such organisations are restrained from lobbying that does not directly affect their purpose. Members of those organisation are in no way prohibited from expressing or promoting their own opinions on political subjects though. Nor should they be, to my mind.

Its a tricky thing to separate the members and "officers" of an organisation, from "the organisation" itself. "The Church" often says it is composed of its people does it not?
Perhaps a church member could wear different hats on different occasions, and when lobbying declare "on this matter I am speaking as a private citizen, and not as a churchman" but that would literally preclude them from wearing their clerical garb .....

Absolam wrote: »

I can't see any reason why a priest can't be as genuinely involved in politics as anyone else.... regardless of how he garbs himself.

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

Its a tricky thing to separate the members and "officers" of an organisation, from "the organisation" itself. "The Church" often says it is composed of its people does it not? Perhaps a church member could wear different hats on different occasions, and when lobbying declare "on this matter I am speaking as a private citizen, and not as a churchman" but that would literally preclude them from wearing their clerical garb .....

You may find it tricky, but I think if someone doesn't claim to be speaking on behalf of a charity, they can reasonably be said to not be speaking on behalf of that charity. Nor would it preclude a churchman from speaking, or dressing, as a churchman, would it? Only from lobbying on behalf of a charity that employs them (outside of that charity's interests), regardless of who they are or how they dress.

recedite

Absolam wrote: »

Nor would it preclude a churchman from speaking, or dressing, as a churchman, would it? Only from lobbying on behalf of a charity that employs them ..

I can see you are getting defensive now, and preparing the weasel escape routes. Such as
1. Religions are entitled to operate as charities, but not all branches will have registered officially as charities. They will claim to be charities when it suits.
2. Religions will claim that priests are not employees when that suits, ie when they need to distance the org from any liabilities attaching to the priest. But when they want to control the priests, they will treat them as employees.

Its great when you can have your cake, and eat it.

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

I can see you are getting defensive now, and preparing the weasel escape routes. Such as
1. Religions are entitled to operate as charities, but not all branches will have registered officially as charities. They will claim to be charities when it suits.
2. Religions will claim that priests are not employees when that suits, ie when they need to distance the org from any liabilities attaching to the priest. But when they want to control the priests, they will treat them as employees.

Its great when you can have your cake, and eat it.

What are the chances of all these clerics not speaking as clerics but just as random men in the street all getting a chance to express their opinion in the media anyway? It's almost as though they're interviewed because they're seen as spokesmen for a whole religion or something. :rolleyes:

Absolam

recedite wrote: »

I can see you are getting defensive now, and preparing the weasel escape routes. Such as
1. Religions are entitled to operate as charities, but not all branches will have registered officially as charities. They will claim to be charities when it suits.
2. Religions will claim that priests are not employees when that suits, ie when they need to distance the org from any liabilities attaching to the priest. But when they want to control the priests, they will treat them as employees.
Its great when you can have your cake, and eat it.

I can see you're attempting to recharacterise others motivations to suit your own purpose, but be fair... that sort of thing really belongs in the CT forum, not here.

1. The fact that religious charities exist and actually engage in charitable activities doesn't oblige all religious to behave as if they're lobbying on behalf of those charities.
2. Religions aren't charities; charities may employ priests, just like they employ non-priests. That doesn't really oblige religions to say that they're employing them though..

There may be those who have cake, and those who eat it. That you confuse the two doesn't make them the same thing, it just makes you confused.

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

What are the chances of all these clerics not speaking as clerics but just as random men in the street all getting a chance to express their opinion in the media anyway? It's almost as though they're interviewed because they're seen as spokesmen for a whole religion or something. :rolleyes:

Well, I suppose if someone is asking them to speak as spokesmen for a religion, at least that makes it clear they're not lobbying on behalf of a charity. If nothing else, it'd help reduce some people's confusion :rolleyes: