Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I also support an amendment to the Constitution that would repeal the 8th and would allow the introduction of legislation to allow for abortion without any term limits btw.

As an absolute, and nothing of a return to the 1860's, precluding anything contained in the Offences against the Person Act 1861, or other Civil and/or Criminal Law Acts? This question is based upon your previous postings here, which seemed to show a definite bias against abortion by any door. Other posters here of a bias against abortion seem to have seen you in that light as well.

Cabaal

Someone did some edits to this recent poster campaign



http://www.broadsheet.ie/2016/04/14/taming-of-the-shroud/

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

As an absolute, and nothing of a return to the 1860's, precluding anything contained in the Offences against the Person Act 1861, or other Civil and/or Criminal Law Acts? This question is based upon your previous postings here, which seemed to show a definite bias against abortion by any door.Other posters here of a bias against abortion seem to have seen you in that light as well.

I am biased against abortion. I wish it were never necessary, but medicine and science have not yet advanced to a point where there's no necessity for abortion yet.

Until that point at some time in the future (and I do believe it will happen, sterilisation being the current nuclear option and shouldn't be necessary either, and even that's not 100% effective!), abortion is necessary, and I believe that women should retain complete rights, responsibilities and control over their body at all times.

oldrnwisr

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I am biased against abortion. I wish it were never necessary, but medicine and science have not yet advanced to a point where there's no necessity for abortion yet.

Until that point at some time in the future (and I do believe it will happen, sterilisation being the current nuclear option and shouldn't be necessary either, and even that's not 100% effective!), abortion is necessary, and I believe that women should retain complete rights, responsibilities and control over their body at all times.

I agree with you about hoping that abortion won't be necessary in the future. I think Kyng Curved Harmonica said it recently:

"I support access to abortion in the same way as I support access to amputation.

If the option needs to be exercised, I'd like it to be available. If it is to be available, I'd like the best services possible to be available.

By supporting amputation being an option in Irish Medicine, I am not pushing for amputations to become common. I would be very happy for not a single amputation to take place in a calendar year.

I am also more than happy to leave the mechanics of the procedure to those that are best placed to decide on them; that is the medical professional taking care of the patient involved."

However, I disagree about medicine and science being the areas which need advancing. If we really are going to have a situation where the number of women who need abortions are lowered then we need better and more widespread sex education in schools, a greater proliferation of contraception, wider access to family planning, particularly for those in less fortunate economic situations, not to mention a whole host of other societal considerations.
Unfortunately, topics like contraception and sex-education are things that pro-life groups, particularly religious ones, aren't in favour of either. Therein lies the problem.

MrPudding

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Sounds very thought crimey, I'm not sure there's anything on the books that they could be charged with? (that's even if we were to view inducing a miscarriage as murder!).

Generally failure to act is not criminalised, but there are some circumstances where it is. The recent case in the UK where the mother (apparently) stamped her 21 month old daughter to death, for example. There is an offence of failure to protect. Of course, that does not protect an unborn foetus because, well, they aren't actually people...

There is also the potential option for conspiracy to commit x offence. Not sure if that would apply here, it would depend on how much they knew, and form what little we do know I don't think it would apply.

MrP

One eyed Jack

oldrnwisr wrote: »

However, I disagree about medicine and science being the areas which need advancing. If we really are going to have a situation where the number of women who need abortions are lowered then we need better and more widespread sex education in schools, a greater proliferation of contraception, wider access to family planning, particularly for those in less fortunate economic situations, not to mention a whole host of other societal considerations.
Unfortunately, topics like contraception and sex-education are things that pro-life groups, particularly religious ones, aren't in favour of either. Therein lies the problem.

Well the reason I wouldn't necessarily tie those issues to the issue of abortion is because those things should be happening anyway, regardless of medical and scientific advances.

I don't know tbh if I'd lay the responsibility for them not happening solely at the feet of pro-life groups. I've met far too many parents that want to maintain their children's innocence by abstaining them from sex education classes. If parents themselves aren't willing to educate themselves in these matters, let alone their children, then that, I believe anyway, is where the fault lies in society as a whole.

I also think though, that no matter how much education people are given, no matter how much contraception is made available, no matter how much access is given to family planning, there will always be people who ignore their education, ignore the available resources, and find themselves in a position where they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

I don't think Ireland has yet gotten to a point where the massive change in social attitudes towards sex and sexuality that are necessary are actually really happening. I don't think we're ready for it. I just think it's a case that people themselves, regardless of their personal stance on abortion, they just don't appear to have the will to want to tackle sex and sexuality responsibly. I think the "live and let live" attitude is a cover for "as long as I have no responsibility".

It's easy to adopt a liberal stance and claim we're sexually liberated and all the rest of it, but I've never heard a conversation among young people yet where they're talking about boring stuff like sexual responsibility, because that's seen as conservative and prudish, when it shouldn't be. It should be part and parcel of any conversation about sex and sexuality if we want to raise children to be mature adults - socially responsible, respectful both of themselves and of others, stuff that should be second nature to them, so that they are truly liberated and free to enjoy sex.

Cabaal

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I also think though, that no matter how much education people are given, no matter how much contraception is made available, no matter how much access is given to family planning, there will always be people who ignore their education, ignore the available resources, and find themselves in a position where they are faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

Of nobody everybody will do everything perfect, we're human after all.
But sex education is none the less extremely important, if we looka at the USA and sex education we see states that have abstinence programs also have high teen pregnancy rates.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't think Ireland has yet gotten to a point where the massive change in social attitudes towards sex and sexuality that are necessary are actually really happening.

Its hard to have a progressive society when certainly organizations fight progressive moves and still do silly things like want to teach abstinence as sex education. Thats ignoring the reality of what humans are and want to do with their bodies.

You have to remember that we are a society where the catholic church had control and for decades people were educated with the idea that sex was dirty and sinful and shameful. Its takes time for a society to recover from such oppression.

Education at a young age is important, obviously you don't need to go into the nitty gritty at 4-5 years of age but if you look at the Netherlands it starts far younger then it does in Ireland and its constant in the education system after that.

One eyed Jack

Cabaal wrote: »

Of nobody everybody will do everything perfect, we're human after all.
But sex education is none the less extremely important, if we looka at the USA and sex education we see states that have abstinence programs also have high teen pregnancy rates.

I think personally, there's a lot more going on there than simply the type of sex education that's being delivered. You're taking one single criteria (pregnancy rates) from the whole spectrum of sex and sexuality, and suggesting that it must mean sex education in the rest of the US is any better. It really isn't. It's just different, and there are other consequences because of that.

(It's just my own personal opinion, but I've always maintained that pregnancy isn't the worst thing that can happen. An STI on the other hand...)

Its hard to have a progressive society when certainly organizations fight progressive moves and still do silly things like want to teach abstinence as sex education. Thats ignoring the reality of what humans are and want to do with their bodies.

You have to remember that we are a society where the catholic church had control and for decades people were educated with the idea that sex was dirty and sinful and shameful.

People ignored their education then too, maybe you've heard of the "Catholic contraception" method? Not particularly a fan of it myself, but many young people think they were the first to try anything :rolleyes:

To be perfectly honest, we really haven't been able to use religion as a scapegoat since the mid 90's. At some point, anyone who uses religion as a scapegoat has to acknowledge that we're now three generations gone from a time when the religion had any real influence on society. How many times has it been pointed out in the census thread already that Ireland is more likely 84% cultural Catholic? Those who argue about the influence of the Church can't have it both ways.

At some point they have to acknowledge that in Ireland we're about as liberal as we are Catholic!

Education at a young age is important, obviously you don't need to go into the nitty gritty at 4-5 years of age but if you look at the Netherlands it starts far younger then it does in Ireland and its constant.

Absolutely, and the key word there is that it's a constant process, that shouldn't be left up to schools IMO, but it should be the adults who educate themselves, in order that they can educate their children. I don't like trying to map other countries societies onto ours, as this is something we should be able to come up with ourselves rather than looking at how other countries are doing it (so to speak).

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

...we're now three generations gone from a time when the religion had any real influence on society.

You clearly haven't tried to enrol a non-Catholic child in a primary school recently.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

You clearly haven't tried to enrol a non-Catholic child in a primary school recently.

I actually have, plenty of 'em:


http://touch.boards.ie/thread/2056757792/88/#post99345246


It's the children whose first language isn't english, children of traveller families, children with special needs, children from disadvantaged socioeconomic backgrounds, and a few other prejudicial criteria, that prove to be the most difficult in trying to get them access to education in mainstream schools.

Non-Catholic children? They're actually the easiest to enrol and accommodate in Irish primary schools.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Non-Catholic children? They're actually the easiest to enrol and accommodate in Irish primary schools.

Easier than Catholic children (outside of the groups you've identified)?

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

Easier than Catholic children (outside of the groups you've identified)?

Outside of the groups of Catholic children I've identified?

I'd have to say yes tbh.

Now you might think "Oh blow it out your...", but the thing is, non-catholic children are a minority, and non-religious children are an even smaller minority again, and they really don't IME, have as much difficulty in accessing mainstream education as those other groups I mentioned, because they aren't IME as discriminated against and as disadvantaged in accessing education as those other groups I mentioned.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Outside of the groups of Catholic children I've identified?

I'd have to say yes tbh.

Now you might think "Oh blow it out your...", but the thing is, non-catholic children are a minority, and non-religious children are an even smaller minority again, and they really don't IME, have as much difficulty in accessing mainstream education as those other groups I mentioned, because they aren't IME as discriminated against and as disadvantaged in accessing education as those other groups I mentioned.

You misunderstand. You said: "Non-Catholic children? They're actually the easiest to enrol and accommodate in Irish primary schools." I'm asking whether you believe that it's easier to enrol a non-Catholic child in a Catholic school than it is a mainstream - for want of a word - Catholic child.

I'll accept that it's difficult to enrol (say) a traveller child, but you don't get to claim that religion has no influence on Irish society just because you can point to factors that have bigger influences.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Outside of the groups of Catholic children I've identified?

I'd have to say yes tbh.

Now you might think "Oh blow it out your...", but the thing is, non-catholic children are a minority, and non-religious children are an even smaller minority again, and they really don't IME, have as much difficulty in accessing mainstream education as those other groups I mentioned, because they aren't IME as discriminated against and as disadvantaged in accessing education as those other groups I mentioned.

So non-Catholic children, while discriminated against, are not the most discriminated-against minority in the country, seems to be your point.

I don't think that's in any way a defence of current practices, TBH.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

You misunderstand. You said: "Non-Catholic children? They're actually the easiest to enrol and accommodate in Irish primary schools." I'm asking whether you believe that it's easier to enrol a non-Catholic child in a Catholic school than it is a mainstream - for want of a word - Catholic child.

I'll accept that it's difficult to enrol (say) a traveller child, but you don't get to claim that religion has no influence on Irish society just because you can point to factors that have bigger influences.

Oh right well then I'd have to say if it was solely based on whether children are catholic or other, then definitely being catholic is an advantage, and not being catholic is an immediate disadvantage, just solely based upon the religious criteria alone, and I do understand the difficulties in accommodating children who aren't catholic in the vast majority of Irish schools solely in terms of the fact that they aren't catholic.

The point I guess I was trying to make though originally is that in terms of society as a whole, in comparison to the 90's when there was a mass abandonment of the RCC due to the waves of child sexual abuse scandals and the priests, bishops and cardinals all getting grilled by Gaybo on the Late Late... the difference in the level of any real influence the RCC had on Irish society just before the scandals, and now, in modern Irish society today, can the RCC really be said to have the same level of influence over Irish society as a whole, or is it just a convenient explanation?

We saw it in the marriage equality referendum, people attacking religious organisations and completely missing the point that marriage equality was a civil matter, they were basically ignoring the fact that there are many people who are LGBT and religious, who were made to feel alienated (now in all fairness a wind up merchant like that Paddy guy from IONA could be fcuked off to the furthest remote island and he wouldn't be missed, but I'm talking about ordinary people who weren't high profile media personalities).

When Cabaal posted that poster this morning I thought "ah jesus, not this shìt again!", because again, who's going to feel the most alienated in any campaign for a referendum on abortion in this country? Even though it's a civil matter, there will be people "sticking it to religion", completely missing the point that legislating for abortion is a civil matter, and ignoring the fact that many women who have had an abortion, are also religious.

Does it make sense that a woman who is religious would have an abortion? No, it makes fcukall sense, but do we care more about issues, or do we care more about people?

I'd like to think we all care more about people, in spite of our many ideological and philosophical differences tbh.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

So non-Catholic children, while discriminated against, are not the most discriminated-against minority in the country, seems to be your point.

I don't think that's in any way a defence of current practices, TBH.

In fairness, I did say in the other thread -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Perhaps you're mistaken then as to what I'm actually defending - I am defending the right of the patron bodies to maintain the ethos of their schools. Admissions criteria should never be used (IMO), and can never be justified (IMO) as a defence for maintaining the ethos of the school, particularly when the ethos of the school suggests that it is welcoming to everyone in the wider community. Admissions criteria fly in the face of that ethos.

volchitsa

I didn't see that post, but I'm still unsure how exactly this would work?

How would you envisage catholic schools maintaining their Catholic "ethos" if they can't preferentially take children from practising Catholic families?

And would they be allowed to employ Catholic teachers in preference to non Catholic ones?

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The point I guess I was trying to make though originally is that in terms of society as a whole, in comparison to the 90's when there was a mass abandonment of the RCC due to the waves of child sexual abuse scandals and the priests, bishops and cardinals all getting grilled by Gaybo on the Late Late... the difference in the level of any real influence the RCC had on Irish society just before the scandals, and now, in modern Irish society today, can the RCC really be said to have the same level of influence over Irish society as a whole, or is it just a convenient explanation?

That's edging into straw man territory. Sure, Ireland may not be as influenced by religion as it used to be, but that's very far from the same thing as not influenced by religion.

We saw it in the marriage equality referendum, people attacking religious organisations and completely missing the point that marriage equality was a civil matter...

Yes, it's a civil matter - but the vast bulk of opposition to equality is, at bottom, informed by religion. There are no rational reasons to discriminate against gay people, after all.

When Cabaal posted that poster this morning I thought "ah jesus, not this shìt again!", because again, who's going to feel the most alienated in any campaign for a referendum on abortion in this country?

People who feel that their personal religious beliefs trump other people's right to bodily integrity?

Even though it's a civil matter, there will be people "sticking it to religion", completely missing the point that legislating for abortion is a civil matter, and ignoring the fact that many women who have had an abortion, are also religious.

You're conflating "sticking it to religion" with "sticking it to religious people".

I don't care whether or not someone is religious - right up to the point where their religion makes them feel they have a right to curtail other people's rights. I don't care how sincerely held their beliefs are. I'm not asking them to have an abortion.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

I didn't see that post, but I'm still unsure how exactly this would work?

How would you envisage catholic schools maintaining their Catholic "ethos" if they can't preferentially take children from practising Catholic families?

And would they be allowed to employ Catholic teachers in preference to non Catholic ones?

I'll just preface this post by saying I hadn't meant to derail the thread and maybe a Moderator could move the posts to one of the other ongoing education threads?


Basically, the way I see it, the whole "maintaining ethos" nonsense argument is based more upon maintaining socioeconomic snobbery than having any basis in any religious ethos. It would be fulfilling the religious ethos of the school if they were to allow all children into the school, with no set criteria or any of the rest of it.

They could still maintain the curriculum and all the rest of it, and that would actually be a truer meaning of maintaining the ethos of the school than giving people the impression that the schools aren't welcoming to anyone and everyone in the community.

With regard to employment criteria, well there's already precedent in law for a genuine occupational requirement, and I think that should remain in place, because if a person is in a teaching or mentoring role, then they're not going to be able to fulfil the requirements of that role if they aren't suitable for the role, and a person who is non-religious isn't going to be as invested in faith formation as a person who is religious.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's edging into straw man territory. Sure, Ireland may not be as influenced by religion as it used to be, but that's very far from the same thing as not influenced by religion.

But the point you originally picked me up on was exactly what you just said above? I didn't say Irish society wasn't influenced by religion, I said that we're now three generations gone from a time when religion had any real influence on society. The inference I was making is that it has severely diminished since then, to the point where we are now, where it's pointed out time and time again that the influence is a cultural nod to the traditions of Catholicism than any actual belief -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

To be perfectly honest, we really haven't been able to use religion as a scapegoat since the mid 90's. At some point, anyone who uses religion as a scapegoat has to acknowledge that we're now three generations gone from a time when the religion had any real influence on society. How many times has it been pointed out in the census thread already that Ireland is more likely 84% cultural Catholic? Those who argue about the influence of the Church can't have it both ways.

At some point they have to acknowledge that in Ireland we're about as liberal as we are Catholic!

Yes, it's a civil matter - but the vast bulk of opposition to equality is, at bottom, informed by religion.

To be perfectly honest , I don't think that's true. I think it's simply ignorance. There's no need even nowadays to use religion as a smokescreen because religion comes in for just as much derision and scorn. Misanthropes tend to detest everyone equally first (anyone who isn't them at least), and then justify their reasons later. There's quite a few of them about.

There are no rational reasons to discriminate against gay people, after all.

Absolutely, that'd be my take on it too, I only discriminate between people on the basis that they're a complete and utter arsehole, or they're not.

People who feel that their personal religious beliefs trump other people's right to bodily integrity?

Not really where I was going with that. I meant alienated as in women who are religious who had an abortion. They're by far the largest group of women who have had an abortion too. Yet they're going to be tarred with the same brush as the hateful fundamentalist fcuknuts.

You're conflating "sticking it to religion" with "sticking it to religious people".

Yes I am, because that is exactly what people will do - they'll ignore the fact that there are plenty of religious people who are pro-choice, and conflate people who are religious with being anti-choice fundamentalist fcuknuts. It's a prejudiced, fairly lazy stereotype that's simply based solely upon ignorance.

I don't care whether or not someone is religious - right up to the point where their religion makes them feel they have a right to curtail other people's rights. I don't care how sincerely held their beliefs are. I'm not asking them to have an abortion.

Well that kind of a person would be what I would consider a complete and utter arsehole. I wouldn't make sweeping generalisations about whole groups of people based upon whether they are religious or non-religious either, as that to me at least, would be irrational.

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But the point you originally picked me up on was exactly what you just said above? I didn't say Irish society wasn't influenced by religion, I said that we're now three generations gone from a time when religion had any real influence on society. The inference I was making is that it has severely diminished since then, to the point where we are now, where it's pointed out time and time again that the influence is a cultural nod to the traditions of Catholicism than any actual belief -

It's fading, to be sure. But if non-practicing parents still feel pressure to baptise their children to get them into school, then whether the influence is due to actual belief or not isn't exactly relevant.

To be perfectly honest , I don't think that's true. I think it's simply ignorance. There's no need even nowadays to use religion as a smokescreen because religion comes in for just as much derision and scorn.

Again, we seem to be talking at cross purposes. I'm not suggesting that bigots are using religion as an excuse for their prejudice; I'm saying that religion is the basis for it. Again: there's no rational basis for disliking someone because of the gender they're attracted to, but if you've been raised in a religion that claims that such attraction is inherently disordered...

Almost two in every five people voted against marriage equality just last year. Lots of those people would probably claim that it wasn't religion that motivated their decision, but - fundamentally - the reason people think it's OK to discriminate against others for their sexuality is because of the influence of religion on society.

Not really where I was going with that. I meant alienated as in women who are religious who had an abortion. They're by far the largest group of women who have had an abortion too. Yet they're going to be tarred with the same brush as the hateful fundamentalist fcuknuts.

I disagree. Why would they?

Yes I am, because that is exactly what people will do - they'll ignore the fact that there are plenty of religious people who are pro-choice, and conflate people who are religious with being anti-choice fundamentalist fcuknuts. It's a prejudiced, fairly lazy stereotype that's simply based solely upon ignorance.

Some people will do that, sure - but not all. So surely your conflation is just as lazy and ignorant?

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's fading, to be sure. But if non-practicing parents still feel pressure to baptise their children to get them into school, then whether the influence is due to actual belief or not isn't exactly relevant.

But who's fault is that? Honestly, the amount of people that do that and then only realise later that they didn't have to do it, and then they say they regret it, but they don't want to deny their children communion day, and then they don't want their children to feel left out on confirmation day, and then the children grow up and the cycle perpetuates itself over and over. They only have themselves to blame for the path of least resistance and most convenience, and then they complain that if only other people grew up and didn't tick boxes, they wouldn't tick a box. It. drives. me. demented. But I have to hold my tongue.

Again, we seem to be talking at cross purposes. I'm not suggesting that bigots are using religion as an excuse for their prejudice; I'm saying that religion is the basis for it. Again: there's no rational basis for disliking someone because of the gender they're attracted to, but if you've been raised in a religion that claims that such attraction is inherently disordered...

Religion isn't the basis for it, religion is the justification for what to them are completely rational prejudices based upon ignorance, the underlying element being insecurity, anyone that is in any way different to them is perceived as a threat to their rational world view. If they reject religion, or they were never religious in the first place - then what rational explanation is there for their attitude towards people who they perceive as being in any way different to them?

I was raised in a religion that claims such attraction is intrinsically disordered. I never found out about this particular detail because there was never any mention of sex in the first place! Joined up thinking while I was rote learning and reciting passages from the Bible was never my forte at that age either. To some young people nowadays - everything, it appears, is gay! (in the pejorative sense)

Almost two in every five people voted against marriage equality just last year. Lots of those people would probably claim that it wasn't religion that motivated their decision, but - fundamentally - the reason people think it's OK to discriminate against others for their sexuality is because of the influence of religion on society.

I'm just gonna go Occam's razor on this one - perhaps it's simply due to the fact that they just don't like the idea of homosexuality. There simply is no rational basis for their dislike, other than those people they have met who are gay they haven't particularly gelled with them for one reason or another. Perhaps it's because being hetero makes them feel like they're part of an in-group. Hell there could be a million and one different reasons, but the idea that they could dislike someone based upon the fact that a doctrine that they likely were never even aware of tells them to dislike someone. I think that's a very inconvenient explanation. For me personally it would be anyway, and it would make me want to investigate further, because it's simply not a satisfactory explanation IMO.

I disagree. Why would they?

Because they're going to be caught in the cross-fire between extremist anti-religionists, and extremist anti-choicers. It happened in the SSM referendum discussions, and it's going to happen in the abortion discussions.

Some people will do that, sure - but not all. So surely your conflation is just as lazy and ignorant?

Well I was specifically referring to the people that do it, so there wasn't any need to say 'some', because it's understood that I was only referring to the people that do it.

(Ok I thought it would be understood that's who I was talking about, I was wrong in making that assumption)

oscarBravo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

But who's fault is that? Honestly, the amount of people that do that and then only realise later that they didn't have to do it, and then they say they regret it, but they don't want to deny their children communion day, and then they don't want their children to feel left out on confirmation day, and then the children grow up and the cycle perpetuates itself over and over. They only have themselves to blame for the path of least resistance and most convenience, and then they complain that if only other people grew up and didn't tick boxes, they wouldn't tick a box. It. drives. me. demented. But I have to hold my tongue.

I really don't understand where you're coming from.

You've argued that religion has no real influence in our society today. I've pointed out one way that it profoundly affects it - and you're arguing about how if enough people fight against it, it may be possible to overcome it some day.

How is that supportive of your view that it has no influence?

Religion isn't the basis for it, religion is the justification for what to them are completely rational prejudices based upon ignorance, the underlying element being insecurity, anyone that is in any way different to them is perceived as a threat to their rational world view. If they reject religion, or they were never religious in the first place - then what rational explanation is there for their attitude towards people who they perceive as being in any way different to them?

They grew up in a society that, until very recently, considered it socially acceptable to discriminate based on sexuality.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that everyone carefully thinks through their beliefs and attitudes. If that was the case, we wouldn't have had nearly forty percent of the population voting against equality, because there's no rational basis for it.

I was raised in a religion that claims such attraction is intrinsically disordered.

So was I - and, until I nurtured the habit later in life of critically examining my beliefs and opinions, I used to have a vague unease about homosexuality. I'm not proud of it, but it's the inevitable consequence of growing up in a society that has its morals dictated by irrational belief systems.

I'm just gonna go Occam's razor on this one - perhaps it's simply due to the fact that they just don't like the idea of homosexuality.

That's ridiculous. It's like not liking the idea of left-handedness, or not liking the idea of people having a sweet tooth. You can be right-handed and dislike desserts, but not be in any way prejudiced against people who feel differently.

The only reason anyone wouldn't like the idea of homosexuality - in others, let's be clear - is because they've spent their formative years immersed in the belief that it's wrong.

That's the pervasive and unpleasant influence that religion still has today - albeit dwindling (and not nearly quickly enough).

There simply is no rational basis for their dislike, other than those people they have met who are gay they haven't particularly gelled with them for one reason or another. Perhaps it's because being hetero makes them feel like they're part of an in-group. Hell there could be a million and one different reasons, but the idea that they could dislike someone based upon the fact that a doctrine that they likely were never even aware of tells them to dislike someone. I think that's a very inconvenient explanation. For me personally it would be anyway, and it would make me want to investigate further, because it's simply not a satisfactory explanation IMO.

You're over-thinking it. You're assuming that the only way religion can cause bigotry is if true believers actively decide to espouse bigoted beliefs because their holy book tells them to. I'm pointing out that religion creates a pervasive societal belief that something is wrong, and children absorb societal mores without being consciously aware of it.

Because they're going to be caught in the cross-fire between extremist anti-religionists, and extremist anti-choicers. It happened in the SSM referendum discussions, and it's going to happen in the abortion discussions.

Hang on - you said yourself this is a civil matter. So why are you framing it as an argument for and against religion?

I'm for repeal of the 8th amendment. I'm not in favour of it because of anything to do with religion; this is a purely humanist position for me.

Some people will be very overt in espousing a religious basis for opposing repeal, and I have no issue taking aim squarely at those religious arguments, because they're ipso facto nonsensical. Others will have other reasons, and many of those reasons are grounded in religion in the same way as a subtle societal homophobia is.

At the end of the day, I don't care why someone wants to deny a woman her rights; I'm arguing for those rights on their own merits.

Well I was specifically referring to the people that do it, so there wasn't any need to say 'some', because it's understood that I was only referring to the people that do it.

Right, but you've framed it as if you expect such people to form a substantial body of the pro-choice side. I disagree.

aloyisious

I agree with One eyed Jack. It seem's to me that the admission to and education of children to schools is getting away from the thread issue.

However there is just one problem with the issue of SOME catholic-ethos schools operating under a ruling from it's board of management that parents wishing to enrol their children in those schools and that is that the children MUST be children baptized into the catholic faith. That is nothing less than a forced change, convert or else.

Other problems arise when school boards of management insist that children of other faiths, or of No-faith status, attending schools under their control must sit in class where RC religious classes are being taught. They say that the children are under loco-parentis and cannot be left alone in other classrooms and use that as an excuse for their stance on pupil attendance in the room where religion is being taught, as if the said children were somehow incapable of being normal inquisitive children and not capable of hearing and seeing what was going on around them, getting naturally inquisitive. As I don't imagine the boards of management are providing blinkers and ear-mufflers to those children, I'd call that a deliberate policy of proselytizing by stealth by some boards of management.

One eyed Jack

oscarBravo wrote: »

I really don't understand where you're coming from.

You've argued that religion has no real influence in our society today. I've pointed out one way that it profoundly affects it - and you're arguing about how if enough people fight against it, it may be possible to overcome it some day.

How is that supportive of your view that it has no influence?

I didn't say it has no influence, I said It has no real influence, and it doesn't, because all of those things I mentioned are done for traditional reasons, more than they are for religious reasons. I was pointing out that due to peer pressure people do these things because they have traditionally been done. They're not made to do anything, they're adults! They're the same adults who when they are among a different set of their peers, will say that they only did it to keep someone else happy, and that if only other people would tick 'no religion' on a census form that comes out every five years, they wouldn't have felt they had to have their children baptised to get them into a school - anyone else is responsible for their actions, but them! They are unwilling to take any responsibility for their own actions. Instead - something, or someone else made them do it!

They grew up in a society that, until very recently, considered it socially acceptable to discriminate based on sexuality.

It's still socially acceptable to discriminate against people based on their sexuality. I'm not talking about legally, I'm saying that even more now, it's becoming socially acceptable to discriminate based on sexuality. This is the myth that I see constantly perpetuated - as soon as the bigoted blue rinse brigade die off, society will be better off, as though young people aren't every bit as homophobic as their predecessors, and in some cases, even more so. Religion didn't influence that. Resentment influences that sort of world view.

You seem to be operating on the assumption that everyone carefully thinks through their beliefs and attitudes. If that was the case, we wouldn't have had nearly forty percent of the population voting against equality, because there's no rational basis for it.

You're still operating under the assumption that most people who voted against marriage equality were generally influenced by never having questioned something they apparently were taught in childhood. The only way that assumption could possibly hold true is if they were holed up isolated from society and only let out to vote in the referendum. They won't get out again now until the abortion referendum.

There's a more rational basis to assume people generally interact with other people in society, and learn through exposure to different experiences that they re-evaluated what they had been taught in childhood. I'd say half the posters in this very forum came to be atheist the same way. Because based upon their experience, they figured "Yeah this religion stuff is a crock!" Some people sooner than others.

So was I - and, until I nurtured the habit later in life of critically examining my beliefs and opinions, I used to have a vague unease about homosexuality. I'm not proud of it, but it's the inevitable consequence of growing up in a society that has its morals dictated by irrational belief systems.

I would say it's the inevitable consequence of a lack of experience. Why should you be ashamed when you didn't know any better at the time? I didn't even know as I said what sex was, I just knew as a child I was attracted to men, no biggie - I didn't know any better because I didn't know anything about sex. The first time a guy sat me down to come out to me you'd swear he was about to tell me he was pregnant. Big dramatic - "I'm... gay!". My first thought was "No shìt?", but what came out was "I was gay too once..." He was confused before he told me, he sure as hell wasn't any less confused afterwards :pac:

That's ridiculous. It's like not liking the idea of left-handedness, or not liking the idea of people having a sweet tooth. You can be right-handed and dislike desserts, but not be in any way prejudiced against people who feel differently.

The only reason anyone wouldn't like the idea of homosexuality - in others, let's be clear - is because they've spent their formative years immersed in the belief that it's wrong.

Or rather that they've spent their formative years trying to find their place in the world themselves, and the only way they can do that is by observing similarities and differences between themselves and the people around them. Some things they understand, some things they don't. Some things they just don't want to understand, like sexualities other than their own.

You're over-thinking it. You're assuming that the only way religion can cause bigotry is if true believers actively decide to espouse bigoted beliefs because their holy book tells them to. I'm pointing out that religion creates a pervasive societal belief that something is wrong, and children absorb societal mores without being consciously aware of it.

That's definitely overthinking it. How many times have people who are for example LGBT said that they've always known since their early childhood that there was something 'different'. That's an absolutely conscious thought. There's merit to the whole subliminal osmosis theory, but I don't think it can be applied in this case where children are actually consciously aware of influencing factors such as social mores. That's how they learn to identify their place in a social structure.

Hang on - you said yourself this is a civil matter. So why are you framing it as an argument for and against religion?

I'm saying that some people will frame it as an argument against religion. Hell it's happened enough times in this thread alone already!

I'm for repeal of the 8th amendment. I'm not in favour of it because of anything to do with religion; this is a purely humanist position for me.

Some people will be very overt in espousing a religious basis for opposing repeal, and I have no issue taking aim squarely at those religious arguments, because they're ipso facto nonsensical. Others will have other reasons, and many of those reasons are grounded in religion in the same way as a subtle societal homophobia is.

Personally, I wouldn't even entertain religious arguments in what is a civil matter, and that's what I would point out to people. Any argument that is grounded in religion is irrelevant with regard to what is a civil matter. There will be people will say too their pro-life arguments are purely humanist positions, purely humanitarian positions, purely feminist positions, etc. The ideological or philosophical basis for their arguments should lend no weight to their actual arguments themselves IMO.

At the end of the day, I don't care why someone wants to deny a woman her rights; I'm arguing for those rights on their own merits.

I think it's important to care about why someone would deny a woman full autonomy over her own body at any time, and that's why I have such an issue with people who identify themselves as pro-choice, but only if it's a choice that is exercised within time limits that suit them! That's not IMO trusting women to be able to make choices for themselves, it's still making choices for them, and denying women the legal framework to exercise their rights, on their terms.

Lingua Franca

volchitsa wrote: »

So was the satanic wizard one a wind-up too? (TBF, I'd never heard that one either, and I suspected it might be a fake but haven't looked it up)

If it isn't a wind-up, then a proposed joint responsibility law would be fairly mundane and believable alongside "all abortions are dedicated to Satan" craziness!

Not a wind up, I just went looking through the visitor messages on that pro life Catholics page (https://www.facebook.com/PLCWC/posts_to_page/ ) to check and Ms Brennan must have been having some sort of episode in 2013 as there's those posts and more about satanists from her there.

The Black Oil

https://twitter.com/Colmogorman/status/722812879469178880

The time and effort involved to send this.

lazygal

The Black Oil wrote: »

https://twitter.com/Colmogorman/status/722812879469178880

The time and effort involved to send this.

Indeed. Really helps the unborn.

robindch

The Black Oil wrote: »

The time and effort involved to send this.

Classy - should really have written it in green ink though.

frostyjacks

Putting the barbs aside, the author has a point. Why do we even need Amnesty in Ireland? We probably have the best human rights record in the developed world. Colm would find more fulfillment employing his skills in Africa or the Middle East.