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

MrPudding · 12-01-2012 9:01pm

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 · 13-01-2012 3:35am

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 · 13-01-2012 3:42am

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 · 13-01-2012 3:57am

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 · 13-01-2012 5:44am

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...

13-01-2012 10:34am

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 · 13-01-2012 10:37am

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 · 13-01-2012 10:47am

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 · 13-01-2012 11:19am

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 · 13-01-2012 12:29pm

Right folks, thread title changed again.

Now, discuss!

13-01-2012 12:31pm

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 · 13-01-2012 12:51pm

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 · 13-01-2012 12:56pm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

What was the topic again?

Aggressive Spanish bishop.

Inflammatory comments.

Women who've aborted.

It's all in the title

Bannasidhe · 13-01-2012 1:10pm

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 · 13-01-2012 2:16pm

We should give him an anti-inlammatory

Galvasean · 13-01-2012 3:16pm

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

Sarky · 13-01-2012 3:17pm

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

Turtwig · 13-01-2012 4:20pm

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 · 13-01-2012 4:29pm

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 · 13-01-2012 5:00pm

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 · 13-01-2012 5:03pm

Meh, weekends...weekdays same thing really.

Edit : Rob just did a ninja delete on me.

sensibleken · 13-01-2012 5:30pm

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 · 13-01-2012 5:33pm

Sure who really cares what the RCC says anymore?

Its grip on society is weakening.

Sarky · 13-01-2012 5:38pm

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

robindch · 13-01-2012 5:44pm

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 · 13-01-2012 6:03pm

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 · 13-01-2012 10:42pm

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 · 13-01-2012 10:57pm

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 · 13-01-2012 11:00pm

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 · 13-01-2012 11:04pm

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.