Catholicism and the Unborn

Hotblack Desiato

Swampgas, absolutely, according to the 'Christian' Brothers nothing English could be good and nothing Irish could be bad. Lest you think I'm totally ancient, this is the late 70s/early 80s I'm talking about. Only 33 years ago we as a nation fawned like idiots over the pope. 29 years ago we voted like idiots for an American fundamentalist bought-and-paid-for Article 40.3.3 in our constitution. It's not that long ago and we're still stuck with the consequences today.

Hotblack Desiato

fisgon wrote: »

They really give the impression at times that if they could give the foetus more rights than the pregnant woman, they would. It's pretty bizarre.

Allegedly until the 50s or 60s they did - doctors in Catholic hospitals were, in the case of a difficult childbirth, quite prepared to put the preservation of the baby's life above that of its mother.

We know that they were quite prepared to severely compromise a woman's heath (symphysiotomy) in order to ensure she would continue to bear children at all costs.

A case in point is a letter from some priest in the Irish Times last week, who made one point, ie. that there were two people who died in the Halapannavar tragedy (of course including the foetus), and that that shouldn't be forgotten. The intention, of course, being, to minimize the importance of the life of the mother, and to deflect the attention back on to the foetus. As if they were equivalent.
Bizarre foetus worship.

If I were still a believer, I'd love to ask him where in his consecrated ground our three miscarriages should be buried. They're fully human lives equvalent to an adult human according to the RCC, aren't they?

Kiwi in IE

ninja900 wrote: »

If I were still a believer, I'd love to ask him where in his consecrated ground our three miscarriages should be buried. They're fully human lives equvalent to an adult human according to the RCC, aren't they?

That is a very good point Ninja. They actually don't show any concern for stillbirths and wanted foetuses which miscarry. Isn't the party line that unbaptised babies go to 'purgatory'. It seems only unwanted pregnacies have full human status, not wanted ones that naturally terminate.

The hysteria over abortions is hypocritical nonsense.

Galvasean

swampgas wrote: »

Funnily enough, I remember a distinct anti-English dimension to the demonisation of contraception, divorce and abortion when I was young (back in the 70s and 80s). It was often implied that as these were evils practiced by the evil godless English, not only would it be immoral to introduce such practices to Ireland, it would be downright unpatriotic as well.

You'll still find a lot of that in today's abortion debate. There is an obvious underurrent of, "You don't want to be like the English, do you?" in some circles.

Peregrinus

Galvasean wrote: »

You'll still find a lot of that in today's abortion debate. There is an obvious underurrent of, "You don't want to be like the English, do you?" in some circles.

Well, yes, but isn't this just the flip side of the often-stated contrary view, that "every other country in Europe" has legislated for this, and why can't Ireland "join the 21st century" and so forth, the implication being that it is automatically wrong to be out of line with what other countries do?

Hotblack Desiato

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

That is a very good point Ninja. They actually don't show any concern for stillbirths and wanted foetuses which miscarry. Isn't the party line that unbaptised babies go to 'purgatory'. It seems only unwanted pregnacies have full human status, not wanted ones that naturally terminate.

The hysteria over abortions is hypocritical nonsense.

They have a propagandist view of human reproduction. Fornication = bad. Loving intercourse between Dana and Daniel O'Donnell = good.
The reality isn't so simple by any means. The contrast beween the view of 'natural' foetal death (worthless tissue) compared to the adulation of the unborn they now claim is striking.
But I know for a fact that this church, which my wife and I were baptised into, cares not a jot for our loss of three 'potential lives' in between our two, healthy, wanted, children - because it was 'natural'. If we'd aborted them we'd be murderers three times over.

kylith

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

That is a very good point Ninja. They actually don't show any concern for stillbirths and wanted foetuses which miscarry. Isn't the party line that unbaptised babies go to 'purgatory'. It seems only unwanted pregnacies have full human status, not wanted ones that naturally terminate.

The hysteria over abortions is hypocritical nonsense.

Yeah, well, abortion isn't evil if God does it. Which he does. A lot. Seems to really enjoy it, if you ask me. Maybe that's why there are wars and famines; God's too busy spontaneously aborting 20% of all pregnancies.

fisgon

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Isn't the party line that unbaptised babies go to 'purgatory'.

Actually, the story used to be that unbaptised babies went to "Limbo". Seriously. A special place for babies who didn't have holy water poured on to their head and the requisite incantations said over them.

Then the church got rid of Limbo. I remember it distinctly, it was in the last decade. They said the the existence of Limbo was "theological speculation" and could not be confirmed. So a piece of absolute dogma, that Catholics had to learn as fact, was wiped out with a word from the Vatican. I think even they realised that the very idea was warped and bizarre and twisted. Not sure what the story is now regarding unbaptised babies.

It's only a pity that they couldn't own up to the fact that in reality the whole of the religion is simply "theological speculation."

seamus

I have a five-week old child and looking at her I'm continually baffled as to how anybody ever thought that a baby had any kind of sin. I'm usually pretty easygoing on historical matters of ignorance, as people just didn't know any better. But some things are just so blindingly obvious, that I can only attribute such belief to pure stupidity. How can a baby be sinful or evil? How can anyone not look a baby and think, "Ah yeah, that original sin thing is a pile of nonsense."?

Galvasean

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, yes, but isn't this just the flip side of the often-stated contrary view, that "every other country in Europe" has legislated for this, and why can't Ireland "join the 21st century" and so forth, the implication being that it is automatically wrong to be out of line with what other countries do?

Good point. But on the flip side of the flip side(?) in relation to the EU there is often a bit of "We don't want to be like those mainland Europeans". Although there is rarely the same amount of venom directed at the 'mainlanders' as there is at the English. There's still an awful lot of anti-English sentiment in Ireland unfortunately.

Peregrinus

Galvasean wrote: »

. . . There's still an awful lot of anti-English sentiment in Ireland unfortunately.

That's not good, obviously, but on this particular issue it might not have such a bad outcome. I'm pro-choice, but I think the UK legislation on this subject is pretty shyte. If we're going to look elsewhere, I'd rather we looked beyond the UK.

Galvasean

Peregrinus wrote: »

That's not good, obviously, but on this particular issue it might not have such a bad outcome. I'm pro-choice, but I think the UK legislation on this subject is pretty shyte. If we're going to look elsewhere, I'd rather we looked beyond the UK.

Indeed. I'm also of the opinion that the UK system might be a tad too liberal. Certainly, our system is way too conservative, but a middle ground surely can't b impossible.

MrPudding

mathepac wrote: »

I made a clear statement that Church and State are one and the same thing in England (Britain / UK) The representative of the Head of the Church of England signs new legislation into law.

Your simplistic description of the state of affairs in the UK in theory do an injustice to their complexity in practice. The queen may be the head of the church, but so what? Yes, she signs laws, but convention dictates that she does what she is told by the prime minister, so whilst it may look like she has power, in reality she has very little, and what little she does have would not last very long should she decide to ignore convention

The head of state in the UK is the head of the church, but she is separate from the crown and the government and the judiciary. As a result, whilst it may look different at first blush and without understanding of convention in British constitutional law, the UK has clear separation of church and state and is, in fact, quite secular in operation.

I look forward to Peregrinous correcting my post and filling the details.

MrP

ShooterSF

I get that in day to day living the UK is pretty secular but when your head of state is chosen by God I don't think you can call state and churh separate.

MrPudding

ShooterSF wrote: »

I get that in day to day living the UK is pretty secular but when your head of state is chosen by God I don't think you can call state and churh separate.

What can the head of state do?

MrP

mathepac

MrPudding wrote: »

...
I look forward to Peregrinous correcting my post and filling the details. ...

Let me be the first to correct you. I deliberately kept it simple for an audience which apparently only accepts WikiPedia as its reference work of choice.

So in line with that, you and others might digest the following and repeat afterwards your preposterous assertions that England / Scotland / UK / Britain are demonstrably secular countries / states and constitutionally secular.

In plain English convince me, having consulted the reference weapon of choice that the relationships between the Monarch, the Monarchy, the established Churches (Scotland is different), the Church of England clergy, the Legislature, the Judiciary (up to the establishment of the Supreme Court in England) do not verge on incestuous. I've left out the Armed Forces and the Police Forces as they seem to take a simple oath of allegiance to the Monarch as Head of State, or as some cynics would have it, as the puppet of the Masons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom

I'll admit that the bibliography for that article seems impressive; it might even have been researched.

recedite

ninja900 wrote: »

Loving intercourse between Dana and Daniel O'Donnell = good.

Thanks. Now I'll have to go down to the local Scientology church and spend €50 getting that mental image erased :mad:

GCU Flexible Demeanour

ShooterSF wrote: »

I get that in day to day living the UK is pretty secular but when your head of state is chosen by God I don't think you can call state and churh separate.

In fairness to them, I think their Monarchy is a bit like the Irish language in primary school here. It's this slightly odd and useless institution, but at the same time its part of the furniture of the place and the country would feel quite different without it.

It probably doesn't mean much in practical terms now. But the difference in religion between most of Ireland and Britain is probably the main reason we've an independent State now.

joseph brand

swampgas wrote: »

Funnily enough, I remember a distinct anti-English dimension to the demonisation of contraception, divorce and abortion when I was young (back in the 70s and 80s). It was often implied that as these were evils practiced by the evil godless English, not only would it be immoral to introduce such practices to Ireland, it would be downright unpatriotic as well.

I may have said this before, but I'll say it now. My Dad believes that I'm not really Irish, unless I'm a [Roman] Catholic. A religion from the Middle East, ran by Italians? Can't get more Irish than that.

joseph brand

seamus wrote: »

I have a five-week old child and looking at her I'm continually baffled as to how anybody ever thought that a baby had any kind of sin. I'm usually pretty easygoing on historical matters of ignorance, as people just didn't know any better. But some things are just so blindingly obvious, that I can only attribute such belief to pure stupidity. How can a baby be sinful or evil? How can anyone not look a baby and think, "Ah yeah, that original sin thing is a pile of nonsense."?

Congratulations on the baby Seamus. She's a lucky girl.

Hotblack Desiato

seamus wrote: »

I have a five-week old child and looking at her I'm continually baffled as to how anybody ever thought that a baby had any kind of sin.

Get back to us at age two...

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Thanks. Now I'll have to go down to the local Scientology church and spend €50 getting that mental image erased :mad:

Pah, rip-off. I can do it for only e20 (by giving you a worse one :pac: )

but yeah, inventing your own fake tax-free religion is a smart move if you've the balls to pull it off.

edit: 'fake religion' is a tautology

edit 2: we all know that 'intercourse' means conversation, don't we? :pac:

ShooterSF

MrPudding wrote: »

What can the head of state do?

MrP

I'm not sure but I guess not a hell of a lot but what does it matter? It's like having a picture of jesus hanging in state buildings. It might not do anything but it still shouldn't be there if you are a secular country.

recedite

There was an ancient tradition in Europe that kings were only "official" after they were anointed by the chief godman at a coronation. This proved to the peasants that their leader was "chosen by God" and ruled divinely.
Effectively, the UK retains all the trappings and traditions of divine monarchy, but not the beliefs or the workings of one.
On the other hand we threw all that out, and have a Republic. Therefore we should really have a more complete separation of church and state, to go with that.

Hotblack Desiato

Well if you can provide the guillotine I can provide the list of names



edit: just kidding. I think.

swampgas

Galvasean wrote: »

Indeed. I'm also of the opinion that the UK system might be a tad too liberal. Certainly, our system is way too conservative, but a middle ground surely can't b impossible.

Plenty of Irish women are *very* grateful that this "tad too liberal" abortion regime exists on their doorstep when they need it. Having lived in the UK, and known numerous people who have needed and have had abortions, I think the UK system is excellent.

Just another viewpoint.

Obliq

swampgas wrote: »

Plenty of Irish women are *very* grateful that this "tad too liberal" abortion regime exists on their doorstep when they need it. Having lived in the UK, and known numerous people who have needed and have had abortions, I think the UK system is excellent.

Just another viewpoint.

I'm with you there.

swampgas

Having listened to a few anti-abortion people discussing how abortion is wrong but medical intervention not intended to abort (but with the same effect) is okay on the radio lately, I think I see a theme of sorts emerging: fatalism.

It seems to be this: you do what you can, within the laws of the church, and whatever happens after that is part of a divine plan, and not to be meddled with. A sort of "if the mother sometimes dies, so be it, it was meant to be, at least we didn't perform any abortions" attitude.

I find the same thing with the assisted suicide debate - religious people will fatalistically accept pain and suffering, and will often impose pain and suffering on others, and consider it subjecting themselves to the will of God, rather than taking full responsibility for it themselves. After all, if God intended it to happen, who are they to interfere?

In my opinion, this is one of the most dangerous aspects of religious belief - it prevents people taking responsibility for the morality of their own actions.

Peregrinus

swampgas wrote: »

Plenty of Irish women are *very* grateful that this "tad too liberal" abortion regime exists on their doorstep when they need it. Having lived in the UK, and known numerous people who have needed and have had abortions, I think the UK system is excellent.

I have to disagree. The UK system has the obvious advantage that a woman who wants an abortion can get one without having to travel. But beyond that, it’s not good.

If our own system is dishonest and hypocritical for pretending we have no issue, and forcing women to travel so they have their abortions where we don’t have to see or acknowledge them, the UK system is dishonest and hypocritical for forcing women and their doctors to go through a charade of pretending that abortions are being undertaken for medical reasons when, in reality, they mostly are not. I don’t see that the UK brand of hypocrisy is superior to ours, to be honest, which is why I think we should be willing to look a bit further afield for examples.

I can’t prove it, but I have a sense that the dysfunctionally high abortion rate in Britain may be connected with the fact that the medico-legal regime does not encourage honesty in the discourse about abortion. The exercise of a genuinely free choice about abortion is not made easier if the dominant discourse discourages recognition of, or discussion of, the nature of the choice and the reasons for it. Women are still being impliedly told that they ought to be ashamed of what they are doing, that what they are doing cannot decently be discussed, that they must lie about their situation in order to obtain social approval for, or even assent to, the choice they have made, etc, etc. It’s not healthy, and I wouldn’t wish to follow it here.

Obliq

Peregrinus wrote: »

I can’t prove it, but I have a sense that the dysfunctionally high abortion rate in Britain may be connected with the fact that the medico-legal regime does not encourage honesty in the discourse about abortion. The exercise of a genuinely free choice about abortion is not made easier if the dominant discourse discourages recognition of, or discussion of, the nature of the choice and the reasons for it. Women are still being impliedly told that they ought to be ashamed of what they are doing, that what they are doing cannot decently be discussed, that they must lie about their situation in order to obtain social approval for, or even assent to, the choice they have made, etc, etc. It’s not healthy, and I wouldn’t wish to follow it here.

That's a fair point. I think you're right