nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

PopePalpatine

I didn't know whether to post this here or in the Sanctimony of Pro-Lifers thread in t'udder forum - a BBC article on Paraguay's "epidemic" of child pregnancies. Paraguay only allows for abortion if the mother's life is at risk. On average, two girls aged 14 and under become pregnant in Paraguay every day.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

end of the road

Calina wrote: »

This country devoted 20% of its annual budget to build Ardnacrusha.

decades ago. when we built houses also.

Calina wrote: »

It is a far wealthier country now and it provides the bulk of funding for schools and hospitals.

it is a far wealthier country, but refuses to properly fund a lot of things including aspects of said schools and hospitals.

Calina wrote: »

EOTR, your argument that the country cannot afford it is nonsense. We would find the money to do it some place.

find it where? i'd suggest it's not quite as nonsense as you would think. money doesn't grow on trees.

Calina wrote: »

At the end of the day if national policy is that state funded hospitals provide abortions, then those state funded hospitals will eventually have to do it.

i wouldn't bank on it. if the owners of those hospitals do not wish to have abortions performed in their hospitals and they feel strongly enough about it, i suspect that they won't be performing them.

Calina wrote: »

the removal of the baptism req for schools which have hithertoo used it as a sorting hat demonstrates that this can be done.

it doesn't demonstrate that the state can easily force divesting of the schools and hospitals by the cc. it also doesn't demonstrate that the state can force hospitals owned and operated by the cc to perform abortions, given that other hospitals which aren't operated by the cc who are likely near enough anyway, will be performing them. we can only wait and see what actually happens.

aloyisious

There is no reason why the state should fund religious-ethic hospitals, except the fear that if the state funding is withdrawn, that there will be a lack of medical-hospitals fit for purpose for people in general, and women in particular, seeking medical care and treatment fit for this century.

One way might be for the setting-up of state hospitals in upgraded former hospitals equipped with medical equipment supplied by the state to the religious-ethic hospitals who have declined to provide 21st century medical services to women.

Personally I feel that if a hospital turns its back on 21 century modern medical care provision provided through state funding, that any equipment and staff supplied to said hospital through state funding should be withdrawn, including the physical recovery of state-supplied and funded equipment.

Peregrinus

aloyisious wrote: »

There is no reason why the state should fund religious-ethic hospitals, except the fear that if the state funding is withdrawn, that there will be a lack of medical-hospitals fit for purpose for people in general, and women in particular, seeking medical care and treatment fit for this century.

One way might be for the setting-up of state hospitals in upgraded former hospitals equipped with medical equipment supplied by the state to the religious-ethic hospitals who have declined to provide 21st century medical services to women.

Personally I feel that if a hospital turns its back on 21 century modern medical care provision provided through state funding, that any equipment and staff supplied to said hospital through state funding should be withdrawn, including the physical recovery of state-supplied and funded equipment.

Your problem is, though, that you're either going to have to buy or build a new hospital in which to house and operate the equipment, or you're going to have to buy the existing hospital from its owners. The first involves an expenditure of, probably, billions to replicate facilities which already exist and are in service; the second involves exactly the same, plus the transfer of that amount of cash from the state to the church. Even assuming the political will and taxpayers support for investing that amount of additional cash in the health service, is that really the most cost-effective way of spending it?

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your problem is, though, that you're either going to have to buy or build a new hospital in which to house and operate the equipment, or you're going to have to buy the existing hospital from its owners. The first involves an expenditure of, probably, billions to replicate facilities which already exist and are in service; the second involves exactly the same, plus the transfer of that amount of cash from the state to the church. Even assuming the political will and taxpayers support for investing that amount of additional cash in the health service, is that really the most cost-effective way of spending it?

You talk about owners as though the orders had saved up their hard earned cash and bought the land and built the buildings themselves. That's not how they came into possession of the land, which was generally gifted to them for a school, a hospital etc, because they were believed to be the best people to run schools and hospitals.

The orders have become massively rich as a result of private donations, and we also now know just how unsuitable they were to be in charge of vulnerable people, which all rather calls into question their right to remain the "owners". Donors didn't imagine they were giving land into private ownership, they believed they were giving it to the community.

And then there are the outright frauds that were committed. Do you happen to know anything about how the land on which St Vincent's was given to the order there, and how the hospital was funded? It's a very dodgy business indeed.

The state has been far too subservient to the church for decades, and has been treated like its abused child in return. Time to stop. Other countries have nationalised church properties, with less evidence of wrongdoing by the church than Ireland has.

Peregrinus

It doesn't matter whether the religious orders bought the property or were gifted it; the constitutional limitations on taking the property of religious denominations do not depend on that.

I know nothing about how the Sisters of Charity acquired the St. Vincent's site. If it was improper or fraudulent, that can be challenged in the usual way, either by the representatives of the people who were defrauded or (more realistically) by the Attorney-General in exercise of the State's supervisory role over charities. Whether such a challenge would have any chance of success, obviously, I can't say. But if it did succeed, the upshot would presumably not be the property passing to the State; it would be the property passing to the people who would have been entitled to it, but for the fraud.

This may, though, be off-topic as regards the current discussion. Am I remembering wrongly, or was it agreed last year that the Sisters of Charity would have no ownership of, or management role in, the new hospital being built at Elm Park? If I'm right about that, then that particular battle in the campaign to separate church and state in the provision of healthcare has already been won. It's other religious voluntary hospitals that we need to be thinking about.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether the religious orders bought the property or were gifted it; the constitutional limitations on taking the property of religious denominations do not depend on that.

I know nothing about how the Sisters of Charity acquired the St. Vincent's site. If it was improper or fraudulent, that can be challenged in the usual way, either by the representatives of the people who were defrauded or (more realistically) by the Attorney-General in exercise of the State's supervisory role over charities. Whether such a challenge would have any chance of success, obviously, I can't say. But if it did succeed, the upshot would presumably not be the property passing to the State; it would be the property passing to the people who would have been entitled to it, but for the fraud.

This may, though, be off-topic as regards the current discussion. Am I remembering wrongly, or was it agreed last year that the Sisters of Charity would have no ownership of, or management role in, the new hospital being built at Elm Park? If I'm right about that, then that particular battle in the campaign to separate church and state in the provision of healthcare has already been won. It's other religious voluntary hospitals that we need to be thinking about.

Re the way the nuns came to own the Elm Park property, where St Vincents hospital is, that goes back to the 1930's. The property was part of a failed golf course bailed out by a bank, which foreclosed on the owners. Following on from that, the nuns and the state did a deal back then for the nuns to hand over a major property on Stephens Green in the city to the state and it would fund the building of a new hospital at Elm Park for the nuns. Subsequently, when funding did become available, the hospital was built and handed over to the nuns. However they did not hand over the Stephens Green property to the state. There was discussion at Govt/AG level back then [1930/1940-ish] about taking action to enforce the deal but nothing came of it.

Re the current situation, the management deal you mentioned was done but later put in doubt by, if I recall rightly, a bishop reminding the nuns that they had an obligation to follow God's ethical teaching, as decided by the Vatican, when it came to abortion operations being performed in a hospital under the management of the nuns - a major NO NO - a major fly in the ointment statement by the bishop from outside the diocese when he was interviewed by a paper.

Re the chance of legal objection to the state taking a step against the property "rights" of the charitable nuns, I'd point blank tell the nuns when it comes to their version of honest deals that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. When they get their house in order, they can come sit at the table with us. Seize the properties if they try the court route and tell them to take the train out of town. Tell them King Henry will have nothing on a people scorned.

volchitsa

Also, more recently the nuns remortgaged part of the publicly-owned buildings on the site to fund the construction of a privately owned carpark.

They really have been the most unscrupulous of property developers, absolute Scrooges bent on their own enrichment. And they have certainly succeeded in that, all the while portraying themselves as harmless little old dears working away to help the poor and underprivileged. It would be funny if they hadn't done so much harm to the country.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

Re the way the nuns came to own the Elm Park property, where St Vincents hospital is, that goes back to the 1930's. The property was part of a failed golf course bailed out by a bank, which foreclosed on the owners. Following on from that, the nuns and the state did a deal back then for the nuns to hand over a major property on Stephens Green in the city to the state and it would fund the building of a new hospital at Elm Park for the nuns. Subsequently, when funding did become available, the hospital was built and handed over to the nuns. However they did not hand over the Stephens Green property to the state. There was discussion at Govt/AG level back then [1930/1940-ish] about taking action to enforce the deal but nothing came of it.

Re the current situation, the management deal you mentioned was done but later put in doubt by, if I recall rightly, a bishop reminding the nuns that they had an obligation to follow God's ethical teaching, as decided by the Vatican, when it came to abortion operations being performed in a hospital under the management of the nuns - a major NO NO - a major fly in the ointment statement by the bishop from outside the diocese when he was interviewed by a paper.

Re the chance of legal objection to the state taking a step against the property "rights" of the charitable nuns, I'd point blank tell the nuns when it comes to their version of honest deals that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. When they get their house in order, they can come sit at the table with us. Seize the properties if they try the court route and tell them to take the train out of town. Tell them King Henry will have nothing on a people scorned.

the same people who are happy to use the church when it suits them? who in their droves put catholic down on the census form? who get their children confirmed and communed in the church for the day out? doesn't sound like a truely scorned people to me if i'm honest. anyway, i'd be surprised if the state could simply seaze the properties, without relevant, provable grounds being followed to satisfy the legal and constitutional issues that seem to be at play. seazing them without doing so would set a dangerous precedent i should think? i'm not sure the provision of a minority procedure such as AOD would be enough of a ground to seaze property either, given that it will be availible in non-religious hospitals, which in real terms won't be that far away. but i guess we will have to see what the state comes up with.

volchitsa wrote: »

Also, more recently the nuns remortgaged part of the publicly-owned buildings on the site to fund the construction of a privately owned carpark.

They really have been the most unscrupulous of property developers, absolute Scrooges bent on their own enrichment. And they have certainly succeeded in that, all the while portraying themselves as harmless little old dears working away to help the poor and underprivileged. It would be funny if they hadn't done so much harm to the country.

we know what they are like. however the state allowed this in the first place when they implemented the "special status" of the church. the people also continue to "support" this organisation via confirmations, communions and so on, yet complain about them. their complaints are legitimate but if they are serious they would stop using and supporting the organisation altogether. they can still have a day out without the church part of it. if enough parents do it the schools won't be able to do anything, they can't throw out every child. but will the people do this? no!

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

the same people who are happy to use the church when it suits them? who in their droves put catholic down on the census form? who get their children confirmed and communed in the church for the day out? doesn't sound like a truely scorned people to me if i'm honest. anyway, i'd be surprised if the state could simply seaze the properties, without relevant, provable grounds being followed to satisfy the legal and constitutional issues that seem to be at play. seazing them without doing so would set a dangerous precedent i should think? i'm not sure the provision of a minority procedure such as AOD would be enough of a ground to seaze property either, given that it will be availible in non-religious hospitals, which in real terms won't be that far away. but i guess we will have to see what the state comes up with.

we know what they are like. however the state allowed this in the first place when they implemented the "special status" of the church. the people also continue to "support" this organisation via confirmations, communions and so on, yet complain about them. their complaints are legitimate but if they are serious they would stop using and supporting the organisation altogether. they can still have a day out without the church part of it. if enough parents do it the schools won't be able to do anything, they can't throw out every child. but will the people do this? no!

Guessing nothing as far as I'm concerned when it comes to how the state and the nuns should work out their differences. Don't give the nuns an inch or a spare word, they'll have lawyers enough for that. I suppose another expression than scorned could be used, put-upon and brainwashed maybe, by a gang of perverts. I see no need any more to argue on behalf of the religious purely as a democratic necessity - ala their right to put their side across. They have apologists working hard on their behalf trying to obscure the nuns behaviour towards women and children. Lay persons would be doing time in prison for the same behaviour.

Yes well, St Vincents is the hospital I have specifically in mind. There will be NMH procedures carried out there if the deal goes ahead. If the idea of nuns or a bishop trying the religious ethics ploy is not seen as red-cardable, after they agreed not to impede the current NMH practices planned for the new NMH, then nothing will. They have no interest in the property right in the constitution per se, except in how they can use it for the purpose of retaining their religious ethic grip on the Irish citizenry. So far as I'm concerned the nuns would lose all legitimate right to claim constitutional property rights on the St Vincents property if they try to sabotage the deal. I'll put the health of the populace first without any apology to the nuns.

aloyisious

Peregrinus wrote: »

Your problem is, though, that you're either going to have to buy or build a new hospital in which to house and operate the equipment, or you're going to have to buy the existing hospital from its owners. The first involves an expenditure of, probably, billions to replicate facilities which already exist and are in service; the second involves exactly the same, plus the transfer of that amount of cash from the state to the church. Even assuming the political will and taxpayers support for investing that amount of additional cash in the health service, is that really the most cost-effective way of spending it?

That is why I would seize and nationalize any hospital and the property it's built on it if the order of nuns running it chose to use it for the purpose of keeping a controlling-hold of the citizenry through the order's religious ethic belief. I would NOT give the nuns any further monetary profit to extend their property portfolio. I keep in mind that the reason the orders supposedly provided medical care for the public [read [poor and needy] was for charitable Christian reasons, not for monetary profit. I'd have np problem if the order/s donated the property and the medical buildings on it/them to the public through a charity of a non-religious base. A lot of their original property-portfolio was obtained through charitable donation from lay people.

Cabaal

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/catholics-and-protestants-must-unite-against-abortion-in-north-meeting-told-1.3582821

Catholics and Protestants must unite against abortion in North, meeting told
Anti-abortion group says strategy to oppose legalisation should use religious argument

..........“When those two Sinn Féin ladies lifted up that banner saying the North is next I thought to myself, what a despicable image to go around the world,” he said.

“We proclaim that Jesus Christ is lord of Northern Ireland and we say no to abortion in Jesus’ name........
“We need to pray for those two ladies, their lives, their hearts, their souls, their conversion and everyone associated with them because whether they realise it or not they are agents of the culture of death and we have to pray for them as we have to pray for everyone,” said Mr McCrystal.

Thats a lot of praying

But can they bring those "dirty" gay people into the debate.....well, of course they can!

He said: “Once the purposes of sex are torn loose from procreation and family the homosexual agenda rises.” He said Fr Marx had said this because “contraception is the first step”.

“If contraceptive sex is okay, if infertile sex is okay, if sterile sex is okay, there’s only one more step to go to say homosexual sex is fine too,” he said.

“Abortion is a grave sin,” said Mr McCrystal. “The s-word was virtually not spoken in the entire debate in the Republic of Ireland.

“So when people went to the polls, they didn’t hear that word, and to some degree they can’t be held culpable for what they didn’t know.”

So in short, they want to go full blown religion on the NI Abortion debate, they'll be like a magnet for all the crazy religious zealots on the no side in Ireland as a whole now.

One of their suggestions could maybe work in the event of a hard brexit? no checkpoints, just bunch's of people praying?

Mr McCrystal outlined a number of strategies, including praying along the Border.

ohnonotgmail

How is abortion part of the gay agenda? that makes no sense.

uptherebels

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

How is abortion part of the gay agenda? that makes no sense.

None of it made any sense, kinda the m.o. of the religious loons. All faith and no facts

aloyisious

Good to see I'm only the fourth [or second] step on the path to sin, not the first, poor contraceptive users. Ta Dr Meaney. Not restricting the anti-abortion movement to the secular argument, prayer sessions at the start of Stormont sittings, outside chemists and healthcare facilities, outside S/F clinics/offices.

Cabaal

uptherebels wrote: »

None of it made any sense, kinda the m.o. of the religious loons. All faith and no facts

They have faith in no facts

I'm all for the praying and religions loon stuff, graphic pictures they are doing, it turns off the majority of reasonable people from supporting them

It certainly did for repeal the 8th ref in Ireland :pac:

uptherebels

Cabaal wrote: »

They have faith in no facts

I'm all for the praying and religions loon stuff, graphic pictures they are doing, it turns off the majority of reasonable people from supporting them it

It certainly did for repeal the 8th ref in Ireland :pac:

What I find hilarious is the complete inability to see the damage such ramblings do to their cause.

Hotblack Desiato

High Court’s quashing of Sipo Soros funds decision welcomed by Amnesty

Amnesty International Ireland has welcomed the High Court’s quashing of a demand by the Standards in Public Office (Sipo) Commission that it return a € 137,000 donation from a foundation funded by financier and philanthropist George Soros.

In the settlement announced at the High Court on Tuesday, Sipo accepted the process leading to the decision it made in November 2017 to order the return of the funds was “procedurally flawed”.

High Court Judge Mr Justice Sus Noonan was told the case was resolved following discussions between the parties and Maurice Collins SC, for the commission, read an extract in court from a letter by Sipo to Amnesty acknowledging its decision was procedurally flawed.

Sipo in its response repeated the call made in its annual report last week for an electoral commission and legislation to deal with political campaigns financed from outside the State.

The Department of Local Government said in a statement that “plans to establish an electoral commission are now being advanced” and proposals are expected to be brought to Government in the autumn.

Last November Sipo ordered Amnesty to return a donation made in August 2015 by the Open Society Foundations (OSF), a body founded by Mr Soros for Amnesty’s international “My Body, My Rights” campaign.

Sipo told Amnesty to return the monies after finding the donation was prohibited under Section 23 A2 of the 1997 Electoral Act after deeming it to be a donation for political purposes.

Acceptance of donations from abroad is prohibited under the Act unless it is from an Irish citizen. The €137,000 in funding was the biggest declared foreign donation.

Amnesty International said it was not used for its campaign for repeal of the Eighth Amendment on abortion.

No referendum on the Eighth Amendment was planned or had been called when the donation was made it was claimed.

Peregrinus

uptherebels wrote: »

What I find hilarious is the complete inability to see the damage such ramblings do to their cause.

Actually, they may see it, but it may not bother them. There are those (and not just among the religious) for whom Taking A Stand is more important than getting an outcome. And, of course, if you're trying to nourish your inner victim, Taking a Stand which will be derided is positively desirable.

seamus

Cabaal wrote: »

So in short, they want to go full blown religion on the NI Abortion debate, they'll be like a magnet for all the crazy religious zealots on the no side in Ireland as a whole now.

Maybe we could stick the hard border back up while they're there and then we can just keep them all confined to the one place?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

High Court’s quashing of Sipo Soros funds decision welcomed by Amnesty

That's good news.

Given that SIPO acknowledges their decision was “procedurally flawed” and the vigour with which some groups leaped on this to try and discredit Amnesty & Colm O'Gorman, I wonder are there question to be asked of SIPO's own standards and impartiality?

Was this a genuine error in process, or was there someone internally or externally pushing hard on it?

Cabaal

uptherebels wrote: »

What I find hilarious is the complete inability to see the damage such ramblings do to their cause.

ssssshhhhh, we don't want them to realise this :P

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

[...] the constitutional limitations [...]

Grand, referendum, job done.

alaimacerc

Igotadose wrote: »

Doesn't the litigant owe costs from her last obstructive challenge to a legitimate referendum result? This article from 2015 says she owes between 1.2 and 1.5 million. She gloats about not becoming a 'negative millionaire'

http://www.thejournal.ie/joanna-jordan-supreme-court-costs-2202386-Jul2015/

No, it's saying those were the total costs; she's "gloating" about having haggled it down to 50% of that.

Of course, if she did so by the expedient of saying "I can go halfers, but if you come after me for the full amount, I'll declare myself bankrupt", it makes one wonder about the wisdom of not doing so. If it means they just keep doing it, and keep stiffing the state with the remainder of the bill.

aloyisious

alaimacerc wrote: »

No, it's saying those were the total costs; she's "gloating" about having haggled it down to 50% of that.

Of course, if she did so by the expedient of saying "I can go halfers, but if you come after me for the full amount, I'll declare myself bankrupt", it makes one wonder about the wisdom of not doing so. If it means they just keep doing it, and keep stiffing the state with the remainder of the bill.

Coincidentally the other person involved in the petitions has only a piano to his name so he's probably even safer than she is from paying any due costs. Its almost like they knew how to play the legal game.

Loafing Oaf

volchitsa wrote: »

It's available in Veritas bookshops, and the initiative seems to be a direct result of the Yes vote. I suppose that having lost the abortion issue, they no longer see the need to follow lay advice about appearing moderate on the other issues like contraception any more.

You may well have identified an emerging trend volchitsa:

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/outrage-after-bishop-elphin-kevin-13035306

A bishop has sparked outrage with comments about contraception.

Bishop of Elphin Kevin Doran gave a speech at the 'Love and Life in Marriage Conference' at Dublin Airport's Carlton Hotel on Saturday evening.

During the address, Bishop Doran said contraception affected the "dignity of women".

And if you think that's a tad extreme...

Another speaker at the conference described in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) as a "cruel" and "murderous" practice that is "creating a culture of death".

:eek:

volchitsa

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You may well have identified an emerging trend volchitsa:

https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/outrage-after-bishop-elphin-kevin-13035306

And if you think that's a tad extreme...

:eek:

TBH when you think about it, it's crazy that we all believed in anything they had to say for so long - bread turned into flesh? People raised from the dead? A whole country fooled by a child abusing cult?

What's mad is that we still want to believe there's some clear distinction between a cult like the Jehovah's witnesses or Scientologists and the mainstream religions. It really seems to be like the bitingly accurate definition of the difference between a language and a dialect (a language is a dialect with an army and a navy) - a religion seems to be just a sect with a large number of members.

aloyisious

How in the name of god does Dr Meaney think in-vitro fertilization is the same as a cruel and murderous practice that is creating a culture of death? It looks like she, as a woman, doesn't understand, or refuses to understand, what in-vitro fertilization means for women who cannot conceive. It sound's like she's telling women who use IVF to get lost, that her God has decreed they may not pregnant and bear children. She has written a book titled "embracing the cross of infertility" and her doctorate is in ,modern languages from Oxford.

http://truthandcharityforum.org/marie-meaney-ph-d/

There's no point talking the Bish, he's the one that Diarmuid Martin told to keep his nose out of Dublin Diocese matters a few months back with his comments then.

Hotblack Desiato

I read recently, I think it was a commenter on the Irish Times, that "infertile sex" is also a sin. In other words if you're aware that doing the deed is, through no fault of either of you, not going to result in a sprog you should abstain :rolleyes:

Just when you think catholic doctrine can't get any dumber...

ohnonotgmail

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

You may well have identified an emerging trend volchitsa:

https://www.mirror.ie/news/-news/outrage-after-bishop-elphin-kevin-13035306

And if you think that's a tad extreme...

:eek:

In fairness it was kevin doran. hard line dogma is his schtick.

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I read recently, I think it was a commenter on the Irish Times, that "infertile sex" is also a sin. In other words if you're aware that doing the deed is, through no fault of either of you, not going to result in a sprog you should abstain :rolleyes:

Just when you think catholic doctrine can't get any dumber...

AFAIK, it's seen as similar as, erm, wasting the seed, probably the same way that people, including women, using the IVF method to try and impregnate women are being accused of being sinful because they don't use all of the ova, instead disposing of the unused ones as waste.

Edit: reading today's Irish Times article continuing the debate between Kevin and Simon, I'm reading that Kevin links the same-sex marriage vote and contraception together. In his address to the conference he said that "contraception impinged upon the dignity of women. It may seem to some that contraception liberated women in so far as it allowed them control their own fertility but the fact that they are less likely to become pregnant is that it takes away from them one of the principle motives or freedoms for saying NO to unwanted sex". The contraception mentality is directly connected to the "surprisingly high number" of people in favour of same-sex marriage. He thinks if the act of love can be separated from it's procreative purpose then it's also difficult to explain why marriage need's to be between a man and a woman.

volchitsa

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

In fairness it was kevin doran. hard line dogma is his schtick.

He doesn't make it up though. Presumably it's actual Catholic doctrine. It's sure that some of them want to avoid calling attention to their doctrine, but I think Bishop Kevin does the rest of us a favour by being a bit more upfront than some of the mental reservationists.