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.
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.
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.
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!).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
One eyed Jack wrote: » ...we're now three generations gone from a time when the religion had any real influence on society.
oscarBravo wrote: » You clearly haven't tried to enrol a non-Catholic child in a primary school recently.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Non-Catholic children? They're actually the easiest to enrol and accommodate in Irish primary schools.
oscarBravo wrote: » Easier than Catholic children (outside of the groups you've identified)?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
We saw it in the marriage equality referendum, people attacking religious organisations and completely missing the point that marriage equality was a civil matter...
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.
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?
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.
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.
There are no rational reasons to discriminate against gay people, after all.
People who feel that their personal religious beliefs trump other people's right to bodily integrity?
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 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 -
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I disagree. Why would they?
Some people will do that, sure - but not all. So surely your conflation is just as lazy and ignorant?
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
The Black Oil wrote: » https://twitter.com/Colmogorman/status/722812879469178880 The time and effort involved to send this.
The Black Oil wrote: » The time and effort involved to send this.
