GETTING SERIOUS

A blogger on this blogging circuit goes by many names and currently calls himself Robert. His current blog is named ROBERT'S JOURNEY. To where is anyone's guess. Mine is to'perdition'.

Robert is over 60 years old and was educated in catholic schools in Wellington being taught by nuns, brothers and priests. This was in the 1960s mainly when catholic teaching wasn't very enlightened (not of course to say that it has moved on much since) and centred on a rather odd treatise absurdly named the Catechism. I've written of this in a previous post see: A LITTLE BIT OF NONSENSE.

This 'Catechism' is described on Wikipedia thus:

"A catechism ( /ˈkætəˌkɪzəm/; from Ancient Greek: κατηχέω, "to teach orally") is a summary or exposition of doctrine and serves as a learning introduction to the Sacraments traditionally used in catechesis, or Christian religious teaching of children and adult converts."

Got that?

Good, let's move on.

Robert in addition to his catholic upbringing seems to have re-discovered christianity and catholicism in recent years and has embraced it fully to the point of believing everything that's written in the bible, the catechism and the sermons given at Sunday mass which he attends, not wishing to commit a 'mortal sin' by having a well-earned sleep in.
I'm not sure which local catholic church Robert attends but it is either the one in Petone or in Wainuiomata.
Never mind, both put out similar propaganda and the sermons may well be connected.

Here are some examples of the publications of each on their respective websites:

Wainuiomata

.

Petone

The dates are different so maybe one church website hasn't been updated and they use the same publication as produced by the ministry of propaganda Catholic diocese.

Anyway, Robert, in previous posts has told us that his parish priest comes from The Philippines and has a poor grasp of English whether from being native Philippine or from having lived there for a long time I don't know. Naturally then Robert and he seem to communicate well.
From the snippets I've gathered, this priest has a '1960s' view of catholicism and seems to have influenced Robert in his 'fire and brimstone' type of evangelising. This is certainly evident in Robert's embrace of the 'teachings' in the bible and, more relevant to this particular post, his belief that all abortion is wrong.

I looked on Robert's and Richards blogs for an image of Robert wearing his Southern USA Confederacy outfit but couldn't easily see it - firstly because Robert frequently deletes his posts and blogs and secondly because neither of these old luddites have activated the very useful 'Search this blog' tool on their blog settings.

Why did I want this image? I wanted it because to me, Robert is increasingly becoming like those close-minded Republican individuals in the southern states of USA that are repealing the USA abortion laws at state level with a view to putting pressure on the Supreme Court to repeal the Roe vs Wade legislation giving women the right to choose.

"Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides a fundamental "right to privacy" that protects a pregnant woman's liberty to choose whether or not to have an abortion."

WASHINGTON — In April, Indiana placed a near-total ban on the most common type of second-trimester abortion in the state.
Days later, Ohio passed a bill banning abortion in the very early weeks of pregnancy after a fetal heartbeat is detected.
Now on Wednesday, Gov. Kay Ivey of Alabama signed a bill effectively banning the procedure altogether, and lawmakers in two more states — Louisiana and Missouri — moved ahead with bills similar to Ohio’s.
States across the country are passing some of the most restrictive abortion legislation in decades, deepening the growing divide between liberal and conservative states and setting up momentous court battles that could profoundly reshape abortion access in America.    - Sabrina Tavernise New York Times

This is very scary especially since there seems to be a rush by the Trump supported GOP to make changes before that idiot and his administration gets booted out in 2020. Here are some examples of how representatives and legislators view abortion and women's rights:



'Consensual rape' and 're-implantation': the times lawmakers 'misspoke' on abortion

(Politicians saying ludicrous things while arguing for extreme abortion restrictions seems to be common).

Arwa mahdawi
The Guardian
Sat 18 May 2019


Senator Clyde Chambliss has claimed that a woman has a chance to end her pregnancy before she knows she’s pregnant. (Photograph: Christopher Aluka Berry/Reuters)

On Friday Missouri became the latest state to enact extreme abortion restrictions, passing a bill that bans abortion after eight weeks. The ban provides no exceptions for rape or incest which, according to the Republican state representative Barry Hovis, is fine because most rape is “consensual” anyway.

Hovis told the Missouri house that most of the rapes he had encountered in his previous role in law enforcement were “date rapes or consensual rapes”. While Hovis noted that these were “all terrible” he also stressed they were very tricky “he-said-she-said” situations. In any case, the lawmaker said, his real point was that, if someone was sexually assaulted they could simply take the morning after pill. Although, to be clear, he wouldn't be very happy about that either.

‘We have to fight’: Alabama's extreme abortion ban sparks wave of activism

After the bill was safely passed, the lawmaker backtracked, explaining he “misspoke”. The Republican is far from the only politician to “misspeak” while arguing for abortion restrictions. Legislators saying ludicrous things while curtailing reproductive rights seems to be a feature of the American political process.

Here is a roundup of some of the more recent examples.

Women should end their pregnancy before they know they are pregnant

Senator Clyde Chambliss was one of the chief architects of the Alabama abortion ban that was passed this week, but don’t take that to mean he knows anything about the subject. “I’m not trained medically so I don’t know the proper medical terminology and timelines,” Chambliss said in his opening statement. “But from what I’ve read, what I’ve been told, there’s some period of time before you can know a woman is pregnant.” He then went on to say that this meant that a woman has a chance to end her pregnancy before she knows she is pregnant. He repeated this nonsense several times.

An egg is only considered human life if it is in a woman
According to the anti-abortion brigade, life begins at conception. It turns out, however, that there are some exceptions. During the debate about the Alabama bill Chambliss was asked why it wouldn’t apply to eggs fertilized in IVF. Chambliss replied, “The egg in the lab doesn’t apply. It’s not in a woman. She’s not pregnant.” Could he make it any more clear that these laws aren’t actually about protecting life, they’re about controlling women?

Miscarriages should probably be investigated as murder

We haven’t finished with Chambliss. Under the Alabama law “attempted abortions” would be punishable by up to 10 years in jail. Chambliss was asked to define what an “attempted abortion” was, and didn’t have a clear answer. Nor could he say how doctors would be able to tell the difference between a miscarriage and an attempted abortion, simply stating that “the burden of proof would be on the prosecution”. Does that mean miscarriages would be investigated by the police? Because that’s what it sounds like.

Doctors should perform scientifically impossible procedures

Ohio Republican John Becker recently introduced a bill banning insurance coverage of abortions with limited exceptions. One of these exceptions being the “re-implantation” of an ectopic pregnancy into the uterus. As doctors were quick to point out, the technology to do this simply doesn’t exist.

Abortion should be painful

It’s not just male lawmakers waging war against women. Earlier this month Kim LaSata, a Michigan state legislator, said abortion should be painful, and women carrying unviable fetuses should be forced to deliver them. “Of course it should be hard, and the procedure should be painful, and you should allow God to take over, and you should deliver that baby, and you should handle the situation,” LaSata said.

Women should swallow tiny cameras for gynecological exams

In 2015 Idaho’s Republican-controlled state house debated a bill that would ban doctors from offering medication abortion services via telemedicine. Republican state representative Vito Barbieri asked a doctor testifying in opposition to the bill if women were able to swallow small cameras for remote gynecological exams. The doctor replied no, because when you swallow something it does not end up in your vagina.

***************

I make this comparison between Robert and these 'bible belt' politicians because Robert has clearly stated that he is prepared to take the bible literally just like that fool Israel Falau has. Robert espouses but doesn't expound silly outtakes from the bible, the catechism and from his church's teachings even though they make no sense, are ridiculously out of date and are downright dangerous to living in the 21st century.

I particularly liked some observations by Richard that how silly can you be to take as literal, advice, teachings and observations on daily life that were written (maybe) 2000 years ago.


.