We haven't had a good mindless partisan political stoush on Troppo for ages now. A couple of days at least. So I thought I'd draw readers' attention to this NT News story and see if it elicits the expected polarised Pavlovian reaction:
A lesbian is pregnant with twins after having to spend $16,000 on fertility treatment interstate because she is barred from getting help in the Territory. Michelle Turner, 32, who is six months pregnant, made four trips to a fertility clinic in Sydney.
She and her partner Helen Turner, 29, could not use Repromed at Darwin Private Hospital because it is Territory Government policy not to allow same-sex couples access to fertility treatment. Michelle yesterday accused the Government of "hypocrisy" over its anti-gay policy. "I've seen Clare Martin at so many gay events and I think it's really hypocritical for her to say 'vote for me because I like you' but then not change policies that are blatantly discriminatory," she said.
Fertility treatment in the Territory is open only to heterosexual couples who have been unable to conceive for 12 months. ...
The Turners had to make four trips to Sydney, costing about $4000 each time including accommodation and flights, before the donor insemination worked.
The same treatment at Repromed in Darwin costs about $920 per cycle.
What do readers reckon? Should fertility treatment be available only to the unable or the unwilling as well?
Personally, I don't have a problem with Michelle and Helen accessing fertility programs if they're paying full tote odds for the service. After all they could always resort to self-help remedies, with the aid of an obliging bloke, an empty vegemite jar and a turkey-basting brush. Or even, God forbid, make the supreme sacrifice after a liberal application of Bailey's Irish Cream to stifle the revulsion. So what's the problem with taking the iccy bits out of the whole process and conceiving with a semblance of dignity?
I wonder why Michelle and Helen didn't challenge the legal validity of the NT's policy? On the authority of the Federal Court's McBain decision in 2000, it would seem fairly clearly to contravene the Sex Discrimination Act (Cth). The Catholic Church failed to overturn McBain in the High Court in 2002 (the Justices do actually get it right occasionally), and the Howard government failed to get amending legislation through the Senate that would have allowed State and Territory governments to discriminate in IVF/fertility programs. So there probably isn't very much doubt that the NT's policy is unlawfully discriminatory. Did no-one tell Michelle and Helen? Or did they figure it would be cheaper and less hassle to jump on a plane and go south?
Whatever the explanation, it's a pity. I strongly suspect that the Martin government would be sympathetic to their position, and would have "run dead" in defending any litigation (although the same probably couldn't be said for the Catholic Church). One suspects that Clare Martin has simply taken the pragmatic view that doing nothing and leaving the existing policies of the previous CLP government in place is the politically safer option, while quietly hoping that someone does the government's job for it and launches a successful challenge so the Supreme or Federal Court can incur the odium of the Catholic Church and other religious conservatives for reforming the law. There has to be a real prospect that the Howard government will revive its SDA amendments once it gets control of the Senate come July, but it's unlikely they'd do so retrospectively, so a successful challenge before the SDA is amended would probably secure equality for prospective gay parents in the long term.
In fact, whether Howard revives the anti-gay (and single) IVF amendments to the SDA once he controls the Senate will be an interesting test of whether he really DOES intend to adopt an American-style neocon approach and pander to the religious right, or was just trying to wedge the ALP when he introduced the amendments in the wake of the original McBain decision.
Not everyone's a rich solicitor or barrister able or willing to take on the system. On the subject of same-sex invitro treatment, I have no qualms whatsoever. It's expensive, it's soul-destroying and it strips away whatever dignity you go into it with. If a couple of lesbians want to undergo all that and pay for the privilege, then good on 'em I say.
Disgraceful abuse of the human rights of the unborn children and an act of anti-male bastardry of the first order.
We're trying to persuade Macquarie Fields louts and their ilk to be good fathers while this fertility clinic orphans two innocent unborns on the say-so of a couple of hairy-legged, irresponsible women who are themselves adolescents, morally.
Words of Prime Minister Keating on gay 'marriage' come to mind: "Two jokers and a cocker spaniel isn't a family." Nor is two birds and a syringe full of some stranger's spunk.
If the State is going to be in the business of providing fertility treatments, ostensibly for the purpose of helping people who have problems conceiving without those treatments, then it should be available to all who apply for such treatment and meet that criteria for whatever reason.
I've never understod why IVF should be paid for by the Medicare system for anyone. After all being childless is not a life threatening disease or even a life disabling disease.
If people pay the full cost for it I have no issue as to their sexual or dancing preferences.
CL where do you get off making the presumption that these two women are 'hairy-legged, irresponsible women who are themselves adolescents' just because they're lesbians? These women have gone to a lot of trouble to get a child and are obviously not wanting in dedication in resources. if anything it's rather appropriate that you bring in the 'Macquarie Fields louts' as hypothetically some of the children of these untermenschen might be better off raised by some of these lesbian couples.
CL obviously does not know many lesbian couples. The fact is that I think if you were to look up sonme surveys, lesbian partnerships are as long lived as if not longer lived then hetero partnerships, certainly longer than the couplings of some of these juvenile delinquents in Macquarie Fields. The *average* gay as in male homosexual partnerships are another thing altogether because this is in an atmosphere where males are out looking for males and in general males are more loutish in copulation, thus reinforcing each other in their promiscuity, though of course one would still have to distinguish this statistical average from the average gay male couple who are self-selected to actually go to the trouble of getting a child to adopt.
Got what you were after, Ken?
Very provocative, CL. My first thought also occurred to Jason - do you know any lesbian families?
Ken may be dog whistling, but CL is yelling "here boy" at the top of his lungs.
Snap, Zoe
God's truth, we had a lesbian mother in our ante-natal class. Unfortunately, I don't recall now whether she had hairy legs. I do know that my wife does, but. Oh, well.
a bit of dog whistling Troppo style here, methinks. what's the need for this? -
"After all they could always resort to self-help remedies, with the aid of an obliging bloke, an empty vegemite jar and a turkey-basting brush. Or even, God forbid, make the supreme sacrifice after a liberal application of Bailey's Irish Cream to stifle the revulsion"
the rest of the post is a reasonable statement of opinion supported by some analysis.
but the opening and the bit I've quoted suggests that the post is just designed to provoke a rerun of the last Troppo culture wars.
I could write the script for the comments thread in advance. observa comes along with his down home style offensive analogies, Rob says the Left hasn't owned up to its terrible crimes and we must all beat our breasts about Stalinism, Rafe talks about Popper, "lefties" make some reasoned arguments, a few homophobic comments get tossed in, everyone gets upset, rationality returns, Rob and Sophie, who are unable to sustain their arguments under reasonable criticism start ranting about burning witches.
is this the new standard of Troppo centrism? Don writes an interesting post below which attracts no comments but I bet this one gets flooded by the usual RWDB suspects after midnight. deliberate provocation eclipses reasoned debate?
Jason said all that needs to be said:
"If the State is going to be in the business of providing fertility treatments, ostensibly for the purpose of helping people who have problems conceiving without those treatments, then it should be available to all who apply for such treatment and meet that criteria for whatever reason."
I wonder how many non-RWDB readers Troppo has left. have a read of some of the posts on other blogs that have commented on this blog recently. I suspect soon that all you're going to get, Ken, is an RWDB echo chamber. that's sad, I think, because this used to be a rather good humoured place where people actually talked to each other.
incidentally before I get reprimanded I should preemptively clarify that 'untermenschen' probably wasn't the wisest term for me to use given its unfortunate connotations - I've been reading too much Nietzsche and his vocab has a way of seeping into your own. CL pissed me off big time and when I lose my temper, up comes the Nietzschesque vitriol. I was obviously speaking of untermenschen in a cultural/sociological sense, not genetically, or else I wouldn't even have bothered talking about adoption (and I did say 'hypothetically' rather than actually advocating such massive social engineering).
That was easy.
Three points: 1) I'm seriously opposed to IVF in such situations and make no apology for that; 2) the provocation in my comment was intentional theatre offered in response to Ken's invitation; 3) the po-mo and literary experts which abound here abouts should recognise a non-orthodox send-up of this blog's much touted 'deep civility' when they see it.
"For those who have eyes to see", C.L.
speaking as a lesbian [with non-hairy legs]who has undergone IVF (unsuccessfully) and who is now one of the two damn good and proud mothers of a spectacularly beautiful boy, i say fuck you all. no apologies, no arguments. our lives are our lives and if we want to have babies, we will. by the way, turkey basters are so american 70s - a 5ml syringe is the thing.
Ok, Ken, you've whistled and we've all rolled up. My partner and I are sitting here on the lounge, laptops on our knees, ready to bang out a comment. As one of the resident lesbian mothers of the blogosphere I guess I better put my two cents in. I managed to stay out of the gay/school stuff but I guess my time has come.
Firstly, and of course you'll all find it rather predictable, but I think anyone who wants to have access to IVF should be allowed to have such access. You all knew I would say that though didn't you?
I find these stories rear their heads every couple of months and we get the usual banging on about fatherless children, hairy-legged lesbians and turkey basters. (By the way, have you seen a turkey baster? No one uses those things, I think they are a figment of straight men's imagination). The bottom line is that women like me are going to have kids no matter what people think or say or whether we have access to IVF. (For the record I did not use IVF). It has got well past the stage where women are going to say, well, if it's against the law, then I better not do it. It's about much more than simply wanting to procreate. It's about families and love. The focus for people like me is making sure our children grow up in a loving environment. I am past worrying about what other people think of me as a mother. I really can not be bothered anymore and I said so many months ago on Psephite.
Access to IVF is about rights and as has already been pointed out on this thread, a decision for lesbian access to IVF has already been made. The test will be whether Howard et al decide to push their anti-gay agenda further or whether the wedge of the election will remain so.
More power to you, Georg. I couldn't agree more.
"speaking as a lesbian [with non-hairy legs]who has undergone IVF (unsuccessfully) and who is now one of the two damn good and proud mothers of a spectacularly beautiful boy, i say fuck you all. no apologies, no arguments. our lives are our lives and if we want to have babies, we will."
took the words right out of my mouth, darkie. as a lesbian who'd like to have kids, I'll repeat what I said on the earlier thread "we're here, we're queer, get over it".
what's the go, Ken? is Troppo aiming to eclipse Tim Blair or just settle in as the home of grumpy white middle class straight folks.
you knew this thread would probably provoke homophobia and that's why you put it up - "deep civility" = provocation these days.
I await with baited breath yr next homily on civility and centrism and their virtues.
Having just dodged a cyclone, I suspect Ken's appetite for hot air at high velocity is behind this post.
What I find hilarious is the way that people who will defend the right of people to run their own sexuality and family as they see fit will adapt exactly opposite positions when it comes to people's money (and vice versa)
As a genuine Liberal, as opposed to those crusty old Tories in Canberra, I have absolutely no problem with IVF being available to whoever wants to use it. Straight families, hairy-legged lesbians, or (God forbid) even clean-shaven lesbians that are willing to pay for it should have access to medical technology.
I just find it funny that the people that scream the most about 'freedom' on this issue usually have radically opposed views on economic matters.
Tax Cuts and IVF for all!
I guess that what's so wonderful about being human Scott: our many contradictions. We all have them though we may not want to admit it. I mean, I agree with the Queer Penguin, what's with right-wing gay men?
(Sorry, I would give you a link to that but I am not sure it will work in the comments).
More hilarious is a lesbian rights advocate who - when the cape goes on - becomes a superman apostle who loathes "sub humans."
I think it's interesting that people respond and debate even when a post is so nakedly manipulative/provocative. I half thought this one would be completely ignored (as it probably deserved to be - although my main theme, if not the tone, is a completely sincere expression of my views).
And I also think it's sad that some are so rigid that they can't tolerate an opinion that they actually agree with unless it treats the subject with duly approved party-line politically-correct humourless solemnity. Sex, whatever your persuasion, should never be taken too seriously.
I'd rather have free expression of conflicting opinions, however heated (within reason), than the sort of groupthink that one finds on both RWDB blogs and, although to a lesser extent, those of a more purist left persuasion. It certainly gets repetitive and predictable on occasion, but at least you get to realise that there's more than one way to look at an issue. And however much you may disagree with them, people like CL and Rob are eloquent, powerful proponents of their respective points of view. Even EP's mad, self-conscious obsessions are frequently amusing if you can manage to engage the humour button momentarily.
You're entirely welcome to read and comment at Troppo, Kim, or not as you see fit. But I do find it strange that you don't seem to recognise that quite a few of Don's posts, and even some of Mark's, are calculatedly provocative in their own rather gentler way. And Chris Sheil is/was one of the most aggressively provocative bloggers I've ever read. It's just that their views are probably a closer fit for your own, so you naturally see them as just "interesting", moderate and self-evidently correct.
Finally, I sometimes deliberately play around with blog personas, including cultivating a crass, larrikin persona (although some would say I don't have to try too hard). Again, no-one's requiring you to like the style. Feel free to click elsewhere. That's the good thing about a group blog with several different authorial voices. You can read the ones you like and ignore those that give you the shits.
Ken, they can't click elsewhere. They are hooked. Troppo is like the Hotel California.
Well, I think your post certainly elicited 'the expected polarised Pavlovian reaction', Ken.
For what it's worth, which is probably nothing, and without having any strong views on the subject, I agree with Francis Xavier Holden on this one.
CL,
point 1: your reason?
As far as I'm concerned, lesbians can have IVF rights when men get abortion rights.
What's next? Government-funded surrogate mothers for gay men who want a child?
Well you have done all your chores and served me with a good humour all day so I guess you entitled to gratuitous play in a public place. I guess I learned that Australia is a pretty fair place to live if you want to make a baby. The NT has it's head in the sand, but then we didn't even want to be a state, and amoebas are made fairly welcome. I feel like eyeore and am desperate for Desperate Housewives.
Tiny Tyrant: See point 2. Concentrate.
whatever CL is, ken, he sure ain't eloquent. i do thank him, however, for reminding me of that keating line. now keating is [both foul-mouthed and]eloquent...
just one more thing. what's all this hairy legged lesbian stuff? i share an office with a hairy-legged straight woman. you blokes are so 70s. you don't have a clue what goes on in the real world.
It's the ad I I just remembered what I was wanting to tell y'all. Ken Parish will come out tonight. The man is a raving lunar lesbian with hairy legs, really furry pits, 6 babies to 4 different sperm donors. He's currently facing 2 charges of sperm theft and one count of unlawful posession (alleges he found the sperm on a toilet seat). And in this post is hoping to shore up support. Good luck mate.
Sperm theft. I knew it!
A hypothetical, Ken.
Suppose you were going deaf but the process could be reversed if you had sex with a man four times. An alternative would be surgery at a cost of $3,920. Should Medicare pay for the surgery?
Sperm theft? Well, they shouldn't have left it lying around unsecured should they Ken?
james farrell, you're wonderful. i want some of your sperm.
Darkie, stop being so bloody hysterical and read what's being written. Sense of humour and all that. I introduced the "hairy-legged" bit - as I said, for the purposes of theatrical mischief-making. Comprende?
Ken makes a valid point. We shop around a bit for our provocations don't we?
Great and tolerant analogy James: childlessness as defect. Very medieval.
Evil Pundit, as soon as men are physically capable of falling pregnant, I will support their right to an abortion.
"Evil Pundit, as soon as men are physically capable of falling pregnant, I will support their right to an abortion."
Knowing Evil, he's probably trying, just to piss off the feminists.
BTW the "turkey basting" passage actually has a (slightly) serious point as well. As with abortion, it isn't possible for the law to stop people impregnating themselves by a variety of methods. With abortion, of course, the potential effects of a backyard job are much more serious and even fatal. The worst likely outcome of DIY artificial insemination is a certain loss of dignity (and in private, who cares?).
So this is an area where the law simply has no place, even if you believe that abortion and artificial insemination are both morally wrong. IVF and donor insemination programs should therefore be equally available to all on utilitarian grounds. The same rationale applies to euthanasia and homosexuality.
Indeed, and coming full circle, way back in the late 1950s, the Wolfenden Committee in the UK recommended legalisation of homosexuality on precisely this rationale:
"The rationale for the committee's recommendation to decriminalize homosexuality was more philosophical than compassionate, though it did note the suffering that the current law brought upon homosexuals, and it included a number of heart-wrenching case histories culled from police reports and court cases. The committee condemned homosexuality as immoral and destructive to individuals, but concluded that outlawing homosexuality impinged on civil liberties and that private morality or immorality should not be "the law's business."
Without condoning homosexual acts, the committee found that, when committed in private among consenting adults, they did not fall within the law's purview. The function of the law, the committee wrote, "is to preserve public order and decency, to protect the citizen from what is offensive or injurious, and to provide sufficient safeguards against exploitation and corruption of others, particularly those who are specially vulnerable. . . . It is not, in our view, the function of the law to intervene in the private life of citizens, or to seek to enforce any particular pattern of behaviour, further than is necessary to carry out the purposes we have outlined." "
CL, you're not thinking things through. in these modern times, things like corneal transplants can make a blind man or a hairy-legged lesbian see again, and cochlear implants can make deaf people hear. if you were deaf or blind, and could be easily treated, you might well decide to. there was no choice in medieval times. these days, smooth-legged lesbians and hairy-legged straight women can have their reproductive systems fine-tuned if needed.
er ... hem that previous post. From Ken Parish the legal academic.... As opposed to Ken Parish the randy middle aged homophobe, or Ken Parish the hirsute lesbian, or Ken Parish the put upon dear little armadillo that everyone keeps running over. Are there any more?
definitely a rather thinly disguised randy middle-aged homophobe, jen. there's a lot of it about.
Actually, I have a phobia against people who are stupid, narrow-minded, humourless and rigid, irrespective of their sexuality. There's quite a lot of that about on this thread too. That's not even shallowly civil, and it isn't meant to be.
"Evil Pundit, as soon as men are physically capable of falling pregnant, I will support their right to an abortion."
I hope you'll also support their right to be impregnated by IVF.
Sure, why not. Bend over while I prepare the turkey baster.
I take yr point, Ken, but I hope in turn you'll think about mine. Yr the person who celebrates "deep civility" and centrism, not Chris Sheil, who in fact criticised the coherence of that position a number of times.
oh, and I agree that EP's funny. I think I'm close to perfecting my Swedish-loving, femonazi, leftist, and generally nefarious plan to steal his sperm. I want to have his babies. soooo much. anyway, I'll let you in on the secret just after I've finished burning a witch or two. hang, on some of my best friends are... etc etc
"That's the good thing about a group blog with several different authorial voices. You can read the ones you like and ignore those that give you the shits."
one less to read after tonight.
you don't give me the shits, Ken, well you do when you write stuff like this just to have a go. yr much better than that, is my view.
and I wish Wendy, Geoff, Stephen and Woodsy would post more (and I was looking forward to reading the continuation of jen's adventures in postmodern rigour).
but you can't always get what you want, as the song goes...
I agree with FX as well. IVF shouldn't be paid for by medicare, it's not a health issue. It's more on a par with cosmetic surgery.
That said, anyone who has the benjamins should be able to do it if they like. As someone has already said, it's quite legal for lesbians to conceive the old fashioned way if they're so inclined, IVF just helps those who cant or don't want to do it that way.
I also agree with FX i.e. no-one should get a Medicare refund irrespective of sexuality. But if there's any form of subsidy it should apply to all too.
"Disgraceful abuse of the human rights of the unborn children"
I presume, C.L., that since on your reckoning these two women will be abusing the human rights of their two children, you'll be lobbying the Territory welfare authorities to have them removed from their care, and raised in some Catholic orphanage ("Whaddya mean you didn't say your Hail Marys?!! Whack!"), which would me much better.
Mind you, 'unborn children' is an oxymoron to begin with. It makes as much sense as 'living corpse'.
I am in full agreement with my very close Blog friend CL.
IVF should only be available to heterosexual couples who just can't have children.
Homosexual couples have already made their decision on children on becoming couples.
Presumably, Homer, your bible-based position isn't limited to just restricting homosexual couples' access to a technology. The logical implication of your view is that gays and lesbians should be forbidden from having children by any means.
If so, then you would support the state removing these children from their parents. Sure, this would create another stolen generation, but moral absolutes are inviolable, are they not?
If not, then your moral view isn't a moral view at all. It's a policy view on how to ration access to a technology, based on nothing more than prejudices.
That's fair enough, Homer. And if a mixed-sex couple happen to know before they get married that one of them is infertile, they shouldn't be entitled either. IVF should only be available in cases where it can be established that the infertility was a complete surprise. That should exclude all rugby players and people who do aerobics in tight pants for a start.
Rugby players?
It's possible that rugby is less injurious to the testicles than soccer, but it had to be a sport that's dear to HP's heart. I don't know if he does aeorobics, or if so what pants he wears - I just threw that in as one more example of a range of activities detrimental to fertlity.
Well I don't find this post divisive. I agree with nearly everyone here.
As Jason says, if the State is going to be in the business of providing fertility treatments, then it should be available to all who apply for such treatment and meet that criteria for whatever reason.
And I agree with Holden FX and Yobbo (now's there's a couple you hope won't avail themselves of the technologies under discussion here) that if it's not a treatment for life threatening disease or even a life disabling disease, then just go ahead and pay for it in the market
Not only rugby players. People who ride horses regularly as well. I would not be surprised if the Darwin IVF clinic was a disproportionately busy one. Especially during the Wet.
Dave Ricardo does Rev Ian Paisley. Cool.
what gets me is that CL thinks his reference to his hairy leggedness is what offended people whereas for me it was the reference to 'irresponsible women who are themselves adolescents' just because they're lesbians. And then he goes and compares these two women to indolent riff raff who steal cars and throw stones at the police. And has the chutzpah to play at mock moral outrage at some perceived anti-Catholicism on the part of other commentators.
"your bible-based position"
Is that "argumentum ad librum"?
Is it any more valid than "argumentum ad hominem"?
Well let me state my views unequivocally Jason.
I said they were irresponsible because they were considering having a child, not because they were lesbians. (Nice lie).
The Macquarie Fields riff-raff - or, to use your word, "sub subhumans" - have no sense of responsibiity for their actions. Nor do two women deliberately depriving children of a father.
On biotechnology, the left's outlook now closey resembles that of Joseph Mengele: late term obortions (aka infanticide, aka murder), killing of defective lifeforms (as sub-humans), clinicalised test-tube breeding, euthanasia. And I bet any money these women would have aborted one of the babies if it had Downs Syndrome.
Dave,
you presume far too much.
If we take children away from homosexuals because of their sinful lyfestyle then to be consistent we would have to take them away from heterosexuals indulging in sinful lifestyles. There is a hellava lot more of them.
Then you have the problem of the extremely small number of people who live lives as repentant sinners as opposed to unrepentant sinners.
The term you can't unbake a cake comes to mind.
You can't unbake IVF.
It is a fact homosexuals canot have children by IVF ie only one of the parents can be biological.
The other can only be adoptive
On the other hand this is not the case with heterosexual couples.
Only hetereosexual couples can give the child a father and a mother.
Jason, I'm not anti-Catholic, I'm anti C.L. who happens to be a Catholic. I've also had a dig at at Homer's bible-based blathering, and he's low Anglican. Far from being sectarian, I have an equal disliking of all Bible bashers, Koran bashers, and all their rest of them, who seek to impose their values on us.
C.L., Homer: Why can't you people be more like Orthodox Jews? They have a strict set of beliefs, they lead their lives accordingly, and they mind their own business.
Dave I didn't say you were anti-Catholic. I said CL was engaged in mock-moral outrage at perceived anti-Catholicism
"Only hetereosexual couples can give the child a father and a mother."
Well I know of a case where a gay couple and a lesbian couple between them produced a child and this kid consequently has two fathers and two mothers, which, while somewhat unorthodox, is arguably twice as good, if mixed parentage is the name of the game. The child divides his time between the two households - something the Prime Minister would approve of, since he recently suggested this arrangement in the case of divorced couples.
No doubt Cardinal Pell and Archbishop Jensen would disapprove, but who gives a rat's arse what they think?
"Why can't you people be more like Orthodox Jews...[who] mind their own business?"
How many Orthodox Jewish missionaries and aid-work organisations can you name?
Everything is our business: "Injustice anywhere is injustice everywhere." (Dr King).
must have hit the spot, ken.
I can't think of any Orthodox Jewish missionaries, Judaism not being a prosletysing religion, and more credit to them for that.
There are any number of Jewish charities. Do a google search of "Jewish charity" and you will find over 20000 entries.
Try 7.
http://www.google.com/search?as_q=&num=10&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=Orthodox+Jewish+charities&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=&safe=images
21300 for Jewish charity.
If you insist on making a distinction between Orthodox Jews and Non-Orthodox Jews, the latter also do not seek to shove their values in our faces, on lesbians getting IVF or anything else, yet that doesn't stop them loving thy neighbour.
You made the distinction at the outset.
But whatever.
If you pluralise so as to differentiate organisation from virtue:
Jewish charities: 14,300.
Orthodox Jewish Charities: 7.
Islamic charities: 29,500.
Hindu charities: 189.
Atheist charities: 359.
Agnostic charities: 7.
Buddhist Charities: 9,000.
Christian charities: 43,900.
Catholic charities: 391,000.
Sorry Homer:-
Protestant charities: 187.
Anglican charities: 20.
Episcopalian charities: 12.
Yeah, there are lot more Catholic charities than Jewish charities.
But then, there are a lot more Catholics than Jews.
Now could be an opportune time to reflect on how, if Pope X11 hadn't been so friendly with the Nazis, there would be a lot more Jews, but we'll leave that for another day.
Ken - thanks for starting this topic. It's been a hoot.
Excuse me: Pope Pius X11
Speaking of Popes, the incumbent looks like he's going to drop off the twig any tick of the clock. I've seen dead people who have looked healthier.
Any chance George Pell might get the gig when the time comes?
Dave
God forbid. But does she have a vote?
We were debating whether governments should obstruct lesbians from using IVF, and the subsidiary question whether Medicare should pay for it. Somehow I can't see that it all hinges on how generous orthodox Jews are.
Yes, it is completely off-topic, James. Well spotted. But since we seem to have exhausted the topic itself, I didn't think there was too much harm in letting the discussion take its own course. But if you'd still like to discuss the designated topic you're more than welcome, and I'm sure Dave and CL will do the right thing (since I suspect they've also just about exhausted their own little topic as well by now). It wouldn't do to be accused of homophobia and authoritarianism on the same thread now, would it?
CL Godwin's Law. Yes I support the right of couples to have selective abortions but that's because I don't believe an embryo has rights so it doesn't raise a moral issue for me. And in that sense I'm not treating embryos who have been encoded with genetic defects like Downs Syndrome any differently from 'normal' embryos. Contrary to what you may think, that's quite different from believing that mentally retarded children and adults should be sent to gas chambers. And there is a more than subtle difference between believing couples have the right to engage in selective abortion and believing that the State should require couples to have selective abortion. If you can breach Godwin's law so can I - I could say that your position is closer to Nazism than my own since you do believe the State should restrict reproduction rights, albeit in different ways from the Nazis. As for euthanasia, euthanasia that does not involve the consent (explicit or implicit) of the party being euthanised is by definition not euthanasia. There are legitimate arguments for not allowing euthanasia on the basis that it can be abused to terminate the lives of people who do not want their lives terminated but again this is far different from Nazi concentration camps. Nice try.
Well, I kinda hope George wins the ballot. Think of what it would do for putting Australia on the world stage!
Think of the tourism - millions of Catholics making pilgrammiges to Ballarat, or wherever the hell (so to speak) George is from.
And it could do wonders for Christian unity, reversing centuries of schism. I can just see George appointing Peter Jensen to the position of Vice Pope (Naughtiness Eradication Project).
C.S. and Homer could become acolytes.
Sounds good to me.
"C.S. and Homer could become acolytes."
You probably mean CL. Both might well be mortally offended to be confused with each other. cs would probably be happy to be an acolyte of Saint Gough, though.
C.L- I'm not sure of the numbers of followers but based on what I can remember it looks as if the Mick's with 391,000 agencies are way way less efficient and much more faction driven than the Islamo's with their efficient 29,500 agencies.
Looks like the Pope should call in a few Mullahs to do an efficiency audit and re-organisation. At a quick glance it seems as if the Catholics are overburdened with dead weight middle management.
You also forgot to make the point that there is NOT ONE hairy legged lesbian charity organisation. Not one. Shows how self centred they are.
Dave,
I don't know I can be classified a low anglican when I neither reconise nor approve of anglican bishops nor archbishops.
could you enlarge on how a child can have two fathers and two mothers.
Since it is impossible for both male and female homosexuals to have IVF children ie females must get male sperm from someone other thna their 'partner' and males must do the same with females, who of course do not have sperm.
This is both for Dave whom I love as a brother nad Ken whom I love as a father 9 he has a grey beard after all).
'Morals can be imposed on other people since they represent the rules a given society has found reason to enforce.'
That is a quote from Chauncey Wright whom both of you I am sure would approve of.
( read the Metaphysical club if you haven't. Superbly written book by Louis Menaud).
You both are attempting as anyone else to impose a moral code on everyone else.
Just admit it and get on with it.
"Ken whom I love as a father 9 he has a grey beard after all"
No I don't! I shaved it off because it was getting too depressing to look in the mirror each morning. Older brother perhaps?
"You both are attempting as anyone else to impose a moral code on everyone else."
No we're not. No-one's trying to artificially inseminate either you or your good lady partner, Homer, as far as I know. Not unless it's an inverse Evil Pundit effect. And how can I be a homophobe and a politically correct fminist nanny statist all in the one thread? Poor me. Whipping boy for everyone. Lucky I'm a cybermasochist.
Homer - and me?
I may have failed completely but I have always tried to lead you in the right direction musically.
I don't understand any of that Francis, sorry.
If you mean there are roughly the same number of Moslems as Catholics and, ipso facto, that the latter are bureaucracy-laden - as proved by having more charities - might I suggest another possibility?
Namely, the truth: we do more for our own and others than they do. In real terms. End of story.
Fair enough Ken - I'll bow out. Dave has now been reduced to repeating nutty conspiracy theories about Pius XII and mocking the appearance of a man who broke rocks under the Nazis in his youth and who now suffers from Parkinson's disease.
Funnily enough, none of the critics of my "hairy-legged" description have jumped in to lament the cruelty and pre-modern backwardness of that.
By the way, Pius XII saved more Jews - personally - than any other man during WWII (more than 750,000). The 'conspicuous indignation' merchants in the anti-Pacelli school have never understood it but public sanctimony was not advisable if likely to cause a dozen vengeful pogroms.
Unless, of course, they're suggesting the Nazis weren't really capable of such impetuous slaughter-for-retribution.
Happily, for thousands of Jews, Pius knew better. Which is why his efforts were praised by Albert Einstein in 1940 (Time magazine) and by historian Sir Martin Gilbert. Jewisk historians Jeno Levai, Livia Rotchirchen and Pinchas Lapride have also praised Pacelli. New York rabbi and historian David Dilan regards him as "righteous among gentiles."
Adios.
CL I'm sure you realise what I was saying. If it is good enough to quote those raw figures to show that more organisations proves more generosity then it is also legitimate to claim that more organisations shows less efficiency.
fwiw i do respect that the catholics, anglicans and uniting are a bit ahead because they do a lot to help people without caring, or equiring, if they are from their own mob. The opposite is (partly) why I have no time for AoG and their mates.
And it's adios from me too. Having mocked one Pope and defamed another, and best of all, gotten right under CL's skin, I'm off to confession.
Tomorrow, I'll do it all again.
Ken, without the beard you won't look as wise!
If the legislation is changed then the values you trumpet are imposed on society.
If it is not then the values I trumpet stay there.
either way someones values are imposed!
I will love you as an older brother then.
Homer: "I will love you as an older brother then."
and the lion lay down with the lamb ...
CL,
what?
You're "seriously opposed" to IVF in such situations for the purpose you state (point 2), specifically for this thread?
How odd.
Fair enough. I figured you may have a rationalisation for your opposition along the lines of: "the invisible cloud buddy in the sky told me".
Funnily enough, none of the critics of my "hairy-legged" description have jumped in to lament the cruelty and pre-modern backwardness of that.
C.L. what in the name of Jesus do you think Ricardo was trying to do with such comments? And you had the temerity to defend you seminal uncouthness with puerile gloats about target groups being unable to take a joke!
I pray that you will heed the lesson that has just been handeth to you and learn to respect all in their diversity under your God's azure heavens.
"And it's adios from me too. Having mocked one Pope and defamed another, and best of all, gotten right under CL's skin, I'm off to confession. "
Dave is Catholic? So I presume Dave is not related in any way to his more famous namesake from the world of economics?
CL,
"seriously opposed" to IVF in this case, purely for this thread?
How odd.
M'eh, figured it may be along the lines of: "the invisible cloud buddy sez so".
*Twin Mickey Rooneys rush into now deserted room screeching "I'll 'ave im!"*
Wrong wbb: Dave's a serial anti-Catholic. Lifelong Catholophobes often end up crying for a priest on their deathbeds, as a thousand stories attest.
And dear Tiny, obviously the only cloud about which you're expert is the nimbostratus surrounding that bong of yours.
I'm no expert.
I blame 12 years of Catholic schooling.
For me this comes under the broader concern for the natural, rather than any specific concern about what's normal. Really the fallacy of composition argument, that we all have vested interests in individually overcoming natural barriers to our wants, whilst ignoring the externalities the sum of our actions may produce.
Looking at the natural ecosystem of fertility, it's interesting to note that slightly more boys than girls are born, but due to the observed natural riskier behaviour of the former this imbalance evens out by the time reproductive capability is reached. Tinker with that ecosystem and you may discover what an older civilistion like China is coming to grips with now. About 119 males to every 100 females. A major problematic externality and they now want to ban the use of ultrasounds for anything but medical need. India is facing a similar problem due to the dowry system for females.
IVF for gays and heterosexuals may simply be another symptom of the fundamental belief that the technological fix, or perhaps the dominance of mankind over nature will produce the ultimate utopia for all. Here we could add GM food, stem cell research, organ transplants, abortion on demand and the like. Godwins Law may well be appropriate here. If not the master race, perhaps we will all enjoy the perfect race? The global multinational success story of the future-'Perfect Outcomes Ltd'. Will that output be natural diversity or the monotone selection of our advertising gurus? Will almost complete technical capability to effect outcomes produce any empathy at all for the unusual or heaven forbid, the technical oversight? None of us wants to be a Christopher Reeve, but will we as a society be better for not ever knowing any? Would utility maximising parents prefer to screen out gays if possible, along with their other perceived undesirable outcomes? Forget about drugs in sport, as perhaps our technically perfect drones make sport and Olympic competition anachronistic and futile.
You wonder why some of us chuckle at the indignation of some 70 or 80 donor sperm recipients, that found out they were really using the same sperm of their doctor to impregnate themselves. What's your beef girls? Welcome to your brave new world. Overall, it seems to me that those who profess to have strong empathy for say natural wilderness and multiculturalism, may have some shared concerns about these broad developments too. Try this on for size as an analogy of creeping externalities- Steam engine...internal combustion engine...horseless carriages for the elite few...Henry Ford offers the freedom of the motor car to the masses...congestion, pollution,traffic lights, speed cameras...Greenhouse...Kyoto. Where IVF generally, or for gays in particular might fit in the bigger scheme of things is anyone's guess, but we humans are equipped with some incredible powers of foresight, as well as an appreciation of history.
sorry, observa, what was that? i had a sudden onset of narcolepsy:-)
Most of us probably suffer the same with dots and big picture stuff like Greenhouse too Jason. Too hard basket I guess, but now footy season's almost upon us and it's time to fire up our SUVs
Err.. Strictly to Power on through those wet grassy car parks you understand Jason ;)