I have to admit, it’s been too long since I laughed with tears, but this has done it.

The Vatican official in charge of catching paedophile priests has said their punishment in hell would be worse than receiving the death penalty on earth.

Well that’s clarified Hell then. A fleeting second of death is not as bad as eternity in perfect agony. Apparently.

Scicluna added that those who hurt children should be thrown into the sea with a millstone around their neck.

This killed me. Even discounting the fact that this is not a reasoned, considered response to paedophilia, where are they going to find a millstone in 2010? I’m being silly of course. Cutting a millstone in four would easily leave you able to drown a man with each quarter.

In his sermon, he also suggested that priests who covered up abuse committed by colleagues would also face the fires of hell.

And sobriety sets in. Pope Ratzinger must have frozen in his seat when this was said.

“Monsignor Scicluna? Can I have a word? That was all excellent. Excellent. But that last thing? Yes, the fires of Hell thing. I’m infallible, right?”.

So there’s been 350 (and climbing) complaints to the ASA after Marie Stopes first ever television commercial. I can’t help but feel that such a pedestrian and subtle advert is failing to breach the ASA advertising code. These complaints are not born out of concern that the advert is offensive or vulgar, they are born out of a difference of opinion.

It’s no surprise of course, such an emotive issue was destined for controversy, but I wonder at the route anti-abortionists are taking by accusing a clearly unoffensive commercial of being offensive. A right wing Christian accusing the ad of being offensive is akin to me, a vegetarian, accusing an advert for pork chops of being offensive (they rarely are).

So what’s wrong with it? According to this guy:

* Although MSI is a charity, the services which it will advertise involve a commercial transaction, as the public are charged for £80 for a telephone consultation and hundreds of pounds for an abortion.
* These services are also ‘medical’ since they require the signature of two doctors and therefore by analogy are prohibited by the code (which prevents advertising for prescription only products and services).
* The subject of ‘abortion services’ is a matter of significant political debate and controversy. Furthermore, MSI openly engage in the political campaigns to change the law on abortion and refer to this advert as part of ‘a wider campaign’. Commercial advertising of such issues is not permitted.

On point one, maybe I’m missing something but both charities and businesses can advertise on television, and if there is something there that I’m missing, there’s no denying that Marie Stopes is a charity at it’s core.

I’m not too hot on point two, but I’m guessing that abortion is not a prescription service per se, and that there’s probably very little precedence in the UK for a girl being refused an abortion on the basis that no doctor would prescribe it.

And point three is where I’m most comfortable. Whether it’s a point of debate or controversy has no bearing on it. I refer you to my pork chop example. Anyone may advertise part of a wider campaign. KitKat for example, or Marmite.

Life Charity’s template letter of complaint includes:

6.6 Harmful or negative stereotypes
“Advertisements must not prejudice respect for human dignity or humiliate, stigmatise or undermine the standing of identifiable groups of people.”

Allowing abortion providers to advertise on TV undermines the dignity of the unborn, particularly disabled unborn children who are vulnerable to eugenic abortion up to birth.

Brilliant. Let’s stigmatise* young girls in order to not undermine the dignity of a foetus.

8.1.3 Medical or health advice given remotely
“(b) Services that offer to prescribe or treat remotely may not be advertised.”

It is likely that many of the people who contact Marie Stopes will be offered prescriptions and treatments remotely.

No it isn’t. Think about what you’ve just suggested.

Appendix 4, Consumers:
“If an advertisement is likely to affect the economic behavior only of a clearly identifiable group of people who are particularly vulnerable to its contents,in a way that the advertiser could reasonably be expected to foresee, because of mental or physical infirmity, age or credulity, then the advertisement will be considered from the point of view of the average member of the affected group.”

This advertising is targeted at those facing crisis pregnancy who are in a vulnerable position.The advert does not give them full information to help them consider their situation.

No, it’s an advert. If they contact the charity, then they’ll be given more information. Marie Stopes don’t run a production line of abortions, they offer counselling and advice. And they offer a damn sight more balanced advice than Life Charity would.

Misleading advertising
“Advertisements are misleading if they are likely to deceive consumers and are likely to cause consumers to take transactional decisions that they would not otherwise have taken. . . . Advertisements can deceive consumers by ambiguity, through presentation or by omitting important information that consumers need to make an informed transactional decision, as well as by including false information.”

These adverts are misleading, since many people are unaware of what kind of organisation MarieStopes is and the services they provide. Many women calling Marie Stopes as a result of this advert will not know that they are abortion providers and thatthey will not present a range of other options in response to their crisis pregnancy. Marie Stopes do not, for example provide free, unlimited counselling.

That’s what advertising is for. And they don’t provide unlimited counselling only in the same way that and all you can eat buffet doesn’t provide you with a million plates of bacon.

8.2.15 Medicines and children
“No advertisement or a medicinal product or treatment may be directed at peopleunder the age of 16.”

There is no guarantee that under-16’s will not see this advert particularly given its timeslot.

No, like there’s no guarantee that a five year old won’t be up watching Nightmare on Elm Street at midnight. That’s parenting. But regardless of this, Marie Stopes aren’t exactly throwing pregnant 12 year olds out the door because they’re not old enough for an abortion. It’s aimed at all women, age is not a factor in medical support of any kind.

I’ll be honest, I could write for hours now about freedom of speech and the necessity to keep religion seperate from politics utterly, but I’ll try and pull up short with this: People, Christian or other, may disagree with abortions, but unless they’re prepared to stop attending church to abide by my beliefs, or unless they’re prepared to take the state by force and enforce Christian Sharia without the pretense that they’re open to the ideas of others, have to accept that their ideas are nothing more than that, their ideas. My fingers are itching to write on about Christian murders of abortion clinic surgeons, but I must stop. I must.

* Illegal under section 6.6 of the ASA’s advertising code.

The dream I had last night was a short one that described the press conference (on a ship at the scene I think) of a Russian man that had been trapped underneath the Atlantic in the wreck of the Titanic for four years. How he got there was not clear, a forgotten expedition that met with trouble perhaps, but he had had to somehow finally make the journey to the surface due to exhausting all oxygen pockets in the ship. He had a shaved head and was wearing nothing but camouflage trousers and jack boots, possibly due to Vladimir Putin’s recent holiday snaps, and Russian to begin with probably due to my recent awareness of this article.

Whilst planning this post earlier today, I was frankly embarrassed at the naivety of a mind that would concoct such a proposal, but the more I think about it in terms of writing inspiration, the more good I see in it.