NationStates Jolt Archive

Vatican urges end to Amnesty aid

The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating money to Amnesty International, accusing the human rights group of promoting abortion.
The Vatican also said it was suspending all financial aid to Amnesty over what it said was the group's recent change of policy on the issue.
Amnesty said it was not promoting abortion as a universal right.
But the group said that women had a right to choose, particularly in cases of rape or incest.
"No more financing of Amnesty International after the organisation's pro-abortion about-turn," said a statement from the Roman Catholic Church's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.

'Misrepresented account'
The council's president, Cardinal Renato Martino, described abortion as "murder".
"And to justify it selectively, in the event of rape, that is to define an innocent child in the belly of its mother as an enemy, as 'something one can destroy'," the cardinal said.
Amnesty says it does not take any position on whether abortion is right or wrong.
But it defended its new position in support of abortion for women when their health is in danger or human rights are violated, especially in cases of rape or incest.
"We are saying broadly that to criminalise women's management of their sexual reproductive right is the wrong answer," Amnesty's deputy Secretary General Kate Gilmore told Reuters news agency.
"The Catholic Church, through a misrepresented account of our position on selective aspects of abortion, is placing in peril work on human rights," Ms Gilmore said.
Some 45 million unintended pregnancies are terminated around the world every year, the World Health Organisation says.
Nearly 70,000 women die annually from unsafe abortions, it says.
Yay for the Catholic Church - proudly dragging itself back into the 18th Century. What next? Stoning for adultery? dunking stools set up for witches?

edit:
D'oh! Sorry - forgot to post the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6750887.stm

I want the old Pope back..:(

Good 'ol John.

Really though, how many "Good Catholics" were donating money to Amnesty International to begin with?

I don't think opposing abortion is equal to stoning witches and adulterers; those are clearly morally wrong while abortion really is a pretty mixed issue in moral terms. The Church have been consistently and openly pro-life as long as it has been a major political issue and this just reflects their commitment to that moral tenet of their faith.

However, the Church runs numerous charities above and beyond Amnesty International, so I doubt this would significantly change the overall situation. They are generous, after all.

On the other hand, it's fun to hear the church organs play The Imperial March for Sunday Services. It is somewhat an appropriate theme for the rolling back of progressive thoughts in the Catholic Church starting with the stomping out of Liberation Theology back with Pope Palpatine's hero JP2.

They are generous, after all.

Only to their flock, or potential recruits I suspect.

Really though, how many "Good Catholics" were donating money to Amnesty International to begin with?

Not this one. I'm unemployed. :p

Yay for the Catholic Church - proudly dragging itself back into the 18th Century. What next? Stoning for adultery? dunking stools set up for witches?

Issues with gay and lesbian rights or something, I guess.

Only to their flock, or potential recruits I suspect.

Not really; at times, yes, but by and large they tend to keep them separate. A lot of Catholic charities tend to focus more on helping people than converting them; social justice is a significant part of their moral focus, and they do fund a number of secular charities in addition to religious ones provided their practices are consistent with Catholic ethics.

Yay for the Catholic Church - proudly dragging itself back into the 18th Century. What next? Stoning for adultery? dunking stools set up for witches?
This is the kind of shit that happens when the cardinals elect people with nicknames like "God's Rottweiler." I'm surprised he doesn't drive the popemobile than jump out of it and beat people with his popecane if they arn't cheering.

This is the kind of shit that happens when the new Pope's nickname involves purportedly vicious dogs I'm surprised he doesn't drive the popemobile than jump out of it and beat people with his popecane if they arn't cheering.

No, he clenches his hands into eagle claws and zaps them with the Power of the Dark Side.

I don't think opposing abortion is equal to stoning witches and adulterers; those are clearly morally wrong while abortion really is a pretty mixed issue in moral terms. The Church have been consistently and openly pro-life as long as it has been a major political issue and this just reflects their commitment to that moral tenet of their faith.

However, the Church runs numerous charities above and beyond Amnesty International, so I doubt this would significantly change the overall situation. They are generous, after all.

Stoning adulterers and dunking witches were hazy issues once too. Then people became a bit more enlightened. One day people will look back on episodes like this and wonder how we ever survived being that stupid with access to nuclear technology.

No, he clenches his hands into eagle claws and zaps them with the Power of the Dark Side.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/BentoXVI-30-10052007.jpg/450px-BentoXVI-30-10052007.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0a/Palpatine_ROTJ.jpg

The resemblance is striking, to say the least. He's even got Palpatine's hairstyle from the Senate days...

http://xirdal.lmu.de/xirdalium/xpix/ratzinger.jpg

^lol he really does look like the Emperor


They've only accused them of supporting Abortion but does AI actualy support it?

Yay for the Catholic Church - proudly dragging itself back into the 18th Century. What next? Stoning for adultery? dunking stools set up for witches?

its not an issue of science or ignorance, the Church is at the postion of perserving morals in a society that really kinda is...well you watch the news

Only to their flock, or potential recruits I suspect.

not true at all, they were at Katrina, the Tsunamis, and go help with other disasters around the world.

CC in the US (http://www.catholiccharitiesusa.org/)

Could we perhaps get a link to this article, cuz it seems a little far fetched...

I want the old Pope back..:(

Good 'ol John.
Well, whodathunk an ex-Nazi Youth Party member and suppressor of sexual abuse claims might helm such a distasteful attitude and policy? :rolleyes:

Thank God there is at least one institution that retains moral clarity (however imperfect it is in practice, viz. abusive clergy scandals).

Props to the Vatican.

Catholics are rather serious when it comes to abortion being murder - thus it is only logical that the Vatican would adopt this stance.

Amnesty International is not a charity, it's a conscience-calming organization.

Maybe they'll start conducting services in Latin again. I'd attend church then, even though Im not Catholic.

Really though, how many "Good Catholics" were donating money to Amnesty International to begin with?

The Newman Center in Riverside, CA belonged to Amnesty International. We donated money and held letter writing campaigns as part of our social justice work. The priests, all Dominicans, encouraged the work.

Only to their flock, or potential recruits I suspect.

That seems to be the attitude with all religions.

Thank God there is at least one institution that retains moral clarity (however imperfect it is in practice, viz. abusive clergy scandals).

Props to the Vatican.

So where does the practice of hiding pedophiles fall into the "moral" clarity?

What about the lack of punishment of Cardinals that are involved in the practice?

It's great to know the Vatican has found a way to time travel without leaving the comfort of the 21st century. Let's here it for delusional thinking! :)

I want the old Pope back..:(

Good 'ol John.

he would've said the same thing. I'm no catholic, not even christian, but amnesty declaring abortion a universal human right was a step backwards.

he would've said the same thing. I'm no catholic, not even christian, but amnesty declaring abortion a universal human right was a step backwards.

They did nothing of the kind (although they should have done in my opinion).

"This has nothing to do with legitimising abortion as part of a campaign for human rights, it is to do with combating violence against women," he said.

"It was partly inspired by our experience in Africa where soldiers rape women in communities they attack to force them to have their children. We also believe women who have had abortions should benefit from medical care regardless of the reason for the abortion. Moreover we aim to promote education and contraception to reduce abortion rates."

"AI does not take a position on whether abortion should be legal or whether it is right or wrong," it added in a statement.

Guardian Online (http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2102583,00.html)

Of course, the Church has always been a deeply misogynistic institution so this isn't really surprising.

he would've said the same thing. I'm no catholic, not even christian, but amnesty declaring abortion a universal human right was a step backwards.

You don't think a woman should have the final say over the use of her body/organs?

its not an issue of science or ignorance, the Church is at the postion of perserving morals in a society that really kinda is...well you watch the news

Like he said, what's next, stoning adulterers and dunking witches/wiccan followers?

They did nothing of the kind (although they should have done in my opinion).

well, they certainly considered it (http://www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/amnestyinternational/)



Guardian Online (http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2102583,00.html)

Of course, the Church has always been a deeply misogynistic institution so this isn't really surprising.[/QUOTE]

...misogynistic, which is why they consider the single most perfect human being who ever lived to be a woman, who they title "empress of heaven" "mediatrix of all grace", etc...

They've only accused them of supporting Abortion but does AI actualy support it?
You missed this bit in the OP article:
Amnesty says it does not take any position on whether abortion is right or wrong.
But it defended its new position in support of abortion for women when their health is in danger or human rights are violated, especially in cases of rape or incest.
nasty Amnesty! How dare they support abortion just because the woman's life is in danger from the pregnancy or she's been gang-raped.
They should follow the Church's doctrine that every life is sacred. I mean aside from the woman's obviously.

oh..that penultimate sentence has just forced me into linking this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0kJHQpvgB8

The problem with Ratzinger is that he thinks he can take the Church back to the good old days when it ran the show and the threat of excommunication would get done whatever it wanted. Too bad the crackpot Catholics stopped supporting it around the 2nd Vatican Council and the rest of the world has been dealing with the progressive John Paul II for years so Ratzinger is just making the Church look worse and alienating anyone who John Paul II managed to deal with.

well, they certainly considered it (http://www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/amnestyinternational/)

But they didn't, more's the pity.

...misogynistic, which is why they consider the single most perfect human being who ever lived to be a woman, who they title "empress of heaven" "mediatrix of all grace", etc...

I prefer to look at the Church's actions rather than it's words. It recently opposed the introduction of a cervical cancer vaccine in the UK which could have saved 1,000 lives a year and by opposing the legalisation of abortion it apparently sees women as less than human.

I fail to see why this elicits any objections. The opposition of the catholic church to abortion is not rooted in a desire to oppress women, but in the notion that it constitutes murder, and is thus a sin. Hence, the title is sensationalist twaddle.

Equally, whyever should the Vatican not advise its adherents to not donate to a charity that contravenes Catholic dogma?

I fail to see why this elicits any objections. The opposition of the catholic church to abortion is not rooted in a desire to oppress women, but in the notion that it constitutes murder, and is thus a sin. Hence, the title is sensationalist twaddle.

Also, the Catholic church is against birth control and condoms cause they believe pregnancy to be a punishment for sex.

And if you look at their whole faith setup, who do they blame for the whole original mess? A woman.

Not oppressing women, that's a load of crock.

Also, the Catholic church is against birth control and condoms cause they believe pregnancy to be a punishment for sex.

And if you look at their whole faith setup, who do they blame for the whole original mess? A woman.

Not oppressing women, that's a load of crock.

Another nail in the coffin of eloquence is struck.

Firstly, you might want to improve your knowledge of Christian theology; Eve is not held responsible for the fall of man. Satan is held responsible, and it is upon him that the full weight of God's judgement falls. Indeed, God is held, admittedly by the protestant Milton, although no Catholic objections have been raised to the notion, to have been aware of the fall of man, but to have allowed it to occur so as to finally dispense with Satan. Simplification no.1; dealt with.

I rather felt Catholic dogma also, much like any other religion, considered childbirth, and hence pregnancy, as a blessing, not a punishment. Moreover, condoms tend to fall under the aegis of birth control, and though the Catholic church is indeed against them, it is once more justified by a belief in the sanctity of life, not a clandestine desire to repress women. Somebody, methinks, has read Dan Brown a little too often.

and by opposing the legalisation of abortion it apparently sees women as less than human.

it sees them as nothing of the kind, and if you don't know that you've blinded yourself. they mention a woman nearly as often as they mention God - and if you want to look at actions then look at the millions upon millions of people who bow to women in catholic churches every day around the world. medieval politics has nothing to do with the church's current position - and the theology regarding the divine worth of womanhood has not changed over 1700 years.

I'm not opposed to the killing of animals because I think meat eaters are "less than human", but because I think the lives of animals have intrinsic value, which is not determined by proximity to myself either in terms of independence, intelligence, or physiology. it's exactly the same way for the vast majority of people who are pro-life. it has nothing to do with devaluing the mother, and everything to do with valuing the child.

the real misogyny is denying the uniqueness and sacredness a woman has in her ability to bring life into this world.

Firstly, you might want to improve your knowledge of Christian theology; Eve is not held responsible for the fall of man.


You might want to look up how Magdalen went from disciple to prostitute in Catholic scripture.

And Eve might not be held technically responsible, but take a look at how she's portrayed. Not as equals, not as partners. Nope, she's supposed to be subservient, a love doll for Adam. Lilith got cast out cause she had too independent a spirit. Eve on the other hand, was the perfect slave. And then she's the naive noodnik who became an accessory to God's entrapment.

Maybe the Bible doesn't specifically say "Go out, and oppress all your womenfolk", but it certainly paints them as less than human.


I rather felt Catholic dogma also, much like any other religion, considered childbirth, and hence pregnancy, as a blessing, not a punishment.


Not from the way all the noisy ones keep screaming about how "if you can't keep your legs shut, you deserve it"

And then there's those who consider abortion, even for dead fetuses, or certain death for the mother, to be murder, nevermind the woman in question.


Moreover, condoms tend to fall under the aegis of birth control, and though the Catholic church is indeed against them, it is once more justified by a belief in the sanctity of life, not a clandestine desire to repress women. Somebody, methinks, has read Dan Brown a little too often.

So basically, women should be baby machines, nevermind what they think. They're subhuman, and have no right to say if they want to get pregnant or not.

Thanks for proving my point.

Moreover, condoms tend to fall under the aegis of birth control, and though the Catholic church is indeed against them, it is once more justified by a belief in the sanctity of life, not a clandestine desire to repress women. Somebody, methinks, has read Dan Brown a little too often.

Catholicism has something called the Doctrine of Double Effect which allows for the commission of a lesser sin in order to prevent the commission of a greater sin. If the Vatican truly considered abortion to be murder then they would advocate comprehensive sex education and contraception to avert it. The same goes for their opposition to the cervical cancer vaccine.

I rather felt Catholic dogma also, much like any other religion, considered childbirth, and hence pregnancy, as a blessing, not a punishment. Moreover, condoms tend to fall under the aegis of birth control, and though the Catholic church is indeed against them, it is once more justified by a belief in the sanctity of life, not a clandestine desire to repress women. Somebody, methinks, has read Dan Brown a little too often.

precisely - not that the gnostics would have felt the slightest bit different about filicide. they consider marriage, and within marriage sex, to be sacraments - sacred symbols in which God participates in human life, pregnancy comes from the direct participation of the woman and man in a creative act, together with God. the woman in particular has a special role, and in her creativity and nurturing is especially close to God...(who in traditional christian thought is gender neutral, with the equally balanced hypostases of the male christ and the female holy spirit), again is has absolutely nothing to do with misogyny. it's incredibly ironic how quick the culture of the wonder-bra and the body shaving mandate is to scream misogyny. often we're more quick to accuse others when we know we're guilty of the same sins ourselves.

and for the record, I'm a Goddess-worshiping genderqueer. you've blown a gasket if you think I'm a friend of the patriarchy.

it sees them as nothing of the kind, and if you don't know that you've blinded yourself. they mention a woman nearly as often as they mention God - and if you want to look at actions then look at the millions upon millions of people who bow to women in catholic churches every day around the world. medieval politics has nothing to do with the church's current position - and the theology regarding the divine worth of womanhood has not changed over 1700 years.

As I've already said, I prefer to examine the actions of the Church rather than its platitudes. I've already mentioned their opposition to a vaccine which would have saved 1,000 women every year in the UK alone.

I'm not opposed to the killing of animals because I think meat eaters are "less than human", but because I think the lives of animals have intrinsic value, which is not determined by proximity to myself either in terms of independence, intelligence, or physiology. it's exactly the same way for the vast majority of people who are pro-life. it has nothing to do with devaluing the mother, and everything to do with valuing the child.

If you think that twisted analogy has any relevance to abortion then you are blinding yourself.

The most fundamental human right is the right to sovreignity over your own body, there is no right to be a parasite. If a tick was feeding on you then you'd be fully justified in pulling it off, however much 'intrinsic value' it has, no?

the real misogyny is denying the uniqueness and sacredness a woman has in her ability to bring life into this world.

WTF? The only misogyny here is telling women "You have no control over your body."

its not an issue of science or ignorance, the Church is at the postion of perserving morals in a society that really kinda is...well you watch the news



Their morals are nothing to be proud of in my view, Well none above the basics that most people/religions profess (Do not kill and such)

I would prefer they were not in that position at all. Specially with that idiot in charge

You might want to look up how Magdalen went from disciple to prostitute in Catholic scripture.
source?

And Eve might not be held technically responsible, but take a look at how she's portrayed. Not as equals, not as partners. Nope, she's supposed to be subservient, a love doll for Adam. Lilith got cast out cause she had too independent a spirit. Eve on the other hand, was the perfect slave. And then she's the naive noodnik who became an accessory to God's entrapment.
source? and Lilith isn't in the Bible btw.

Maybe the Bible doesn't specifically say "Go out, and oppress all your womenfolk", but it certainly paints them as less than human.
where?

If you think that twisted analogy has any relevance to abortion then you are blinding yourself.

The most fundamental human right is the right to sovreignity over your own body, there is no right to be a parasite. If a tick was feeding on you then you'd be fully justified in pulling it off, however much 'intrinsic value' it has, no?

twisted analogy? pro-lifers see the embryo and the woman as morally separate entities, both deserving of respect. the same is true of vegetarianism, or any circumstance under which people don't believe the whims of one individual should take precedence over the life and well being of another. it was a perfectly relevant analogy. comparing a human embryo to a tick is disgusting, completely illogical, and, well, dehumanizing.

WTF? The only misogyny here is telling women "You have no control over your body."

yes, if I were saying anything of the kind that would be thoughtless of me. but I'm not. you're not doing anything but repeating canned arguments as parrot-like as any evangelical's.

And Eve might not be held technically responsible, but take a look at how she's portrayed. Not as equals, not as partners. Nope, she's supposed to be subservient, a love doll for Adam. Lilith got cast out cause she had too independent a spirit. Eve on the other hand, was the perfect slave. And then she's the naive noodnik who became an accessory to God's entrapment.



Wrong. Eve was made from Adams' rib. Your rib is on your side. This is symbolism. It means Woman and Man are meant to walk side by side, as equals.

Don't give money to charity and screw woman's rights!

-By decree of Pope Palapatine I

Someone had to do it...

You know, this is the second time you've avoided responding to the Church's stance on the cervical cancer vaccine. Could it be that you can't justify it?

twisted analogy? pro-lifers see the embryo and the woman as morally separate entities, both deserving of respect. the same is true of vegetarianism, or any circumstance under which people don't believe the whims of one individual should take precedence over the life and well being of another. it was a perfectly relevant analogy.

You gave the example of killing an animal for food. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion because the embryo is feeding off the mother, a random animal isn't. If a cow wandered into my house and the only way to remove it was with a shot gun then I'd have every right to do so, the same applies to a human woman.

If there was a way to remove an unwanted embryo from a woman's womb and before placing it in the womb of a woman who did want it then I'd be all for that; until then, abortion is the only option for a woman who's unwilling or unable to carry the pregnancy to term.

comparing a human embryo to a tick is disgusting, completely illogical, and, well, dehumanizing.

It's far more accurate than your analogy:
-A tick is a parasite, so is an embryo.
-An embryo's capacity for thought and consciousness is probably less than a tick's.

Besides, what you said "I think the lives of animals have intrinsic value, which is not determined by proximity to myself either in terms of independence, intelligence, or physiology". If this is the case, then why do you consider an embryo to have more value that a tick?

yes, if I were saying anything of the kind that would be thoughtless of me. but I'm not. you're not doing anything but repeating canned arguments as parrot-like as any evangelical's.

Cute.

Wrong. Eve was made from Adams' rib. Your rib is on your side. This is symbolism. It means Woman and Man are meant to walk side by side, as equals.

Some scholars suggest that 'rib' was used as a euphemism for 'penis bone'.

You know, this is the second time you've avoided responding to the Church's stance on the cervical cancer vaccine. Could it be that you can't justify it?

I'm not saying the church is perfect, I'm saying its not the misogynistic evil you're making it out to be. and its not a cervical cancer vaccine, its an HPV vaccine, that is, a vaccination against genital warts which can become cancer. to support it would go against the church's stance on abstinence (and no, I do not agree with abstinence only sex-ed, I'm gay, have had plenty of sex, and am obviously not getting married in a catholic church) - fundamentally they are arguing against one method of preventing the acquisition of genital warts in favour of another one. disagreement over the method of prevention does not equate to sympathy with the disease. I happen to disagree with the church on this issue (along with many others), but that doesn't make them monstrous or misogynistic.


You gave the example of killing an animal for food. This is completely irrelevant to the discussion because the embryo is feeding off the mother, a random animal isn't. If a cow wandered into my house and the only way to remove it was with a shot gun then I'd have every right to do so, the same applies to a human woman.

I don't think you would have any right to do so, (incidentally neither does about 1/6 of the world, I don't think the population of India would take too kindly to your idea) - and the entire world is feeding off of itself. interdependency is a fact, despite the popular american myth of independence and self-determinism.

It's far more accurate than your analogy:
-A tick is a parasite, so is an embryo.
-An embryo's capacity for thought and consciousness is probably less than a tick's.

completely untrue.

Besides, what you said "I think the lives of animals have intrinsic value, which is not determined by proximity to myself either in terms of independence, intelligence, or physiology". If this is the case, then why do you consider an embryo to have more value that a tick?

I don't. I go out of my way to avoid picking up ticks (and embryos...) and frequently use non-violent methods to deal with insects. I haven't killed so much as a cockroach in years - in fact I open doors for them.

---

and for the record, I'm a pacifist. I don't believe force is a morally suitable method of getting someone to do anything. persuasion is...and that's the only thing I'm doing with abortion. I am pro-life but I don't believe in legislation on anything at all, as it all relies on military and police violence to enforce it.

I don't think opposing abortion is equal to stoning witches and adulterers; those are clearly morally wrong while abortion really is a pretty mixed issue in moral terms. The Church have been consistently and openly pro-life as long as it has been a major political issue and this just reflects their commitment to that moral tenet of their faith.

However, the Church runs numerous charities above and beyond Amnesty International, so I doubt this would significantly change the overall situation. They are generous, after all.

It's still a poor decision by the Pope, at the very least it hugely discredits the papacy.

That's disgusting and horrible.

You might want to look up how Magdalen went from disciple to prostitute in Catholic scripture.

And Eve might not be held technically responsible, but take a look at how she's portrayed. Not as equals, not as partners. Nope, she's supposed to be subservient, a love doll for Adam. Lilith got cast out cause she had too independent a spirit. Eve on the other hand, was the perfect slave. And then she's the naive noodnik who became an accessory to God's entrapment.

Maybe the Bible doesn't specifically say "Go out, and oppress all your womenfolk", but it certainly paints them as less than human.



Not from the way all the noisy ones keep screaming about how "if you can't keep your legs shut, you deserve it"

And then there's those who consider abortion, even for dead fetuses, or certain death for the mother, to be murder, nevermind the woman in question.



So basically, women should be baby machines, nevermind what they think. They're subhuman, and have no right to say if they want to get pregnant or not.

Thanks for proving my point.


I really do object to discussing issues with people who make misinterpreting a post an art form.

How, pray tell me, does my suggesting that childbirth and pregnancy is a blessing, according to Catholic dogma, equate to an admission that women are intended only as babymachines?

In any case, are you genuinely trying to apply a modern, secular morality to a religion created in a phallocratic epoch? It would be naive to the point of stupidity to expect a modern portrayal of gender in a text created some two millenia ago. Moreover, the nature of Eve's portrayal is a matter of great intellectual debate; the answer to which, until you very decently solved it for the world, has been beyond the foremost Christian theologians.

Could you, incidentally, cite any scriptural evidence that portrays women as less than human? One might note that the presence of Mary Magdalene, and others whose names are beyond my recollection, at the crucifiction portrays the female in a more positive light than the male, given that the apostles flee Christ; Peter even denying knowledge of him three times.

he would've said the same thing. I'm no catholic, not even christian, but amnesty declaring abortion a universal human right was a step backwards.

Perhaps you don't understand what a step backwards is. A step backwards would be them declaring that abortion is evil. A step FORWARDS, on the other hand, demonstrates a step towards living in a more reasonable world. This was a step forwards, not backwards.

The only thing backwards in this situation is the fact that the Vatican is willing to fuck over a prominent charity which does a lot of good because it doesn't understand medicine or science.

source?

Disciple, or prostitute?

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=19680


source? and Lilith isn't in the Bible btw.


I'll give you Lilith, but what part are you looking for source on? I'm fairly certain it's fairly documented in Christianity that god is all knowing and all powerful, thereby knew what was going to happen. Being absent can only be construed to be a deliberate act on his part then.

And lets not forget that she gets portrayed as the seducer, and not the seducee. (Apple bit)

As for the other, Book of Tobias (viii, 8; Sept., viii, 6) states she was there as a helper for Adam.


where?

Pretty much wherever it talks about women and their relation to men. It's almost always from a position of inferior to superior. I'll draw back my statement of less than human, that's overreaction on my part. But not the inferior/superior relation.

In any case, are you genuinely trying to apply a modern, secular morality to a religion created in a phallocratic epoch? It would be naive to the point of stupidity to expect a modern portrayal of gender in a text created some two millenia ago.

actually I read a pre-christian interpretation of the genesis account in which God got some godliness stuck in Adam when God made him, so God pulled it all out to try and get it back, and the result was Eve. females being the divine element of humanity...and there are more than two gender categories in the old and new testaments both - which is actually much more fair and balanced than modern gender norms are.

Could you, incidentally, cite any scriptural evidence that portrays women as less than human? One might note that the presence of Mary Magdalene, and others whose names are beyond my recollection, at the crucifiction portrays the female in a more positive light than the male, given that the apostles flee Christ; Peter even denying knowledge of him three times.

Esther, Rahab, Miriam, Rachel, Leah, Deborah, Jael, Judith, Sarah, and Anna all come to mind. incidentally the nation of israel was saved by women multiple times, God chose to bring salvation to the world through the cooperation of a human woman, there have been female prophetesses on numerous occasions, and multiple goddess-worship epitaphs were adopted by the early christians for their female saints...certain prayers to Mother Mary are identical to earlier prayers to "Mata Meri" (Isis) in the latin.

but we're historical revisionists who stand alone in all of history as independent from the fashions of our time and are capable of objectively judging all of the past with sweeping generalizations we learned from the television. since we're enlightened moderns we should ignore all history when it suits us.

Folks, folks, folks... Relax.

The Pope is old. With a little luck, two years from now we'll be seeing another round of smoke coming from the Vatican and someone that actually deserves it will be the Pope.

How, pray tell me, does my suggesting that childbirth and pregnancy is a blessing, according to Catholic dogma, equate to an admission that women are intended only as babymachines?

When you suggest that any attempt to prevent pregnancy, such as with condoms, must be barred. There's no life, and yet you talk about ensuring that there will be.

Babymachine talk to me.


In any case, are you genuinely trying to apply a modern, secular morality to a religion created in a phallocratic epoch? It would be naive to the point of stupidity to expect a modern portrayal of gender in a text created some two millenia ago.

So why stick with a morality created two millenia ago by a society that was by comparison, primitive and barbaric?


Moreover, the nature of Eve's portrayal is a matter of great intellectual debate; the answer to which, until you very decently solved it for the world, has been beyond the foremost Christian theologians.

You broke my sarcasm meter! I'm going to bill you for it.

Either way, I don't think the either of us is going to change our positions anytime soon. I'll apologize if I've offended anyone, and take my leave before this becomes messier than it already is.

As for the other, Book of Tobias (viii, 8; Sept., viii, 6) states she was there as a helper for Adam.



Pretty much wherever it talks about women and their relation to men. It's almost always from a position of inferior to superior.

you are aware that under ancient Jewish law wives have the right to demand sex from husbands, and not vice versa? reading scriptures outside of the cultural context doesn't prove much of anything.

it is once more justified by a belief in the sanctity of life, not a clandestine desire to repress women.

I believe slavery was at one point justified because it was necessary for the economy. The justification they give isn't worth shit. What the actual result is is what matters.

the real misogyny is denying the uniqueness and sacredness a woman has in her ability to bring life into this world.

Oh, that's bullshit. You're acting like we're in favor of mandatory abortions or something. We are not "Denying the uniqueness and sacredness a woman has in her ability to bring life into this world.", we are augmenting it by saying she should be able to choose WHEN or IF she wants to bring life into this world.

So why stick with a morality created two millenia ago by a society that was by comparison, primitive and barbaric?

that brings to mind this quote:

“Between different ages there is no impartial judge on earth, for no one stands outside the historical process; and of course, no one is so completely enslaved to it as those who take our own age to be not one more period but a final and permanent platform from which we can see all other ages objectively.”

Um perhaps the title could not quite be as misleading. Try "Vatican Boycotts Amnesty International because of Abortion Support".

I believe slavery was at one point justified because it was necessary for the economy. The justification they give isn't worth shit. What the actual result is is what matters.

actually I read an excellent book that described how christianity survived and thrived because it actually advanced women's rights when compared with the other religions popular in late antiquity...so if you'd like to argue that, I could present you with a large-ish sociological study on the benefits to women's rights that were one of the fundamental building blocks of Christianity's success. the book is not written from a theistic perspective. (in fact it was written to disprove the notion that divine favour caused christianity to grow in adverse circumstances)

comparing a human embryo to a tick is disgusting,

Yeah...Both are pretty icky looking.

completely illogical, and, well, dehumanizing.

Weren't you basically comparing fetuses to cows with your pro-life vegetarian argument? And you can't dehumanize something that isn't human.


yes, if I were saying anything of the kind that would be thoughtless of me. but I'm not. you're not doing anything but repeating canned arguments as parrot-like as any evangelical's.

I see you're parroting the evangelicals arguments, yourself. Clash of the canned arguments...And look, I forgot my can opener, dammit.

Um perhaps the title could not quite be as misleading. Try "Vatican Boycotts Amnesty International because of Abortion Support".

The title isn't misleading at all. It's basically what the vatican is doing.

you can't dehumanize something that isn't human.


I think you're mixing humanhood with personhood.

and for the record, I'm a pacifist. I don't believe force is a morally suitable method of getting someone to do anything. persuasion is

Well, when you can persuade a fetus to not kill the mother on it's way out, we'll talk.

I think you're mixing humanhood with personhood.

My bad. I tend to use those as synonyms. Good catch, though.

The title isn't misleading at all. It's basically what the vatican is doing.
No. The title implies that catholics should give money to the Red Cross, NRDC, the Salvation Army, etc etc. And abortion is a portion of women's rights, not all of it.

No. The title implies that catholics should give money to the Red Cross, NRDC, the Salvation Army, etc etc. And abortion is a portion of women's rights, not all of it.

The Catholic church bars females from becoming priests, as far as I know. It also opposes birth control, the HPV vaccine, and plenty of other things that would be good for woman.

Yay for the Catholic Church - proudly dragging itself back into the 18th Century. What next? Stoning for adultery? dunking stools set up for witches?

This is different from stoning or dunking stools. Not giving money to Amnesty isn't a punishment, it's a boycott. Now, if the Church started asking its members to attack Amnesty workers, or burn down Amnesty offices, that would be pretty bad. Asking people not to support Amnesty is petty, but does not cross any moral lines.

By the way, when did Amnesty change it views about abortion, and why does it have views on abortion to begin with? I didn't know they were involved with it.

The Catholic church bars females from becoming priests, as far as I know. It also opposes birth control, the HPV vaccine, and plenty of other things that would be good for woman.
Birth control encourages sex outside of relationships and would increase STD and HIV transmission. I dont know why the HPV vaccine is opposed by the Catholics....

the real misogyny is denying the uniqueness and sacredness a woman has in her ability to bring life into this world.
Women are unique individuals with value and humanity regardless of whether or not they choose to bring children into the world. Just as men are.

It is revoltingly ignorant to suggest that a person's value as an individual is based on their ability or willingness to procreate. My aunt and uncle have reared four children together, have been teachers and mentors for over 30 years, and have contributed hugely to their community (and to the world in general). If you'd like to inform either of them that they are one ounce less "sacred" or "unique" because their children are adopted, then I would loooooooove to be there to watch.

See, one of the subjects they teach is judo...

Birth control encourages sex outside of relationships and would increase STD and HIV transmission. I dont know why the HPV vaccine is opposed by the Catholics....
Sorry, I know this may seem unimportant, but...
Please, please do not say, "the HPV vaccine is opposed by Catholics". Instead, say the vaccine is opposed by the Catholic Church. Sorry if this seems nitpicky, but as a member of the above Church, it is annoying (and incorrect) to assume all Catholics share the exact views as their leaders.

Birth control encourages sex outside of relationships and would increase STD and HIV transmission.
Actually, that's a lie. It's one the Church likes to tell, too, but they're liars and frauds when it comes to pretty much anything remotely related to sex. So you probably shouldn't use them as your source.

Access to contraception and good education about sex doesn't make people any more likely to fuck than they are normally. It just makes them less likely to get sick, injured, pregnant when they don't want to be, or dead as a result of such complications.

This is different from stoning or dunking stools. Not giving money to Amnesty isn't a punishment, it's a boycott.

Which...Is a punishment.

You know, this is the second time you've avoided responding to the Church's stance on the cervical cancer vaccine. Could it be that you can't justify it?


Are you for mandatory cervical vaccinations?

Some scholars suggest that 'rib' was used as a euphemism for 'penis bone'.

I had my penis bone removed awhile ago.

You know, if the "truth" of this is so obvious, it should be completely unnecessary to title the thread in such a sensationalist manner.

"Vatican to Catholics: Don't give money to charity and screw woman's rights"

Oh? Because the church had the temerity to remain consistent to its own teachings?

The church is not saying "don't give money to charity"

It's not saying "screw women's rights"

But if you need to be that intellectually dishonest in order to make a statement, then your statement is probably worth crap to begin with.

You may not like the Catholic church. You may not like the Pope, but those of you who are suggesting that somehow this Pope is handling it any differently than how the last one would are kidding yourselves. The Catholic Church is as pro-life as you can possibly get on this Earth. On the Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life scale they're even more pro-life than Mormons. They attract vitriol and criticism from abortion rights people all the time... But none of that is news. Why are we treating this as if it were?

So now Amnesty International has had a policy change that brings it into conflict with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Well what the hell did they think woud happen? Surely they must have realized that there would be some kind of reaction from Rome over it. It seems to me they decided that it was worth doing anyway, and that they can get along without Vatican support. These people surely aren't stupid. They made a decision and now this is the result. Why are we blaming the Catholics, exactly? They're not the ones who have changed things.

Oh, right... because conservative groups like the Roman Catholic Church are somehow obligated to take their moral cues from people who create posts like this one that can't even be honest about what's going on.

Would you give money to a charity that was fundamentally based upon principles that you don't personally agree with? Would you, as you sit there at your computer reading this, donate money to a charity whose charter included beliefs and policies that directly conflicted with some of the more fundamental components of what you believe in?

...Then why do you expect the Cathoilcs to?

They still support charities in vast numbers. More dollars go to charity from the Catholics than most countries' GDP. That isn't going to change now just because Amnnesty international is no longer one of the recipients.

And as for denying women's rights.... HAH that's a damn joke. Look at parts of the world where Catholic civilization dominated during the last 2 millenia. Women have more rights there than in any other part of the world. The Catholic Church, and Christianity in general by extension, have a better track record for the treatment and status of women in society than in most of the rest of the world and yet you'd talk about them as if they were wearing burkas.

There are places in the world where women wear burkas indeed, but the Pope has little say in that matter.

Which...Is a punishment.
No, boycotting is not a punishment. Punishment is defined as, "the imposition of hardship in response to misconduct", according to West's Encyclopedia of American Law. In 1955, blacks in Montgomery boycotted the buses, to protest the segregation on the buses. If it had been a punishment, they would have made it illegal for the buses to run for a year, or a decade, or however long was deemed a reasonable response to the bus company's misconduct. The same thing is true here, boycotting Amnesty is not punishing them for its supposed misconduct, it is a way of protesting its views and showing the rest of the world how the boycotters feel about abortion.

Actually, that's a lie. It's one the Church likes to tell, too, but they're liars and frauds when it comes to pretty much anything remotely related to sex. So you probably shouldn't use them as your source.

Access to contraception and good education about sex doesn't make people any more likely to fuck than they are normally. It just makes them less likely to get sick, injured, pregnant when they don't want to be, or dead as a result of such complications.
I beg to differ.

No, boycotting is not a punishment. Punishment is defined as, "the imposition of hardship in response to misconduct",

And what is the imposition of hardship in response to misconduct?

PUNISHMENT!

I'm a Catholic, and I'm disgusted.

Who the hell do they think they are? Cutting funding to Amnesty International, a group that promotes and fights for universal human rights, not only sends all the wrong messages and reverse all of the good done under John Paul II, it's just plain wrong.

And who the fuck do they think they are telling me what to do? This isn't the Middle Ages. Many Catholics today don't look towards the Church for the sole source of moral guidance, and certainly don't weigh in on a priest's every word, especially with the problem's they church has had in recent decades.

...Seriously, what the hell? Cutting funds to a human rights group. You fuckers are the evil Empire...

If this crap continues, I might not even consider myself a Catholic anymore. Benedict, thing's ain't looking good for you, your Holiness.

I'm a Catholic, and I'm disgusted.

Who the hell do they think they are? Cutting funding to Amnesty International,

They're not just cutting it, they're completing dropping it, if I read that right.

What? You just re-iterated what he said.

Whoops. read it wrong.

No, boycotting is not a punishment. Punishment is defined as, "the imposition of hardship in response to misconduct", according to West's Encyclopedia of American Law. In 1955, blacks in Montgomery boycotted the buses, to protest the segregation on the buses. If it had been a punishment, they would have made it illegal for the buses to run for a year, or a decade, or however long was deemed a reasonable response to the bus company's misconduct. The same thing is true here, boycotting Amnesty is not punishing them for its supposed misconduct, it is a way of protesting its views and showing the rest of the world how the boycotters feel about abortion.

Absolutely right. A boycott can be USED as a punishment in some cases, but in and of itself a boycott is nothing more than the excercise of choice to not support or associate with an organization or company.

Besides, in order to punish, one must have authority. The Catholic Church has no authority over Amnesty International.

And what is the imposition of hardship in response to misconduct?

PUNISHMENT!
What? You just re-iterated what he said.

-snip-

Very well said. Why are people under the illusion that the vatican has been anything other then catholic?

I'm a Catholic, and I'm disgusted.

Who the hell do they think they are? Cutting funding to Amnesty International, a group that promotes and fights for universal human rights, not only sends all the wrong messages and reverse all of the good done under John Paul II, it's just plain wrong.

And who the fuck do they think they are telling me what to do? This isn't the Middle Ages. Many Catholics today don't look towards the Church for the sole source of moral guidance, and certainly don't weigh in on a priest's every word, especially with the problem's they church has had in recent decades.

...Seriously, what the hell? Cutting funds to a human rights group. You fuckers are the evil Empire...

If this crap continues, I might not even consider myself a Catholic anymore. Benedict, thing's ain't looking good for you, your Holiness.
Precisely why I am protestant:eek:

I'm a Catholic, and I'm disgusted.

Who the hell do they think they are? Cutting funding to Amnesty International

What does the Church owe them? Nothing? Then that's their right.

I beg to differ.
Beg all you want. Won't change fact.

You'd do better to look at the world as it actually is, instead of making it up as you go along. At least, if you want to help people, that is. If you're just interested in your personal comfort level, and to hell with everybody else, then you just keep right on truckin'.

What does the Church owe them? Nothing? Then that's their right.
Oh no, please dont bring that statement in.

I'm a Catholic, and I'm disgusted.

Who the hell do they think they are? Cutting funding to Amnesty International
Wait, I'm a little confused. Does the Church itself donate money to Amnesty, and is stopping because of this, or is it only encouraging Catholic individuals to stop donating money?

Oh no, please dont bring that statement in.

Why? It's a legitimate question. if someone's going to make a remark like "Who do they think they are" then that implies somehow that there's an obligation on the part of the Church to support Amnesty International.

And there's not.

Wait, I'm a little confused. Does the Church itself donate money to Amnesty, and is stopping because of this, or is it only encouraging Catholic individuals to stop donating money?
Both I beleive.

three cheers for the Catholics!
if i was a christian id be a catholic, and it's things like this that make me really admire them, the Pope(s) seem to be some of the few people left who aren't prepared to comprimise their principles to conform to the pervading moral degeneracy of our permissive age.
it's good to see some people have the guts to stand up against the liberal status quo...
all you haters aint got nuthin on them, hehehe

Beg all you want. Won't change fact.

You'd do better to look at the world as it actually is, instead of making it up as you go along. At least, if you want to help people, that is. If you're just interested in your personal comfort level, and to hell with everybody else, then you just keep right on truckin'.
Woah woah. To Catholics and Christians, purposely stopping the joining of an egg and sperm is a sin, therefore birth control is not accepted. So what do Christians and Catholics do? They rely on an egg not being fertilized in the woman when they have sex.
This is my world that I live in and how nearly 90% of the population in my state and many in my region adhere to. Go ahead and accept it.

three cheers for the Catholics!
if i was a christian id be a catholic, and it's things like this that make me really admire them, the Pope(s) seem to be some of the few people left who aren't prepared to comprimise their principles to conform to the pervading moral degeneracy of our permissive age.
it's good to see some people have the guts to stand up against the liberal status quo...
all you haters aint got nuthin on them, hehehe

I do believe that the majority are considering the Church the haters.

To the Catholic Church's defense, almost every institution in human history, especially the Eurasian ones, have been at least slightly misogynist.

three cheers for the Catholics!
if i was a christian id be a catholic, and it's things like this that make me really admire them, the Pope(s) seem to be some of the few people left who aren't prepared to comprimise their principles to conform to the pervading moral degeneracy of our permissive age.
it's good to see some people have the guts to stand up against the liberal status quo...
all you haters aint got nuthin on them, hehehe
The Pope is to surrounded by luxury and wealth to lead a church. How can the pope quote "Live with Jesus truly at his heart" while surrounded by the elegance and extreme wealth of the Catholic church? For it was said:
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." (Matthew 19:24)
Long live the Presbyterian Chruch!:)

all you haters aint got nuthin on them, hehehe

I do believe that the majority are considering the Church the haters.

To the Catholic Church's defense, almost every institution in human history, especially the Eurasian ones, have been at least slightly misogynist.

To me that sentence implies that although we may hate the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is far better at hating things than we will ever be...

Which is most likely true.

To me that sentence implies that although we may hate the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church is far better at hating things than we will ever be...

Which is most likely true.
Please explain your rationale on this. The Church, if it truly stands by Christian doctrine, should never hate.

Please explain your rationale on this. The Church, if it truly stands by Christian doctrine, should never hate.

Well, except for homosexuals and women.

Back to the 18th century? It never left it sadly.

Well, except for homosexuals and women.

Yeah and black people all hate marmite. Simply saying it means shit.

Actually, that's a lie. It's one the Church likes to tell, too, but they're liars and frauds when it comes to pretty much anything remotely related to sex. So you probably shouldn't use them as your source.

Access to contraception and good education about sex doesn't make people any more likely to fuck than they are normally. It just makes them less likely to get sick, injured, pregnant when they don't want to be, or dead as a result of such complications.

I agree with you 100% and then some.

I found that my interest in sex actually went DOWN the more I was taught about STDs/STIs, HIV and all that other lovely jazz. When my grade 11 biology teacher showed us a video of a live birth, I knew I really, really wanted to wait. There was no way I was going to go through that.

Seriously, there is no better deterrent than facts. Facts are cold and they hit you like a 18-wheeler going 140Km/h on the 401 in white-out conditions.

I do believe that in most cases, it wouldn't cut down on the overall rates but it certainly would help in terms of prevention. Birth control and contraceptives are not evil, in fact, they are what can protect the human race and allow us to reproduce when the time is right and we have the right conditions into which to bring another human into an already overcrowded world.

If people had proper sexual education with all the facts, access to planned parenthood and contraceptives, we wouldn't be seeing places like Africa struggle to feed its people because the men and women would be empowered. They'd be able to control the size of their families, and feed them, for example.

Well, except for homosexuals and women.
No. No where in the Bible does God or Jesus say to hate anyone, especially these two groups. While many Christians (I am not sure) view homosexulity as a sin because of Romans 1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet. homosexuals were used by God to do incredible things in the bible. It is widely thought King David had a homosexual relationship with Johnathon, son of Saul.

From 1st Samuel:
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)

"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

It is widely thought King David had a homosexual relationship with Johnathon, son of Saul.

I'm not sure about that, although it is interesting to think about, but you're right, the Bible does not say homosexuals are worse than other people (the Church doesn't either, for that matter).

You know, if the "truth" of this is so obvious, it should be completely unnecessary to title the thread in such a sensationalist manner.

"Vatican to Catholics: Don't give money to charity and screw woman's rights"

Oh? Because the church had the temerity to remain consistent to its own teachings?

The church is not saying "don't give money to charity"

It's not saying "screw women's rights"

But if you need to be that intellectually dishonest in order to make a statement, then your statement is probably worth crap to begin with.

You may not like the Catholic church. You may not like the Pope, but those of you who are suggesting that somehow this Pope is handling it any differently than how the last one would are kidding yourselves. The Catholic Church is as pro-life as you can possibly get on this Earth. On the Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life scale they're even more pro-life than Mormons. They attract vitriol and criticism from abortion rights people all the time... But none of that is news. Why are we treating this as if it were?

So now Amnesty International has had a policy change that brings it into conflict with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Well what the hell did they think woud happen? Surely they must have realized that there would be some kind of reaction from Rome over it. It seems to me they decided that it was worth doing anyway, and that they can get along without Vatican support. These people surely aren't stupid. They made a decision and now this is the result. Why are we blaming the Catholics, exactly? They're not the ones who have changed things.

Oh, right... because conservative groups like the Roman Catholic Church are somehow obligated to take their moral cues from people who create posts like this one that can't even be honest about what's going on.

Would you give money to a charity that was fundamentally based upon principles that you don't personally agree with? Would you, as you sit there at your computer reading this, donate money to a charity whose charter included beliefs and policies that directly conflicted with some of the more fundamental components of what you believe in?

...Then why do you expect the Cathoilcs to?

They still support charities in vast numbers. More dollars go to charity from the Catholics than most countries' GDP. That isn't going to change now just because Amnnesty international is no longer one of the recipients.

And as for denying women's rights.... HAH that's a damn joke. Look at parts of the world where Catholic civilization dominated during the last 2 millenia. Women have more rights there than in any other part of the world. The Catholic Church, and Christianity in general by extension, have a better track record for the treatment and status of women in society than in most of the rest of the world and yet you'd talk about them as if they were wearing burkas.

There are places in the world where women wear burkas indeed, but the Pope has little say in that matter.

Well said.

And I might add, anyone who talks about “women’s rights” and “abortion” in the same post should be aware of the terrible cost to women’s rights, not to mention women's existence, that is now being paid due to widespread abortion:

http://www.china.org.cn/english/China/100585.htm

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/521145

Baby girls are being destroyed by abortion in huge numbers worldwide.

You women who advocate abortion on demand: why aren’t you speaking up about this?

Badly worded. I never said that hating these certain groups is condoned by Christianity, and I doubt it is. However, the Church certainly does do so regardless.

Badly worded. I never said that hating these certain groups is condoned by Christianity, and I doubt it is. However, the Church certainly does do so regardless.
Which is why its time for a 2nd reformation.

Well said.

And I might add, anyone who talks about “women’s rights” and “abortion” in the same post should be aware of the terrible cost to women’s rights, not to mention womens’ existence, that is now being paid due to widespread abortion:

http://www.china.org.cn/english/China/100585.htm

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/521145

Baby girls are being destroyed by abortion in huge numbers worldwide.

You women who advocate abortion on demand: why aren’t you speaking up about this?

New Mitanni, you're back! :)

We have a new troll friend for you, FreedomAndGlory. You two would get on famously.

*pats on head*

Maybe they'll start conducting services in Latin again. I'd attend church then, even though Im not Catholic.

The Vatican is planning to do exactly that:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201563.html

I for one will be glad to see the Church reclaim its heritage. Novus ordo does nothing for me, and the whole thing with reversing the altar never made a lick of sense to me.

Quite simply the more foul people that lampoon His Holiness and the Faith, e.g. previous comments here, with their own devilish agenda, quite simply that simply reaffirms my faith in Mother Church. Let the protestants, who in the main I respect as long as the feeling remains mutual, and the fetid secular 'progressive' left, who if I were to expend energy on them I would loathe (since they are less than dirt, however, it is of no consequence) continue to make their fallacious sallies against Peter's See.

It will outlast them all, and all the acerbic diatribe and misplaced ire in the world will melt away as God's Lieutenant on earth blessedly continues about his divine work.

Yeah and black people all hate marmite. Simply saying it means shit.

Opposing abortion is one thing. Being opposed to abortion including in cases of rape or when the life of the mother is in danger is quite another. It's a clear case of saying women are of less worth than a foetus.

Further proof that the Catholic Church is evil.

Opposing abortion is one thing. Being opposed to abortion including in cases of rape or when the life of the mother is in danger is quite another. It's a clear case of saying women are of less worth than a foetus.

It's not through hate. It's simply a case of trying to be stay completely consistent with natural law, added with a misunderstanding of science and a belief of the sanctity of life. None of this has anything to do with hate.

New Mitanni, you're back! :)

We have a new troll friend for you, FreedomAndGlory. You two would get on famously.

*pats on head*

Yes, I am indeed out of rehab. I must say I'm pleased to see that out of sight isn't always out of mind *heh*

After three months of recovering from the acida, irritable bowel syndrome and other gastrointestinal maladies brought on by prolonged exposure to the bilious rantings of leftists, socialists, communists, anarchists, America-haters, global-warming wackos, Euro-wimps, Islamonazis, Islamonazi enablers, Catholic-phobes, atheists, apostates, sexual deviants and various other anencephalics here and elsewhere--which, I will admit, prompted various immoderate posts that might have been better phrased differently--I am now back and ready to pick up the fight again.

It was a profitable three months, to be sure. Ann Coulter and I have now worked up plans for the final worldwide Crusade against Islam. We’ve also started the wheels in motion to turn the United States into a right-wing empire. Camps are being set up for all leftists, starting with Michael Moore, George Soros and the entire Democrat leadership in the House and Senate. And by the way, we’re also going to round up every homosexual in the country as well ;)

So, to those who liked me, you'll be seeing the new New Mitanni. To those who can agreeably disagree, expect the same in return. To those who don't care, feel free not to read what I write *heh*. And to those on my ignore list, you will of course continue to be ignored :p

Well said.

And I might add, anyone who talks about “women’s rights” and “abortion” in the same post should be aware of the terrible cost to women’s rights, not to mention womens’ existence, that is now being paid due to widespread abortion:

http://www.china.org.cn/english/China/100585.htm

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/521145

Baby girls are being destroyed by abortion in huge numbers worldwide.

You women who advocate abortion on demand: why aren’t you speaking up about this?

We do but we also believe that you cannot lump forced abortions and voluntary/elective and medical abortions together because they are completely separate things.

Yes there are nations where they actively get rid of the foetus should it be female but is is no reason to limit abortions otherwise. If anything, it's grounds to IMPROVE education surrounding genders and sexuality.

Abortion on demand is different than forced because forced IGNORES the woman's right to choose. That's why we make the distinction and when we talk about the right to freedom of choice, we're referring to elective/voluntary, as it does NOT infringe on our rights.

Anything that is forced or mandatory does infringe upon one's rights regardless of gender.

Yes China forces abortion but how does that affect my right to choose whether or not I have one in the future? It doesn't because I wouldn't be forced unless I lived in a place that mandated that I did.

Of course the Catholic church says to screw woman's rights, they ARE sexist after all.

Woman: Can I become a priest?

Vatican official: No

Woman: Why not? Is it because I'm a woman?

Vatican official: Yes.

Of course the Catholic church says to screw woman's rights, they ARE sexist after all.

Woman: Can I become a priest?

Vatican official: No

Woman: Why not? Is it because I'm a woman?

Vatican official: Yes.

At least they're honest.

Of course the Catholic church says to screw woman's rights, they ARE sexist after all.

Woman: Can I become a priest?

Vatican official: No

Woman: Why not? Is it because I'm a woman?

Vatican official: Yes.

I can do you one better:

Black Woman: Can I become a priest?

White Vatican Official: No

Black Woman: Is it because I'm a black woman?

Vatican Official: No, it's because you're a black woman

You women who advocate abortion on demand: why aren’t you speaking up about this?
We are.

It's a common, and rather pathetic, tactic to pretend that feminists and women's activists can only care about one thing at a time.

Mainstream American feminists were speaking out about the abuses of women under the Taliban for at least a decade before anybody else cared to pay attention. American feminist organizations have been screaming about sex trafficking, female infanticide, and all manner of other world-wide abuses for a long, long time.

The fact that feminists ALSO support access to safe, legal abortion in "first-world" nations does not remotely conflict with this. We're quite capable of taking on multiple issues.

Feminists advocate giving women the right to control their own bodies. This means supporting a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, as well as her right to choose to give birth. When women are forced to abort, or are faced with a society in which female children are so worthless that they are abandoned or killed to make room for valuable male babies, that is obviously a feminist issue. It's one that feminists do not shy away from.

At least they're honest.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I can do you one better:

Black Woman: Can I become a priest?

White Vatican Official: No

Black Woman: Is it because I'm a black woman?

Vatican Official: No, it's because you're a black woman

Ain't that the sad truth...ugh...

The Vatican is planning to do exactly that:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/12/AR2006101201563.html

The news articles about this really ticked me off. There has never been a time when you were not allowed to say services in Latin, it was a choice the parish made. From what I understand, the announcement would make it easier to have services in Latin, but not harder to have Mass said in the vernacular.
While we're at it, Pope Benedict did not stop limbo, either.
Sorry, continue with the discussion now.

Of course the Catholic church says to screw woman's rights, they ARE sexist after all.

Woman: Can I become a priest?

Vatican official: No

Woman: Why not? Is it because I'm a woman?

Vatican official: Yes.
This is assuming that being a priest is a right, or that it is somehow preferable to being a layperson (which it may be, for some people).

At least they're honest.

I can do you one better:

Black Woman: Can I become a priest?

White Vatican Official: No

Black Woman: Is it because I'm a black woman?

Vatican Official: No, it's because you're a black woman

Gay Black Woman: Can I become a preist?

Vatican Official: No.

Gay Black Woman: Is it because I am a gay black woman?

Vatican Official: No, its because you are a gay black woman

We are.

It's a common, and rather pathetic, tactic to pretend that feminists and women's activists can only care about one thing at a time.

Mainstream American feminists were speaking out about the abuses of women under the Taliban for at least a decade before anybody else cared to pay attention. American feminist organizations have been screaming about sex trafficking, female infanticide, and all manner of other world-wide abuses for a long, long time.

The fact that feminists ALSO support access to safe, legal abortion in "first-world" nations does not remotely conflict with this. We're quite capable of taking on multiple issues.

Feminists advocate giving women the right to control their own bodies. This means supporting a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, as well as her right to choose to give birth. When women are forced to abort, or are faced with a society in which female children are so worthless that they are abandoned or killed to make room for valuable male babies, that is obviously a feminist issue. It's one that feminists do not shy away from.
Great. You support murder.

Great. You support murder.

bet you do to.

bet you do to.
If by that you mean the death penalty then yes. But a person receiving the death penalty has commited a heinous crime. Whereas an unborn human being should receive the upmost care from its mother, not an abortion.

Quite simply the more foul people that lampoon His Holiness and the Faith, e.g. previous comments here, with their own devilish agenda, quite simply that simply reaffirms my faith in Mother Church. Let the protestants, who in the main I respect as long as the feeling remains mutual, and the fetid secular 'progressive' left, who if I were to expend energy on them I would loathe (since they are less than dirt, however, it is of no consequence) continue to make their fallacious sallies against Peter's See.

It will outlast them all, and all the acerbic diatribe and misplaced ire in the world will melt away as God's Lieutenant on earth blessedly continues about his divine work.

Mmph...

Mmm...
Mmph..

Gmph!

Can't...hold...it...any...longer...

GAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Seriously, do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

We’ve also started the wheels in motion to turn the United States into a right-wing empire.

No...That happened back in the '80s.

No...That happened back in the '80s.
But the US isnt moving into a right wing empire...just look at the last elections and polls.

so you support legal killing?

like abortion?

Oh no she did - n't!

If by that you mean the death penalty then yes. But a person receiving the death penalty has commited a heinous crime. Whereas an unborn human being should receive the upmost care from its mother, not an abortion.

so you support legal killing?

like abortion?

so you support legal killing?

like abortion?
Like I said in my previous post, a person on death row has commited some crime to get there. A developing human has done nothing wrong and is blameless.

Oh no she did - n't!

blame Bottle.

No. No where in the Bible does God or Jesus say to hate anyone, especially these two groups. While many Christians (I am not sure) view homosexulity as a sin because of Romans 1:26-27 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence [sic] of their error which was meet. homosexuals were used by God to do incredible things in the bible. It is widely thought King David had a homosexual relationship with Johnathon, son of Saul.

From 1st Samuel:
"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself." (NIV)

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul" (KJV)

"And Jonathan made a covenant with David because he loved him as himself. Jonathan took off the robe he was wearing and gave it to David, along with his tunic, and even his sword, his bow and his belt." (NIV)

"Now Saul's daughter Michal was in love with David, and when they told Saul about it, he was pleased. 'I will give her to him', he thought, 'so that she may be a snare to him and so that the hand of the Philistines may be against him'. Now you have a second opportunity to become my son-in-law" (NIV)

"After the boy had gone, David got up from the south side of the stone and bowed down before Jonathan three times, with is face to the ground. Then they kissed each other and wept together - but David wept the most." (NIV)

I find it noteworthy that you quoted from two separate translations of the Bible to try and make this point. Were you sitting there with each verse, deciding which was jucier so you could apply it to your point?

Too bad you have to keep it in context. In ancient Jerusalem it would have been a death sentence to be openly gay. Rest assured that even if these men DID have a gay relationship, we'd never know it because scribes would NOT have made it publicly known by writing it down in the very same SCRIPTURES that condemn such activity.

Like I said in my previous post, a person on death row has commited some crime to get there. A developing human has done nothing wrong and is blameless.

is it okay to kill people who do wrong things?

Great. You support murder.

How is killing a zygote or embryonic being the same as killing a foetus, which is further along in its physical and mental development?

The zygote and embryos are more likely to be dispelled from the uterus should the woman miscarry than the foetus. Most zygotes don't make it. The body willingly kills it.

It's murder if you're talking about a human but it's not a human if it's just cells that have no defined purpose yet. How can something be a human if the cells are not distinctly human?

If by that you mean the death penalty then yes. But a person receiving the death penalty has commited a heinous crime. Whereas an unborn human being should receive the upmost care from its mother, not an abortion.

Prove that the person has. You can't because there have been many cases where a deathrow inmate was pardoned posthumously because evidence cleared the person of any wrong doing. So, the person who was executed was innocent and hadn't committed a crime.

You're supporting the murder of innocents as well. You've just said that you have so you can't accuse me of misquoting you when the evidence is right in the bolded statement, unless you want to contradict yourself and claim that isn't when you meant even though it's there in black and white.

so you support legal killing?

like abortion?

Pwn'd by Smunkees!

Like I said in my previous post, a person on death row has commited some crime to get there. A developing human has done nothing wrong and is blameless.

Like I said above, prove that they truly have. But there have been cases where the person was innocent and convicted simply because there was a need to close the case.

A developing human... that can be applied to infants, toddlers, children... children are not blameless. They can do wrong. You're too vague with that underlined statement, and yes, I know you're referring to abortion but it can be just as easily interpreted to mean young humans who who have yet to reach puberty or even those who have. After all, they are developing humans, are they not?

I fail to see why this elicits any objections. The opposition of the catholic church to abortion is not rooted in a desire to oppress women, but in the notion that it constitutes murder, and is thus a sin. Hence, the title is sensationalist twaddle.

Equally, whyever should the Vatican not advise its adherents to not donate to a charity that contravenes Catholic dogma?
I concur - just to refresh my memory, weren't you of like mind with me when I was denouncing Christianity in that thread concerning the Roman Empire? :p

Perhaps you don't understand what a step backwards is. A step backwards would be them declaring that abortion is evil.
They have the right to boycott something they feel is morally wrong - if I am not mistaken part of the reason the Church opposes abortion is because of the belief that every unborn child has a soul. The only thing I oppose is when Catholics try and impose their moral beliefs upon others.

Great. You support murder.
You present original and well-thought-out arguments, and I am interested in subscribing to your newsletter.

blame Bottle.
And the Lord gave unto the Forum his First Commandment...

:D

I don't think opposing abortion is equal to stoning witches and adulterers; those are clearly morally wrong while abortion really is a pretty mixed issue in moral terms. The Church have been consistently and openly pro-life as long as it has been a major political issue and this just reflects their commitment to that moral tenet of their faith.

However, the Church runs numerous charities above and beyond Amnesty International, so I doubt this would significantly change the overall situation. They are generous, after all.

Heh sorry, did you just say that Witches, and Adulters are moraly wrong? Coz I know plenty of both who would argue agaisnt that.

is it okay to kill people who do wrong things?
Of course!

And it's also OK to force child birth upon non-people (i.e. women) who do wrong things like have consensual sex as if it were their right or something.

Seriously, though, nobody should make the mistake of thinking that anti-choice beliefs have the least thing to do with "life." They don't. They're about control. Supporting the death penalty is just as consistent with this as supporting forced childbirth: both are means of punishing/removing those who fail to stay in line.

actually I read an excellent book that described how christianity survived and thrived because it actually advanced women's rights when compared with the other religions popular in late antiquity...so if you'd like to argue that, I could present you with a large-ish sociological study on the benefits to women's rights that were one of the fundamental building blocks of Christianity's success. the book is not written from a theistic perspective. (in fact it was written to disprove the notion that divine favour caused christianity to grow in adverse circumstances)

They also had a lot to do with the preservation of knowledge in the dark ages, look at them now, just because they can do good in one era does not mean that continues to to the present day church

Seriously, though, nobody should make the mistake of thinking that anti-choice beliefs have the least thing to do with "life." They don't. They're about control. Supporting the death penalty is just as consistent with this as supporting forced childbirth: both are means of punishing/removing those who fail to stay in line.

That argument sounds more shrill and paranoid each time I hear it. As a former Catholic I assert that I know a helluvalot better than you ever will what the motives are for the pro-life movement and despite what sounds good for a talking point, the objective truly is to preserve life.

If Benedict wants me to sever the last of my already tenuous ties to the Catholic Church, he's going the right way about it. This man makes me wish it were possible to impeach a Pope.

That argument sounds more shrill and paranoid each time I hear it. As a former Catholic I assert that I know a helluvalot better than you ever will what the motives are for the pro-life movement and despite what sounds good for a talking point, the objective truly is to preserve life.

Which is why it's ok to shoot people and blow up clinics. :rolleyes:

Of course!

And it's also OK to force child birth upon non-people (i.e. women) who do wrong things like have consensual sex as if it were their right or something.

Seriously, though, nobody should make the mistake of thinking that anti-choice beliefs have the least thing to do with "life." They don't. They're about control. Supporting the death penalty is just as consistent with this as supporting forced childbirth: both are means of punishing/removing those who fail to stay in line.
Forced childbirth? If you dont want a child outside of marriage dont have sex outside of marriage.

That argument sounds more shrill and paranoid each time I hear it.

As a feminist, I've been called "shrill" so many times that the word has lost all meaning.

You can get a sense for how I hear it if you just sit and repeat "shrill" to yourself over and over for about three hours.


As a former Catholic I assert that I know a helluvalot better than you ever will what the motives are for the pro-life movement

I don't see what your Catholicism has to do with it. Indeed, I'm 100% positive, no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that I know more about the history of the anti-choice movement (in all its many incarnations) than you do.

But it really doesn't matter which one of us is more informed or knowledgeable on the subject. The facts are the facts.

The policies of the Catholic Church, like those of all main-stream anti-choice organizations, are not consistent with a primary concern for human life. They ARE consistent with a primary concern of social control and enforced morality.

Frankly, I tend to get the giggles when an organization that intentionally spreads AIDS claims to care about "life."

and despite what sounds good for a talking point, the objective truly is to preserve life.
You just keep telling yourself that. It will help if you make sure not to include female human beings under the heading of "life," because if you do then you'd be forced to confront the fact that the Catholic Church intentionally advances policies that kill women.

Forced childbirth? If you dont want a child outside of marriage dont have sex outside of marriage.
If you don't want to die from a gushing head wound bleeding in the middle of the street, don't drive a car.

Oh, you got in an accident? The other driver was drunk? You were even wearing your seat belt and driving very carefully? Too bad. You chose to drive a car. You gave up your right to medical care. Please die quietly and stop complaining, you're ruining it for the rest of us.

Which is why it's ok to shoot people and blow up clinics. :rolleyes:
There are extremists on everyside and if you categorize the extremists as "AN entire belief system" you mess up big time.

Which is why it's ok to shoot people and blow up clinics. :rolleyes:

Don't be obtuse.

People who cmmit acts like that are just as psychotic and loony as any other criminal, they just happen to *think* they're doing God's will.

But those facts sure get in the way of good rhetoric, don't they?

And it's also OK to force child birth upon non-people (i.e. women) who do wrong things like have consensual sex as if it were their right or something.



No, no, you got it all wrong. Women are NOT non-people, they're sub-people. Babymakin' machines made for man's sexual pleasure. A woman may not derive any sexual pleasure from life, other than enjoying the fact that she is fuckable, and able to pop out the little blighters by the dozen.

Sexual pleasure... as if. Like a woman is allowed to experience pleasure. What kind of strange people do we have in this world?



Seriously, though, nobody should make the mistake of thinking that anti-choice beliefs have the least thing to do with "life." They don't. They're about control. Supporting the death penalty is just as consistent with this as supporting forced childbirth: both are means of punishing/removing those who fail to stay in line.

Yet pro-choice is the more pro-life than pro-life could ever be.


'Pro-life' should really be called 'pro-control'.

After all, pro-choice protects both the mother AND the foetus. If the mother's life is in danger, what good does it do the foetus who may not live either if the mother is unable to seek medical abortion? You then instead of losing one life, you lose two all because abortion is supposedly evil.

If you don't want to die from a gushing head wound bleeding in the middle of the street, don't drive a car.

Oh, you got in an accident? The other driver was drunk? You were even wearing your seat belt and driving very carefully? Too bad. You chose to drive a car. You gave up your right to medical care. Please die quietly and stop complaining, you're ruining it for the rest of us.
So having a baby is an accident?

No, no, you got it all wrong. Women are NOT non-people, they're sub-people. Babymakin' machines made for man's sexual pleasure. A woman may not derive any sexual pleasure from life, other than enjoying the fact that she is fuckable, and able to pop out the little blighters by the dozen.

Sexual pleasure... as if. Like a woman is allowed to experience pleasure. What kind of strange people do we have in this world?





Yet pro-choice is the more pro-life than pro-life could ever be.


'Pro-life' should really be called 'pro-control'.

After all, pro-choice protects both the mother AND the foetus. If the mother's life is in danger, what good does it do the foetus who may not live either if the mother is unable to seek medical abortion? You then instead of losing one life, you lose two all because abortion is supposedly evil.
The ONLY cases in which abortion should be legal are if hte mother's life is threatened or in case of rape.

So having a baby is an accident?

If you cannot have access to safe abortion should the contraceptives fail, and no, marriage is NOT a magical contraceptive that makes pregnancies wanted as oppose to accidental.

You're statement shows a glaring level of ignorance amongst pro-lifers and that women view the baby as a mistake or accident. That's actually not the case. It's the pregnancy itself that is viewed as an accident or unwanted when it's not anticipated or planned, not the foetus itself.

If you don't want to die from a gushing head wound bleeding in the middle of the street, don't drive a car.

Oh, you got in an accident? The other driver was drunk? You were even wearing your seat belt and driving very carefully? Too bad. You chose to drive a car. You gave up your right to medical care. Please die quietly and stop complaining, you're ruining it for the rest of us.
Those are circumstances you cant control (drunk driver). You CAN control not having a baby, its called ABSTINENCE, heard of it?

If you cannot have access to safe abortion should the contraceptives fail, and no, marriage is NOT a magical contraceptive that makes pregnancies wanted as oppose to accidental.

You're statement shows a glaring level of ignorance amongst pro-lifers and that women view the baby as a mistake or accident. That's actually not the case. It's the pregnancy itself that is viewed as an accident or unwanted when it's not anticipated or planned, not the foetus itself.
Then get a fucking family and plan! Marriage isnt a contraceptive its a bond between two people who want to consecrate themselves to each other totally!

The ONLY cases in which abortion should be legal are if hte mother's life is threatened or in case of rape.

Abortion should be legal period.

You and no one else has any right to dictate what my sexual reproduction rights are. You don't have any control over my other medical rights, which can affect other humans who may depend on me, so abortion is no different. It's between and my doctor and my spouse and partner. You and no one else other than my doctor and spouse/partner have no place there; you're just a loud-mouth nobody whose opinion has no relevance to what I can and cannot do with my body.

You cannot determine what is right and wrong for someone else because your morals are not anyone else's morals even if they appear parallel.

You're statement shows a glaring level of ignorance amongst pro-lifers and that women view the baby as a mistake or accident. That's actually not the case. It's the pregnancy itself that is viewed as an accident or unwanted when it's not anticipated or planned, not the foetus itself.
If they dont want the pregnancy, they dont want a baby. If they think pregnancy is a mistake, then the baby is a mistake.

Then get a fucking family and plan! Marriage isnt a contraceptive its a bond between two people who want to consecrate themselves to each other totally!

I need a family if I want to have sex? :rolleyes: Riiiight...

Abortion should be legal period.

You and no one else has any right to dictate what my sexual reproduction rights are. You don't have any control over my other medical rights, which can affect other humans who may depend on me, so abortion is no different. It's between and my doctor and my spouse and partner. You and no one else other than my doctor and spouse/partner have no place there; you're just a loud-mouth nobody whose opinion has no relevance to what I can and cannot do with my body.

You cannot determine what is right and wrong for someone else because your morals are not anyone else's morals even if they appear parallel.
You have no right to take the developing right of a fetus just because you are to lazy to get off your ass and care for it.

I need a family if I want to have sex? :rolleyes: Riiiight...
No no. If you want to have sex you need to commit yourself to one person to be with.

If they dont want the pregnancy, they dont want a baby. If they think pregnancy is a mistake, then the baby is a mistake.

How is a zygote, which is nothing but undeveloped cells which have no pre-defined purpose since they haven't developed into their final form a baby? It's not a baby. A baby is a developed foetus that can exist outside of the woman's womb.

Getting rid of a zygote is NOT getting of a 'baby' because the zygote is undistinguishable cells. Those cells cannot be considered human until they take on human features.

As a feminist, I've been called "shrill" so many times that the word has lost all meaning.

You can get a sense for how I hear it if you just sit and repeat "shrill" to yourself over and over for about three hours.


I suspect that has less to do with your feminist beliefs than with your own personal shrillness.


I don't see what your Catholicism has to do with it. Indeed, I'm 100% positive, no doubt in my mind whatsoever, that I know more about the history of the anti-choice movement (in all its many incarnations) than you do.


How open minded of you. What other assumptions have you made that we are expected to take as immovable fact? Here's what we *do* know. I was Catholic for the better portino of my life. Despite not being Catholic anymore I still support the pro-life movement. That's two things you've always been quite happy to share your contempt for.

..and yet you expect me to accept that somehow your own knowledge of the inside motivations of these is more, what, objective?

Thank you for that. I needed the laugh.


But it really doesn't matter which one of us is more informed or knowledgeable on the subject. The facts are the facts.


Au contraire. The very heart of the issue is which of us is more informed, since the argument boils down to one of credibility. You want to present, as fact, the idea that the pro-life movement as a whole (and not just the Catholic church) is interested in control and not life. I say that's idiotic at best and that the true motives are centered on the preservation of life. So yea, which one of us is better informed is the most relevent part of the discussion.


The policies of the Catholic Church, like those of all main-stream anti-choice organizations, are not consistent with a primary concern for human life. They ARE consistent with a primary concern of social control and enforced morality.


That's an awfully big and broad statement to put out there completely unsupported.


Frankly, I tend to get the giggles when an organization that intentionally spreads AIDS claims to care about "life."


When you make a remark like this I can't help but get a mental image of people being strapped down to tables in a darkened room and purple-robed priests moving about from one victim to another injecting them with HiV+ blood.

I'm gonna assume for a moment that you say this as a way to criticize the church's policies on condom use, for example. I'd remind you that the church's policy is actually one of abstinence, so that, in theory, condoms are irrelevant anyway. In terms of an STD, abstinence would do much to help the spread of AIDS, would it? yet you seem to be claiming that the church wants to spread it.

In fact, the church is pretty much against ANY activity that promotes the spread of HiV. IV Drug use: Check. Promiscuity (gay or straight):Check.

Do extract your cranium from your rectum.


You just keep telling yourself that. It will help if you make sure not to include female human beings under the heading of "life," because if you do then you'd be forced to confront the fact that the Catholic Church intentionally advances policies that kill women.

Yeah but when I confront those things, I use basic arithmetic. Go find the stats on how many abortions are performed yearly. Then find the stats on how many women would die from mis-performed backalley abortions. Now, compare the two.

You will find the former to be orders of magnitude higher than the latter. if anything, ahdering to that as a policy would reduce deaths, not increase them. (Remember that this doctrine is based upon the humanity of an unborn baby, which makes it perfectly internally consistent within the Church)

No no. If you want to have sex you need to commit yourself to one person to be with.

Now you're telling me that if I have sex, I can't sleep with more than one person? -_-; That is just asinine. I don't have to commit. Sex can come with no strings attached; ever heard of "friends with benefits"? :p

If I want to have sex with multiple partners it's my choice. (Not that I would but I have the right to make the choice).

Bottle... help, I'm trying to nail jello to a tree! :)

The ONLY cases in which abortion should be legal are if hte mother's life is threatened or in case of rape.

Seconded, with the addition of incest since that tends to imply coercion

[captain obvious]

Hay gais...I just had a wild idea, why don't we let the women decide what to do? I mean, it's their bodies...

[/common sense]

Seriously...who else has the right?

How is a zygote, which is nothing but undeveloped cells which have no pre-defined purpose since they haven't developed into their final form a baby? It's not a baby. A baby is a developed foetus that can exist outside of the woman's womb.

Getting rid of a zygote is NOT getting of a 'baby' because the zygote is undistinguishable cells. Those cells cannot be considered human until they take on human features.
So now just because it doesnt quite have human features yet its ok to kill it? And check your facts, even in its inception a zygote is genetically different from its mother. Also, a stopped heart is a clear sign of death. If the cessation of heartbeat could define death, could the onset of a heartbeat define life? The heart is formed by the 18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was used to define life, then nearly all abortions would be outlawed.

[captain obvious]

Hay gais...I just had a wild idea, why don't we let the women decide what to do? I mean, it's their bodies...

[/common sense]

Seriously...who else has the right?

While they may not have the right but they are the best source to rely on information.. the doctor! :eek: you know, the person who went to medical school for all those years. They may have their own morality but they may be able to give a professional opinion.

Now you're telling me that if I have sex, I can't sleep with more than one person? -_-; That is just asinine. I don't have to commit. Sex can come with no strings attached; ever heard of "friends with benefits"? :p

If I want to have sex with multiple partners it's my choice. (Not that I would but I have the right to make the choice).

Bottle... help, I'm trying to nail jello to a tree! :)
Precisely what Im telling you... or are you too much of a whore that you cant handle being with just one person?

The Vatican had every right to cut ties with Amnesty International. As a religion, they shouldn't support anything that compromises their core principles. Doing so would compromise its integrity.

Just like if ACLU wants to sever ties with "Organization X" because "Organization X" doesnt find a problem with having "Under God" in the pledge. Then again ACLU is a liberal organization so y'all wouldnt complain about that then. In fact most of you would praise ACLU for "defending my rights".

While they may not have the right but they are the best source to rely on information.. the doctor! :eek: you know, the person who went to medical school for all those years. They may have their own morality but they may be able to give a professional opinion.

*strokes beard*

Mmm...yes...that would make the most sense...Exercise free will but have the brains to seek a second opinion...hmm...logical...

But back to the point at hand, I don't quite see how an organization whose leadership is dominated by men can say anything about how a woman should act...I mean, they can have their own opinions, and one would be wise to consider them, and a women should advise her husband or boyfriend before proceeding, as that's part of being in a relationship...but...

...I'd find it more plausible if a "Council of Women" (fanfare) got together and decided to outlaw abortion for their entire gender, because they're women...

But men making these decisions...eh...wha?

Seriously, everyone, just STFU and let the lady decide.

(Except the doctor, who we have established is a good authority on *gasp* medical procedures)

So now just because it doesnt quite have human features yet its ok to kill it? And check your facts, even in its inception a zygote is genetically different from its mother. Also, a stopped heart is a clear sign of death. If the cessation of heartbeat could define death, could the onset of a heartbeat define life? The heart is formed by the 18th day in the womb. If heartbeat was used to define life, then nearly all abortions would be outlawed.

It's only developing. It can hardly be considered a sign of life until it has fully developed. And that heart develops in the second month of pregnancy because it develops in the 3rd week after fertilization, which is week 5 of the overall development of the unborn foetus.

But how can it breath if the lungs don't develop until week 7, (5th week of development)? Is not oxygen an important part of being able to live? How can the heart function if it has no oxygen? And the alveoli (air sacs) don't get formed until week 24 (22th week of development).

The red blood cells are formed in the liver in weeks 10-13 (8th-11th week of development).

Only when you get to week 20, (18th week of development) can the heart beat actually be heard by a stethoscope.

Precisely what Im telling you... or are you too much of a whore that you cant handle being with just one person?

So I'm a whore now because I believe that a person doesn't have to be restricted to one partner? :rolleyes:

If both parties are agreeing, I don't see the problem. Sure it's rather bold but if you're not committed and both parties are fine with it, I don't see what the big deal is. Like I said before, your morality is not mine, and mine is definitely not yours.

Though you seem to have ignored that I said I wouldn't actually have multiple partners, though I'm not against it.

The policies of the Catholic Church, like those of all main-stream anti-choice organizations, are not consistent with a primary concern for human life. They ARE consistent with a primary concern of social control and enforced morality.


Thats rather flippant. As I stated in a previous post, it's more to do with consistency with natural law then anything else. There is no evidence that the banning of abortion is inherently to do with social control, though you could make a case for the churches own seperate morality being a form of social control.

It's a dark day for the Catholic Church in my view. I can't speak for anybody else, but the Vatican had just taken a large step in alienating me. Not that I cared much before, but this is difficult to forgive.

They must be blind or have started living in a Bush-esque bubble. Amnesty is in no way advocating abortion, as far as I can see.

Pope Benedict has yet to do something good for this world...

You don't think a woman should have the final say over the use of her body/organs?

This is a very common misconception of the position of the Catholic Church and all others who oppose abortion.
Of course a woman has the final say over the use of her OWN body however the unborn child is not her body, s/he is a separate entity who is dependant on the mother.

It's a dark day for the Catholic Church in my view. I can't speak for anybody else, but the Vatican had just taken a large step in alienating me. Not that I cared much before, but this is difficult to forgive.

They must be blind or have started living in a Bush-esque bubble. Amnesty is in no way advocating abortion, as far as I can see.

Pope Benedict has yet to do something good for this world...
And BUSH IS TEH SUCK!!!!

Well yeah and democrats can go to hell.

This is a very common misconception of the position of the Catholic Church and all others who oppose abortion.
Of course a woman has the final say over the use of her OWN body however the unborn child is not her body, s/he is a separate entity who is dependant on the mother.

While this may be crude, a parasite is a separate entity that is dependant on the host. I'm not saying that the foetus is a parasite, but like a parasite, it dependant on the host in order to subsist.

While this may be crude, a parasite is a separate entity that is dependant on the host. I'm not saying that the foetus is a parasite, but like a parasite, it dependant on the host in order to subsist.

Justifying Abortion Step 1: Dehumanize the unborn

You know, if the "truth" of this is so obvious, it should be completely unnecessary to title the thread in such a sensationalist manner.

"Vatican to Catholics: Don't give money to charity and screw woman's rights"

Oh? Because the church had the temerity to remain consistent to its own teachings?

The church is not saying "don't give money to charity"

It's not saying "screw women's rights"

But if you need to be that intellectually dishonest in order to make a statement, then your statement is probably worth crap to begin with.

You may not like the Catholic church. You may not like the Pope, but those of you who are suggesting that somehow this Pope is handling it any differently than how the last one would are kidding yourselves. The Catholic Church is as pro-life as you can possibly get on this Earth. On the Pro-Choice vs Pro-Life scale they're even more pro-life than Mormons. They attract vitriol and criticism from abortion rights people all the time... But none of that is news. Why are we treating this as if it were?

So now Amnesty International has had a policy change that brings it into conflict with the beliefs of the Catholic Church. Well what the hell did they think woud happen? Surely they must have realized that there would be some kind of reaction from Rome over it. It seems to me they decided that it was worth doing anyway, and that they can get along without Vatican support. These people surely aren't stupid. They made a decision and now this is the result. Why are we blaming the Catholics, exactly? They're not the ones who have changed things.

Oh, right... because conservative groups like the Roman Catholic Church are somehow obligated to take their moral cues from people who create posts like this one that can't even be honest about what's going on.

Would you give money to a charity that was fundamentally based upon principles that you don't personally agree with? Would you, as you sit there at your computer reading this, donate money to a charity whose charter included beliefs and policies that directly conflicted with some of the more fundamental components of what you believe in?

...Then why do you expect the Cathoilcs to?

They still support charities in vast numbers. More dollars go to charity from the Catholics than most countries' GDP. That isn't going to change now just because Amnnesty international is no longer one of the recipients.

And as for denying women's rights.... HAH that's a damn joke. Look at parts of the world where Catholic civilization dominated during the last 2 millenia. Women have more rights there than in any other part of the world. The Catholic Church, and Christianity in general by extension, have a better track record for the treatment and status of women in society than in most of the rest of the world and yet you'd talk about them as if they were wearing burkas.

There are places in the world where women wear burkas indeed, but the Pope has little say in that matter.

The ONLY cases in which abortion should be legal are if hte mother's life is threatened or in case of rape.Seconded, with the addition of incest since that tends to imply coercion

Way to demonstrate that your long-winded rants are completely irrelevant.

Amnesty International's new stance ONLY "supports access to abortions in cases of rape, incest, violence or when pregnancy represents a risk to the mother's life or health." AI continues to oppose forced abortions.

Pray tell why this position -- which you evidently agree with -- is a basis for a Catholic boycott.

Oh, snap.

Justifying Abortion Step 1: Dehumanize the unborn
It cannot be a human until it has human features.

Secondly, even still, it does heavily rely on the mother in order to subsist, making it LIKE a parasite in that it leeches off the mother's body. saying that something is similar to another thing is not to dehumanise it. It is merely drawing parallels. I was showing how a foetus is similar to another type of species. I wasn't calling it a parasite; I was saying in that being in the womb, it is like a parasite because it subsists by feeding off the mother's nutrients.

The unborn cannot be humanised until they have human features and the cells have taken on distinct characteristics that make it human and not another type of species or cell type. Something cannot be dehumanised unless it is human.

The unborn cannot be humanised until they have human features and the cells have taken on distinct characteristics that make it human and not another type of species or cell type. Something cannot be dehumanised unless it is human.
What is it, then? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm not attacking your statement, I would genuinely like to know what you, or anyone else, think a fetus. I'm guessing if one is pro-life they classify it as a human, but what are other possibilities?

It cannot be a human until it has human features.


Another person who is mixing up humanhood with personhood. Any life that belongs to our species is human by definition, that includes fetus'.

What is it, then? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm not attacking your statement, I would genuinely like to know what you, or anyone else, think a fetus. I'm guessing if one is pro-life they classify it as a human, but what are other possibilities?

I suppose its like saying a tadpole is a frog....kinda....sorta.....

Another person who is mixing up humanhood with personhood. Any life that belongs to our species is human by definition, that includes fetus'.

You are right that personhood is the most relevant criteria.

However, are you saying an acorn is the same as an oak tree?

What is it, then? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm not attacking your statement, I would genuinely like to know what you, or anyone else, think a fetus. I'm guessing if one is pro-life they classify it as a human, but what are other possibilities?

And I respect your right to know. Mind you, this is just my opinion...

It is an unborn foetus that is developing human-like characteristics that will eventually make it a human. It takes time and that time turns the generic embryonic cells into functioning cells that each in turn work in harmony in their final form, whether the cell is part of the alveoli or the kidney.

To me, something cannot be a human being when it lacks the very bare anatomy of a human being. I believe this is the pre-requisite for life. If there are parts missing, it cannot survive and it cannot be fully human because it is undeveloped and will not survive unless medicine is able to reconstruct that failed to develop in the womb.

It seems insensitive, but this is the way I think.

I used to believe that life began at conception, but after reading about embryonic and foetal development, I thought that while conception may be the point at which the egg is fertilised, allowing for life to eventually exist, it cannot be life until it has the very basic anatomy that makes it the creature the egg and sperm eventually form.

While this may be crude, a parasite is a separate entity that is dependant on the host. I'm not saying that the foetus is a parasite, but like a parasite, it dependant on the host in order to subsist.

actually, it is exactly a parasite.

You are right that personhood is the most relevant criteria.

However, are you saying an acorn is the same as an oak tree?

To me thats the same question as asking: "is a human fetus the same as a human being?"

actually, it is exactly a parasite.

Shhh... I'm trying to be nice. :)

Yay for the Catholic Church - proudly dragging itself back into the 18th Century. What next? Stoning for adultery? dunking stools set up for witches?

edit:
D'oh! Sorry - forgot to post the link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6750887.stm

Well, they got a conservative pope.

To me thats the same question as asking: "is a human fetus the same as a human being?"

Exactly.

Just as an acorn is not an oak tree, a human fetus is not a human being. One isn't "dehumanizing" something by recognizing the differences between it and an adult human being.

But, more importantly, a fetus is not a person.

(And zygotes and embryos are even less like human beings and persons.)

Way to demonstrate that your long-winded rants are completely irrelevant.

Amnesty International's new stance ONLY "supports access to abortions in cases of rape, incest, violence or when pregnancy represents a risk to the mother's life or health." AI continues to oppose forced abortions.

Pray tell why this position -- which you evidently agree with -- is a basis for a Catholic boycott.

Oh, snap.

I love it when you go off before knowing the facts. Allow me to help.

Did you read my long post when you quoted it? Somewhere in there it says that Catholics are even more pro-life than Mormons.

I'm a Mormon. The difference between us and Catholics is that Mormons are prepared to make exceptions under circumstances like rape and incest (life of the mother goes without saying.) That's what we believe and the reason I seconded that opinion.

On the other hand, Catholics do NOT see rape and incest as valid exceptions, and thus to boycott Amnesty International is consistent with their beliefs, and the reason I chose to defend their decision.

oh, snap

It cannot be a human until it has human features.

Secondly, even still, it does heavily rely on the mother in order to subsist, making it LIKE a parasite in that it leeches off the mother's body. saying that something is similar to another thing is not to dehumanise it. It is merely drawing parallels. I was showing how a foetus is similar to another type of species. I wasn't calling it a parasite; I was saying in that being in the womb, it is like a parasite because it subsists by feeding off the mother's nutrients.

The unborn cannot be humanised until they have human features and the cells have taken on distinct characteristics that make it human and not another type of species or cell type. Something cannot be dehumanised unless it is human.

What an elaborate way to say nothing more than a repeat of your original point.

I find it really entertaining that you described the relationship as "leeching off the mother's body." as if somehow it's an unwelcome entity feeding off the host.... like a leech.

Human Reproductive Biology 101: An unborn baby is NOT "leeching" because, unlike a leech, mom's body created it. Mom's body nourishes it on PURPOSE. Mom's body makes sacrifices and undergoes change in order to protect and accomodate the baby, all deliberately. Most of mom's body systems are engineered to protect the baby at all costs and nourish the baby even at her own expense, if necessary. This is not comparable to a parasitic relationship, in which a parasite comes from an external source and takes from the host, which at best, can't inhibit it.

Justifying Abortion Step 2: Further dehumanizing the unborn by comparing them to something unpleasant and unwelcome, like a leech.

I love it when you go off before knowing the facts. Allow me to help.

Did you read my long post when you quoted it? Somewhere in there it says that Catholics are even more pro-life than Mormons.

I'm a Mormon. The difference between us and Catholics is that Mormons are prepared to make exceptions under circumstances like rape and incest (life of the mother goes without saying.) That's what we believe and the reason I seconded that opinion.

On the other hand, Catholics do NOT see rape and incest as valid exceptions, and this to boycott Amnesty International is consistent with their beliefs, and the reason I chose to defend their decision.

oh, snap

So it matters not that a belief is morally wrong, just so long as it is "consistent."

Boy, that puts me in my place.

Well, they got a conservative pope.


...Doesn't that kind of go without saying? As far as I know, every pope ever has been fairly conservative.

So it matters not that a belief is morally wrong, just so long as it is "consistent."

Boy, that puts me in my place.

It may be morally wrong to YOU, but as much as it may come as a surprise to you, yuor moral beliefs are not universal.

Are you really so ethically myopic that you can't even acknowledge that others have a right to beliefe differently than you do, or are you just another one of those people who tout the idea of freedom of belief but what you really mean is "Everyone is free to believe what they want, as long as they acknowledge the moral superiority of MY beliefs."

And BUSH IS TEH SUCK!!!!

Well yeah and democrats can go to hell.

I suppose they can, if they want to.

Did you have a point by the way?

I suppose they can, if they want to.

Did you have a point by the way?

Informing us that democrats can go to hell is point enough :p

It may be morally wrong to YOU, but as much as it may come as a surprise to you, yuor moral beliefs are not universal.

According to you it is morally wrong to you as well. Yet you defend it.

Are you really so ethically myopic that you can't even acknowledge that others have a right to beliefe differently than you do, or are you just another one of those people who tout the idea of freedom of belief but what you really mean is "Everyone is free to believe what they want, as long as they acknowledge the moral superiority of MY beliefs."

LOL. You've confused freedom of belief with rightness of belief. The Catholic Church is free to believe in morally wrong things and I am free to point out they are morally wrong. People are also free to do things that are morally wrong (so long as they harm no one) but that doesn't mean that they are acting morally.

What is weird is you contending that something is morally wrong, but at the same time defending its morality.

Allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the health or life of the mother is morally just. Not allowing abortion in such cases is morally wrong.

Withdrawing support from a morally important organization because it supports abortion in such cases is also morally wrong.

Moreover, the Catholic Church is seeking to impose its opinion, not just on organizations like AI, but on individual women around the world.

BTW, don't you feel just a bit hypocritical going on about a lack of universal morality and how people have a right to different beliefs, when you would deprive women of the right to choose?

According to you it is morally wrong to you as well. Yet you defend it.


From where I'm sitting, they're erring on the side of caution. No conflict.


LOL. You've confused freedom of belief with rightness of belief. The Catholic Church is free to believe in morally wrong things and I am free to point out they are morally wrong. People are also free to do things that are morally wrong (so long as they harm no one) but that doesn't mean that they are acting morally.

What is weird is you contending that something is morally wrong, but at the same time defending morally.

Allowing abortion in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the health or life of the mother is morally just. Not allowing abortion in such cases is morally wrong.

Withdrawing support from a morally important organization because it supports abortion in such cases is also morally wrong.


And you're confusing an argument for their right to believ as an argument for their position.

I think the Catholic Church has every right to boycott an organization that operates in conflict with their moral beliefs. They have that right. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their exercising that right. The fact that Amnesty International's beliefs appear to be consistent with my own is irrelevant.


BTW, don't you feel just a bit hypocritical going on about a lack of universal morality and how people have a right to different beliefs, when you would deprive women of the right to choose?

Not at all, considering nobody has the right to murder.

No no. If you want to have sex you need to commit yourself to one person to be with.

You don't get to tell people who to stay with. You get to watch as people use their knowledge and technology to avoid having unwanted babies and being with whom they want - as it should be.

What an elaborate way to say nothing more than a repeat of your original point.

I find it really entertaining that you described the relationship as "leeching off the mother's body." as if somehow it's an unwelcome entity feeding off the host.... like a leech.

Human Reproductive Biology 101: An unborn baby is NOT "leeching" because, unlike a leech, mom's body created it. Mom's body nourishes it on PURPOSE. Mom's body makes sacrifices and undergoes change in order to protect and accomodate the baby, all deliberately. Most of mom's body systems are engineered to protect the baby at all costs and nourish the baby even at her own expense, if necessary. This is not comparable to a parasitic relationship, in which a parasite comes from an external source and takes from the host, which at best, can't inhibit it.

Justifying Abortion Step 2: Further dehumanizing the unborn by comparing them to something unpleasant and unwelcome, like a leech.

Nice job of avoiding the point about "dehumanization" of something that isn't a person.

Regardless, you seem to ignore that a pregnancy may unwanted, making the body changes you point to invasive rather than welcome.

What an elaborate way to say nothing more than a repeat of your original point.

I find it really entertaining that you described the relationship as "leeching off the mother's body." as if somehow it's an unwelcome entity feeding off the host.... like a leech.

Captain Obvious to the Rescue!

If the mother wants an abortion, then the foetus probably isn't wanted (unless she needs an abortion for medical reasons of course).

Thank you citizens, you may now continue with your day to day lives.

Human Reproductive Biology 101: An unborn baby is NOT "leeching" because, unlike a leech, mom's body created it. Mom's body nourishes it on PURPOSE. Mom's body makes sacrifices and undergoes change in order to protect and accomodate the baby, all deliberately. Most of mom's body systems are engineered to protect the baby at all costs and nourish the baby even at her own expense, if necessary. This is not comparable to a parasitic relationship, in which a parasite comes from an external source and takes from the host, which at best, can't inhibit it.

Very interesting, but you're missing something rather important: consent.

I could post a long monologue describing the process of conception, but if the woman doesn't give her consent it's rape, whatever the function of her reproductive organs.

Justifying Abortion Step 2: Further dehumanizing the unborn by comparing them to something unpleasant and unwelcome, like a leech.

Opposing Abortion Step 1: Use phrases such as 'unborn' or 'baby' to sentimentalise the zygote/embryo/foetus.

Opposing Abortion Step 2: When somebody uses medically correct terminology, accuse them of 'dehumanising' the zygote/embryo/foetus.

Opposing Abortion Step 3: Suggest (either implicitly or explicitly) that if the woman didn't want to be pregnant then the dirty slut should have kept her legs closed.

Nice job of avoiding the point about "dehumanization" of something that isn't a person.

Regardless, you seem to ignore that a pregnancy may unwanted, making the body changes you point to invasive rather than welcome.

Avoiding what? I'm refuting a point.

And incidentally, I'm speaking, as was the other poster, from a biological point of view when discussing whether or not the baby qualifies as a parasite. Therefore, the mom's intent is irrelevant within that context.

But hey if you feel like you have to distort arguments...

I suppose they can, if they want to.

Did you have a point by the way?
No not really:p

From where I'm sitting, they're erring on the side of caution. No conflict.

A view that would force rape and incest victims to have babies is just "erring on the side of caution"?

A view that would force women to have babies even if it kills them is just "erring on the side of caution"?


And you're confusing an argument for their right to believ as an argument for their position.

I think the Catholic Church has every right to boycott an organization that operates in conflict with their moral beliefs. They have that right. There is absolutely nothing wrong with their exercising that right. The fact that Amnesty International's beliefs appear to be consistent with my own is irrelevant.

You are fundamentally confused. Having a right to something does not necessarily mean there is "absolutely nothing wrong with [] exercising that right."

The Catholic Church's position is wrong. It's attempt to enforce its view is more wrong. It's withdrawal of support from an worthy organization that does much good in the world based on this single, narrow issue is more wrong.

Not at all, considering nobody has the right to murder.

Cute. But abortion isn't murder.

Let's see someone said something along the lines of:

[Abortion] may be morally wrong to YOU, but as much as it may come as a surprise to you, yuor moral beliefs are not universal.

Are you really so ethically myopic that you can't even acknowledge that others have a right to beliefe differently than you do, or are you just another one of those people who tout the idea of freedom of belief but what you really mean is "Everyone is free to believe what they want, as long as they acknowledge the moral superiority of MY beliefs."

(BTW, by your own view, abortion isn't always wrong. And, by your own view, murder is always wrong. Therefore, abortion cannot be murder -- based on YOUR beliefs.)

Captain Obvious to the Rescue!

If the mother wants an abortion, then the foetus probably isn't wanted (unless she needs an abortion for medical reasons of course).

Thank you citizens, you may now continue with your day to day lives.



Very interesting, but you're missing something rather important: consent.

I could post a long monologue describing the process of conception, but if the woman doesn't give her consent it's rape, whatever the function of her reproductive organs.


Once again, as we were speaking on a biological level, intent isn't relevant and beside the point.

And save your long monologue. Read back over my posts. Rape isn't a point of contention here.


Opposing Abortion Step 1: Use phrases such as 'unborn' or 'baby' to sentimentalise the zygote/embryo/foetus.

Opposing Abortion Step 2: When somebody uses medically correct terminology, accuse them of 'dehumanising' the zygote/embryo/foetus.


Which would be relevant except that I said that in response to their referring to the baby as a "parasite" that "leeches" off the mother.

But hey, keep making stuff up if that's what you've gotta do.

[
Opposing Abortion Step 3: Suggest (either implicitly or explicitly) that if the woman didn't want to be pregnant then the dirty slut should have kept her legs closed.

Hmm I haven't done that here but since you brought it up I'll make a counter-point:

Justifying Abortion Step 2: Minimize the value of abstinence by pretending that human beings will just die if they can't have sex under circumstances when they can't afford or don't want to have a baby.

Justifying Abortion Step 3: Demonize anyone who thinks abstinence is a good idea by putting words like "dirty slut" into their mouths to make them appear so unresonable that there's no need to listen to their point of view.

Demonize anyone who thinks abstinence is a good idea by putting words like "dirty slut" into their mouths to make them appear so unresonable that there's no need to listen to their point of view.

This very thread:

Precisely what Im telling you... or are you too much of a whore that you cant handle being with just one person?

Putting words in their mouths, is it? Admit it, most anti-choice people are in for the control of women's sexuality, not for the good of the baby.

A view that would force rape and incest victims to have babies is just "erring on the side of caution"?

A view that would force women to have babies even if it kills them is just "erring on the side of caution"?



Please, if you want to disagree with Catholic morality go right ahead, but do be honest about it. The Catholic church doesn't bar abortions in cases where the life of the mother is in danger.


You are fundamentally confused. Having a right to something does not necessarily mean there is "absolutely nothing wrong with [] exercising that right."


I think you're fundamentally confused as to the definition of a "right." You have the RIGHT to do something when you don't need permission from anybody to do it. You have the RIGHT to do something when it's assumed that at any time when you exercise it you are acting within, well, your rights. It's a RIGHT. you don't get to decide whether or not it was correct to do it.

If you go out and vote, do I get to evaluate whether or not there was something wrong with you exercising that right? Of course not. That would be idiotic.


The Catholic Church's position is wrong. It's attempt to enforce its view is more wrong. It's withdrawal of support from an worthy organization that does much good in the world based on this single, narrow issue is more wrong.


Do you give money to Amnesty International?

If so, would it be wrong if you chose to stop?
if not, are you wrong for not doing so?

Why doesn't the Catholic Church get to choose too?

You know, for someone who clamors about having choices, you sure are quick to try and suggest that someone else shouldn't exercise theirs.


Cute. But abortion isn't murder.

Let's see someone said something along the lines of:

[Abortion] may be morally wrong to YOU, but as much as it may come as a surprise to you, yuor moral beliefs are not universal.

Are you really so ethically myopic that you can't even acknowledge that others have a right to beliefe differently than you do, or are you just another one of those people who tout the idea of freedom of belief but what you really mean is "Everyone is free to believe what they want, as long as they acknowledge the moral superiority of MY beliefs."


You almost scored a point there. Problem: Murder isn't morally relative, even to left wing zealots. Murder is, by definition, always wrong, always evil. You and I might disagree with whether abortion constitutes an act of murder, but we would agree that murder in and of itself is not relative morality.

And yes, it is.


(BTW, by your own view, abortion isn't always wrong. And, by your own view, murder is always wrong. Therefore, abortion cannot be murder -- based on YOUR beliefs.)

I knew you'd say that. Even as I typed my previosu post I thought to myself, "This person is gonna try and catch me in a logic trap by pointing out that, in accordance with my belief, it can be permissible to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest."

Consider the case where a woman's life could be in danger from a pregnancy. In such a case, even Catholics would agree that abortion is justifiable. Is it then murder? No. Murder is, by definition, the act of killing unjustly. That's why killing in war isn't generally considered murder. That's why executing a condemned prisoner isn't considered murder. That's why people who believe that euthanasia should be legal don't see it as murder. That's why killing a cow for food isn't murder (humans have dominion over animals and therefore, are justified in making such decisions.)

In rape/incest cases, the damage to the mother, on a psychological level, can be AT LEAST as severe as physical risk if things should go wrong medically. Therefore, an abortion may be justifiable on the same level as if it were a physical threat. Therefore, not murder.

Mind you, within the Mormon Church, even in THOSE cases it's assumed that there will be a great deal of soul-searching and prayer before the decision is made. Ultimately, mom has to decide what to do, and that is respected.

This very thread:



Putting words in their mouths, is it? Admit it, most anti-choice people are in for the control of women's sexuality, not for the good of the baby.

I can't speak for Varejao.

Although I will say that you're taking his statement a bit out of context.

Having said that, Do yuo see the inherent flaw in taking one person's words and using them to paint all people onthis side of the debate with the same broad brush?

or is this just a case of how everything he says is wrong unless it serves your purposes, then it's as reliable as gold in representing what people believe?

How selective of you.

I can't speak for Varejao.

Although I will say that you're taking his statement a bit out of context.

Having said that, Do yuo see the inherent flaw in taking one person's words and using them to paint all people onthis side of the debate with the same broad brush?

or is this just a case of how everything he says is wrong unless it serves your purposes, then it's as reliable as gold in representing what people believe?

How selective of you.

I'm pointing out that, yes, many anti-abortion advocates are into controlling sexuality, that, yes, they DO use words like "whore" or "slut" to try and force the 10-pound ham through the woman's 4-inch opening and that, if they cared about the kid so much, they'd frigging ADOPT it. Most things he says ARE wrong, but that's not to say they don't show what the anti-abortion activists think, since most things anti-abortion activists think ARE wrong as well.

I'm pointing out that, yes, many anti-abortion advocates are into controlling sexuality, that, yes, they DO use words like "whore" or "slut" to try and force the 10-pound ham through the woman's 4-inch opening and that, if they cared about the kid so much, they'd frigging ADOPT it. Most things he says ARE wrong, but that's not to say they don't show what the anti-abortion activists think, since most things anti-abortion activists think ARE wrong as well.

What exactly does "many" mean? I've been either Catholic or Mormon my whole life and I've never heard anyone say that sort of thing. Out here in the real world, the vast majority DO care about the life that's being threatened. They care about the fact that humans are being slaughtered by the millions. They care that babies are being killed and it's being made to look like as noble a right as freedom of speech, press or religion.

People like you pay attention to the idiots and then use that to attack everybody else. Try showing a little intellectual honesty.

What exactly does "many" mean? I've been either Catholic or Mormon my whole life and I've never heard anyone say that sort of thing. Out here in the real world, the vast majority DO care about the life that's being threatened. They care about the fact that humans are being slaughtered by the millions. They care that babies are being killed and it's being made to look like as noble a right as freedom of speech, press or religion.

People like you pay attention to the idiots and then use that to attack everybody else. Try showing a little intellectual honesty.

What life? What human beings? What baby? The belief that life starts at conception would end up outlawing masturbation.

Justifying Abortion Step 2: Minimize the value of abstinence by pretending that human beings will just die if they can't have sex under circumstances when they can't afford or don't want to have a baby.

Justifying Abortion Step 3: Demonize anyone who thinks abstinence is a good idea by putting words like "dirty slut" into their mouths to make them appear so unresonable that there's no need to listen to their point of view.

Counter point 1 - sex has been proven to actually be beneficial to human's overall health. The release of hormones during intercourse aid the body. Contrary to popular belief, if a woman has sex while having a headache, it won't make it worse. The release of the hormones during intercourse will help relieve the pressure caused by the headache.

It is also a good way to burn calories.

Further, there is also a little thing known as 'contraceptives'. While they have been proven to be effective, they will fail in very rare cases. But it is no reason to fully abstain when there are many benefits to the act of sex itself.

Counter point 2 - I don't need to put those words in anyone's mouth because they came out when I suggested that one doesn't have to limit themselves to one partner. Varejao called me a whore just for being in favour of not forcing morality on someone simply because one thinks that sex with multiple uncommitted partners is evil, when all parties involved are consenting to it.

My mother is a good example of this. She once said to me while we were watching a talk show that if the girl didn't want to be knocked up she should keep her legs shut and not act like a little slut, and that she ought to wait until she is married before having sex.

Don't say it, I know it's one person, but it is a valid point.

However, some people who do advocate abstinence tend to ignore the benefits of a full sexual education that includes contraceptives. This is why many people who believe in a full and comprehensive sexual education dislike when abstinence-only educations because it doesn't focus on prevention as well as the distribution of relevant knowledge other than "wait until marriage to have sex".

This isn't to say that abstinence cannot be taught in a comprehensive sexual education programme, it just can't be the only thing that is taught. Humans are sexual creatures and hormones can make people do irrational things in the heat of the moment when passions run high. This is why they need more than just that; they need to know about the nature of contraceptives and how to use it.

What life? What human beings? What baby? The belief that life starts at conception would end up outlawing masturbation.

And would make it illegal for a woman to menstruate. After all, each cycle she releases an egg, which gets destroyed.

...Doesn't that kind of go without saying? As far as I know, every pope ever has been fairly conservative.

Benedict has been known as an ultraconservative, compared with the rather liberal John Paul.

Benedict has been known as an ultraconservative, compared with the rather liberal John Paul.
I wouldn't say he was liberal so much as he was a moderate who sat in the middle of the road in order to foster good relations.

Although I will say that you're taking his statement a bit out of context.


Bullshit. It's completely in it's context. Accusing someone of being a whore for not having sex with only one person in their entire life.

And would make it illegal for a woman to menstruate. After all, each cycle she releases an egg, which gets destroyed.

Not to mention all the sperm spilled needlessly each day

What life? What human beings? What baby? The belief that life starts at conception would end up outlawing masturbation.


And would make it illegal for a woman to menstruate. After all, each cycle she releases an egg, which gets destroyed.

Hey guys I hate to break it to ya, but neither masturbation nor menstruation results in a fertilized egg and thus, no conception.

Just thought you should know.

Bullshit. It's completely in it's context. Accusing someone of being a whore for not having sex with only one person in their entire life.

I'm not going to waste time delving into this because I frankly don't agree with the statement in th efirst place, but it WAS taken out of context because the individual was expressing a disdain for someone's assertion that she can have multiple partners/friends with benefits/etc.

That particular instance wasn't being directly applied to the abortion topic because at issue was the act of having sex AT ALL when a baby was unwanted. They were on a sort of sidebar.

Carry on.

I wouldn't say he was liberal so much as he was a moderate who sat in the middle of the road in order to foster good relations.

I said rather liberal. A liberal pope is a fallacy.

The Catholic Church will come around...eventually (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqKhvthxvSo&mode=related&search=)
:p

Hey guys I hate to break it to ya, but neither masturbation nor menstruation results in a fertilized egg and thus, no conception.

Just thought you should know.

Nor does most sex.

Nor does most sex.

Especially if the two people of the same sex. Easiest way to have sex without worry of pregnancy. :)

Especially if the two people of the same sex. Easiest way to have sex without worry of pregnancy. :)

Mmm, lesbians! :D

Mmm, lesbians! :D

(Agrees, but is attacked by lesbian biker gang) :p

Please, if you want to disagree with Catholic morality go right ahead, but do be honest about it. The Catholic church doesn't bar abortions in cases where the life of the mother is in danger.

Gee. You've mastered the art of quibbling. Forget the substance of what I said, but harp on a minor technicality.

If it makes you feel better, I'll modify one of my questions so you can answer substantively:

A view that would force rape and incest victims to have babies is just "erring on the side of caution"?

A view that would force women to have babies even if it causes severe bodily harm is just "erring on the side of caution"?


I think you're fundamentally confused as to the definition of a "right." You have the RIGHT to do something when you don't need permission from anybody to do it. You have the RIGHT to do something when it's assumed that at any time when you exercise it you are acting within, well, your rights. It's a RIGHT. you don't get to decide whether or not it was correct to do it.

If you go out and vote, do I get to evaluate whether or not there was something wrong with you exercising that right? Of course not. That would be idiotic.

Um. No. I understand the definition of a right perfectly well. You can have a "right" to do something without that thing being the "right" thing to do. Many who are pro-choice, for example, believe a woman has a right to an abortion but personally believe abortion is wrong. One has the right to racist opinions, but that doesn't make them right.

You have a right to vote, but a vote for say, Tom Tancredo or Mitt Romney, would be wrong.

Do you give money to Amnesty International?

If so, would it be wrong if you chose to stop?
if not, are you wrong for not doing so?

Why doesn't the Catholic Church get to choose too?

You know, for someone who clamors about having choices, you sure are quick to try and suggest that someone else shouldn't exercise theirs.

And here I thought someone that doesn't believe in women's control over their own body seems to feel pretty strongly about the right to choose how to spend one's money.

For the record, I do give money to AI and that is a moral thing to do.

Again, the Catholic Church has every right to choose to boycott AI and I have every right to call that boycott evil.

You almost scored a point there. Problem: Murder isn't morally relative, even to left wing zealots. Murder is, by definition, always wrong, always evil. You and I might disagree with whether abortion constitutes an act of murder, but we would agree that murder in and of itself is not relative morality.

And yes, it is.

I did score a point there. You agree that murder is wrong, but what constitutes murder is not universally accepted. So you are still pitching a form of moral relativism.

Personally, I don't care if a principle is universally accepted. It can still be right or wrong.

I knew you'd say that. Even as I typed my previosu post I thought to myself, "This person is gonna try and catch me in a logic trap by pointing out that, in accordance with my belief, it can be permissible to have an abortion in the case of rape or incest."

Consider the case where a woman's life could be in danger from a pregnancy. In such a case, even Catholics would agree that abortion is justifiable. Is it then murder? No. Murder is, by definition, the act of killing unjustly. That's why killing in war isn't generally considered murder. That's why executing a condemned prisoner isn't considered murder. That's why people who believe that euthanasia should be legal don't see it as murder. That's why killing a cow for food isn't murder (humans have dominion over animals and therefore, are justified in making such decisions.)

In rape/incest cases, the damage to the mother, on a psychological level, can be AT LEAST as severe as physical risk if things should go wrong medically. Therefore, an abortion may be justifiable on the same level as if it were a physical threat. Therefore, not murder.

Mind you, within the Mormon Church, even in THOSE cases it's assumed that there will be a great deal of soul-searching and prayer before the decision is made. Ultimately, mom has to decide what to do, and that is respected.

Nice circular thinking. Murder is killing unjustly. Therefore any killing we don't oppose must be just -- and therefore not murder. So what constitutes murder is relative.

I find your neat little categories of Catholic and Mormon and what each believes to be amusing.

Some "pro-lifers" don't support an exception for the life of the mother.

Some "pro-lifers" -- particularly Catholics -- are against the death penalty.

Some Mormon are pro-choice. So are some Catholics.

I find it so ironic that I can talk plainly about right and wrong and you are stuck in a moral quagmire.

I'm not going to waste time delving into this because I frankly don't agree with the statement in th efirst place,

Gee. Once again we find you defending something that you claim to disagree with.

Funny how that happens to you.

but it WAS taken out of context because the individual was expressing a disdain for someone's assertion that she can have multiple partners/friends with benefits/etc.

Well, that makes it all OK then. :rolleyes:

That particular instance wasn't being directly applied to the abortion topic because at issue was the act of having sex AT ALL when a baby was unwanted. They were on a sort of sidebar.

Carry on.

Just because you are too eloquent to use the phrase "dirty slut" or "whore" doesn't mean your babbling about abstinence isn't any less silly and puritan.

The ONLY cases in which abortion should be legal are if hte mother's life is threatened or in case of rape.

Then, fella, you have just proved the point of pro-choice. That it is a matter of control, (i.e. punish the slut for daring to have unauthorized sex) not a real interest in the fetus.

What exactly does "many" mean? I've been either Catholic or Mormon my whole life and I've never heard anyone say that sort of thing. Out here in the real world, the vast majority DO care about the life that's being threatened. They care about the fact that humans are being slaughtered by the millions. They care that babies are being killed and it's being made to look like as noble a right as freedom of speech, press or religion.


I'm going to go out on a limb and say these people probably care nothing about real, currently existing, people being killed by the tens of thousands on a daily basis and are only interested in the abortion issue for emotive reasons.

Out of sight, out of mind. But zygotes and embryos brings to mind pictures of cuddly things, so these people can't ignore it apparently.

Sort of like PETA. Hyprocrites, the lot of them.

I said rather liberal. A liberal pope is a fallacy.

Hehhe. Fallacy.

Hehhe. Fallacy.

...Beavis and Butthead? REALLY??? :p

Then, fella, you have just proved the point of pro-choice. That it is a matter of control, (i.e. punish the slut for daring to have unauthorized sex) not a real interest in the fetus.
Bingo.

If a woman engages in consensual sex, then the conceptus/embryo/fetus is a BAY-BEE!! and is SAY-CRED!!! and we have to SAVE IT!!! Plus the slut deserves to "face the consequences" (i.e. be punished with pregnancy and childbirth) for choosing to have sex as if she had the right or something.

But if she was decently raped, it's okay to kill the fetus, which is no longer sacred enough to warrant forcing childbirth upon the mother. It's still sacred and all, but she's already taken her punishment and we can count on the trauma of the rape to keep her in line.

Then, fella, you have just proved the point of pro-choice. That it is a matter of control, (i.e. punish the slut for daring to have unauthorized sex) not a real interest in the fetus.Why should anybody have an interest in fetuses?

I see a lot of non-sence in this thread.
Where I say church below I mean the Catholic Church.

Someone mentioning that the church is responsible for spreading of aids. THat is totally bullshit. The church sais: "Do not fuck outside marriage". If people would listen to the church, aids would not be spreading!!!

Black people are only considered people by the law for 200 years. I think Females only for 50 years or so. So how long will it take for the unborn people to be recognised as well.

As for not getting children...
Not getting children is easy. Do not have sex and there will not be any children. And there are other options instead of abortions, for instance adoption. There are many people in the world who cannot get children. Why kill a life when it can be saved in a great way. What world do we live in if mothers kill their own children.

Oh... having sex with several partners is increasing the chance on cancer for women a lot. This is proven and a lot of people seem to forget it. Therefore listening better to the church will prevent cancer !!!

As for protection. There is no such thing as full-proof protection. Using anti-conception stuff doesn't mean you will not get pregnant. It decreases the chance to get pregnant but does not prevent it. Condoms decrease the chance of spreading aids but does not prevent it. The only real way of not having a chance to become pregnant is not haveing sex.

As for the choice between the life of a woman and the life of her child. People are sinners. People do sin. An unborn baby has not had the chance to sin yet so is a person who is without sin. So when you haveto choose, would you kill the innocent life? (stance church)

As for killing criminals. The church is AGAINST it. If you are 100% pro-life you are against killing criminals. Because every life is sacred. God and the Church do not hate sinners. God loves everyone. God and the Church hate sins, but still they love the people who commit sins and hope that they will see their error and come back to God. Just because the morality of the world has been dropped doesn't mean that doing the wrong thing is not a sin anymore!!!

It is not that you are a sinner only if you kill some people, rob a bank or anything like that. Look at the society around you. There is a lot of lack for respect of life nowaday's. It seems that we live in an age of Death rather than an age of life. Life is not respected. But true Catholics do respect life.

Btw, why is it that people that live together before getting married have a much bigger chance of breaking up than people who live seperately untill they get maried (from studies).

If an abortion is only a medical thing, than why do a lot of people who have had abortions go through so much problems. I have heard people who had abortions tell that they were so sorry that they did it and have become pro-life because of that experience. And tell people that an abortion is more than cutting out a disease. And than I am also talking about nurses and doctors, people who know what is being done during an abortion. They have from their knowledge and their studies learned that it's just a medical removal of an unwanted piece of flesh. And even they felt that this isn't true.

Also a lot of relationships fail shortly after abortions. Because of the life that was never there. The precious life that was killed. For what? Because they wanted a career and a child was inconvenient? People have seen their careers being destroyed because of their own problems, psychological problems, after an abortion. Because they felt they were killing a life. An unborn child does have a consiounce.

Also abortions have risks. You can loose the chance to become pregnant ever again. And besides that there is also the chance the woman doesn't survive an abortion.

The Catholic church is against violence, against war, against killing of criminals, against the killing of anybody. And an unborn child is still a child. It's a precious life.

And as a last thing. Why do we hear about people being converted from pro-Choice to pro-Life while there never have been pro-Life supporters that have been converted to pro-Choice. Exactly... Because the pro-Life people know they are right in defending life. They know they have the truth on their side.

Oh and the killing of doctors who do abortion and the destroying of clinics that do abortions by people... That ofcourse is a wrong too. Two wrongs do not make a right. Killing is always unacceptable. Harming people is always unacceptable. You need to treat people with respect. You need to show people what is right.

God gave us all choice. We can do either right or wrong. We can either follow God or the Devil. But in the end after we die and get eternal life it's those choices in life we made that decide where we will have our eternal life. And I know where I want to be after I die !!!

I see a lot of non-sence in this thread.
Where I say church below I mean the Catholic Church.

Someone mentioning that the church is responsible for spreading of aids. THat is totally bullshit. The church sais: "Do not fuck outside marriage". If people would listen to the church, aids would not be spreading!!!

Black people are only considered people by the law for 200 years. I think Females only for 50 years or so. So how long will it take for the unborn people to be recognised as well.

As for not getting children...
Not getting children is easy. Do not have sex and there will not be any children. And there are other options instead of abortions, for instance adoption. There are many people in the world who cannot get children. Why kill a life when it can be saved in a great way. What world do we live in if mothers kill their own children.

Oh... having sex with several partners is increasing the chance on cancer for women a lot. This is proven and a lot of people seem to forget it. Therefore listening better to the church will prevent cancer !!!

As for protection. There is no such thing as full-proof protection. Using anti-conception stuff doesn't mean you will not get pregnant. It decreases the chance to get pregnant but does not prevent it. Condoms decrease the chance of spreading aids but does not prevent it. The only real way of not having a chance to become pregnant is not haveing sex.

As for the choice between the life of a woman and the life of her child. People are sinners. People do sin. An unborn baby has not had the chance to sin yet so is a person who is without sin. So when you haveto choose, would you kill the innocent life? (stance church)

As for killing criminals. The church is AGAINST it. If you are 100% pro-life you are against killing criminals. Because every life is sacred. God and the Church do not hate sinners. God loves everyone. God and the Church hate sins, but still they love the people who commit sins and hope that they will see their error and come back to God. Just because the morality of the world has been dropped doesn't mean that doing the wrong thing is not a sin anymore!!!

It is not that you are a sinner only if you kill some people, rob a bank or anything like that. Look at the society around you. There is a lot of lack for respect of life nowaday's. It seems that we live in an age of Death rather than an age of life. Life is not respected. But true Catholics do respect life.

Btw, why is it that people that live together before getting married have a much bigger chance of breaking up than people who live seperately untill they get maried (from studies).

If an abortion is only a medical thing, than why do a lot of people who have had abortions go through so much problems. I have heard people who had abortions tell that they were so sorry that they did it and have become pro-life because of that experience. And tell people that an abortion is more than cutting out a disease. And than I am also talking about nurses and doctors, people who know what is being done during an abortion. They have from their knowledge and their studies learned that it's just a medical removal of an unwanted piece of flesh. And even they felt that this isn't true.

Also a lot of relationships fail shortly after abortions. Because of the life that was never there. The precious life that was killed. For what? Because they wanted a career and a child was inconvenient? People have seen their careers being destroyed because of their own problems, psychological problems, after an abortion. Because they felt they were killing a life. An unborn child does have a consiounce.

Also abortions have risks. You can loose the chance to become pregnant ever again. And besides that there is also the chance the woman doesn't survive an abortion.

The Catholic church is against violence, against war, against killing of criminals, against the killing of anybody. And an unborn child is still a child. It's a precious life.

And as a last thing. Why do we hear about people being converted from pro-Choice to pro-Life while there never have been pro-Life supporters that have been converted to pro-Choice. Exactly... Because the pro-Life people know they are right in defending life. They know they have the truth on their side.

Oh and the killing of doctors who do abortion and the destroying of clinics that do abortions by people... That ofcourse is a wrong too. Two wrongs do not make a right. Killing is always unacceptable. Harming people is always unacceptable. You need to treat people with respect. You need to show people what is right.

God gave us all choice. We can do either right or wrong. We can either follow God or the Devil. But in the end after we die and get eternal life it's those choices in life we made that decide where we will have our eternal life. And I know where I want to be after I die !!!

Why should anybody have an interest in fetuses?

Because if veal is good meat, then imagine...

(You asked. I answered.) ;)

Didn't this thread involve Amnesty International? It looks like it has become a full-fledged pro-choice/pro-life debate.

Because if veal is good meat, then imagine...

(You asked. I answered.) ;)I'm a vegetarian.

I'm a vegetarian.

You said why would ANYBODY ... there are lots of not vegetarians

You said why would ANYBODY ... there are lots of not vegetarians

Plus non-vegetarians that have read "A Modest Proposal".

Black people are only considered people by the law for 200 years. I think Females only for 50 years or so. So how long will it take for the unborn people to be recognised as well.

You fail. Females have been recognized as people under American law for much longer then blacks.



Oh... having sex with several partners is increasing the chance on cancer for women a lot. This is proven and a lot of people seem to forget it. Therefore listening better to the church will prevent cancer !!!

That's absurd. Give me one reliable source saying that having sex with multiple partners will increase the risk of cancer. Admittedly, it might increase your likelihood of getting HPV, but that doesn't mean insta-cancer for everyone.


The only real way of not having a chance to become pregnant is not haveing sex.

Or just groping. Or just having oral sex. Or just having anal sex.

As for the choice between the life of a woman and the life of her child. People are sinners. People do sin. An unborn baby has not had the chance to sin yet so is a person who is without sin. So when you haveto choose, would you kill the innocent life? (stance church)

Oh. My. Fucking. God. Did you seriously just advocate letting a mother die so a baby could be born?

As for killing criminals. The church is AGAINST it. If you are 100% pro-life you are against killing criminals. Because every life is sacred. God and the Church do not hate sinners. God loves everyone. God and the Church hate sins, but still they love the people who commit sins and hope that they will see their error and come back to God.

Except, of course, for gays.

Just because the morality of the world has been dropped doesn't mean that doing the wrong thing is not a sin anymore!!!

Just because the Church's backwards bullshit isn't universally accepted any more doesn't mean the morality of this world has been dropped.

Btw, why is it that people that live together before getting married have a much bigger chance of breaking up than people who live seperately untill they get maried (from studies).

Because they have to deal with each other for longer periods of time. I'd say that if people can't live together, they shouldn't get married.

If an abortion is only a medical thing, than why do a lot of people who have had abortions go through so much problems.

Bastards telling them they murdered their baby.

Also a lot of relationships fail shortly after abortions. Because of the life that was never there. The precious life that was killed.

Or maybe, just as an example, the abortion is evidence that the woman has cheated on the guy, and the guy therefore breaks up with her. Or maybe the guy's pro-life. There are a LOT of reasons for a relationship to fail after an abortion that don't have to do with "The precious life that was killed".

For what? Because they wanted a career and a child was inconvenient?

Yeah, those uppity bitches wanting "jobs" and "private lives". How dare they?

People have seen their careers being destroyed because of their own problems, psychological problems, after an abortion. Because they felt they were killing a life.

Or because a bunch of idiotic propaganda convinced them that it was a life.

An unborn child does have a consiounce.

No, it doesn't. It doesn't even have working pain receptors until about the 6th month.

Also abortions have risks. You can loose the chance to become pregnant ever again. And besides that there is also the chance the woman doesn't survive an abortion.

So...It has the same risks as childbirth?

The Catholic church is against violence, against war, against killing of criminals, against the killing of anybody. And an unborn child is still a child. It's a precious life.

Several crusades and inquisitions say otherwise.

And as a last thing. Why do we hear about people being converted from pro-Choice to pro-Life while there never have been pro-Life supporters that have been converted to pro-Choice. Exactly... Because the pro-Life people know they are right in defending life. They know they have the truth on their side.

Or maybe it's because pro-lifers are more adamant in their views because their religious tendencies make them feel that way?

And I call bullshit on saying that no one has ever gone from pro-life to pro-choice. I'm sure plenty of people have. Not even counting the pro-lifers who get abortions and then go right back to protesting outside abortion clinics, of which their are plenty.


God gave us all choice. We can do either right or wrong. We can either follow God or the Devil. But in the end after we die and get eternal life it's those choices in life we made that decide where we will have our eternal life. And I know where I want to be after I die !!!

Or maybe we just die and there's nothing after that. Or maybe trying to interfere with other's lives will send you to hell. There's no way of knowing.

So where does the practice of hiding pedophiles fall into the "moral" clarity?

It doesn't, as I indicated. But the Church's failure to live up to its obligations in this area doesn't mean that its position on the present topic is any less defensible or any less correct.

What about the lack of punishment of Cardinals that are involved in the practice?


This is an outrage and a scandal that will stain the Church for centuries to come. I have called for the clergy to be purged of all child-molestors, abusers and sexual deviants of every kind for years. The Church must immediately and permanently stop shielding these evildoers, and compensate their victims.

I personally know one such deviant. He was a parish priest when I was in grade school, I used to serve at masses and funerals he said (fortunately, he never attempted anything with me; or maybe unfortunately in that I would have reported the offense at once and spared future victims). He later was appointed bishop of Santa Rosa, California. He actually blessed my parents' new house, and at one point I actually considered consulting him for spiritual guidance. Then it was revealed that he had pressured a local priest into engaging in deviant sexual activity with him. He, of course, claimed it was "consensual", as if that were any excuse. Eventually he was forced out of office and sent packing to a retreat house somewhere in Arizona. I remain disgusted and appalled at his behavior and at the disgrace he has brought to the Church, and strongly believe he got off far too lightly.

IMO the Church needs to also open the priesthood to married men (thereby increasing the pool of candidates so that there's no further excuse for retaining perverts) and also to women.

IMO the Church needs to also open the priesthood to married men (thereby increasing the pool of candidates so that there's no further excuse for retaining perverts) and also to women.

New Mitanni saying this totally blows my brain.
Seriously. The cognitive dissonance is making it hard to concentrate on ypeing :).

Well, it seems the woman-haters are coming out in force.

Well in my opinion this whole issue is about bible-thumping zealots trying to control women and their bodies. Guess what, its their choice and its AI's choice. So get off your fucking soap box you brain-dead rednecks.