1
   

A Child's Abortion

 
 
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 Jul, 2009 10:27 pm
@Aedes,
xris;74328 wrote:
It is a dogmatic stance that is killing thousands and your defence is going beyond my understanding.Not once have you condemned this popish demand.If you or Tom had just accepted this as a disgrace i might not appear so vehement.


You should go back and read what I've written. How many times have I stated, in this very thread, that I stand with you in your disagreement with RC Church policy regarding contraception and abortion? I have not, nor has Aedes, defend RCC policy on abortion or contraception.

That vehemence of yours should have been in check in the first place. That anger is, while perfectly natural, counter-productive.
0 Replies
 
xris
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jul, 2009 06:13 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;74359 wrote:
I'm not defending anything -- in fact I personally will offer very little to defend the Catholic church and its activities in the world. I think their missionaries do as much harm as they do good, especially when their activities are solely devoted to proselytizing and not to infrastructure, education, and health. But to address your point, there are plenty of Catholic mission charities in countries that have national policies promoting contraception.
So what of my views are you opposing? and contraception in their view is abstinence not prevention of transmitted disease.

---------- Post added 07-03-2009 at 07:17 AM ----------

Didymos Thomas;74451 wrote:
You should go back and read what I've written. How many times have I stated, in this very thread, that I stand with you in your disagreement with RC Church policy regarding contraception and abortion? I have not, nor has Aedes, defend RCC policy on abortion or contraception.

That vehemence of yours should have been in check in the first place. That anger is, while perfectly natural, counter-productive.
So what would make you angry? a million childrens lives?one childs unnecessary death fills me with rage.What do you think would change their dogmatic approach reason?
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jul, 2009 10:54 am
@No0ne,
I think the RC policy on barrier contraception is an abomination, and has done unmeasurable harm.

Our disagreement is that you said that no catholic charity could operate in countries that support contraception, and that is not correct.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Jul, 2009 04:59 pm
@Aedes,
xris;74499 wrote:

So what would make you angry? a million childrens lives?one childs unnecessary death fills me with rage.What do you think would change their dogmatic approach reason?


I never said I was not angry. Sheesh. Instead, I pointed out that when we take anger into our considerations of these issues we are less capable of seeing clearly. Anger and hate are blinding emotions, just like love is often a blinding emotion. In this instance, you have said that everything that emanates from the Roman Catholic Church is bigoted, and that mankind would be better off without the institution. The claim of universal Catholic bigotry has been proved false, and the notion that mankind would be better off without the institution has been, at least, shown to be myopic.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 04:09 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;74632 wrote:
I never said I was not angry. Sheesh. Instead, I pointed out that when we take anger into our considerations of these issues we are less capable of seeing clearly. Anger and hate are blinding emotions, just like love is often a blinding emotion. In this instance, you have said that everything that emanates from the Roman Catholic Church is bigoted, and that mankind would be better off without the institution. The claim of universal Catholic bigotry has been proved false, and the notion that mankind would be better off without the institution has been, at least, shown to be myopic.
Well i beg to differ,i cant see the balance of good outweighing its evil.Its annual turnover is in the billions of dollars and apart from a few priveledged thousand living in luxury in the papal state the majority of its followers live in discusting poverty.
Catholic fundamentalist stopped Bush distributing contraceptives in Africa and its twisted attitudes on birth control has caused millions in the third world to experience poverty the pope has no idea of or has no intentions of experiencing.Its influence in the un has stopped the education of the poorest in birth control, family planning and abortion.The result is thousand of women die in agony through botched abortions and the catholic population increases where poverty is a constant problem.It supports right wing juntas and never expresses its opposition to facist states.It has withdrawn its funding to amnesty because amnesty supported safe abortions in countries where women where dying needlessly.I could go and on about this evil state within our communities,such as the refusal to act quickly and acknowledge the child abuse suffered by the priests and nuns entrusted with their safety.Money donated to a certain modern day saint to build hospitals in India is used to funds Romes extravagance and while the nuns and priest get to go in the best hospitals the intended victims of poverty,if lucky, lie in third rate hospitals.Sorry anger is not a strong enough expressed emotion.
0 Replies
 
parker pyne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 05:20 am
@No0ne,
This is a prime example of an institution placing principles over rationality. I say being ex-communicated is no great loss, although the family mentioned in the Original Post might think otherwise.

I know this is wildly controversial, but I will go as far to say that I am pro-abortion. Not that I encourage every zygote to be aborted, I'm just saying the procedure has been immensely beneficial, considering the issues that would have arisen if abortion wasn't an option. Is it rational to force a financially-troubled woman to keep a baby? What if the mother's life was in jeopardy had the birth happened? Surely an established life has more value than potential life?

Of course, not even the procedure itself contradicts my notions of moral goodness. For I believe harm is the crux of immorality, and indeed this is reflected upon the majority of laws across the international spectrum. A developing foetus is not conscious, therefore it is not immoral to abort it. In the first term of gestation the foetus cannot possibly feel pain, for one can only do so if one possesses a brain, a central nervous system, and nerve receptors. Of course, I am opposed to third term/partial birth abortions, and I believe it is illegal here and the US.

But I'm not saying abortion is necessarily moral, either. It is amoral. Neither malicious intent nor harmful consequences have resulted in any legal abortion (I can expand on my notions of morality if anyone is confused).

The past two paragraphs can be challenged by this hypothetical sitatuation: Then is it also amoral, then, to kill a man who is essentially a vegetable? A man who cannot move; is braindead? It is immoral. For he is established life, has had experiences, and has impacted the family and friends around him in his lifetime. Killing him would create emotional pain in people around him.

But the same can be said for a foetus. It might cause emotional pain in the mother, or any first-degree relative. But remember here that consent is given, so emotional pain must not be a possibility. The mother has decided that experiencing emotional pain is experiencing the lesser of two evils.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 05:53 am
@parker pyne,
The real point miss Parker is those who oppose abortion are the very same ones who are also against protected sex.They dont care about the unborn child, its their zealot nature for dogmatic principles that they fight for.They would rather a child be born with a death warrant than accept that its parents should have safe sex.
I am against abortion on demand it must have its limits, it should be a secular decision not one dictated to by some priveleged fool living in medieval Rome.
parker pyne
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 06:00 am
@xris,
xris;74742 wrote:
The real point miss Parker is those who oppose abortion are the very same ones who are also against protected sex.They dont care about the unborn child, its their zealot nature for dogmatic principles that they fight for.They would rather a child be born with a death warrant than accept that its parents should have safe sex.
I am against abortion on demand it must have its limits, it should be a secular decision not one dictated to by some priveleged fool living in medieval Rome.


And a very good point at that. A very dangerous folly is made in abiding by outdated doctrines.

What limits do you think abortions should have? I think it should definitely not occur in the third term of pregnancy, since there is a very high possibilty of the foetus being conscious. After all, the foetus does emerge from birth with a mighty cry.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Jul, 2009 07:15 am
@parker pyne,
parker pyne;74743 wrote:
And a very good point at that. A very dangerous folly is made in abiding by outdated doctrines.

What limits do you think abortions should have? I think it should definitely not occur in the third term of pregnancy, since there is a very high possibilty of the foetus being conscious. After all, the foetus does emerge from birth with a mighty cry.
I think the limit at the moment could be argued as being to late but reasonable people should be able to come to a compromise without dogma intefering in the debate.
0 Replies
 
Caroline
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 05:41 am
@No0ne,
Why do people have late abortions? I think one case would be where a school girl was raped by her brother or dad and was too scared to say soemthing and hid it for as long as she could until she was discovered by then she was well into the pregnancy and the baby was deformed too.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 07:18 am
@Caroline,
Caroline;75026 wrote:
Why do people have late abortions? I think one case would be where a school girl was raped by her brother or dad and was too scared to say soemthing and hid it for as long as she could until she was discovered by then she was well into the pregnancy and the baby was deformed too.
Thats the point Caroline it should be open to debate,not excluded because some primitive primate dictates what he thinks gods opinion is.Dialogue about the consequences and the individual cases that make any hard and fast rules look dictatorial.
0 Replies
 
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Jul, 2009 06:44 pm
@Caroline,
xris;74738 wrote:
Well i beg to differ


Which is about all you can do when you fight facts.

Again, I stand with you in your opposition to a great many church policies, but to stereotype all Catholic efforts as bigoted is demonstrably false: something I have proved by evidencing Father Merton's efforts, and something Aedes demonstrated with that inspiring example of a Priest in the concentration camp.

Are you too angry to admit that gray area exists, or does some dogmatic affliction prevent you from comprehending these anecdotes?
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 03:33 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;75170 wrote:
Which is about all you can do when you fight facts.

Again, I stand with you in your opposition to a great many church policies, but to stereotype all Catholic efforts as bigoted is demonstrably false: something I have proved by evidencing Father Merton's efforts, and something Aedes demonstrated with that inspiring example of a Priest in the concentration camp.

Are you too angry to admit that gray area exists, or does some dogmatic affliction prevent you from comprehending these anecdotes?
The individual who shows moral courage i admire,its the singer not the song in those cases.I dont condemn or lump all catholics in my critical view,many catholic charities have asked to be excused from the strict view on contraceptives for humanitarian reasons but Rome has refused them.Its the doctrine dictated by Rome and its blinkered views that i oppose.What would happen to the RC church if it now decided that god has changed his mind,dogma is a destructive principle that has far reaching consequences.
All organised faiths by scriptures deny them any logical moral change in their views, thats why Christians and Muslims are torn apart by demands made on them by medieval myths made to appear as gods word.
Hate is a strong word to use but on occassions thats what i feel when i see religion causing so much harm.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 03:36 am
@xris,
Hey - more history to ignore. Great job!

You might want to check a history book and take note of the great changes made in dogmatic religion over time. Even in the RCC.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 04:02 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;75264 wrote:
Hey - more history to ignore. Great job!

You might want to check a history book and take note of the great changes made in dogmatic religion over time. Even in the RCC.
I see the defence of religion is becoming a narrow view of subtle changes in the christian faith.So give me the history lesson on the RC Church's major changes of doctrine, please.
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 04:17 am
@xris,
Considering that there have been secular Popes, the fact that the RCC's dogma has changed, at least in practice, should be obvious to anyone who cares to learn something.

Arguing from pure ignorance is ineffective, my friend.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 04:35 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;75273 wrote:
Considering that there have been secular Popes, the fact that the RCC's dogma has changed, at least in practice, should be obvious to anyone who cares to learn something.

Arguing from pure ignorance is ineffective, my friend.
Its you that are claiming my ignorance, its for you to prove it.Do i see a degree of anger in your posts?
Didymos Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 06:03 am
@xris,
No anger, just frustration. Go look up the Borgia Popes. You know, history and what not.

Again, secular Popes are not exactly Popes who act according to RCC dogma. For more recent, and positive examples, you might want to read a bit about the last Roman Bishop (Pope). Not that I expect you to care about the history; just on the off chance that you might investigate matters.
xris
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 10:24 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas;75286 wrote:
No anger, just frustration. Go look up the Borgia Popes. You know, history and what not.

Again, secular Popes are not exactly Popes who act according to RCC dogma. For more recent, and positive examples, you might want to read a bit about the last Roman Bishop (Pope). Not that I expect you to care about the history; just on the off chance that you might investigate matters.
You did not ask me to recall Certain popes who did not fit the mould you called me ignorant about the major changes in papal dogma.I asked you to give me examples and you recalled a few secular popes as if that answered your own request.I cant recall any significant change in RC dogma,it has given itself more power over the years but it has never waivered on any of its destructive dogma.I will ask again but this time i will just ask for one,just one.Thanks xris..
0 Replies
 
Aedes
 
  1  
Reply Mon 6 Jul, 2009 09:25 pm
@No0ne,
xris, I'm a semi-atheistic Jew with no love for RC policies, but there have been plenty of changes in church dogma. Not, perhaps, on issues like contraception and abortion, but there have indeed been many.

Ecumenical council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nostra Aetate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
Amanda Knox - Discussion by JTT
 
  1. Forums
  2. » A Child's Abortion
  3. » Page 6
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 12/27/2024 at 11:42:23