It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Planned Parenthood Provides Contraception and Abortion to Evacuees!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 09:34 AM
link   
ask and ye shall receive:



In the 17th century, the concept of "simultaneous animation." gained acceptance within the medical and church communities. 2 This is the belief that an embryo acquires a soul at the time of conception, not at 40 or 80 days into gestation as the church had previously taught.


www.religioustolerance.org...




posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Thanks Kenshiro!


Will look into that. Looks like a good link too. The historical aspect of the evolution of beliefs is interesting to me.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 09:44 AM
link   
I had read all the pro-abortion early Christian doctrines before, about when and how it was okay (basically instruction guides) and St. Augustine's metaphysical ideas on the body shape required for a soul (basically an apology for early term abortions) but had NO IDEA partial birth abortions weren't even banned (for Catholics) by Papal decree until the 1800's!


A brief history:
Prior to 380 CE, many Christian leaders issued unqualified condemnations of abortion. The Didache (also known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"), which was written circa 100 - 150 CE for the guidance of Christians, also forbids abortion. So did two church synods in the early 4th century. More information

The Apostolic Constitutions (circa 380 CE) allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul: "Thou shalt not slay the child by causing abortion, nor kill that which is begotten. For everything that is shaped, and his received a soul from God, if slain, it shall be avenged, as being unjustly destroyed." (7:3)

St. Augustine (354-430 CE) returned to the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. 1 Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).

In the 17th century, the concept of "simultaneous animation." gained acceptance within the medical and church communities. 2 This is the belief that an embryo acquires a soul at the time of conception, not at 40 or 80 days into gestation as the church had previously taught.

Pope Pius IX dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus" in 1869. Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to "the fetus." The church penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication.

A Papal decree in 1884 prohibited craniotomies. This is an operation that kills the fetus by dismantling its skull. The procedure was occasionally needed in order to save the life of the pregnant woman. In 1886, a second decree extended the prohibition to all operations that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life. The effects of these decrees would often be the death of both the woman and the fetus. These rules are still in place today, although they are ignored by most North American physicians -- both Catholic and non-Catholic.


Truly NOTHING under the sun is new. Except how we view it.


The Constitution of the United States of America was WRITTEN over a hunderd years before the Pope decided partial birth abortion craniotomies would get you excommunicated from the Catholic Church!

Does anyone truly NOT see the relevance of that?


Anti-choice people got NOTHING. NOTHING! Not a legal leg between them all to stand on in any non-Islamic court in the world.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 10:15 AM
link   
My we are getting off topic, but since we have a Moderator aiding and abetting, I'll jump back in respond to his queries.


From the Catechism - 2271:


Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:


You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish


The item quoted in the Catechism is from the "Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles", written circa 100 - 150.

www.earlychristianwritings.com...

It is interesting to note that looking at where in the Didache this is stated, (Chapter 2) it appears in a list of things that should not be done, most of which are basically the 10 commandments, with a few other things apparently important enough to give direct mention to, abortion being one of them.

So regardless of when a form of abortion was actually clarified by a Pope, the teachings were there long before.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Relentless
So regardless of when a form of abortion was actually clarified by a Pope, the teachings were there long before.


And it would be wise to not get one if you're Catholic. What's that got to do with me?



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by RANT

And it would be wise to not get one if you're Catholic. What's that got to do with me?


Probably nothing for now.
Just answering the question you posed dear.



I'm interested in (if anyone with knowledge of Catholicsm is willing to share) when all this conception revisionism started anyway?



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 10:37 AM
link   
well, not truely,
I am sort of anti choice and it is not a religious based ideal but one of moral and ethical thought. One major note, the views that I express below do have exceptions. The exceptions are:
1) Rape
2) the pregnacy will endanger the woman's life
3) incest
pro-choice advocates state many things that after all is said and done boils down to this:
it should be the woman's choice as it is the woman's body that is in question.
A woman's choice should take precedence of those of an unformed life.

This ideal is basically sound but I find it has a weak base to support their arguments. Yes a woman should have the choice over their health just as a man.
The problem now lies in the fact that the woman as well as a man, both of whom know and understand the ramifications that their actions can and will eventuallly have now are placing their pursuit of pleasure no matter the consequences.

We hold people accountable when they make such decisions. We send people to jail for taking illegal drugs, we send them to jail for over-use of perscription drugs, we send people to jail for the use of alcohol. In all these instances, the people who are sent to jail have placed thier ideals and pursuit of pleasure over the ills that they cause to thier bodies.
By applying the same argument that pro-choice advocates use to promote their agenda, then we should not have laws that regulate such things as drugs etc as the offenders should be able to thier bodies what ever they want.
People who use drugs are able to (yes in many cases extreme difficulty) overcome their additions, they know the results of their abuse of drugs and can take steps to avoid the drugs.
People can avoid pregnacy by using simple measures such as the pill (female now but soon men also) the use of condoms, the use of morning after pills and yes even abstinance. Instead of using these measures to protect themselves, the man and woman forgo these measures to fullfill their pleasure.
Abortion now comes into play because after the woman and man have obtained their moment of pleasure, they now find that there is a price to pay for not taking precautions. now the woman is faced with 9 months of pregnacy, now the people have to face the life changing consequences that they now face.
Now the results are inconvient, now it is the woman's chioce above and beyond all else. This is morally and ethically wrong ( my measure) If we hold people accountable for their actions for other choices in life then the couple, both the man as well as the woman, should now be held accountable for their actions.

many in the medical world have stated that lfe begins at the moment of fertilization of the ovum not at some arbitrary point during the pregnacy
e-forensicmedicine.net...

The fact of the beginings of life is at the momen of fertilization and cell multiplication is not just pro-life propaganda, it is a standard the the medical scientific world applies to all life except when it applies to human life. Why is this? It is because once this standard is apllied to the human race, then people now will start having to stand up and face the music when their choice s present them with an inconvienance called prgnacy. now the woman becomes a human incubator.
Where were all these feelings when the mood was on the woman and man at the time of copulation? Where is the ow woe is me at that time? where is the indignation at that time. where is the moral ethical stance that the pro-choice advocates that they can now use that preempts the new life growing in a womb over the man and womans carefree actions?
Instead of campaigning for abortion, how about instead try something new? how about pushing the education down everyone's throats that there will be a price to pay for thier pleasure if they do not take precautions? make birth control something that is readily available and cheap. heck even the military hands out condoms at the front gates of some bases! Instead of promoting the killing of another just because it is the woman's body / choice, this holds as much water as a colendar to me



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 11:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Instead of campaigning for abortion, how about instead try something new? how about pushing the education down everyone's throats that there will be a price to pay for their pleasure if they do not take precautions? make birth control something that is readily available and cheap. heck even the military hands out condoms at the front gates of some bases! Instead of promoting the killing of another just because it is the woman's body / choice, this holds as much water as a colendar to me


I agree with all that minus the bookends of "campaigning for abortion" and "promoting killing." Anyone that sincerely wants to reduce abortions in this country should be pro-contraception and sex education. As for the other, as almost any reasonable person you talk to will state, nobody is pro-abortion or wants to push an "agenda" to promote it. They may be pro-freedom, pro-Constitution, pro women's rights, pro giving the poor a leg up and chance in society, even pro separation of church and state, but not pro "murder."

There's a clinical detachment (as there should be) to those that make, shape and understand the law. Sorry, the drug analogy just isn't reasonable to me. That's practical (given the impact of drugs on others via work, driving and criminal related behaviors), not emotive and doesn't affect only one gender which is overt discrimination. That's not to say anyone has to like abortion, just don't get one. Teach your kids not to. Anything you like.

People just need to stop having two different arguments. If your point is abortions are sad, nobody is arguing. If it's they should be outlawed or restricted more than they already are in the Roe compromise (which it does appear to be what you're saying), then no. Not even up for debate. It's really not. You won't win that one. America likes it's freedom and autonomy just fine.

[edit on 17-9-2005 by RANT]



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 11:37 AM
link   


There's a clinical detachment (as there should be) to those that make, shape and understand the law. Sorry, the drug analogy just isn't reasonable to me. That's practical (given the impact of drugs on others via work, driving and criminal related behaviors), not emotive and doesn't affect only one gender which is overt discrimination. That's not to say anyone has to like abortion, just don't get one. Teach your kids not to. Anything you like.


Actually, pregnacy as well as abortion do indeed inmpact others, not just the mother. Missed work days either due to the pregnacy or due to under going an abortion. Heck, have you seen how some people heading to the hospital to give birth drive?
And yes, there is criminal behavior related to sex.... prostitution

I use the drug anology since it is one that everyone can relate to. if we hold one portion of the popultation accountable for their private activity then we should hold all. If a drug user do their thing in the privacy of their home, example, I drink on the weekends, I hand my spouse the keys to the car and enjoy myself. Yet, if I step out of my house to take out the trash for example, I can be arrested for Public Intoxocation. If i were to smoke potin the house, I could be arrested moths later due to trace amounts being found in my system. Did I hurt anyone? did i commit any crimes other than smoking pot... no.

Both the man and the woman need to be held responsible for their actions.This can be done through education, availablilty of contraceptives, depopulizing promescuity in the media.
the above mentioned methods have already proven to be effective for such things as reducing tobacco use, alcohol use, etc.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Both the man and the woman need to be held responsible for their actions.This can be done through education, availablilty of contraceptives, depopulizing promescuity in the media.
the above mentioned methods have already proven to be effective for such things as reducing tobacco use, alcohol use, etc.


Right. And NOT the sweeping bans you proposed a few posts back.

Being half reasonable isn't an option.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 01:56 PM
link   
RANT,
you have a rare gift. The gift to twist what is said into what you want to be said. Please reread my earlier posts and show where I advocated such.
Nowhere in my earlier post did I say anything about "sweeping bans' against anything. I did though equate the argument that has been presented by pro-choice of "it's a woman's body and thus the woman's decision" to the laws regulating drug usage which prohibits a person's choice to what they can and cannot do to their body.
I did promote the use of contraceptive as well as education. I also advocated holding both the man as well as the woman accountable for the results of their pleasure.
Now if you are refering to another thread which I started which dealt with the D&E procedure.... again you err as I stated many times in that thread that my objection was to the procedure and not to abortion.

Notice, that in both threads, I am not attempting to eforce my personal beleif that abortion is wrong on anyone else. So there is no "Being half reasonable isn't an option."

Or are you just trying to stir the pot here?



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 02:00 PM
link   
Looked at the 10 Commandments, the only thing God gave us, and no where does it say Prostitution was a sin. It says murder, theft, rape, so forth are sins, but Prostitution? Nope. Since the 10 Commandments are the only things given to us by God follow them, not the "Hmmm, we don't like this book throw it out, we like this book put it in" crap corrupt humans gave to us.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   
Full Metal (aka James_the_Lesser)
you are as always right on topic. The citing of prostitution that was given earlier had nothing to do with the bible but had everything to do with the laws that are in place in the united states. so your post is once again just another attempt to lambaste everyone with your fanatic hatred of religion.
Stay on topic please and keep your bible hatred to yourself.
The provisioning of contraceptives to the evacuees is actually a good idea in that these poor people already have enough problems on their hands that will keep them preoccupied for years to come trying to return to a "normal" life. The addition of another child would be very burdensome.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by edsinger
The founder of Planned Parethood was Margeret Sanger - A racist -


Understatement! She was the instrument of evil!
Racist and so stupid that evil used her to mass
murder minorities and others that she deemed 'unworthy'
of parenthood.

On the issue of Planned Parenthood handing out free
contraceptives to evacuees .... it's amazing how myopic
they are. Everything is about sex, huh?
Guess they figure that evacuees are going
to get all hotted up over being homeless, dirty, hungry,
and displaced into large open buildings where they
have no privacy.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 02:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Full Metal
Looked at the 10 Commandments, the only thing God gave us, and no where does it say Prostitution was a sin. It says murder, theft, rape, so forth are sins, but Prostitution? Nope.


Thou shalt not commit adultry. Adultry is sex outside of marriage.
Engaging in prostitution is engaging in sex with someone you are
not married to.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 02:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
had NO IDEA partial birth abortions weren't even
banned (for Catholics) by Papal decree until the 1800's!

Considering that right up until the 1600's many 'scientists' thought
that trees gave birth to birds (really) .... perhaps the Vatican wasn't
even aware that partial birth abortions happened back then.

In fact .. DID they??
Dunno'. Is it relatively new or has
partial birth abortion been around for a while? I can't picture
people back then pulling a perfectly formed baby half way out of
a woman, killing it, and then pulling the rest out and claiming
it was an abortion. That seems so ... so ... slick in terminology
that it must be modern political word smithing.

Honest question without agenda ... does anyone know the
TRUE history of partial birth abortion? Is it even possible to
know when these things started??



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
www.religioustolerance.org...


INTERESTING! I wish I had a 'way above' left to give ya'.
I love it when folks dig up great educational info like this.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 03:23 PM
link   
Wait, you are saying adultry can be committed when not married? That's like me cheating on my girlfriend when I don't have one........ Kind of hard to do. I always took/thought it meant don't cheat on your wife, IE don't commit adultry, but you say it means all sex period, in which case everyone is going to hell.

Heaven Population: 0
Hell Population: 399,994,728,293,117,235,093,001,199,825



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
RANT,
you have a rare gift. The gift to twist what is said into what you want to be said. Please reread my earlier posts and show where I advocated such.
Nowhere in my earlier post did I say anything about "sweeping bans' against anything.


From this thread, here are the limited conditions upon which you stated you were willing to relinquish state control of women's wombs given your "anti-choice" prerogative.


Originally posted by kenshiro2012
I am sort of anti choice and it is not a religious based ideal but one of moral and ethical thought. One major note, the views that I express below do have exceptions. The exceptions are:
1) Rape
2) the pregnacy will endanger the woman's life
3) incest


This can't be accomplished without sweeping bans. And shouldn't be at all.



posted on Sep, 17 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
ah the lovely twist of words

If you read that again dear RANT, you may notice, that I wrote expressing my questioning of abortion when it is in regards when the participants are aware of the outcome and make a decision to disregard the possible outcome.
In the


I am sort of anti choice and it is not a religious based ideal but one of moral and ethical thought. One major note, the views that I express below do have exceptions. The exceptions are:


notice, that all but one are not issues where there is mutual consent. The exception being the threat to the woman's life. Even the people who are pro-abortion make the same exception (except of cource the radical fanatics)

so where is the contradiction?
On one the woman has no choice (and the man does not care)
On the other, both have the choice which both decide to ignore.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join