Vatican attacks US abortion move

Vatican attacks US abortion move

news.bbc.co.uk

The Vatican has condemned President Obama's move to restore US funding for family planning clinics abroad that give advice on or carry out abortions.

One Vatican official warned against the "arrogance" of those in power who think they can decide between life and death.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Perhaps the Vatican and these Christian morons who are openly opposing abortion should allow other people to make decisions for themselves.

I am Christian yet progressive and in fact I haven't met any Atheist who openly criticized me for believing in God, so perhaps people who feel a need to criticize others who are pro-abortion, should mind their own business.

I might clarify the following to avoid a debate a freedom of speech.

Nothing wrong with voicing your opinion, however, I think it goes too far when people try to force others to share their opinion through legislation. Especially when there is such a big pro and contra group, nor does it affect those who are against it.


news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 25-1-2009 by Mdv2]

One Vatican official warned against the "arrogance" of those in power who think they can decide between life and death.

I find that rather ironic coming from the Vatican lol.

reply to post by Mdv2


I am Christian, but non Catholic. I rather dislike Catholics...


I am anti-abortion though...I see it a murder and should only be used to prevent the suffering of the baby if it is to be born with some terrible deffect.

And why shouldn't I spread my views out, everybody else does. Other Christians put adverts on buses, atheists put adverts on buses. America tries to force democracy in Iraq, America fought against communism in foreign places.

This world is based around making your opinion known, and doing your best to make your opinion be what happens.

I think the whole vatican against abortion thing is rich considering the amount of child molesters within the catholic church!

The pope and the vatican are doing their job.
Their job is to make known what they consider the truth to be.
That truth being that abortion is evil.

Freedom of speech.
Freedom of religion.

I knew it wouldn't be long before the Vatican had to say some such nonsense. If anyone advocates letting the people exercise their own free will and make their own choices, you can bet that the Vatican will be following closely along complaining about how it's wrong.

Originally posted by StevenDye
And why shouldn't I spread my views out, everybody else does. Other Christians put adverts on buses, atheists put adverts on buses. America tries to force democracy in Iraq, America fought against communism in foreign places.

Nothing wrong with voicing your opinion, however, I think it goes too far when people try to force others to share their opinion through legislation. Especially when there is such a big pro and contra group, nor does it affect those who are against it.


[edit on 25-1-2009 by Mdv2]

Originally posted by cropmuncher
considering the amount of child molesters within the catholic church!

And how many would that be? Latest stats available show that less than 1/10 of 1% of priests were part of the child molestation scandle.

Some pedophiles decided to become priests because they saw a rich hunting ground. More children are sexually assaulted in public schools then in the Catholic Church. BTW - the protestant churches have the same problem ...

Originally posted by Mdv2

Nothing wrong with voicing your opinion, however, I think it goes too far when people try to force others to share their opinion through legislation. Especially when there is such a big pro and contra group, nor does it effect those who are against it.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by Mdv2]

Making gay marriage illegal.
An age limit on sex-drink-driving.
Drugs that are illegal.

Thats all things that are forced by law, and have large numbers of votes on both sides of the argument. Any law is forcing somebody else opinion on you, and yet we accept laws all the times.

I knew it wouldn't be long before the Vatican had to say some such nonsense. If anyone advocates letting the people exercise their own free will and make their own choices, you can bet that the Vatican will be following closely along complaining about how it's wrong.

What about the babies choice...do you ask the baby before you terminate it? No, you don't, and Catholics think that is wrong, and so they fight to get that view enforced.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by StevenDye]

Originally posted by Mdv2
I think it goes too far when people try to force others to share their opinion through legislation.

I couldn't agree with you more. It's always on an issue of someones choice to do one thing or another. You shouldn't legislate choices. Even if you don't agree, you shouldn't be trying to take away the choice from everyone else.

Originally posted by StevenDye
Making gay marriage illegal.

This doesn't affect others.

An age limit on sex-drink-driving.
Drugs that are illegal.

This does affect others and should therefore be forbidden (although soft drugs has shown to cause very few problems and therefore arguable).

Originally posted by StevenDye
Making gay marriage illegal.
An age limit on sex-drink-driving.
Drugs that are illegal.

Gay marriage shouldn't be illegal because it makes no difference to anyone else's personal lives if gay people get married. It doesn't effect you. If you don't want to don't do it.

What about the babies choice...do you ask the baby before you terminate it? No, you don't, and Catholics think that is wrong, and so they fight to get that view enforced.

The baby doesn't have a choice. Before it is born it is not it's own sentient being, it is a part of the mother's body and she has the right to decide to do whatever she wants with it.

It affects everyone who...

Is gay and wants to be married without having to move to do so...

Everyone who is under the age of consent but wants to have sex/drink.

Everyone who is not old neough to drive, but wants to.

Everyone who wants to take drugs, but can't.

Everyone who wants to abort their unborn child, but can't.

See, they all force people to not be allowed to do things they want to do, the only difference is the middle three are largely accepted by the population. Well those it doesn't affect anyway.

The top and bottom ones are about even, however making abortion legal removes the choice from one of the participants, the one that is to die. And so sometimes decision have to be made that go against peoples choices.



Oh, I should make it clear, I am 100% FOR gay marriage.


I'm not overly bothered how you define the baby before it is born, it is still living. The baby is still alive, it just isn't fully formed and needs support to live...but it is still living.

Or should it also be okay to kill everyone on a life machine who has a chance of coming back...because it isn't overly different. Except many of those on the life machine have had more of a life than the baby.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by StevenDye]

reply to post by StevenDye


Once again: the fetus does not have a CHOICE, it is not a sentient being and can not have one. It is an undeveloped growth inside the mother. SHE is the only sentient being in the equation and the only one with a choice. A woman should be the only person allowed to dictate what goes on in her uterus.

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
reply to post by StevenDye

 

Once again: the fetus does not have a CHOICE, it is not a sentient being and can not have one. It is an undeveloped growth inside the mother. SHE is the only sentient being in the equation and the only one with a choice. A woman should be the only person allowed to dictate what goes on in her uterus.

So I should be able to turn off the life support machine to my kids, even though they have a good chance of survivng. Just because at that point in time they cannot make any sort of choice and are entirely dependant on the machine.


No she shouldn't, not when it means murdering a human being...whether it is born or not. You arn't a different species, you are still a human in the womb, you are still alive.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by StevenDye]

Originally posted by Mdv2
Nothing wrong with voicing your opinion, however, I think it goes too far when people try to force others to share their opinion through legislation. Especially when there is such a big pro and contra group, nor does it effect those who are against it.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by Mdv2]

I agree, but our governments do this on most every issue. There's usually 40-45% of the country that just has to bend over and take it whenever a new law they disagree with is passed. Its the tyranny of the majority, as they say.

For my part, I agree with the Catholic Church in this instance and at the very least, they have every right to issue their opinion of the matter. I don't think that Obama should have done this, but I'm not at all surprised by it. A Democratic politician pushing a pro-abortion policy is hardly a new or rare occurence. That said, oh well. Its on his conscience, not mine.

reply to post by StevenDye


If that's the choice you want to make. Yes.
I think you're taking the situation I'm talking about a little bit out of proportion though. The children in YOUR situation are already their own sentient beings, they are not growing inside one of your organs.

EDIT: Yes she should. It's not murder because murder is illegal...look it up. I'm sick of anti-abortionists using the word murder without realizing exactly what it means. You're not a "human being in the womb", you are an undeveloped life form growing in someones uterus.



[edit on 1/25/09 by TasteTheMagick]

[edit on 1/25/09 by TasteTheMagick]

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
reply to post by StevenDye

 

If that's the choice you want to make. Yes.
I think you're taking the situation I'm talking about a little bit out of proportion though. The children in YOUR situation are already their own sentient beings, they are not growing inside one of your organs.

The only difference I see is that the children have had more of a life than that unborn baby. Sentient beings don't come into it, living does.


And I think, in my opinion, that is a truly twisted way to look at things. How anyone could let their child be killed by turning off a life support machine, even though they have been told there is a great chance the child will survive that problem. It is murder. And I see no reason why abortion should be any different. Though we all think differently.

Imagine your life from birth to now, every good moment you have ever had, everyone life you have ever affected. Now imagine that it could all have been gone as easily as I click my fingers... I find that thought terrible.

I use murder universally, the killing of another living being. Self defence, and war against other soldiers is a separate case of course. When I eat a burger, it is because somebody murdered a cow, however sometimes murder is justified. Meat is part of the food chain, so killing an animal to geth that meat is okay.

[edit on 25-1-2009 by StevenDye]

Originally posted by StevenDye
The only difference I see is that the children have had more of a life than that unborn baby. Sentient beings don't come into it, living does.

Sentience DOES come into it. If it's just a matter of "living" then I take it that you're opposed to picking a flower or eating any meat. If it's just a matter of "living", by your logic, killing a cow should be illegal.

I didn't say everyone SHOULD choose to take their children off of life support, I said that, when you are given the choice you are free to make it however you like. It's not my place to choose, it's the parents.