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.

 

Vatican attacks US abortion move

page: 13
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
reply to post by TasteTheMagick
 


It's hardly surprising that Super would include contraceptives. That's the official Catholic position. I actually admire that at least he/she isn't hypocritical enough to support IVF but not abortion rights.

The Catholic position is actually pretty interesting. I'm no expert, Super would do a better job explaining than me no doubt, or you could check out the catechism. Like he/she said, it has to do with separating the two functions that they recognize sex to have – procreative and unitive (making one the husband and wife).




posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Oh...it's not that I don't understand the "catholic position". My little brother and I went to catechism classes on Sundays before mass when we were little. And you're right that, at least, Super isn't being hypocritical about it. My main issue with the post was that bit at the end, which I quoted.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:17 AM
link   
Idealogy - is something I touched on in my early 20s.

Then I grew up and became a member of the real world.

Religion does not belong in government.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
reply to post by americandingbat
 


Oh...it's not that I don't understand the "catholic position". My little brother and I went to catechism classes on Sundays before mass when we were little. And you're right that, at least, Super isn't being hypocritical about it. My main issue with the post was that bit at the end, which I quoted.


Me too. My grandmother was dragging me to Catholic church as early as 5 years old.

She really tried her best to make me Catholic. The ornateness and ritual (IMO) atmosphere was a major turn off to me. Other things too - but this is not a religion debate.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:33 AM
link   
@TasteTheMagick: Gotcha. I was thrown off by the line about contraceptives being evil "now".


@Annee: Always having been agnostic, I find the ornateness and ritual of Catholicism to be very beautiful



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat
@TasteTheMagick: Gotcha. I was thrown off by the line about contraceptives being evil "now".


@Annee: Always having been agnostic, I find the ornateness and ritual of Catholicism to be very beautiful


That would be off topic - gotta skip it - - but as architecture I'm with you.

Rituals probably needs a thread of its own.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick

Originally posted by Supercertari
Keep the poor poor and few, too many of them and they might have the means to become rich.


That is absolutely ridiculous. Contraceptives are evil now too? You know, sex is not ONLY for creating children. I also find it sad that you would rather there be a surplus of children being born in awful, degenerative situations and having to live under horrible circumstances just because you think contraceptives are some evil conspiracy.

Saying that "too many" poor people might have the means to get rich is short sighted. An excess of poor people is just that...and excess of poor people. These people don't have the means to get rich especially if you multiply them by some odd amount. Doing that just overloads the areas where people can buy cheap housing.


The most valuable resource in the development of any economy is the labour force, or as they are better known, people. Since the myth of population explosion has developed and since Kissinger's 1974 Memorandum (NSSA 200) the US has, as a policy, exported contraceptives as a means of avoiding the economic and resource implications of growing populations. It really is a must read for anyone who is conspiratorially minded.

The West, under America's leadership, has offered the developing world contraceptives as a convenient means of protecting their own domination of the world's natural resources. Rather than my comments being short-sighted I would suggest that imagining american policy on this issue is about freedom and women's rights is downright naive.

I offer the following recent comment by someone who I'm sure many would not care to listen to but words of truth despite your onjection to their source: Pope Benedict XVI, 1 January, 2009,


Poverty is often considered a consequence of demographic change. For this reason, there are international campaigns afoot to reduce birth-rates, sometimes using methods that respect neither the dignity of the woman, nor the right of parents to choose responsibly how many children to have[5]; graver still, these methods often fail to respect even the right to life. The extermination of millions of unborn children, in the name of the fight against poverty, actually constitutes the destruction of the poorest of all human beings. And yet it remains the case that in 1981, around 40% of the world's population was below the threshold of absolute poverty, while today that percentage has been reduced by as much as a half, and whole peoples have escaped from poverty despite experiencing substantial demographic growth. This goes to show that resources to solve the problem of poverty do exist, even in the face of an increasing population. Nor must it be forgotten that, since the end of the Second World War, the world's population has grown by four billion, largely because of certain countries that have recently emerged on the international scene as new economic powers, and have experienced rapid development specifically because of the large number of their inhabitants. Moreover, among the most developed nations, those with higher birth-rates enjoy better opportunities for development. In other words, population is proving to be an asset, not a factor that contributes to poverty.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Mdv2
 





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.


Really? I can introduce you to 3 or 4 Atheists at my work alone who criticize me for believing in a god and much much more.

I am not so much christian as I am an advocate of human rights. Abortion is wrong. You are terminating a life. You cannot argue it's not a life because if you don't interfere it will exist and die on it's own. Once that egg and sperm meet, the potential of a life for 70ish years is now there. In closing I totally agree with the Vatican here, even though this is not a religious issue for me, it is a moral one to preserve everyone's rights, not just the mothers.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:52 PM
link   
I actually just went to mass for the first time in a while this past Sunday. They explained the issue and asked us to send the provided postcards to our state representatives asking them to vote against it.

The official complaint is not that abortions will be done. We're always going to be against that. But the real issue is that this bill would overturn past court decisions allowing doctors and Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions. Refusal will allegedly cause enough legal complications to force Catholic hospitals to close, which affects everyone using the healthcare system, not just Catholics.

Those who are pro-choice can not honestly agree to taking freedom of choice away from doctors and hospitals, right?

I hate coming into topics so late; I never know if I'm beating a 10-page-old horse.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   

You cannot argue it's not a life because if you don't interfere it will exist and die on it's own. Once that egg and sperm meet, the potential of a life for 70ish years is now there.


That's a simply marvellous way of putting it, thank you.
It's so good it needs at least a second line of praise!



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SmileyMan34

Those who are pro-choice can not honestly agree to taking freedom of choice away from doctors and hospitals, right?

I hate coming into topics so late; I never know if I'm beating a 10-page-old horse.


I support patient rights. Hospitals should not be under any religious belief.

Just like the government - hospitals should serve the people - ALL people. No one should be rejected because they don't fall under a religious belief.

Funny how anti-abortionist think it is OK to deny rights to hospitals/doctors/patience that want or perform abortions.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor
You cannot argue it's not a life because if you don't interfere it will exist and die on it's own.


Physical is secondary to energy spirit. Physical is a chosen experience creation - but not necessary or a requirement for the eternal energy spirit.

Spirit energy chooses to have a physical experience. Spirit energy chooses a physical host. Physical host chooses not to have the experience with this Spirit energy at this time.

Spirit energy which is eternal - chooses another physical host.

There is no death.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AnneeI support patient rights. Hospitals should not be under any religious belief.
Just like the government - hospitals should serve the people - ALL people. No one should be rejected because they don't fall under a religious belief.
Funny how anti-abortionist think it is OK to deny rights to hospitals/doctors/patience that want or perform abortions.


Catholic hospitals do not deny any patient of any religious faith, or none, the medical services they provide. Should someone go into a Catholic Hospital, however, seeking an abortion, they really need to have read the brochure better.

[edit on 28/1/09 by Supercertari]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Just like the government - hospitals should serve the people - ALL people. No one should be rejected because they don't fall under a religious belief. Funny how anti-abortionist think it is OK to deny rights to hospitals/doctors/patience that want or perform abortions.


Interesting contradiction here Annee. Atheism is a religious belief. Your saying these unborn children have no right to live out there lives because your religious choices say they are not living yet? I too believe ALL people have rights...even those who are unborn. Sorry for off topic.




Physical is secondary to energy spirit. Physical is a chosen experience creation - but not necessary or a requirement for the eternal energy spirit. Spirit energy chooses to have a physical experience. Spirit energy chooses a physical host. Physical host chooses not to have the experience with this Spirit energy at this time. Spirit energy which is eternal - chooses another physical host. There is no death.


Interesting belief. However...what if your wrong?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:22 PM
link   
reply to post by FlyersFan
 

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.

Interesting point, but can you provide some links to such a study, as I would be very interested in how anyone could quantify something that has remained so hidden and so protected with the RC Church.
Does the report provide the numbers of children affects by the 1/10th of 1% of the priests involved?

Thanks



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
the Catholic church should know best ... It has murdered many millions of innocent people for hundreds of years.
Women will have an abortion if that's what they want irrespective of what the Vatican says so why not give women the best advice. Who knows ... they may even change their mind.
Personally, I am against abortion but I don't see why a bunch of men should make decisions for women.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 05:46 PM
link   
I find it rather funny, and maybe even a little disturbing that the same people who identify themselves as christians and preach the words of our lord Jesus Christ, are also the same people who are willing to condemn an affilated religion, in which your religion branched from! Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone. I am proud to say I am a catholic, and I am not going to apologize because I stand firm in my beliefs. In the past, has the Catholic church fell victim to greed and corruption? Absolutley yes, becasue humans are motivated by our own self interests, not to mention we are all susceptible to sin. Do I agree with the actions of the Catholic Church in the past? No. But I do stand for what the Catholic church represents(the word of God). Yes. The problem these days, is that people have the idea that God,Jesus and the bible, should be convenient for them. That God should change for us, instead of us changing for him. And to some extent a lot of people don't like the notion of someone pointing out what they are doing is wrong(even if it is true), so instead they attack that person who is spreading the message in hopes to justify their actions that they truly know deep down are wrong. Hmmm sounds a lot like something that happend around 2 thousand years ago, to a guy named Jesus. The exact same guy that christians say they hold above all else. Hm a little ironic if you asked me, but that's neither here nor there. So I was sitting in my college's Critical Writing Class the other day, when a girl began to speak of abortion. She stated her opinion as to how it should be her choice to what she does to her body. I agreed, I do think that people should have control over their body, but within reason. Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the LORD, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself, And spreading out the earth all alone, (Isaiah 44:24)

God says it himself, that he formed you in the womb as well as thoes you see around you, with intent for you to live! Regardless of of anything else, when a human life is in the process of being created in the likeness of God, and than that life is stopped by the will of someone who is not God. I have a hard time believing that God will not consider that along the same lines as murder, which is a sin. Plus here's a little food for thought, every once in awhile I will read in the paper of an individual who is charged with the death of a pregnant woman. But what is interesting, is there are cases where the murderer is not only being charged by our government for the woman's death, but also the unborn child's death. So let me get this straight, one person gets charged and punished by government law for killing an unborn child, while a doctor who is also killing an unborn child, gets paid for it. I guess you have to have a title to kill unborn children right?

So should woman have the right to choose what happens to their body? YES, but that is not the issue. The issue is that abortion(murder) is a sin. We as free-willed people have the choice to either get closer to God by respecting his word and trying to apply it to all aspects of our lives, or sin and distance ourselves from him. Just because you have the choice, doesn't mean you will choose the right one.

[edit on 28-1-2009 by nickendres]

[edit on 28-1-2009 by nickendres]

[edit on 28-1-2009 by nickendres]

[edit on 28-1-2009 by nickendres]

[edit on 28-1-2009 by nickendres]



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ciphor

Interesting contradiction here Annee. Atheism is a religious belief. Your saying these unborn children have no right to live out there lives because your religious choices say they are not living yet? I too believe ALL people have rights...even those who are unborn. Sorry for off topic.

Interesting belief. However...what if your wrong?

------------------------------

Atheism is a belief - I wouldn't call it a religious belief - it doesn't involve faith.

Wrong?? How does anyone know they are right?



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Supercertari

Originally posted by AnneeI support patient rights. Hospitals should not be under any religious belief.
Just like the government - hospitals should serve the people - ALL people. No one should be rejected because they don't fall under a religious belief.
Funny how anti-abortionist think it is OK to deny rights to hospitals/doctors/patience that want or perform abortions.


Catholic hospitals do not deny any patient of any religious faith, or none, the medical services they provide. Should someone go into a Catholic Hospital, however, seeking an abortion, they really need to have read the brochure better.

[edit on 28/1/09 by Supercertari]


They don't tie tubes either. They don't insert IUDs - etc etc. They don't do vasectomies.

If your insurance selects your doctor - and your doctor is assigned to a specific hospital - say Catholic - - - you as a patient are denied choice because of a religious belief.

I know.

I support 100% patient's rights - - not religious rights.



posted on Jan, 28 2009 @ 06:26 PM
link   
It amazes me that even after the rampant pedofile priest scandal, the Vatican can still try to assume the moral highground. perhaps one should keep ones house clean before commenting on others :shk:



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in

join