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: 18
9
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Fine - if that is your belief - then don't do it.

Very Simple.


My belief one way or the other was not my point. I was showing how people spin a very negitive thing to look like something good. If you choose life then it is not "pro choice", but "pro life", so my point is call it what it is...




posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
I was showing how people spin a very negitive thing to look like something good. If you choose life then it is not "pro choice", but "pro life", so my point is call it what it is...


But pro-death sounds so dirty, we can't call it that. We must call it something that sounds like pro-flowers or exercising our freedom or cotton candy rights. Perhaps those who choose abortion can join the military. I hear once you kill once it's not as hard a second time.


[edit on 30-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by Mdv2
 


Let the Vatican pay for this medieval folly!

Jeez! I wish we were half as smart as the Chinese.


I think the Chinese have a few things right. My friend a couple years ago married an FOB Chinese woman he met on the net. I assure you neither her nor her daughter are shrinking violets. They both have a mind of their own.

But - anyway - I've been getting Chinese educated. Besides the one child rule (except in rural farm areas) - - you have to get a permission certificate from the government before you can even have a baby. You have to be married - and you have to prove you can support and educated the child.

I don't support gender* abortions - and baby girls are still often just abandoned on the side of the road.

*that is not saying I don't support abortion rights. The gender balance is completely thrown off in China because of the male importance in their culture.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee

Fine - if that is your belief - then don't do it.

Very Simple.


My belief one way or the other was not my point. I was showing how people spin a very negitive thing to look like something good. If you choose life then it is not "pro choice", but "pro life", so my point is call it what it is...



Its your belief its very negative. So your belief is the point.

In my belief it can be positive. It can also be negative depending on thought.

Either way - it is my right of choice.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




I think the Chinese have a few things right . . a couple years ago [a friend] married an FOB Chinese woman he met on the net. I assure you neither her nor her daughter are shrinking violets. They both have a mind of their own.

I've been getting Chinese educated. Besides the one child rule (except in rural farm areas) - - you have to get a permission certificate from the government before you can even have a baby. You have to be married - and you have to prove you can support and educated the child.



How wise. And China was old when Jesus was born. If he was born. China is now at least 3,500 years and arguably the most successful. You've got to learn a lot about life in that much time.

But look here, we're talking about the Vatican who have it wrong and not about the Chinese who have it right.



VATICAN CITY – A bishop recently rehabilitated by Pope Benedict XVI expressed regret Friday to the pontiff for the "distress and problems" he caused by denying the Holocaust.

In a letter to the Vatican, Bishop Richard Williamson, who recently denied in a TV interview that 6 million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust, called his remarks "imprudent."


Disgusting! The ex-German soldier promoted by the Holy Mother Church to Pope plays dumb when he says he “did not know” of the Bishop’s denial of the Jewish Holocaust. Is the Pope lying to us - who know better - or to himself - who may not know better. BETTER being the operative word here.



The Holocaust denial had outraged Jewish groups and many others. It was not immediately clear if Williamson's letter, which contained no apology for the content of his remarks, would ease that anger.


The Catholic catechism for more than 1,000 years labeled Jews as Christ Killers which created the environment in so-called Christian Europe for the Holocaust to have happened.

From 1492 when the Spanish monarch - the Most Catholic King of Spain - got the happy approval from Rome to commence an Inquisition, gave the Jewish inhabitants of the Iberian peninsula 1 out of 3 choices. 1) Convert to Catholicism; 2) Leave the country but leave your possessions behind; or 3) DIE at the hands of the Spanish inquisition. IE, by burring alive at the stake! Say Hello Jesus!

You can be sure the Roman Curia is filled with Holocaust Deniers! Maybe even Herr Joseph Ratzinger himself?



"Amidst this tremendous media storm stirred up by imprudent remarks of mine on Swedish television, I beg of you to accept, only as is properly respectful, my sincere regrets for having caused to yourself and to the Holy Father so much unnecessary distress and problems," Williamson wrote.
news.yahoo.com...



The Vatican. Not one admission of wrong thinking. Not one word of remorse or regret for 6,000,000 Jews murdered at Christian German hands. Not one German Bishop or Archbishop ever rebuked by Pope Pius XII. Or any other pope.

Bishop Williamson is ONLY sorry for embarrassing the Pope.

I don’t know if you got to see JP2 when he tried to apologize to the Jewish people for the Catholic Church's decisive role in the Holocaust, but I did and I guarantee you, he chocked on the words!

And the Vatican wants to bad-mouth President Obama? KMA!


[edit on 1/30/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Well Saint, We were talking about God creating humans….where does your book say that he created more than 2?

Are you comfortable with killing as long as God OK’s it?

Do you think maybe God was guiding the Supreme Court when it legalized abortion?

If God told me I should have an abortion, would you be OK with that?
Do you have any way of knowing whether or not God told all those women to go ahead and have the abortion? Most of them did a lot of hard thinking on the matter before the went ahead with it. Do you think that the final decision could have been prompted by God?

And yes, “hard thinking/introspection” can be regarded as prayer.

And then you say:
“Isn't abortion a mother forcing her values upon another person (the baby)? I mean, what values does the baby hold? We cannot force anything by speaking, but we can force something by picking up a scalpel. Being that the baby grows, it's trending toward the desire to live.”

****How about the woman being “forced” into the position of unwilling slave by the fetus using the her body as would a parasite, sucking up her resources, distorting and discomforting her body, possibly threatening her life at birth?
You are OK with enforced slavery?

Aermacchi says: “It means you have no business having sex is what it means”

***So! Now you want to control people’s sex lives too. Talk about invading people's personal lives!! Wow!

To Xtrozero, YES, death is better than being poor!
What exactly is so bad about being dead? You Christers live looking forward to the day when you die, so why do you fight so hard for this unborn to suffer to live?
How exactly do you know that it is the only life that they will get?
Are you some kind of prophet or seer? Do you have knowledge that the rest of us do not have?

All this argument about when life begins is moot.
The whole point is - that it is the woman’s body and she can do as she pleases with it.

Birth control or population control?
What do you think wars are for? They are for killing are they not? No matter what the reason your government tells you - the real reason is to kill people.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
Well Saint, We were talking about God creating humans….where does your book say that he created more than 2?


I quoted it. Please re-read. There's more evidence as well, but if you've missed the quotes the first time, there's a likelyhood you'd miss a new one also.


Originally posted by OhZone
Are you comfortable with killing as long as God OK’s it?


What has God okay'd? Would you say he okay'd the 10 commandments? Would you say he okay'd what his son said?


Originally posted by OhZone
Do you think maybe God was guiding the Supreme Court when it legalized abortion?


Nope. It's against His Word.


Originally posted by OhZone
If God told me I should have an abortion, would you be OK with that?


Nope. It's against His Word.


Originally posted by OhZone
Do you have any way of knowing whether or not God told all those women to go ahead and have the abortion?


Yes. It's against His Word (and aganist theirs).


Originally posted by OhZone
Most of them did a lot of hard thinking on the matter before the went ahead with it. Do you think that the final decision could have been prompted by God?


You just said they did a lot of hard thinking. If they did a lot of hard thinking then it was their decision.


Originally posted by OhZone
And yes, “hard thinking/introspection” can be regarded as prayer.


Prayer is talking to God, hard thinking/introspection is not.


Originally posted by OhZone
****How about the woman being “forced” into the position of unwilling slave by the fetus using the her body as would a parasite, sucking up her resources, distorting and discomforting her body, possibly threatening her life at birth?


Wow, what a twisted perspective on what the natural course of life is.


Originally posted by OhZone
You are OK with enforced slavery?


Are you being facetious, because that's what I'm getting from you from this whole post.


[edit on 30-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by OhZone
 


Aside:
Roe v. Wade (1973) was based on two points. 1) That there is a right to privacy embodied in the Constitution even if not stated in those words. That means the state cannot interfere in your private life without a COMPELLING state interest.

2)
The Constitution’s guarantee to DUE PROCESS does not apply to the unborn. The 14th amendment defines citizenship and says in part, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In the English language, a fetus is a fetus and is not a person. The operative words from the above are . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . "

A fetus becomes a person when it is born alive.


[edit on 1/30/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone


All this argument about when life begins is moot.
The whole point is - that it is the woman’s body and she can do as she pleases with it.

Birth control or population control?
What do you think wars are for? They are for killing are they not? No matter what the reason your government tells you - the real reason is to kill people.





No guy lets get straight on what is morally right and morally wrong if you are going to attempt to use God in the equation than I think you should know his nature and his nature isn't about what caused the pregnancy in the first place but what his divine providence put asunder and when he says thou shallt not destroy what God has put asunder, I think he be talkin to us there homicide.

Killing and murder are two differen't things and last I checked I have every right to kill someone breaking into my home and invading my house threatening my family. But murdering a new human being who didn't break into anything when how it GOT there was by her own irresponsible thoughtless actions. Be that as it may, what's done is done and their are many ways she can relinquish her obligations to that life she was complicit in its creation without resorting to violence.

It isn't like it is that much of a burden for her then is it?

Oh the 9 months she carrys it? Yeah,, last I checked,,

woman were BUILT for just such an adaptation and have "evolved" a way to handle it quite easily these days even down to a painless birth.


So what was it you were saying about something being MOOT?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

In my belief it can be positive. It can also be negative depending on thought.
Either way - it is my right of choice.


Well everything is a choice, is it not? My mother is very old and cost me a lot of time and money, you know she really cramps my style and prevents me from having more for myself, so I think I'll be pro choice and do away with her, so I can have a better life.

There are also many “undesirables” that cost America a lot in taxes and services. I think America would be better off without them, so I think I’ll be pro choice in what is best for America.

What value does life hold? When we look back in history many times life had little value, and I cannot find a single time/event when it was a good thing. So when life is cheapen we see mass deaths for the good of others, we see slavery, we see crimes against humanity becoming the norm. In all these cases people are picking and choose what life has value and what life does not just as we do in abortion.

This is strictly from a social moral view of all this, so the question I put back on you is where do we draw the line when we are so quick to gray out right and wrong, for what you think might be wrong/bad today or in years past could just as easily be right or good in the future as long as we are willing as a society to shift our moral compass for convenience.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
reply to post by OhZone
 


Aside:
Roe v. Wade (1973) was based on two points. 1) That there is a right to privacy embodied in the Constitution even if not stated in those words. That means the state cannot interfere in your private life without a COMPELLING state interest.

2)
The Constitution’s guarantee to DUE PROCESS does not apply to the unborn. The 14th amendment defines citizenship and says in part, Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

In the English language, a fetus is a fetus and is not a person. The operative words from the above are . . nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; A fetus becomes a person when it is born alive.


[edit on 1/30/2009 by donwhite]


yeah and unfortunatley, we didn't have the technology back then to make that distinction but we do now and have proven it. I am certain in light of the new data we have about this, it will be seeing action in the SCOTUS once again. But genocides like Abortion Genocide or any other kind, is usually supported by the Governments who perpetrate such evil so brining up the SCOTUS is no surprise to me of their ignorance in this regard.

If woman want to have so much damn control of their body then I say let them perform their own damn abortion and if they die trying I'd call that "Poetic Justice" and their is no justice like poetic justice.

No they want to get people who take an oath to save lives to kill them in another eve tempts adam scenario where now more and more are complicit in this systematic act of pure unadulterated genocide'



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:12 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 



Yes, I can see where the law defines citizenship, but why is it then that a pregnant mother who is murdered, under law, is considered a double homicide? How is it that an unborn child can be willed property?

This all goes back to my previous post….



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone

Aermacchi says: “It means you have no business having sex is what it means”


Is that the best you got beloved?

To take my statements in willfull want and disregard for the truth embellishing the meaning to misrepresent me so?

To make excuses in extreme unfounded and baseless accusations while using comparisons that do not apply like "parasite sucking up resources"?

Have you not heard of biology?

Have you not understood that the symbiotic flesh host relationsip to that baby is in this womans genetic design to perform.

That the nutrients and enhanced levels of substance P and the necessary hormones advanced assimilation of vitamins and minerals the female of our species gains is quite happy to experience in almost all cases and is text book stuff today.


So while you grope and for such excruciatingly painful excuses to reach, anyone with a modicum of average intelligence can see right through this sophistry of yours. Expecting us to swallow this bunk, adding such exagerations in a cheap and utterly inaccurate portrayal to win an argument in SUCH A futile and immoral position, is quite telling of your own un-acknowledged shame about this issue

Another example of this is seen below


***So! Now you want to control people’s sex lives too. Talk about invading people's personal lives!! Wow!


I said you have no business having sex NOT you have no RIGHT to have sex. Not that I think I would have to explain what is meant by it I am certain YOU know what I meant but cannot resist casting me in a more totalitarian light when your need to be right is in jeopardy.

I like the added exclamation, it adds so much to the genuine credibility of your portrayal of me as ogre



what is so bad about being dead!


How bad do you want to know?










[edit on 30-1-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Xtrozero
 




Yes, I can see where the law defines citizenship, but why is it then that a pregnant mother who is murdered, under law, is considered a (1) double homicide? How is it that an unborn child can be (2) willed property? This all goes back to my previous post….



1) That was not the case before 1973. The anti-abortion forces have managed to get those laws passed in many states. In the common law that was the basis of our criminal law before statutes replaced it, the worst crime that was charged was assault on the mother.

This less serious treatment was due in part to the fact most such assaults were committed by the husband. It was well understood back then that a series of small provocations over time can trigger a violent response to what might look trivial to outsiders. And back then infant mortality was so high that no one took much notice of a dead infant.

2) Anyone can leave property to anyone. I am not so sure about leaving property to an unborn yet-to-be person. There is no harm in trying. I have never encountered that. However any failed bequest reverts to the general estate for descent or division as specified. Keep in mind though, we still have about 2 million miscarriages a year in the US of A. IE, unintentional abortions of the pregnancy.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by OhZone
What exactly is so bad about being dead?


All I can say is I'm sorry if life sucks so bad for you that you feel it's not worth living, but please do not impose those feelings upon others who actually find it a worthwhile experience or those who have the opportunity to experience it.

[edit on 30-1-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:54 PM
link   
I'm going to say something about the Vatican.

A group is made up of individuals. In a large group you really can not police every individual all of the time. That applies to any group and their leaders.

I do not hold the Vatican responsible for individuals that act independently.

I do hold the Vatican responsible for actions and cover-ups after the fact.

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

Their beliefs are a separate subject.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
NO! It means you have no business having sex is what it means and if you MUST their are other ways of having sex that doesn't have the potential for such dire consequences. This is no different than the advice we have given the gay community who by their same actions have had so many suffer from HIV AIDS. Only with aids you don't have a rowe v wade or an abortionist that can "heal" the result of their actions but in either case, someones life is at stake.

You need to start looking at abortion for what it really is girl, it is a tragedy and anyone with the compunction to seek this form of escape using what 99.9% of the excuses are words to the effect you are using here when so many other alternatives are not only more responsible they SAVE A KIDS LIFE.

Abortion isn't just about you


It's not a tragedy. You're blind statements make no sense. No birth control method is %100 accurate and people have gotten pregnant from being raped. This is in no way similar to HIV AIDS.

I'm looking at it for what it really is. A choice only to be made by the person who has something growing inside one of their organs. You can have the opinion you like, but you are in no place to make the decision for any woman in the situation.

Abortion IS just about the person that is making the decision to have one. The fetus is not a child until birth.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero

Originally posted by Annee

In my belief it can be positive. It can also be negative depending on thought.
Either way - it is my right of choice.


Well everything is a choice, is it not? My mother is very old and cost me a lot of time and money, you know she really cramps my style and prevents me from having more for myself, so I think I'll be pro choice and do away with her, so I can have a better life.



How nice for you your mother is still with you.

My mother died a few years ago of Pancreatic Cancer - - in her own home - in her own bed - surrounded by her family.

She was a person with a great spirit for life. We - my brothers and I took turns - so that she never had to be hospitalized or hooked up to artificial life support.

She taught me my beliefs.



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick and people have gotten pregnant from being raped.


So you support the death penalty and would freely advocate the victim's right to choose whether or not to have the perpetrator legally executed by the state?



posted on Jan, 30 2009 @ 04:29 PM
link   
My mom was also a polio victim during the 1951 epidemic. I can't even imagine if she had also been pregnant again at the time - as there were already 3 of us under 5 years old. And my father ran off with another woman because he couldn't handle having a disabled wife.

Fortunately her mother - a widow at the time - moved in and took care of us.

My mom would have been fully justified in having an abortion if she had been pregnant. Fortunately she wasn't.

Walk someone else's life - - before you get all self righteous.



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join