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: 30
9
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Gulp! Are you suggesting you are willing to put MORE credence in a by-stander's remark than in King Jesus, one of the Trinity?



Gulp! More Atheist wordsmithing. Anytime you want quit derailing the topic Don.




Where did you go to theological school? Do they tell you what GOD can do and what GOD cannot do? That must be on heck of a theological school! Who would be so presumptive as to tell GOD he cannot stand here or he cannot stand there. Your "source" is in water over his or her head.


That source would be the word don. Hey Don it isn't easy being a Christian so why should we give the time of day to someone like you who doesn't even try much less ever asked the lord into your heart.

The FACT is their ARE things God cannot do and sinning is one of them he cannot be where sin is.

Now Back on topic for the fifth time

[edit on 4-2-2009 by Aermacchi]




posted on Feb, 4 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   
Thank you friend for trying to get this back on topic. Of course, I understand why those that are trying to change the subject are doing so. the following article makes it very clear why EVEN OBAMA tried to hide this decision from the light of day:


Gallup: 58 Percent Oppose Obama Executive Order on Abortion Barack Obama signed an executive order late in the afternoon on Friday, January 23 to allow taxpayer funds to go to groups overseas that perform or promote abortions. To minimize press coverage, he signed the order in the absence of reporters and photographers, and the White House waited until 7:00 p.m. to issue a press release, in which the president said: "I have no desire to continue this stale and fruitless debate" on abortion. Many in the media praised Obama's decision not to issue the order on January 22, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade as a kind gesture toward pro-lifers. A new Gallup poll shows that Obama may have had something other than the feelings of fragile pro-lifers in mind when he chose to bury the news of his executive order: Obama's decision to reverse the prohibition on funding for overseas family-planning providers may be the least popular thing he has done so far. This was an executive order that forbade federal government money from going to overseas family-planning groups that provide abortions or offer abortion counseling. Fifty-eight percent of Americans disapprove of Obama's decision to lift this ban, while only 35% approve of it. The ban on federal funds to these groups was put in place by Ronald Reagan, but lifted by Bill Clinton. George W. Bush re-instituted the ban after taking office in 2001, but Obama has once again lifted it. No wonder Obama wants to end the "stale and fruitless debate" on abortion. It's a debate he's likely to lose in the light of day.


source:www.weeklystandard.com...



posted on Feb, 5 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Yes, friend it is.
What always has amazed me concerning many atheists, is that they feel that they know it all, and thus, have no need for God, since they are all powerful. I call it delusions of grandeur.


i find personally the athiests are more tolerent to people beliefs.
yes their are some that say theyare right you are wrong but i see religious people sprouting how everyones going to hell and they are sinners all the time.
i personnally think my self there is no point in being religious because your a sinner all the time no matter what you do you will end up in hll so might as well enjoy your self.
on that note ive heard preists say that you sin from the moment of conception so really arent abortions a good thing then if you sin fromthen your pretty much in trouble so might as well end it sooner



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:00 AM
link   
the woman shouldn't be trusted with making such decisions since she already demonstrated her inability to make wise decisions by having unprotected sex in the first place.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:30 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 




Hey Don it isn't easy being a Christian so why should we give the time of day to someone like you who doesn't even try much less ever asked the lord into your heart. The FACT is their ARE things God cannot do and sinning is one of them he cannot be where sin is.



No, being a Christian is a "park your brains at the door" kind of thing.

The Vatican. Any thoughtful person cannot help but wonder what all those old men do in the Vatican all day, every day. Here we have this anti Semite bishop - he is not the only one, he just got caught - and the Pope claims he is not only the Vicar of Christ but that he wants to reinstate that bishop to his Holy Orders. You know the primary duty of any bishop is to protect his flock. So you hire a fellow who says the Jews killed Christ and GOD sent Hitler to reap justice on the 100th generation of Jews!

Now, unless Benedict XVI has lost his private line to GOD he must have known what the erring Bishop had said! But B16 goes ahead anyway. Perhaps the Pope agrees with the bishop? Now when the world comes down on the Catholic Church - which has enough internal problems to keep TWO popes busy - the Vicar of Christ pleads the standard bureaucratic excuse, “I DIDN’T KNOW THE GUN WAS LOADED!” Or words to that effect.

I you believe that, I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

WANT TO SEE A REAL MIRACLE:
Pope Benedict XVI names 100 women to wear the Cardinal's hat! Renames the HRCC the NUCC! NEW UNITED Catholic Church.

[edit on 2/16/2009 by donwhite]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 08:56 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 09:03 AM
link   
my message was not off topic i was replying to a post above where he was bashing women for not using protection and i was saying that men are also responsible.
i used correct lingo for the male part instead of slang.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 09:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Yeah, back on topic. If a woman is pregnant she has the sole right to decide what happens to her body (and during the pregnancy, the baby IS her body). No one else has this right.

If the woman wants to consider the opinion of some invisible man that lives in the sky, she is free to do so. If the woman does not want to do that, it's her choice to do that as well.

No one should be going around FORCING their religious beliefs on anyone else. The answer is quite simple: If you are a woman, and you decide to get an abortion, go right ahead. If not...don't get an abortion.

Why should a system steeped in outlandish tradition, contradictory teachings, and corruption decide the fate of anybody?

The Vatican is not supposed to go around telling people how to run their lives. Their sole purpose is to perform all their strange little song and dance ceremonies...oh and keep Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and the like under control.

They can't even do that, how can they make a blanket decision for everyone?



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 11:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick
reply to post by Aermacchi
 


Yeah, back on topic. If a woman is pregnant she has the sole right to decide what happens to her body (and during the pregnancy, the baby IS her body). No one else has this right.

If the woman wants to consider the opinion of some invisible man that lives in the sky, she is free to do so. If the woman does not want to do that, it's her choice to do that as well.

No one should be going around FORCING their religious beliefs on anyone else. The answer is quite simple: If you are a woman, and you decide to get an abortion, go right ahead. If not...don't get an abortion.

Why should a system steeped in outlandish tradition, contradictory teachings, and corruption decide the fate of anybody?

The Vatican is not supposed to go around telling people how to run their lives. Their sole purpose is to perform all their strange little song and dance ceremonies...oh and keep Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and the like under control.

They can't even do that, how can they make a blanket decision for everyone?



not all women are qualified to make such decisions and please dont get religion into this, we can all think for ourselves. im not talking from a religious perspective and people who are against abortion should do the same because on places like ATS or in general, people will develop antagonistic feelings towards you not based on your logical arguments but towards your religious inclinations. this must be so as defending your position with the bible is pretty useless when talking to a person who believes that the bible is fiction. lets just ignore religion even though the topic is about the Vatican, and debate your argument according to ethics and morals.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by kerrichin
my message was not off topic i was replying to a post above where he was bashing women for not using protection and i was saying that men are also responsible.
i used correct lingo for the male part instead of slang.



i wasnt bashing women, i was bashing the one who got pregnant and wants to erase her mistake. the guy isnt as responsible as her because its not his body that shape itself as a baby-carrier.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
hes responsible for putting this thing there and a woamn can not get pregnant without the sperm.

i suppose its a womans fault when she gets raped then houldnt be so provocotive.

why do the men get out stock free.
im gonna have to not come back to this thread im getting way to angry with this attitude towards women.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus

Fifty-eight percent of Americans disapprove of Obama's decision to lift this ban, while only 35% approve of it.


35% approval rating? Why does that sound familiar?

I'm curious to see what percentage of American's agree with the Vatican's stance on the issue.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by saint4God]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerrichin
hes responsible for putting this thing there and a woamn can not get pregnant without the sperm.

i suppose its a womans fault when she gets raped then houldnt be so provocotive.

why do the men get out stock free.
im gonna have to not come back to this thread im getting way to angry with this attitude towards women.



you misunderstood, if you want the woman to decide the consequences of her unborn baby then she has to at least admit that it was her fault...and its always her fault unless she got raped.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by DuneKnight]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by DuneKnight

you misunderstood, if you want the woman to decide the consequences of her unborn baby then she has to at least admit that it was her fault...and its always her fault unless she got raped.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by DuneKnight]


Fault? Again - Fault?

It still takes two. Responsibility of pregnancy depends on circumstance. If a woman is raped or forced in any manner - NO it is not her fault.

If it is the result of consensual sex - both are responsible.

However - only the woman carries the child - it is her right then to determine to keep it or not.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by DuneKnight

you misunderstood, if you want the woman to decide the consequences of her unborn baby then she has to at least admit that it was her fault...and its always her fault unless she got raped.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by DuneKnight]


Fault? Again - Fault?

It still takes two. Responsibility of pregnancy depends on circumstance. If a woman is raped or forced in any manner - NO it is not her fault.

If it is the result of consensual sex - both are responsible.

However - only the woman carries the child - it is her right then to determine to keep it or not.



female philosophy: it takes two wrongs to make a right...



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by DuneKnight

you misunderstood, if you want the woman to decide the consequences of her unborn baby then she has to at least admit that it was her fault...and its always her fault unless she got raped.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by DuneKnight]


Fault? Again - Fault?

It still takes two. Responsibility of pregnancy depends on circumstance. If a woman is raped or forced in any manner - NO it is not her fault.

If it is the result of consensual sex - both are responsible.

However - only the woman carries the child - it is her right then to determine to keep it or not.



thank you

i couldnt say it better my self



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by kerrichin

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by DuneKnight

you misunderstood, if you want the woman to decide the consequences of her unborn baby then she has to at least admit that it was her fault...and its always her fault unless she got raped.

[edit on 16-2-2009 by DuneKnight]


Fault? Again - Fault?

It still takes two. Responsibility of pregnancy depends on circumstance. If a woman is raped or forced in any manner - NO it is not her fault.

If it is the result of consensual sex - both are responsible.

However - only the woman carries the child - it is her right then to determine to keep it or not.



thank you

i couldnt say it better my self



so i guess the woman has a right to kill herself, since its her body. your logic not mine.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by DuneKnight
 




so i guess the woman has a right to kill herself, since its her body. your logic not mine.



This is trite.

It is worthy of an old time Mormon with 4 wives. Or an Arab sheik. Or maybe even a Phyllis Schlafly in "drag?"

The RIGHT of choice is a universal right. Yes, it is often denied, but it is a RIGHT nevertheless. And it will ultimately prevail because it is R I G H T.



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 04:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by DuneKnight

female philosophy: it takes two wrongs to make a right...


Man philosophy: "Me - Me - Me - its all about Me and my needs - and its never my fault."
(women know what I'm talking about)

Women's Rights! Yes - Woman's Right.

It may seem one sided on my part. HOWEVER - until men as a whole (gender grouping) fully recognize and legally pursue responsibility for ALL the unfathomable numbers of fatherless children - I have no sympathy.

****there are of course the exceptions - but numbers do not lie.


[edit on 16-2-2009 by Annee]



posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted byAnnee: However - only the woman carries the child - it is her right then to determine to keep it or not.



Originally posted by DuneKnight: so i guess the woman has a right to kill herself, since its her body. your logic not mine.


I said nothing even close to this.

Reach much?

[edit on 16-2-2009 by Annee]



new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 27  28  29    31  32  33 >>

log in

join