Vatican attacks US abortion move

page: 33
9
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by saint4God

Case in point. Thank you.


Here is another that unfortunately "won't sink in" to this woman who seems to have no shortage of selfish excuses for her heartless infanticidal and cowardly ways.




If you told Plato that having slave children was wrong and oppresses them he would look at your as if you were crazy, and say, “they were born into this world as a slave and so they are not equal to freemen, so I do not understand your point….” - Xtrozero


And here is what annee says lol




Your personally chosen graphic verbiage ... having no meaning to me.


I especially like the way she has chosen to absolve herself creating God in HER own image so she can blame the baby's "spiritual energy force" for entering what would seem is the most dangerous place in the world for a child to live,,

Annee's womb.

biology's answer to the titanic




posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aermacchi
I especially like the way she has chosen to absolve herself creating God in HER own image so she can blame the baby's "spiritual energy force" for entering what would seem is the most dangerous place in the world for a child to live,,

Annee's womb.

biology's answer to the titanic


I'm thinking that her beliefs are that the physical vessel has no meaning, and so to end the existence of the vessel does nothing to the spiritual energy that is the actual life.

This is a nice way to say physical life has no value, and it easily justifies ending any physical life. Well one good thing from this would be we would not a population issue if this thought process was a norm.




[edit on 17-2-2009 by Xtrozero]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TasteTheMagick

Besides, how can we use logic to discuss the issue when you're supporting female oppression? Women have every right to control what happens to the things growing in/on her.


You know, people like you shouldn't be allowed to have sex until they get it through their heads that you make BABIES that way and if you can't make the nexus that it carries with it the potential for human life just as worthy of human rights as yours is. This isn't a damn tumor we are talking about chick! IT's A PERSON!@



This wouldn't even be a question if men were the ones to give birth, there would be no argument over it.


Well the FACT is (as if facts make any difference to you people) men DON'T! So get over it! while you are at it, that logic only makes for one of the most piss poor cop outs as an excuse I have ever heard.



How about we make a law saying that men can't masturbate anymore because when they do the sperm that dies is killing millions of potential people?


Sperm has a POTENTIAL for human life but until it meets with your DNA does it have any chance at all of being snuffed out like a bug



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by donwhite
 





Now, do you want to see a REAL MIRACLE? Vicar of Christ Pope Benedict XVI names 100 women to wear the Cardinal's hat! B16 renames the HRCC the NUCC! A NEW UNITED Catholic Church. Now that’s the way to enter the third millennia! With a married clergy, women ordained, and declaring extra good people just that, EXTRA good! And not to fake miracles to become a “saint” as has already happened to Mother Teresa. Get a life! This is 2009 not 1009!

First of all, Mother Teresa has not been declared a saint. Second of all, only God knows whether Mother Teresa is really a Saint. No one knows for sure, but given what I know about what she has done, if anyone is in Heaven, it is her. What is your problem with Mother Teresa? That woman did more to try to help the poor and ease the pain of suffering than anyone I know.
Second, the Church does not conform to political correctness, regarding making women priests, or granting permission for married men to become priests. That is the Church's business. The last I heard, the Church is not allowing men to become nuns either. Maybe you should made a scene about that too. Why not let Muslims or Jews become Catholic priests? Why stop there? Maybe PETA can get into the act, and demand that Dolphins be allowed to become priests. It is not your business to tell the Church how to administer the Church's rules. 2009 or 1009 or 3009... it doesn't matter. The Catholic Church is universal, same everywhere, same every period of time.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by donwhite
 





Now, do you want to see a REAL MIRACLE? Vicar of Christ Pope Benedict XVI names 100 women to wear the Cardinal's hat! B16 renames the HRCC the NUCC! A NEW UNITED Catholic Church. Now that’s the way to enter the third millennia! With a married clergy, women ordained, and declaring extra good people just that, EXTRA good! And not to fake miracles to become a “saint” as has already happened to Mother Teresa. Get a life! This is 2009 not 1009!

First of all, Mother Teresa has not been declared a saint. Second of all, only God knows whether Mother Teresa is really a Saint. No one knows for sure, but given what I know about what she has done, if anyone is in Heaven, it is her. What is your problem with Mother Teresa? That woman did more to try to help the poor and ease the pain of suffering than anyone I know.
Second, the Church does not conform to political correctness, regarding making women priests, or granting permission for married men to become priests. That is the Church's business. The last I heard, the Church is not allowing men to become nuns either. Maybe you should made a scene about that too. Why not let Muslims or Jews become Catholic priests? Why stop there? Maybe PETA can get into the act, and demand that Dolphins be allowed to become priests. It is not your business to tell the Church how to administer the Church's rules. 2009 or 1009 or 3009... it doesn't matter. The Catholic Church is universal, same everywhere, same every period of time.



Hey Prof.,, Don just doesn't get it. While annee may be impressed with his sophistry and lies, his tactics of trying to change the subject to a tit for tat basis where he thinks constantly pointing out the errors of the Church is somehow going to make murdering children for sport or as a part of recreational sex a less heinous act.

In no way does he succeed at this and anyone with an IOTA of intelligence can see right through his "unimpressive" posts to the contrary.

I never take compliments that come from fools and that is what I see anyone saying thankyou to one coming from annee just because someone has the same sociopathic opinions for the systematic genocide of babies.

To me, this is no different than someone giving props to Hitler for the death camps in Germany and saying thank you.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 05:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Aermacchi
 





To me, this is no different than someone giving props to Hitler for the death camps in Germany and saying thank you.

You're right, my friend. This is another of the attacks against life in this country by the radical left.

The new "stimulus bill" has more hidden attacks against innocent civilians, specifically the elderly. It is nothing less than government sanctioned euthanasia:
www.bloomberg.com...

One new bureaucracy, the National Coordinator of Health Information Technology, will monitor treatments to make sure your doctor is doing what the federal government deems appropriate and cost effective. The goal is to reduce costs and “guide” your doctor’s decisions (442, 446). These provisions in the stimulus bill are virtually identical to what Daschle prescribed in his 2008 book, “Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis.” According to Daschle, doctors have to give up autonomy and “learn to operate less like solo practitioners.”


Let me put that in simple English(something the writers of the bill didn't do, because they don't want you to know what is really going on:

The government will decide WHETHER your life is worth saving, versus what it will cost to save your life. People will be reduced to a pure economic investment. If you're young, and capable of contributing to the wonderful socialist state, then you can have the health care procedure your doctor wants. On the other hand, if you are retired, and not contributing to the socialist state economically, you can die. I am not exaggerating. This is EXACTLY what Daschle talked about in his book.


The stimulus bill does that, and calls it the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (190-192). The goal, Daschle’s book explained, is to slow the development and use of new medications and technologies because they are driving up costs. He praises Europeans for being more willing to accept “hopeless diagnoses” and “forgo experimental treatments,” and he chastises Americans for expecting too much from the health-care system.



Daschle says health-care reform “will not be pain free.” Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them. That means the elderly will bear the brunt.


In plain English, let the elderly die. Of course, Daschle and his crooks get to decide who lives and who dies. I'm sure that if you contributed to the right election campaigns, you'll be allowed to live.

This is the beginning of the "Brave New World".

This is one "elderly" person that will not go silently into the night.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
Am I in the wrong thread?

When did this become a political blog against varying viewpoints and opinions?

Notice I did not use slang "liberal left" - "radical right"



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Am I in the wrong thread?

When did this become a political blog against varying viewpoints and opinions?


I am not quite sure what you are saying here annee?

If you are saying this is off topic, you'd be wrong as this is thre very kind of decline in our morality where humans are reduced to "things" that are so easily disposed. You epitomized this moral decline in all of your posts where you have made sweeping disparaging remarks about men and infants who you would discard like a dixie cup after you are done drinking from the water cooler or in your case after sex the kid dies and you say NEXT?

Like the steroid use in Baseball where kids are already saying they don't think A-rod cheated and the blur between what is right and what is wrong gets ever more hard to define until, we come to the point where Religious people are marginalized, everyone becomes Atheist, man is what we worship and who endowed us with our privleges as without a higher authority to make them our unalienable right they will surely be gone.

Then we have the stimulus package with a President who wants us to pay for all your birthcontrolled abortions not just here but all over the world.

With his assertion this will create 3 million jobs.

This will cost 120 million dollars for each new job this socialist moron.

The bottom line is all this is not the problem in Baseball or the Economy, or in politics, it is a problem with our thinking and the direct decline of morality that can be traced to the commensurate disintegration of God from our daily lives.




Notice I did not use slang "liberal left" - "radical right"


what ya want, a cookie?



[edit on 17-2-2009 by Aermacchi]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 07:59 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 




Second, the Church does not conform to political correctness, regarding making women priests, or granting permission for married men to become priests. That is the Church's business.



Answer me two questions Herr Professor. 1) Was Peter, who the rCC claims was the First bishop of Rome, married or not? 2) When did the RCC First pronounce celibacy for its priests?

Now what's with this politically correctness anyway?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
As I understand it priests used to be married.

The celibacy has nothing to do with religion - but money.

The church did not want to pay for priests and their families.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 




The celibacy has nothing to do with religion - but money. The church did not want to pay for priests and their families.



I believe that was around the 11th century. Can you imagine the forces taht would be loosed from 1 billion Catholics around the world, if they decided to elect the next pope by popular vote? That would resemble a miracle!



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:18 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Am I in the wrong thread? When did this become a political blog against varying viewpoints and opinions?

Excuse me. Donwhite brought this up with this quote of his:



Now, do you want to see a REAL MIRACLE? Vicar of Christ Pope Benedict XVI names 100 women to wear the Cardinal's hat! B16 renames the HRCC the NUCC! A NEW UNITED Catholic Church. Now that’s the way to enter the third millennia! With a married clergy, women ordained, and declaring extra good people just that, EXTRA good! And not to fake miracles to become a “saint” as has already happened to Mother Teresa. Get a life! This is 2009 not


He attacked MY church, and I will not allow bigotry to go unchallenged. If you wish to complain about going off topic, please address your comments to your cohort Donwhite, who brought the subject up.

Bigotry against Catholicism and Right to Life people has become rampant on ATS, and I will not let bigots have free reign, without answering their slanderous remarks.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





As I understand it priests used to be married. The celibacy has nothing to do with religion - but money. The church did not want to pay for priests and their families.

Another bigoted remark with absolutely no reputable source to back up such nonsense. Who is off topic?



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Annee
 





As I understand it priests used to be married. The celibacy has nothing to do with religion - but money. The church did not want to pay for priests and their families.

Another bigoted remark with absolutely no reputable source to back up such nonsense. Who is off topic?


Please - feel free to disprove.

How is that off topic? We are talking about the Vatican.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 

You're right. I shouldn't use the term radical left for abortionists. I should use the proper term- murderers of innocent children that have no say in whether they live or die. That is not slander. It is fact. An abortion is the murder of a child. You can sanitize it all you want, just as the Nazis sanitized the killing of Jews, by saying that Jews had no souls, and weren't really human beings, so it was not murder. It is murder, pure and simple.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





Am I in the wrong thread? When did this become a political blog against varying viewpoints and opinions?


You are the one that is accusing us of being off topic. I merely pointed out that you continue to pursue this avenue.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I haven't a clue what you are talking about. How politics and what Don White said relate - - is not comprehending.

However - since you are making accusations that I am attacking your church. (feel free to start your own thread and debunk the following).

The History of Catholic Celibacy
Priests had many concubines - too costly for the Church

The idea of Catholic celibacy is especially foolish when you realize the reason behind it. Before the middle ages it was allowable for Catholic priests to have multiple wives and mistresses (concubines). But with concerns for protecting Church property from inheritance Pope Pelagius I made new priests agree offspring could not inherit Church property. Pope Gregory then declared all sons of priests illegitimate (only sons since lowly daughters could inherit anyway in society).

In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality, multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times, but it was about MONEY! In biblical times many wives, concubines and breeders was common and never spoken against other than by Paul to the Elders of Timothy and Titus. In the Tanakh, Jewish priests suggest 4 wives was probably about the right number.

The whole celibacy nonsense was also the result of middle age gnostic influences that false taught that the body was dirty and not spiritual and to be more spiritual you had to avoid natural sexuality. Talk about getting people really screwed up!

www.libchrist.com...


BACK ON SUBJECT: Religion is a choice. So is Right of Choice for Women - - and its not any religions business.


[edit on 17-2-2009 by Annee]



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 





BACK ON SUBJECT: Religion is a choice. So is Right of Choice for Women - - and its not any religions business.

Actually, choice, as you call it, is MURDER, which should be a concern for governments.



posted on Feb, 17 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Annee
 





BACK ON SUBJECT: Religion is a choice. So is Right of Choice for Women - - and its not any religions business.

Actually, choice, as you call it, is MURDER, which should be a concern for governments.


NO - that's what YOU call it.

You can believe what ever you want. I am not required to agree with you and I don't.



posted on Feb, 18 2009 @ 12:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Annee

I haven't a clue what you are talking about. How politics and what Don White said relate - - is not comprehending.


Why does this not surprise me? Could it be that NOTHING sinks in, we get that but that isn't our fault.




In 1022 Pope Benedict VIII banned marriages and mistresses for priests and in 1139 Pope Innocent II voided all marriages of priests and all new priests had to divorce their wives. This had nothing to do with morality, multiple women for males had long been the norm since before biblical times, but it was about MONEY!


Well I guess their is a difference of belief on how one makes money. Prof. gives his money to a group that feeds the hungry helps the poor and then we have YOUR group where you give money, BLOOD MONEY !

Now the sins of the Church you try to condemn as if it happened yesterday, I'm sorry annee but trying to use sins of the past as a way to shame those who have stuck with it and corrected it is exactly what we all hope people like you would do with your church of planned parenthood and stop the killing that is going on NOW not a over a hundred or more years ago but RIGHT NOW! .




BACK ON SUBJECT: Religion is a choice So is Right of Choice for Women - - and its not any religions business.


Wrong! this is the same linguistic programming that has people like you suggesting murder is a womans right to choose and religion wants NOTHING to do with that blood spilled which is on your hands





new topics
top topics
 
9
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join