Who really cares?


For millions already use abortion as a form of birth control without a thought or care, I mean it is not like its human, right?


I think Scientology is the least or our worries.

I think Scientology poses larger problems.

And really, abortion isn't considered to be a form of birth control by those that have them. Not sure where you all get that impression. It's not some easy thing for people to do. If you think it is, I'd like you to go find someone who has had an abortion and ask them how they felt about it.

There's your homework assignment.

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Who really cares?
For millions already use abortion as a form of birth control without a thought or care, I mean it is not like its human, right?
I think Scientology is the least or our worries.

G'day Xtrozero

It's one thing for a person to choose to have an abortion of their own free will.

It's another thing entirely for a person to be pushed into it by the Scientology "cult machine".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

Originally posted by ravenshadow13

G'day ravenshadow

I think Scientology poses larger problems.

I agree.....it is ruining many lives.

And really, abortion isn't considered to be a form of birth control by those that have them. Not sure where you all get that impression. It's not some easy thing for people to do. If you think it is, I'd like you to go find someone who has had an abortion and ask them how they felt about it.

I agree again.....it is an extremely traumatic experience.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

I am in agreement with the OP here. Though actually I think that most organized religions are for basically one thing, and that is control of humanity.

Now, spirituality to me is entirely different.

Harm None
Peace

I would not defend all of Scientology's actions or policies - but in this case I think they may not be as guilty as they are being painted:

Ms Lang appeared with Senator Nick Xenophon, whose effort to get an upper house inquiry into the tax-free status of religious groups, including Scientology, failed last week, when both Labor and the Coalition voted against it.

The Senate on Thursday will vote on an inquiry with revised terms - looking at alleged abuse in the church, and whether criminal, consumer protection and occupational health and safety laws are adequate to deal with its practices.

It's interesting that she was associated with this particular Senator at this particular time.

I note that this article doesn't give any reason for Ms Lang being co-erced into this procedure. I would be interested to know what grounds the Church gave her when they suggested having her pregnancies terminated IF they suggested it.

n a statement, the Church of Scientology said it completely rejected the claims of forced abortion.

"The Church of Scientology considers the family unit and children to be of the utmost importance and does not condone nor force anyone to undertake any medical procedure whatsoever," said church spokeswoman Virginia Stewart.

Ms Stewart said a Scientology friend of Ms Lang had reported that she had said she had had an abortion "and it was a decision between her and her husband alone because of troubles with their relationship".

Ms Stewart said allegations such as Ms Lang's were very serious and should be reported to the police, not detailed to the media.

"We would co-operate fully with any investigation of persons allegedly involved," she said.

On this occasion, I think Scientology's spokeswoman is right.

And I am not a supporter of Scientology - I have my own issues with them. I just find this story a bit 'convenient' in its timing. And lacking in important details.


[edit on 18-3-2010 by berenike]

Originally posted by amazed

G'day amazed

I am in agreement with the OP here. Though actually I think that most organized religions are for basically one thing, and that is control of humanity.

Unfortunately, I believe there is a strong element of truth in that.

Now, spirituality to me is entirely different.

Many would agree with that.

The church might not.

Scientology's view of spirituality seems to be based on charging you lots of money to suck evil aliens out of you.

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

[edit on 18-3-2010 by Maybe...maybe not]

Originally posted by berenike
I just find this story a bit 'convenient' in its timing.

G'day berenike

That's probably true.....

Xenophon has been trying to get a Scientology inquiry up & running for a while & he's searching for a catalyst.

Rudd also did some "tough talking" against Scientology......but we all know the value of Rudd's "tough talking".

Kind regards
Maybe...maybe not

To Maybe...maybe not,

You seem to harbor a great deal of hate toward Scientology, and make grandiose claims about the religion supposedly being founded as a money making scam. However, when the IRS performed their inquiry of Scientology, before granting them tax exemption, found the exact opposite of your claims... they actually found that not only has no one made money from Scientology, but actually LRH put millions of his own money INTO Scientology while neither he, nor anyone else, has taken money out. That's a little different than the picture you painted. You might want to get your facts straight, because it sounds like your sources didn't quite do their due diligence.

Of course you are welcome to believe whatever you would like, but as for me I am going to believe the people who were actually there and did the research as opposed to simply believing some no name keyboard warriors (speaking of the people behind websites you got the info from) who took a few quotes out of context and spun them into BS stories.

I understand and can appreciate the fact that you feel so strongly about Scientology considering what you have heard, if I had no interaction with Scientology I would have felt the exact same as you after all the scathing crap that's out there. But, and there's a HUGE but, I've seen the real story firsthand and it's not even remotely close to what's on the internet!

I've heard people say the most outlandish things that they think Scientologists believe, and my question to you is this; what is crazier, us supposedly "believing" those things you've read that we believe, or being gullible enough to think that's what the religion is actually based on and that it's what we actually believe...?

It's impossible to get the real story when you only listen to one side. It's like me trying to find out what Christianity is from people who are angry with and left Christianity as well as from people who have never had any association with Christianity such as Mormons, Buddhists, etc. I probably would hear some pretty weird stuff, a lot of it would be complete rubbish, and I wouldn't get the real story... for that I would need to at the very least talk to a Christian! More realistically I should probably actually visit a few of their churches and get the real story instead of one or two people's ideas about what Christianity is, am I right?

Do Your Research

Wow Maybe...Maybe Not, you gave absolutely no answers whatsoever. I understand that you have read a lot about it, but the point is not whether you read about it, it's where you read about it from! How do you know that you sources are reliable? Just because someone writes something about a subject doesn't make it true. If you truly hate Scientology as much as you seem to, then it's obvious your sources aren't actually the church itself because I'm sure you're a sane individual who can tell the difference between good and bad and right and wrong when you actually get a chance to see it objectively.

I have read several of the biggest sites that bash Scientology and uniformly on EVERY SINGLE ONE I found alteration upon alteration of documents that they claim are word for word when I have read the real documents which were completely different. I have also read quote upon quote as well as long explanations of what LRH meant by them (such as the quote you referred to about him creating the religion for money, that's actually a gross alteration) but if you look at them in their actual context any idiot could see what he actually meant by them. The problem is that those sites just show you enough for it to look crazy or stupid, but they don't show the rest of the book, reference, or even the lecture where he laughs letting everyone know who was listening that it was a joke. Some of the stuff you think we believe was simply a joke that was taken out of context, but you would never know that unless you actually heard/read it in context. But I've got the feeling that it's so ingrained in you that you won't believe a word I'm saying.

I hope you didn't take any of this the wrong way, I am in no way shape or form trying to get you to be a Scientologist whatever you believe is wonderful and I fully support your choice in religion or lack thereof, whatever the case maybe. I simply wanted to give a counter to what you are claiming because in truth it has very little bearing on reality and I wanted those who are reading this to get a chance to see that, and get the chance to talk to an actual Scientologist and find out what we're actually about.
Basically if your claims are even remotely close to true then that means I'm a brainwashed idiot who can't see reality as well as a complete sucker... now's everyone's chance to see if I'm as crazy as Maybe...Maybe Not seems to think I must be...


jeanvaljean, I will try to find a copy of it