Abortion a bigger problem than joblessness, says Catholic Church. Bishop warns of UNESCO plan to "m

reply to post by Annee


you don't agree?

Originally posted by Animal
reply to post by Annee

 

you don't agree?

I don't agree with what?

reply to post by EricD


you may not, but the bishop does.

The Spanish Catholic Church is also concerned about homosexuality. During his Boxing Day sermon, the Bishop of Córdoba, Demetrio Fernández, said there was a conspiracy by the United Nations.

reply to post by Animal


Well, let's start at the top.

(if one is to regard abortion as killing, which i do not).

It is fair to say that you believe abortion is not killing, yet you object to the statement an abortion does not cause the loss of life. The distinction is niggling, and not worthy of being used to support a position on an issue of this magnitude. But I may be too hasty, please explain your reconciliation of those two statements.

True, but mostly irrelevant to abortion as there are limits that are imposed on 'when' the abortion can be performed.

Why were any limits imposed at all? And you do know that a woman claiming severe emotional stress can get an abortion at any time up to and including the time of birth. You must remember partial birth abortions.

The human population is still far beyond the carrying capacity of the planet to support us and many of the other life forms on the planet. Damage done.

I do not believe this, nor will I.

I was merely pointing out the flaw in the churches argument, not making a statement of my beliefs.

It's only a flaw in the Churches argument if you beg the question. After you assume your position is correct and the Church's is wrong, it is easy to say "See? My position is correct and the Church's is wrong."

I did not hear the church make any statements on war in my life time (iraq/iraq/afghanistan...)

I expect that is because no one was covering it, or you weren't looking for it or listening to it. How old are you?

www.vatican.va...
www.vatican.va...
www.vatican.va...

My honest guess is that there are twenty times this many issued in the last ten years.

reply to post by charles1952


What church? What God belief -- in any shape or form.

Wouldn't you need to believe in a church/god - - for it to have any validity at all?

Why should UNESCO - - even consider the ridiculousness of religion in politics?

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Animal

 

Well, let's start at the top.

(if one is to regard abortion as killing, which i do not).

It is fair to say that you believe abortion is not killing, yet you object to the statement an abortion does not cause the loss of life. The distinction is niggling, and not worthy of being used to support a position on an issue of this magnitude. But I may be too hasty, please explain your reconciliation of those two statements.

sentience.

True, but mostly irrelevant to abortion as there are limits that are imposed on 'when' the abortion can be performed.

Why were any limits imposed at all? And you do know that a woman claiming severe emotional stress can get an abortion at any time up to and including the time of birth. You must remember partial birth abortions.

it is my reasoning that terms are placed on abortion because of the notion of sentience.

partial birth abortion and late term abortions make me uneasy, again for the issue of sentience.

in regards to the (some what off) topic of this thread i have to admit i would still say abortion is less of an issue than over population and very likely even over unemployment.

The human population is still far beyond the carrying capacity of the planet to support us and many of the other life forms on the planet. Damage done.

I do not believe this, nor will I.

funny as this is so much easier to prove than 'when life starts' in the abortion debate.

I was merely pointing out the flaw in the churches argument, not making a statement of my beliefs.

It's only a flaw in the Churches argument if you beg the question. After you assume your position is correct and the Church's is wrong, it is easy to say "See? My position is correct and the Church's is wrong."

no it is pretty easy to point out how little people like, un i dunno. . . say the pope do anything to stop war, or the killing of gays or lesbians or so many other things directly related to the 'sanctity of life'. so yea, i see a MAJOR flaw in the churches argument as it appears the church is overly selective of which 'sanctity of life; battles it is going to fight.

I did not hear the church make any statements on war in my life time (iraq/iraq/afghanistan...)

I expect that is because no one was covering it, or you weren't looking for it or listening to it. How old are you?


thirties.

www.vatican.va...
www.vatican.va...
www.vatican.va...

My honest guess is that there are twenty times this many issued in the last ten years.

all so very obscure. i am a bit of a mediaphile and i must say hearing anything from the church on issues like way and other killing is so very very rare.

so i will stand by my statements, the church is falling into irrelevance for a host of reasons; abortion is less of an issue than overpopulation; the church is rather hypocritical in regards to what it chooses to champion in the 'sanctity of life debate'. and i think that about covers it.

we will likely never agree, which i am 100% okay with.

reply to post by rubbertramp


Looks like the Bishop's mother should have considered abortion.

Don't know of a conspiracy, but this article about the Church comes days after the following announcement from the State Dept and UNESCO. The first quote is from the WH, while the latter is UNESCO. This may very well be what the Church is talking about.

It seems lately that the State Dept and the UN in general are working very close together on many initiatives.

Source

I am talking about gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people, human beings born free and given bestowed equality and dignity, who have a right to claim that, which is now one of the remaining human rights challenges of our time. I speak about this subject knowing that my own country's record on human rights for gay people is far from perfect. Until 2003, it was still a crime in parts of our country. Many LGBT Americans have endured violence and harassment in their own lives, and for some, including many young people, bullying and exclusion are daily experiences. So we, like all nations, have more work to do to protect human rights at home.

Be sure to click some of the available links in the article to read more on the issue being discussed in the OP, and brought up by the Church.

Source

U.S. Ambassador to UNESCO David Killion praised UNESCO’s announcement that it would hold the first-ever United Nations consultation on LBGT rights in schools, calling it “an important step forward in promoting gay rights at the international level."

reply to post by Annee

Dear Annee,

Thanks for asking, but I have to admit that I'm not sure precisely what you are asking about.

If I talk about "Church," you have to look at the context to see what I am talking about. I'm not sure what your reference is. As far as I can remember I have only used it to refer to either the Catholic Church or the Christian Church. (I suppose it some other threads I have referred to a church building.)

What God belief? Again, depending on the context, I'm usually referring to the Christian God. Gods like the Sumerian or Egyptian gods, I refer to with a lowercase "g."

Wouldn't you need to believe in a church/god - - for it to have any validity at all?

I'm sorry, I don't know what you're referring to, but if your talking about resolving the question about whether a person exists before it's birth, I don't think you need to believe in a Christian God for that.

Why should UNESCO - - even consider the ridiculousness of religion in politics?

Because, as we have seen, religion is a powerful force to stir action and religious leaders are often key opinion influencers. (But I may be misunderstanding you.) No, I don't think UNESCO has a plan to turn half the world into homosexuals. But the OP's link no longer works for me and I don't know what is being said about it.

With respect,
Charles1952

Rampant child molestation by thousands of catholic priests is a bigger problem than abortion or joblessness...
Catholics should be more concerned about cleaning up their own backyard before spewing on about anything else...

Those who think that the Church is losing ascendence are missing a new trend.

While many Churches are not open during the holidays anymore, this year I've been hearing that many Churches that were open had an unexpected surge in attendees.

reply to post by charles1952


charles, the link still works for me.
i'll repost it just in case it helps.

link

reply to post by Aeons


i think many are now going to mega-churches and giving up on the smaller ones.
there is a huge complex not to far from here and the crowds it draws is incredible.

Funny considering the list of PRO Planned Parenthood corporations include: Monitors of corporate donors to Planned Parenthood have released the latest edition of their boycott list. They say its boycott has helped cost the United States’ largest abortion provider $40 million.
“As a direct result of the commitment, action and prayers of pro-family people, at least 281 corporations have stopped funding Planned Parenthood,” said Kenneth C. Garvey, Life Decisions International communications director. “This should serve as a testament to those who think it impossible to change corporate behavior.”
New boycott targets include Mesa Air Group and Trinity Investments.
Continued boycott targets include Adobe, AOL, Bank of America, Bayer, Chevron, eBay, PayPal, Midas, Nationwide insurance, Nike, Symantec, Wells Fargo and Whole Foods.
The list also names Darden Restaurants, owners of restaurants such as Olive Garden and Red Lobster. The airlines Southwest and Jet Blue are included, as is Starwood Hotels and its associated hotels such as Aloft, Element, Four Point, Le Méridien, Sheraton, W, and Westin.
Corporations qualify for the list if they or their franchises have donated to Planned Parenthood at any level, in any amount, within the past five years and if company officials refuse to say donations will not be made in the future.
Life Decisions International also gives a “Dishonorable Mention” to non-profits associated with Planned Parenthood or its agenda.
New groups in this section include Comic Relief, Eagles Clubs, Elks Clubs, Elton John AIDS Foundation and the Red Cross.
Groups that continued to remain on the Dishonorable Mention section include AARP, the American Cancer Soceity, Amnesty International, the Audubon Society, Boys & Girls Clubs, Camp Fire, the Dr. Phil Foundation, Girl Scouts, and Girls Inc.
Other groups include Human Rights Watch, the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, the Kiwanis Clubs, the Leukemia & Lymphoma Society, Lions Clubs, the March of Dimes, the Michael J. Fox Association, the Muscular Dystrophy Association, Ronald McDonald House Charities, Rotary Clubs, and the Salvation Army.
The Sierra Club, the Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, the YMCA and the YWCA also made the list.
Garvey attributed the success of the boycott to the tenacity of pro-life people who “understand the power of the dollar and are willing to be inconvenienced for the sake of preborn children.”


Read more: www.ewtnnews.com...
Trinity Investments I smell a Vatican funded corporation sponsoring planned parenthood...

reply to post by rubbertramp

Dear rubbertramp,

Thank you for taking the trouble, your new link worked splendidly. I originally entered the thread when it was talking about abortion, but this homosexual angle has me interested.

The Bishop who made the statement said he was reporting what Cardinal Antonelli told him. Cardinal Antonelli is the head of the Pontifical Council on the Family. I'm going to dig a little more.

With respect,
Charles1952

reply to post by charles1952


let us know what you come up with.

reply to post by rubbertramp

Dear rubbertramp,

I'm not finding any official word on the subject from the Vatican, or the Pontifical Council for the Family. The story started with the paper El Pais and has been repeated world wide with no additional information. UNESCO, of course, doesn't have any blazing headlines. I only have one, fairly vague quote from them, but man, is that a large site, I could easily have missed something. Don't reach any conclusions from this, but here it is:

School can provide various role models for gender identity and gender role development. Children and young people can be taught to examine the influence of stereotypical sexual roles critically, and work can start on a balanced positioning of boys and girls. School is also a place where youngsters ‘are young together’, and one can ensure that nobody suffers discrimination on grounds of sex, his or her orientation or gender role behaviour.
+ The school can create space for children’s and young people’s curiosity and urge to explore: therefore it is necessary to reflect and reach agreements about what positive experiences the school can offer in this field, and at what times and in what way a positive education can be organised in this field.

What I have heard is that children like to experiment with sexuality. It seems like experimentation is being encouraged and "gender roles" are part of that experimentation. Perhaps it would be safe to say that a child's experimentation with a member of the same sex would be encouraged and allowed to develop, providing unintentional (I hope) encouragement towards a same sex orientation, increasing the size of the homosexual population (UNESCO says it should be called MSM in the case of boys, and not homosexuality.)

None of that, besides the quote, is something I can prove right now, and I don't know if the 50% figure was actually used, but I think it's safe to say that UNESCO policies will increase the number of people reported as homosexual. Yes, I know that's controversial, but it's not absolutely crazy.

With respect,
Charles1952

I'm not sure why the church needs to assign grades to which world problem is worse. Can we not just say "unemployment is not good" as well as "abortion is not good"? Otherwise, an individual person could be subjected to being judged against another as 'better' which could turn into quite a mess.

reply to post by saint4God

Dear saint4God,

You're absolutely right, you may even understate it.

Otherwise, an individual person could be subjected to being judged against another as 'better' which could turn into quite a mess.

That's more than a mess, it's wrong in itself to judge others. (Yes, there are some Biblical steps to take when a brother wrongs you, but I'm thinking of something else.)

And you're right that unemployment, poverty, abortion, etc. are all wrong, but there are personal sins and societal wrongs. Abortion means someone made the deliberate choice, and some doctor performed the actual act. It is a direct decision by an individual to do something wrong.

Unemployment is a bad thing, and causes suffering, but it's harder to see who did something wrong. Maybe it's our president, or our governor, or maybe it was some event in Asia that caused it. The Church worries more about individual souls and wants to keep them holy, while at the same time opposing conditions that make dignity and holiness harder, like poverty.

Another example, yelling at a driver that cuts you off. To the extent that you had control over yourself, that anger is a bad thing. If you know you have an anger problem and don't do anything to take care of it, that's a bad thing too. But it's not going to have the same results as getting angry at your spouse in front of the kids and maybe getting violent.

But I don't want you to think that I'm disagreeing with you. Any sin we commit can put our souls in jeopardy, and we should be alert to all of them.

With respect,
Charles1952