View Full Version : The Real Pro-abortion Agenda
Actually, I read a LOT of columnists.
Here is another one that struck me, as it shows, pretty definitively, what goes on behind the frontlines of the abortion issue.
The author is a lady by the name of Maggie Gallagher.
The campaign against children
Maggie Gallagher (archive)
December 25, 2003
The package came to Austin Ruse's office in Washington, D.C., about a month ago, anonymously. Austin runs a small think tank, The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, whose mission, he says, is to be "a U.N. watchdog on social policy." No doubt that is why the document ended up on his desk. The thing sat on his desk for several days before he realized what a time-bomb someone had sent to him: a secret plan to create an international right to abortion.
The Center for Reproductive Rights apparently realized how damaging the memo is, too. I have in my hand a copy of the letter CRR sent to Austin Ruse, in which CRR (a group of "brilliant, focused, sophisticated lawyers who can fight and win," according to the document) "demands" that he "immediately cease and desist from copying, describing, disseminating, quoting, or in any way using or conveying the information contained in those documents." CRR's hotshot lawyers seem to be under the delusion they can rewrite not only international law, but the First Amendment too. Disclosure of their "proprietary information and trade secrets," the bullies acknowledge, will cause "CRR irreparable harm."
One certainly hopes so.
The document is dripping with contempt for democracy and decency. For example, speaking of the recently enacted partial-birth abortion ban (which passed both the House and Senate with strong majorities), CRR ponders: "What good is all our work if the Bush administration can simply take it all away with the stroke of a pen?"
Deceit is a core part of their strategy. They acknowledge there is no international norm that regards abortion as a basic human right. Even in this country, there is no such social consensus, and the document acknowledges that a growing number of young people appear to reject the idea of abortion as a right.
But who cares about truth or what the signers meant? The goal is to quietly get quasi-judicial tribunals, aka human rights commissions, to start to create an international right to abortion that can then be imposed on vulnerable poor countries dependent on international aid.
You doubt me? Read it for yourself: Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., introduced the entire document into the Dec. 8 Congressional Record (which you can access at www.c-fam.org). He called the plan a "Trojan Horse of deceit," demonstrating "how abortion promotion groups are planning to push abortion here and abroad, not by direct argument, but by twisting words and definition." CRR's document itself concedes, "There is a stealth quality to the work" of creating new international legal norms "without a huge amount of scrutiny ..."
And abortion is just the beginning of CRR's expansive version of "reproductive rights." The CRR's hit list includes schools that do not hand out condoms, and abstinence education programs. They are committed to "staving off efforts to require parental involvement" in abortion. Most hideous of all (and I do not use the word lightly), CRR aims to undo "child abuse reporting requirements" with respect to what it calls "nonabusive" sexual relations with minors. An international right to have sex with young people? No doubt CRR is reacting to the public embarrassment Planned Parenthood faced when journalists discovered that many of its personnel were unwilling to abide by child sex abuse reporting requirements.
The document notes that such sex rights for minors have "always been one of our priority areas," and that "this is a topic about which we can coordinate efforts with our international program." Downsides include: "We will likely have to confront the politically difficult issue of whether minors have a right to have sex."
No wonder so many people around the world hate us. No wonder so many Americans have protested the Supreme Court's recent unconstitutional efforts to base its decisions for us Americans in part on "international law and norms" -- laws and norms that are created by the good folks at places like CRR. Coming soon to a school, home and community near you.
:D Yeah the Pro-lifers claim to be pro-life until the child is born then he(or she, whatever) can face heavy poverty, lousy education and be killed in one of their countries illegal wars. :P What hypocrites. Push abortion to the whole world. Why not? It's existed in ancient India and Egypt so why not make it worldwide?
Not everyone can raise kids or wants kids and if they cant raise them or don't want to raise them it's better to not ever have the kid alive because then the kids life is screwed up and so is the parent. <_<
Originally posted by Arm@6 January 2004 - 02:00
:D Yeah the Pro-lifers claim to be pro-life until the child is born then he(or she, whatever) can face heavy poverty, lousy education and be killed in one of their countries illegal wars. :P What hypocrites. Push abortion to the whole world. Why not? It's existed in ancient India and Egypt so why not make it worldwide?
Not everyone can raise kids or wants kids and if they cant raise them or don't want to raise them it's better to not ever have the kid alive because then the kids life is screwed up and so is the parent. <_<
One could drown in the profundity of your insight, Arm.
clocker
01-06-2004, 07:04 AM
Oh please, j2.
The document is dripping with contempt for democracy and decency. For example, speaking of the recently enacted partial-birth abortion ban (which passed both the House and Senate with strong majorities), CRR ponders: "What good is all our work if the Bush administration can simply take it all away with the stroke of a pen?"
"Dripping with contempt"?
This screed is a florid, overblown piece of trash.
it shows, pretty definitively, what goes on behind the frontlines of the abortion issue.
The author is a lady by the name of Maggie Gallagher.
The only thing that this shows "definitively" is what goes on in the mind of Maggie Gallagher.
Clocker-
CRR's document itself concedes, "There is a stealth quality to the work" of creating new international legal norms "without a huge amount of scrutiny ..."
What, specifically, do you make of this?
Why would any "stealth quality" be required to enact something everyone in every country agrees upon?
And this:
And abortion is just the beginning of CRR's expansive version of "reproductive rights." The CRR's hit list includes schools that do not hand out condoms, and abstinence education programs. They are committed to "staving off efforts to require parental involvement" in abortion. Most hideous of all (and I do not use the word lightly), CRR aims to undo "child abuse reporting requirements" with respect to what it calls "nonabusive" sexual relations with minors. An international right to have sex with young people? No doubt CRR is reacting to the public embarrassment Planned Parenthood faced when journalists discovered that many of its personnel were unwilling to abide by child sex abuse reporting requirements.
Odd.
No mention of an intent to define "nonabusive".
This would seem to go hand-in-hand with the ACLU's penchant for defending NAMBLA.
BTW-Why is such effort expended to preclude parental input?
Is it necessary to "throw the baby out with the bath-water" (sorry) in every case, even if the parents don't pose a difficulty?
This smacks of laziness on the part of the C.R.R.; to say, in effect, "the majority of parents, who are good, shall be lumped in with the abusive ones, for convenience' sake, and because their involvement could interfere with the advance of our agenda"?
To paint everyone with the same brush is an incredible injustice, Clocker, and I can't believe you would condone this.
Do you also condone the ACLU's involvement with NAMBLA?
3RA1N1AC
01-06-2004, 07:45 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@5 January 2004 - 21:48
You doubt me? Read it for yourself: Rep. Christopher Smith, R-N.J., introduced the entire document into the Dec. 8 Congressional Record (which you can access at www.c-fam.org). He called the plan a "Trojan Horse of deceit," demonstrating "how abortion promotion groups are planning to push abortion here and abroad, not by direct argument, but by twisting words and definition."
i'm not particularly interested in the abortion controversy, but this made me chuckle anyway. a person who holds an elected office (it ranks, what, somewhere near "test tube full of AIDS mixed with ebola and pubic lice" on the list of vile, tainted things that someone could choose to hold?) accusing others of deceit and the twisting of words. of all the cynical, hypocritical... may as well have ted kennedy accuse people of being big fat drunks... have stephen ambrose accuse people of plagiarism... have the lunatics run the asylum, have the pot call the kettle black...
it's the duty of every politician and political columnist to be a clever propagandist and to twist words. one man's liberation of WMDs from a real evil baddie is another man's war of aggression. one man's american is another man's unamerican. one man's pro-choice is another man's pro-abortion. one man's definitive columnist is another man's zealous crackpot. nobody is completely innocent of twisting words in even the most dreary, mundane pronouncements, you know?
MagicNakor
01-06-2004, 08:52 AM
Having just spent half an hour reading that congress document, I feel confident in saying that it is not "...dripping with contempt for democracy and decency." Ms. Gallagher is simply being sensational, a "quality" which is further enhanced by the ludicrous comment that "a growing number of young people appear to reject the idea of abortion as a right." That opinion was based on the observation that a "national pro-life campaign aimed at teens garnering more public attention."
There's also quite a large section on HIV/AIDS in those memos, which has apparently been ignored.
...As interpretations of norms acknowledging reproductive rights are repeated in international bodies, the legitimacy of these rights is reinforced. In addition, the gradual nature of this approach ensures that we are never in an ‘‘all-or-nothing’’ situation, where we may risk a major setback. Further, it is a strategy that does not require a major, concentrated investment of resources, but rather it can be achieved over time with regular use of staff time and funds. Finally, there is a stealth quality to the work: we are achieving incremental recognition of values
[i]without a huge amount of scrutiny from the opposition. These lower profile victories will gradually put us in a strong position to assert a broad consensus around our assertions...
(Italics mine.) Maggie Gallagher is pretty selective of what she chooses to comment on.
...We have been leaders in bringing arguments for a woman’s right to choose abortion within the rubric of international human rights...Bolstered by numerous soft norms, the assertion with widest international acceptance is that a woman’s right to be free from unsafe abortion is grounded in her rights to life
and health.
...The Center’s commitment to reproductive rights includes a woman’s right
to control if and when she becomes pregnant. We considered possible ways that we may be able to expand our work in the area of contraception, including potentially focusing on: (a) funding restrictions (e.g., restrictions in Medicaid, Title X, and in abstinence-only programs); (B) government restrictions, both on a macro and micro level (e.g., statutes and or regulations; police harassment of sex
workers by destroying condoms; school policies that prohibit condom distribution);
...
...III. Misleading Information
Articulation: This area includes the following issues, which we believe contain misleading information by definition, or often incorporate misleading information: (1) abstinence-only education; (2) abortion/breast cancer link; (3) crisis pregnancy centers (‘‘CPC’s’’); and projects by anti organizations such as Life Dynamics Inc. (‘‘LDI’’) that distribute misleading information. The most noteworthy project by LDI was their campaign to public schools indicating that a school, or school employee, could be legally liable for distributing reproductive health
information to students...
Just a few more excerpts from the memo. While I don't think the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute is a stellar choice for unbiased information, most of the memos appear to be there.
Maggie Gallagher's stance appears to be "information and education is bad" as well as "abortion is bad." Considering her affiliations, this isn't unexpected, but to condone abstinence-only education programs (a very poor idea if there ever was one) and the inability for people to have access to contraception isn't going to help society out at all, and with reference to the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa, it could be devastating, as there is so much misinformation about the disease.
Likely more later, but I think one of those rolling blackouts is coming soon. Stupid cold making everyone use all the electricity... :strongsad:
:ninja:
clocker
01-06-2004, 02:31 PM
What, specifically, do you make of this?
Why would any "stealth quality" be required to enact something everyone in every country agrees upon?
Gee, I dunno.
Maybe to escape the attention of well-funded fundamantalist Christian/politically conservative groups who's mission is to force their agenda on the world?
Obviously, "everybody" in "every country" doesn't agree on any issue. Can you think of a single universally accepted doctrine?
Odd.
No mention of an intent to define "nonabusive".
This would seem to go hand-in-hand with the ACLU's penchant for defending NAMBLA.
BTW-Why is such effort expended to preclude parental input?
Is it necessary to "throw the baby out with the bath-water" (sorry) in every case, even if the parents don't pose a difficulty?
Actually, what's odd is your attempt to link one group with another ( presumably more dispicable one) by random association. Even Ms. Gallagher couldn't strain the issue far enough to link abortion rights and Nambla.
"Such effort" has to be expended specifically to include the children of abusive parents.
No where does it say that parents must be excluded from the process.
Do you also condone the ACLU's involvement with NAMBLA?
A red herring thrown into the debating ring, j2.
One issue is completely irrelevant to the other.
uNdEaD$$$
01-06-2004, 03:00 PM
Abortions should be legal. Don't get me wrong I love life but lot's of people live impossibly miserable lives and their parents should have the choice to abort them.
Well then, let's continue:
For what reason(s) would the C.R.R. cop this attitude?
The Center for Reproductive Rights apparently realized how damaging the memo is, too. I have in my hand a copy of the letter CRR sent to Austin Ruse, in which CRR (a group of "brilliant, focused, sophisticated lawyers who can fight and win," according to the document) "demands" that he "immediately cease and desist from copying, describing, disseminating, quoting, or in any way using or conveying the information contained in those documents." CRR's hotshot lawyers seem to be under the delusion they can rewrite not only international law, but the First Amendment too. Disclosure of their "proprietary information and trade secrets," the bullies acknowledge, will cause "CRR irreparable harm."
A pro-abortion organization has "proprietary information and trade secrets"? What could they possibly be?
It sounds like they want a unilateral shut-down of opposing views, as you accuse the pro-life side of doing.
As far as your objection to my strategic linkage of intent/agenda between the C.R.R. and the ACLU, why not?
If the shoe fits......
If you can throw the "fundamentalist Christian" blanket over what you see as the "opposition", how can you deny them the same right?
Both sides can shop at the "Broad Brush" store.
What we have here is another example of extreme rhetoric (on both sides) depriving the argument of a "middle ground".
I don't think anyone could accuse me of being "fundamantalist" in any way, but do I need to suffer the accusation merely to make the point?
3RA1N1AC
01-06-2004, 04:43 PM
Originally posted by uNdEaD$$$@6 January 2004 - 07:00
Abortions should be legal. Don't get me wrong I love life but lot's of people live impossibly miserable lives and their parents should have the choice to abort them.
you sound almost pro-abortion.
i wouldn't call pro-choicers pro-abortion, at all. not pro-abortion the way i'm pro-abortion, anyway. pro-choicers are simply too tolerant of babies. buncha friggin' poseurs. in fact, every woman should be impregnated and then taken to an abortionist after 8 months and 29 days so that the foetus may be summarily aborted and offered up to a graven image of the pagan deity known as Ab'horto. partial birth abortion? better late than never. post-partem abortion? the pro-abortion lobby is working very closely with nambla, to push some legislation through re: retro-bortions.
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+6 January 2004 - 12:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 6 January 2004 - 12:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-uNdEaD$$$@6 January 2004 - 07:00
Abortions should be legal. Don't get me wrong I love life but lot's of people live impossibly miserable lives and their parents should have the choice to abort them.
you sound almost pro-abortion.
i wouldn't call pro-choicers pro-abortion, at all. not pro-abortion the way i'm pro-abortion, anyway. pro-choicers are simply too tolerant of babies. buncha friggin' poseurs. in fact, every woman should be impregnated and then taken to an abortionist after 8 months and 29 days so that the foetus may be summarily aborted and offered up to a graven image of the pagan deity known as Ab'horto. partial birth abortion? better late than never. post-partem abortion? the pro-abortion lobby is working very closely with nambla, to push some legislation through re: retro-bortions. [/b][/quote]
What creative thinking.
I'm sold.
3RA1N1AC
01-06-2004, 05:12 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@6 January 2004 - 08:50
What creative thinking.
not nearly as creative as calling pro-choicers "pro-abortion." was "anti-birth" already a registered trademark, or wot?
leftism
01-06-2004, 05:27 PM
Banning abortion would
1. Create a massive increase in child poverty.
2. Create a massive increase in the number of children living in care homes.
3. Create a massive increase in the number of backstreet abortions.
Whats your solution to these problems guys? You do have a solution... right?
Sid Hartha
01-06-2004, 05:38 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@6 January 2004 - 05:48
Most hideous of all (and I do not use the word lightly), CRR aims to undo "child abuse reporting requirements" with respect to what it calls "nonabusive" sexual relations with minors...
Paedophiles!!!! :o :o
The only thing missing is the chain letter instructions at the end of the message.
:lol:
Take her home boys-
She's all yours.
hobbes
01-06-2004, 07:18 PM
John Pilger meet Maggie Gallagher. Same emotive style, just a different agenda.
Biggles
01-06-2004, 10:27 PM
J2
I know you like to delve into columns others loathe to tread but I can't get too excited about this one - it wears its heart on its sleeve a little too openly (and garishly) for my taste. :blink:
To be perfectly honest I don't believe you believe there is a conspiracy at foot. In truth there are very few if any conspiracy theories I would hang my hat on - least of all this one. Your writing in the past would tend to suggest that you have a similar take on such matters. In real life, the prosaic and banal almost always trumps the interesting and complicated.
On the matter of abortion I am pro choice, but I would prefer to see those choices to be to prevent pregnancy in the first place. There are no shortage of decent methods to avoid pregnancy and many also prevent disease. I believe sexual health and education including contraception is essential knowledge for all teenagers (and some adults as well come to think of it) and should be given unstintingly.
Biggles-
I believe abortions should be legal, but I also believe their availability should be retail, not wholesale.
I do see an effort on the part of the pro-abortion crowd to eliminate any alternatives to their vision of free and easy abortion for everyone who wants one.
They demonstrate an intolerance of any opposing view on the subject.
I am bothered by the arguments they use to advocate partial-birth abortion; no one seems to notice it's just a hop, skip, and jump to killing babies outside the womb, just to keep the new mother's options open a wee bit longer.
As a father, I had, and continue to have, a HUGE problem with their move to legally forestall parental involvement in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.
They cannot justify using the exceptional circumstance of parental abuse (or potential abuse) in creating this blanket "right" for a young person who isn't equipped to exercise such a right.
Why couldn't they advocate in the case of exceptional circumstance?
The only answer I can arrive at is what I call an agenda.
If you prefer the term conspiracy in order to delegitimize or marginalize my concern, you are entitled-free speech, and all that. ;)
MagicNakor
01-07-2004, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@7 January 2004 - 07:18
.. legally forestall parental involvement in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.
They cannot justify using the exceptional circumstance of parental abuse (or potential abuse) in creating this blanket "right" for a young person who isn't equipped to exercise such a right...
If a teenage girl gets pregnant and has decided to get an abortion, what right do her parents have to tell her no, to force her through an unwanted pregnancy? She was obviously mature (heh) enough to make the decision to have unprotected sex.
While I'm not in favour of teenagers having sex, it happens. Where I live the teenage pregnancy rate is very high - far higher than the "norm." There is sex-ed in the schools (not abinstence only, thank goodness), but there aren't any condom vending machines. There aren't any in the whole city, actually. But I digress.
The girl's parents aren't the ones that have to go through the trials of pregnancy. They aren't the ones that will end up ultimately responsible. There are quite a few parents (such as strictly Catholic ones) that will not under any circumstances allow their daughter to have an abortion and begin the process of moving on. In some cases, they send her away to a secluded home for unwed mothers.
It was the girl's choice to have sex, and it should be her choice to handle the consequences.
:ninja:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@7 January 2004 - 02:35
It was the girl's choice to have sex, and it should be her choice to handle the consequences.
:ninja:
And abortion is a convenient way of avoiding, not handling, the consequence.
Do you think the only input a parent is capable of giving is to keep the baby?
What if a parent wanted to do nothing more than support the child's decision?
A comforting parent beats ANY other option, yet the state trumps them with the blanket of potential for abuse.
This is tantamount to being pronounced guilty without benefit of trial.
It discriminates, does it not?
MagicNakor
01-07-2004, 08:14 AM
Abortion is a way to handle the consequence. You may not agree with it, but it is a solution.
The parents can give whatever input they'd like, and by all means, they should, but at the end of the day it's the pregnant girl's decision, and she shouldn't be forced into something that she doesn't want because her parents decide something otherwise.
Yes, this goes both ways. It would mean the parents can't force her to have an abortion if she wants to keep the baby, and it would mean that the parents can't force her to go through pregnancy and everything else associated with it.
:ninja:
The parents are routinely excluded from the process, MN.
Planned parenthood makes no bones about their preference for this.
MagicNakor
01-07-2004, 08:58 AM
Planned Parenthood also gives out contraception. And not needing a permission slip from mother for that is a good thing.
:ninja:
Originally posted by MagicNakor@7 January 2004 - 04:58
Planned Parenthood also gives out contraception. And not needing a permission slip from mother for that is a good thing.
:ninja:
I'll stop doing "YEAH, BUT..." if you'll stop doing "YEAH, BUT...".
Okay? :)
MagicNakor
01-07-2004, 10:18 AM
Yeah, but...
Sure. ;)
:ninja:
clocker
01-07-2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@6 January 2004 - 23:18
As a father, I had, and continue to have, a HUGE problem with their move to legally forestall parental involvement in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.
I don't understand your continued insistence on this point, j2.
The law says nothing about denying you the right to input should your daughter request it.
If your relationship is healthy enough and your daughter is close enough to you to bring this problem to the family table, the law doesn't hinder you in the slightest.
It is for the benefit of girls/women who are not that fortunate that the law is designed.
Originally posted by clocker+7 January 2004 - 10:42--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (clocker @ 7 January 2004 - 10:42)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@6 January 2004 - 23:18
As a father, I had, and continue to have, a HUGE problem with their move to legally forestall parental involvement in the event of an unwanted pregnancy.
I don't understand your continued insistence on this point, j2.
The law says nothing about denying you the right to input should your daughter request it.
If your relationship is healthy enough and your daughter is close enough to you to bring this problem to the family table, the law doesn't hinder you in the slightest.
It is for the benefit of girls/women who are not that fortunate that the law is designed. [/b][/quote]
I am aware of instances where your scenario should have occurred, but didn't, due to an over-reliance on, or bullying effect of, peer pressure.
Planned parenthood doesn't question this possibility of this happening.
clocker
01-07-2004, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@7 January 2004 - 09:49
I am aware of instances where your scenario should have occurred, but didn't, due to an over-reliance on, or bullying effect of, peer pressure.
Planned parenthood doesn't question this possibility of this happening.
I'm certain that PP has taken that into account and decided that it is secondary to the instances of bullying by the parental units.
Perhaps your concerns would be better applied to the pre-need conditions.
By the time the girl in question is pregnant, she has already made unilateral decisions, the consequences of which should be hers to deal with.
Biggles
01-07-2004, 08:17 PM
Apologies J2
I do think the tone of the article is classic conspiracy theory and strident to boot. However, I do not view your concerns as a conspiracy. As a parent of a 13 year old girl I worry about these things too.
I have never heard of the PP or their agenda (so if they are spreading a gospel they are doing it quietly or, more likely, it is largely restricted to the US).
My own position is so similar to yours as render debate sterile. I do not feel under siege from our Family Planning Clinic and I support the range and scope of the education my kids receive on these matters; including the use of contraceptives and their availability. If I felt there was some kind of deliberate erosion of trust between parents and children I would be more concerned, as you clearly are.
One thought that has struck me is that some parents may be very pro-abortion (especially on sight of the spotty youth that would be the father). What would be the view of the person that wrote the article on parental involvement then I wonder? I suspect it is rather a mistake to assume that all teen girls want to abort and all parents wish to keep the child.
All women should have the right to choose an abortion at any time it is medically feasible.
That right is recognised by most of the world, barring the religious lunatic fringe (such as Bush and the Taliban). The Catholic Church, in forbidding people the use of any form of contraception, contributes to large scale backstreet abortions and to untold amounts of misery for women.
The Catholic Church even lies to people about how AIDS can be caught, saying it can get through unbroken condoms. This undermines education and again contributes to the misery and death of millions. There is a famous quote from Mother Theresa that illustrates the Catholic ethos quite well. When asked if she was worried about the terrible poverty and ill health large amounts of unplanned babies in Calcutta were born into she replied no she was not. All that mattered was that the baby drew one breath and therefore was another soul for God. The woman was all heart eh? Damn lunatic and purveyor of misery is more accurate.
Someone has already pointed out how inaccurate your assesment of the original memo is, so no need to add to that.
One last thing, you have zero right to interfere in your daughters choices if she becomes pregnant (oh and if you are catholic, that is quite likely to happen). You have zero right to even offer advice if the girl does not want it. Parents can have input if the young person wants it, or they can stfu if the person does not want it. Maybe if you weren't so against good sex education, these girls would not get pregnant in the first place though.
If the girl wants comforting, she will talk to you if you have a good relationship. However you cannot, and should not, be allowed to demand anything - even the right to comfort them if they do not want it.
bjford
01-08-2004, 07:43 PM
The Catholic Church even lies to people about how AIDS can be caught, saying it can get through unbroken condoms. This undermines education and again contributes to the misery and death of millions. There is a famous quote from Mother Theresa that illustrates the Catholic ethos quite well. When asked if she was worried about the terrible poverty and ill health large amounts of unplanned babies in Calcutta were born into she replied no she was not. All that mattered was that the baby drew one breath and therefore was another soul for God. The woman was all heart eh? Damn lunatic and purveyor of misery is more accurate.
This is actually true. In the condoms most common in Africa they use a different material, where only the sperm doesn’t seep through, but the STDs do. Also, Mother Theresa had made numerous pro-life statements:
"I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child, a direct killing of the innocent child, murder by the mother herself."
"Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching its people to love, but to use violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion"
"Many people are concerned with children of India, with the children of Africa where quite a few die of hunger, and so on. Many people are also concerned about the violence in this great country of the United States. These concerns are very good. But often these same people are not concerned with the millions being killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is the greatest destroyer of peace today- abortion which brings people to such blindness."
There are always limitations to one woman’s choice. A woman can obviously choose to get pregnant. She can obviously choose to leave a country. She can obviously choose to have sexual intercourse or not. However, nobody has a choice to do anything they want, especially killing their own children, or rather allowing their children do be killed. Since the fetus is a human being -- not by Christian principles, not even any religious ones, but scientifically, a human being – then nothing else matters. The fetus automatically has a full right to life. Nobody can ever take that from the fetus. It is a living, heart-beating, human being. Even at 12 weeks it can feel some pain, and by 22 weeks feel complete pain.
So what if somebody went through an “unwanted pregnancy”? She shouldn’t have had sex. If she was raped, honestly that’s sad, but it still doesn’t justify murder.
Originally posted by 1234@8 January 2004 - 13:47
All women should have the right to choose an abortion at any time it is medically feasible.
That right is recognised by most of the world, barring the religious lunatic fringe (such as Bush and the Taliban). The Catholic Church, in forbidding people the use of any form of contraception, contributes to large scale backstreet abortions and to untold amounts of misery for women.
The Catholic Church even lies to people about how AIDS can be caught, saying it can get through unbroken condoms. This undermines education and again contributes to the misery and death of millions. There is a famous quote from Mother Theresa that illustrates the Catholic ethos quite well. When asked if she was worried about the terrible poverty and ill health large amounts of unplanned babies in Calcutta were born into she replied no she was not. All that mattered was that the baby drew one breath and therefore was another soul for God. The woman was all heart eh? Damn lunatic and purveyor of misery is more accurate.
Someone has already pointed out how inaccurate your assesment of the original memo is, so no need to add to that.
One last thing, you have zero right to interfere in your daughters choices if she becomes pregnant (oh and if you are catholic, that is quite likely to happen). You have zero right to even offer advice if the girl does not want it. Parents can have input if the young person wants it, or they can stfu if the person does not want it. Maybe if you weren't so against good sex education, these girls would not get pregnant in the first place though.
If the girl wants comforting, she will talk to you if you have a good relationship. However you cannot, and should not, be allowed to demand anything - even the right to comfort them if they do not want it.
I haven't witnessed such rampant ignorance since the heyday of Zardoz.
As is apparent from your ranting posts, you haven't the slightest idea of intellectualizing a response, effective or otherwise, to any decently presented argument.
That is to say, even if I WERE wrong, YOU are not capable of explaining the "how" or "why" of it.
Your posting personifies inflammatory and extremist rhetoric at it's worst, compounded by the fact of your factual and logical "bereftness".
You may commence with your imminent further attempts at my abasement, none of which will have the slightest effect, I assure you.
BTW-
You haven't any children, have you?
Nor would you, I suspect.
I suppose that is a good thing, given your addled and high-strung state of mind..
It is also good this occurs in cyberspace; else I fear we'd all be soaked by your spittle.
:)
This is actually true. In the condoms most common in Africa they use a different material, where only the sperm doesn’t seep through, but the STDs do.
No this is NOT true. Show me the evidence of it, the WHO has already condemned the Vatican for it's scaremongering on the issue. The molecular mesh of a condom does not allow STD's to pass and never has. It is simply a lie created by the Vatican in it's efforts to stop people using birth control. Remember, the Vatican does not say certain African condoms (though that is still a lie) - it states that ALL condoms allow STD infection. It promotes the lie in all corners of the globe, not just Africa.
On those quotes from Theresa, none contradict the quote I gave. In that she states that any suffering is alright as long as god has more souls. People think Theresa ran a hospital in Calcutta, she didn't. She ran a hospice with some of the worst sanitary conditions seen even in Indian establishments. She had no interest in dealing with the causes of the disease and malnutrition that fed her hospice, just taking more souls for her god. She was an evil woman in my, and many other peoples, eyes.
Since the fetus is a human being -- not by Christian principles, not even any religious ones, but scientifically, a human being – then nothing else matters.
A foetus is not a human being in my countries laws or in US law unless I am mistaken. I do not regard a foetus as a human being until it can survive outside the womb unaided. So yes, that means I am against very late term elective abortions without a strong medical reason (of which there can be many).
I haven't witnessed such rampant ignorance since the heyday of Zardoz.
You mean you cannot answer my points? Blanket statements like that just show your lack of real arguments.
As is apparent from your ranting posts, you haven't the slightest idea of intellectualizing a response, effective or otherwise, to any decently presented argument.
That is to say, even if I WERE wrong, YOU are not capable of explaining the "how" or "why" of it.
Your posting personifies inflammatory and extremist rhetoric at it's worst, compounded by the fact of your factual and logical "bereftness".
You may commence with your imminent further attempts at my abasement, none of which will have the slightest effect, I assure you.
Heh, I am thinking you lied about your age tbh. I find only teenagers and early 20's people resort to dragging out the thesaurus and totally mangling sentance structures in their desire to be seen as witty and erudite. Nice try though, I guess.
As for the gist of your mish mash of found words, yes I am presenting a cogent reply in my previous post and this one. You just cannot find a reply.
You haven't any children, have you?
Nor would you, I suspect.
Married father of 2 (one girl).
I suppose that is a good thing, given your addled and high-strung state of mind...
Ah, anyone who disagrees with you must be addled? Again, a common tactic of the young and poorly informed. You really are doing yourself no favours with this post you know.
Try debating the points raised instead of going to dictionary.com and using it's thesaurus. Your random flailings in this reply just show the lack of depth in your views.
It is also good this occurs in cyberspace; else I fear we'd all be soaked by your spittle.
Oh I'm crushed. The man has wit and bite worthy of Wilde or Shaw at their best.
Oh wait, he is just another kid on the net who, when faced with an argument they cannot reply to, opts for juvenile insults.
Go you :)
bjford
01-09-2004, 12:50 AM
A senior Vatican spokesman backs the claims about permeable condoms, despite assurances by the World Health Organisation that they are untrue.
No this is NOT true. Show me the evidence of it, the WHO has already condemned the Vatican for it's scaremongering on the issue. The molecular mesh of a condom does not allow STD's to pass and never has. It is simply a lie created by the Vatican in it's efforts to stop people using birth control. Remember, the Vatican does not say certain African condoms (though that is still a lie) - it states that ALL condoms allow STD infection. It promotes the lie in all corners of the globe, not just Africa.
Firstly, it wasn’t the Vatican who made the statement. The statement was made by a Bishop in Uganda (who, by the way, was assassinated recently). The Vatican simply supported the statement, although the Liberal Guardian UK is saying the Vatican did it, in the report stated that it was made by a bishop. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html) The condoms most common in Uganda are not polyurethane or rubber like they are here- they’re made of a more cloth-like material (it’s not cloth), where the semen can’t pass through but STDs can. No, the Vatican never said “all condoms”, and the African Bishop didn’t either. What’s happening is that people are telling themselves that it’s OK to have sex now because they won’t get pregnant, and so they have sex more and more often. This simply makes the risk of getting STDs and pregnancy higher, because people are having sex above limits.
People think Theresa ran a hospital in Calcutta, she didn't. She ran a hospice with some of the worst sanitary conditions seen even in Indian establishments. She had no interest in dealing with the causes of the disease and malnutrition that fed her hospice, just taking more souls for her god. She was an evil woman in my, and many other peoples, eyes.
Yes, she had a hospice. There were already many hospitals in India. Creating a hospital costs a lot of money. We must remember that the vow Missionaries take isn’t to save lives, but to assist the poor. If they were to open hospitals, automatically they would put all their funds into it like many other orders did, because hospitals are so expensive. That’s not what the Missionaries do. They feed the poor, house the poor, teach the poor, et cetera. They’re not taking a vow to save their lives if they can’t afford it.
People like to attack Mother Theresa because she was Catholic. Look at Ghandi- he had many benefits too. People think he was really holy person and was very good to the poor et cetera. This is true in one sense, but he had much luxery as well. He was a lawyer, we must remember. The only reason why he starved was because he was fasting himself. He had plenty of food. He was very wealthy.
A foetus is not a human being in my countries laws or in US law unless I am mistaken. I do not regard a foetus as a human being until it can survive outside the womb unaided. So yes, that means I am against very late term elective abortions without a strong medical reason (of which there can be many).
Law doesn’t define truth. The US said that slaves weren’t humans, but was it correct? No.
About living outside the womb, in 1950 only 7 month old fetuses could survive outside of the womb. In 1970 6-month olds could survive. Today, we can save 5-month-olds fetuses. So are you saying that in 1950 the fetus wasn’t human, but today it is human? What?? Many people can’t survive on their own. However, as technology grows, more and more people can.
Biggles
01-09-2004, 01:00 AM
Indeed, one can see a time when there will be no requirement for the womb at all.
bjford
01-09-2004, 01:31 AM
In the UK, scientists have invented an artificial womb. If it works, this will completely change embryology as we know it.
Biggles
01-09-2004, 01:34 AM
Not just embryology I suspect - ah! the brave new world.
However, I am far from being a Luddite and, by and large, I hold to the view that these are indeed the good old days (if we wait a while).
Your own link shows that the Vatican is making that claim, and repeating the claim worldwide. It is false, always was false and always will be. The condoms available in Uganda are from organisations such as WHO and are made of the same material as condoms in the West. I saw the program that article is referencing, and if you read the transcripts (available at bbc.co.uk/panorama) the evidence against the Vatican is overwhelming. Interviews with Cardinals in which they state all condoms kind of renders your protestations irrelavent.
It is a lie with no evidence to back it up that is costing the lives of who knows how many people. Why are you defending that lie? Let me guess, you are catholic and are bound by dogma to defend any Papal decree due to Papal Infallibility.
The Catholic church is one of the richest institutions known to man. If it wanted to it could open 100 hospitals in India tomorrow. However it doesn't, and Theresa didn't even feed the poor or tend to them very well. Her hospice was an utter disgrace and many catholic nurses have come out and said so. They arrived thinking they would be helping the people of India and came to realize it was just a place to get people to convert to Catholicism out of desperation. It was filthy and full of malnourished people. I attack Theresa not because she was catholic, but because she was a woman without human compassion who reveled in misery.
Spare me the crap about poverty too, go take a look at the Vatican (or any other catholic establishment) and tell me they are short of cash.
Do you know why Ghandi fasted? He did it to stop the violence in India. He didn't do it to glorify himself (though I am sure he was not totally without ego) but to force his followers to renounce the use of violence. That is a worthy use of spirituality, not the counting of souls while disregarding their care.
You misread my statement on foetus', read it again. I said "survive outside the womb unaided". Births at 4 months premature do not survive unaided. You are then into the realm of man's interference in the natural order, something as a catholic (assumption I know) you should abhor (cf birth control).
Nightwolf
01-09-2004, 03:32 AM
Every fetus is able to survive unaided outside the womb - eventually.
Originally posted by 1234@8 January 2004 - 18:15
You mean you cannot answer my points? Blanket statements like that just show your lack of real arguments.
Okay-
Let us backtrack:
Could you recount these points you claim to have made?
Please do it simply, as in: Point 1...Point 2....etc.
If you will do this for me, I will answer them for you-I promise.
Try to keep things orderly; I will do the same.
Try also to leave extraneous thoughts, commentary and tone aside, please.
bjford
01-09-2004, 05:49 AM
The Catholic church is one of the richest institutions known to man. If it wanted to it could open 100 hospitals in India tomorrow. However it doesn't, and Theresa didn't even feed the poor or tend to them very well. Her hospice was an utter disgrace and many catholic nurses have come out and said so. They arrived thinking they would be helping the people of India and came to realize it was just a place to get people to convert to Catholicism out of desperation. It was filthy and full of malnourished people. I attack Theresa not because she was catholic, but because she was a woman without human compassion who reveled in misery.
Your statement is ridiculous! The Missionaries of Charity are not affiliated with the Vatican, which has all the money. None of the orders in the Church are. The Missionaries of Charity were not founded by the Catholic Church, but by members of the Catholic Church. The Catholics in India make up less than 2% of the population, and yet they have the most hospitals all over India. Don’t come and tell me there are not enough hospitals in India- there are. However, since India is a confederacy instead of a federacy, every state has different laws on medicine, and so benefits that Americans get (such as Medicare) are not always available to Indians. Mother Theresa founded her organization in India, so the missionaries didn’t “arrive” in India, they began in India. Mother Theresa was working completely alone in the beginning, simply saving a few women. However, soon more and more women joined in until it became an organization. I’ve been working with the Missionaries of Charity since I was a teenager, and I can tell you that they do not at all pressure people to convert to Catholicism. However, their goal is to lead people to heaven by showing their good works. Is there anything wrong with that? Ghandi fasted to save the Indians, Mother Theresa founded the Missionaries to save souls. Nothing wrong with that.
Spare me the crap about poverty too, go take a look at the Vatican (or any other catholic establishment) and tell me they are short of cash.
The Catholic Church does have plenty of money, but we must remember it relies completely on donations, and that all of the money goes to Church programs.
Do you know why Ghandi fasted? He did it to stop the violence in India. He didn't do it to glorify himself (though I am sure he was not totally without ego) but to force his followers to renounce the use of violence. That is a worthy use of spirituality, not the counting of souls while disregarding their care.
That’s a logical fallacy. You’re saying Ghandi fasted to stop violence in India, because he said so. Mother Theresa never said she did her work to glorify herself, and also said to help the poorest of the poor. However, because Mother Theresa is Catholic, you want to criticize her so you say she did that work to glorify herself. LOL. That’s so ignorant and illogical.
You misread my statement on foetus', read it again. I said "survive outside the womb unaided". Births at 4 months premature do not survive unaided. You are then into the realm of man's interference in the natural order, something as a catholic (assumption I know) you should abhor (cf birth control).
I’m not going to state whether I’m Catholic or not (and don’t assume I’m Catholic, even if I like Mother Theresa and work with the missionaries, as many other non-Christians work with missionaries as well).
Births at 5 months can’t survive unaided! 6 months! Not even 7 months! As a matter of fact, even a full-term infant can’t survive unaided (though less so)! A child can’t survive unaided! What’s your point? Handicapped people can't survive unaided... are they not human either? Again, another logical fallacy.
BTW, 1234-
I asked for a CIVIL response.
If you cannot provide one, please do not bother.
As I don't know when you are on board, I will wait a suitable amount of time before I begin the deconstruction of your posting to this point.
I think that is fair. ;)
Biggles
01-09-2004, 10:55 AM
Although the comparison between Mother Theresa and Ghandi is intriguing it is somewhat spurious. Ghandi was a political leader that successfully led a campaign against British colonialism in his own country. He also did much to help the poorer castes in India and create a more equal and democratic society. As poltical leaders go, he was one of the better ones and will always be very dear to the hearts of Indians; in much the same way as Washington and Lincoln are to Americans. Consequently, bjford, I think your dismissive tone towards him is unfounded, although I do appreciate that you are responding to an attack on someone you hold dear.
To be perfectly honest I know little about Mother Theresa, other than she was Albanian and very old school Catholic. It stands to reason that her views on many social issues would reflect that background and theology. Is therefore any pupose in continuing to lob bricks at each other over the Catholic Church's stance over birth control and abortion. It is a given which will not change quickly - it took quite a while and a few burnings before they accepted the world is round, but now they have their own astronomers and are more willing to accept the antiquitity of the universe and life on other planets than many Protestant churches are.
bjford - your ecumenical spirit is to be commended - living in the West of Scotland it is not something I see often (where the term "mixed marriage" is automatically assumed to mean Protestant/Catholic).
However, the point J2 raised was not whether abortion is right or wrong but rather one concerning political agendas and the infringement of the rights of parents. These are quite separate from the abortion debate per se and equally can be applied to a number of issues.
leftism
01-09-2004, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I asked for a CIVIL response.
If you cannot provide one, please do not bother.
As I don't know when you are on board, I will wait a suitable amount of time before I begin the deconstruction of your posting to this point.
I think that is fair.
[/b]
Originally posted by j2k4@
I haven't witnessed such rampant ignorance since the heyday of Zardoz.
As is apparent from your ranting posts, you haven't the slightest idea of intellectualizing a response, effective or otherwise, to any decently presented argument.
That is to say, even if I WERE wrong, YOU are not capable of explaining the "how" or "why" of it.
Your posting personifies inflammatory and extremist rhetoric at it's worst, compounded by the fact of your factual and logical "bereftness".
You may commence with your imminent further attempts at my abasement, none of which will have the slightest effect, I assure you.
BTW-
You haven't any children, have you?
Nor would you, I suspect.
I suppose that is a good thing, given your addled and high-strung state of mind..
It is also good this occurs in cyberspace; else I fear we'd all be soaked by your spittle.
<!--QuoteBegin-Matthew 7:3-5
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.[/quote]
Billy_Dean
01-09-2004, 11:12 AM
I haven't seen the point of view that abortion is murder stated yet, so I'll make it.
Abortion is murder.
That's an opinion, so don't try running me down for it.
The foetus is a life, when it's aborted it dies, murder.
:(
clocker
01-09-2004, 01:32 PM
Originally posted by leftism+9 January 2004 - 04:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 9 January 2004 - 04:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
I asked for a CIVIL response.
If you cannot provide one, please do not bother.
As I don't know when you are on board, I will wait a suitable amount of time before I begin the deconstruction of your posting to this point.
I think that is fair.
[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@
I haven't witnessed such rampant ignorance since the heyday of Zardoz.
As is apparent from your ranting posts, you haven't the slightest idea of intellectualizing a response, effective or otherwise, to any decently presented argument.
That is to say, even if I WERE wrong, YOU are not capable of explaining the "how" or "why" of it.
Your posting personifies inflammatory and extremist rhetoric at it's worst, compounded by the fact of your factual and logical "bereftness".
You may commence with your imminent further attempts at my abasement, none of which will have the slightest effect, I assure you.
BTW-
You haven't any children, have you?
Nor would you, I suspect.
I suppose that is a good thing, given your addled and high-strung state of mind..
It is also good this occurs in cyberspace; else I fear we'd all be soaked by your spittle.
<!--QuoteBegin-Matthew 7:3-5
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.[/quote] [/b][/quote]
Bravo.
The concept of cut and paste raised to sheer perfection.
I applaud your elevation of the artform.
hobbes
01-09-2004, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by leftism+9 January 2004 - 12:10--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (leftism @ 9 January 2004 - 12:10)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-Matthew 7:3-5
Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.[/b][/quote]
Lefty,
In serveral posts you have requested that people scrutinize themselves first before commenting on someone else.
I thought you might like this for your avatar and sig. :lol:
http://www.euronet.nl/~petertr/mike.jpg
"Man in the Mirror"
I'm Starting With The Man In
The Mirror
I'm Asking Him To Change
His Ways
And No Message Could Have
Been Any Clearer
If You Wanna Make The World
A Better Place
(If You Wanna Make The
World A Better Place)
Take A Look At Yourself, And
Then Make A Change
(Take A Look At Yourself, And
Then Make A Change)
(Na Na Na, Na Na Na, Na Na,
Na Nah)
You may need to omit a few "Na, na"s to meet sig restrictions.
Enjoy.
leftism
01-09-2004, 08:56 PM
I'm glad to see plenty of specifics in your accusations :).
Let me be specific in my accusations though.. in the three posts I've seen j2k4 in 'action' his pattern has been identical.
He goes into flame overdrive, rarely addresses any of the issues and then demands that others address the issues and treat him with the utmost respect!
Hence the bible quote. I thought this was particularly amusing as he is a strong supporter of Christianity, yet seems unable to adhere to one of the more well known lessons Jesus gave.
Now.. would you guys like to be specific about your accusations against me, or would you prefer to keep it as ambiguous as possible? After all nobody can pin you down then. This is something that all three of you appear to have in common at the moment :)
Before you guys start digging trenches and securing your positions for the ensuing battle, I politely request that the two of you look at 1234's post and then look at j2k4's response. (Beginning "I haven't witnessed such rampant ignorance since the heyday of Zardoz. etc".)
Do you really want to defend that?
clocker
01-10-2004, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by leftism@9 January 2004 - 13:56
Before you guys start digging trenches and securing your positions for the ensuing battle, I politely request that the two of you look at 1234's post and then look at j2k4's response. (Beginning "I haven't witnessed such rampant ignorance since the heyday of Zardoz. etc".)
Do you really want to defend that?
I rarely dig trenches being genetically averse to manual labor.
However, I did expend the energy to reread the post/response as requested.
1234's post was sheer, unmitigated drivel and inflammatory, to boot.
Linking Bush and the Taliban and making assertions about the likelihood of a (presumed) Catholic daughter's chances of pregnancy was obviously intended to provoke a heated response.
Which j2 provided.
He certainly requires no defense from me, he's a big boy and can take care of himself.
My post was not a response to either of those two however.
I aimed at you.
I'm not fond of, nor impressed by, cut and paste jobs.
If irony was the intent, wouldn't some pithy words of your own have better served? The juxtaposition of quotes seemed lazy.
leftism
01-10-2004, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by clocker
1234's post was sheer, unmitigated drivel and inflammatory, to boot.
Linking Bush and the Taliban and making assertions about the likelihood of a (presumed) Catholic daughter's chances of pregnancy was obviously intended to provoke a heated response.
Well, it is true that both Bush and the Taleban are against abortion, although I concede that it is an extremely provocative statement to make.
But... to say the entire post was "sheer, unmitigated drivel" is not fair or accurate.
It has been shown in numerous studies that girls who do not receive sex education are far more likely to become pregnant in their teens. This isnt drivel.
Arguing that all women should have the right to an abortion isn't drivel.
Arguing that the Catholic church causes immense damage by claiming that all condoms (unbroken and used correctly) do not protect you against aids isn't drivel.
Do you believe that a post that brings up these points deserves a venomous flaming session? Don't you think it hypocritical that the same individual should also demand a "civil response" minutes later?
Perhaps I was a little lazy with my cut and paste job, but people cannot deny their own words and, from what I've seen of the way j2k4 conducts himself, any pithy words of mine would have resulted in another flaming session full of denials and attempts to deviate from the original point.
3RA1N1AC
01-10-2004, 02:25 AM
Originally posted by clocker@9 January 2004 - 17:05
My post was not a response to either of those two however.
I aimed at you.
I'm not fond of, nor impressed by, cut and paste jobs.
If irony was the intent, wouldn't some pithy words of your own have better served? The juxtaposition of quotes seemed lazy.
you don't need reminding that the opening post in this thread was little more than a copy & paste, right? :lol:
bjford
01-10-2004, 03:07 AM
I am in no way attacking Ghandi- he was a great political figure, and I adore him greatly. I was simply comparing some things that Ghandi did to those of Mother Theresa, and attacking 1234’s ridiculous statements.
There is no time for people to get used to the idea that abortion is wrong; abortion needs to be stopped immediately. When Lincoln abolished slavery, half of all Americans opposed this decision. However, because it was a horrible thing, it needed to be abolished immediately.
Arguing that the Catholic church causes immense damage by claiming that all condoms (unbroken and used correctly) do not protect you against aids isn't drivel.
Once again, that is not what happened. The bishop of Uganda (not the Vatican or the Catholic Church, which the Guardian UK twists) stated that the condoms used in Uganda (not all condoms) have holes in them. This is true, because there are no polyurethane condoms in Uganda.
leftism
01-10-2004, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by bjford+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bjford)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Once again, that is not what happened. The bishop of Uganda (not the Vatican or the Catholic Church, which the Guardian UK twists) stated that the condoms used in Uganda (not all condoms) have holes in them. This is true, because there are no polyurethane condoms in Uganda.
[/b]
I'm afraid your mistaken on that one. Take a look at this interview with Archbishop A'nzeki.
<!--QuoteBegin-bbc interview
BRADSHAW: Catholics bishops in Kenya produced this pamphlet which claims: "Latex rubber from
which condoms are made does have pores through which viral sized particles can squeeze through during
intercourse." We read this to the World Health Organisation who told us it is: "simply not true".
This is scientific nonsense isn't it?
A'NZEKI: Scientific nonsense?
BRADSHAW: Yes.
A'NZEKI: That is true. First we are defective. What ?? they have?
BRADSHAW: It doesn't say anything about defective condoms. It says: "Latex rubber from which
condoms are made has pores through which viral sized particles…."
A'NZEKI: It means they are not proof… complete 100% proof.
BRADSHAW: But it says latex rubber, it says that viruses can pass through latex rubber. That's nonsense.
A'NZEKI: You go and get the scientists to look at it.
BRADSHAW: Archbishop, with the greatest respect, what I'm suggesting is that you're peddling
superstition and ignorance.
N'ANZEKI: We are not peddling ignorance. We shall be proved the only people who have been right in
this matter in the long-run.[/quote]
source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/panorama/transcripts/sexandtheholycity.txt)
Now that you know the Catholic church is talking about all condoms, has this changed your opinion on the subject?
leftism
01-10-2004, 03:33 AM
Sorry about this but I forgot to cover this point you raised as well.
Originally posted by bjford+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bjford)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
The bishop of Uganda (not the Vatican or the Catholic Church, which the Guardian UK twists)[/b]
<!--QuoteBegin-the guardian
The church's claims are revealed in a BBC1 Panorama programme, Sex and the Holy City, to be broadcast on Sunday. The president of the Vatican's Pontifical Council for the Family, Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, told the programme: "The Aids virus is roughly 450 times smaller than the spermatozoon. The spermatozoon can easily pass through the 'net' that is formed by the condom. [/quote]
source (http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html)
bjford
01-10-2004, 04:45 AM
Leftism, you're using two completely different stories. The story in Kenya is different from that in Uganda. Secondly, Cardinal Trujillo isn't the Catholic Church. IF you actually think the Pope can run the entire Catholic Church, you're incorrect. There is much corruption within the Church, and not all can simply be fixed by a pope. Finally, Trujillo never specifies which condoms. Once again, many condoms can break!
This is for 1234 and lefty-
Since it is apparent that the two of you and I are occupying positions diametrically opposed to one another, I will lump the two of you together, as you are clearly birds of a feather, at least where this thread's subject is concerned.
I'll begin by retracting my frothy response to 1234's thread, and try to respond in a manner you might regard as more "responsive".
Here we go:
(1234's post-my responses in blue)
All women should have the right to choose an abortion at any time it is medically feasible.
As I don't know where you are from, I'll limit my response to the situation in the U.S.; I can't claim to speak to the situation wherever you might be.
Currently, women in the U.S. (even teens, apparently) enjoy almost unlimited access to abortion. They are not legally bound to seek council from, or even inform, their parent, spouse, or significant other.
In the case of teenaged pregnancy, the likelihood is that if any advice or council is sought or given, it will come from either a peer or a family-planning professional.
In both cases, the pregnant female is likely to be told that having an abortion is the easiest, best solution for all involved (All consisting of the mother candidate, and, presumably, the friend-who won't have to surrender her/his friend to an unwanted pregnancy, and the family-planning professional, whose raison d'etre is therefore vindicated.
In no case other than partial-birth abortion is any restriction placed upon any female who wishes to abort.
Partial-birth abortion faces court challenges ad nauseum due to the heretofore unchallenged notion that "intact dilation and extraction" was performed only in the case of a severely disabled fetuses or in medical emergencies involving the mother's health.
The pro-abortion lobby attempted to low-ball the number of instances of partial-birth abortion, quoting a figure of "a couple of hundred" times a year.
In 1997, Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, suffered a rare moment of honesty and admitted that such procedures were performed 6,000 or 7,000 times per year, mostly on healthy mothers with healthy babies.
In 1999, in Kansas alone, 182 partial-birth abortions were performed on babies declarded "viable" by the attending physician, and in each case the reason cited was the mental, not physical health of the mother.
Other investigations revealed that the reasons women sought these second-trimester abortions were often the same reasons abortions were sought in the first trimester. [/I]
That right is recognised by most of the world,(I beg you, quantify and enumerate MOST) barring the religious lunatic fringe (such as Bush and the Taliban)(I find this a BIT extreme, rhetorically). The Catholic Church, in forbidding people the use of any form of contraception, contributes to large scale backstreet abortions and to untold amounts of misery for women.
Statistics show approximately 75% of Catholic women do not abide the official dictates of the Catholic Church as regards contraception and abortion.
One could safely assume, therefore, the remaining 25% follow the Church's taboos, and are therefore not likely to suffer unwanted pregnancy nor "backstreet abortions", large-scale or otherwise.
The Catholic Church even lies to people about how AIDS can be caught, saying it can get through unbroken condoms. This undermines education and again contributes to the misery and death of millions.
I have heard many tales of intact, yet porous, condoms.
My guess would be the pro-abortion lobby's impulse to buy in quantity, at the best prices available, would somehow have compromised the manufacturing process, and, in turn, the structural integrity of the condoms, to the point of porosity.
There is a famous quote from Mother Theresa that illustrates the Catholic ethos quite well. When asked if she was worried about the terrible poverty and ill health large amounts of unplanned babies in Calcutta were born into she replied no she was not. All that mattered was that the baby drew one breath and therefore was another soul for God. The woman was all heart eh? Damn lunatic and purveyor of misery is more accurate.
I am not all too familiar with Mother Theresa; I am not Catholic, either, but I'd be willing to be there is a contextual misunderstanding here-not saying I know, for sure, but I'd bet on it, just the same.
Someone has already pointed out how inaccurate your assesment of the original memo is, so no need to add to that.
Someone? Who dat?
One last thing, you have zero right to interfere in your daughters choices if she becomes pregnant What right have YOU to presume anything with regard to my relationship with my daughter? Where do you come off presuming a stance of "interference" on my part? Whence does this "zero" right come? Do you even know? How does your pronouncement weigh on matters financial? Am I duty-bound to support the young crumb-cruncher (I assume you speak to the case of an under-aged pregnancy)? Would I have a right to pursue the father of the child in order to secure his cooperation on matters regarding support? Would YOU support such a child, no questions asked? If so, your gullibility would prompt me to send all my unpaid bills to your address for payment. (oh and if you are catholic, that is quite likely to happen). As I have already stated, I am not Catholic; I am curious, though: What is it that is likely to happen to Catholic daughters?
You have zero right to even offer advice if the girl does not want it. Parents can have input if the young person wants it, or they can stfu if the person does not want it.
Here is a novel thought.
I believe we can agree that any relationship is a cooperative effort, yes?
In the case I (as a parent) would be legally or otherwise estopped from involving myself in my daughter's pregnancy, what are my obligations? If this condition of "zero rights" is allowed to give myself and my daughter the status of strangers, am I reduced to paying the bill?
What if I decide I don't want to help with the diaper-changing? What if my daughter decides SHE doesn't want to change the diaper? Or heat the bottle or feed the baby?
Remember, now: Your concept makes strangers of us-I am not normally inclined to perform such services for strangers.
Are you?
Maybe if you weren't so against good sex education, these girls would not get pregnant in the first place though.
Who said I am against sex-education?
I AM against sex-education administered exclusively by the so-called "family-planning professionals".
There are other places to get the needed facts, even though they may not have personal appeal to YOU.
Remember: Rights STILL exist, and you are touting pro-CHOICE, yes?
If the girl wants comforting, she will talk to you if you have a good relationship. However you cannot, and should not, be allowed to demand anything - even the right to comfort them if they do not want it.
I have already told my daughter my thoughts about this subject; I did not, however, wait until she was pregnant to do so-do you feel, therefore, that I have been unfairly intrusive?
I hope this response is to your liking.
If you choose (nice word; too bad the whole process of "pro-choice" has so few of them) to respond, I remain ready for continued banter.
:)
Well Leftism has answered many of the criticisms of my posts in the same way I would have, so I won't go over those points again just now.
On to the other points.
The Missionaries of Charity are affiliated to the Catholic Church by both dogma and personnel. All members believe Church dogma, and all members are Catholics. That is self evident.
The Catholics in India make up less than 2% of the population, and yet they have the most hospitals all over India.
Hmm I'd have to see proof of this. Are you saying that the Catholics run more hospitals/clinics than the state govts? I find that hard to believe. I would think assorted UN agencies have more than the catholics, never mind Indian state agencies. I am open to pursuasion if you can present reliable statistics though.
Mother Theresa founded her organization in India, so the missionaries didn’t “arrive” in India, they began in India. Mother Theresa was working completely alone in the beginning, simply saving a few women.
I don't think Theresa materialised in India, so she arrived from wherever via Albania. What saving do you mean? Her work saves nobody, there is very little care given to the Hospice inhabitants and (by definition) hospice patients have a terminal disease. If you mean "saved" in the religious aspect, no one really cares about that except you and other catholics - it achieves nothing in this world except to convince some poor dying person that your imaginary friend is real.
However, their goal is to lead people to heaven by showing their good works. Is there anything wrong with that?
What good works? The Hospices have been condemned by catholics as filthy and with very poor care. You state you are a member of this organisation, therefore your views must be treated in the same manner as any evangelist and propagandist - with extreme care and requiring proof.
If you want to do good works, why are you not trying to prevent the causes of the poverty and disease that lead people to your hospices? See the quote from Theresa on babies breathing one breath, regardless of the suffering involved.
Ghandi fasted to save the Indians, Mother Theresa founded the Missionaries to save souls. Nothing wrong with that.
Save souls? I do not believe catholics can save souls (or any other religion for that matter) so kindly prove to me that you can. Ghandhi, on the other hand, used his spirituality to enact real changes in the real world. He stopped people dying in riots and over religious differences. Theresa is not fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Ghandi.
The Catholic Church does have plenty of money, but we must remember it relies completely on donations, and that all of the money goes to Church programs.
Donations? Here's me thinking that all that land they held paid rather handsomely in terms of rent. Never mind that the donations they do get are from people who cannot afford it but do so from fear of some eternal wrath from a non existant god. Hmm I guess we could also go into the Mafia money the Vatican launders too if you want, remember Calvi?
That’s a logical fallacy. You’re saying Ghandi fasted to stop violence in India, because he said so.
Do you have any idea of what happened historically? Ghandhi fasted to stop the violence aimed at both the english and at other faiths - and shortly before he died of starvation the violence stopped. He then resumed eating. Even if you ignore his statements, I think the facts bear him out quite well.
Mother Theresa never said she did her work to glorify herself, and also said to help the poorest of the poor. However, because Mother Theresa is Catholic, you want to criticize her so you say she did that work to glorify herself. LOL. That’s so ignorant and illogical.
As I have said, Theresa helped very few people. She just let them die in her filthy hospice rather than out on the equally filthy street. Someone with an ounce of compassion would try and remove the causes of the disease and poverty rather than counting souls for her god. I never said she did it to glorify herself per se, but rather the catholic church as a whole.
Births at 5 months can’t survive unaided! 6 months! Not even 7 months! As a matter of fact, even a full-term infant can’t survive unaided (though less so)! A child can’t survive unaided! What’s your point? Handicapped people can't survive unaided... are they not human either? Again, another logical fallacy.
Unaided means without medical intervention (incubators etc). A full term baby can survive fine without such aids. Handicapped babies can survive unaided (depending on the disability). I know of what I speak as I used to work in a hospital for the severely disabled. Oh and guess what, we actually tried to improve their lot in life rather than just counting a soul and disregarding the life.
There is no time for people to get used to the idea that abortion is wrong; abortion needs to be stopped immediately. When Lincoln abolished slavery, half of all Americans opposed this decision. However, because it was a horrible thing, it needed to be abolished immediately.
The catholic church supported both slavery and the nazi's, among with whole hosts of other unpleasant things. However, abortion is not wrong. It is a medical tool the same way heart transplants are. Are you against transplants too? The church is, or at least sub-sects of it.
Leftism has utterly blown your condom argument away so I won't add to that. Heh, arguing that the Cardinal responsible for Family Affairs does not represent the church. That is rather desperate.
In both cases, the pregnant female is likely to be told that having an abortion is the easiest, best solution for all involved (All consisting of the mother candidate, and, presumably, the friend-who won't have to surrender her/his friend to an unwanted pregnancy, and the family-planning professional, whose raison d'etre is therefore vindicated.
Assumption with no basis in fact, and just displays your hostility to FPA's. Anyone from an FPA would tell you that the girl not becoming pregnant at all would be a vindication of their job. If that girl had been given access to good sex education and condoms, the whole situation could have been avoided.
In 1999, in Kansas alone, 182 partial-birth abortions were performed on babies declarded "viable" by the attending physician, and in each case the reason cited was the mental, not physical health of the mother
You seem to labour under the illusion that women enjoy being pregnant for 8 or more months then aborting the child. Why didn't that woman have an abortion earlier? Perhaps due to pressure from people with your views? Perhaps due to the rabid christians hounding any woman that approaches an abortion clinic? Maybe they fear being shot by the religious lunatics that share your views? Who knows. It is no easy thing to undergo an abortion (esp at that stage) and there are usually strong reasons why - and mental reasons are as valid as any other if they are compelling enough. You have no idea what happened in any of those 182 cases (or any other abortion case) so you have zero right to judge.
I beg you, quantify and enumerate MOST
Signatories to the various UN declarations on Human rights and specific woman's rights.
I find this a BIT extreme, rhetorically
Why? They both oppose abortion so why should I not mention them? Embarrassed by the company your views are held by?
Statistics show approximately 75% of Catholic women do not abide the official dictates of the Catholic Church as regards contraception and abortion.
Source? I guarantee that survey is from Europe, North America or similar. In the developing world (where catholicism is most active) those numbers are not even close.
I have heard many tales of intact, yet porous, condoms.
I have heard tales of elves and dwarves, does that make them true?
My guess would be the pro-abortion lobby's impulse to buy in quantity, at the best prices available, would somehow have compromised the manufacturing process, and, in turn, the structural integrity of the condoms, to the point of porosity
You are flailing around desperatly. The condoms supplied by WHO etc are of the exact same quality as western condoms - as they are western condoms. No one is saying a split/damaged condom is safe, but latex is latex the world over and it is not permeable to AIDS or anything else of note.
I am not all too familiar with Mother Theresa; I am not Catholic, either, but I'd be willing to be there is a contextual misunderstanding here-not saying I know, for sure, but I'd bet on it, just the same.
This shows your debating qualities rather well (also the things Leftism noted too). I give a piece of information that I can back up (the quote is available in several places as it caused an outcry and was included in numerous documentaries when she died) and you just say "not true not true!!!" while holding your hands over your ears. You offer no counter argument just blanket denials based on what you want to believe, not what actually is.
Someone? Who dat?
MagicNakor, and others in passing.
What right have YOU to presume anything with regard to my relationship with my daughter?
I personally don't - the legistlature of your country does.
Where do you come off presuming a stance of "interference" on my part? Whence does this "zero" right come?
See above, the law tells you to butt out unless your daughter wants you to provide care and assistance.
How does your pronouncement weigh on matters financial? Am I duty-bound to support the young crumb-cruncher (I assume you speak to the case of an under-aged pregnancy)? Would I have a right to pursue the father of the child in order to secure his cooperation on matters regarding support?
In my country all fathers are required to support their children once the father has an income. Till then the state provides an income for every child. Any questions?
What is it that is likely to happen to Catholic daughters?
They are more likley to get pregnant due to lack of parental and school sex education. Instead they have to rely on their peer group for information, and that is extrememly dangerous. Example - some catholic girls thought that having sex standing up meant they could not get pregnant, other didn't even know that what they were doing was even sex! Survey after survey has proven the link between poor sex education and teenage pregnancies.
n the case I (as a parent) would be legally or otherwise estopped from involving myself in my daughter's pregnancy, what are my obligations? If this condition of "zero rights" is allowed to give myself and my daughter the status of strangers, am I reduced to paying the bill?
You are not stopped from involving yourself in the pregnancy automatically, you are stopped if your daughter does not want you to be involved. In that case, I would say the blame lies with you for having such a poor father/daughter relationship (in this hypothetical case).
What if I decide I don't want to help with the diaper-changing?
Then don't, entirely up to you and utterly unrelated to the issue of consultation over abortion.
What if my daughter decides SHE doesn't want to change the diaper? Or heat the bottle or feed the baby?
Then she is not a fit mother and the baby should be removed from her care. Or maybe she should have had an abortion in the first place? :)
Remember, now: Your concept makes strangers of us-I am not normally inclined to perform such services for strangers
My concept does not make you strangers. Your prior behaviour, that led to your daughter not wanting to share her pregnancy with you, led to your exclusion. You made the bed, you lie in it.
Who said I am against sex-education?
I said good sex education. That means covering everything available - including abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. Your insinuation that all FPA's push abortion as a free and easy first choice is so far wide of the mark to be laughable.
Rights STILL exist, and you are touting pro-CHOICE, yes?
Yep. You, however, are not pro choice. You want to restrict womens rights, even though this issue is something you will never have to deal with. You will notice that many of the prominent law makers (and religious zealots) who want to restrict choice are men.
I have already told my daughter my thoughts about this subject; I did not, however, wait until she was pregnant to do so-do you feel, therefore, that I have been unfairly intrusive?
Nope, you should talk to your children about sex education before it's too late. However, if you were as equally (and illogically) forceful in your condemnation of a womans right to choose - do you expect her to tell you if she has an unplanned pregnancy? Somehow I doubt she will, but that's just my opinion.
What you should have done was laid out all the various options and not use it as a vehicle for your own prejudices.
bjford
01-10-2004, 07:29 AM
Hello??? Am I speaking to a wall here??
The Missionaries of Charity are affiliated to the Catholic Church by both dogma and personnel. All members believe Church dogma, and all members are Catholics. That is self evident.
Certainly. But so is Ted Kennedy. Does he get money from the Church? No. Just because you’re Catholic doesn’t mean you are automatically entitled to the money the Church makes! I know several Catholics and can assure you that Catholics do not get paid. LOL.
Hmm I'd have to see proof of this. Are you saying that the Catholics run more hospitals/clinics than the state govts? I find that hard to believe. I would think assorted UN agencies have more than the catholics, never mind Indian state agencies. I am open to pursuasion if you can present reliable statistics though.
I don’t have any. Ask an Indian, and they’ll agree that the Catholic Hospitals Association of India is one of the largest health organizations in the nation. The UN also has many hospitals, but there are technicalities within them.
I don't think Theresa materialised in India, so she arrived from wherever via Albania. What saving do you mean? Her work saves nobody, there is very little care given to the Hospice inhabitants and (by definition) hospice patients have a terminal disease. If you mean "saved" in the religious aspect, no one really cares about that except you and other catholics - it achieves nothing in this world except to convince some poor dying person that your imaginary friend is real.
The Missionaries of Charity go out and feed, clothe, and shelter the poorest of the poor, according to their constitution. They don’t care if you’re Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu. If you’re poor, you get helped. This is undeniably a very honorable organization.
What good works? The Hospices have been condemned by catholics as filthy and with very poor care. You state you are a member of this organisation, therefore your views must be treated in the same manner as any evangelist and propagandist - with extreme care and requiring proof.
Okay, you do not understand this. Mother Theresa founded the organization with nothing but her own clothes and some food. She created a shelter. Okay it’s dirty, and so is everything else in India- big whoop. The point is she gave the dying a place where they could die in peace, or they could go to a hospital. People wouldn’t assist the dying in India because they believed in Karma. If a woman on the street was dying, she was dying because of bad Karma, so nobody- even hospitals in some cases- would help them. Mother Theresa wasn’t a nurse, but she knew how to take care of people.
How could you attack such a modest organization? Are you saying it would be better if the people would die in the streets?
If you want to do good works, why are you not trying to prevent the causes of the poverty and disease that lead people to your hospices? See the quote from Theresa on babies breathing one breath, regardless of the suffering involved.
Because they don’t have money! Get this through your thick head!
Save souls? I do not believe catholics can save souls (or any other religion for that matter) so kindly prove to me that you can. Ghandhi, on the other hand, used his spirituality to enact real changes in the real world. He stopped people dying in riots and over religious differences. Theresa is not fit to be mentioned in the same breath as Ghandi.
Ad Hominum. I’m not going to prove the soul exists, however, we must understand that the Missionaries nonetheless are doing great things. That’s undeniable. Would you say that these people would be better without the missionaries? I beg to differ. I’ve seen the Missionaries save 15-year-old prostitutes and give them comfortable homes and jobs. I’ve seen Missionaries work to educate children. I’ve seen Missionaries feed the poorest in San Francisco. You have seen nothing, and yet you continue to say that the missionaries are not a great organization? What ignorance!
Fasting was an indirect way to save people by making them feel bad and stop killing eachother. Mother Theresa’s work is a direct way to save people by feeding, clothing, et cetera.
The Missionaries can’t do everything.
Do you have any idea of what happened historically? Ghandhi fasted to stop the violence aimed at both the english and at other faiths - and shortly before he died of starvation the violence stopped. He then resumed eating. Even if you ignore his statements, I think the facts bear him out quite well.
Of course I know what happened in India during this time. But you’re logic is that Ghandi fasted to stop violence, but Mother Theresa didn’t work to save people. The only evidence we have that Ghandi fasted to stop violence was because he said he was. Our only evidence that Mother Theresa went out to serve the poorest of the poor is because she said so. Who are we to trust? You’re simply being closed-minded. Just because it was Ghandi doesn’t mean he’s 100% credible, and I’m not saying he’s not- but Mother Theresa is also very credible.
As I have said, Theresa helped very few people. She just let them die in her filthy hospice rather than out on the equally filthy street. Someone with an ounce of compassion would try and remove the causes of the disease and poverty rather than counting souls for her god. I never said she did it to glorify herself per se, but rather the catholic church as a whole.
You obviously have not been to Calcutta and seen her hospice. I didn’t notice it was specifically dirty, especially compared to the garbage dump outside. Nonetheless, sure there were dying people. However, it was much better than dying outside, and you cannot deny that these people were ever grateful Mother Theresa was helping them. In that building, they got food, a bed, and love. Outside, they got nothing but garbage put on them, vermin eating their rotting carcass, and people spitting on them for “bad Karma”. Please tell me, that this is something bad Mother Theresa is doing.
How do you know Ghandi wasn’t fasting to glorify India or the Hindus? How do you know Ghandi wasn’t fasting to make the British feel bad? Once again, an argumentum ad ignoratum- argument out of ignorance. A big, fat, logical fallacy.
Thank God your ignorant, ridiculous, bitter, illogical, and evil beliefs are a minority!
Unaided means without medical intervention (incubators etc). A full term baby can survive fine without such aids. Handicapped babies can survive unaided (depending on the disability). I know of what I speak as I used to work in a hospital for the severely disabled. Oh and guess what, we actually tried to improve their lot in life rather than just counting a soul and disregarding the life.
Wait, you first said that the fetus isn’t human until the age of viability, now you’re shifting it. Not all handicapped babies can survive without medical intervention. So can we be allowed to kill Down Syndrome babies? 6-month-old fetuses can’t survive without medical intervention either. So when is the fetus human? Is somebody who can’t survive on their own suddenly not human?
The catholic church supported both slavery and the nazi's, among with whole hosts of other unpleasant things. However, abortion is not wrong. It is a medical tool the same way heart transplants are. Are you against transplants too? The church is, or at least sub-sects of it.
Firstly, the Catholic Church was the first organization to officially and publicly abolish and condemn slavery, which was done in the 1400’s. So saying that the Catholic Church supported slavery is ignorant. Secondly, the Catholic Church openly condemns Nazism, and never supported it. Pope Pius XII remained neutral the entire time publicly, but inside the Vatican he was saving Roman Jews. For instance, in March of 1941 he allowed over 3000 Jews into the Vatican when the Gestapo came to Rome. He ordered Monasteries and Convents to be hospitable to Jews and hide them. Pius took advantage of this neutrality, while Switzerland actually got paid for giving Jews to Nazi grips. Once again, another Argumentum ad ignoratum! I think this is the fourth one! Finally, where do you get these ridiculous ideas that the Catholic Church is some sort of communist Nazi white supremacy radical organization? I think you’re making it up. No, the Church isn’t against transplants. An abortion is nothing like a transplant. An abortion kills a living human being. That’s not a transplant, which is removing one organ and moving it to another human.
Leftism has utterly blown your condom argument away so I won't add to that. Heh, arguing that the Cardinal responsible for Family Affairs does not represent the church. That is rather desperate.
No it’s not, it’s completely logical. The Pope can’t control everything. Further, the only organization attacking the Vatican is the same organization that makes condoms. Hmm, don’t you think that’s a little biased? Every condom has microscopic holes. Everything has microscopic holes. That’s undeniable. AIDS may not be able to get through rubber condoms, but many other STDs could be able to as well.
Source? I guarantee that survey is from Europe, North America or similar. In the developing world (where catholicism is most active) those numbers are not even close.
That is completely untrue. The Catholicism is DYING in the developing world. In the undeveloped world, Catholicism is much more active. Nonetheless, people continue to use condoms. You must understand that less than 40% of Catholics in the US alone go to mass every Sunday. In Europe it’s much lower.
EDIT: My kingdom for working code tags. Bold = quotes since my quote tags appear fubar. Any inkling of why appreciated :)
Just because you’re Catholic doesn’t mean you are automatically entitled to the money the Church makes! I know several Catholics and can assure you that Catholics do not get paid.
I never said it did. The quote you are using was to show that the Missionaries are catholic and subscribe to catholic dogma. Who said anything about money and being paid at that point?
I don’t have any.
Glad you admit you have no proof and were simply making up facts to suit your argument.
The Missionaries of Charity go out and feed, clothe, and shelter the poorest of the poor, according to their constitution. They don’t care if you’re Catholic, Muslim, or Hindu. If you’re poor, you get helped. This is undeniably a very honorable organization.
No, they do care if you are a Muslim or Hindu. They press people to convert ot catholicism, as all catholic missionaries do. You do understand what a missionary is for yes? To spread the word of your god and convert the "heathens". Evidence will follow on the "honourable" part.
Mother Theresa founded the organization with nothing but her own clothes and some food
Nope, she created it with the help of Indian officials who aided her in converting an old hindu temple and with Papal backing.
Okay it’s dirty, and so is everything else in India- big whoop
People wouldn’t assist the dying in India because they believed in Karma. If a woman on the street was dying, she was dying because of bad Karma, so nobody- even hospitals in some cases- would help them
Please leave your racism at the door. Not everything in India is dirty and not all Indians are ignorant savages as you depict them.
Mother Theresa wasn’t a nurse, but she knew how to take care of people.
The whole point of her hospice was no care for anyone and to let "god" decide who lives or dies.
How could you attack such a modest organization?
I will provide a partial list of why when I have done with your post.
Are you saying it would be better if the people would die in the streets?
I am saying people should be treated with respect (and that includes not trying to change their religion as they lie dying) and given treatment for their illnesses.
Because they don’t have money! Get this through your thick head!
No money? Funny, in 98 it was receiving 50 million dollars in it's New York acount alone. It is estimated it receives over 100 million per year, and that is a conservative estimate. Money volounteers have reported being told not to spend on medical equipment.
The money is also redirected to places it shouldn't be. Susan Shields, a former employee of the Missionaries of Charity in the United States, alleged that even when donors explicitly marked money as, for example, "for the hungry in Ethiopia", she was instructed not to send the money to Africa, while still writing receipts with the text "For Ethiopia". Under the laws regulating charities in most countries, this would amount to fraud and/or theft. In '91 a UK audit report (all charities must submit to audits in the UK) found that only 7% of donations were spent on charitable works.
Another former Missionary of Charity worker, Eva Kolodziej, has said: "You should visit the House in New York, then you'll understand what happens to donations. In the cellar of the homeless shelter there are valuable books, jewellery and gold. What happens to them? The sisters receive them with smiles, and keep them. Most of these lie around uselessly forever."
Poor? No, duplicitous thieves.
Ad Hominum
Please leave your grade school debating tactics at home and answer the points.
I’m not going to prove the soul exists, however, we must understand that the Missionaries nonetheless are doing great things. That’s undeniable.
It is very deniable, and that is what I am doing.
Would you say that these people would be better without the missionaries?
Yes. Take all the money conned from people around the world and give it to a real charity to do good works.
You have seen nothing, and yet you continue to say that the missionaries are not a great organization? What ignorance!
Who are you to assume I have seen nothing? That, my friend, is ignorance. Either way, answer my points rather than making pointless generalisations.
Fasting was an indirect way to save people by making them feel bad and stop killing eachother
It was a direct act with direct consequences - it stopped violence that had spread countrywide. A totally selfless act that could have killed him and definitly would have shortened his life.
Mother Theresa’s work is a direct way to save people by feeding, clothing, et cetera.
Theresa, as shown by the baby quote, cared not a jot for the living as long as they "found" her god.
The Missionaries can’t do everything.
They do worse than nothing, they are an impediment to progress.
The only evidence we have that Ghandi fasted to stop violence was because he said he was
Please take a look at the historical record as you are quite obviously ignorant of the whole affair. Pointless me trying to tell you otherwise, just go and look it up. Unless of course you have drifted into debating the nature of reality and causality, but somehow I think not.
Our only evidence that Mother Theresa went out to serve the poorest of the poor is because she said so. Who are we to trust? You’re simply being closed-minded.
I judge by results. Ghandi stopped the violence, Theresa perpetuated the misery.
You obviously have not been to Calcutta and seen her hospice
I don't have to. I have the testimony of many people, including catholics and former members of her sect.
She (Mary Louden) reported that on admission the patients' heads were shaved, their clothes and any possessions removed. Patients wore only a knee-length western-style overall that tied at the neck and was open at the back. Louden described the food as nutritionally inadequate and unvaried, the water disease-ridden, and the volunteers largely unable to speak Bengali, the local language. Patients were left with nothing to do and nowhere to go. Families were strongly discouraged from visiting their relatives at the home.
In one case of a patient who died of tuberculosis, Louden reported being told by an American doctor working at Kalighat that the patient might have lived if she had received some hospital treatment. Louden described Mother Teresa's policy as one of non-intervention, in which God decided who was to live and who was to die, and people were better off in heaven than in the operating theatre. Louden believed that Mother Teresa and her sisters declined to use their influence and income to finance a properly equipped hospital, instead devoting their efforts to ensure that everyone (regardless of creed) received a good Catholic funeral.
That is from a former nun and member of her sect. Want some more testimonials?
How do you know Ghandi wasn’t fasting to glorify India or the Hindus? How do you know Ghandi wasn’t fasting to make the British feel bad? Once again, an argumentum ad ignoratum- argument out of ignorance. A big, fat, logical fallacy.
Oh dear, you know someone is desperate when they bring out the grade school debating tactics. You already used ad hominum and now you mangle some latin. I know by the basis of historical events and facts on the ground. Ghandi said please stop the violence and no one listened. He said stop or I will fast unto death, and no one listened. So he fasted until he was days from death and the violence ended. Then he stopped fasting. The ignorance on display here is yours.
Thank God your ignorant, ridiculous, bitter, illogical, and evil beliefs are a minority!
Resorting to petty insults? Not very christian is it? :) Anyway, the diatribe you just wrote sits much better with cathlocism than humanism. I have provided ample proof of that, where is one iota of of proof from your side?
Wait, you first said that the fetus isn’t human until the age of viability, now you’re shifting it.
Show me where i shifted please? I said unaided outside the womb, and unaided outside the womb is where I stay.
Not all handicapped babies can survive without medical intervention.
I agree, and we can choose to save them if we wish.
So can we be allowed to kill Down Syndrome babies?
Downs babies can survive perfectly well without medical intervention.
6-month-old fetuses can’t survive without medical intervention either
I know, your point is?
So when is the fetus human?
In law, when it is born. In practice? Opinions differ, I have stated mine and you have stated yours.
Is somebody who can’t survive on their own suddenly not human?
We are talking about birth, not later illnesses/defects etc. Though, as an aside, babies are barely human for quite a while intellectually development speaking. Also we can point to the gills we have as foetus's, does losing those make us no longer human? Does having those make foetus's fish?
the Catholic Church was the first organization to officially and publicly abolish and condemn slavery
Indeed, there are several papal bulls and edicts condemning slavery from 1500 and earlier. Such a pity then that prominent Cardinals and others kept slaves. The penalty for keeping slaves was meant to be excommunication - yet I do not recall Philip of Spain or any other Catholic monarch being excommunicated. In fact, can you point me at any prominent catholic who enlarged Vatican coffers that was excommunicated? The edicts were empty words, while behind the scenes business as usual went on - you pay your tithe to Rome and we really don't care what you do. Similar to the Papal Indulgences really.
So, by virtue of accepting the profits of slavery as tithes and not even carrying out what the edicts demanded, the church condoned slavery.
Secondly, the Catholic Church openly condemns Nazism, and never supported it.
Really? What about Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli (later Pope Pius XII) and Franz von Papen's concordat? The bishops agreed to act in the best interest of “the welfare of the German Reich” and “endeavor to avoid all detrimental acts with might endanger it".
Strong condemnation indeed!
In 1938 Pope Pius XI ordered an Encyclical be written condemning anti-Semitism. The text he received was a weakly worded condemnation of “racial” anti-Semitism, which defended the practice of “religious” anti-Judaism. In other words, a bias against Jews for their religion was completely acceptable, and actually necessary to protect Christians from the Jewish menace. Despite his tearful declaration months earlier that “Anti-Semitism is inadmissible. We are all spiritually Semites,” the Pope remained publicly silent on the issue of the Jews, indeed to his grave.
Strong words again!
In 1941 when asked about proposed anti-Jewish laws in Vichy France, Pius XII answered that the church condemned racism, but did not repudiate every rule against the Jews.
Pius never excommunicated any Nazi, and never explicitly spoke out against Hitler until after the war was over. The Vatican had received reports of Nazi atrocities as early as 1941 but never said a word publically.
Nazi gold is turning up in catholic ministeries around europe 50 years after the war.
Finally, the Vatican has refused access to it's records of the era to it's own panel investigating the issue.
An abortion is nothing like a transplant
They are both invasive medical procedures, however an abortion is more natural as animals and humans can abort spontaneously with no outside interference.
An abortion kills a living human being.
Your opinion, one that is not universally shared.
No it’s not, it’s completely logical. The Pope can’t control everything.
The current Pope controls nothing as he is senile with Parkinsons disease. Cardinals are the real power of the church, and the high ranking Cardinal in question is one of those in power. His pronouncements have the weight of religious dogma second only to the Pope. I seriously cannot believe you are trying to say that such a high ranking Cardinal is an irrelavence. Oh wait, I can since you realise your argument is well and truly sunk otherwise.
Further, the only organization attacking the Vatican is the same organization that makes condoms.
What? You are saying the WHO and all the other UN orgs that are rightfully reviling the churchs position are all condom manufacturers? Damn, you are drifting into fantasy here. Proof please, I am really eager to see that proven.
Every condom has microscopic holes. Everything has microscopic holes. That’s undeniable. AIDS may not be able to get through rubber condoms, but many other STDs could be able to as well.
The major holes I see here are in your argument. STD's cannot pass through condoms that are unbroken - that is undeniable fact even for one as deluded as you. Countless tests in many countries have proven this. All you have is a desperate desire to stop people using condoms and you will use any lie to that end. Show me the evidence of your claim. Oh and I don't mean that all things have holes, anyone with basic science knowledge knows that. Prove that the molecular gaps in latex are large enough to let any known STD through.
You see we wouldn't mind if you were just deluding yourself, but you are causing death and misery on a huge scale because of your imaginary friend and the beliefs you have.
That is completely untrue. The Catholicism is DYING in the developing world
Sigh, do I even have to explain basic terms to you? Developing word = africa/parts of asia etc. Developed world is the US/europe/parts of Asia etc.
You must understand that less than 40% of Catholics in the US alone go to mass every Sunday. In Europe it’s much lower
I know, education is always a good antidote to religious superstition.
Now, some more fun facts about Theresa's order -
Mother Teresa continued a relationship with the right-wing dictator of Haiti Jean-Claude Duvalier, as when she received the Haitian Légion d'Honneur in 1981, and with Communist dictator of Albania Enver Hoxha, as when she visited his grave in 1987.
She has accepted donations from Charles Keating, who stole in excess of US$252 million in the Savings and Loan scandal of the 1980s, and from the British publisher Robert Maxwell, who embezzled UK£450 million from his employees' pension funds. She interceded on Maxwell's behalf, wrote a letter to the court urging leniency and refused to give back donations when privately asked by the district attorney.
Mother Teresa supported Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's suspension of democracy in 1975.
Dr. Robin Fox, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet visited the Home for Dying Destitutes in Calcutta and described the medical care the patients received as "haphazard". He observed that sisters and volunteers, some of whom had no medical knowledge, had to take decisions about patient care, because of the lack of doctors in the hospice. Dr. Fox specifically held Teresa responsible for conditions in this home, and observed that her order did not distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so that people who could otherwise survive would be at risk of dying from infections and lack of treatment. He noted that the sisters' approach to managing pain was "disturbingly lacking". The formulary at the facility Fox visited lacked strong analgesics which he felt clearly separated Mother Teresa's approach from the hospice movement. There have been a series of other reports documenting inattention to medical care in the order's facilities. Similar points of view have also been expressed by some former volunteers who worked for Teresa's order.
A Calcutta priest, Debi Charan Haldar, gave an interview in the December 1990 issue of Calcutta Skyline in which he said: "Many Sisters belonging to the Missionaries of Charity are very harsh towards the patients at Nirmal Hriday. Almost every night we hear heartrending cries from these old patients. I suspect the Sisters indulge in physical torture."
In September 2000, Teresa's successor Sister Nirmala admitted that one nun working in a Calcutta shelter run by the Missionaries had tortured four young street children with a hot knife.
This of course fits in with a quote from the woman herself - "I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people".
Want me to post some more? This is what you are defending.
EDIT: My kingdom for working code tags. Bold = quotes since my quote tags appear fubar. Any inkling of why appreciated :)
MagicNakor
01-10-2004, 10:51 AM
While I promised I'd stop "yeah, but..."ing:
There are three main types of condoms: latex, polyurethane, and sheepskin.
Sheepskin condoms will protect against pregnancy. Not STDs. Better than nothing, but if you have sex with someone who has HIV, chances of you acquiring it are the same as if you had unprotected sex.
:ninja:
Biggles
01-10-2004, 03:01 PM
In an effort to swing things back on to the subject I would like to make the following observation.
J2 noted his concerns regarding the erosion of parental rights through the political activities of a pressure group or perhaps semi official body (I am not sure of the status of the PP)
I asked above, if the boot could fit on the other foot and, if the organisation represented by the lady who wrote the article was approached by a pregnant 14 year old with pro-abortion parents, would they stick to their guns. That is, would they support their position that there should be no erosion of parental authority and responsibility and tell the girl to return home to talk it through with her parents?
I have to say that from what I have read from "pro-life" groups over here (and I appreciate that they do attract a certain, shall we say, enthusiastic type) they would have no compunction about grinding the faces of the said parents in the biggest law suit they muster. This would lead me to believe that the article (not J2's concerns) is simply 'dog in the manger' and that the PP crowd have stolen a march on where the writer of the article would like to be. The two organisations would equally saddle us with a democratic deficit given half a chance.
This does not mean I am suggesting that the issue J2 raised is not real , simply that the people behind the article are not going to address the problem but rather replace it with one of their own. I feel that if this issue is to be addressed then a better vehicle should be found to articulate it - one that does not have its own agenda.
bjford et al: If I may add to your statistics above, I believe latest European figures suggest that Church attendance in this part of the world is around 14%. This may explain the lack of connection between youself and some of the other contributers.
Interest in religious paraphanalia is low and carries little weight. This does not mean there is a shortfall in concern over a spiritual dimension just that established dogmas get short shrift if they try to browbeat anyone. This is, I think, healthy.
Given the misunderstandings above, can I just say now I am not accusing anyone of browbeating anyone else. :)
Biggles
01-10-2004, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@10 January 2004 - 10:51
While I promised I'd stop "yeah, but..."ing:
There are three main types of condoms: latex, polyurethane, and sheepskin.
Sheepskin condoms will protect against pregnancy. Not STDs. Better than nothing, but if you have sex with someone who has HIV, chances of you acquiring it are the same as if you had unprotected sex.
:ninja:
Magicnakor
Who on earth still uses sheepskin condoms? These were an 18th century invention. They did have the merit of being so thick and tough that they simply required washing after use (although given 18th century hygiene standards that was optional) :x
I don't think the WHO has ever issued such things. We do all support the WHO issuing modern condoms to those who require them now don't we? :D
bjford
01-10-2004, 07:03 PM
I never said it did. The quote you are using was to show that the Missionaries are catholic and subscribe to catholic dogma. Who said anything about money and being paid at that point?
1234, stop shifting your arguments. You are attacking the Missionaries because they have hospices and not hospitals. I gave you the reason- they can’t afford hospitals. Hospitals cost millions of dollars a year to run, money that the missionaries simply don’t have. When I said this, you said that they are Catholic, and the Catholic has plenty of money. The logic behind that is such a farce.
Glad you admit you have no proof and were simply making up facts to suit your argument.
Do you know anyone from India? Obviously not. You should understand that English is the prime language and Catholics own many of the schools and other public organizations.
No, they do care if you are a Muslim or Hindu. They press people to convert ot catholicism, as all catholic missionaries do. You do understand what a missionary is for yes? To spread the word of your god and convert the "heathens". Evidence will follow on the "honourable" part.
Show me evidence. In my years with the missionaries I have never seen anything like this. A missionary is simply somebody carrying out humanitarian or religious work (or in this case, both). Was Tom Cruise supposed to be a Catholic trying to convert heathens when he played in Mission Impossible? Further, I don’t need to show evidence for something that is everywhere. Missionaries do tons of work. Look it up on the internet if you’re seriously interested (oh yes, Missionaries can’t have computers!).
Nope, she created it with the help of Indian officials who aided her in converting an old hindu temple and with Papal backing.
Evidence. This is completely fictional.
Please leave your racism at the door. Not everything in India is dirty and not all Indians are ignorant savages as you depict them.
WHAT? LOL. You are so silly.
The whole point of her hospice was no care for anyone and to let "god" decide who lives or dies.
Evidence, again, you can’t supply any.
I am saying people should be treated with respect (and that includes not trying to change their religion as they lie dying) and given treatment for their illnesses.
LOL. More ridiculousness.
No money? Funny, in 98 it was receiving 50 million dollars in it's New York acount alone. It is estimated it receives over 100 million per year, and that is a conservative estimate. Money volounteers have reported being told not to spend on medical equipment.
Evidence. Nonetheless, so what? That’s not nearly enough to open up a hospital. And 99% of the donations go to charity. Not 10%, 99%. That 1% goes for the missionary’s survival.
The money is also redirected to places it shouldn't be. Susan Shields, a former employee of the Missionaries of Charity in the United States, alleged that even when donors explicitly marked money as, for example, "for the hungry in Ethiopia", she was instructed not to send the money to Africa, while still writing receipts with the text "For Ethiopia". Under the laws regulating charities in most countries, this would amount to fraud and/or theft. In '91 a UK audit report (all charities must submit to audits in the UK) found that only 7% of donations were spent on charitable works.
Susan Shields is a big liar. What she claims is ridiculous. She’s extremely bitter with the Church, and wanted to justify not being able to take being a nun.
What do you think the missionaries do? Spend the money? LOL.
Sister Mary Caterina: Let’s go shopping at the mall!
Sister Mary Thomas: Yes!! Let’s go buy some thongs!
I just don’t see that.
Another former Missionary of Charity worker, Eva Kolodziej, has said: "You should visit the House in New York, then you'll understand what happens to donations. In the cellar of the homeless shelter there are valuable books, jewellery and gold. What happens to them? The sisters receive them with smiles, and keep them. Most of these lie around uselessly forever."
LOL. That’s the biggest lie ever. Once again, I’ve worked with the missionaries since I was a young teenager, and have never seen any of this. These people are lying. They have no evidence whatsoever.
People like to attack the missionaries because they are such easy victims.
Please leave your grade school debating tactics at home and answer the points.
LOL.
Yes. Take all the money conned from people around the world and give it to a real charity to do good works.
Okay I’m stopping here.
You are very ignorant, my friend. You are blind to truth. You are attacking one of the most successful missionary organization for helping the poorest of the poor. You are sick. You have no basis for your arguments, you attack me for correcting your logical fallacies, and then you simply expect me to accept your argument. Since you sound like you’re about twelve, I’ll leave it at this: I have worked with the missionaries for many years, and I know exactly what goes on in there. I know how they work, what their constitution is, and how everything is done. Your attacks on the missionaries that they keep secular and wealthy goods are not only laughable, but impossible. The missionaries simply cannot do this. The Missionaries literally have no use for these things! Why steal these things when they can’t use them? It’s simply preposterous. I’ve actually been laughing out loud at your statements, and showing them to my friends who laugh back (and two of them aren’t even Christian).
You have no evidence. You are closed minded. You are ridiculous.
Has anyone else seen this ignorance in 1234 or is it just me?
Biggles
01-10-2004, 07:49 PM
bjford
I have found 1234's arguments easier to follow than yours, but with regards to the actual veracity of information I couldn't say which of you is correct. Points have been made on both sides, but ridicule of each others position seems to take precedence over presenting coherent counter arguments so it is impossible to see any logical progression in the argument.
1234 has little time for Mother Theresa and you fully support the work she has done. Neither of you are alone in your views and I cannot see either of you changing your minds in the near future (if ever).
To be honest, I think Mother Theresa's views on abortion and contraception are well known and don't actually add anything to the question that J2 actually raised at the beginning of this thread. There was a very long and sometimes heated debate on whether abortion is right or wrong in which this whole train of thought might have sat more comfortably.
bjford
01-10-2004, 08:25 PM
1234' s arguments are filled with logical fallacies!!! I doubt he has education on debating in the first place, and I doubt he has any knowledge on the issue in the first place. I think it's ridiculous to say that his arguments are easier to follow that mine. His arguments are completely senseless and ignorant, and his only sources come from extremely biased websites. It's VERY obvious.
leftism
01-10-2004, 08:41 PM
bjford, with all due respect you only seem to be concerned with evidence when it agrees with your views.
We've shown you that the Cardinal responsible for Family Affairs at the Vatican is telling people condoms dont protect you against Aids but you dont think that counts as the Vaticans position on such matters.
Originally posted by bjford+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bjford)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No it’s not, it’s completely logical. The Pope can’t control everything. [/b]
You are also getting close to the vaticans position too.
<!--QuoteBegin-bjford
Every condom has microscopic holes. Everything has microscopic holes. That’s undeniable. AIDS may not be able to get through rubber condoms, but many other STDs could be able to as well. [/quote]
Again, with all due respect, I dont think you are in a position to accuse anyone else of spouting "illogical falacies" when you are arguing that STD's can pass through condoms. Virii and bacteria are huuuuge compared to the microscopic holes your talking about.
Try and bear in mind that people are dying because of what the Catholic Church are telling them.
It seems to me that you are determined to defend the Vatican no matter what evidence you are shown
3RA1N1AC
01-10-2004, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by 1234@10 January 2004 - 01:21
Mother Theresa wasn’t a nurse, but she knew how to take care of people.
The whole point of her hospice was no care for anyone and to let "god" decide who lives or dies.
unfortunately that's pretty much the point of any hospice. the level of luxury at which you die in a hospice is equal to the luxury in which you lived. patients of any hospice are simply there to be fed, sleep, be cleaned up after, and to die.
no, hospice is not medical care. yes, hospice is death. yes, somebody has to do that work and it does seem ghoulish for nuns to be doing it since they are really just there to harvest souls (not quite as thrilling as conning rich old men on their deathbeds into donating their estates to the church, but the church does place a nominal value on the souls of the poor nonetheless). if you were a hindu, muslim, etc you'd prolly not be too happy at all that some nuns had taken advantage of one of your relatives' misfortune as a chance to convert him/her to another religion. honestly i'd prefer to see that work done by people without ulterior motives, like increasing a nun's chances of sainthood just for changing some bedpans and sprinkling a bit of holy water... but then again, you're simply not going to find many people who are willing to make a profession of attending to the dying (especially dying people with no money), when there are so many other worthwhile (and profitable) endeavors that need attention.
Biggles
01-10-2004, 09:49 PM
Originally posted by bjford@10 January 2004 - 20:25
1234' s arguments are filled with logical fallacies!!! I doubt he has education on debating in the first place, and I doubt he has any knowledge on the issue in the first place. I think it's ridiculous to say that his arguments are easier to follow that mine. His arguments are completely senseless and ignorant, and his only sources come from extremely biased websites. It's VERY obvious.
Bj
1234's arguments may contain fallacies and his links may be biased. However neither of these are immediately apparent. Whilst he may be wrong in his position he has been consistent and I see no syllogisms or sophistry in what he says.
I have found some of the things you said difficult to follow and you did appear to be critical of both Indians and Ghandi. You clarified this and said this is not the case, a correction which I happily accept at face value.
Just because ones intent is clear in ones own mind does not mean necessarily that the words one uses convey that intent as well as one would like. Moreover it is very difficult to spot, as once down what one remembers is the intent with which it was written rather than how it might appear. This has caused grief to many in public life and is not an uncommon problem.
You should not take a minor criticism of the style in which you presented your case as a value judgement on your position as a whole.
Rat Faced
01-10-2004, 10:29 PM
http://www.jokes123.com/picturejokes/picjokes4/bigimages/condomhat.jpg
MagicNakor
01-10-2004, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by Biggles@10 January 2004 - 16:08
Magicnakor
Who on earth still uses sheepskin condems? These were an 18th century invention. They did have the merit of being so thick and tough that they simply required washing after use (although given 18th century hygiene standards that was optional) :x
I don't think the WHO has ever issued such things. We do all support the WHO issuing modern condoms to those who require them now don't we? :D
I don't know what the WHO issues, although I doubt sheepskins would be their #1 choice. ;) I do know you can still buy sheepskins if you want, and I'd be willing to bet you can in other countries. They're generally considered an alternative for people allergic to latex and polyurethane, albeit more expensive. This price is probably relative to the abundance of rubber, so maybe a country with less access to the raw materials for rubber and plastic may have cheaper sheepskin condoms rather than the other way around.
Edit: I did know a woman who prefered her partners to use sheepskin condoms. She was one of those "natural" people, though.
:ninja:
Rat Faced
01-10-2004, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by MagicNakor@10 January 2004 - 22:48
Edit: I did know a woman who prefered her partners to use sheepskin condoms. She was one of those "natural" people, though.
:ninja:
Had nothing to do with adding 1/2" to the girth? ;)
QUOTE
In both cases, the pregnant female is likely to be told that having an abortion is the easiest, best solution for all involved (All consisting of the mother candidate, and, presumably, the friend-who won't have to surrender her/his friend to an unwanted pregnancy, and the family-planning professional, whose raison d'etre is therefore vindicated.
Assumption with no basis in fact, and just displays your hostility to FPA's. Anyone from an FPA would tell you that the girl not becoming pregnant at all would be a vindication of their job. If that girl had been given access to good sex education and condoms, the whole situation could have been avoided.
Who exactly is qualified to dispense "good" sex education?
Is "good" sex education the same as "complete" sex education?
Should a child ever be counciled to refrain from sexual activity?
In your opinion, at what age would a female child be independently capable of making the decision to have sex?
Are you an "FPP"?
As re: your presumption of "no basis in fact": Where would a pregnant, underaged female be likely to seek advice initially-from a friend or an FPP?
QUOTE
In 1999, in Kansas alone, 182 partial-birth abortions were performed on babies declarded "viable" by the attending physician, and in each case the reason cited was the mental, not physical health of the mother
You seem to labour under the illusion that women enjoy being pregnant for 8 or more months then aborting the child.
I believe some, oddly enough, have little regard whatsoever for any part of the entire event.
Some are, undoubtedly, chagrined at the prospect; I don't know that I addressed this point at all, and am at a loss as to the ease with which you assign me such an uncaring attitude.
You would do well to remind yourself that you do not know me, and to jump to some of the conclusions you have with regard to my beliefs casts you as a bit of a zealot.
Why didn't that woman have an abortion earlier? Perhaps due to pressure from people with your views?
Is this the only rationale that could possibly exist, or the only one you could imagine which fits your scenario?
Perhaps due to the rabid christians hounding any woman that approaches an abortion clinic?
Perhaps not!
Maybe they fear being shot by the religious lunatics that share your views?
I must take exception; I am not a lunatic, and if I happened upon anyone with a gun lurking outside any building, I would ensure his apprehension somehow.
Who knows. It is no easy thing to undergo an abortion (esp at that stage) and there are usually strong reasons why - and mental reasons are as valid as any other if they are compelling enough.
Not to put too fine a point on this, but under your definition of beneficient FPA's, couldn't councilling be offered at this juncture?
If the mother-to-be wanted to carry the baby full-term, but then decided not to, one (certainly not me, though) could reasonably assume there are circumstances afoot which would bear on the woman's life which are causing strife apart from the pregnancy.
What if the situation were salvagable, except for the lack of a few simple questions?
You have no idea what happened in any of those 182 cases (or any other abortion case) so you have zero right to judge.
I know that healthy mothers and nascent children were involved, and, even if I have no right to judge, as you say (which, in and of itself, is utter horseshit-everyone judges, every day), I retain the right to inquire.
QUOTE
I beg you, quantify and enumerate MOST
Signatories to the various UN declarations on Human rights and specific woman's rights.
I prefaced my post by noting I would restrict my remarks to the situation in the U.S.; perhaps in your haste to dash me you missed this.
QUOTE
I find this a BIT extreme, rhetorically
Why? They both oppose abortion so why should I not mention them? Embarrassed by the company your views are held by?
Then why not, for example, "George Bush and Mother Theresa? You hate her and the rest of the Catholic faith, anyway.
QUOTE
Statistics show approximately 75% of Catholic women do not abide the official dictates of the Catholic Church as regards contraception and abortion.
Source? I guarantee that survey is from Europe, North America or similar. In the developing world (where catholicism is most active) those numbers are not even close.
I did say I was talking U.S.A., didn't I?
QUOTE
I have heard many tales of intact, yet porous, condoms.
I have heard tales of elves and dwarves, does that make them true?
I don't know, does it?
Are you compelled to deny this could be so due to some actual working knowledge of the quality of the condoms in question, or an urge to vouch for the good will of all FPA's?
QUOTE
My guess would be the pro-abortion lobby's impulse to buy in quantity, at the best prices available, would somehow have compromised the manufacturing process, and, in turn, the structural integrity of the condoms, to the point of porosity
You are flailing around desperatly. The condoms supplied by WHO etc are of the exact same quality as western condoms - as they are western condoms. No one is saying a split/damaged condom is safe, but latex is latex the world over and it is not permeable to AIDS or anything else of note.
I do not flail.
You are sure then, that the condom manufacturer of "western condoms" (which would, of course, be a capitalist venture, and thus oriented toward economy as re: the manufacturing process) wouldn't "cut corners" (sorry) while manufacturing huge, single-lot quantities of condoms for export?
You have special knowledge this is not the case?
QUOTE
I am not all too familiar with Mother Theresa; I am not Catholic, either, but I'd be willing to be there is a contextual misunderstanding here-not saying I know, for sure, but I'd bet on it, just the same.
This shows your debating qualities rather well (also the things Leftism noted too). I give a piece of information that I can back up (the quote is available in several places as it caused an outcry and was included in numerous documentaries when she died) and you just say "not true not true!!!" while holding your hands over your ears.
I didn't say, "not true not true!" I merely said I was sure there was context which you choose to ignore.
If you wish to settle the point between us, provide the context-that should be easy for one of your capability.
You offer no counter argument just blanket denials based on what you want to believe, not what actually is.
I have offered counter-arguments, but you choose to ignore them, as you have quite a supply of "blankets" yourself.
QUOTE
Someone? Who dat?
MagicNakor, and others in passing.
I would disagree as to the other comments posted here; they constitute a difference of opinion, nothing more.
We do that all the time-this, however, is something more than that, wouldn't you agree?
QUOTE
What right have YOU to presume anything with regard to my relationship with my daughter?
I personally don't - the legistlature of your country does.
Gee, sorry! You sounded like you considered yourself to be the arbitter of my daughter's rights.
Here, though, is something for you to chew on: If the government tried to interfere in the proper relationship between this father and his daughter, you would shortly afterward see new case-law. I suggest you forego any further commentary on that subject, as you sound to presumptuous for words, and that's saying something, because I am not lacking in powers of description.
QUOTE
Where do you come off presuming a stance of "interference" on my part? Whence does this "zero" right come?
See above, the law tells you to butt out unless your daughter wants you to provide care and assistance.
As you say: "See above"
QUOTE
How does your pronouncement weigh on matters financial? Am I duty-bound to support the young crumb-cruncher (I assume you speak to the case of an under-aged pregnancy)? Would I have a right to pursue the father of the child in order to secure his cooperation on matters regarding support?
In my country all fathers are required to support their children once the father has an income. Till then the state provides an income for every child. Any questions?
I will apologize for taking us OT here; the subject is abortion.
QUOTE
What is it that is likely to happen to Catholic daughters?
They are more likley to get pregnant due to lack of parental and school sex education. Instead they have to rely on their peer group for information, and that is extrememly dangerous. Example - some catholic girls thought that having sex standing up meant they could not get pregnant, other didn't even know that what they were doing was even sex! Survey after survey has proven the link between poor sex education and teenage pregnancies.
Only in developing countries, though, right?
I have it on good authority you can't fool an American Catholic girl.
QUOTE
n the case I (as a parent) would be legally or otherwise estopped from involving myself in my daughter's pregnancy, what are my obligations? If this condition of "zero rights" is allowed to give myself and my daughter the status of strangers, am I reduced to paying the bill?
You are not stopped from involving yourself in the pregnancy automatically, you are stopped
The word is "estopped", if you please; ordinarily I'm not so picky, but I will be, in this case.
if your daughter does not want you to be involved. In that case, I would say the blame lies with you for having such a poor father/daughter relationship (in this hypothetical case).
My daughter, as an insulin-dependent diabetic, would probably be unable to keep the fact from me even if we didn't have a good relationship.
QUOTE
What if I decide I don't want to help with the diaper-changing?
Then don't, entirely up to you and utterly unrelated to the issue of consultation over abortion.
QUOTE
What if my daughter decides SHE doesn't want to change the diaper? Or heat the bottle or feed the baby?
Then she is not a fit mother and the baby should be removed from her care. Or maybe she should have had an abortion in the first place?
The first happens all the time-they want it, then they don't want it-but they won't give it up, either. Surely you have witnessed this phenomenon?
Could be a case for post-birth abortion, eh?
Would you defend that practice so vociferously, too?
QUOTE
Remember, now: Your concept makes strangers of us-I am not normally inclined to perform such services for strangers
My concept does not make you strangers. Your prior behaviour, that led to your daughter not wanting to share her pregnancy with you, led to your exclusion. You made the bed, you lie in it.
Another premature conclusion.
QUOTE
Who said I am against sex-education?
I said good sex education. That means covering everything available - including abortion if an unplanned pregnancy occurs. Your insinuation that all FPA's push abortion as a free and easy first choice is so far wide of the mark to be laughable.
How do you know what I know about sex education?
Also: If my opinion is that, FPAs, as a rule, push too hard in the direction of abortion as a first/best option, who are YOU to disagree?
Are you now presuming to relieve me of my right to free speech, also?
QUOTE
Rights STILL exist, and you are touting pro-CHOICE, yes?
Yep. You, however, are not pro choice. You want to restrict womens rights, even though this issue is something you will never have to deal with. You will notice that many of the prominent law makers (and religious zealots) who want to restrict choice are men.
I want no such thing.
I want the decision to be contemplated properly, with all points of view, and a complete sex education, not merely a "good" one.
Why are you so averse to a point of view such as mine being fairly represented?
You seem awfully intolerant of my opinions.
QUOTE
I have already told my daughter my thoughts about this subject; I did not, however, wait until she was pregnant to do so-do you feel, therefore, that I have been unfairly intrusive?
Nope, you should talk to your children about sex education before it's too late. However, if you were as equally (and illogically) forceful in your condemnation of a womans right to choose - do you expect her to tell you if she has an unplanned pregnancy? Somehow I doubt she will, but that's just my opinion.
What you should have done was laid out all the various options and not use it as a vehicle for your own prejudices.
You know what? You should have been there, too.
You might have learned something.
bjford
01-11-2004, 12:03 AM
Try and bear in mind that people are dying because of what the Catholic Church are telling them.
No, people are dying because what leftist STD organizations are telling these people. You can still have sex- but “safe sex”. Sex with contraceptive use is not 100% effective. The Bishops of Kenya and Cardinal Trujillo are not telling people to have sex without contraceptives, but not to have sex AT ALL if STDs are risked. This is saving people, not killing people. If people know the dangers of condoms, then they wont have sex. They know that condoms offer some protection, but the bishops aren’t saying to not use them (and neither are the people saying that), but to not have sex at all.
no, hospice is not medical care. yes, hospice is death. yes, somebody has to do that work and it does seem ghoulish for nuns to be doing it since they are really just there to harvest souls (not quite as thrilling as conning rich old men on their deathbeds into donating their estates to the church, but the church does place a nominal value on the souls of the poor nonetheless). if you were a hindu, muslim, etc you'd prolly not be too happy at all that some nuns had taken advantage of one of your relatives' misfortune as a chance to convert him/her to another religion. honestly i'd prefer to see that work done by people without ulterior motives, like increasing a nun's chances of sainthood just for changing some bedpans and sprinkling a bit of holy water... but then again, you're simply not going to find many people who are willing to make a profession of attending to the dying (especially dying people with no money), when there are so many other worthwhile (and profitable) endeavors that need attention.
This is why the Missionaries are so honorable- they do it not for pay. Further, they give these people who are not cared for love, which is extremely important.
1234's arguments may contain fallacies and his links may be biased. However neither of these are immediately apparent. Whilst he may be wrong in his position he has been consistent and I see no syllogisms or sophistry in what he says.
The point isn’t that he is incorrect; the point is that his arguments are senseless and illogical. Logic is vital for a debate. In fact, Logic is what a debate is based on. We see evidence that leads to a logical conclusion. If your debate is based on logical fallacies, it is an ad hominum, and an argumentum ad ignoratum. But according to 1234, these Latin terms are “grade school” debate skills.
3RA1N1AC
01-11-2004, 12:17 AM
Originally posted by bjford@10 January 2004 - 16:03
This is why the Missionaries are so honorable- they do it not for pay. Further, they give these people who are not cared for love, which is extremely important.
i agree, there is some honor and there is some honest charity in a hospice being run by missionaries. however, there is a conflict of interest that bothers me a little bit. the interests of the dying patient and the interests of the catholic deity are not necessarily the same.
in a wealthy society, the solution is easy-- move to a different hospice and pay them to respect the wishes, culture and religion of the patient and his/her family. but for a poor person in calcutta, that is prolly just not an option.
leftism
01-11-2004, 12:32 AM
No, people are dying because what leftist STD organizations are telling these people. You can still have sex- but “safe sex”. Sex with contraceptive use is not 100% effective. The Bishops of Kenya and Cardinal Trujillo are not telling people to have sex without contraceptives, but not to have sex AT ALL if STDs are risked. This is saving people, not killing people. If people know the dangers of condoms, then they wont have sex. They know that condoms offer some protection, but the bishops aren’t saying to not use them (and neither are the people saying that), but to not have sex at all.
I'm amazed and depressed by that response :(
In a perfect world people would be able to control themselves and never ever have sex. But that isnt the case. People cant abstain from sex its human nature.
Telling people not to have sex wont work. Ever.
And arguing that "leftist STD organizations " telling people to use condoms is furthering the spread of Aids is just lunacy. I've honestly never heard such a ridiculous argument in my life.
The Bishops ARE telling people not to use condoms. And people are STILL having sex anyway, and they're dying because of it. This is undeniable fact. People arent getting AIDS from having sex whilst using condoms they're getting AIDs through unprotected sex.
The Bishops arent saying "Abstain from sex if you can but if you cant abstain from sex then use a condom". They are spreading lies about condoms not working at all, they're not saying they're only 99% effective.
Please think about this carefully. You cannot get millions of people to stop having sex. The safest, most realistic way of dealing with this problem is through the use of condoms and more sex education. NOT telling people fairy tales such as "STD's can get through latex."
bjford
01-11-2004, 03:18 AM
i agree, there is some honor and there is some honest charity in a hospice being run by missionaries. however, there is a conflict of interest that bothers me a little bit. the interests of the dying patient and the interests of the catholic deity are not necessarily the same.
What conflicts? Do you think the Missionaries give the poor a choice of Catholicism or death? I think not. There are no conflicts. They may disagree, but the Missionaries certainly are not going to the Hindus and saying "ACCEPT JESUS!"
Telling people not to have sex wont work. Ever.
It has worked, it's been working. People can have sex, but they've got to understand the risks that come with it, even when using a condom.
The Bishops ARE telling people not to use condoms. And people are STILL having sex anyway, and they're dying because of it. This is undeniable fact. People arent getting AIDS from having sex whilst using condoms they're getting AIDs through unprotected sex.
No, that is a lie. THe Bishops are telling the poor to practice ABSTINENCE instead of condom use. Sex is just as much of a sin in the Catholic Church as sex with condoms.
The Bishops arent saying "Abstain from sex if you can but if you cant abstain from sex then use a condom". They are spreading lies about condoms not working at all, they're not saying they're only 99% effective.
Prove to me they are lies. You havn't.
Please think about this carefully. You cannot get millions of people to stop having sex. The safest, most realistic way of dealing with this problem is through the use of condoms and more sex education. NOT telling people fairy tales such as "STD's can get through latex."
STDs can get through latex!! Dr. DC Roland, an editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, states that when used properly, sperm cannot get through. However, AIDS is 50 times smaller than the sperm, and it can get through. If you get a dish glove, and do some dishes, when you take them off you'll notice your hands are a little moist. That is an example of how AIDS gets through.
The only 100% effective way to not get STDs is to abstain from sex.
leftism
01-11-2004, 04:42 AM
Originally posted by bjford+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bjford)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>It has worked, it's been working[/b]
Then why is Africa suffering a massive AID's epidemic? The Catholic church is very strong in many parts of Africa but this continent is easily the worst affected in the world.
Abstinence would work if people could do it but they obviously cant.
Originally posted by bjford+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bjford)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>No, that is a lie. THe Bishops are telling the poor to practice ABSTINENCE instead of condom use.[/b]
No! They are actively telling people NOT TO USE THEM, some priests are even telling people in Africa that condoms are laced with Aids! I can give you quote after quote after quote showing you that this is a fact.
Originally posted by bjford
STDs can get through latex!! Dr. DC Roland, an editor of Rubber Chemistry and Technology, states that when used properly, sperm cannot get through. However, AIDS is 50 times smaller than the sperm, and it can get through. If you get a dish glove, and do some dishes, when you take them off you'll notice your hands are a little moist. That is an example of how AIDS gets through.
He is an expert in rubber not a medical expert. Read this from a WHO funded report on condom usage.
<!--QuoteBegin-WHO report@
Intact condoms (i.e., pass the water leak test) are
essentially impermeable to particles the size of STD pathogens (including the
smallest sexually transmitted virus, hepatitis B[/quote]
WHO report (http://www.niaid.nih.gov/dmid/stds/condomreport.pdf)
I will take a well funded study from a group of medical experts over an expert in rubber anyday. He hasnt carried out any studies into this, he doesnt know the first thing about STD's.
Telling people that condoms, when used properly, dont work is dangerous, irresponsible and flies in the face of all good science. You may as well start arguing that the Earth is flat.
<!--QuoteBegin-bjford
The only 100% effective way to not get STDs is to abstain from sex. [/quote]
This is true, but if your solution to AIDs is to get the population of Africa to abstain from sex your living in a dream world.
hobbes
01-11-2004, 04:44 AM
Anybody pretending that condoms don't work is actively practicing the work of the devil.
bjford
01-11-2004, 05:06 AM
Without getting too much indepth:
1) I'm not going to trust WHO, they are extremely biased.
2) The Bishops never said to have sex without condoms.
3) Abstinense works. I could just as easily say condoms don't work because you're never going to get the population to know how to use them properly.
hobbes
01-11-2004, 05:15 AM
My Bishop is bigger than yours!
leftism
01-11-2004, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by bjford+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (bjford)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>1) I'm not going to trust WHO, they are extremely biased.[/b]
And the Vatican isnt?
<!--QuoteBegin-bjford
2) The Bishops never said to have sex without condoms.[/quote]
I've already shown you this quote
)RAPHAEL NDINGI MWANA A'NZEKI
Archbishop of Nairobi
The Catholic Church does not advocate use of condoms under any circumstances. HIV AIDS is going so
fast because of availability of condoms.
BRADSHAW: You think condoms are causing AIDS?
A'NZEKI: Yes. I'll explain. You give a young Kenyan a condom for him or for her it's a license for
sexuality. They think they're protected and they're not protected. Understand?
BRADSHAW: You don’t think anybody should use…
A'NZEKI: We don’t use… any produced condom, they should not be made at all.
BRADSHAW: They should not be made.
A'NZEKI: Yes.
BRADSHAW: Nobody should use them.
A'NZEKI: Yes.
BRADSHAW: Even people who are not Catholics you think should…..
A'NZEKI: Anybody for that matter. The laws of God affect everybody.
So hes saying no one should ever use condoms. That means unless everyone abstains constantly and the human race dies out.. he thinks people should have sex without condoms.
3) Abstinense works. I could just as easily say condoms don't work because you're never going to get the population to know how to use them properly
You could say that but its obviously not true.
Condoms arent hard to use, trust me on this one :P
It's definitely easier than getting an entire continent to abstain from sex.
bjford
01-11-2004, 07:45 AM
My sources don't come from the Vatican, but from a prestigious Rubber Industry Magazine.
The guy is correct. Nobody should use condoms. But you see you're combining two different issues. Do you think that two people would marry if they knew one person had AIDS? Of course not. STDs happen when they don't know the person well, and they don't know they have diseases. It is not as common in married couples. People shouldn't be having sex like that in the first place, and using condoms isn't going to help.
ALthough I do believe condoms should be used for some people, the Catholic Bishop was speaking to Catholics about abstaining from sex. Of course this addresses to the whole world, but Catholics should take this and believe it. If you'r not Catholic, of course he's going to say he still believes you can't use condoms, but politely acknowledges that some disagree with him.
Condoms arn't hard to use, but they're easy to misuse.
stop shifting your arguments
I am not shifting my arguments, you are attributing quotes meanings they never had. I corrected you.
You are attacking the Missionaries because they have hospices and not hospitals
I am attacking them for a whole host of reasons, one of which is the lack of care at the hospices. People with curable diseases are left to die, and terminal cases are not given proper care.
I gave you the reason- they can’t afford hospitals. Hospitals cost millions of dollars a year to run, money that the missionaries simply don’t have.
I have shown (the UK audit figures are available at the Charity Commission if you care to ask them for details) that the Missionaries are far from poor. They get over 100 million a year, of which roughly 7% goes on charitable works.
you said that they are Catholic, and the Catholic has plenty of money. The logic behind that is such a farce.
I said they were catholic and followed catholic dogma. However I will admit to one thing, I know you would say they were poor so I laid a trap for you. Sorry but you fell right into it.
Do you know anyone from India? Obviously not.
Actually I do, 98% of the street where I lived till recently were from the sub continent. Don't assume, you ask me not to so please follow your own advice.
You should understand that English is the prime language
Really? I am guessing you know nothing of Urdu, Gujarati etc etc. Your ignorance is overwhelming.
Catholics own many of the schools and other public organizations.
Many? You said the majority. Glad to see you are reigning in that nonsense. I am happy to state that the catholic church has "many" establishments - it is their way of buying souls from the needy.
Show me evidence
Are you denying that a missionaries prime purpose is to bring people to their god? You admitted this yourself earlier. Why are you now denying it?
In my years with the missionaries I have never seen anything like this
The level of ignorance and blind faith you show here in the face of facts leads me to think you could ignore some of the gravest abuses as "gods work". Just my opinion I know.
Was Tom Cruise supposed to be a Catholic trying to convert heathens when he played in Mission Impossible?
Eh?
I don’t need to show evidence for something that is everywhere. Missionaries do tons of work. Look it up on the internet if you’re seriously interested
I provided data that they do not do good work with named sources. Please prove those sources wrong rather than just stating what you want to believe.
oh yes, Missionaries can’t have computers!.
One of the worlds largest supercomputers is operated by missionaries. Didn't you know that?
Evidence. This is completely fictional.
Which part? The Papal backing, the help from Indians or the fact Kalighat was a Hindu temple?
Lets see, she had to get Papal backing to leave her order and was given Papal blessing (and aid?) for her new mission. The Indians gave her the land for the leper "clinic" outside Calcutta, and Kalighat had been a temple for centuries which is why hindu's with terminal diseases went there.
So tell me, which bit are you disagreeing with?
WHAT? LOL. You are so silly.
Others have already noted your latent racism. I won't embarass you by going into it further.
Evidence, again, you can’t supply any.
I did, evidence from former sisters who worked there and from trained doctors who visited there. Your blanket denials are worthless.
LOL. More ridiculousness.
Oh my. Let me quote myself to show you what this person thinks is ridiculous - I am saying people should be treated with respect (and that includes not trying to change their religion as they lie dying) and given treatment for their illnesses.
This person barely deserves to be called a caring human being if they believe the above is ridiculous.
Evidence. (1234's note for clarity : in relation to finances)
Already said, charities by law have to declare accounts. The figures are available for the price of a stamp. Is your faith strong enough to pay for that stamp?
Nonetheless, so what? That’s not nearly enough to open up a hospital
Actually it is in India where costs are markedly lower than in the west. At the very least it is enough for proper care in the hospices.
However, are you now accepting the fact that the Missionaries are not by any means poor?
And 99% of the donations go to charity. Not 10%, 99%. That 1% goes for the missionary’s survival.
The Charity Commission audit proves otherwise. Are you saying that this independant monitoring organisation responsible for thousands of UK charities is lying? In it's many years of operation that would be a first, therefore the onus of proof is on you to disprove their figures - which are based on returns filed by the Missionaries themselves.
Susan Shields is a big liar. What she claims is ridiculous. She’s extremely bitter with the Church, and wanted to justify not being able to take being a nun.
I am overwhelmed by the logical integrity of your response. I don't think even a 5 year old could outdo that.
Grow up and answer the accusations that are supported by disparate individuals and independant organisations the world over.
What do you think the missionaries do? Spend the money? LOL
They send it to Rome mostly, according to the audit.
I just don’t see that.
You have difficulty seeing anything that does not fit into your predetermined catholic indoctrination.
LOL. That’s the biggest lie ever. Once again, I’ve worked with the missionaries since I was a young teenager, and have never seen any of this. These people are lying. They have no evidence whatsoever.
Ahem, as above. Dispute the figures with facts rather than calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar. The evidence is overwhelming and in print if you care to look at it.
People like to attack the missionaries because they are such easy victims.
Ok, going to take a few deep breaths here so I don't get banned from the board.
Ok back. Missionaries are not easy targets, they are wealthy parasites that feed off the misery of others in an attempt to garner more souls for their imaginary friend. The real easy victims here are the poor indians and others who are preyed upon by people like you and Theresa.
LOL.
Well at least you moved to primary school debating tactics. However that is a step back, not forward.
Okay I’m stopping here.
If only I thought that meant you were stopping your vile works preying on the poor and ill. I doubt it though.
You are very ignorant, my friend. You are blind to truth
I present named sources and proven data - you just call everyone opposing you a liar. You are blind and ignorant, but cosseted by your faith which gives you free reign to abuse ill people.
You are attacking one of the most successful missionary organization for helping the poorest of the poor.
I agree successful in monetary terms, they pull in a lot of cash. However as I have shown they help virtually no one. Occaisonally they do good works, but more as an accident on the way to claiming a soul.
You are sick
Good job I am not sick in India and forced to die in one of your "hospices". But not, I am not sick or blind or any other random insult you care to throw at me. I am just presenting a truth that your faith refuses to let you accept. You have my sympathies really, breaking conditioning of that strength is very tough. I wish you luck with it in later years.
You have no basis for your arguments, you attack me for correcting your logical fallacies, and then you simply expect me to accept your argument
Once again, I provide named sources and independant verification - you present school yard denials.
Since you sound like you’re about twelve
Mm more insults, you really don't practice what you preach do you? For the record - 36 married with children.
I have worked with the missionaries for many years, and I know exactly what goes on in there. I know how they work, what their constitution is, and how everything is done
You denial of the facts presented shows you as a poor witness as you are blinded by church dogma. You have no countered a single fact I have raised.
Your attacks on the missionaries that they keep secular and wealthy goods are not only laughable, but impossible. The missionaries simply cannot do this. The Missionaries literally have no use for these things! Why steal these things when they can’t use them? It’s simply preposterous
Not my attacks, they are proven by audit reports and witness reports of former members of the order. Rome, as it always has, steals the majority of the money to pay for that religious theme park called the Vatican and it's building of expensive churches in countries where the money would be better spent on the poor.
I’ve actually been laughing out loud at your statements, and showing them to my friends who laugh back (and two of them aren’t even Christian).
Sadly ignorance is not a soley Christian domain.
You have no evidence. You are closed minded. You are ridiculous.
And once again - I provide facts and independant documentation and you provide blanket denials.
I see you do not even attempt to answer the points at the end of my post. Too embarassed to even address them? I ask you to address just one then - the admission, by the new head of your order, that nuns tortured children. Answer that please.
Of course, the history of the catholic church is strewn with child abuse but lets just stick to this one instance. On a side note, get rid of celibacy for priests and you might find they abuse children a little less.
EDIT: If it wasn't for those darned quote tags! (In a Scooby villain voice)
3RA1N1AC
01-11-2004, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by bjford@10 January 2004 - 19:18
i agree, there is some honor and there is some honest charity in a hospice being run by missionaries. however, there is a conflict of interest that bothers me a little bit. the interests of the dying patient and the interests of the catholic deity are not necessarily the same.
What conflicts? Do you think the Missionaries give the poor a choice of Catholicism or death? I think not.
threatening the terminally ill with death would be futile. it was more to the tune of "take this ticket to St. Peter and die."
alpha
01-11-2004, 12:01 PM
I am an Indian (Gurgaon, Haryana).
By bjford(gandu):
Look at Ghandi- he had many benefits too. People think he was really holy person and was very good to the poor et cetera. This is true in one sense, but he had much luxery as well. He was a lawyer, we must remember. The only reason why he starved was because he was fasting himself. He had plenty of food. He was very wealthy.
The only evidence we have that Ghandi fasted to stop violence was because he said he was. Our only evidence that Mother Theresa went out to serve the poorest of the poor is because she said so. Who are we to trust? You’re simply being closed-minded. Just because it was Ghandi doesn’t mean he’s 100% credible, and I’m not saying he’s not- but Mother Theresa is also very credible.
How do you know Ghandi wasn’t fasting to glorify India or the Hindus? How do you know Ghandi wasn’t fasting to make the British feel bad?
Sir, when you insult Mahatma Gandhi you are not insulting a man. You are insulting a nation. Your inability to spell his name reflects your lack of knowledge about the man. Lessons in Indian history are easily available on the web, until then I request you to go back and edit your words.
Do you know anyone from India? Obviously not. You should understand that English is the prime language
Hindi is our national language. More people know Hindi in India than English.
What exactly do you mean by "prime language"?
The Catholics in India make up less than 2% of the population, and yet they have the most hospitals all over India
This is true only in a few states (Ex: Maybe in Kerala) and that too with the help of state governments. Just because you have been to one state do not assume you know about the rest of India.
As for the dirt and poverty of Bengal, this was because the drain of wealth by the British was greatest there. At one time it was probably one of the richest places in the world.
A missionary is simply somebody carrying out humanitarian or religious work
Conversions of tribals by Catholics has led to the burning of a Christian family in the close past. The perpetrators currently face the death sentence. I point this out to show that conversions by Christian missionaries does take place and causes resentment and anger among some people. I condem the murder of any person, though.
Who exactly is qualified to dispense "good" sex education? Is "good" sex education the same as "complete" sex education?
Someone trained to give impartial advice free from religious/political dogma. That advice should be based on medical and sociological data, not the prevailing political climate.
"Complete sex education" is a term I feel you will manipulate to mean I approve of shagging 12 year olds to show them about sex, so please define precisely what you mean by it.
[QUOTE]
Should a child ever be counciled to refrain from sexual activity?
Abstinence is an option, but rarely an effective one. Reproduction is a basic human drive and when expression of that drive is forbidden it rarely works (cf catholic priests and child abuse). I agree it should be included as an option, but not the sole "right" option.
[QUOTE]
In your opinion, at what age would a female child be independently capable of making the decision to have sex?
Utterly dependant on the child, so the law uses an average of development age. In my country that is 16, in the US it is 18 or 21 I believe. In Romania it is 14, other countries are higher and lower. Those ages are rarely kept to in practice though, and in my country probably over 50% of people are sexually active before 16. The best system is possibly the dutch one where it is a scale of both partners ages.
The easy answer to your question though is when the child is ready to experiment - whatever age that may be. Education and good parental advice will hopefully influence that decision. Btw, why are you not bothered about boys? It takes two to tango.
[QUOTE]
Are you an "FPP"
Nope, but I have known people involved in that kind of work socially and through work.
[QUOTE]
As re: your presumption of "no basis in fact": Where would a pregnant, underaged female be likely to seek advice initially-from a friend or an FPP?
You are misusing my quote. The "no basis in fact" was to your allegation that a FPA would use abortion as first choice and that it would justify their existence.
As for your question, depends on the sex education the child has recieved. If they have been browbeaten by a father with dogmatic views they may speak to a friend first. If they have been given good information on what is available at FPA's, they may well go there first.
[QUOTE]
I believe some, oddly enough, have little regard whatsoever for any part of the entire event.
Some? Define some. If it is more than a tiny % (less than 1) then you obviously know very little about either woman or pregnancy and are in fact probably a serious misogynist.
[QUOTE]
Some are, undoubtedly, chagrined at the prospect; I don't know that I addressed this point at all, and am at a loss as to the ease with which you assign me such an uncaring attitude.
You just assigned women to such an uncaring attitude with remarkable ease. That is all women, not one you are actually debating with and therefore have the benefit of actually hearing their views.
[QUOTE]
You would do well to remind yourself that you do not know me, and to jump to some of the conclusions you have with regard to my beliefs casts you as a bit of a zealot.
You assumed a lot about me, including that I dribble profusly I seem to recall.
[QUOTE]
Is this the only rationale that could possibly exist, or the only one you could imagine which fits your scenario?
Why don't you provide the full quote, rather than breaking it up so you could try and suggest I had only one possible reason?
[QUOTE]
I must take exception; I am not a lunatic, and if I happened upon anyone with a gun lurking outside any building, I would ensure his apprehension somehow.
I didn't call you a lunatic, I said lunatics that share your views. Do you condemn those that shoot abortion doctors and picket abortion clinics?
[QUOTE]
Not to put too fine a point on this, but under your definition of beneficient FPA's, couldn't councilling be offered at this juncture?
It is, your point?
[QUOTE]
What if the situation were salvagable, except for the lack of a few simple questions?
You assume those questions are not asked, why?
[QUOTE]
I know that healthy mothers and nascent children were involved, and, even if I have no right to judge, as you say (which, in and of itself, is utter horseshit-everyone judges, every day), I retain the right to inquire.
Everyone judges, doesn't mean that judgement should be allowed to affect other people. You are right though, you can inquire so why haven't you? Why have you not studied interviews with woman in that situation? That would be more useful than condemning them out of hand.
[QUOTE]
I prefaced my post by noting I would restrict my remarks to the situation in the U.S.; perhaps in your haste to dash me you missed this.
Didn't miss it at all, the quote you are once again attempting to misuse was in relation to me saying that most of the world held certain rights to be true, and you asked me to define "most". I provided that definition. It has nothing to do with whether your post was US centric or not.
You really must stop trying to misuse quotes like that, it just shows a paucity of argument.
[QUOTE]
Then why not, for example, "George Bush and Mother Theresa? You hate her and the rest of the Catholic faith, anyway.
You are telling me what I am allowed to say? Tough. If you can't handle the company your views are held by, examine your views rather than attempting to censor me or anyone else.
[QUOTE]
I did say I was talking U.S.A., didn't I?
Sure, but the issue was catholicism which is not restricted to the US. If you want to discuss solely US religions your point might stand.
[QUOTE]
Are you compelled to deny this could be so due to some actual working knowledge of the quality of the condoms in question, or an urge to vouch for the good will of all FPA's?
You are an expert in latex and communicable diseases? I, like Leftism, believe scientific research not your biased opinion.
[QUOTE]
You are sure then, that the condom manufacturer of "western condoms" (which would, of course, be a capitalist venture, and thus oriented toward economy as re: the manufacturing process) wouldn't "cut corners" (sorry) while manufacturing huge, single-lot quantities of condoms for export?
You have special knowledge this is not the case?
Yep, provided by numurous scientific research projects.
[QUOTE]
I didn't say, "not true not true!" I merely said I was sure there was context which you choose to ignore.
What context is that? I provided the quote, and you said (with no evidence) that the quote was taken out of context. Provide that context please.
Since you are unable to I will - she was asked why she didn't care that the babies born died in minutes of birth while seriously adversly affecting the mothers health (including killing them). She didn't care on either count as it was "one more soul for god".
[QUOTE]
I have offered counter-arguments, but you choose to ignore them, as you have quite a supply of "blankets" yourself
What counter arguments? You are just attempting to misuse my quotes in order to build a semblance of a case. You posts are mostly questions to me which I answer.
[QUOTE]
I would disagree as to the other comments posted here; they constitute a difference of opinion, nothing more
You do not disagree with MagicNakor's analysis then? As for the others, opinions are just that unless they are supported with facts.
[QUOTE]
We do that all the time-this, however, is something more than that, wouldn't you agree?
Not sure I follow, what is "this"? You mean the fact I disagree with you? I am perfectly entitled to disagree with you. Or do you mean the post of mine that you reported? Just before you wrote a post full of much worse insults etc than mine - nice to see your hypocrisy extends to that too. I stand by the intent that ignoring US violence is hyporitical and worthy of insults when US supporters throw insults at "towel heads" and other foreigners. I am from a working class tradition that does not mince words when faced by the evils in the world. Since this board is meant to be family friendly, I have not repeated any insults since - unlike you. I even stated that my original choice of words was deliberatly chosen to not offend too much. This board used to be a lot more lively in the old days but appears to have calmed down and I will write posts with that in mind. I guess that is a triumph for the mods and a good thing<tm>
[QUOTE]
Gee, sorry! You sounded like you considered yourself to be the arbitter of my daughter's rights.
Appears you were wrong then doesn't it?
[QUOTE]
If the government tried to interfere in the proper relationship between this father and his daughter, you would shortly afterward see new case-law.
New law cases arise all the time, doesn't mean you have a chance of winning though - which is required for case law.
[QUOTE]
I suggest you forego any further commentary on that subject, as you sound to presumptuous for words, and that's saying something, because I am not lacking in powers of description.
You say I am presumptous, yet you are the one saying you will win a court case in the Supreme Court before you have even filed in your local court. Um, who is overstating their own case here? I am no expert on US law but then again neither are you.
[QUOTE]
Only in developing countries, though, right?
Nope, in all countries that the research has been carried out in.
[QUOTE]
I have it on good authority you can't fool an American Catholic girl.
I assume this is an attempt at humour? Can't tell really :)
[QUOTE]
The word is "estopped", if you please; ordinarily I'm not so picky, but I will be, in this case.
The word is stopped, as in my car stopped when it ran out of petrol.
What you are referring to is, sadly for you since you are attempting to be smart at my expense, is something different.
Estopped - To impede or prohibit by estoppel.
Estoppel - A bar preventing one from making an allegation or a denial that contradicts what one has previously stated as the truth.
What allegation are you making about your daughter that the court would stop you repeating?
[QUOTE]
My daughter, as an insulin-dependent diabetic, would probably be unable to keep the fact from me even if we didn't have a good relationship.
In what way? Are you saying your daughter cannot inject her own insulin? Many diabetic woman have children, yes they have to take certain precautions but why would she have to tell you?
[QUOTE]
The first happens all the time-they want it, then they don't want it-but they won't give it up, either. Surely you have witnessed this phenomenon?
If they are not caring for the baby it is irrelavent what the mother thinks. The court will protect the babies interests and remove it from her care if they think it is at risk. All mothers have bad days, we are referring to a pattern of neglect.
[QUOTE]
Could be a case for post-birth abortion, eh? Would you defend that practice so vociferously, too?
Nope, their are foster homes and adoption for babies that their mothers cannot deal with. Unfortunatly there are not enough places as it is, and if your policies were enacted there would be even more unwanted babies with no place to care for them. Are you going to care for them all?
[QUOTE]
Another premature conclusion.
In what way? It is logically self evident. Your prior behaviour would exclude you, not law as it is your daughters choice (in this hypothetical case). How is that a premature conclusion?
[QUOTE]
How do you know what I know about sex education?
Never said I did, we were talking principles. You insinuated something, I countered that insinuation.
[QUOTE] If my opinion is that, FPAs, as a rule, push too hard in the direction of abortion as a first/best option, who are YOU to disagree?
You didn't state it as opinion, you stated it as fact. You are entitled to your opinion, but expect to be challenged if you present it as fact.
[QUOTE]
Are you now presuming to relieve me of my right to free speech, also?
Nope, are you presuming to relieve the right of women to make free choices about their own bodies?
[QUOTE]
I want no such thing.
So you defend the right of a woman to have an abortion?
[QUOTE]
I want the decision to be contemplated properly, with all points of view, and a complete sex education, not merely a "good" one.
Good is synonomous with complete in this reference. Now, at least we can agree on this point - all points of view must be put forward and no pressure to accept or refuse a certain path should be applied.
[QUOTE]
Why are you so averse to a point of view such as mine being fairly represented? You seem awfully intolerant of my opinions
I am not averse to it, I am averse to you stating abortion is wrong and murder. Your position appears to have shifted so can we please have clarity -
Do you support a womans right to an abortion if she chooses to have one?
[QUOTE]
You know what? You should have been there, too. You might have learned something.
Such as? Or is this just an empty quote hoping to ascribe greater knowledge to you than I may hold? Please let us know exactly what you mean.
leftism
01-11-2004, 12:10 PM
Originally posted by bjford
My sources don't come from the Vatican, but from a prestigious Rubber Industry Magazine.
Would you go to to this man if you were ill? No you would not.
My sources are from medical experts. I'll stick with them.
Your inability to spell his name reflects your lack of knowledge about the man
I wil apologise for miss spelling his name too. My feeble excuse is I was reading his post and replying while working at the same time, so I just copied his spelling without thinking.
Not sure if I was putting the H in the wrong place everytime. You have my humble apologies for the occaisons I did mispell his name.
alpha
01-11-2004, 12:32 PM
Originally posted by 1234@11 January 2004 - 13:18
Your inability to spell his name reflects your lack of knowledge about the man
I wil apologise for miss spelling his name too. My feeble excuse is I was reading his post and replying while working at the same time, so I just copied his spelling without thinking.
Not sure if I was putting the H in the wrong place everytime. You have my humble apologies for the occaisons I did mispell his name.
I was offended by what he said about Gandhiji, not the spelling of his name.....so no apology required :)
Biggles
01-11-2004, 02:26 PM
Alpha
Could you extend that grace to me also. I was quite unaware of the spelling that you provided.
Bj The purpose of reasoned debate is to highlight where there is a breakdown of logical reasoning. Simply saying someone is arguing in ignorance proves nothing. You must pose questions which the person you arguing with either counters or concedes a point. Through slow and reasoned debate one or the other will demonstrate the worth of their argument although in the process may modify their position also. There is currently far too much use of the words ridiculous, lies and silly on both sides for the discussion to go anywhere other than the respective trenches of the two positions.
Hobbes Thank you! that is all, just thank you! :D
3RA1N1AC
01-11-2004, 03:06 PM
Originally posted by Biggles@11 January 2004 - 06:26
There is currently far too much use of the words ridiculous, lies and silly
uh oh. i succombed to the contagion and used the word "silly" in my previous post. went back and changed it, with great embarrassment. :lol:
Biggles
01-11-2004, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by 3RA1N1AC+11 January 2004 - 15:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (3RA1N1AC @ 11 January 2004 - 15:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Biggles@11 January 2004 - 06:26
There is currently far too much use of the words ridiculous, lies and silly
uh oh. i succombed to the contagion and used the word "silly" in my previous post. went back and changed it, with great embarrassment. :lol: [/b][/quote]
:D
I wasn't presuming to disallow the use of these words for all time - they have their merit in the right place.
Still, nevertheless, thanks. :D
alpha
01-11-2004, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by Biggles@11 January 2004 - 15:26
Alpha
Could you extend that grace to me also. I was quite unaware of the spelling that you provided.
Apparently its a 'common error in English' :D
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/Ghandi.html
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/errors/errors.html#errors
I did a google search and even found some sites on Mahatma 'Ganghi'.
1234-
Misogynist? I know plenty of women, and most of them know my views.
None of them would describe me thus.
[QUOTE]
Then why not, for example, "George Bush and Mother Theresa? You hate her and the rest of the Catholic faith, anyway.
You are telling me what I am allowed to say? Tough. If you can't handle the company your views are held by, examine your views rather than attempting to censor me or anyone else.
Again you choose to willfully misinterpret my post, but alas, I am not surprised.
My views are arrived at after a careful digestion of the relevancies, not before.
There was nothing in my post that could be interpreted as censoring.
I merely objected to your over-the-top linkage of George Bush and the Taliban.
Now you attempt to link me to the Taliban, also.
I think you had better let the mods know of your conclusions.
I merely objected to your over-the-top linkage of George Bush and the Taliban.
How is it over the top? They hold the same views on the issue. Just because you are uncomfortable with that does not make it any less true.
This of course ignores all the other linkages between the Bush family and the Taliban, or should we go into those too? ;) How about Cheney and the oil pipeline deals? I mean he is the real de facto prez anyway.
QUOTE
I merely objected to your over-the-top linkage of George Bush and the Taliban.
How is it over the top? They hold the same views on the issue. Just because you are uncomfortable with that does not make it any less true.
I have evidence you and Osama share a liking for a certain brand of toilet tissue.
I empathize with your resultant dilemma.
This of course ignores all the other linkages between the Bush family and the Taliban, or should we go into those too? How about Cheney and the oil pipeline deals? I mean he is the real de facto prez anyway.
Really?
I suppose you can prove it, too. <_<
I have evidence you and Osama share a liking for a certain brand of toilet tissue.
Is this evidence similar to the evidence of WMD in Iraq? They both appear to be based on a tissue of lies :P
I suppose you can prove it, too.
Which part?
Bush family has links to Osama and the Taliban going back decades. Cheney attempted to sign a pipeline deal with the Taliban in 97, didn't work out so he invaded and put an ex oil man in charge whose first act was ... to sign a pipeline deal.
Now if you meant the comment about Cheney being the real prez, that's just more wishful thinking on my part. Imagine if that alcoholic, bible bashing draft dodger with a penchant for falling off Segways really was the one in charge. Scary huh?
Even scarier is that he makes Cheney look like a more attractive proposition. Now that is a feat of Dan Quayle proportions.
3RA1N1AC
01-13-2004, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by 1234@13 January 2004 - 03:56
Imagine if that alcoholic, bible bashing draft dodger with a penchant for falling off Segways really was the one in charge. Scary huh?
i wouldn't worry about george w. bush or dick cheney's personal opinions too much. a true politician is excluded from holding strong personal convictions, much less adhering to them.
to quote you-know-who:
And this is an administration -- we're not into nation-building, we're focused on justice. And we're going to get justice. It's going to take a while, probably. But I'm a patient man. Nothing will diminish my will and my determination -- nothing.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.