The Real Pro-abortion Agenda

[leftism]

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]

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?

[bjford]

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]

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&#39;m afraid your mistaken on that one. Take a look at this interview with Archbishop A&#39;nzeki.

<!--QuoteBegin-bbc interview

BRADSHAW:&nbsp; Catholics bishops in Kenya produced this pamphlet which claims:&nbsp; "Latex rubber from
which condoms are made does have pores through which viral sized particles can squeeze through during
intercourse."&nbsp; We read this to the World Health Organisation who told us it is:&nbsp; "simply not true".

This is scientific nonsense isn&#39;t it?

A&#39;NZEKI:&nbsp; Scientific nonsense?

BRADSHAW:&nbsp; Yes.

A&#39;NZEKI:&nbsp; That is true.&nbsp; First we are defective.&nbsp; What ?? they have?

BRADSHAW:&nbsp; It doesn&#39;t say anything about defective condoms.&nbsp; It says:&nbsp; "Latex rubber from which
condoms are made has pores through which viral sized particles…."

A&#39;NZEKI:&nbsp; It means they are not proof… complete 100% proof.

BRADSHAW:&nbsp; But it says latex rubber, it says that viruses can pass through latex rubber.&nbsp; That&#39;s nonsense.

A&#39;NZEKI:&nbsp; You go and get the scientists to look at it.

BRADSHAW:&nbsp; Archbishop, with the greatest respect, what I&#39;m suggesting is that you&#39;re peddling
superstition and ignorance.

N&#39;ANZEKI:&nbsp; We are not peddling ignorance.&nbsp; We shall be proved the only people who have been right in
this matter in the long-run.[/quote]

source

Now that you know the Catholic church is talking about all condoms, has this changed your opinion on the subject?

[leftism]

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&#39;s claims are revealed in a BBC1 Panorama programme, Sex and the Holy City, to be broadcast on Sunday. The president of the Vatican&#39;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 &#39;net&#39; that is formed by the condom. [/quote]

source

[bjford]

Leftism, you&#39;re using two completely different stories. The story in Kenya is different from that in Uganda. Secondly, Cardinal Trujillo isn&#39;t the Catholic Church. IF you actually think the Pope can run the entire Catholic Church, you&#39;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&#33;

[j2k4]

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&#39;s subject is concerned.

I&#39;ll begin by retracting my frothy response to 1234&#39;s thread, and try to respond in a manner you might regard as more "responsive".

Here we go:

(1234&#39;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&#39;t know where you are from, I&#39;ll limit my response to the situation in the U.S.; I can&#39;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&#39;t have to surrender her/his friend to an unwanted pregnancy, and the family-planning professional, whose raison d&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;d be willing to be there is a contextual misunderstanding here-not saying I know, for sure, but I&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t want to help with the diaper-changing? What if my daughter decides SHE doesn&#39;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&#39;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.

[1234]

Well Leftism has answered many of the criticisms of my posts in the same way I would have, so I won&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#33; 6 months&#33; Not even 7 months&#33; As a matter of fact, even a full-term infant can’t survive unaided (though less so)&#33; A child can’t survive unaided&#33; What’s your point? Handicapped people can&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t have to surrender her/his friend to an unwanted pregnancy, and the family-planning professional, whose raison d&#39;etre is therefore vindicated.

Assumption with no basis in fact, and just displays your hostility to FPA&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;d be willing to be there is a contextual misunderstanding here-not saying I know, for sure, but I&#39;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&#33;&#33;&#33;" 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&#39;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&#39;t even know that what they were doing was even sex&#33; 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&#39;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&#39;t want to help with the diaper-changing?

Then don&#39;t, entirely up to you and utterly unrelated to the issue of consultation over abortion.

What if my daughter decides SHE doesn&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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]

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&#33; I know several Catholics and can assure you that Catholics do not get paid. LOL.

Hmm I&#39;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&#39;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&#33; Get this through your thick head&#33;

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&#33;

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&#33;

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&#39;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&#33; I think this is the fourth one&#33; 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&#39;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.

[1234]

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&#33; 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&#33; Get this through your thick head&#33;

No money? Funny, in 98 it was receiving 50 million dollars in it&#39;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&#39;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 &#39;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&#39;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&#33;

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&#39;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&#39; 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&#39;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&#33;

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&#39;s, does losing those make us no longer human? Does having those make foetus&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#33;

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&#33;

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&#39;s records of the era to it&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#036;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&#39; pension funds. She interceded on Maxwell&#39;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&#39;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&#39; approach to managing pain was "disturbingly lacking". The formulary at the facility Fox visited lacked strong analgesics which he felt clearly separated Mother Teresa&#39;s approach from the hospice movement. There have been a series of other reports documenting inattention to medical care in the order&#39;s facilities. Similar points of view have also been expressed by some former volunteers who worked for Teresa&#39;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&#39;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