The Real Pro-abortion Agenda

[MagicNakor]

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.

[Biggles]

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]

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.

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?

[bjford]

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&#33.

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]

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]

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]

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&#39;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]

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&#39;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&#39;d prolly not be too happy at all that some nuns had taken advantage of one of your relatives&#39; misfortune as a chance to convert him/her to another religion. honestly i&#39;d prefer to see that work done by people without ulterior motives, like increasing a nun&#39;s chances of sainthood just for changing some bedpans and sprinkling a bit of holy water... but then again, you&#39;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]

Originally posted by bjford@10 January 2004 - 20:25
1234&#39; s arguments are filled with logical fallacies&#33;&#33;&#33; 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&#39;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&#39;s VERY obvious.

Bj

1234&#39;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]