The Real Pro-abortion Agenda

[hobbes]

My Bishop is bigger than yours!

[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'>1) I&#39;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&#39;ve already shown you this quote

)RAPHAEL NDINGI MWANA A&#39;NZEKI
Archbishop of Nairobi
The Catholic Church does not advocate use of condoms under any circumstances.&nbsp; HIV AIDS is going so
fast because of availability of condoms.&nbsp;

BRADSHAW:&nbsp; You think condoms are causing AIDS?

A&#39;NZEKI:&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; I&#39;ll explain.&nbsp; You give a young Kenyan a condom for him or for her it&#39;s a license for
sexuality.&nbsp; They think they&#39;re protected and they&#39;re not protected.&nbsp; Understand?

BRADSHAW:&nbsp; You don’t think anybody should use…

A&#39;NZEKI:&nbsp; We don’t use… any produced condom, they should not be made at all.

BRADSHAW:&nbsp; They should not be made.

A&#39;NZEKI:&nbsp; Yes.

BRADSHAW:&nbsp; Nobody should use them.

A&#39;NZEKI:&nbsp; Yes.

BRADSHAW:&nbsp; Even people who are not Catholics you think should…..

A&#39;NZEKI:&nbsp; 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&#39;t work because you&#39;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

It&#39;s definitely easier than getting an entire continent to abstain from sex.

[bjford]

My sources don&#39;t come from the Vatican, but from a prestigious Rubber Industry Magazine.

The guy is correct. Nobody should use condoms. But you see you&#39;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&#39;t know the person well, and they don&#39;t know they have diseases. It is not as common in married couples. People shouldn&#39;t be having sex like that in the first place, and using condoms isn&#39;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&#39;r not Catholic, of course he&#39;s going to say he still believes you can&#39;t use condoms, but politely acknowledges that some disagree with him.

Condoms arn&#39;t hard to use, but they&#39;re easy to misuse.

[1234]

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&#39;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&#33;.

One of the worlds largest supercomputers is operated by missionaries. Didn&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#33; 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&#39;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&#39;t for those darned quote tags&#33; (In a Scooby villain voice)

[3RA1N1AC]

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]

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.

[1234]

[QUOTE]
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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;s, couldn&#39;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&#39;t mean that judgement should be allowed to affect other people. You are right though, you can inquire so why haven&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t say, "not true not true&#33;" 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&#39;t care that the babies born died in minutes of birth while seriously adversly affecting the mothers health (including killing them). She didn&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#33; You sounded like you considered yourself to be the arbitter of my daughter&#39;s rights.

Appears you were wrong then doesn&#39;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&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t fool an American Catholic girl.

I assume this is an attempt at humour? Can&#39;t tell really

[QUOTE]
The word is "estopped", if you please; ordinarily I&#39;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&#39;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&#39;t want it-but they won&#39;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.

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&#39;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]

Originally posted by bjford
My sources don&#39;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&#39;ll stick with them.

[1234]

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]

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