The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The semantics of abortion > Comments

The semantics of abortion : Comments

By Helen Ransom, published 9/2/2006

When does human life begin? A discussion on RU486, abortion and choice.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 80
  7. 81
  8. 82
  9. All
Some more semantics, Helen, since you're using semantic argument as much as anyone else in this debate.

Technically, the oral contraceptive pill is also an abortifacient – it does not prevent the joining of sperm and ovum, but the implantation of the fused cells in the uterine wall. Scratch point 4.

An unborn baby is not necessarily a genetically unique member of the human race: identical twins are not genetically unique.

Apropos twins, you get yourself into a bit of trouble with your insistence on personhood ab initio. There is a compelling argument that personhood cannot exist in zygotes until the possibility of twinning has passed. If a single zygote (call it Adam) splits into two, are the resulting persons Adam and Bruce? Bruce and Craig? If they're Bruce and Craig, where is Adam? Did he ever exist? And if they're Adam and Bruce, which is the elder? Which is which? Honestly, you should know about this one – it comes from Norman Ford, head of philosophy at the institution where you're studying.

There's also Bedate and Cefalo's argument about hydatidiform moles – concepti carrying gross genetic abnormalities which lack the potential to become even a human being, let alone a person. So you might be in a bit of trouble with even your weaker claim that all concepti are axiomatically human beings.

Oh, and as I've asked in another thread, what happens if, when asked, the un-aborted child expresses a preference that he or she had been aborted? It's a reductio ad absurdem, I know, but not beyond the realms of possibility.

I await the hostile responses with a certain resigned interest.
Posted by anomie, Thursday, 9 February 2006 12:19:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More semantics. If murder - the killing of "innocent" people? - is universally condemned (I don't know - is it?), then the condemnation meets widely ignored (perhaps even universally). Too many examples, too obvious to list.
Posted by Shell, Thursday, 9 February 2006 12:29:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice one Anomie. I find pro-foetus men are a reasonably understandable phenomenon- they long for the days when women were their chattel, and their opposition to abortion is a manifestation of that. But there's something deeply twisted about a pro-foetus woman such as Helen, selling other women's rights and freedoms down the river. Incidentally, if we're going to say life begins at conception, why stop there? Why not begin at ejaculation? Why not start agitating against condoms as weapons of murder? Oh wait, they already do. Also, note no mention of rape victims or incest victims- does the blanket ban cover them as well? Should a woman have to have her rapist's child? Would Helen have her rapist's child?
Posted by KRS 1, Thursday, 9 February 2006 12:41:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anomie you make some good points but you do not completely rebut Helen's arguments against abortion, especially late-term abortions.

And, Helen you have convinced me that the TGA is not the body to determine the availability of RU486. However, it is does not then follow that the parliament should ban the drug. Considering that the government does permit abortion then, providing RU486 is no more risky than surgical procedures, it should be allowed too.
Posted by Matt Canavan, Thursday, 9 February 2006 1:05:57 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem i find with the pro-life arguement is where does it take us? To what outcomes does it lead? The arguement seems to have only one immediate end in mind, to make abortion illegal, and often neglects the problems that arise from there.
Just say we outlawed abortion tomorrow, then what? What about women who are unwilling or unable to carry a child to birth, do we make them wards of the state until they have the child? set up facilities to look after them? What about women who do not want to mother the child after birth or do not have the means? Do we force them to or put the child under other care? And who wears the cost of all this? And then theres the risks of the self-abortion techniques that these women might resort to, what do we do about that?
So fair enough, life may begin at conception and it might be a terrible thing to abort a foetus, but in my mind its the practicalities of the pro-life arguement that seem to bog it down not the moral debate.
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 9 February 2006 1:26:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Helen ,the debate is about RU 486 availability as a choice for women who want to have an abortion by taking the decision out of the hands of a god-bothering Minister for Health and placing the decision on availability in the hands of the TGA . You might not think having an abortion is not therapeutic but I reckon it would be very good therapy for a woman who does not wish to proceed with a pregnancy.
It's not about your or my preference for or against abortion.
Get pregnant and then you can decide for yourself but do not impose your ethics on the women who seek a choice of their own.
Posted by maracas, Thursday, 9 February 2006 1:55:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maracas, the debate is about whatever people want to make the debate about not what you decide it's about. There are people with vastly different points of view to you - get used to it. If people want to question the morality of abortion they are entirely within their rights to. Because a side-effect of making RU-486 more easily available is that the natural barrier to having an abortion comes down. One can only hope that those who avail themselves of the drug are the ones that would have had a surgical abortion anyway. But there's no guarantee that will be the case.

As to Donnie's point about where does the pro-life argument take us, what about the plain ol' idea that a person gets a chance to live his/her life. Just ask yourself how you'd have liked it if it was you who'd been the aborted foetus?
Posted by RobP, Thursday, 9 February 2006 3:08:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can understand why an abortion pill would be considered as a different class of drugs to most pharmaceuticals, in that it is designed to do other than extend and facilitate life. That is the argument for or against approval by the TGA versus the politicians and it is one which I can understand and concur with, providing it is not used as an excuse for politicians to do nothing.

I found anomies argument compelling and pertinent.

Having no appropriate medical credentials, I would not argue the technical merits and risks of RU486 and would rely on the services of say the TGA to perform due-diligence on this drugs technical performance, risks and consequences. That is a mechanical matter and not pertinent to the ethical / social / moral issues inspired by this drug.

However, provided the side effects, long as well as short term and inherent risks of using this drug are “acceptable” I would say it is a slam-dunk certainty that its use is preferable to and certainly less intrusive than a surgical procedure.

Regarding Helen Ransom herself. Studying something, especially in the cloistered environs of a Catholic Theological College, does not impart any particular skill in objective or ethical analysis, quite the opposite when anyone can deduce the "political slant" applied in such an institution.

The Church of Rome is not known for encouraging debate in the matter of the values it holds. The faithful are expected to follow like sheep or face being barred for taking mass (for lesser dissent) all the way up to excommunication (which at one time had far more serious implications than today).

Oh and the matter of choice
“a seriously “pro-choice” society would advocate for a mother to have the baby,”

WRONG!

A “seriously pro-choice society” would support the mother in whatever “choice” she decides for herself and the embryo / foetus which is sharing her bodily resources. The mother being the only one with cognitive skills.

A “seriously pro-choice society” would respect the sovereignty of the individual and recognise that society is there to support individuals, not to subordinate them.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 9 February 2006 3:13:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with you Helen. It is far too simplistic to treat this drug RU 486 like any other drug, this is a unique genre of drug which is NOT therapeutic, because it kills developing human beings at the embryonic stage of development and it poses serious and fatal risks to women's health (the exact opposite of therapeutic!).

Many pro-choicers are operating on the assumption that abortion be it surgical or pharmaceutical is the answer to unwanted pregnancies, this is far too simplistic and is a cop out for all involved in including the government. Women deserve better than abortion.

Donnie makes a good point, the first step to finding a solution is to acknowledge the truth, if we can at least acknowledge that life begins at conception than we as a nation/society can start brainstorming solutions which are a win-win solutions for mother, child, nation especially in a nation with a negative population growth.

The real issue as Helen has pointed out then is when does life begin?
When do you other people who have commented say that life begins then? At what point should we respect a human beings basic human right to life?

We need to look at ways to give women faced with an unwanted pregnancy real help, support, real health care, not a drug which endangers their life and their developing offspring’s life, not a drug that exterminates our future Australians.. When are we going to start taking the plight of women seriously instead of offering band-aid solutions like abortion be it surgical or pharmaceutical?
Posted by Connor, Thursday, 9 February 2006 3:27:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
in response to Col Rouge:

the issue is that RU 486 is NOT safe, it is a seriously dangerous drug whether the TGA acknowledge it or not.

just like tobacco caused lung cancer and this information was supressed by the tobacco industry for years, so also many drugs which are approved are pose serious risks to our health.

i refer you to a february 2006 study in the Annals of Pharmacotherapy on mifepristone (the drug used in RU 486 to terminate the developing human being in its embryonic stage of life.)

"Although neither the manufacturer nor the FDA recognises a causal link between the use of mifepristone and the adverse events reported, it is undeniable that these woman were healthy before the use of the mifepristone and became very sick or died shortly after its use. Before any medication is used, a prudent practitioner weighs carefully the risks of the medication with the potential benefits. Medications, such as chemotherapy agents , with life threatening or potentially lethal adverse effects are acceptable in treating conditions that are themselves debilitating or lethal such as cancer, HIV, sepsis and others. In the these cases, alternative treatments are limited and , without treatment, the disease is rapidly lethal. The use of mifepristone as an abortificant, however, is radically different. Pregnancy in most instances is a benign, self limited condition, with duration of approximately 8 months from diagnosis for most women. It generally occurs in otherwise healthy young women."

excerpted from:
“Analysis of Severe Adverse Events Related to the Use of Mifepristone as an Abortifacient” by Margaret M Gary and Donna J Harrison, The Annals of Pharmacotherapy, Feb 2006 vol 40.

therefore, the risk to a woman's health of continuing a pregnancy (unwanted or not) versus the risk to her health of using RU 486 must be weighed up and this study above which looked at 600 studies found that it is NOT SAFE!
Posted by Connor, Thursday, 9 February 2006 3:39:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I totally agree Col (for the first occassion I feel).

Your article is not surprising Helen, as you drift of on a predictable tangent. This is not about the merits of abortion people - it is legal act in our society. So your suggestion about what the ministers 'should' be debating is categorically incorrect. It is about valuing the right of women to choose a drug over the right of "Mr partial" himself, Abbot, to choose.

So, in response to your attempt to discredit the TGA Helen, your best alternative is to leave it in the hands of an openly partial, biased, morally-motivated minister? Oh yeah, I bet he has plenty of expertise in the area! What rubbish.

I suspect that every single woman in Australia who ponders abortion carves themselves up about the very issues you suggest, like the sanctity of life. You should not underestimate the difficulty of the decision. But you also should not take that decision out of their hands. You simply have no right.
Posted by jkenno, Thursday, 9 February 2006 3:40:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anomie.
The contraceptive pill primary method is preventing ovulation. Then it also works it makes it harder for fertilization. In very rare cases thes e fail and then it MAY prevent implantation. (I believe the failure rate resulting in pregnancy is a few percent If I remember correctly).

I find it amazing that people complain that it is mostly men who are prolife, yet they deride women who are prolife when they speak up. It's almost as if, shock horror, they are just looking to force their own views onto the unborn and it doesn't really matter who opposes them
Posted by Alan Grey, Thursday, 9 February 2006 3:52:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We do not need another Pro-Life, Pro-Choice argument, it is almost like a chicken/egg came first argument.

I can see both side of the argument, so I am not touching it with a 10 foot pole.

(does that make me Pro-Choice)

For those Pro-life people
If we can abort Adolf Hitler, should we have?
What if there is a 10% chance the mother would die in labour, how about 50%? 100%?
An orphan does not have a choice if they spend the first 20 years in an orphanage.

For those pro-choice people
When do you draw the line, 2 month foetus, 9 months? 90 yo men with cancer and no relatives? Are you pro-euphanasia as well?
What if you got aborted?
What if the mother was depressed at the time and would have changed her mind later on?
If the husband would taken care of the baby or if serogate parent is found, should the mother have a choice?

There is no use arguing, there is no right answer
Posted by dovif, Thursday, 9 February 2006 4:05:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To RobP,

How would i have liked being aborted? I guess it depends on the existential stance I take. If it's heaven/hell afterlife then i'd probably get a ticket straight to heaven or at least an upper level of hell, being an innocent and all, if it's reincarnation i'd probably just get born again in some other place, hopefully to a mother that wanted me, and if its materialism then i probably wouldn't know about it having not developed the parts of the brain that do all the thinking. Those options aren't all that bad.
But seriously, in an ideal world there would be no unwanted pregnancies. But that is not currently the case so until then we have to find the best and most workable solutions to the problems that we have.
The pro-life group should think about solutions to the wider problems around abortion first instead of demanding it be made illegal now and then expecting everyone to come up with answers to all the problems that this then generates.
Posted by Donnie, Thursday, 9 February 2006 4:16:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why did The Australian newspaper on Saturday Feb 4th print a photo of an apartment block in Fitzroy St, St Kilda - captioned as Senator McGauran's home. Every one knows that Fitzroy St is a red light district replete with gays, prostitutes, drug adicts and a thriving night life.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 9 February 2006 4:51:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. Is RU486 a deadly killer?

I have no idea. I do know that more people die from taking aspirin every year in Australia than have ever died from RU486. Maybe someone actually qualified could work it out. How about a board of doctors, like the TGA? After all, they do this for every other medicine.

2. Is the TGA barred from considering RU486 by their statute?

The answer is clearly no. As you state, a therapeutic drug is one used 'in connection with' 'controlling conception' (no. 3). An argument can be made that an abortifacient is a drug used in connection with controlling the results of a conception. When the meaning of a statute is unclear, judges usually look at the intention of parliament. Given that no-one in parliament has brought up this particular argument, it is clear that partliament intended the TGA statute to include abortifacients.

3. Does human life begin at conception?

This is the question that lies at the heart of the abortion debate. Anti-abortionists appear to claim that the second a sperm enters an egg, a human being comes into existence. Strangely they cite no actual scientific proof for this belief. Scientific research tells us instead that it is not until around the third trimester that the baby gains any kind of consciousness. Until then, it is no more than a bundle of cells, more akin to an amoeba than a human baby.

Instead of science, anti-abortionists rely on belief in God. This is intellectually insulting for two reasons. Firstly, it goes against the ideals of our secular society by forcing the views of one religion onto the remainder of the Australian population. And secondly and most importantly, it brings something as inherently unscientific and non-rational as God into what purports to be a scientific debate.

Helen how do you manage to claim that 'every medical textbook worth its name states that human life begins at conception'? I challenge you to give me the names of 4 medical textbooks actually used in Australia's medical schools which states this 'fact'.

Go on Helen. Prove me wrong.
Posted by Count0, Thursday, 9 February 2006 5:10:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Abortion and pregnancy issues, when placed in the public domain for discussion, inevitably recede to the female v male rights on the unborn.

Many advocate the rights of the woman while marginalising the male to the role of nothing more than the sower of seed. This is as illegitimate (pardon the pun) as reducing a woman to the role of a mere incubator.

Women bear the brunt of the physical and emotional trauma of physical pregnancy. To say that I can empathise with that would be untrue however the inception of life ripples out far beyond the immediate. To be a part of the beginning of life is not to be easily dismissed regardless of gender. For a male to say it is a matter for the woman, alone, is an indictment on the proposer, it is not a supportive argument for any ideal.

This aside, there is abundant medical evidence to support serious doubts as to the safety of the drug in question. It will be argued that it is demeaning to woman to assume that it will be used without informed intent but so be it. In many cases it will be an easy out, and the consequences will be dealt with if or when they arrive.

No doubt, as a male, my gender will be cause for immediate dismissal, to many, of any points that I raise however life is not the bastion of one gender, it is the culmination of both.
Posted by Craig Blanch, Thursday, 9 February 2006 7:08:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Helen I think you're wonderful - will you marry me? (gdptheome2:))

An American has just won an election for the presidency. Yet to be inaugurated, not exercising powers of president. In the ordinary course of events this citizen will be president.

An ovum recently fertilised in the ordinary course of events will become like you and me. This potential personhood is morally significant.

The argument that a hair with a full compliment of chromosomes is the same as a zygote with its full compliment is discredited forever I'd say.

I think this is persuasive, though I don't know of any counter arguments. Does anyone?

Anyway Life is the primary value from which all others flow, we must protect it
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 9 February 2006 7:50:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Craig

Thank you. What a balanced post!

Cheers mate
I am female
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Thursday, 9 February 2006 8:40:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was rather disgusted that so many men voted against the bill in the Senate today. As a male I have to admit to being ashamed of my gender on this issue.

Helen, if we are talking of semantics, you should brush up your semantics skills. An organism is not a person. Most women have the ability to create about 400 organisms in their lifetimes, reality prevails, they cannot all survive.

A woman's uterus is her uterus, its her business, not the business of the pope, the govt, or anyone else. Come on guys, leave women and their decisions to women! Keep out of it, its none of your business!

The Catholic dogma on all this goes back to Onan and the so called holy sperms, in the old testament. Yet we have heard from Christians time and time again on OLO, that the old testament should not be taken literally. So why should this particular bit be taken literally?

The reality is that the church is in a corner. One pope has claimed the evils of condoms, pills, abortion, early withdrawel etc and he is meant to be be infallible. If the church changes its mind, there will be eggs on too many catholic faces to deal with. Oh my...
So they plod on relentlessly.

Having a Catholic health minister in charge of RU 486, IMHO is like having dracula looking after the blood bank. If he believes in the infallibility of the pope etc, then he must believe that abortion is evil, as the old papa claims. So how is he able to be objective about his views on abortion?

We want freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion !
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 9 February 2006 10:23:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am not qualified to ascertain the safety of RU486 so I'll leave that to those who are, but if the drug is shown to have minimal side-effects and no long-term problems for the user, then I am all for its approval.

Abortion is a very personal choice, made by a woman when for whatever reason, she cannot or does not want to carry a pregnancy for its full term.We can make as many assumptions as we like but this decision is hers and hers alone.Although I have never been in this position myself, I can only imagine that it would be a difficult and agonising choice to make. I cannot understand for the life of me, why women would want to take this choice out of their own hands when feminists fought tooth and nail for many years for us to have this right.I'm sure that if Helen had a friend considering abortion, that she would prefer them to have access to the safe procedure, performed by a doctor (or RU846) then to risk their own lives as well in a dodgy, backyard job.

We can argue as much as we like about when life begins, when the baby develops cognitive abilities and so on but what people forget to realise is that abortion is ultimately about the MOTHER.The mother is a fully-grown adult with the ability to make the best choices for herself and her life. We have no right to limit these choices, in regards to her body or anything else. To give an unborn fetus' rights preference over the rights of its adult mother is nothing but a display of utterly skewed priorities.

If politicians want to debate the sanctity of life then feel free to justify the current war in Iraq where hundreds of lives are being lost daily. Feel free to justify your disgraceful military spending when billions are dying of starvation, going hungry and are without access to clean water.Then get back to me about abortion.

RIP Betty Friedan (1921-2006), leading feminist and advocate for the right of women to a safe abortion
Posted by Dizem, Thursday, 9 February 2006 11:21:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I’m with Craig Blanch on this one but accept that RU486 is destined for every woman’s toolbox or make up case.
Posted by Seeker, Friday, 10 February 2006 8:10:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If you don't like Abortion then don't have one. This in just another example of god bothers trying to control the rest of us.
Posted by Kenny, Friday, 10 February 2006 8:22:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Touche Kenny. Again, for everyone, abortion is LEGAL. We are not debating its merits, but rather whether an expert should decide on the safety of a drug over a ill-informed minister.....
Posted by jkenno, Friday, 10 February 2006 8:27:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Count0,
You are clearly incorrect. Science indeed does indicate the human life begins at conception.

The fertilized egg is indeed of the species homo sapiens and it must be alive, as life comes from life, the law of biogenesis.

Next time you try to pretend that you are being scientific and rational, please be a little better at it. Until then, your metaphysical notions of when a human life stops being property (like the slaves) and gains the right to life are clearly religious in nature. YOU are the one forcing your metaphysical beliefs on the unborn.

Kenny tries to tell us that if we don't like abortion, don't have one. This is nonsense logic. By the same logic you can justify ANY action. Don't like murder? Fine, don't murder anyone, but don't force your morals on me...

As Helen says, RU-486 is not a theraputic drug, it does not fall within the purvey of the TGA to classify it (For all those who argue legality, then why are you pushing to let the TGA do something that is not within their charter?). As it is part of a very divisive issue, the Health Minister was giving responsibility for allowing it's use to give public accountability to the decision. This was accountability was given by bipartisan support.
Posted by Alan Grey, Friday, 10 February 2006 9:09:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dizem

That is a horrible argument you run. So in your opinion, if a woman in labour suddenly change her mind about going through with the labour, the kid shoulld be aborted? I think you would be surprise how many female would say no to the kid while in labour, and then change the mind when the kid is born.

I also disagree that the choice is solely a women's business, while the majority of the decision should be the females, I think the father and parents should also be allowed a say in the matter.

As for the sandity of life of people in Iraq,
firstly, it has nothing to do with thecurrent argument
secondly, I have not heard of our troops killing civilians in Iraq, they have killed people who are trying to kill them.
thirdly, can you send me the post where you complained about Saddam Hussein exterminating the Kurds or killing families of people in Iraq. I guess with people like you - Out of sight is out of mind

PS I do not support the war in Iraq and I do not have much time for George Bush, but I believe that the war mean that people in Iraq will have a "chance" to have a future without fear and death, ie things that we enjoys in Australia.
Posted by dovif, Friday, 10 February 2006 9:15:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry if my argument wasn't clear enough. I support abortion up until the second trimester of pregnancy and in all cases, if the life of the mother is in danger.

Secondly, the war in Iraq does have alot to do with it because the same politicians that are claiming to value human life are the same ones destroying it by the dozens.

Thirdly, with all due respect, I think you're making a slightly deluded argument by claiming that the military are not killing civilians and are only fighting in self defence. According to the website IraqBodyCount.org approximately 30,000 civilians have died at the hands of US and allied forces.

Also, the US (and its allies) don't care about the future of the Iraqi people, they are in there for one reason and thats oil. If they are so concerned about protecting the world's people where were they during the genocide in Rwanda and the current genocides in Sudan and the Congo where millions upon millions of people are being killed? Although I'm not Christian, may he without sin cast the first stone.
Posted by Dizem, Friday, 10 February 2006 11:15:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Helen, Great article ... this clearly is an issue 'that generates diverse and passionate debate', as Online Opinion promises. More than that it's one of the most important topics we can talk about.

I agree with your view, believing that the crux of this issue lies with the question 'when does life begin?'. As count0 has already asked, perhaps you could provide references for your assertion that 'every medical textbook worth its name states that human life begins at conception'.

I also found a quote or two that I thought my be pertinent,

"...The woman who has recourse to abortion is disowning feminine values, her values. . . Women learn to believe no longer in what men say. . . the one thing they are sure of is this rifled and bleeding womb, these shreds of crimson life, this child that is not there."
Simone de Beauvoir, feminist leader and advocate of legalized abortion, in The Second Sex, 1952

"[I am ] angry at the woman ... I have angry feelings at myself for feeling good about grasping the [head of the fetus], for feeling good about doing a technically good procedure which destroys a fetus, kills a baby."
Anonymous abortion doctor, quoted by Jack Hitt in "Who Will Do Abortions Here?", New York Times Magazine, January 18, 1998
Quote from http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion
Posted by akendrick, Friday, 10 February 2006 1:29:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

This most assuredly is a very hot issue, & it raises emotions similar to religion & capital punishment. But let's take the vitriol & emotion from the argument.

anomie (post 12:19:12 PM 9/2/06)

You most assuredly give some evidence to support your hypothesis that life is relatively insignificant. But the reality is that given the choice, most human beings (& any other rational thinking animal), at the point of having their life taken from them, will normally fight to keep alive. Doubt me? I have held the livees of others in the palm of my hand & made the decision for them.

Isn't it a pity that pro-abortionists don't realise that sexual activity is primarily a function of creating a 'new' generation? Is it pleasurable to the participants? One would hope so, otherwise we'd have no desire to "hop into the cot". But there is a consequence to the activity - the 'risk' of conception. That's a responsibility of the participants. If the outcome isn't desired then maybe the activity ought to be avoided.

The problem for Australians & society generally is that we want to ignore consequences & make 'heroes' out of moral & ethical lawlessness. Robin Hood who was a thief is given justification because he 'allegedly' "stole from the rich to give to the poor". Ned Kelly was just like Robin Hood - a law-breaker. Abortionists are foetus-killers no matter how one tries to justify it academically.

The paradox is that Islam is opposed to abortion - just like true Christianity, Jainism & severl other 'beliefs' - yet kills for the sake of Allah. Is it any wonder that the West is despised by Islam?

In Australia we kill 100,000-plus foetuses per annum on Medicare. Yet there is public outcry at an invasion into Iraq which sees Iraqi citizens brutalised. No life is so worthless that it ought to be needlessly sacrificed. A foetus can't talk for itself.
(10/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Friday, 10 February 2006 1:30:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
L.A.B-

Leaving aside your odd comment about holding lives in your hands (are you a contract killer? A vet? A roller-coaster operator?), why this hostility towards sex? If you are concerned with the abortion rate (and i think we all are) why not agitate for more contraception and better sex education, rather than the abstinence pipe-dream?

Also, i'm confused by your comment about abortionists. Are you really suggesting that Australians hold abortionists in the same high regard as they do Ned Kelly? I have never seen any evidence of this.
Posted by KRS 1, Friday, 10 February 2006 1:44:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice article. Womens' rights begin in the womb (the right to be born). If many of the arguments for abortion were used to justify infanticide, we'd lock such women up for murder.

What Australia needs to do:
1) If you don't want to get pregnant, don't have sex, or use protection but beware of the possible consequences.
2) Have more sex education for young people talking about the physiological and psychological issues of sex. Also, don't allow preteen magazines to preach on the joys of abortion without giving mention to some of its more negative side effects (as I've seen).
3) When a woman is pregnant, have laws forcing men to have as much to do with it as the women (e.g. shared parenting laws are good). Also, employers should have more incentives to offer maternity leave. Refusal to do so could perhaps be discrimination?
4) For all those religious people who argue against abortion, for goodness sake, set up more counselling services, practical aid, babysitting services to help women who end up with unwanted pregnancies. Develop genuine friendships with women in these situations and pray with/for them.
5) Its really hard to adopt a child from Australia. Set up more adoption services.

Also, I really liked how you established what therapeutic goods are and what they aren't.
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Friday, 10 February 2006 2:48:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are any number of drugs available that can cause death yet we haven't handed control of their availability to one individual.

The reason this is a big deal is that it's happening on Abbott's watch. Vanstone voted for the bill. What if she took over as health minister? RU486 available, no arguments, no questions.

Perhaps the biggest change for the anti-choice people, it would be much harder to know who to bully at the doctor's surgery.
Posted by chainsmoker, Friday, 10 February 2006 3:57:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YngNlvnIt

Mate I'd vote for you.

You're impressive.

Women's rights begin in the womb is brilliant!

I love it.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Friday, 10 February 2006 8:24:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Women's rights begin in the womb is brilliant!"

It certainly is Martin, for as you should know, claiming
to be intelligent, an organism is not a woman!

So protect women, when they become women, not when
they are dividing cells. A piece of steel is not a car,
its a potential car. Did they teach you nothing at University? :)

At the end of the day, of the 400 or so potential organisms that a woman can produce, she has to decide which 1-3 she can not only
carry to birth, but also provide the resources for the next 20 years.
Thats a huge decision, affecting her life in dramatic ways, it should be her choice alone to make that commitment, as it will also be her responsibility.

Those preaching abstinance as a solution, should note its dismal failure around the world. Firstly sex is not illegal. Secondly lets look at the long long long list of Catholic priests who cannot even stick to that commitment. I rest my case :)
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 10 February 2006 8:56:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby are you Catholic?

I'm beginning to wonder whether you're on our side. You're doing the job of spreading the faith better than I could. I might have underestimated you. You're either very clever or particularly stupid.

I mean all of your arguments are so pathetic you're either a glutton for punishment or you're deliberately encouraging the explication of Christianity, which looks something special indeed to warrant such a sustained tirade.

If latter is the case, careful; you're being so rabidly anti Catholic even a dedicated Satanist might start to get numb.

Anyway, keep up the good work.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Friday, 10 February 2006 9:29:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Along with bandaids, package RU486 in all Barina first aid kits, include as promotional items with sanitary products, and as sealed samples in girly magazines. Wait, why am I telling all of you - these are my future marketing ideas.
Posted by Seeker, Friday, 10 February 2006 10:18:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin Ibn Warriq, Are you a self loathing ex-Muslim? Or someone who is simply over compensating for not being a white Christian?
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 10 February 2006 11:30:38 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin ibn Warriq,

Your analysis of the "yabster" is very true and very funny. Some nun gave the yabster a kick in the pants years ago and he is still crying about it. No one is holding a gun to his head to go to church or believe in God. None the less yabby whines and whines on about the Catholic church. Then we have maracas. Those two should be stand up comics. My name's yabby and I hate religion. My name's yabby and I hate the Catholic church. My name's yabby and I am a robot. My name's yabby and I run on batteries. My names's maracas and I have only one hobby. My name's maracas and I too run on batteries.

Forget Martin and Lewis. It's the yabby/maracas show. As boring as bat shat.
Posted by FRIEDRICH, Saturday, 11 February 2006 10:05:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin and Fred,
Thanks but I didn't come up with the slogan, and I'm not running for Parliament :). Also, please don't tear into Yabby/maracas personally, I don't think its very Christ-like.

Yabby,
"So protect women, when they become women." OK, so the law offers no protection for prepubescent girls? What about baby girls? 8 month old fetuses? 8 week old fetuses? Its interesting that in all terminations of a fetus, its considered murder, UNLESS, its conducted as an abortion.

"A piece of steel is not a car". A fertilised egg is not a woman's body part. It is from the moment of conception fully a SEPARATE member of the human species. The only argument left is whether or not it yet has "personhood", or perhaps, a "soul". Crap, isn't that putting religion into the argument?

"Provide the resources for the next 20 years." That's not the case in A adoption, B tougher laws forcing male parenting.

"Dismal failure of abstinence."
I agree with what you said about priests. However, I don't think abstinence is a dismal failure. I never used to support it being taught- I figured if someone didn't have an underlying philosophical reason not to have sex, they just would, but I read a report from a pro-contraception sex ed organisation in England saying the abstinence message was actually working much better, much of an "achilles heel" for them. (Sorry, I can't find the link.) The reason I think it works is because it actually teaches the psychological/perhaps spiritual aspects of sex, doesn't just teach the physical side of it and then add the nebulous "but only do it if you're ready".

So like I said, abstinence AND safe sex should be taught together, and I think they're each the poorer without one another.

"Nobody likes the number of abortions occuring each year". Cool, so can we please work towards avoiding them all together rather than maintaining the status quo?
Posted by YngNLuvnIt, Saturday, 11 February 2006 12:15:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin and Friedrich, I note your lack of empathy for women and their situations. I guess those catholic rosaries are not on your ovaries :)

Anyhow, as you two clowns have not even attempted to negate my arguments, clearly you have none. Fair enough...

Yngn, thanks for your response. All this has been discussed before, I am sure you have heard the arguments before. Most countries have agreed to allow abortion without question, in the first tremester.
Its a line in the sand drawn about brains, if you want I can go through it all again, its a reasoned argument.
Nobody talks of murdering an organism except religious fundies, so its emotive semantics, no more.

A new piece of steel also goes on to make a SEPARATE car, that still does not make it a car yet.

Yes abstinance is a dismal failure, especially in those areas, like the US bible belt, where no sex education is taught at the same time.
When those girls hit the real world, something happens, hormones trigger, all the normal problems of teenagehood etc, bingo they get pregnant. Compare US teen statisics with say the Dutch. US bible belt figures are by far the worst.

The point is the Catholic teaching of JUST abstinance, which is part of their preaching, has proven to be a dismal failure. There is nothing wrong with teaching kids the spiritual value of sex, it should be part of philosophy/ethics classes, which if I had my way, would replace religious teaching in schools. Saying abstinance is the ONLY solution, is where its failing miserably.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 11 February 2006 1:05:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

I do hope I haven't offended you. Thank you for calling me a clown. I've always wanted to be one.

On a recent post I said I have changed my mind and the question of abortion should be left to the woman. I also agree that the Church has a lot to answer for.

I am being sincere when I say you and maracas would make a great comedy act.
Posted by FRIEDRICH, Saturday, 11 February 2006 3:54:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Get your rosaries off my sisters ovaries indeed.
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 11 February 2006 11:10:29 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've just joined up today and want to say there are some interesting comments in this thread - too many to read them all I'm afraid.

The author of the original article is to be congratulated for her well constructed and refreshingly intellectual approach to an oft emotion charged issue.

I note the usual flurry of men quickly ducking any responsibility for their roles and abrogating sole responsibility for procreation to women - a weird position in 2006 but nevertheless still commonplace amongst certain types.

Enjoyable forum so far, thanks for the interesting read.

I'm male by the way so I'm not man-bashing.
Posted by deepthought, Sunday, 12 February 2006 12:02:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Connor
”the issue is that RU 486 is NOT safe, it is a seriously dangerous drug whether the TGA acknowledge it or not.

That is for the TGA to evaluate and decide, objectively and not for you to dictate.

“We need to look at ways to give women faced with an unwanted pregnancy real help, support, real health care,”

Why on earth should we fund such lavish excesses in public spending?

I might suggest, those women seeking abortion could have the best of medical plans and support money can buy.

I would further suggest, regardless of the level of health care or support, they have decided to abort. It is their free choice and no amount of bribes, funded from my taxes are going to change their minds.

That they choice is contrary to your wishes is irrelevant.

As for ‘national negative population growth’,
bearing in mind the biggest danger to future humanity is the current world population explosion, a declining population is a responsible thing (not that I encourage abortion as a way to maintain it).

Being male and beyond child bearing age, I do not need to worry about taking RU486.
However, if I were in circumstances where I needed to consider it, I would sooner use a safe and suitable oral pill than face the experience and risks of a surgical procedure.

Dovif, re “Dizem That is a horrible argument you run.”

Actually it is usually the pro-life brigade who rant on and bring up inappropriate analogies to death, genocide ( ah that is one I have heard before, the genocide of abortion and comparisons to Pol Pot).

I recall on a parallel thread Francis calling pro-choice ““apostles of the culture of death”

(Article “Pro-choice and Catholic: A mother's story” Posted by Francis, Thursday, 9 February 2006 12:44:16 PM)

I take it you are as willing to criticise Francis as you are Dizem or would you rather been seen as a hypocrite?

YngNLuvnIt “Women's rights begin in the womb”

Yep and it is her “womb” and therefore her choice!

Thanks for pointing that out.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 12 February 2006 2:46:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The debate over RU486 doesn't revolve around agreeing upon 'when does life begin', as if knowing the answer will change the decision of the mother. The drug is simply an alternative to what's already available & whether it's better or worse depends on where you already sit.

There is serious medical evidence regarding the dangers of Aspirin. It causes 1000+ deaths a year in the U.S. (US Surgeon General).

Perhaps we should ban it.
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 12 February 2006 5:50:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Geez Col Rouge... I agree with you... I feel faint...lol

Having witnessed what happens to a young 18 year old girl who was a friend who faces the dilemma of what to do when she is pregnant is mind boggling.

Her parents abandoned her, her grandparents abandoned her, her boyfriend abondoned her, her other friends abandoned her and it was left to me to counsel her through the options available to her which included 1. Keeping the baby 2. Offering the baby for adoption & 3. Having an abortion.

I told her it was totally her decision and she knew I would support whatever decision she took and did so psychologically, emotionally and financially.

The hell that girl went through I wouldn't wish on anybody. I believe she is now happily married and I hope she has had a wonderful life. Hopefully she has never had to regret the decision she took.
Posted by Opinionated2, Sunday, 12 February 2006 6:14:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Count O,
Science teaches that Life begins at conception and is a continuum until death. Nothing is added, the unborn human continues to develop in utero needing only nourishment and protection from the mother. I can back this up with quotes from eminent scientists:
-“It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.” Professor M.Matthew-Roth,HarvardUniversity Medical School.
-“By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.” Professor Hymie Gordon, Mayo Clinic.
-“Life has a very long history,but each one of us has a very precise beginning and that is the moment of conception.”Dr.Jerome Lejeune,genetics professor at the University of Descartes, Paris.
-At 18 days the heart begins to beat(when the mother is only four days late for her first menstrual period), and by 21 days it is pumping,through a closed circulatory system,blood whose type is different from that of the mother.J.M.Tanner, and the Editors of Time-Life Books,Growth,New York:Life Sciences Library.
It is precisely for these reasons that we stand up for and speak out in defense of the unborn. Science supports our beliefs and God gives us the courage and strength to do so, whether you like it or not
We speak the truth. It is you who is intellectually blinkered. You say that we are” forcing the views of one religion onto the remainder of the Australian population”. What religion do you have a bias against? Those involved in the protection of the unborn come from many different cultural and religious backgrounds, but work together to protect and speak out for the most vulnerable in our society, the unborn human being.
RU486 is a deadly drug that kills the unborn and may severely harm the mother.
Posted by shanti, Sunday, 12 February 2006 11:04:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You say that we are” forcing the views of one religion onto the remainder of the Australian population”. What religion do you have a bias against?"

Umm Shanti, actually its the Vatican. Nobody else has a world
wide campaign going on this topic, like they have. I guess the question of the infallibility of the pope is at stake here, so they plod on regardless.

You still don't get it. An organism is not a person. No brain = no person, its as simple as that.

Now tell me why the rest of us thinking indivuals, who can reason without being influenced by Catholic dogma going back to Onan and the holy sperms, should be forced to live based on Catholic dogma?

To me that is religious tyranny!

As Darwin clearly noted, if you read his "Origin of Species", far more potential individuals of any species will be be created, then can ever survive. Thats the reality of it. Even Catholic dogma is not beyond the laws of nature.

What say that we start to be a little more concerned with all those thinking, feeling, breathing, living people on the planet, before we get carried away by potential people. That is humanitarian, not just religious dogma.

Just to clarify a point. RU 486 works fine in European countries,
where people have healthcare, much like in Australia. In fact the data shows that its far safer then birth. Its time that the anti abortion lobby stopped distorting data in the name of religion.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 12 February 2006 11:43:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shanti & other religious people,

I respect you for your opinion but considering what I have experienced it should be the decision of the woman.

This debate is not about abortion... it is about who should make the decision regarding a prescription that will be advised upon by a trained pharmacist for the benefit of the woman.

Do you remember the days of the backyard abortionist? The poor police would find women left to die in the streets after having one of these butchers destroy her insides. Was that part of Gods plan?

Can you put yourself in the position of an 18 year old girl who has been abandoned by everyone? What would you do with no money, no help, no prospects no future, and a male who was 50% of the cause of the prgnancy denying it was his? How much emotional torment can a woman bear? Where is the compassion here?

And what of the kids who are born through the pressure placed on the woman by the selfrighteuos... Are they ever sure that their child isn't a ward of the state, isn't being abused and is being cared for properly? Do they ever get peace?

I admire your compassion for cells that may one day become a human but I always wonder where the compassion ends for the woman in that predicament.

Ever had one of your children taken from you for adoption? How can anyone imagine the sadness the poor mother must feel and the fear that they must feel when they hand over their little bundle. Can you put yourself in that young persons position?

Seeing you have faith rejoice because the innocent spirit of the cells are with your God in paradise forever.
Posted by Opinionated2, Monday, 13 February 2006 11:44:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the so-called ru486 debate is only contentious because the drug is designed to terminate a pregnancy.

the so-called 'question' of when 'human' life begins is irrelevant to the debate because the *purpose* of the drug is to kill the embryo/fetus. the question may be a relevant factor in a woman's decision whether to continue to term, but it is not properly part of the debate about whether the drug ru486 could or should be available as a means to end a pregnancy.

equally, it is ludicrous to claim that a goverment minister is better equiped to determine the merits of the drug than an organisation specifically funded and staffed to make those determinations.

no, both of those issues come down to particular religious prejudices. in a democracy, no one ought to have the right to predetermine another's decision for them. the current arrangment holds a particular option hostage to moral prejudices.

the question to be considered regarding ru486 is not who should be making the decision, but who is properly equipped to determine if it is an acceptable medical option. that would be the therapeutic goods administration - certainly for every other proposed therapeutic substance. ru486 is no different.

trying to revisit the legalisation of abortion by illegitimately restricting the means available is reprehensible. objection on personal moral/religious grounds is completely acceptable - this is a democratic state. but it is not acceptable to impose those personal morals onto another person.

those who argue that women prescribed the drug "will not be adequately supervised" demean the professional and ethical conduct of the medical profession. just how much "supervision" is required to miscarry anyway? i'm not aware of any definitive statement on the matter. most doctors are more than capabale of discussing the matter with their patients and coming to their own conclusions.
Posted by maelorin, Monday, 13 February 2006 9:23:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lots of argumentative heresay, but not a lot of facts in the comments posted against this article. Helen makes valid points. Given the advances in technology with ultrasound, etc...it is hardly convincing that the child in the womb is not a human child. The progeny of two snails is a snail, etc. therefore the progeny of two humans is human...from conception...whether he/she is Adam, Eve, Bruce or Sky!

When society judges any human as 'more (or less) equal than others', we end up with such atrocities as 'Pol-Pot' or 'Hitler's human cleansing'...there will always be those who will argue the case for killing those more vulnerable than ourselves, it is usually those who speak up in their defence that attract the abuse and hostility.

EVERY society is judged by history by the way they treat the weakest and most vulnerable amongst them...how will each of us be judged?

Well done Helen! No bouquets for saying the unpopular - truth is seldom greeted with popularity!
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 13 February 2006 11:06:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"EVERY society is judged by history by the way they treat the weakest and most vulnerable amongst them...how will each of us be judged?"

Well thats easy Meg, the question is, how much is rhetoric and how much is serious? Is it not easier to try to tell others how to live their lives, at no cost to ourselves, then to live by that creed?

So its up to you. You are free to sell your computer, give up OLO,
send the money to Africa and save another couple of starving babies.

So what is your choice Meg? Saving starving babies or arguing on OLO?
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 13 February 2006 11:36:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby's post suggests that having Tony Abbott in charge of the decision on RU486 is like having dracula in charge of the blood bank...curiouser and curioser. Surely having a pro-ABORTION politician in charge of the decision or perhaps a politician who has had donations from drug companies for his election campaign...would be far more like having dracula in charge of the blood bank?

Why is it that we drag out the ole 'Catholic' bit to beat our politicians with as often as we can, we argue against politicians having Christian values and morals at every turn when it suits our own ends. But what happens then when our politicians act like amoral and irresponsible creatures who ignore the best interests of Australians in favour of big corporate transnational companies? I guess we get what we deserve don't we?

Actions have consequences Yabby and when we ask our politicians to accept that life at any stage is worthless...all stages of life fall under the same law and hold the same value. Take a look at the difference that legalised abortions have already had in Australia.
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 12:05:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Why is it that we drag out the ole 'Catholic' bit to beat our politicians with
as often as we can, we argue against politicians having Christian values and
morals at every turn when it suits our own ends"

Quite simple Meg. No religion is as politically active as the Catholics. No other religion bar Muslims, wants to force its dogma on the population, as the Vatican does. Why should Catholic dogma
not be questioned, as any other political dogma from any political party?

"all stages of life fall under the same law and
hold the same value."

No they don't. An organism without a human brain, is not a person.
Its time that you eductated your self Meg. All emotion and Catholic dogma does not equate with our ability to reason.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 12:24:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Posted by me Sunday, 12 February 2006 2:46:33 PM

“Actually it is usually the pro-life brigade who rant on and bring up inappropriate analogies to death, genocide ( ah that is one I have heard before, the genocide of abortion and comparisons to Pol Pot).”

Posted by Meg1, Monday, 13 February 2006 11:06:16 PM

“When society judges any human as 'more (or less) equal than others', we end up with such atrocities as 'Pol-Pot' or 'Hitler's human cleansing'”

All I can say “FIGJAM”

Let us consider the Pol Pot / Hitler scenario versus abortion
Two important differences

1 Abortion is about one person, the mother, making an individual decision based on her own individual circumstances.
In the instance of Pol Pot / Hitler, the victims were one group of people who were euthanised by the processes of the “state”.

That a lot of separate pregnant women make individual choices to abort is entirely different to one person or group of people making a single decision to kill a large number of other people.

2 Separation
The pregnant woman who aborts is dealing with an embryo /foetus which is supported by the resources of her own body and which is not a separate entity.

Hitler / Pol Pot had no such physical attachment to their victims. The Jews and Gypsies were separate individuals with no dependency on the bodily resources of Pol Pot or Hitler.

So thank you Meg1 for your demonstration of how predictable (= devoid or originality) the Pro-Life arguments are.

I will now point, out under German law, enacted in June 1943, any Aryan woman found guilty of having an abortion would be executed.

Thus, I could suggest, Pro-Life hold societal views close to those of Hitler under which abortion is illegal.

Anyone else want to make similar asinine, fatuous and contemptible comparisons?

Yabby – don’t look for reason in a pro-life argument, there is none, only dogma.
That same dogma brought about the Spanish Inquisition (ah another example of an attempt at extermination of the Jews and another parallel between the fund managers of Pro-Life and Hitler)
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 5:43:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge,

I reckon your arguments are getting spuriouser and spuriouser. (Apologies to Alice)

"Let us consider the Pol Pot / Hitler scenario versus abortion
Two important differences"

"1 Abortion is about one person, the mother, making an individual decision based on her own individual circumstances.
In the instance of Pol Pot / Hitler, the victims were one group of people who were euthanised by the processes of the “state”."

"That a lot of separate pregnant women make individual choices to abort is entirely different to one person or group of people making a single decision to kill a large number of other people."

Abortions are still murder if they're done late enough in pregnancy. No amout of intellectualism can change that fact.

"2 Separation
The pregnant woman who aborts is dealing with an embryo /foetus which is supported by the resources of her own body and which is not a separate entity."

What happens about midterm in pregnancy when the child starts kicking inside its mother? I'd put it to you that it's a separate entity then.
Even before this time, the evolving baby's body is growing and making physical and spiritual connections. By killing the baby, the mother is truncating the developing body of the child. However you spin it, Col, abortion is a pretty sad situation.
Posted by RobP, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 3:34:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It’s quite amazing how rednecks and their farm produce, parrot the 1970’s thought in such high contrast black and white. It’s a shame that so many will not enter this century (foeti included).
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 14 February 2006 10:02:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It's also sad how, in its desire to not offend anyone, society is content to just allow everything, good and bad, to blur together.
Posted by RobP, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 8:01:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Helen,

In todays climate [very iffy] mother and baby are consumers, the more the merrier for vested interests, particularly in Western countries, such as Australia and USA. The Right to Consume All.
The unevil right/eous humans of these countries support the murder of human life, including babies, in countries outside their own borders.
The Bush "war on terror" does not provide "Right to Life" for the embryo in the mother's uterus in Iraq. The "war on terror" is also causing the abortion of human embryos.
The end to life of the unnutured embryo, is common place in Africa and elsewhere, the West turns a blind eye.
"It is time" for Australians to think more, than consume more, whatever belief system they possess
Posted by Sarah10, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 8:07:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Law and regulation do not change women's determination to terminate an unwanted pregnancy … they just affect the safety and quality of the experience.”

Lyn Allison
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 8:29:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobP “I reckon your arguments are getting spuriouser and spuriouser.”

Then that should make it easier for you to challenge their reasoning – so why don’t you?

“What happens about midterm in pregnancy when the child starts kicking inside its mother? I'd put it to you that it's a separate entity then.”

Well you have answered that yourself – “inside its mother” tends to negate any assertion of “separateness”.

Re “physical and spiritual connections.”

I guess the embryo / foetus is making a physical connection – but only with the mother, within whom and by the grace of whom it exists but from “inside the mother” its “physical” connections with anything else are somewhat limited, to say the least.

As for “spiritual”, it indicates a subjective religious debate which only muddies the waters and thus, since your subjective concept of “spiritual” likely differs from my subjective concept of “spiritual” we can agree that there is no basis for reason in anyone’s view and thus any debate will be pure hypothesis (and likely pure hyperbole).

Then “allow everything, good and bad, to blur together.”

I think the best thing with any society is to respect the individuals, which it is there to serve, to know best for themselves, decide for themselves and be themselves, rather than the repressed objects of authoritarian socio / religious doctrine.

The world has changed. We are no longer dictated to and placed in order by our class, race, gender, birth right or how close to the front we sit in church.
Neither the parish priest nor local squire nor lord of the manor, hold sway over our individual human progress or that of our families.
The tyranny of Class and Church are broken and will never ever exist again.

Respecting people to make their own choice, despite that the choices they may make offend you, is a good thing. It is the best thing and a massive improvement over the repressive excesses of the authoritarian theocracies which used tools like the inquisition to keep individuals in line and under the papal jackboot
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 9:04:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"No religion is as politically active as the Catholics."

yabby, are you sure? noticed anything going on with the evangelicals?

the family first party? the hillsong franchise?
Posted by maelorin, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 9:43:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col's broken class barriers-babble Tell that to retirees, farmers, workers living under $15,000pa while some corporate execs make $35 million+benefits, or even $22 million for stuffing up. Be informed instead of voicing your ignorance on issues that try to justify the easy way out.

Sen Lyn Allison speaks and you swallow her beliefs as gospel while Tony Abbott is condemned for his beliefs...curioser and curioser. You guys need to practice what you preach.

Any of you prepared to do more than suggest an abortion. Quick, easy for you, cheap! Have you offered to pay for upkeep on babies conceived from your 'relationships'- fleeting or otherwise?

I've worked with organisations (Catholic and other) who work with and help women and their families for many years. Other than mouthing off, what do Lyn's lapdogs have in mind after the abortion...should we dispose of them as inconvenient too? How close is the next step (like the UK) where every expectant mother MUST have amniocentesis and abort if any evidence of medical or physical abnormality is suggested. Given significant inaccuracy of the test, that still means enforced killing despite the mother's will. What side are you on there? Ask your friends, some doctors already pressure patients to abort here if they have had 'enough' children in the doctor's opinion.

The facts are that what is law becomes accepted and then IS LAW for all. Take China's one child policy, you'd like that...enforced abortions at term if a mother is found to be hiding a pregnancy and does not have permission to have the child or already has her quota of one.

State your real agenda and stop assuming the role of judge and jury in ignorance yourselves, while making assumptions on others because their views differ from your own.

It is interesting that I see there are life-saving drugs issued to older women to prevent recurring of breast-cancer, but denied to young women on the PBS...discrimination, women's rights, why aren't you beating your chests on that one. No this issue seems more like you justifying your own case, that's just how you come across.
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:36:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, when China instituted a one child policy it was to address a serious population problem. The central planners were undoubtedly draconian in their approach but the alternative was to see the population starve.

I have been told that Malaysian Chinese kids who wouldn't eat their greens were told that in China in times of famine, peasant families would swap babies so that the families wouldn't starve.

Likewise India has implemented strong 2 child policy.

In Australia we do not count the number of births, abortions, employed or unemployed people. In Australia we do not plan, politicians just respond to the loudest lobby group. Thus its up to each individual pregnant woman to judge whether she has the support and resources to give birth and rear the child until adulthood.

In the UK in the 1950s second and subsequent babies were born at home. There was a high still born rate. When births were moved to hospital the still born rate went down but the number of babies born with severe deformities increased. The conclusion to be drawn from this was that midwives were checking the newborns and failing to permit malformed babies to thrive. If the state is paying for the care of the infant then its not unreasonable for the state to suggest termination when severe abnormalities are detected in utero.

As RU486 permits medical abortion to occur earlier than surgical abortion it has to be preferred.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 12:02:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let’s keep it simple. The basic argument is over when a human being comes into existence.

Does this happen at conception? Does this happen at birth? Or does this happen somewhere in between?

It is likely that most people will answer in the middle - somewhere in between.

Why? Well, some hold that life begins at conception. However there is more emotional evidence to this point of view than factual. After two days, the ‘human being’ being considered has no heart, no brain, no liver, etc, etc. It is easy to agree that this entity is a potential human but an actually human?

Now it would appear that very few will answer that the human comes into existence at the time of birth. Fully formed for a number of months, capable of existing if emergently removed (for any number of reasons), it is unlikely that many will be happy to see the entity as ‘not human’ at this late stage.

This leaves somewhere in the middle. Unfortunately, this is a very grey area that not even scientists and medical professionals can agree upon. When does the entity become human?

Some claim at a point when all the organs are formed. But this can be so early that any attempt to remove it at the earliest possible formed stage will lead to near instant death.

Others claim when brain function begins. And what exactly does brain function mean? Emotions? Simple, non-aware biological activity? Again, there is still conjecture as to when this occurs.

So what have we left?

Simple – a choice.

It comes to: Who makes the choice?

Again, simple.

Look at where you live and under what conditions you live. A few hints… democracy, freedom.

If you believe the human exists at the point of conception, then follow your beliefs, act in accordance with them and live with whatever consequences you bring upon yourself.

If you believe the human exists at the point of conception, and the conception is not yours, you weren’t a party to it – mind your own business.

Simple really…
Posted by Reason, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 12:13:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1,

“Be informed instead of voicing your ignorance on issues that try to justify the easy way out.”

– I am informed and disagree with you!


“Sen Lyn Allison speaks and you swallow her beliefs as gospel while Tony Abbott is condemned for his beliefs...curioser and curioser.”

I arrived at my beliefs quite independently of Lyn.



“Have you offered to pay for upkeep on babies conceived from your 'relationships'- fleeting or otherwise?”

I find your question intrusive, impertinent, judgemental and derogatory.
It is like me asking you if you knew the real name of the father of your children?
Don’t try to be offensive (you will find I am alot better at it than you).


If you want to “trawl” through my past you are at liberty to do so, you will find it an easy swim, no muck to obscure the clarity of view, the nature of some of the work I do and positions I hold has necessitated multiple police and other searches for test of character.

“what do Lyn's lapdogs have in mind”
such a mindless and stupid assertion displays a level of ignorance which beggars belief. You have no idea who I am or where my political allegiances lay.


Re “Take China's one child policy, “

Oh watch out before you try to widen this debate.

You are moving into dangerous areas if you want to challenge how another nation deals with the massive crisis it faces. You are displaying total ignorance if you think you can avoid the issues of exploding third world populations and the effect that has on environmental and other crises (try reading more of my posts).


“State your real agenda”

Simple.

I believe

Every individual is just that, an individual.
Individuals only grow by making their own decisions and living with the consequences of their decisions.
Society is a collective noun for individuals.
Society exists to support individuals and not to subordinate them.

I support the political party who leave me to make my own mistakes instead of inflicting the mistakes of government upon me (guess).
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 12:39:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Abortion Pill debate

The Hon Dana Sue Vale uttered the words that many Australians know to be a true fact by the latest census on population and religious denominations.

Whilst the Islamic community grew by 40% in the last 5 years, the Christian denominations grew by 5.5%.

Projected population statistics now suggest that by the year 2050 the Muslim community will be the majority.

Dana attempt to derail the abortion debate by this surprise announcement, in favour of returning control of its distribution to the government did not look at the other side of the coin.

The majority of Muslim women are not able to access the abortion procedures for fear of family retribution.

This would give them the freedom also to choose what they wanted to do with their bodies and lives. Many do not have a choice even in ill health.

However, looking at ourselves as a Nation, we have available enough contraception to depopulate the world.

We as a Nation are not emphasising the need for our younger women to be supported in nurturing and the birth of future generations.

Instead we are expecting our women to have the one or two at the end of her reproductive life cycle with a strong emphasis on IVF procedures.

It is a known fact that our Industrial world is playing a major factor in disease of the reproductive organs of both the male and female.

The lowering a virility of testosterone have been scientifically stated in decline.

We cannot expect our leaders who have every intention of leading our Nation toward globalisation and economical rationalisation, to consider this in their square boxes.

Nor the masters we cannot see.
Posted by Suebdootwo, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 1:02:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi to you all,
With a heart of love, if I am the unborn baby and were able to give comment to you all, Please listen with your heart what words would you hear from the baby's mouth

Shall we punished the unborn baby with the same punishment even worst than a drug dealer. Killing by any medicine or by firing gun they're just the same isn't it?

Love...love...love would you all love to hear and experience in your life ...So do to others what you want others do to you. Have a little wisdom what if the unborn baby was you!

Who own this universe to live, for we're all just migrant and live temporarily here on this earth, why do you think that you have the right to turn off someone's life even that life will be as an unborn baby ? Please be honest..and love others as you love your selves; I know that I love The Lord Jesus Christ and He taught me to love life even with the love that cost Him His life, so I am thankful that no one ever abort me when I was an unborn baby, Praise The Lord, Halleluyah!
Posted by Lady, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 3:44:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maelorin, nobody operates globally as the Vatican does, in a huge way. Usually behind the scenes. From influence on the US Congress,
the WHO, Govts all over the world etc. Most people just arn't aware
of what is going on behind the scenes.

The fundies are pretty miniscule by comparison, our locals a bit of an offshoot from the bible belt.

Meg, clearly you have still more to get off your chest. Hopefully you feel better now :)

Lyn Allison just happens to share my beliefs on this issue. My politics are about issues, not parties. The rights of the individual, compared to being dictated to by the State, is one of them.

My agenda is quite simple. Peoples rights matter more then the agendas of those who want power for their own ends. Humanity should also live sustainably on this planet, if its not sustainable it won't be there for future generations.

World population is still increasing at 80 million a year. 6 billion can't live sustainably now, so why should 10 billion be better and
more sustainable? You clearly don't understand natures laws or ignore them at the peril of future generations and in the name of religious dogma. Reality is what doesent go away, when you close your eyes and wish it would.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 4:28:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I,m with you reason, great post.

A bunch of cells is not a person. Put it this way, what makes you you and not me, or no-one? Could it be what you think and feel? How you understand the world in a particular way? A bunch of cells that doesn't think and feel isn't a person. Simple. As the author says

"If choice is what is really important, why don’t we let the baby (never a fetus of course, a baby, even when it's a blob) decide whether he or she should be killed?"

Oh, but we can't, can we, because the "baby" (or blob) can't tell us..because it doesn't think. Because it's not a person. Sometimes I think what this is really all about is religions trying to breed more followers.. strengthen the tribe.. think about that one you godly types, do you really want to stop people having abortions? All you're going to do is increase the birthrate of people who aren't religous fundamentalists. A silver lining in every cloud, I guess!
Posted by hellothere, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 6:23:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Col Rouge and Yabby you both missed the point completely as usual. Col you completely destroyed your argument by threats and with your 'summation' which gave the very reasons why your argument doesn't hold water.

I don't much care what your political or religious affiliations are and made no reference to them at all. Whether you swallow Lyn Allison's beliefs or any one elses, my point is that you object to everyone else's beliefs (i.e., Tony Abbott, Catholics in general, George Pell, the Pope, shall I continue...)but expect no one to challenge your own baseless ramblings.

Nor do I particularly want to hear your past misadventures or adventures...not remotely interested. You are both pretty sensitive when someone takes you up on your own generalisations, it apparently isn't cricket for a woman to throw the same questions back in your direction.

You put forth no rational argument just a lot of hot air to inflate your own opinion while denegrating others that you disagree with. So far your comments have shown no merit whatever towards real debate but you keep telling us how much smarter and more important you are than the rest of the world.

...and now we hear that China's one child policy, no matter how barbaric in implementation, is ok too...my, my, now the real yobbos come out from under their rocks.

When you've finished 'widening' your so-called debate to ignore the real issue - the RU486 debate - not beating up on Catholics, you should deal with your own issues. There may be something in this issue you have with Catholics. I'm rather amused that you feel the Catholic Church is at the forefront of everything that happens just about, but I've only heard comment from George Pell as the Church's representative...in this whole debate. I wish more of them would speak out but it really isn't much of a debate when you guys don't stick to the topic.

It seems you don't like it when I give you some of your own back but it will take more than you to scare me Col.
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 7:22:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, get your facts straight.
-The Vatican is not a religion, It is the official residence of the pope in Vatican city.
-No one is forcing you to “live based on Catholic dogma”. Catholics have a right to express their views the same as you do, why do you feel threatened by what they stand for?
-Have you read sacred scriptures? Do you know or understand what the Catholic church teaches? Have you ever read a Papal Encyclical? Be informed, don’t criticise what you don’t understand.
-Re safety of RU486. I refer you back to Helens article, there have been deaths and severe medical problems experienced Globally. In fact there is a move in Canada to have RU 486 banned due to the death of a young mother.-
-the “anti-abortion lobby” tell it as it is, like it or not. There is no kudos for speaking out on behalf of the unborn, but if we don’t, then who will defend the most vulnerable of our society? The unborn can’t speak for themselves. Do you know how abortions are performed? Educate yourself. Learn the facts and the truth behind the abortion industry. There is no such person as a poor abortionist. In fact they are usually very wealthy. There is big money in killing unborn babies.- Recommend you read, The Hand of God. A journey from Death to Life by the Abortion Doctor Who Changed His Mind, Dr Bernard Nathanson. Dr Nathanson, was the director of the world’s largest abortion mill and was Americas most prominent abortionist, performing over 60,000 abortions. He has seen it from both sides.
Posted by shanti, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:00:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The essay claimed to have the topic of 'semantics', apropos of which, 'the morning after pill' was the original claimed purpose of the drug's developers ... for loose but canny females who may have got drunk last night and foolishly had sex with the wrong person. Their option the next day whether pregnancy is diagnosed or not (and of course it cannot be diagnosed within 24 hours of the sex act) being get one of these pills and make sure another fatherless child is not created.
On the topic of semantics, as soon as I got to para 2 of the essay -
'Further, RU486 causes malformation in 23 per cent of continuing pregnancies (where the drug fails to kill the child)' ...
I knew I would find the word Catholic in the writer's CV. KILLING A CHILD. If it's in my uterus and it has Legos or an Xbox, then I would want to kill it.
Thank you Col Rouge comment 69 for being the first to remind us all of the Spanish Inquisition, during which NO Catholics killed anybody at all - you know, on account of sanctity of life an all. That's why there are no catholic soldiers killing Iraquis.
Posted by Brownie, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:12:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When is it going to end? If abortions including the abortion pill are widely allowed then 12 year olds can easily get an abortion without their parents knowing. It is happening. The oral contraceptive pill is abortifacient: and notice how harmful that is both physically and emotionally to women. Links to cancers, heart disease, suicide and depression and so forth are high risk with OCP's which shouldn't even have been allowed in our marketplace (in the trials women in the OCP group kept dying, so those in the control group were put in the active OCP group!). Oh,I forgot, the drug companies get so much money from this drug and abortions that we wouldn't dare ban it, would we?
Emotionally, it is harmful for women .Kids easily go on this pill without their parents knowing. She can sleep around with any guy she wants without pregnancy.
The same thing is likely to happen with the abortion pill being legalised. Women can sleep around whenever they want, knowing they can easily get an abortion if they have an "accident".
Laypeople are complaining they want RU486 legalised without even knowing the consequences of this drug. Do we really know it's side effects, is it really safe, or again are drug companies duping the clinical trials.
Abortions and abortion drugs, apart from potential harm caused, cost a lot of money. It is a lot safer and cheaper with homoeopathic abortions, and is also 100% effective when from a trained homoeopathic physician and allows a completed abortion. Oh, I forgot though, drug companies don't get their multi million dollar benefits from a natural medicine induced abortion.
And again back to the lowering of morality in society. " if I sleep around, if I have an "accident" I can easily and readily have a termination." This attitude that I know a lot of women have doesn't encourage responsibility and allowing RIU486 readily available is going to make it worse.
I am not a male, or a prolifer and am not a Catholic. I am a health practitioner concerned about the health of women.
Posted by Em2, Wednesday, 15 February 2006 11:26:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The debate is not weather abortion is right or wrong…..It is about weather RU486 is safe or not.
I wanted to know some facts about abortion. To see if this pill is safer then other methods. Here are some statistics I found

• Abortion accounted for 23 deaths in America between 1992 and 1993

• There were 399 deaths in pregnancy and childbirth in America in 2001. This means that 1.5% of pregnancies prove fatal!

• Only 6% of abortions in Britain used RU486

• Approximately 91-93% of women who take RU-486 abort their pregnancies.

• In the cases of women who have died from using the drug RU486, they did not receive adequate medical care after taking the drug. One girl went to the doctor (after taking the drug the day b4) with severe abdominal pains, and was just given a couple of pain killers and sent home.

• More women die every year from conventional methods of abortion

• 1.3 million woman have an abortion every year

• Medical abortions using RU486 have an equivalent safety record to surgical abortions; less than one in every 100,000 women dies as a result of the procedure

• Medical and surgical abortions are 10 times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term

There will always be some woman who fall pregnant and don’t want to have the baby. These women should not be forced to carry the baby to term. They should be able to choose between a surgical and a non surgical (RU486) abortion.

I think the only issue here is that the Australian Government need to assure that these woman, who choose to have an abortion, are provided with adequate medical care and counseling .

I don’t think that giving the baby up for adoption is fair on either the mother or the child; it is very traumatic for both the mother who gave away here baby and the child who grows up feeling that their mother didn’t want them. This only adds the Australia’s mental health crisis.
Posted by Celene, Thursday, 16 February 2006 12:00:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, your following paragraphs betray where you’re really coming from:

“I think the best thing with any society is to respect the individuals, which it is there to serve, to know best for themselves, decide for themselves and be themselves, rather than the repressed objects of authoritarian socio / religious doctrine.”

”Respecting people to make their own choice, despite that the choices they may make offend you, is a good thing. It is the best thing and a massive improvement over the repressive excesses of the authoritarian theocracies which used tools like the inquisition to keep individuals in line and under the papal jackboot.”

If you were honest you’d say your argument’s really about being anti-Church. (Reading between the lines, you’re saying that anything to do with the Church is bad. I’d reject that and say that the Church is only as good as the people and influences that make it up. It’s wrong to say that there are no good people or influences in it.)

As to your reasoning, I find it hard to question it because I have to say I don’t understand it. All I know for sure is that it’s a fundamentally different point of view to mine.

My point that the child is separate from its mother was obviously not meant in a physical sense, as it’s still completely dependent on its mother physically. However, the fact that it moves independently shows that it’s already got a personality of its own. This is what I’m getting at when I use the words “separate” and "spiritual" – ie, the child is becoming a spiritual person in its own right. And that’s why abortion at a late stage is unequivocally a bad thing.

You say the child exists “by the grace” of its mother, as if it’s OK for the mother to terminate at will. In keeping with my earlier comments on the subject, I disagree with that point of view – strongly.
Posted by RobP, Thursday, 16 February 2006 8:15:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobP how presumptious of you to assume that people who want the TGA to regulate drugs in Australia are anti-church. Last time I looked the Uniting Church did not have a position on this debate. The Roman Catholic church does. According to the 2001 census Roman Catholics are 26% of the population. Why is national policy being set by a minority group?
Posted by billie, Thursday, 16 February 2006 8:28:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1 I am still waiting for your argument, all you have delivered is some cheap shots and asides but no substance.

Try to debate why people should not have responsibility for the functions of their own body if you want a debate. Otherwise your posts are mere bravado before you sink back into obscurity.

As for “I don't much care what your political or religious affiliations”

Then why suggest “Sen Lyn Allison speaks and you swallow her beliefs”

Your cheap aside implies an affiliation between my politics and those of Lyn Alison who, as leader of the Democrats in the Senate, is a public figure with publicly declared political views. With such comment you express the interest in my political affiliations which you are now denying.

As for past my adventures you ask

“Have you offered to pay for upkeep on babies conceived from your 'relationships'- fleeting or otherwise?”

and when I reply you complain

“Nor do I particularly want to hear your past misadventures or adventures...not remotely interested.”


I know it’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind but between successive posts is “frequent” to the point of mental disorder.


Either make your mind up or admit you suffer from short term memory loss and the only reason you are posting is your nurse got distracted.

Oh I measure my responses to everyone, come here with reasoned debate and I am reasoned in response. Come here spitting vitriolic and sanctimonious venom and I will eventually be tempted to stoop to your “challenge”.

I have no issue with “Catholics”, I dated one for 3 years, a lovely lady. When her priest told her she could not date me and take mass she simply told him he could shove his mass where the sun don’t shine (explosive folk those Maltese). She attended her church every week and never took mass again, such strength of spirit in the face of malignant manipulation was true courage.

I do not accept the authority of the Pope nor his Bishops and I reject their malevolent and pernicious attempts to exert power over our lives.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 16 February 2006 9:17:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is 69 posts here. I have not read them all. I will quote parts of the most recent and respond and in my next post another that caught my attention.

Anomie’s

>An unborn baby is not necessarily a genetically unique ...

Killing two people instead of one makes it better?

>Apropos twins, you get yourself into a bit of trouble with your insistence on personhood ab initio. There is a compelling argument that personhood cannot exist in zygotes until the possibility of twinning has passed....Honestly, you should know about this one – it comes from Norman Ford, head of philosophy at the institution where you're studying.

Nice navel gazing, and no disrespect intended for your intellectual games, but a human life (or possibly more) has been created. People who like to focus on the concrete material moral issues rather than engaging in a navel gazing exercise see killing in this context as a problem. Mr Ford is welcome to contemplate the issue of uniqueness to his heart’s content and I am sure he is very capable of doing so but it doesn’t change the fact that human life is created.

>There's also Bedate and Cefalo's argument about hydatidiform moles – concepti carrying gross genetic abnormalities which lack the potential to become even a human being, let alone a person. So you might be in a bit of trouble with even your weaker claim that all concepti are axiomatically human beings.

You certainly might but the material issue is the morality of abortion. Obviously most probably the concepti concerned will be axiomatically a human being. The incidence of hydatidiform moles is only one in two thousand. Such a remote possibility makes a poor excuse for the death of so many.

>Oh, and as I've asked in another thread, what happens if, when asked, the un-aborted child expresses a preference that he or she had been aborted?...

I don’t suppose that I could elicit your agreement that anyone who really did pose such a question to a child would be a better candidate for termination then the child themselves?
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 16 February 2006 9:25:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabbie’s

>A woman's uterus is ... not the business of the pope, the govt, or anyone else...

Then let's focus on abortion and leave the uterus out of it entirely. The uterus is just the crime scene. Human life is a basic moral issue clearly an issue for the Church and government.

>...Yet we have heard from Christians time and time again ... the old testament should not be taken literally. So why should this particular bit be taken literally?

There are two issues here. There are many people with many diverging views who call themselves Christians. Those who argue that the bible should be taken literally may agree but this is not an answer to the argument of others. The other is the issue that in the Judeo-Christian tradition (with some recent exception) is that the Church has always guided people as regards the scriptures and it maintains that abortion is a problem.

>The reality is that the church is in a corner. One pope has claimed the evils of ... abortion, ... and he is meant to be be infallible. If the church changes its mind...

JPII’s position was not an aberrant political embarrassment but rather a re-statement of the view the Church has always expressed.

>Having a Catholic health minister in charge of RU 486, IMHO is like having dracula looking after the blood bank.... So how is he able to be objective about his views on abortion?

It is quite a controversial topic. Where do you propose finding someone without a viewpoint? A better analogy would be the Pope looking after a virgin but you are entitled to your bias. As I said it is a controversial topic.

>We want freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion !

That you want freedom from religion is a neat summary of your bias. However it is curious to include wanting freedom of religion and freedom from religion in a sentence as we can’t have both. Freedom of religion usually allows for a freedom not to have a religion but doesn’t allow freedom from religion.
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 16 February 2006 9:42:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Billie,

“RobP how presumptious of you to assume that people who want the TGA to regulate drugs in Australia are anti-church. Last time I looked the Uniting Church did not have a position on this debate. The Roman Catholic church does. According to the 2001 census Roman Catholics are 26% of the population. Why is national policy being set by a minority group?”

1. I was writing to Col, not to “people who want the TGA to regulate drugs”. In the context of this debate, the way Col put the case normally has the effect of being anti-Church, or at least anti-Catholic Church, whether he/she meant it that way or not.
2. Assuming there are 100,000 abortions a year, and given that there are about 260,000 births per annum in Australia, that means that 28% of women have an abortion. If Roman Catholics, at 26% of the population, are a minority, what does that make the 28% that are abortive women?
3. I think it’s an overstatement to say the Catholic Church is setting social policy. The (good in the) Church is just maintaining what they believe are important values in society; to that extent I agree with them. The current policy is ultimately a result of our Judaeo-Christian heritage.
Posted by RobP, Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:46:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hallo again to you all,

May be it will be clearer if we put it this way: "We as human (not animal who doesn;t have maral concious)..Just have a good plan for our life like get married and with all preparation (such as financial and other things) to get ready to welcome a very important person to be born in the marriage; may be then we will never ever so desperate to get rid of something so loveable like the unborn baby..
And when when the baby maight be one day will able to thank you for preparing a peaceful and lawful environment to live.

Judgment belongs to God only and not on human hand to take any judgment especially about a life which comes from God and not from human; Don't kill others if you don't want to be killed, agree ?

Choose life and don't choose death, believe me death is not nice it you never try it then don't force it on others OK, Thank you very much, The Lord Jesus Christ loves us that He died for us to gave us live till eternity and not death, for death only comes from the devil and his children.
Posted by Lady, Thursday, 16 February 2006 3:22:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, again you contradict/forget your own argument between sentences.

My quote: “Sen Lyn Allison speaks and you swallow her beliefs as gospel while Tony Abbott is condemned for his beliefs...curioser and curioser. You guys need to practice what you preach.”

Yours: “With such comment you express the interest in my political affiliations which you are now denying. “

My statement made no reference to Lyn Allison’s politics or yours and referred to “GUYS”, not you specifically - Lyn Allison’s word was accepted as gospel but Tony Abbott’s were regarded as unacceptable simply because of his beliefs – refer to spurious attacks suggesting just that.

I’d feel the same way about your disjointed prattle if you were liberal, alp, national, democrat, green, lemon or pink. The assumption is that anyone sharing your viewpoint is right - just because and anyone who doesn’t - is wrong, for the same reason. That sums up your rational for ‘debate’.

My quote: “Any of you prepared to do more than suggest an abortion. Quick, easy for you, cheap! Have you offered to pay for upkeep on babies conceived from your 'relationships'- fleeting or otherwise?”

Again, “Any of you” means just that, if you can’t read or suffer a persecution complex, I will make allowances for that. Many offer little more than abortion…or payment for one - not assistance with necessities for the mother to keep the baby…not one! So much for offering CHOICE.

Re: “cheap shots”, how’s this for some examples of your own: “spitting vitriolic and sanctimonious venom”, “to the point of mental disorder”, “admit you suffer from short term memory loss”, “the only reason you are posting is your nurse got distracted”, “shove his mass where the sun don’t shine”, referring to the Pope and Bishops – “I reject their malevolent and pernicious attempts to exert power over our lives”, “like me asking you if you knew the real name of the father of your children?”, “Don’t try to be offensive (you will find I am alot better at it than you”.

Such a lot of hot air…and my arguments remain unchallenged.
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 16 February 2006 4:08:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RobP “Col… anti-church”

Yes RobP, you are right. I am “anti-church”.

Not particularly "anti-catholic" and certainly not anti-Christian but since the age of around 12, when I was forced to go and listen to a complete tosser ramble on and assert socialist propaganda in the name of God, which I completely disagreed with and had no right of reply.

Since that time I have erred to the view that someone has have more than fancy vestments or a back-to-front collar to merit being listened to.

My views were only enforced by the revelations of the past ten years or so when the organised clergy have been exposed as the worst abusers and betrayers of the innocent children left in their charge (again none of this is specifically pointed at catholics).

My view is a Christian does not need the intercession of a corrupt priest class to intercede between him or her and God. A Christian needs only to be guided by a selfless compassion, tolerance and ethics in their daily lives.

The rest of religion is a “ra ra” exercise, as we see in those dreadful TV clerics (failed snake oil salesmen) from USA who sometimes get on TV between 3 am and 4 am.

Of course the wack-jobs who trawl around here, protesting the authority of the Pope and Pells, then denying the inquisition do not engender any glimmer of hope that anything has changed to the depths of desperation some lost souls are prepared to sink to in their vain attempt to impose their own corrupt will on others.

The most “important values in society” are to respect the rights of others to act according to their conscience and to interact with compassion to their circumstances (eg which push women to consider abortion) and without judgement.


Lady – I suggest you return to the end of your garden and resume your communion with the fairies.


Meg1 – you have lost the argument, just as Abbot lost the debate in parliament, youa re just too obtuse to realise it. I trust you will have a nice life.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 16 February 2006 4:47:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, sorry I missed your post there. I'm just glad that reason has
prevailed in parliament and women can make their own decisions, in consultation with their doctors, about what is best for them.

"However it is curious to include wanting freedom of religion and freedom from religion in a sentence as we can’t have both. Freedom of religion usually allows for a freedom not to have a religion but doesn’t allow freedom from religion"

Not really, we can have both. You are free to practise yours or any other religion that you please. Its a lifestyle choice made by you.
I should be free from rules where religious dogma is the driving force and not our ability to reason. Abortion, contraception, divorce, etc, are all such areas. Nobody is forcing you to be personally involved with any of them, if thats what your god or church tells you.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 16 February 2006 4:49:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Helen is correct - human beings are being killed.
She is incorrect, though, to say that, therefore, it is not justified.
Women are engaged in a just war to end their worldly dependence on men, and therefore, their actual present and potential future oppression.
Marginalisation and Oppression are the twin narratives of Women throughout History.
There is no Power in the Pro-Choice Woman denying that she is killing her children, the power is accepting that it is necessary.
The misery that accompanies the realisation that Truely Ultimate Sacrifices are being made - ensures that the idea of merely becoming part of the established economic order of men to safeguard one's own Freedom, is by no means enough.
The True Ideal is not to simply participate in the order, but, to change it fundamentally.
The dearest to us are being thrown over the parapet in the name of Freedom. But, Wars are supposed to end.
Our Children will stop dieing only when Women realise there actual power does not reside in the Abortion Clinic, or with abortion Pills - "Choice" is not the real Power. "Choice" simply allows continued Participation in a Spiritually bankrupt, adversarial, beligerent, superficial, market driven, meaningless society.
The Real Power is to pay homage to our dead heroes, to feel the horror, and to resolve to change a socio-economic system that enslaves both MEN and Women.
Abortion does not mean that women can finally strut on the worldly stage as egotistical men do; abortion is the first horrifying step towards the eventual elimination of the dominance of the ego's "will to power". The Real Power of "Choice" is to realise that it has created the opportunity for Women all over the Western World - empowered, wealthy, educated - to Finally unite as one, to change the Order to something far more Sane, Communal, Tender and Compassionate, that makes the need for Abortion history. The Collective Power of Women is to Liberate both themselves and there Lovers by changing the system that enslaves them both.
Abortion CANNOT continue, it must end by changing the System that demands it.
Posted by GRAY, Thursday, 16 February 2006 10:04:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi y'all
Helen's thoughtful and provocative essay on the semantics of abortion hinges on her semantic analysis of the charter of the TGA and its relationship to the medical effects of RU486. In her argument she uses the following point:
"pregnancy is more than a mere “physiological process” occurring in the mother. From conception a new human person exists, therefore there is also a “physiological process” occurring in the baby which must be considered;"

Someone posting previously has correctly stated that it is for the courts to determine what a statute means. Helen preempts such judicial consideration, but her essay could be a submission to such a case.

Back to her interpretation of the medical effect of RU486 as an abortifacient. She uses the assertion that pregnancy is "more than a mere physiological process". At one level this is perfectly true, this is fundamentally an assertion that there are two physiological processes occurring during pregnancy. Both fall under the auspices of the TGA's charter. I doubt this is the semantic interpretation she was intending.

What she seems to be asserting is that, from conception onwards, life includes something other than physiological processes. So, the semantics of abortion in Helen's essay reduces to belief in this other than physiological processes. And now we are in the realms of 21 grams, which is the core of this debate - is there something more than physiological processes involved in pregnancy?

She rightly notes that in this debate the parties start from different premises. Her premise of the innate dignity of human life is an assertion backed by appeal to authority and universality rather than argument: but that is another semantic debate.

odsoc
Posted by odsoc, Thursday, 16 February 2006 11:56:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My heartfelt thanks to all pollies who voted in favour of the RU486 bill. Maybe I should have a little more faith in our democratic system - seems to have worked here.

To all who oppose safe abortion for women, please refrain from using the label 'pro-life'. (Just had to indulge in further semantics)

A timely article appeared in today's Guardian regarding the efficacy of RU 486.

Please link to below:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,1710735,00.html

Cheers to all.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 17 February 2006 6:38:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gray, you are on a power trip! You have given not one single valid reason why abortion should not continue other then for your own selfish beliefs. Nothing is ever black or white, many decisions are made with regret, many with relief, but they are decisions made by the person who is pregnant, and should not be made for that person by others who want to assume a position of dictatorship. The drug under debate, if found safe, is merely offering an alternative to surgery; that could well be a good thing. You state abortion cannot continue but it is already legal and not up for vote. Abortion will continue with or without your consent. Thank goodness it is legal or we would have a return to the backyard barbers of long ago because sometimes a woman feels it is necessary. By the way I personally do not believe in abortion, but KNOW that it is necessary for some women to have that choice. The decision to have an abortion is private and NOT for me or for you to judge Gray.
Posted by Coraliz, Friday, 17 February 2006 7:05:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"There is no Power in the Pro-Choice Woman denying that she is killing her children, the power is accepting that it is necessary."

How's that for another "whack-job" for your anti-life charter, Col?

Sorry Scout but pro-life is an accurate description, just as anti-life is and as such, will continue to be used...Gray has proved that point unquestionably in the previous ?? well, post - for want of a better description.

I'm glad he/she is on your side, not mine. Sounds a lot like the rantings of a rather inebriated group meeting of WEL females that I once attended...once was enough to hear this line of 'justification' spewed forth in more ways than one and with a well used cask or two for back-up in that instance!

An 'interesting' concept...women kill your babies so that ? how did that go, so that we then can remove the reason for killing our babies. That's even more confusing than Col arguing against himself within the same paragraph.

I hope you get help with your Catholic issues Col and that you have a wonderful life too, it is possible and that's a good place to start to achieve it.
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 17 February 2006 11:58:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee Meg1, it really is your way of the highway isn't it? As I understand it, like yourself Gray does not want abortion to continue, but because his/her reasons are not the same as yours then he is also to be admonished (as is Col) in your non christian manner! Meg I feel sorry for you that you can only see your perspective, or perhaps the one you have been indocrinated into. It must surely mean that you spend a lot of energy being critical of the way other people live their lives, and of their beliefs. I hope for your sake that your God is not so critical of you when the time comes for you to take up residence in his house!
Posted by Coraliz, Friday, 17 February 2006 1:07:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
GRAY

"Choice" is not the real Power. "Choice" simply allows continued Participation in a Spiritually bankrupt, adversarial, beligerent, superficial, market driven, meaningless society.”

And what sort of society would you seek to inflict upon us (rather than let us decide for ourselves)?

I don’t think choice is about “power” except to deny “power” to the despotic meddlers most commonly associated with authoritarian religious orders.

“Choice” is about conscience, consideration, responsibility, accountability, personal growth and individual sovereignty. None of those attributes are about power, unless we accept people should have “power over themselves” (freewill), otherwise they are slaves to the system (or whatever dominates the system – recalling the Huguenots found out what happened when papist so ruled).

For the rest of it, may I ask what were you sniffing, premium, standard or do you have a secret stash of “leaded” petrol somewhere?

“Abortion CANNOT continue, it must end by changing the System that demands it.”

That is not your call.

The authority does and will remain where it belongs, in the hands of the person who is pregnant.


Scout – I guess when it’s a “conscience vote”, then out come the consciences.
(so much better than all those unconscious votes :) )


Coraliz, agree with your posts completely!

Meg1
There is no power in any woman deciding to abort.

It is not about “power”. It is about self determination. “Power” is what you demand so you can force women to kowtow to your immoral edicts.

I need no help but when I have done I was not too proud to seek it.

But there is one thing you can help me with Meg1 – what is it like to know that your cause is lost, your opinion rejected and truth allowed to prevail. That truth is the one where no one with cognitive skills above that of an imbecile is forced to live under your despotic rule?
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 17 February 2006 1:39:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Still the unquenchedable voice of love asounding,
So now we can see that there are no different between killing human beings using bom like what Osama Bin Laden did and killing human being using pills like what some people has applauded/agreed.Then we can also call the 11,000 souls murdered "the honourable Osama bin laden"; for you deserve what you'd deserved, we're proud to be a murderer, Oi Oi Oi

I'll pray that The Lord Jesus Christ will reward each one of "honourable human beings" who has done some honourable things (in favour of The Lord Jesus) or to others who deserve what they'd deserved, Amen.
Posted by Lady, Friday, 17 February 2006 2:53:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First I note that I am getting extremely annoyed with all the defamatory comments that Col makes about Meg. It is a shame this list is not moderated. Col you have expressed a profound hatred of Catholics and I can understand that Meg brings it out but can't it be toned down? If you don't have an argument that is not Meg's fault.

Meg is not calling for despotic rule. Despots normally hate Christians. Don't you find it ironic to say “Choice” is about conscience, consideration, responsibility, accountability, personal growth and individual sovereignty." in the context of your posts where you attack expressions of conscience, try to forbid argument for consideration, argue for irresponsible individuality, a lack of accountability to the point of getting away with murder, a denial of the opportunity to grow, and invasion of personal sovereignty even to the point of homicide?

I recall comments of a Pope (current or JPII) indicating that the popular culture argues that Christianity restricts people's freedom but in reality a rejection of religion leads to an extremely dangerous perspective from the point of view of respecting the individual and the best protection of the individual and their rights is a Christian society. If human life is considered nothing more than a physiological process its value is greatly reduced and abuses can be justified.
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 17 February 2006 5:24:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"and the best protection of the individual and their rights is a Christian society"

MJ, I am sure that the pope would say that, after all, he is trying
to promote his religion. That does not mean its true. Look at history. 400 years ago, the Catholic Church was all powerfull,
theocracy ruled much as in some Islamic States today, heretics were
burnt at the stake. So history clearly shows that the above claim is
wrong. It was secular people who fought wars against the Catholics to
achieve their freedom from the power of the Church.

Look around you how the Catholic Church has fought against divorce,
against the anti baby pill, against condoms, against abortion.
So much for respecting peoples rights.

You still don't get it. Abortion in the first tremester is not murder, no matter how emotional you get or confuse words to make them sound dramatic. A fetus with no functioning human brain is not a person, its an organism. Murder only applies to people, so don't accuse people of things by distorting language. Women can create 400 of those organisms in their lifetime, they should decide which ones they should raise and feed for 20 years. They cannot keep them all,
thats the reality.

Col has actually made some extremely good points. Perhaps they just went over your head.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 17 February 2006 6:10:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, the quote re: power was from Gray's post.

"......" indicates a quote. Your 'comment' should have been directed accordingly, with the rest of your outburst. Apart from your usual contradictions, somewhat akin to watching ping pong, you asked about "my cause".

The cause of the unborn is just that, I have a choice to speak in their defence and I choose to do so, in part because they cannot and because a baby will always fight to choose life to its last breath.

The cause may well be 'lost' for the 100,000 plus that will die this year, but God does not ask that I win for myself or anyone else, he asks that I keep trying and do what I believe is right and good for all - truth will out in the end and the wheel will turn full circle - atrocities such as these will be eventually seen for what they are - crimes against women and the children they carry!

The cause for future unborn is still being fought and will continue to be so. So that what is accepted AS law does not become what is then enforced BY law as history shows it often does.

I can see by your last comment that the sweetness of your 'spirit' may need a cut and polish but fear not, your continued paranoia about having to live under my "despotic rule" is unlikely to be a problem to you as I prefer not to sacrifice my principles or the life of others in order to reach the top of the pack, even if the opportunity arose.

Coraliz, it is difficult to take you seriously when you accuse me of being any number of things, then proceed to do exactly what you profess to despise in others.

Thank you for your prediction that I will one day "take up residence in his (God's) house". Armed with your good wishes, I will continue to do my best to live up to that confidence and achieve that result. I wish the same result for you when that time comes.
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 17 February 2006 10:54:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby says: “Look around you how the Catholic Church has fought against divorce,
against the anti baby pill, against condoms, against abortion.
So much for respecting peoples rights.”

I don’t wish to defend the Catholic Church, but if Yabby’s point is that people should be allowed to make their own mistakes/decisions, because they are ultimately responsible and will have to wear the consequences, then I agree.

For example, if someone aborts, they deserve no Medicare assistance for IVF. If on the other hand they ignore the good counselling advice from an abortion clinic, they equally face those consequences on their own. If men are given no options and play no part in this decision-making, they should be exempt from any consequences of such decisions. If the government policy is to encourage higher fertility rates by rewarding/supporting these mothers, fine. If they end marriages because they made the wrong choice, fine. If they are unhappy, or simply bored, fine. If falling pregnant alone, and thus precluded from claiming “we’re pregnant” – again, their choice. If they happen to be murdered by their young lovers for aborting (as happened to a married mother in Melbourne on April 14, 2004), OK. We’ll deal with that too, as best we can.

But when fathers-without-choice are held solely and directly responsible fiscally for children that are either not biologically theirs, or are, but are subject to unequal parental responsibility and accountability, that is just pure social policy lunacy. What makes such fathers deserving of worse mistreatment, than the next taxpayer?

Women should be jailed for false paternity claims. Especially so now, that they have unhindered access to latest abortifacient technology. And while championing technology, DNA paternity testing should be compulsory for every birth, with results clearly stated on each birth certificate. If we no longer wish to be protected or directed by neither church nor state, then let us be truly free. Instead of shielding children from either parent, let’s show them precisely just how both parents behave. What’s there to hide?
Posted by Seeker, Friday, 17 February 2006 10:59:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re anomie's comments about an un-aborted child expressing a preference that he or she had been aborted - anomie must deal with so few people who have ever had their lives held in the balance and LIVED to know about it.

I often speak to schools and one young girl made the comment that her grandmother "wanted to have me minced" - she was quite devastated that this was her blood relative's response to her mother's pregnancy at the age of 16. This young girl certainly did not express a desire to have been aborted - nor have any that are aware their lives were 'under discussion'.

The desire for life is so strong in the human person that under extreme pain (death camps in Germany or caught in a rock crevice in America) that against all odds,they truly strive for life.

It is interesting that those that hold the abortive view are those already born.

I found your comment re waiting for hostile responses a little sad - prolifers, true prolifers, are not hostile - the interpretation of their response is skewed by those who themselves, find it hard to have reasonable discussion with anyone who holds differing views to them and therefore attacks.
Posted by Te, Saturday, 18 February 2006 12:30:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Re: KRS 1 comment - "Also, note no mention of rape victims or incest victims- does the blanket ban cover them as well? Should a woman have to have her rapist's child?"

I suggest KRS 1 finds out about the woman who features in the video "Sex has a Price Tag" - Pam Stenzel
( http://www.americandecency.org/resources/pricetag.htm )
She IS the product of a rape and is deeply grateful for her life.

A few points on the issue of rape -
1. Who is SURE that their mother was not FORCED by their father to have sex on the night they were conceived? (forcing does NOT have to mean punching, strangling, etc - mild violence and coercion is rape if the woman does NOT wish to participate)
2. If there are other children of the relationship (yes, rape does happen in de facto and marriage relationships) why is this one conceived of less value?
3. The father one has DOES NOT determine the value of a human being.
4. When the mother has been physically raped already, why should she be subjected to mechanical/chemical rape a second time?
5. People's horror is at the ACT OF RAPE, not at the conception of the child.
6. Ever thought of giving loving support to the mother so she can regain her sense of self and safety?
7. Should she not wish to keep the child, there is always adoption - yes, that's right, adoption. (Sadly many of you will say you would prefer the child DEAD than in the loving arms of adoptive parents - and please don't bring out the rhetoric of 'adoptive parents abuse children' - sadly so do natural parents).
Posted by Te, Saturday, 18 February 2006 12:45:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all the TRUE pro-lifers, below is a link to the "Save the Children Fund" and a chance to put your money where your mouth is.

These children are here and are suffering NOW. They are not foetal cells which may or may not come to term.

http://www.savethechildren.org.au/
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 18 February 2006 7:47:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“"and the best protection of the individual and their rights is a Christian society"

… Look at history. 400 years ago, the Catholic Church was all powerfull,
… heretics were burnt at the stake. So history clearly shows that the above claim is wrong. It was secular people who fought wars against the Catholics to achieve their freedom from the power of the Church.”
About 500 years ago Luther used the peasants to attack the nobility hoping that so doing he could dislodge the Catholic Church. This was called a “protestant revolt” not a “secular revolt” but comes closest to your description. If you have something else in mind let me know. Prior to Luther the nobility sought to increase power by reducing the power of the Church but no wars were involved. Luther helped fan the protestant revolt by encouraging hatred of the Catholic Church that at the time was still quite powerful. The “war” was not intended to create secularism and did not achieve any freedom from the Church or any overthrow of the nobility but tragically resulted in a slaughter of peasants by German rulers. Nevertheless by 400 years ago Luther had achieved his goals in alliance with the rulers and Germany was well and truly institutionally protestantised. The Catholic Church certainly wasn’t all powerful at that time.
Likewise in England Henry VIII broke from the Catholic Church about 500 years ago and the country was well and truly protestantised by 400 years ago. King Henry may have gutted Catholic Churches and Queen Mary may have hung the occasional obstinate Catholic in the Sixteenth Century but that was hardly a “war”.
In the centuries since the Catholic Church was dislodged, Europe has simply drifted toward secularism no wars required.

” A fetus with no functioning human brain is not a person, its an organism. Murder only applies to people, so don't accuse people of things by distorting language.”
No it is a disagreement with your definition of a person.
Posted by mjpb, Saturday, 18 February 2006 12:36:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, perhaps you should read the Catholics own description of the reformation period.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm

There was alot more going on then Luther, especially in France.
Secular types always played a role. They have just never been part
of any official organisation, like a Church, whichever brand of
Church. That does not mean they havent played a huge role, as even Catholics accept.

400 years ago the Catholic Church was still busy burning heretics in Rome.

As to your definition of person, please explain why a one or two celled organsim should be described as a person.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 18 February 2006 2:12:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, perhaps you'd like a list of the many organisations that I and many others support locally as well as overseas...you don't have to look far to find people in need.

Your judgemental assumptions typify the very accusations you make against others.

"Choice" has many faces - one of many young women I have known told of being happily married and rushing home excitedly to tell her husband news of her pregnancy. His response was, "Well you have a choice, me or 'it'. If you don't get rid of it, I'm out of here." Her response was to say she couldn't kill a part of him and their love and couldn't believe he could either. He left and never returned.

She was one of the 'lucky' ones as she had parents who supported her decision. Not surprisingly, this baby didn't fit the 'tainted' spirit gobbledegook, as one parent (his mother) welcomed and loved the little fellow and his father wanted no part of him. When I met them, he was a delightful well-loved baby and grew into a respectful, outgoing young man who gave his mother and extended family a great deal of joy. His 'spirit' matured and developed through his own efforts as all our lives can, despite the "choices" of one parent or the other.

It's clear how much "choice" this mother would have had if she didn't have the support of extended family.
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 18 February 2006 10:14:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“To all the TRUE pro-lifers, below is a link to the "Save the Children Fund" and a chance to put your money where your mouth is….”

LOL. Between you and me (and possibly a large number of web surfers) many pro-lifers are Catholic. I’m going to have to break some news you don’t want to hear after that public comment. Catholics just have to go to Church and participate in the second Collection to donate to such causes. Charity is considered one of the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit and is suggested in many Biblical scriptures eg. “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,” (Matthew 25:35).

Yabby you have lost me. The French revolution was much later and the secular State was quite powerful by that time. I don’t doubt that secular types can be part of Churches or could have played a role in the protestant revolt but you seemed to be saying that secularists fought a war to free themselves from Catholic rule and I’ll admit I didn’t have enough hours to read everything at the URL you provided but of what I did read I didn’t see support for your original assertion there.

“400 years ago the Catholic Church was still busy burning heretics in Rome. “

Nonsense. Further, in earlier days during the middle ages when heresy was a crime that was taken pretty seriously, burning of heretics was unusual. The punishments were usually penance, fines and imprisonment. Granted however that heretics who recanted were said to be required to wear an embroided faggot on their sleeve to show what they deserved. Perhaps that is the basis for the rumours of regular roasts of heretics that were nothing like a modern roast of a person.

”As to your definition of person, please explain why a one or two celled organism should be described as a person.”

If a one or two celled organism is a living human then it is a person. Killing a human is murder.
Posted by mjpb, Saturday, 18 February 2006 10:55:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Nonsense."

Ok read for yourself, to see that you are deluded :)
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html

"If a one or two celled organism is a living human then it is a person."

Nope, then its a human organism. A person has a functioning brain.
Do your own homework.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 18 February 2006 11:25:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fact The Church of Rome is an archaic organisation which tries to set its own authority up above a democratically elected secular government.

It is not a democratic organisation.

That the Catholic Church still believes it can drive the abortion debate and impose its will on a secular nation is misguided.

Give it a few more years and another round of scandals and the institution will be as financially bankrupt as it is morally bankrupt.

The Catholic Church has a affixation with peoples sexuality and sexual practices. This is because the Catholic Church knows what a primal driver sex is for people.
When the Church controls the driver, it controls the person. When it loses that control it hits out and stamps its feet, like a soiled child.

The real issue is abortion, who has the right to decide.

The Catholic Church, a non-democratic institution, does not have the right to decide.

The elected Government, a democratic institution, does not have particular knowledge of the every persons circumstances and thus should not decide.

The father, well he contributed something to the process, but it is not his body at risk or being used for foetal development so he should not decide, although he is likely to be a concerned party.

The pregnant woman, she knows her circumstances, capabilities, expectations and wants.
It is her body at risk and being used. She is the one who should decide. Often she will decide to have a baby. Sometimes she might have even planned to have a baby. Sometimes she will decide that for reasons of her own, the time or circumstance or whatever is not right and she will seek abortion.

The method of abortion, be it surgical or chemical is neither here nor there. What matters is it is her choice and no one else’s.

Meg1 that is the reason. You chose to have your babies. But you are not everyone and no one holds fealty to you or your anti-democratic religion.

mjpb and plenty of non-catholics make significant charitable contributions too, so what
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 19 February 2006 12:26:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1

You missed my point, which was my intent. I knew you would react by stating how much you give to charity. And so you should, given the multitudes of poor, starving and unwanted children in this world. It is one way of making amends for imposing your beliefs on others. Another way would be to support your sisters regardless of whether they choose to abort or not.

You expend a lot of energy on promoting the rights of a foetus, yet are completely unconcerned at forcing your beliefs on to others. A woman with an unplanned or unwanted pregancy has every right to decide for herself what she wants - just as your friend chose to do what was right for herself.

As for when human life begins - it begins at birth when the child is separate from the mother. Anything else is just semantics and a tool to emotionally manipulate others.
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 19 February 2006 9:11:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, sadly you can’t accept your accusations and presumptions being answered, if I had missed your point, I would not have answered your question.

If you were involved in pro-life organizations available to support women who are pregnant or who are suffering after an abortion, you may have met those pro-lifers, Catholic and others, who are indeed supporting these women irrespective of their position or their past history.

Your own history does not mean you have the ‘exclusive’ on the subject, nor have I, but it does not mean that I or anyone else do not empathise with, or help women caught in difficult situations.

Nor should I be excluded from the subject because I have chosen the alternative.

Your immature and incorrect assumptions of my involvement clearly show your energies may be better exercised through being involved with these same groups yourself.

The opportunity for personal growth and support are there for those receiving the support and those who are compassionate enough to offer it.

Col and Yabby again provide diatribes of mindless, feet-stamping, slanderous generalizations on the Catholic Church, pro-lifers in general and Col even exposes his inner ‘soiled child’ in the process.

Col, mjpb mentioned collections in answer to Scout’s presumptive accusation about pro-lifers. Interestingly you’re all upset when your accusations are disproved…but haven’t backed up with any support of mothers in need.

Col’s obsession with sex and the Catholic Church indicates a paranoia that generalizes one person’s behaviour with the behaviour of millions because they are members of the same group. Does it then follow that any pedophile who is anti-life automatically indicates that all anti-lifers are pedophiles.

Does it indicate that if one father pressures, threatens or harms his partner to force an abortion, that all anti-lifers are irresponsible or negligent parents.

Col is quick to point out his ‘important’ job requires police checks, but hasn’t realized that occupations as diverse as Lolly-pop persons and Ambassadors now have that requirement. I’m not sure if that is meant to indicate his assumed job superiority means he is more qualified to be right than us, ‘assumed’ underlings.
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 19 February 2006 2:36:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I and I suspect others do not have a problem with the stance taken by posters such as Meg1 against abortion. That is their right, their freedom to choose, because it is their body. The problem that has arisen with you Meg1 is that you feel yours is the only viewpoint that should be followed. In reality what is right for you is not necessarily right for another person. There is nothing wrong with being committed to your view or your belief however I do consider it is wrong to act as a judge and jury for others who make a decision that is not in keeping with your principles.

Unfortunately what this debate will always revert to the basis of moral judgement. Part of moral judgement will come down to the inherent selfishness of human beings. Even actions that appear unselfish (such as time spent working for charity) is often motivated by selfish motives - such as altruism. Not everyone will subscribe to this view, frequently called psychological egoism, however if you dig deep you may well find it governs us more that is realised on the surface. Additionally, moral judgements about whether abortion is wrong typically stem from both emotion and reason. Frequently it is from emotion which we attempt to convert into reason and in doing so end up in "debates to nowhere" such as this one.

If we only had reason and no emotional reaction it is unlikely that we would make any moral judgement. Of course there are those who would argue it has nothing to do with judgements emotive or otherwise but rather they are God's commandments and as such should be followed in blind faith - without emotion or reason that can be substantianted, except to other believers. Even without a spiritual basis one could also view it as being immoral because of the beliefs or the laws of their society.

continued.....
Posted by Coraliz, Sunday, 19 February 2006 7:20:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The issue of abortion will always be controversial - anything that is housed under the right to self-regulation and the right to life are at the grass roots of morality issues.

At the end of the day all that we can offer to each other as a society is to support those women in need whether they have elected to terminate or not to terminate. More importantly it is hoped that if they have elected RU486 they have done so in an informed manner. Like all the decisions we make in life we will ultimately need to wear the consequences. Some people may need assistance either way to psychologically deal with their decisions. Lets not add any further burdens to their lives by insinuating that abortion amounts to murder - because that is a moral judgement that cannot be made for another human - only for ones self
Posted by Coraliz, Sunday, 19 February 2006 7:22:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quote-“it is wrong to act as a judge and jury for others.” I couldn’t agree more Coraliz, yet that’s exactly what most anti-life posts have done. God judges each of us. I defend or oppose an act, not the person.

Contrary to your comments, I do not feel anger or hostility to those women who do abort. I have seen the results down the track - if the results of abortion on women doesn’t evoke compassion in you, nothing will.

To face those who grieve because they chose abortion, is heart-wrenching in the extreme. I can not replace what they have lost. It nonetheless provides motivation to revert the emphasis to support, not killing. Your word is ‘murder’ Coraliz, not mine…but it is killing…that’s reality, unpleasant though it may be.

In America and the UK the tide is turning…those who ‘ended’ so-called church rules on sexuality, abortion, etc. now admit their ‘experiment’ failed to reduce STDs, AIDs, ‘unwanted’ pregnancies or abuse of women or children. In fact the reverse occurred. Sad to say, Australia blindly follows anyway.

Quote-“Even actions that appear unselfish (such as time spent working for charity) is often motivated by selfish motives - such as altruism.”

Altruism – unselfish concern for the welfare of others.

Gee, thank you for your back-handed compliment. Your comments are again quite confusing and contradictory, even dare I say, judgmental. I can only assume you do not understand the meaning of the word, altruism.

I won’t pretend that I don’t sometimes groan there’s too much to do, but I can say with honesty that feeling is brief, as many who accept this challenge will attest. The rewards are not material, but there is little more satisfying than knowing you have made a positive difference to someone’s life by sharing or resolving some of their difficulties.

Catholics don’t claim to be saints, just imperfect individuals striving to accept the challenge that Christ set for all of us.

It is neither judgmental, nor despotic to oppose what you can see is wrong and harmful.
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 19 February 2006 11:25:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1
“diatribes of mindless, feet-stamping, slanderous generalizations on the Catholic Church,”

OK which part of the Inquisition are you going to deny?
Which part of the actions of paedophile priests are you going to deny?
Which part of the systematic cover-up of the actions of paedophile priests do you want to deny?

When you can prove I have slanderously alluded to the corruption of the Catholic church through its active participation and collusions with torturers and perverts, then and only then will you have a basis to make such claims, until them you are just blowing smoke to cover the weakness of your own debate.

Nothing I have suggested has been “disproved”

I am not “obsessed with sex” – the Church of Rome is, that is why it sticks its nose into the bedrooms of its congregants and tells them not to use condoms. As I have frequently said here, the decision to abort is a private one, you can take it I consider the actions which brought about the consideration of abortion to be “private” as well.

I wrote “the nature of some of the work I do and positions I hold has necessitated multiple police and other searches for test of character.”

I cannot see where I have suggested how “important” is the work nature, maybe you could point that bit out to me.
You are making things up. It just shows your contempt of all who dare disagree with you.

“Catholics don’t claim to be saints, just imperfect individuals striving to accept the challenge that Christ set for all of us.”

Have respect for all the other non-Catholic “Imperfect individuals”, acknowledge their democratic right to make the decisions in their lives which you want to make in your life, instead of you demanding to make those decisions for them.

That RU486 will be in pharmacies does not mean you have to take it. It does not mean other people have to take it. All it means is if they choose to take it, they can and it is none of your business that they do.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 20 February 2006 4:30:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby you have given me an article to look at so I’ll get back to it once I have done it. I don’t have time to follow articles at the moment.

Col what are you going on about. The Catholic Church is an organization that advocates the will of God. It speaks in conscience. The faith of the Church requires speaking up on moral issues.

“Fact The Church of Rome is an archaic organisation which tries to set its own authority up above a democratically elected secular government.”

That is clearly an opinion. The other opinion is that God is universal and has universal authority. Publically agreeing with what you believe is God’s will is not setting your authority above anyone. It is expressing your belief the God is correct and the secular view is wrong.

It is not a democratic organisation.
It is a religious organization for goodness sake. You don’t seem to think that religious people should get a say.

“Col and Yabby again provide diatribes of mindless, feet-stamping, slanderous generalizations on the Catholic Church, pro-lifers in general and Col even exposes his inner ‘soiled child’ in the process. “
Here here. I find it really annoying.

” The problem that has arisen with you Meg1 is that you feel yours is the only viewpoint that should be followed.”
So I presume that you think your viewpoint shouldn’t be followed? If you unlike Meg and contrary to my suspicions don’t care if your viewpoint is followed why are you arguing?

“… I do consider it is wrong to act as a judge and jury for others who make a decision that is not in keeping with your principles.” Is that your judgement?

”Unfortunately …”
Translation: Scout was proved wrong so lets argue that charity might not be altruistic

“… abortion amounts to murder - because that is a moral judgement that cannot be made for another human - only for ones self “
If we can’t make decisions about what is killing than where did criminal laws in relation to the same come from
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 20 February 2006 9:02:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh I am just so happy that I have a very good example of personality from The Lord Jesus Christ Himself who once was in the womb of the precious Mother Mary as a loveable baby whom to born in Bethlehem which the whole world celebrate the coming of the Saviour of the world and his Name was The Lord Jesus Christ Who is The Incarnation of The Almighty Word of God (according to John 1 verse 1 - 14). Herode who was the king in the region of Judea on that time was trying so hard to kill all babies and he did killed more than 2000 babies to get rid of The Lord Jesus Christ, so that He will not redeem us through his death and resurrection. Nor Mother Mary ever think to abort the Almighty Baby Jesus (God in human form)..Now in the Power of The Blood of Jesus there will be no devil or evil spirit can stand, Amen !
So I am following the Life Giver God and will enjoy my life here knowing that there will be no human blood (evern the blood of the unborn babies) be put on our responsibility in hell later...for it written : no murderer/killer will have a place in Heaven and God commanced us :"Do not kill". Since a baby in the form of empregnated eggs, already has all they need to form a perfect human being, so Do not kill them, because once every human being was just like them, like you too. Obey God ore disobey God You can choose now.
Posted by Lady, Monday, 20 February 2006 1:01:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What superstitious claptrap! We sent missionaries to the South Pacific to rout out such animist beliefs.
Posted by billie, Monday, 20 February 2006 2:16:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"“diatribes of mindless, feet-stamping, slanderous generalizations on the Catholic Church,”

OK which part of the Inquisition are you going to deny?
Which part of the actions of paedophile priests are you going to deny?
Which part of the systematic cover-up of the actions of paedophile priests do you want to deny?"

I’ll focus on the actions of paedophile priests in this post as I know I will exceed the word limit otherwise.

The high moral standard demanded of priests are ignored by some in the occupation as in any other occupation. How anti-Catholics can rationalise demeaning all in this occupation because of the baddies is beyond me. I expect that they are wilfully open to media sensationalism. By way of comparison, the US figures for sexual misconduct are available. Up to 1.5 per cent of Catholic priests are reported for general sexual misconduct. Compare this with a recent report that 13 per cent of Victorian doctors (considered trusted professionals) have been reported for sexual misconduct.

In relation to actual paedophilia the actions are appalling but people who dedicate their lives to helping others should not be slandered because of the appalling exceptions. By way of example of the exceptions the archdiocese of Chicago between 1951–1991, had one case of pedophilia. The priest had molested his niece.

Unless a pedophile is involved the media might not go into detail but most cases of criminal charges faced by priests are statutory rapes of youths aged approximately 16 years. Homosexual age of consent is 18.

Pedophilia normally happens in families. Catholic priests are normally not in that situation as they are required to be celibate. That and the ethical nature of the job explains the low incidence of pedophilia.
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 20 February 2006 6:15:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1, Sorry, I do know the meaning of altruism, however I did not edit my post…that will teach me :). What I intended there was to say that actions that appear altruistic are often carried out for selfish reasons. As you have said yourself “The rewards are not material, but there is little more satisfying then knowing you have made a positive difference to someone’s life……….”. As such for you the selfish part of the charitable act is for the intrinsic reward. Therefore mjpb your translation was way off the mark. It was not in any way to detract from charity work. I applaud anyone who gives of their time and energy for others, regardless of the motivation. So…no back hand compliment Meg – please accept a forehand one.

Furthermore, I do not consider it judgemental to follow your beliefs. I do not think others are wrong to have different beliefs. What you do with your body is your business. However, do you not consider that a statement such as yours Meg1; “atrocities such as these will be eventually seen for what they are – crimes against women and the children they carry”, sends a judgemental message to someone who has elected abortion? Is that not a judgement that is psychologically harmful towards the very women you purport to support? Perhaps we just see the world very very differently.

mjpb, abortion is legal – it is not killing or murder; there has to be life before either can occur. Therefore if you put my entire sentence back into context you will note that I am merely saying that it is not for anyone else to decide about termination but the person who is terminating (because the law has already ruled). Personally, as I said before I would not choose termination, but I am very glad that I live in a country where I have that choice and I want very much that it stays that way.
Posted by Coraliz, Monday, 20 February 2006 7:44:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are two basic considerations for all pro-choice women – does she want this baby at this time, and does she want this man as father (at this time)? This decision may not be an easy one to make (as many have alluded), but making it is a totally selfish act. Any resultant resolution will be a mixture between self-preservation, self-promotion, or self-gratification (note the recurring content of “self”).

Only a joint decision with the co-contributor of genetic material would make it less so. Each joint decision to proceed with pregnancy could be then validated by a mandatory paternity test at birth. This would at least approach some semblance of altruism.
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 20 February 2006 8:59:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb I thought you might say that, apologists are so predictable.

Well I would accept any priest can fail but the failing of the Church of Rome, the proof of its moral bankruptcy was not that there were paedophile priest but, as I suggested, the practice of the bishops direct policy to cover-up the corruption and abuse of children whihc lead to them paying out huge compensation claims for "sealed settlements" (Boston USA diocese is but one example among many).

As I asked “Which part of the systematic cover-up of the actions of paedophile priests do you want to deny?”

I refer you to
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1020400,00.html

http://www.cathnews.com/news/510/132.php – this one is a catholic website

You might have just fallen out of a tree but I have not. I guess you could be here just to cover up more corruption but cannot deal with the truth when it slaps you in the face.

Coraliz has stated the facts for you.

I feel sorry that you have placed your faith in a corrupt organisation, it is one of the reasons I have no time for the leadership of any religious denominations and is why I believe individuals are best served by finding God directly, avoiding giving power to a twisted class of priests (of any denomination).

I guess some of us are just less gullible than others.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 20 February 2006 9:23:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rouge Col,

Stop fantasising about Catholic priests like that. It is not healthy.
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 20 February 2006 11:02:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb and Seeker have pretty well covered it Col, but Coraliz I find it a little odd that I should not love to work with these people and share their joy and achievement as well as their pain and difficulty. Resolving difficulties, your own or those of others, is not selfish, nor is it something we should regret, deny or avoid.

It is and should be able to be enjoyed, because as I have said, those who give sincerely and those who receive are equally blessed. You surely don't suggest that if I hated to be there, I would be unselfish but enjoying the 'job' automatically indicates selfish intent? Curiouser and curioser...if I disliked being there, perhaps I shouldn't be there because I wouldn't be offering much positive input would I?

As for Col's generalisations on everything - I suggest that a lesson in rational thought might be followed by a tutorial in estimation. Your assumptions that one priest was convicted of paedophilia therefore all Catholics are guilty of the same shows how small minded you really are.

The natural conclusion would be that there are anti-lifers who are guilty of paedophilia therefore all anti-lifers are paedophiles.

Further, as anti-lifers support the barbaric killing of unborn babies by mutilation therefore all anti-lifers support mutilation and killing of any humans...do you get the point, Col?

Try to get some help with your Catholic issues. You need to get out more and meet some of us, broaden your mind and live a little or some anti-lifer might think your quality of life is diminished.
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 1:14:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nevermind Meg, you are making my example of altruism into much more then was intended by me so I will leave it there, suffice to say that I was originally giving an example of moral judgements frequently being motivated by selfishnesss. Selfishness is not always a negative thing and to elaborate entirely on these points to enable you full understanding of what I intended cannot be achieved in 350 words. I wish you well.
Posted by Coraliz, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 7:06:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeker, I have no fantasies about Catholic Priests, the nearest to such would be just darkened and cloudy images from a horror movie of the perverted abusing the innocent.

Meg1 “As for Col's generalisations on everything” - oh more of your “trollisms”

There is nothing “generalised” in the specific statement

“Every person should have sovereignty over their own body”

That is what pro-choice is. The woman does not have her body on lease from the foetus or the church, therefore she need not feel obligated to put the considerations of either above her own

and that is not “selfishness”

it is “self-respect”.


Oh and your attempt to “make small” of paedophile priests

– the whole issue, like most things that end up in the public arenas and embarrass a power elite, is like an iceberg.


Most of the horror of priestly abuse is lost in time and in cover-ups. What we see publicly is but a tiny portion of the corrupt whole but what a portion it is and how offensive too. I think if the whole truth were revealed, the Church would never see even the most gullible of congregants ever again and that would, of course, include you, oh “most gullible”.

As for your suggestion “You need to get out more and meet some of us” – why would I wish to meet and mix with those who would rant on with their demented gibberish, condemn me for my views, excommunicate me or in years past burn me as a heretic?
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:06:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col the word limit is 350 and background is important. In your article the lawyers against priests naturally represented things in a certain way but the article admitted the find wasn’t a “smoking gun”.

“Which part of the systematic cover-up of the actions of paedophile priests do you want to deny?”

The part of the ‘cover-up’ that is the rumours about a malicious cover up.

Since about the 60s things changed in some parts of the Church including an openness to secular opinion that didn’t exist previously. Try to get counselling from a priest now and they will probably refer you to a psychologist. The secular advice in the 60s and 70s in cases of paedophile priests was to deal with the issue privately and quietly as any openness was considered dangerous for the children concerned. There was also a belief that instead of being sinners the paedophiles could be cured and disciplined and then sent elsewhere to carry out good work without reputation problems hampering their work after they had been cured. This misguided approach had disastrous consequences in an occupation of trust.

Dr Kinsey founder of the Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender and Reproduction had studied child sexuality including data obtained from the diaries of a “Mr. X”, who claimed to have engaged in hundreds of acts of incest and child molestion described in explicit detail. This ‘respectable’ portrayal of children as sexual and ‘respectable’ reporting of adult child sex softened the attitude toward paedophiles and the (at the time) developing branch of psychology ‘behavioural therapy’ viewed behaviour as learnt thus helping overturn Freud’s view that paedophilia is unresponsive to treatment. Although the atmosphere was positive there was a failure to subject the ‘treatments’ to specific empirical evaluation.

Psychological opinion changed in the 1980s and openness was considered the correct approach. Unfortunately media sensationalism created an image that the earlier well intentioned privacy policy for the protection of children and treatment for the protection of future children was some type of conspiracy rather than the bumbling misguided but well intentioned approach that it was.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:45:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Semantics Of Abortion. to abort means to put an end to something before it's process is complete. one might say 'end' or one might say 'murder'. Catholics tend to say 'murder', and this could be why this forum has gotten off topic and onto
'Catholics? Let's Give Em An Inquisition Of Their Own.
The Semantics Of Inquisition. well you could say 'inquiry' or MURDER'.
I like it both ways. Like Catholics do.
Posted by Brownie, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 2:04:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Col,

I meant fanaticising not fantasising (damn my gullible reliance on spell checkers) … but now that you have revealed one of your fantasies, I’ll just have to repeat my earlier comment: not healthy (;-).
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:32:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a relative newcomer to this forum, I find it curious that those who find abortion acceptable denigrade and attack those who believe abortion NEVER helps a woman. For those who push 'choice' and autonomy in that decision, you seem to attack severely those who hold that life has an intrinsic value from conception until natural death. And as the previous person wrote, this forum has degenerated into a 'bag out the Catholics' blog.
As I said previously, the only ones who find abortion acceptable are those who are already born.
In abortion, there are two victims - one dead and one wounded. There are numerous studies that show the effects of post abortion trauma - one excellent book of women's own stories after abortion is "Giving Sorrow Words" by Melinda Tankard-Reist. Worth reading. Also "And Still They Weep..." by Dr Philip Ney (UK).
After an abortion, many women feel immediate relief - the "problem" is gone. Sadly too, usually within 6-10 weeks, so is the boyfriend. When a couple destroy that which they have created together, it is hard for them to look each other in the eye.
Should you dispute the above re post abortion trauma (and that's not even getting into the physical problems, just the emotional at the moment), please get in touch with Anne Lastman who runs "Victims of Abortion" (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) - a couselling service for those suffering from abortion fallout. She is currently counselling 6 MEN - yes, men do suffer from post abortion trauma.
There are many many triggering events - the birth of a subsequent child, the "due date" of the original baby, when the aborted baby would have turned 1, watching grandparents with other grandbabies and not yours etc etc.
Abortion solves no problems - it just hurts and harms and creates other problems.
Te
Posted by Te, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:39:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te,

Of course for many there is fall out from abortion; but probably there is more fall out from adoption. However, proceeding with the pregnancy is not always a choice that a woman can cope with either. I am sure that proceeding with the pregnancy and having a child is possibly the least psychologically damaging some women in the long run, depending on the circumstances. For others it is little different to menstruation. However, there is added psychological damage to women (and men) by people who consider abortion to be a crime or a killing and voice those beliefs in a manner that incurs damage. Women are often in a double bind; If the woman elects to adopt her child, frequently, later that child will believe he or she was unwanted and that also has fallout (read the literature); not to mention the later anguish that the birth mother endures because she did not raise her child. Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but people make choices based on their beliefs and circumstances at the time. They can only make informed choices, and then learn to live with their decisions. If safe RU486 seems to be a far softer option then any surgical procedure. Regardless, at the end of the day it is solely the choice of the woman who is pregnant, the responsibility of the woman in whose body the cell is housed.

As Yabby pointed out - women lose many 'potential babies' each month. Lets not lose sight of that. However, for those who believe that abortion is wrong - that is their choice and they also have the autonomy to make that choice.

Isn't it funny...you do not see anyone telling the self labelled pro-lifers not to have a baby; have an abortion! Why? because those who elect to have an abortion are not anti-life at all. They simply do not consider that a life exists at that stage. Therein lies most of the difference between the camps.
Posted by Coraliz, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 10:25:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Such an emotive issue!
There is a place for everything, including RU486.
I'm not a follower of religion, but abortion dosent sit well in my opinion. Persons unable to use the drug will have surgical abortions, traumatic and unpleasant as that may be.
Perhaps genuine counselling (as opposed to a quick chat at the clinic office before handing over the cash) explaining the pro's and con's as well as the likely outcomes, immediate and long term, would be a more productive item to address.
Private companies run clinics to make money, they are not benevolent societies.
Those cranks that hang round clinics waving crosses and pictures of feotuses at distressed girls, you make me sick.
Posted by The all seeing omnipotent voice of reason, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 10:51:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Coraliz - The heart of the baby starts beating at 18 days. A woman, once pregnant is a mother - whether the baby is born or aborted. She may try and forget but her body never does.
How many adopted people do you know? None I know wishes they had been aborted. When a child is gifted to a childless couple by parents in adoption, it is in the belief that that would provide a better life and the possibility they can meet again in the future. Impossible for an aborted child. That child is battered and broken and in a bucket ready for the bin.
Re RU-486 - firstly it is not 'safe'. Even the company that
originally manufactured misopristol, one of the two drugs used in RU-486, warned that misopristol's use in an abortion could cause "serious adverse events" including death. No reputable company will manufacture RU-486 - it is only being made in China (and no doubt you know about their one child policy - are you aware also that there is pressure on the Phillipines to introduce a 2-child policy?)

RU-486 is a combination of two drugs that induce abortion within the first seven weeks of pregnancy. The first drug, mifepristone, withers the developing fetus by cutting off vital hormones to the unborn child's nutrition supply, the placenta. The second drug - misopristol - induces uterine contractions to expel the dead fetus. However, if it is an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy (and would usually be undiagnosed at this early stage)all the contractions in the world will not expel that little one from the fallopian tube.

RU-486 has an anti-glucocorticoid effect which allows inflammation which can in turn lead to septic shock as the bacterium Clostridium sordellii multiplies in the body and sometimes, if not diagnosed quickly enough, causes death. (See Holly Patterson's sad death http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brentbozell/2003/10/01/168408.html).
There is no such thing as a 'safe' abortion - the only reason they are 'safer' now than before is the discovery of antibiotics and the easier access, via more modern transport, to hospitals if they were 'botched'.
Posted by Te, Wednesday, 22 February 2006 12:24:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

“Most of the horror of priestly abuse is lost in time and in cover-ups. … I think if the whole truth were revealed, the Church would never see even the most gullible of congregants ever again and that would, of course, include you, oh “most gullible”.”

Ease up on the mantra about gullible. I am not the one who seems to be a slave of media sensationalism. Although again I note that I suspect it must be wilful. The biggest cover up is by the media who represent gay priests as paedophile priests.

”… why would I wish to meet and mix with those who would rant on with their demented gibberish, condemn me for my views, excommunicate me or in years past burn me as a heretic?”

I suspect it takes a certain type of people to burn others. At one time in history heretics were fair game and that type of person could vent that type of personality on them. Now Christians in general and Catholics in particular are the target and that type of person will persecute them. It is not the Church. It is the people. It is not part of the pop culture to burn people but if it was I am sure it would be Christians who would be burnt not heretics.

Shortly after Christ the culture was in many respects similar to today. Christianity was not politically correct, moral decadence was rife and Christians’ opposition to the pop culture made them fair game. Unlike our culture it was socially acceptable to feed people to the lions. Christians found themselves in that position. Regardless of the method many early apostles were martyred as was Christ himself for a time.

You indicate that these types of things at a particular time in history were a Church thing. However I am glad that burning at the stake is not acceptable today or my view would be proved correct. Perhaps it will be a characteristic of the future. I hope not. Who in the past would have thought that it would become legal to kill children?
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 22 February 2006 3:32:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The death of Holly Patterson was clearly hospital mismanagement. She presented twice and was sent away.
No woman wants to have an abortion, including all the many Chinese and Indian women who queue for them - it is always a last resort.
I really do wish Ms Helen Ransom, Catholic Theology Student, the writer of this essay and of the previous one Nov 2005 on the SAME topic, would redirect her energies to re-educating MALES, who should all be thoroughly disciplined to only spill their seed where they are willing to support the consequence, as well as The Vessel, till death do them part.
Shane Warne is their hero unfortunately. bet he's Catholic too.
Posted by Brownie, Wednesday, 22 February 2006 5:57:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, at 1am, like many Australians, I am usually testing the bedsprings. You should try it, its more fun than searching the internet for articles of doubtful reliability.

Pregnany is more dangerous than surgical abortion and RU486 is safer than surgical abortion. Remember that 100 years ago men would take a second wife when the first died in childbirth.

If Australia has 220,000 live births per year, there is probably demand to adopt 22,000 babies. If the abortion rate is even 75,000 then there are 50,000 babies surplus to adoption requirements - who will rear them?
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 22 February 2006 7:12:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te
If I understand you correctly you're arguing that if the baby's heart is beating then it is alive? Correct?
But wait. We can do an experiment. Let's hook up someone we both know is dead to a machine that will make their heart beat. Have they suddenly become alive again?
The answer of course is No! The reason? The heart may be beating but the body remains brain dead. Conclusion: It is the brain that determines when a human is alive or dead NOT the heart. Therefore when a baby's heart is beating is irrelevant. Sorry Te. Nice try though. :)
Posted by Bosk, Wednesday, 22 February 2006 7:34:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Pregnany is more dangerous than surgical abortion and RU486 is safer than surgical abortion.”

When you say more dangerous do you mean there are more deaths or that a higher proportion of pregnancies than abortions result in deaths? (The clarification is for to ensure a meaningful comparison. Obviously there are a lot more pregnancies than abortions.)

Remember that 100 years ago men would take a second wife when the first died in childbirth.
If the weren’t killed in the war….

” But wait. We can do an experiment. Let's hook up someone we both know is dead to a machine that will make their heart beat. Have they suddenly become alive again?

The answer of course is No! The reason? The heart may be beating but the body remains brain dead. Conclusion: It is the brain that determines when a human is alive or dead NOT the heart. Therefore when a baby's heart is beating is irrelevant. Sorry Te. Nice try though. :)”

Wouldn’t a living brain exist if the heart has developed enough to beat and is a heart beating hooked up to a machine the same thing as a live heart? (I don't know but I would expect so)
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 22 February 2006 12:47:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Yabby - women lose many 'potential babies' each month.” Ovum is an egg - not a human life – it is part of the reproductive cycle for ovum to be released and, if not impregnated, to shed. Abortion kills live, developing babies, not a ‘potential baby’, Coraliz.

“Isn't it funny...you do not see anyone telling the self labelled pro-lifers not to have a baby; have an abortion!.”

Coraliz, I beg to differ, there are many instances of women being pressured to abort, no matter how pro-life they are. This includes doctors harassing fathers to pressure their partners or to sign documents to allow abortions to be performed.

Yes, I know from personal experience and that of family/friends. For some medicos, difficult pregnancies don’t compute and an abortion is preferable…that is FACT, especially when abortion is freely available and income-producing.

Bosk – the difference is the baby’s heart beat is not artificially induced and the baby is scientifically, medically acknowledged to be ALIVE…with or without your consent.

“Pregnany is more dangerous than surgical abortion and RU486 is safer than surgical abortion. Remember that 100 years ago men would take a second wife when the first died in childbirth.” billie

…and now the situation with second partners is reversed, men die earlier…what does that tell you? The so-called statistics quoted in these postings re: deaths in pregnancy versus abortions are simply nonsense.

The incidence of pregnancy related deaths, though tragic, is small and encompasses situations that may or may not have any relevance to the pregnancy.

…including a steady growing list of partners unhappy with the pregnancy who find their own ‘solution’ to the mother and baby dilemma, by murdering both – considered to be murder in that case, curious. The availability of abortion hasn’t prevented these anti-lifers from refusing their partners the ‘choice’ to have their babies, has it?

Billie, you seem to think that putting a statement on line makes it become fact automatically – thankfully that is not the case and it isn’t difficult to disprove your allegations.

Brownie, your bigotry matches Col’s.

Mjpb and Te – well said!
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 22 February 2006 4:06:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Billie
“Te, at 1am ..."

Thank you so much for your concern about my sleeping patterns – I am deeply touched ;-)

”Pregnany ...surgical abortion and RU486 ...... Remember that 100 years ago ... childbirth.”
I have to wonder where you get your information from. How can anything artificial ever be safer than something natural? Of course there was loss of life in childbirth 100 years ago, they did not have antibiotics or advanced surgery or good clotting agents and conditions were not often hygenic – there is also loss of life today even with modern facilities – why? Because every human body is different and reacts differently to stimuli.

”If Australia has 220,000 live births per year...adopt 22,000 babies. If the abortion rate ....are 50,000 babies surplus... rear them? “
In most instances, their mothers and many other good souls. When a mother, under pressure and difficult circumstances is given support, she will bring forth that little life. However, the reality should not be after the fact – if sexual activity was confined to the safety net of marriage, we wouldn’t have this situation we have today. Sex before marriage is renewing a promise with your body that your heart, mind and soul has not made – lying with your body.

Bosk - I find your comment re the heart strange. If something is not alive it cannot grow so in the instance of ‘hooking up a dead body’ as you said, the mechanics of the body would be forced to work but the body would not be alive. However, from the instant the sperm and egg join, the ‘cells’ multiply at a rapid rate and continue to grow. Funnily enough, if ‘it’ is just a clump of cells, how would the abortionists know if they had all the ‘cells’ out in an abortion as they need to reassemble the head, spine, arms, legs and body to ensure they have it all so infection won’t set in.
Posted by Te, Thursday, 23 February 2006 7:46:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeker my “fantasies” linger around areas of human activity far more exotic than anything which you will find being discussed on this website and certainly have nothing to do with religion or religious icons of any sort. :))


Te – “if sexual activity was confined to the safety net of marriage”

Wouldn’t that be nice, oh what a neat and cosy notion.

Reality is

Sexual activity never has been confined to the “safety net of marriage”.
Everything else you say is, in the terms of such a debate, in the “out with the fairies” category.


I am a father. Both my daughters are both in loving relationships “out of wedlock”

Shock Horror! Am I going to tell them to get married? – no – when they were little I taught them to have faith in themselves and their own judgement - they make up their own mind with who and when they will have sex and I really do not want to know the details because, whilst I love them as their father, I do not and never have tried to rule them with sanctimonious and self appointed authority which seems to come so easily to those who suggest “the safety net of marriage”.

So are you going to force them to abstain from sex?
I do not think so.

Any debate about peoples sexual practices has to start from the recognition of “what is” rather than be driven by notion of “what never was”.

Of course, such an issue belies the motives of a church, which realised the “power” of the human sex drive and the benefit of controlling it to ensure that energy was forced (with tyrannical determination) into exultation of the religious system and away from the private enjoyment of a natural human activity.

In short, "beware all those who demand abstinence whilst they deny condoms".

Brownie, welcome to the “Slagged Off by Meg1 Club”, you are one of a growing number.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 23 February 2006 9:35:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi y'all
Te touches on something important with:

"if ‘it’ is just a clump of cells, how would the abortionists know if they had all the ‘cells’ out in an abortion as they need to reassemble the head, spine, arms, legs and body to ensure they have it all so infection won’t set in. "

Basically, modern techiques just suck everything out, there is no check of body parts or cell counts. If infection sets in a D&C and another vacuum evacuation is performed.

Technology aside, the issue identified goes to the heart of what constitutes an abortion. In so far as I have seen, there is no defensible statistical disaggregation of the 85,000 or 100,000 number under the relevant medicare item. That item, in so far as I am aware includes removal of miscarriages, post-miscarriage placenta and bits, and various other objects. It probably also involves removal of dead foetuses that have, for some reason not been miscarried.

In order to have a semantically defensible debate about 'abortion', an implication of the title of the article, there needs to be an agreed description or definition of what constitutes an 'abortion'. At present, there is no such agreement, the statistics thrown about may or may not be an accurate reflection of what that definition might be, and many people (not all, mind you) resort to posturing and position taking. Until there is an agreed description/definition and the statistics reflect it, the numbers are essentially meaningless to the debate.

Again, the semantics are important to and prior to meaningful debate: even for those who regard one abortion as one too many.

odsoc
Posted by odsoc, Thursday, 23 February 2006 1:06:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think we as human being sometimes need to learn from animal, for instance we'd rarely heard that there is a prostitudous dog need abortion for convinience or no body wanted to addopt the unborn puppy dog; for dog usually higher moral concious than some people. Even God only promise eternal life to human being in John 3:16 "For God so loved the world (you and me) that He gave His only begotten Son (The Lord Jesus Christ), so that whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish (go to hell) but have eternal life".

So much we can learn from any other living things created by God (for no one even able to create a seed of chilli, yes human being can create synthetic material but never able create a mango seed or apricot kernel, because human being is NOT GOD, so be humble and not so arogant by saying things against God who has created your nose with two holes to help you to breathing and borrowing Oxigen from this world.

Be humble, be sincere, be honest to your heart; Who keeps your heart beating while you soundly sleeping ?

I would like to use my freedom resposibly in fear of The Lord Jesus Christ and not speak stupidly or foolishly about God who deserve our Honour and Praise; I'm just thankful to be born to enjoy this life God has created with all of His Providence, one mother and one father who loved me and all other people God sent to help me all the way of my life, Amen.
Posted by Lady, Thursday, 23 February 2006 5:16:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Sexual activity never has been confined to the “safety net of marriage”.”

Even today many atheists have sufficient morals to confine sexual activity to the "safety net of marriage" - at least once they become married. Why do you find it so hard to believe that committed Christians don't confine sexual activity entirely to the "safety net of the marriage"?

"...I do not and never have tried to rule them with sanctimonious and self appointed authority …”."

You deny God's authority and think right and wrong are defined by your own judgement. Noone forced you to consider your authority above God’s so you must be self appointed. As children did you provide your daughters with equal opportunity to become Christians or immoral or did you rule over them with your current views? If so then in these premises how can your assertion be correct? At the least they were subject to your authority as children.

"So are you going to force them to abstain from sex?”

Forcing is irrelevant. Christians are not and cannot be forced to abstain from sex. It is a choice that they make with the benefit of a sound concept of right and wrong.

"Of course, such an issue belies the motives of a church, which realised the “power” of the human sex drive and the benefit of controlling it to ensure that energy was forced (with tyrannical determination) into exultation of the religious system and away from the private enjoyment of a natural human activity."

This is such a negative comment generally yet you use the word "benefit" in there. Is that a Freudian slip?

The way God has set up the Church there is a hierachy. When you talk about a “church” controlling other people I presume that you mean those with more authority in the Church controlling lay people. If your above claim is correct how do you explain that the supposed power brokers are celibate while those whose sex drives they are supposed to be controlling can have as much sex as they like within marriage?
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 23 February 2006 9:07:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
funny, i would have thought the celibacey of priests would have comfirmed Col's point.

anyway this is rapidly decending into farce. so im going to help it on its way....

lady, you hit the nail on the head. we should be more like dogs, i think if more people could lick their own genitals then there would be less unwanted pregnancys and therefore less abortions.
Posted by its not easy being, Friday, 24 February 2006 2:07:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brownie, your bigotry matches Col’s.

Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 22

Meg1 - if you don't mind, I did not come here to read personal attacks from you on my character. Stick to the topic of Ms Ransom's essay or I will get you blacklisted here.
Posted by Brownie, Friday, 24 February 2006 3:22:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mjpb

“committed Christians don't confine sexual activity.. ”
“sanctimonious and self appointed authority”
“force them to abstain”

Sorry, I was responding to Australian society as a whole, not just 2 % of it.

The word “benefit” referred to that derived by the theocratic organisation of the church over the lives of ordinary congregants.

“as much sex as they like within marriage”

but only on the “rules” and conditions set down by those who are supposed to be “celibate” and specifically , denying the (individual) contraception or as expression of anything other than “procreation”, unless you are telling me that the Church of Rome supports the pill, condoms and has approved every position in the Karma Sutra?

“The way God has set up the Church “ He probable shudders at what it has become.

There is nothing God needs from such a corrupt organisation. If God did set it up, it would have been a prototype and he would have thrown it out a long time ago. Gods discarded husk has become a cesspool of corrupt thinking and practices. It is a retreat for a bunch of power crazed misogynists, perverts and sadists.

One reason we have separation of Church and State is because of observation of the malevolent influences exercised when the Church of Rome shared authority with and over the offices of the state.

its not easy being – I doubt lady reads other peoples posts here, she seems to exist on a different plane where debate has no purpose. However, I chuckled at the dog reference.

Oh Lady – “prostitudous” that one escapes me and the dictionary – making up your own words does not facilitate debate, although from the balance of this one and your other posts I fully expect to see you “speaking in tongues” shortly.

The parable of the women who hid her “talents” instead of using them.
“Freewill” is (even by your definition) a gift from God.
That other people choose to exercise it and you would, from your statements seek to hide it, identifying you clearly within the context of the parable. Sad
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 25 February 2006 3:51:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
” Meg1 - if you don't mind, I did not come here to read personal attacks from you on my character. Stick to the topic of Ms Ransom's essay or I will get you blacklisted here. “
Not a good idea. If those in control of the forum were to do that they would probably have to read a few posts and most of the posts on your side of the argument would be deleted. Look at the treatment Lady is getting at the moment.

”“as much sex as they like within marriage”

but only on the “rules” and conditions set down by those who are supposed to be “celibate” and specifically , denying the (individual) contraception or as expression of anything other than “procreation”, unless you are telling me that the Church of Rome supports the pill, condoms and has approved every position in the Karma Sutra?”

Certainly not for pills and condoms. However as we are discussing people’s sexual energy surely that would be an asset. We hear so many complaints about “showers with raincoats” that condoms seem more a hinderance than help to sexual energy.

”There is nothing God needs from such a corrupt organisation. If God did set it up, it would have been a prototype and he would have thrown it out a long time ago.”

That would be a profoundly strange approach from an omnipotent being. Why would he waste his time like that?

”One reason we have separation of Church and State is because of observation of the malevolent influences exercised when the Church of Rome shared authority with and over the offices of the state.”

Without divine guidance people like to have power without conscience. Powerful people didn’t like to have right and wrong pointed out to them.

Likewise, one of the two major figures who created an environment where ‘Christian Europe’ could end by dividing ‘Christianity’, Henry VIII, broke with the Pope because he thought that something less immoral than beheading, like divorce, might get the nod from the Pope. He was proved wrong. Neither wife killing or divorce are Catholic.
Posted by mjpb, Sunday, 26 February 2006 11:00:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Shell (post 12:29:44 PM 9/2/06)

That's out dilemma: murder isn't universally condemned. We now selectively kill - those we don't like, those we don't want, those who (in our opinion) have no value.

I'd do anything - within reason - to have my murdered mum back in my life. But that wouldn't include killing/executing her killer.
(10/2/06)

KRS 1 (post 12:41:52 PM 9/2/06)

Don't get too excited about Anomie's reply! Educationalists & academics are often wrong. Don't you remember that the world was flat? Dr William McBride was a genius too - a fraud.

There's a simple reason that life doesn't begin at ejaculation - no foetus has been formed.

As to what I'd do if my wife or daughter were raped & that resulted in a pregnancy: I guess that like if they received AIDS I'd need to pragmatically accept it. Would I be happy? Definitely not! But it wouldn't be the foetus' 'problem' or fault either. Nor would it be the fault of my loved one.

Maybe the child could be born & adopted to a loving childless couple? What would be the then-trauma to the biological mother? Substantial. But hopefully less than that of having killed the foetus that was conceived outside of a loving relationship. Notwithstanding, the foetus' right-to-life has not been taken.
(10/2/06)

Matt Caravan (post 1:05:57 PM 9/2/02)

Just because the government 'allows' abortion through Medicare doesn't mean that abortion is right & proper. They may take your home from you under a government regulation but that doesn't make it right.

Late-term abortion is no more or less wrong than early-term. All abortion is taking another life. RU486 only adds another dimension to a woman exercising her rights over her body at the expense of the rights of the foetus - conceived in carelessness, without planning or through violence.
(10/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Sunday, 26 February 2006 11:43:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Donnie (post 1:26:57 PM 9/2/06)

I'm sorry to tell you this, but in most states of Australia "abortion" is illegal. Check the legislation. It's just that the legislation isn't enforced.

There are many things that human beings do in life that are unethical, immoral, or just plain stupid. Sometimes we have laws against them; sometimes we pretend that they aren't harming anyone & ignore the bad/inappropriate behaviour. But in all instances there is a consequence.

Some people throughout their lives accept their own culpability. Other people walk around blaming it upon others - the scapegoat mentality.

It isn't the foetus' fault that someone had sex but didn't wish to have a child. The burden ought to fall upon the participants in the act - not upon the foetus which is a consequence of the act.

Teenage drunk drivers rarely think that they will be involved in an accident resulting in injury to another. When it does occur it isn't the fault of the other driver or pedestrian. One wouldn't suggest that we encourage the teenager to indulge in more bad behaviour. But we certainly do that when we ignore the consequences which ought to befall individuals who fail to abstain or take adequate precaution.

Imagine that the aborted foetus is you, & you can't get anyone to listen to your desire(s) to live. How would you feel?
(10/2/06)

maracas (post 1:55:04 PM 9/2/06)

Great therapy for the woman - until she suffers psychological 'problems' later, & many do. Not very therapeutic for the foetus though. A 10-week old foetus is about the size of a dessert-spoon (minus handle).

The answer is: don't get pregnant unless you're in a position to be able to lovingly support the foetus - which incidentally didn't ask to be conceived. Simply put: close your legs or be prepared to open your purse-strings to rear & raise the child for the next 18-years.
(10/2/06)

RobP (posted 3:08:22 PM 9/2/06)

Spot-on!
(10/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Sunday, 26 February 2006 11:49:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Without divine guidance people like to have power without conscience. Powerful people didn’t like to have right and wrong pointed out to them."

MJ, your problem there of course is that means power is transferred
to those who claim to have divine guidance. Thats what made the Catholic Church such a corrupt and powerful organisation in the first place, if you read history. After reading a book called
"The Sex Lives of the Popes", methinks perhaps alot of them didn't
have a conscience either :)

To avoid the problem, it seems to me that democracy, with a strict
separation of the powers, is the best that we have to avoid the
problem of power corrupting, absolute power corrupting absolutaly.

Let the church stick to preaching to its flock of believers, who need religion to cope with life, but out of the lives of the rest of us.

ALB, there is no objective morality, what you think is moral or immoral is simply your opinion.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 26 February 2006 12:40:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
”I am a father. Both my daughters are both in loving relationships “out of wedlock” Shock Horror! Am I going to tell them to get married?.....

Col Rouge – how terribly sad that you are not stepping forward to protect your daughters’ HEARTS, virtue and womanhood. Old-fashioned terms? Maybe, but what was true 1000, 100 or 10 years ago is true now. EVERY woman wants the protection of her father – not “I trust your judgement” but “Honey, I love you so much that I would never want you to lie with your body and I would never want someone to lie to you with their body”.
You don’t need to be heavy-handed but encourage them to aim high.

”Of course, such an issue belies the motives of a church, which realised the “power” of the human sex drive and the benefit of controlling it to ensure that energy was forced (with tyrannical determination) into exultation of the religious system and away from the private enjoyment of a natural human activity.”

After I read this statement of yours Col, I have to ask ‘How is Tinkerbell these days?’ as ‘out there with the fairies’ seems to apply more to your statements than mine.

In short, "beware all those who demand abstinence whilst they deny condoms".

Again, this ‘out there’ statement makes me smile wryly. Condoms fail approximately 1 in 7 times – either due to incorrect user application, spillage, breakage, unstable product, etc. And who is DEMANDING abstinence? Gently and lovingly, we encourage it for the sexual health, reproductive health (in the true meaning of the term) and to protect one’s heart.
Posted by Te, Sunday, 26 February 2006 10:56:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby - funny you think there is no objective morality - if that were true, everything would be allowed anywhere at any time by everyone.
Chesterton once said "Open minds are like open mouths - they should close on something solid".

My comment - if your stand for nothing you will fall for anything.

I'll bet if someone came into your house and either touched one of your private parts or exposed themself to you, you would not be into "no such thing as objective morality" but be quite indignant that they did THIS to YOU. (not shouting, just emphasising)
Posted by Te, Sunday, 26 February 2006 11:02:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, rofl, if somebody came to my house and touched my private parts
or exposed themselves, it would depend on whom it was for my judgement:)

Morality is subjective, its our judgement and our ability to reason and decide.

If you believe in objective morality, name the being who is objective and name some substantiated evidence for the existance of that being.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 26 February 2006 11:20:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brownie, considering the tone of your own posts, I would suggest you confine your ‘threats’ to evaluating your own posts first…

Col, you’re much ‘better’ at ‘slagging’ anyone off than I ever hope to be…proved in following post…Sad…very sad.

Yabby, you’ve no regard for the Bible’s written word, yet quote the written word of others whose existence may never have existed either, a contradiction between your theory and its practice, it seems. If any history is questioned, so all written history is called into question.

2nd post…Yabby, for all but your nom de plume…you are a contradiction in terms.

Interestingly Col, it would be good to hear the statistical evidence on how many ‘de facto’ relationships have provided long-term, happy homes for either the couple or children that may survive to birth? By long-term I do mean long-term, not until-the-break-of-day.

Say, 25 year, 50 year Anniversaries – heck, let’s look for a 75 year Anniversary…

Evidential statistics support Te’s suggestion that Tinkerbell and you have much to discuss at your next tea party with Alice…and of course your two daughters would be free to choose a Catholic partner to marry, of course…with your blessing and support, huh?

I’m on a certain bet they’d leave you off the invitation list if they invited the local priest over for dinner…

How about the statistical evidence on step-children in de facto relationships?

Ouch, perhaps God had something when he indicated that free will has to be exercised with self-discipline, accepting consequences.

Rules can be liberating too Col…when they encourage those less disciplined to show regard and respect for the freedoms and rights of others.

In other words, if you stomp all over unborn babies and blame everyone but yourself for doing it, someone is bound to ask you to face up to what started the ball rolling in the first place.

If you are so in-charge of your sexuality, you should be able to understand how others can behave better than dogs and be more selective also…no need for any props when you understand you own sexuality and your own body.
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 27 February 2006 1:40:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1
Quote "If any history is questioned, so all written history is called into question." Historians Do question ALL history. The process is called scepticism Meg.

Do you believe that the straights of Gibralta were fromed when Hercules pushed the mountains of Spain & Morocco apart? That's in the Greek & Roman myths. How about the stories of Prophetess' of Apollo being able to fortell the future with complete accuracy. Those stories are in ancient Greek history as well.

Sorry Meg but Scepticism is the ONLY way to go with any history. That means we take any text [including the bible] with a pinch of salt until shown to be accurate by evidence outside the text. ie. archaeological evidence or accounts from people who are opposed to the first text's point of view.

Your view on the other hand seems to be either that we should believe all historical texts [quite impossible unless you want to execute your brain] or not subject the bible to the examination undergone by any other ancient text. Not a good idea as this tends to lead to preconcieved conclusions.
Posted by Bosk, Monday, 27 February 2006 8:10:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Col Rouge (post 3:13:05 PM 9/2/06)

RU486 most certainly isn't - as its primary function - a life-sustainer. Doctors are pledged "to save lives". If it can benefit cancer patients then I have no 'problem' with its use in that instance - that's life-saving. But NOT for abortion which is life-taking.

A "seriously pro-choice society" would allow a Police Officer to refuse to enforce the law on a specific crime (which has just been observed) because there is a "conscientious objection" to that law. That has serious implications, & could lead to anarchy. But sometimes we must institute rules for the benefit of the fabric of society which don't receive support from society. They're called "unpopular laws".

Just imagine that I have more money than you, but your mother occupies the hospital bed-space of where my sick son could be treated. I might say: "Well, Col's mum is 65. She's led a decent life. She's 'past her used-by date', switch off her life-preservers so that my 25-year old son can get the treatment he deserves." There's your subjective value system. Meanwhile, objective value says that both lives are important - both should be saved.

Your scenario? Fine for my son! Not too good for your mum though.

All life must/should be highly valued. Hence abortion is a blight on society.
(10/2/06)

Connor (post 3:27:29 PM 9/2/06)

Both men & women need to take joint-responsibility. If one doesn't want the child, abstain. A woman can only fall pregnant on about 3 to 5 days in every month anyway - between the ages of say 13- & 40-years. Additionally, women rarely fall pregnant whilst breast feeding either.

She's infertile for most of her life. Surely both parties could abstain during periods of heightened fertility. It's called "knowing the woman's body" & respecting each other.

No! I'm not Catholic - far from it.
(10/2/06)

jkenno (post 3:40:24 PM 9/2/06)

The word "therapeutic" comes from the Greek word "therapeucin" which means to attend (with the connotation of life-preserving healing). Beyond the contentious treatment for cancer, RU486 is not life-preserving.
(10/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Monday, 27 February 2006 12:05:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

dovif (post 4:05:39 PM 9/2/06)

Good attempt to 'balance' the argument. Guess it's just a matter of whether society values all life or whether it makes arbitrary decisions based on perceptions.

As for me: I'd seek to 'abort' all people who didn't permanently walk like John Cleese. [just joking!]
(10/2/06)

Donnie (post 4:16:26 PM 9/2/06)

Abortion is illegal within many Australian states. It is funded by Medicare so we often choose to ignore its illegality.
(10/2/06)

billie (post 4:51:42 PM 9/2/06)

I live near 6 elderly couples, a truck driver, a university student, 4 "bikies", a solicitor, a doctor & a Police Station.

I have little in common with any of those people except that we are all humans, we try to abide by the laws of NSW & Australia, & we all are probably pretty excited when we wake after a night's sleep.

I believe that Senator McGAURAN probably has similar aspirations. What's your point?
(10/2/06)

Count0 (post 5:10:21 PM 9/2/06)

Point 3: actually at 10-weeks a foetus is pretty well developed, with most of it vital organs in place. Sure, it wouldn't survive outside the womb. But it reacts to stimulae & there is a clear & distinct heart beat.

As to whether or not medical books would or wouldn't concur on life commencing at conception: it may depend upon the viewpoint of the authors. But scientist have, & will continue to be wrong, on issues in the future - just as they were in the past. Thank goodness I didn't listen to my Australian AMA doctor in 1992. Instead I listened to Dr George PIGOTT, a research scientist from Washington University. Ever heard of Omega 3s & 6s. George discovered their relativity to low incidences of "heart disease" in 1984. America's equivalent of Australia's TGA, the FDA, tried to bankrupt him. The FDA's actions meant that George didn't become wealthy from what he discovered. Instead, pharmaceutical companies benefited.

George later went on to be a NASA scientist - a food technologist.
(10/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Monday, 27 February 2006 12:12:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg. None of my comments here (15 Feb, 21 Feb or 22 Feb) contain personal insults to anyone. Not even any of the really dumb commentors who deserve them. get your facts straight before you accuse (me, or anything else). I bet your hubby is screwing his secretary.
Posted by Brownie, Monday, 27 February 2006 4:05:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TE “how terribly sad that you are not stepping forward to protect your daughters’”

You do not know me or my daughters, yet you deem to comment on my relationship with them. How haughty and arrogant of you.

I will refer to your post when someone asked me for an example of “sanctimonious humbug”.

I might tell them of your views – they might laugh, they certainly will not consider your view with any merit.

Meg1 “Col, you’re much ‘better’ at ‘slagging’ anyone….”

Oh back to the your lazy mind syndrome Meg1 (see previous posts about repeating the last thing you heard).

As for “Rules can be liberating too Col…when they encourage those less disciplined to show regard and respect for the freedoms and rights of others.”

I for one will not be following any of the edicts of the Catholic Church – would you determine I am less disciplined for that and should be forced to show “regard for the freedom and rights of others” ( and who are these “others” whose freedom and rights are not being respected?


That might be so but there is no reason for you to inflict your Rules on people who you do not know and do not share your particular “obsession”.

Since you do not know them, how can you tell who is “less disciplined” and who are the “others” you are talking about – oh don’t suggest the embryo /foetus is a “person”, the state of “separation” has not been attained which signifies “individual personhood”.

I am happy to present full argument and debate before anyone you want, if you pay my travel and accommodation costs.

As for people behaving like dogs – oh what a twisted view you have of contemporary society.

I never knew to qualify as “human” (non-bestial), required a mandatory set of Catholic indoctrinated frigid hang-ups about what some of us consider to be a natural expression of affection.

LAB - the point of difference, abortion v murder is the foetus is co-habiting the womans body and is not separate, therefore no "blight".
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 27 February 2006 5:57:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col - did I hit a raw nerve? I have no doubt that you love your daughters and they you, however, it saddens me that you have no problem with letting the guys they are with "have the milk without buying the cow". (NO disrespect to your daughters intended.)
Living with someone is like being on hold on the phone - you never know if they are going to come back to answer the call. A bit like holding hands looking at each other saying, "I really really like you" but then surveying the scenery just in case someone 'better' comes along and again quickly looking back to the person you live with again saying "I really....." etc etc and endlessly on. No stats on the massive breakup rate of de facto/live in relationships but it is huge.
Why would a woman not think she is worth waiting for? and behave in such a fashion as to ensure she is 'not like the rest'.
"True love waits" and the rewards are plentiful. Just the lack of 'baggage' is enough of a reward.
Step up to the plate, Col, and give your daughters guidance and fatherly advice to protect THEIR HEARTS.
Posted by Te, Monday, 27 February 2006 11:28:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby - how can you fall for the nonsense of no objective truth. Even scientists believe in objective truth.
If you say there is no such thing as objective truth - are you speaking the truth? You can't be as you don't believe in such a thing and so shoot yourself in the foot.
"Morality is always terribly complicated for someone without principles" - Peter Kreeft (Philosopher)
Posted by Te, Monday, 27 February 2006 11:38:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The anti-choice brigade have clearly demonstrated that abstinence leads to (dog)matic behaviour.

Maybe if they were getting a little more action in their love lives they would spend less time telling other people how to live.

Well just a thought.

:-P
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 7:30:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“ After reading a book called "The Sex Lives of the Popes", methinks perhaps alot of them didn't have a conscience either :)”
I thought your view was that people should have any type of sex their subjective morality decides and Catholics need to have extra-marital sex. Please clarify.

” Let the church stick to preaching to its flock of believers, who need religion to cope with life, but out of the lives of the rest of us.”
The pressure seems to be for believers to refrain from pointing out the evils of abortion and being true to their beliefs not from stopping non-believers from expressing their views. Many in modern society are victims of a lack of religion to help them cope. It is tough to try to cope without God. Perhaps that explains your unhealthy obsession with the Catholic Church.

” Te, rofl, if somebody came to my house and touched my private parts
or exposed themselves, it would depend on whom it was for my judgement:)”
Fine but would it be okay if it were someone whom you judged shouldn’t be touching? Your joke looks like a smokescreen for a failed assertion.

” I bet your hubby is screwing his secretary. “
That is a disgusting comment. We need a moderator in here.

”As for people behaving like dogs – oh what a twisted view you have of contemporary society.”
Not really some go beyond and some are more civilized but it is the current norm.

”I never knew to qualify as “human” (non-bestial), required a mandatory set of Catholic indoctrinated frigid hang-ups about what some of us consider to be a natural expression of affection.”
What frigid hang up? Catholics legitimately can have as much sex as they want with adults of the opposite sex in a marriage. What is so frigid or restricting or hung up about that?

”Maybe if they were getting a little more action in their love lives they would spend less time telling other people how to live.”

So why would you think that married love life lacks action?
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 8:24:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Craig Blanch (posted 7:08:06 PM 9/2/06)

Well stated!
(10/2/06)

Martin ibn Warriq (post 7:50:49 PM 9/2/06)

Stand in line, son. I proposed first.

Gee, I can just think of all those times when Helen & I wouldn't be "bon**ng". We'd actually be able to talk & communicate, hold hands or go for a walk. I'd even run - chasing her in the hope that she'd say, "The alarm clock has just rung the second chime."

Woohoo! Close the blinds! Oh, I'm not Catholic. Will that matter?
(10/2/06)

kalweb (post 8:40:34 PM 9/2/06)

Maybe I proposed too early? Could I toss a coin? A female who respects herself, respects her husband, & respects the creation? They're rare these days.

Now all I've got to do is change all the nasty bits pertaining to women from within the Qur'an & Ahadith.

My choices on women? Eany, meany, miney moe .... Tough decision being a man!
(10/2/06)

Yabby (post 10:23:31 PM 9/2/06)

Steady! Having a politician who doesn't give a stuff about the sanctity of life is an insult to yours & my intelligence.

Definition of "religion"? "A belief system." Atheists & Humanists are members of a religion too.

Having a person who is a "capital punishment" freak running the Corrective Services ministry is probably a bigger injustice. I just hope that you never are convicted for a capital offence sentencing when you are innocent of the crime.

The foetus didn't do anything wrong! Why punish it?
(10/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 12:48:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Dizem (post 11:21:57 PM 9/2/06)

Sadly, both mother & foetus are the users of the drug when it's administered. RU-486 may help the woman? But it doesn't benefit the foetus.

If we buy a car which we later don't like, then we oughtn't to blame the salesman, the car manufacturer, or the car. We made the choice/purchase. So it is with indulgent sex: it isn't the fault of the created consequence.

Certainly the use of RU-486 or a Medicare funded abortion is preferable to a "backyard abortion". But that's tantamount to the same logic as condoning non-violent burglary. The reality is that theft &/or murder are not a preferred option - in any format.

".. abortion is about the mother .."? Maybe that's our problem in this whole debate? ".. skewed priorities .."? Who said it's about the woman? The aborted foetus certainly didn't!

I agree that society disgracefully mis-spends funds, & tries to justify it. Very little is ever broadcast about the suffering of the disenfranchised. But that is no different to the politicians spending $1-million on furniture etc, rather than say the oncology section of a major hospital. Abortion & mis-spending are both about inappropriate priorities to satisfy ego or comfort - to the detriment of the weaker individual.
(10/2/06)

jkenno (posted 8:27:28 AM 10/2/06)

Again I comment: abortion is still illegal in many states within Australia - check the legislation(s).

Until 1981 it was still illegal to drive across the Sydney Harbour Bridge at greater than 10mph. Vehicles were also required to have a person running in front of the vehicle with "a red flag". [I should know, because I fought a case of injustice involving the Ice Cream Vendors' Association, using Justice TOOMEY QC to litigate against the NSW Government & win the case for the ICVA.] The legislation was only changed subsequently. But, technically, every vehicle which has not previously complied with the outdated legislation had the driver in legal breach. Was anyone ever prosecuted? Certainly not! They still broke the law though.
(25/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 12:58:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Disagreeablelittlebuddy, I beg to differ.

>>Who said it's about the woman? The aborted foetus certainly didn't!<<

If you lined up every aborted foetus in Australia, there wouldn't be a single voice amongst them. They do not have voices, you see, on account of not having a separate existence.

Giving them a "say" in their future is a form of anthropomorphism, providing them with a simulacrum of human characteristics. You are using the pretence that they are capable of feelings separate from their host, to push your control-freak agenda.

I note that you don't suggest we give a "say" to the millions of animals slaughtered every day in order to feed us, even though it is far clearer that they actually do have a separate, definable and measurable existence.

Only in Hollywood ("Look Who's Talking) or in cartoons - forms of virtual reality - will a foetus have a voice. To pretend otherwise is a form of arrogance.

>>Very little is ever broadcast about the suffering of the disenfranchised<<

To be enfranchised, you need to be a clearly definable entity - like a woman, or an aborigine. It is not possible to enfranchise a foetus, except by proxy, on account of the fact that it is a bunch of cells that hasn't any reasoning power of its own.

Ergo, they cannot be disenfranchised either.

Your argument is therefore that you should be enfranchised on their behalf, but you give no justification for this at all, except the fact that they cannot themselves be enfranchised.

The goldfish in my garden pond are not enfranchised either. Should I perhaps insist that I vote on their behalf in the next general election, simply on the basis that otherwise their voices would not be heard?

That would seem to be as logical as your position.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 1:41:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I thought your view was that people should have any type of sex their subjective morality decides and Catholics need to have extra-marital sex. Please clarify."

MJ, clearly you are confused and missed my points. The first being
considering the history of the sex lives of popes, why should I turn to them for divine guidance? Secondly where did I suggest that anyone "needs" to have extra marital sex?

"The pressure seems to be for believers to refrain from pointing out the evils of abortion and being true to their beliefs not from stopping non-believers from expressing their views."

You again miss the point. You want to try to force us, using political means, to live by your moral code, which apparently floated down from the heavens somewhere. We don't try and force you to live by ours. Nobody forces you to have an abortion, swallow an anti baby pill, use a condom, or even bans your religion. Why don't you respect our right to live by our moral code? Why do you want to enforce yours on us through political means?

"Many in modern society are victims of a lack of religion to help them cope. It is tough to try to cope without God. Perhaps that explains your unhealthy obsession with the Catholic Church."

Anyone is free to believe what your church teaches. Perhaps to most, apart from those brainwashed as children, the whole shebang just does not sound very credible. My point against the Catholic Church is simple. Nobody lobbies more around the world in political
terms, to enforce their agenda on millions, then the Vatican.
As a highly political organisation, they are therefore open to criticism of their claims and beliefs, like any other political party. Note I never say a word about Buddhists or even the Hare Krishna, for they don't try to rule my life with any political agenda.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 28 February 2006 9:13:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb “Catholics legitimately can have as much sex as they want with adults of the opposite sex in a marriage”

A lady I had a long relationship with who happened to be catholic was told by her priest if she continued to have a relationship with me he would not allow her to participate in mass. She told him to shove his mass up his fundamental orifice (oh those Maltese certainly know how to swear when they are fired up). She continued to go the church every week, as she had always done but never took mass again.

My point – it is none of the pope or his bishops or priests business what a private individual does within a consensual relationship and denying those individuals participation in their faith is a cruel manipulation and abuse of theological power.

Just as attempting to deny both congregants and non-congegants the choice on the matter of abortion is another malicious, inappropriate and self-righteous attempt at manipulating the secular Australian society to comply with the edicts of Rome.

LittleAgreeableBuddy, “But that's tantamount to the same logic as condoning non-violent burglary”

No it is not.

The twisting of logic is this

“Non-violent burglary” still involves depriving a separate entity of their property and rights.

An abortion does not remove rights from a separate entity. It might remove supposed “rights” from a non-entity, a non-person, at best a co-habitant of someone else’s body and the point is, it is the other occupant of the body who is deciding not to allow the co-habitation to continue.
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 1 March 2006 12:17:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
dovif (posted 9:15:57 AM 10/2/06)

".. I also disagree that the choice is solely a women's ..". Thank you for a partial acknowledgement. But what about the foetus? Oh, he/she can't speak?! Maybe the answer ought to be to instead preserve that life? The foetus can answer when it can speak.

As to Iraq: there will be dire consequences to the world over the decision to invade Iraq. Did none of the world-leaders learn from what occurred in Iran? [I know that it wasn't an invasion there, but a 'revolution'.] Excluding possibly Turkey & Israel, plus maybe Egypt, there is no democracy within the Middle East. The Iraqis will reject democracy longer term. However, let's focus on abortion.
(25/2/06)

akendrick (posted 1:29:26 PM 10/2/06)

A good response! Few if any of the postees have probably ever witnessed an abortion. The sensation is mind-boggling, & unless one is completely callous, could almost never be condoned once seen.
(25/2/06)

the all seeing omnipotent voice of reason (post 10:51:40 PM 21/2/06)

You really had me 100% on your side until your last statement. I'd agree that protesting & upsetting distressed women isn't a preferred option. But neither is killing a 10-week-plus foetus.

I am not Catholic. However, I am aware of several women who have subsequently gone on to thank those who did provide a protest outside the "abortion clinics", & also gave information & counselling assistance which benefited the distressed woman to make another choice.

A close friend of mine's wife - prior to her marriage - adopted-out her daughter. That child now is a teenager & is so thankful that she's alive & has 2 loving families. They aren't Catholic either.
(26/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Wednesday, 1 March 2006 2:46:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

KRS 1 (post 1:44:44 PM 10/2/06)

"Leaving aside your odd comment ..": the former assumption is the correct one - 1973. The memories still haunt me, yet I was 'authorised' by "a government sanction".

I believe in more appropriate "sex education". The confusing & questionable determinant is: "What is appropriate?".

On contraception vs abstinence:
(1) much of what we are told is contraception is actually abortifacient methodology. Confirmation? Examine the meanings of the words & the facts of what so-called 'contraceptives' actually do;
(2) abstinence doesn't harm either party. A husband may be 'forced' to abstain if his wife is unwell, during certain stages of pregnancy, or when separated. I never found that a problem. The passions always were heightened after a few days of non-sexual activity. Moreover, I showed respect to my wife.

Ned Kelly ought never to have been held in high esteem - he was a criminal.

Abortionists? We 'tolerate' them or praise them because they 'satisfy' a woman's needs. Whatsmore, they are very well-paid medical practitioners, getting more wealthy due to an unwanted conception. That doesn't obliterate the fact that those same doctors are killing another life - the foetus - in contravention to their charter. Go through the medical procedures & you'll know what I mean.

These days, in a misguided attempt to increase our population we pay women $3000 per child to give birth. $3000 will do little to help a family. But it is a great incentive to those with low socio-economic credentials - especially single mothers who are welfare recipients. Thus we create another dilemma & a further burden upon society.
(26/2/06)

Te (post 10:56:35 PM & 11:02:19 PM 26/2/06)

Hear, hear!
(27/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Wednesday, 1 March 2006 2:53:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“MJ, clearly you are confused and missed my points. The first being
considering the history of the sex lives of popes, why should I turn to them for divine guidance?"

You seem quite proud that your daughter’s relationships are out of wedlock, are adamant that you would not guide them to do otherwise and seem to sneer at the expression the “safety net of marriage”. You describe Catholic morality negatively labelling it as control of the human sex drive and consider the Church a “retreat for a bunch of power crazed misogynists, perverts and sadists” that God would not condone.

That being so why would you consider that the sexual proclivities of some former Popes would make them evil? If the book was correct they wouldn’t be living up to Catholic standards but you claim to reject those standards considering they control sexual energy and channel it away from natural human activity. Given your view of God and of sex why wouldn’t you turn to them for divine guidance?

Either you understand that Catholic morality is correct and divinely based or you have no grounds to criticise those Popes. Which is it?

“ Secondly where did I suggest that anyone "needs" to have extra marital sex? “

Sorry that was Scout.

”You again miss the point. You want to try to force us, using political means, to live by your moral code, which apparently floated down from the heavens somewhere. We don't try and force you to live by ours. Nobody forces you to have an abortion, swallow an anti baby pill, use a condom, or even bans your religion. Why don't you respect our right to live by our moral code? Why do you want to enforce yours on us through political means?”

I have a right to swing a cricket bat around but not if someone is standing in the way. You are talking about a conflict of interests with killing being the consequence of indulging one side. We have a right to say it is wrong. There is no right to harm others.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 1 March 2006 9:50:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"A lady I had a long relationship with who happened to be catholic was told by her priest if she continued to have a relationship with me he would not allow her to participate in mass. She told him to shove ..."

The faith is a Christian faith and even most atheists would know that this falls outside the ethical standards. Catholics know more than atheists it is rejecting the faith. The Catholic faith is not about sitting in a Church to make an appearance and going through the motions. Masses are much more significant to Catholics.

"My point – it is none of the pope or his bishops or priests business what a private individual does within a consensual relationship and denying those individuals participation in their faith is a cruel manipulation and abuse of theological power."

In trying to rationalise your anti-Catholicism you are making yourself obtuse to the obvious. You must know that ethical guidance is a big role of the Church and all priests. It is their duty to guide the flock. In the book much loved by Christians, the Bible, it provides an anecdote where Jesus was talking to the first Pope (John 21:16). It states "Again, a second time, he said to him, Simon, son of John, have you any love for me? Yes, Lord, he said, you are certain of my love for you. Then take care of my sheep, said Jesus." Not all Catholics spend their spare time studying their religion. They rely upon priests to guide them in these types of matters. If priests don't make it clear to these people what God thinks of different types of relationships and other ethical issues where are they to learn about their faith? The priest loves your friend as God loves you and is trying to save a soul not abuse power.

The priest was not denying participation in the faith. He was making the faith more clear. If he let your friend think that the Church condones participation in the Eucharist in the circumstances he would not be caring for the sheep.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 1 March 2006 10:51:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You seem quite proud that your daughter’s relationships are out of wedlock,"

Umm MJ, I think you must be having a bad hairday lol. The comments
about the sex lives of the popes were mine, but I had absolutaly nothing to do with the production of Col's daughters and I am sure
he will agree with me on that :)

My point about the popes was this. I certainly don't claim to be divinely inspired, but the popes do. If even popes cannot practise what they preach, why should I believe their claims of being in touch with the almighy?

"You are talking about a conflict of interests with killing being the consequence of indulging one side. We have a right to say it is wrong. There is no right to harm others."

You also have a duty to explain yourself, if you want to control the
lives of others. Show me that a human organism, which women can produce about 400 of in their lifetime if they wish, is a thinking, feeling person, with a human brain. My continuing claim has been that every woman should have the right to an abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Convince me that a group of dividing cells are actually a thinking, feeling person and what evidence you have for this. Emotive rhetoric is exactly that, it doesent stack up in a court of law either. What evidence do you have?
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 1 March 2006 10:52:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mjpb “You seem quite proud that your daughter’s relationships are out of wedlock,”

Wrong, I am neither proud nor ashamed. It is their choice to make and mine to accept. It does not effect the manner in which I think of or love them. Although I am happy with the choice of partners each has made and I am proud, as any father would be of the loving and caring daughters which I have brought into the world.

“You describe Catholic morality negatively “

I consider any organisation which dictates unwavering obedience to a set of repressive demands, policed and managed by theological control freaks, as an unhealthy and negative human experience typical of what emanates from any form of “conditional love”.

”ethical guidance is a big role of the Church and all priests.”

Shame that seemed to be overlooked when it came to the systematic cover-up of the activities of paedophile priests.

“Caring for the sheep”
Interesting choice of words.

One would observe, “caring for the sheep” indicates certain presumptions. The first and most obvious, people are not “sheep”. Whilst those that are might well suit the shepherding attitude of priests, the ones that can actually think got themselves are going to be, obviously, up against it.

Such a patriarchal and patronising expressions says more about where and what you use as substitutes for real “values”.

“Either you understand that Catholic morality is correct and divinely based or you have no grounds to criticise those Popes. Which is it?”

I have the common right of any person to criticise what I see as rank hypocrisy particularly in an organisation which protects the vile and its material resources at the expense of the innocent for whom it held a “duty of care”.

I will criticise every and any organisation which deals in duplicity.

Suggesting I have “no grounds” is sanctimonious humbug and something else I will always challenge. Just punch “Roman Catholic Corruption” into google, you will get a 1,790,000 hits

These looked particularly interesting / revealing

http://www.humnet.unipi.it/~pacitti/Archive20036.htm
http://www.rcf.org/
http://www.sepoangol.org/wycliffe-e.htm
http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/background/church.htm

I can find plenty of grounds to criticise!
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 2 March 2006 3:33:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your desire to restrict women's access to safe medical abortions using RU486 is as welcome as the return to proscribing the Roman Catholic Mass.

In the time of Elizabeth 1 english catholics were persecuted for following their religion.

Up until 1971 women were obtaining "backyard" abortions and some died and others were left infertile when the procedure went wrong.

This morning I saw the god botherers outside the Melbourne Fertility Clinic bullying all the women walking along the footpath. Concepts like "invasion of privacy" and "freedom of movement" spring to mind.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 2 March 2006 11:18:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed, Billie. And it seems to me that at least some of vitriol surrounding RU486 was that it would clearly be impossible for people to harrass every woman going into a doctor's or pharmacists'- how would the harrassers be able to tell if they were targetting people they thought of as "evil murderers" or if that person was just getting some paracetamol? A lot easier if they have to run a gauntlet to get to a specialist clinic...
Posted by Laurie, Thursday, 2 March 2006 12:13:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Yabby (post 12:40:21 PM 26/2/06)

Comments to MJ:
I (LAB) wasn't a Christian for most of my life, but I was always opposed to murder & unnecessary killing. When a vehement Atheist I was still opposed to abortion - so my thinking isn't related to my religious beliefs.

As to "power conferred": I'd much prefer Christian-based ethos than the Humanist perspective towards morality & ethics. With Christianity there's consistency - read Commandments #s 5 to 10 (ignoring the godly aspects of 1-4).

Regards the Catholic Church: many of its doctrines & some of its dogma is very sound. That doesn't mean that the Pope is perfect or Catholics are inerrant. Far from it. Scripture says clearly: "All man(kind) hath sinned & falls short of the glory of God (Yahweh)." The Pope too has made mistakes. That's exemplified at the local parish - historically many priest have been appalling examples of their faith. But Humanists, Atheists, Agnostics, Communists etc are no better.

Democracy itself has its own inherent 'problems' - the least of which most certainly isn't its differing views & opinions. Not everyone can be right!

Comment to ALB:
I gather that you meant LAB?! .. Moi!

There most certainly is "objective morality". Our State & Federal laws say that it is illegal to murder. That premise is based upon the Judeo-Christian principle of Exodus 20:13, & were manifest into current law through the unwritten British "Common Law", the Magna Carta, & the Australian Constitution.

A great quote by Merc PEARSE, says (sarcastically): "The only things that are invulnerable are those things that never claimed objective value, such as entertainment & fashion, which are taken with unprecedented seriousness & are at the heart of the infantilisation of the Western culture."

If you don't believe that there are (& should be) absolutes, then give me your address & I'll arrange for Ivan MILAT to pay you & your family a visit. That's relativism (subjective thinking).

As to abortion: it is still murder - no matter how we attempt to "sugar coat" it with 'justifications'.
(26/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Thursday, 2 March 2006 3:06:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Yabby (post 11:20:33 PM 26/2/06)

Your comment: "Morality is subjective .. our ability to reason and decide." That's precisely the 'problem'. Bilal SKAF can't see that what he did was wrong - pack raping two women. His ability to reason gives him very markedly dissimilar moral values to mine.

If morality is objective, then hopefully the decision will be that all rape is immoral. If society condones conditional allowances for rape, then that society hovers near self-destruction.

So should it be for murder. All murder ought to be wrong. But murder is not the same as killing. Murder requires a degree of pre-planning. To kill an invader who seeks to rape &/or kill one's children, wife or loved ones is not murder. That is why a modern-thinking judicial system punishes (if at all) the latter less severely.

Abortion is pre-planned killing - murder (of the foetus).

There are few "objective-thinking" humans, & that's why mankind is in such turmoil. Other beings only act on instinct. Humans portray the same bestiality when they copy animals.
(27/2/06)

Meg1 (post 1:40:38 AM 27/2/06)

Humanists don't respect the Holy Bible - you should know that. How do I specifically know that? I was a Humanist - until my life spiralled out of control & I realised that there were some things over which mankind had little/no control (despite his efforts).

I could have suicided - a common Humanist solution to unresolved/unresolvable failure - but instead God reached out to me with very clear messages.

Unlike my friend Brig-Gen Peter McINNES (Ret.) who was Peter COSGROVE's 2-I/C in Vietnam I took a different course in life. He suicided.

My anti-abortion stance (since Humanism) is now stronger. Murder is murder. Killing is not murder. My first wife suicided - PND. My mum was murdered, & I've killed other humans. That's why I understand the difference(s). Abortion is murder.

Baruch ha-ba ba Shem Adonai.
(27/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Thursday, 2 March 2006 3:13:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LAB, your belief "Murder is murder. Killing is not murder. My first wife suicided - PND. My mum was murdered, & I've killed other humans. That's why I understand the difference(s). Abortion is murder" is your belief and your understanding of the differences. That does not make it an absolute. It makes is your subjective truth. In anycase the Macquarie Dictionary defines murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being by an act done with intention to kill or to inflict grievous bodily harm". So therefore murder is killing if one wants to be pedantic. So call abortion either if that is your belief, but logically to call it murder is absurd, given that murder constitutes an illegal killing. I suspect the humans you have killed where in some line of duty and also 'legal killings', therefore you are not prepared to call them murder. Objective morality? It all depends on what you believe to be true. If objective morality is based on a truth that is a subjective truth then so will be the resultant morality.
Posted by Coraliz, Thursday, 2 March 2006 9:03:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
”Umm MJ, I think you must be having a bad hairday lol.”

I thought that when we agreed I’d be happy. So much for that thought. Why I would jump to the conclusion (without checking the name) that someone badmouthing Catholics was Col is anyone’s guess.

” I consider any organisation which dictates unwavering obedience to a set of repressive demands, policed and managed by theological control freaks, as an unhealthy and negative human experience…”

Me too. I’ll stick to one with loving guidance managed by people who give up all ultimate control to the Almighty and take their position in the hierarchy out of duty and love.

”…paedophile priests…”

I reiterate my above extensive comments on this media sensationalism.

”“… sheep”
Interesting choice of words.”

It crossed my mind you would like it. They are Jesus’ words. Our creator believes that we need guidance.

” the ones that can actually think got themselves are going to be, obviously, up against it.”

A lot of thought is possible within the ambit of accepting legitimate authority.

” I have the common right of any person to criticise … an organisation which protects the vile and its material resources at the expense of the innocent for whom it held a “duty of care”. “

Are you a newspaper reporter?

”I will criticise every and any organisation which deals in duplicity. “
Fine but the good intentions of the Catholic Church clearly take it outside any legitimate description of dealing in duplicity. So why criticise that organization?

” Just punch “Roman Catholic Corruption” into google, you will get a 1,790,000 hits”

No need to teach me that you are not the only one who hates Catholics. I learned that quite thoroughly when Yabby replied to my previous post.

” That doesn't mean that the Pope is perfect or Catholics are inerrant.”

Of course not. If Catholics could be perfect there would be no such thing as confession. My comments respond to Col’s (and others who I thought were him) who goes a little bit more extreme than just saying Catholics aren’t perfect.
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 2 March 2006 10:21:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALB, you are free to use melodramatic language, if that keeps you occupied, that does not mean that its accurate.

A friend of mine talks of murdering flies, another of murdering her sheep for meat. You talk of murdering organisms. In the correct sense the term murder usually applies to people and a group of dividing cells is not a person. But you are free to go and murder some flies if you want to and feel bad about it...

Secondly morality is not objective because you deem it to be so.
What we can show is that morality is grounded in biology, for some very good reasons. But its still subjective. If you have any evidence to prove your grounds for claiming such a thing as objective morality, I would love to hear them.

ALB, reality does not go away, when we close our eyes and wish it would. Do not forget that :)
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 2 March 2006 10:48:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mjpb

“paedophile priests…” media sensationalism”
Like an Iceberg, the truth is often hidden and the RCC have gone to extraordinary lengths to hide it – so what we see is far from “sensationalism” but merely the tip of a deeper corruption which is ingrained and entrenched in the fabric of the offices of the church.

“accepting legitimate authority.”
Now who gave the RCC “authority” – no one! (unless you are claiming something which was drawn up with Queen Isobella of Spain).

“Are you a newspaper reporter?”
Would it help if I were?

“you are not the only one who hates Catholics.”

Oh, I do not hate Catholics. As I said previously, either here or on another thread, I had a relationship with a wonderful lady who was “Catholic” and still regard her with great respect and affection.

But it is a good ploy of yours. Claim I hate Catholics, get the “numbers”, the congregants, behind you. Claim I hate them. I guess you are a priest, hence the appeasement and attempt to sweep the corruption away with words like “media sensationalism”.

Well, I do not hate priests either, I would never trust one but “treating with a healthy scepticism” is entirely different to “hating”

I do feel sad for people who have, literally, “put their faith” in an organisation which is a cesspool of vested interest, political shenanigan and manipulative corruption.

I never claimed anyone was perfect, please do not put words in my mouth. I have claimed only that the Roman Catholic Church has no authority over those people who have greater sense than to follow its demands. The RCC has no authority to interfere in their lives and no authority to intercede in choices on abortion.

So “butt out brother” (– oh that would be a good Tshirt or badge logo for pro-choice”)

Catholics can practice “pro-life” but when the come to preach it to the rest of us, expect to get a response from those of us who reserve our right of reply, instead of following the Catholic herd, like dumb sheep.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 3 March 2006 5:49:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"“paedophile priests…” media sensationalism”
Like an Iceberg, the truth is often hidden ..."

Like most media sensationalism the truth is often hidden or distorted. As the saying goes 'why let the facts get in the way of a good story'.

"“accepting legitimate authority.”
Now who gave the RCC “authority” – … Queen Isobella of Spain)."

I believe it was someone higher.

"“… newspaper reporter?”
Would it help if I were?"

Most people (hopefully) don't put faith in media stories. I was just wondering if you are part of the media.

“Oh, I do not hate Catholics..."

Ok I think you hate those Catholics who don't think it is okay to tell priests to get nicked when they promote the Catholic faith (assumedly most). Other "Catholics" are fine with you.

"But it is a good ploy of yours. Claim I hate Catholics, get the “numbers”, the congregants, behind you. Claim I hate them. I guess you are a priest..."

No I am no priest. It is just clear that you hate the Catholics described above and you have some facts wrong due to accepting media sensationalism.

"Well, I do not hate priests either, I would never trust one but “treating with a healthy scepticism” is entirely different to “hating”"

"healthy scepticism"! Your descriptions such as “theological control freaks” and “power crazed misogynists, perverts and sadists” for people who dedicate lives to other people and their faith seems to suggest otherwise.

"I do feel sad for people who have, literally, “put their faith” in an organisation which is a cesspool of vested interest, political shenanigan and manipulative corruption."

I am sure all the above happen everywhere there are people. But it is hardly defining of this religious organisation.

“I never claimed anyone was perfect, please do not put words in my mouth….”

Quite the contrary as you put words in mine. My understatement was that you are a“little bit more extreme than just saying Catholics aren’t perfect”.

“… instead of following the Catholic herd, like dumb sheep.”

To an omnipotent being it would seem dumb to think you could make better judgements.
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 3 March 2006 9:36:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, well, well, hallo again to you dear all,

If you wamt to search for the Truth, then you'll have to step into The Light (The Lord Jesus Christ said:"I Am the Light of the world") because it will be no point to explain to people that are still crawling in the darkness (in darkness because of sin that has not been redeemed by the sacrifice of The Lord Jesus Christ on the cross yet,)the proper wisdom about life in the Truth of Christ. In other word you like blind man searching for things in the dark, either red or orange roses will appear to you as black roses. If God so easily frustation because of our lack of wisdom / stupidity, or if God loves to kill people, He might has aborted you and me before we taste one day of our life on this earth ! But no, God loves us (John 3:16 says so:"FOR GOD SO LOVED THE WORLD THAT HE GAVE HIS ONLY BEGOTTEN SON, SO THAT ..." You can see here that loving and giving are always joint together, you can not loving without giving. For instance everybody always like second chances in life; so why can't we be fair to every body include the unborn baby, to give them another chance to breath the same Oxygen you and me can't live without? It will be better if we all pray for the miserable woman who keen to shut down a life in their womb and for all the unborn baby that by some people only be considered as a bunch of cells; for even in these cells there are LIFE LIFE LIFE do you understand there are LIFE, and not just a bunch of plastic cells.

So Be Prudent and fill your heart and mind with Godly wisdom (not with devilish wisdom, for the devil is very stupid because he rebellious against God). Listen to what the book of Proverbs says:" Fear of The Lord Jesus Christ is the beginning of all knowledge". Do not try to argue with the Wisdom of God.
Posted by Lady, Friday, 3 March 2006 1:21:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb “'why let the facts get in the way of a good story'.

Ah an old proverb just like

“no smoke without fire”


“I believe it was someone higher.”

Ha! like it – well the same source gave me freewill and authority to ignore all the dogma and dictates your “authority” claims and the “inquisition” of the past is not around to enforce it – although the office still exists of course (strange that, waiting for the revival?).

Re your collected claims to “HATE”

Life is too short to hate anyone but it is far too long to allow any person or organisation, religious or otherwise, to get away with usurping an inappropriate authority or an authority gained by illicit means, as in that claimed by Pro-Life and the RCC.

“But it is hardly defining of this religious organisation.” I suggest you prove to the contrary or do you think you can just use throw away lines like that to defend the indefensible?

“To an omnipotent being it would seem dumb to think you could make better judgements.”

Fabulous statement. Proves all that I have claimed

A claim that the RCC is “omnipotent”.

We are talking, after all, about the RCC and not God.

You are claiming omnipotence for the RCC and not for almighty God.

The RCC can claim what it likes for itself and as we have here, what it claims can easily be cut to pieces.

Lets start with - the RCC does not have a monopoly of belief

It might like to think it has but its monopoly is as certainly twisted and deluded as that which Muslim terrorists have.

The RCC is not a universal organisation, despite its historic participation in genocide and the murder of those who did not kowtow to its edicts.

God does not need the RCC to be the interlocutor with his people.
Most congregants are conned by the priest-class who see their vested interest as best served by maintaining a religious authority over the “sheep”.
Despotism, even when benign, is still “despotic”.

Word count kicks in, enough for now.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 3 March 2006 3:02:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a person living in Australia, I have free choice on many matters. I can choose not to be a Catholic and not be bound by the dictates of the Catholic Church, as propounded by the Pope and his agents. I appreciate this very much. Similarly, I'm sure that Catholics in Australia are very grateful that they are not forced to go against the tenets of their faith and comply with the dictates of a religion not of their choice.

I believe in freedom of choice in just about any respect which does not unreasonably affect the freedom of others. Some will say that if something [or even just the thought of something] "offends" them, then they are unreasonably affected. This is nonsense, none of us can go through life without being offended. What offends me may be irrelevant to you and vice versa. That's human nature and something most of learn to accept.

I believe that the "possibility" of human life starts with conception and that is all. As Yabby has repeatedly pointed out, a woman can have about 400 "possibilities" in her lifetime, but only a relative handful can reasonably be expected to come to maturity. I accept that different species have widely variable numbers of "possibilities", according to the chances of a sufficient proportion maturing in order to support the continuation of that particular species.

Anyone who thinks differently has a right to feel that way, but has no right to try and browbeat me into submission. And quoting religious sources in order to convince me is futile.

There are a number of posters on this kind of topic who I find logical and reasonable. Those who post from a position of anti choice, particularly when they become abusive and insulting, I find anything but logical and reasonable.

I would not want any woman to be forced to be "counselled" by an anti choice person, because I don't believe that the advice would be impartial. In fact it could have the deliberate effect of creating psychological trauma for the woman supposedly being helped.
Posted by Rex, Friday, 3 March 2006 5:19:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“no smoke without fire”

As I explained above it isn’t smoke - just hot air.

”“I believe it was someone higher.”

Ha! like it – well the same source gave me freewill and authority to ignore all the dogma …”

Ignore? You seem to have an all consuming obsession with it.

”Re your collected claims to “HATE””

The comments seemed to indicate you regard Catholics with extreme dislike and hostility. If you don’t hate Catholics then I better check the posts and make sure that you were the one who made the comments.

”“But it is hardly defining of this religious organisation.” I suggest you prove to the contrary or do you think you can just use throw away lines like that to defend the indefensible?”

Okay then. In a nutshell we have God (the ultimate good) telling people to spread the good news and care for the sheep. People who take up the challenge as a group are hardly likely to be a “cesspool of vested interest, political shenanigan and manipulative corruption” However humans are involved so there will be exceptions.

A public benefit oriented self sacrificing vocation naturally attracts many good people. One example that cropped up above was the lack of sexual misconduct in the Catholic priesthood compared to a more ‘normal’ but still quite respected group namely medical practitioners.

Look at all the historical greatness of the priesthood and nuns spanning the last two thousand years remembered even in the secular community as far back as the third century (Bishop St Nicholas) or as recently as the twentieth century (nun Mother Theresa). Look at the Catholic lay people with countless groups who emulate priests by serving people, groups including Rosies who feed street kids, and St Vincent de Paul who help the poor.

”A claim that the RCC is “omnipotent”.”

The Church is not a person. I was talking about God.

””God does not need the RCC to be the interlocutor with his people”

Then why did he tell the first Pope to care for them
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 3 March 2006 10:36:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk, that’s my point…re-read the posts. Don’t expect me to accept articles quoted as ‘gospel’ unless you accept all historical records as such, which I would EXPECT you (and the others) wouldn’t do.

‘Meg. None of my comments here…contain personal insults to anyone. Not even any of the really dumb commentors who deserve them. get your facts straight... I bet your hubby is screwing his secretary. ‘
’Posted Brownie, Monday, 27 February 2006 4:05:19 PM’

Again Brownie, check your own posts before threatening others with being struck off as your puerile comments should be.

‘who are these “others” whose freedom and rights are not being respected?’ Yes, Col the living, unborn human babies…

Pay your accommodation and fares…you haven’t added any rational thought to this debate, why would I pay you to present it elsewhere? Talk about haughty and arrogant…you’re a classic, Col. There is nothing natural or affectionate about behaving as if sexuality is governed by instinct (like a dog) rather than an expression of love for your life-partner. Frigid? That’s more likely to result from far too many one night stands…rather than marriage, check the stats.

Littleagreeablebuddy 28-02-06 is correct, careful Pericles or Yabby will get upset if the chimps don’t get a say…

Yabby, your outrageous generalizations re: Catholics and political agendas are clearly paranoid…check other groups, religious and others who lobby – try Family First who have a rep in Federal parliament.

‘reality does not go away, when we close our eyes and wish it would’ – neither does abortion…Yabby

Col, your ‘friend’ went to Mass and didn’t receive communion (correct terminology) - rules apply in sports clubs too...do you abide by road rules?

On the Col likes/hates Catholics survey 1 out of billions doesn’t calculate well as tolerant.

Mjpb and Te – well said!

‘Up until 1971 women were obtaining "backyard" abortions and some died and others were left infertile when the procedure went wrong.’ Billie, nothing much has changed now – abortion will always produce cases like this, check the stats – and RU486 will put it back out of sight out of mind…
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 4 March 2006 3:47:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, nobody around the world lobbies against women having rights to
family planning, like the Vatican does. As a good little church going Catholic, you clearly don't have a clue what the Vatican gets
up to. Some people do monitor what they get up to. Here is one of
them :http://www.population-security.org/index_of_issues.htm

It comes back to the same old thing. The Vatican is cornered with its infallability of the pope story. So they plod on relentlessly and a small amount of Catholics (20%) take them seriously, the rest
don't. Even half of Catholic priests don't agree with the Vatican on this one.

Next the sustainability issue. Telling people to breed like rabbits,
which websites for the pro life movement are doing, is totally irresponsible in today's world. If 6.5 billion can't live sustainably, 10 billion or 15 billion will make it tragic.
Thats the problem with religious dogma, its limits people in taking a more balanced and informed view.

You still havent provided us with any evidence that a 12 week old fetus is a person with a developed brain, so its not a baby or a child. Its a lump of dividing cells. You have also provided no good reason, other then religious dogma, for suggesting why aborting an organism is a problem.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 4 March 2006 6:32:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mjpb Re your puerile attempt to vilify and claim “hate” is my motive.

What seems to evade your grasp is this

“Catholics” (as congregants) are individual people

“Catholic Priesthood” are another category of individual people

“The Catholic Church” is an organization managed and maintained by the “Catholic Priesthood”.

(Just as people own shares in a company but that company is a separate “entity” to them)

Similarly, a “catholic” is an individual and a separate entity to the “Catholic Church”

So, show me where I have ever suggested I dislike “Catholics” (let alone “hate”) because they are “Catholics”.

I have the capacity, which you appear to lack, to distinguish between a member of a group and the group itself (mind you ‘socialist’ consistently tend to display a similar deficiency, seeking, essentially, “co-dependence” in their relationships).

Hence, you seek interference from the Church, just as socialists seek interference from the state, instead of recognizing the worth, value and uniqueness of yourself. You avoid taking responsibility for yourself as an individual. You have subjugated your spirit to the will of the Pope and thus, you avoid ever achieving your full potential.

That is Sad.

But it explains why the Catholic Church has sustained itself as a tyranny.
Why you would seek to criticize my dissent and manipulate what I say because you cannot deal with reality.
You demand we all subjugate our individual selves to the single will of the Pope.
You demand we all enter a relationship of co-dependency with the Church.

Almost all religious organizations do a similar thing, it is how they get their “power”.

Recognizing the dangers of “co-dependency” is not “hateful”.

It is threatening to those who have a “co-dependent” disposition, because it undermines their deluded faith in a “comfort zone”.

God made people as individuals.
Respect that individuality or you will loose the best that we all can bring to life.
Every human advance and development was achieved by an “individual”.

Co-dependency demands repression of individuality and the spirit which produces individual growth and fulfillment.

RCC demands what I hate, "co-dependency and suppression of the individual"!
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 4 March 2006 9:32:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“ puerile attempt to vilify and claim “hate” is my motive.”

I am not being silly or vicious. It is unusual to find such comments directed toward someone that you don’t hate.

What seems to evade your grasp is this … So, show me where I have ever suggested I dislike “Catholics” (let alone “hate”) because they are “Catholics”.

“… following the Catholic herd, like dumb sheep” “Catholic indoctrinated frigid hang-ups” These demeaning comments are at the least disrespectful.

“As for your suggestion “You need to get out more and meet some of us” – why would I wish to meet and mix with those who would rant on with their demented gibberish, condemn me for my views, excommunicate me or in years past burn me as a heretic?”
This sounds rather hostile.

Re: member of organization vs organization

Sure an organization is a separate entity at law but it isn’t a biological person. It is made up of the people. The Catholic Church is a collection of priests and lay people. It is not a bunch of shareholders making money. It is a group of people with a faith.

“…Hence, you seek interference from the Church …”

I accept the role of the Church because I believe that is God’s will. I don’t devalue myself or feel less of a person than someone who wants to play God themselves.


”… Why you would seek to criticize my dissent and manipulate what I say because you cannot deal with reality. “

Re: manipulate. See above.
Re: criticize. I am criticising your comments because you make vile inaccurate comments about a group trying to follow God. Further the emphasis is on a subgroup of people who dedicate their lives to helping their fellow humans who don’t deserve vicious inaccurate rumours being propagated against them. I consider that to be unfair at the least and I become concerned when someone undermines Christian work by slandering the workers.

”Every human advance and development was achieved by an “individual”.”
working in a co-dependent relationship with family and society.
Posted by mjpb, Saturday, 4 March 2006 12:09:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1 my grasp of the dangers or abortion vs pregnancy for maternal health are sound. You can't always find what you want on Google and its quite easy to force your articles to the front of the Google search engine.

Why, pray tell, do you quote US statistics to the Australian situation?

Most inhabitants in the United States have access to a vastly inferior and more expensive health system than any Australian. Thus the health outcomes for United States women are more third world than first world because such a high proportion have no health insurance thus very limited access to medical attention.
Posted by billie, Saturday, 4 March 2006 12:55:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘Meg, nobody around the world lobbies against women having rights to
family planning, like the Vatican does.’ Yabby, the Catholic Church teaches Natural Family Planning (giving equal responsibility to both partners)…they were the first to do so and continue to provide the latest and safest methods available…you should refrain from voicing your ignorance.

You refuse to investigate any proof offered and your assertions re: ‘breeding like rabbits’ only confirms your crass ignorance and unwillingness to face reality. The Churches support poorer nations too, children and adults…do you suggest they abandon these people and support your evolving relatives instead?

RE: sustainability, if there was more equity and less corruption (including in the environmental movement) there would be NO starvation, land degradation, poverty, lack of water and problems for sustaining all life would be overcome. However, while political parties and the environmental movement are so dependent on transnational corporate monies, inequities and controls on individuals will remain and result in the crass inequities and cruelties that also see abortion as a lucrative money-maker by corporations and supported by their ill-informed lackeys.

Col, there’s a 350 word limit, so it’s impossible to include all your examples of hatred towards Catholics.

Would you welcome the marriage of one of your daughters to a practicing Catholic and her conversion? So much for choice or tolerance and still no response.

As for your verbal diatribe on co-dependency, you’ve again contradicted your own argument.

Whether you like it or not, you’re co-dependent on this planet…even Yabby would agree with that. If you mess up others suffer too, if you put your hand up to help another human being in difficulty, there is a ripple effect too. The fact that you are breathing air that the tree beside you will photosynthesize for your use again, means you are a co-dependent.

Your lack of positive contribution to these threads and your arrogant and pitiful attempts attacking writers instead of arguments, confirms your sorry lack of ability or factual content.

Billie – Australian stats, not US…1 abortion from 4 pregnancies – fact!

RU486 - NO Aust stats – unavailable here…
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 5 March 2006 12:45:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg you might be a good little Catholic, but half the time you are unsure what your own church teaches lol. This is what the whole shebang is about:

"In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae
(Latin, "Human Life"), which reemphasized the Church's constant teaching that it
is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings
from coming into existence.

Contraception is "any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act
[sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its
natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render
procreation impossible" (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms
and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method),
the Pill, and all other such methods"

So forget all the other noise and excuses that you try to make,
thats the problem.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 5 March 2006 3:24:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mjpb “These demeaning comments are at the least disrespectful”

“Disrespectful” is a subjective assertion which is nothing like “hate”.

I would observe, the opposite of disrespect is “respect”.

“Respect” is something which needs to be earned and should not be assumed as a “right”.

re RCC “I believe that is God’s will.”

Your “Subjective opinion” is not fact.

I believe people are better off for finding God through the pursuit of their lives, without holding fealty to a corrupt organisation.

That is my “subjective opinion” and it holds equal authority with the subjective opinions of each and every Roman Catholic.

“vile inaccurate comments” Oh no – are you denying the abuse of children by paedophile priests?

Are you denying the systematic abasement of children in some Catholic Schools?

I can find too many sexual and social abuse, perpetrated in the name of Catholicism and hidden from public criticism by the catholic hierarchy (and parallel cover-ups by other religious orders too, recalling one Australian GG required to resign)
I am happy to post them again if needed!

Whilst the comments might have been “vile”, it was because they referred to the vilest of acts by priests (who would claim to hypocritically hold the moral high-ground in society) but they were still “accurate”.

So will you please identify where a comment of mine was “inaccurate”

“working in a co-dependent relationship with family and society.”

That is complete bunkum.

“Working” usually with a focus which had a detrimental impact on family relationships and most often for a “goal” which “society” was completely oblivious to.

As for “co-dependency”, which you appear to believe is beneficial,

“Codependency is a progressive disease brought about by child abuse,”

source www.habitsmart.com/cdpnt.htm

that explains how the RCC keeps its flock. Corrupt them into dependency with a diseased set of relationship values.

type co-dependency into google.

The entries are all from different professional mental health organisations

After your last post Meg1 – you need to go read article you can find and then seek serious help.

I have described the disease and you are certainly displaying its symptoms.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 5 March 2006 9:31:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Bosk (post 8:10:24 AM 27/2/06)

Scepticism of history is an interesting approach. I was a sceptic most of my life - still am on many issues. But a sceptic of accurately documented history? Certainly not all history.

Science itself is very fallible. It also comes in two forms - process or operational science & historical or origins science. Very interesting what one discovers when one does a study of a science such as Carbon Dating. The depleting levels of C14 within deceased former-living organisms gives most life-forms an age of about 10,000-years maximum. In theory, there ought not to be any C14 present beyond about 50,000-years. That makes the whole hypothesis of Evolution very questionable.

So, there's another science, Darwinism, which ought to be challenged - just as results in Medical Science which prove to be controvercial &/or counter-productive ought to be. Research Scientists & Medical Practitioners are no-less necessarily corrupt than any other members of society. They have their biasses, prejudices & pride - not to mention any financial inducements.

The Holy Bible is the most questioned & challenged text in history. The trouble is: the more one tries to disprove its inerrancy the more one comes unstuck. That's of course if one doesn't investigate with a preconceived expectation which is immoveable. I was an Atheist & Humanist. My former-beliefs changed when they were ultimately found wanting.

But a discussion on history isn't what this post is all about. Abortion is the topic. I opposed abortion before my Christianity. It is murder of an early developed & developing human. It is sad that abortion has its advocates.
(27/2/06)

Brownie (post (1) 11:12:27 PM 15/2 (2) 5:57:15 AM 22/2 (3) 4:05:19 PM 27/2/06)

15/2/06:
Catholicism has much to answer for from its activities during the Middle Ages - & since. But that doesn't mean that all Catholics are demons & that many facets of Roman Catholicism aren't desirable.

I am not Catholic.

22/2/06:
Women & abortions: some women whom I know have had up to 7. ...

....(t.b.c)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Sunday, 5 March 2006 9:55:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Brownie (cont)

... Whether (psychologically) sought or not might be questionable. Promiscuity & self-indulgence - at the taxpayers' expense - might be one legitimate observation. Irresponsible? An understatement.

Regards Catholic energies into re-education: Catholicism is one of the few organisations, outside the Family Planning Association, to be doing so. The R/Cs are ultra-conservative in their teaching - & that isn't always bad. You might refer to Family Life International (Aust).

I agree that men need to be much more responsible. Marriage also ought to be a life-long contract - not a partial commitment with built-in obsolescence.

Shane WARNE is a selfish, self-indulgent, uncaring dimwit. Tragically, he is also very good at cricket - from which he is conjecturally over-paid. He is undoubtedly a poor role-model to his children & to society generally. Quite likely he will have dysfunctional children. Catholic? Not to my knowledge. He's not even Christian if my sources are correct.

27/2/06:
Your comment: "I bet your hubby is screwing his secretary."
A pretty disgusting insinuation & very uncalled for. I hope that you apologise to Meg 1.
(27/2/06)

Col Rouge (post 5:57:41 PM 27/2/06)

Comments from/to Te:
I personally don't mind if someone makes comment to me about the way I rear my children. I figure that I don't know everything, & if someone is more skilled than I & has commentary then that's fine. I can simply accept, reject &/or ignore the comments. But it is wise to listen.

It probably is a compliment that Te cares enough about other people to bother making suggestion. I would certainly hope that my 20-year old daughter's boyfriend respects & thinks sufficiently of her to ask me if he could marry her. Old fashioned? Maybe. Respectful? Most certainly - to my daughter & her/our family values. It probably indicates a commitment & a sense of responsibility on the boy's part too.

Comments to Meg1/about Catholicism:
I am a critic of Catholicism when it is due. ...

...(t.b.c.)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Sunday, 5 March 2006 10:08:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
RE: Yabby, you have mentioned only the forms of contraception that involve money-making by your corporate mates.

The same mates that are responsible for much of the world's poverty and inequity while they pay themselves tens of millions and more annually...there's your problem. Solve the problems of inequity and you'll solve your chimp-eating problem.

NATURAL family planning is just that, NATURAL and cost-free. In fact it is liberating for both the woman and man as they both share responsibility and are then aware of 'safe' days or days more likely to result in conception. It is a benefit to any marriage and will solve your dilemma of women carrying all the responsibility with present artificial contraceptives.

For any true environmentalist, surely a proven NATURAL method would be preferable to the costly artifical methods you espouse?

Col, your verbal diatribe again resists any urge to provide useful or factual dialogue, so I will allow you to wallow in your own pit of hostility and hope someone can draw you back into the real world one day to offer positive commentary and factual content. :)

Littleagreeablebuddy raises a statement by Brownie (and some other relevant points on this thread). Suffice to say that while Brownie's spurious comment indicates he/she may lack the capacity/desire for factual content, I am, in fact, my husband's secretary :), so I would ask him/her to stop peeping through our bedroom window and get his kicks elsewhere. :(
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 5 March 2006 10:53:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Meg1 - to choose to abstain from enjoying the marriage act is perfectly legitimate - one chooses it when someone is ill, not 'in the mood' and occasionally if it is ovulation time.

Col - you sound like a rather angry bitter man - I feel sad for you that phrasing your opinion respectfully just doesn't appear to be within your grasp.

Funnily enough, most pro-aborts scream from the rooftops that "Abortion isn't a men's issues" when the "men" are pro-life. But the silence is deafening when the 'man' is pro-abort.

Each does have a right to their own opinion - however that opinion needs to be formed on fact and intelligent consideration and the more I read on this forum, the less it appears to be based on this.

It now appears to be "Kick the Catholics" instead of 'Semantics of Abortion' - get back on track.

WHERE ARE THE MODERATORS ON THIS FORUM?
Posted by Te, Sunday, 5 March 2006 4:16:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh Lordy, Meg1 promotes natural family planning. The rhythm method.

How many women on this forum have 28 day cycles and bleed for 4 days? A friend of mine had a period about every 10 months, we were all jealous. What about the anaemic sucker on a 14 day cycle with 9 days bleeding.

How many women out there have a regular cycle?

Yeah so what happens if your body decides to flip from 28 days to 35 days cycles and you get pregnant. Raise the tyke?

Poor Meg1 has never experienced the full throws of passion when your brain goes into reverse and you commit acts of total folly, lustfully and joyfully.
Posted by billie, Sunday, 5 March 2006 5:52:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, early withdrawel and sterilisation have nothing to do with evil corporations lol, just crazy popes. Do you have any idea of what happens to women in much of the third world, after they have been bought in marriage, like chattel? Do you think they have a choice as to when they have sex with their husbands? You are dreaming.

Next they have 7-8 kids, can't afford to feed them all, there is mass malnutrition, they are enslaved to their situations with no escape or rights, its a lose lose cycle of vicious poverty and environmental degradation, in those areas where world population is increasing my 80 million a year.

The UN tried to solve it in Cairo, the Vatican fought them all the way and still does, at every level. The WHO could make a huge difference for these women, but your pro lifers deny all this, instead promoting women to breed like rabbits. Your church should be ashamed of itself.

Your church is also in denial about natural law, which biologists clearly understand. Any species that overstresses its resources to the point of unsustainability, will eventually crash with a thud.
Thats exactly what adding 80 million a year is doing to the planet.
Go and have a look at what is happening in the third world Meg.
Its not like cushy Australia you know.

Every woman on this planet should have access to various family planning methods, including abortion in the first tremester.
You can't name one single reason based on reason, why that should not be so, just flawed religious dogma.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 5 March 2006 7:58:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Mjpb “These demeaning comments are at the least disrespectful”

“Disrespectful” is a subjective assertion which is nothing like “hate”.”

That is a nice way to side step being disrespectful. Both display a negative attitude.

“As for your suggestion “You need to get out more and meet some of us” – why would I wish to meet and mix with those who would rant on with their demented gibberish, condemn me for my views, excommunicate me or in years past burn me as a heretic?”

This sounds rather hostile.

And as I explained Catholics are part of the body of the organization that you hate.

”I would observe, the opposite of disrespect is “respect”.

“Respect” is something which needs to be earned and should not be assumed as a “right”."

According to your value system.

"“vile inaccurate comments” Oh no – are you denying the abuse of children by paedophile priests?"

No I am denying that your average priest deserves to get slandered with that garbage because other people who just happen to share his occupation did the wrong thing. This is particularly unfair in circumstances where such people are underrepresented in his occupation and they devote their lives to help people.

I am denying the relevance to paedophile priests of those media reports of child abuse which really are more related to the high age of homosexual consent.

I am denying that it is fair to smear such a horrific label on such good self sacrificing people simply because you hate Catholics. There are other occupations where paedophiles are naturally underrepresented like police. Constable Dave in Brisbane was well publicised in the media on his way to his majesty’s pleasure as was the guy who committed suicide last year after being investigated but you don’t call police “paedophile police”. You single out Catholic priests to misrepresent because you hate Catholics.

”Are you denying the systematic abasement of children in some Catholic Schools?”

No there are and have been a lot of Catholic schools. I am sure that this has happened in both some Catholic Schools and some non-religious schools.
Posted by mjpb, Sunday, 5 March 2006 8:02:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why Nations Die

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GH16Aa02.html

Yet more proof that the left is determined to un-breed itself from the face of the earth:

http://forum.atimes.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=6041

Vermont Losing Prized Resource as Young Depart
By PAM BELLUCK
Published: March 4, 2006

POULTNEY, Vt. — Not long ago, Ray Pentkowski, the principal of Poultney Elementary School, published an unusual request in the school newsletter. Please, he urged parents, have more babies. The school desperately needs them.

He was half joking, but the problem is real. His school, down to 208 children, has lost a third of its student population since 1999 and must cut staff levels, he said, "for the first time in my memory..."

Vermont, with a population of about 620,000, now has the lowest birth rate among states. Three-quarters of its public schools have lost children since 2000...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/04/national/04vermont.html

Graphic: An Aging State

http://forum.atimes.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=5845

"Childnessless allows some to accummulate wealth, which means a more commodious lifestyle. Availing themselves of chalets in the Mountains of Vermont and places at Martha's Vineyard!

Those of us who choose a more familial lifestyle, are eventually broke! After putting three kids through Catholic school and through college, we parents don't have much left, and few teeth that we can claim! But we're happy!"
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 5 March 2006 8:32:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear dear Billie,

You are soooo behind the times. Instead of throwing in the old and tired 'rhythm method', please update yourself.

Natural Family Planning is a much more thorough understanding and working with the natural fertility in women. NaPro Technology using the Creighton Method is far more advanced - it has nothing to do with the length of the cycle but much more to do with the naturally occuring mucous combined with temperature etc etc. Please educate yourself.
http://www.fertilitycare.org/nptech.html
www.naprotechnology.com.
and numerous other sites may help into the year 2006. Cheers :-))
Posted by Te, Sunday, 5 March 2006 11:22:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Te...

Billie, research your data before putting both feet in up to the knees.

NFP, (NOT the rhythm method), encompasses naturally avoiding or achieving pregnancy, is used by Catholics and non-Catholics around the world, successfully taught and used by lay people and medicos and acknowledged for its success.

You purport to support ‘choice’ but ONLY, for YOUR CHOICES…rather hypocritical aren’t you?

Natural Family Planning works as successfully for achieving and avoiding pregnancy with either regular or irregular cycles.

Your selfish assumption appears to be that baby means mistake – as pitiful as it’s predictable.

‘…never experienced the full throws of passion when your brain goes into reverse and you commit acts of total folly, lustfully and joyfully’

In the throes of passion, I’m more careful where I ‘throws’ my passion and I’m thankful my brain doesn’t go into reverse…I prefer to avoid the SITUATIONS where acts of ‘total folly’ might be committed as I don’t need such shallow relationships. A loving relationship with the person you want to spend the rest of your life with, offers real joy, as does sharing our lives with our children and family.

Yabby, the WHO have found that artificial birth control in third world countries has failed. Where Natural Family Planning is taught, it’s been far more successful. If people can’t afford food, they also can’t afford condoms and pills, etc. How’s that for reason?

As for third world conditions, Yabby, I’ve involved myself with third world projects since my youth…as have many Catholics and other Christians. This time before Easter is especially fitting to seek out and support the many worthwhile projects which make a difference in these places. However, you don’t need to go too far to see real need around you – Australia isn’t ‘cushy’ for everyone.

Solve the problems of financial inequity, largely brought about by transnational corporate greed and manipulation and you'll solve much that concerns you, including your chimp-eating problem.

Live simply that others may simply live…reasonable?

G K Chesterton said…Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it had been found difficult and not tried.
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 6 March 2006 1:36:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te I am neither bitter nor angry.
I do stand up for what I believe and I do not kowtow to the sensitivities of anyone, life is too short to waste time on such matters.
That me stating that “organised religions are cesspools of manipulative corruption” is to state the obvious.
I am happy to paste any number of appropriate links to support my view. There is nothing “bitter or angry” in that.
Exercising my sovereign right of expression and personal choice is not bitterness or anger either.

Maybe you can tell me where I have made abortion a “gender” based debate (beyond the obvious fact that only women can have an abortion), when you can, your statement about anti-abortion males, which you seem to be directing at me, will mean something, until then you are well off the mark.

As for whining for the moderators, The OLO staff patrols these threads with rigorous eyes. I am sure if “moderation” was justified or warranted, they would have emailed the “immoderate”.

Until they email me, I am assuming the level of debate is within the acceptable guidelines for posters.

That you feel you are too “precious” to deal with the level of “thrust and parry” here is too bad, the “real world” will never pander to your sensitivities, get used to it.

mjpb
“Both display a negative attitude”
“This sounds rather hostile.”
“According to your value system.”

How “judgemental” of you,

Paedophile priest are one thing, I commented not only on their actions but the systematic “coverup” which has taken place. Any institution can acquire a “bad apple” most do their utmost to root out the diseased and corrupt and cast it out from the rest. The hierarchy of the priesthood of many denominations showed a complete absence of morals and values and a capacity for the most debasing of corruption by covering up and hiding their shameful brethren, instead of facing the rot, excising it and being honest, like I was always taught to be a “man” we had to do.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 6 March 2006 7:06:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, you still don't get it lol. You clearly cannot empathise with women in the third world, who are treated like chattels, who would love more access to family planning, but its not available, partly due to your fanatical church. Modern family planning works very well in the 1st world. It would work well in the third world too, if women were empowered with choices.

Your solutions are delusory too, more an excuse for a crazy pope
who claimed couples should not have sex, unless there was a possibility of it leading to pregnancy. Read your Humanea Vitae!

Even Bob Geldorf learnt the hard way. Sending more boatloads of food to Ethiopia landed up meaning an increasing birthrate and 20 years later, twice as many hungry people. Even the Ethiopian Prez,
the Philipino Govt etc, they all realise the problem, but your fantatical pro lifers fight them all the way, in total denial of
the real problem.

Martin, your "Spengler" needs to get a reality check and stop comparing a world with a few million people, chasing each other with bows and arrows, to one with 6.5 billion, where more and more third world countries have nuclear weapons. America has gained 100 million people since 1970, so they are not about to go extinct lol.

Of course less people want to live in Vermont. The NE US grew large on 1-10$ cheap Arab oil to heat their houses. With 60-100$ oil, those days are over.

Fact is that the world population has grown from 1.5 billion to 6.5 billion in the last century. Its not sustainable to keep adding people, for they will land up killing each other in a fight over resources, as we see is about to happen in the Middle East with Iran etc. So get ready for your 100$ oil, lots of misery,lots of suffering. The Vatican is either too stupid, too uncaring or too tied up in its dogma to accept the obvious
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 6 March 2006 1:57:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col argues that he abides by his own set of standards and won't abide by RULES from 'descriptive' organisations, yet can't seem to decide what 'standards' to apply without OLO's guidance, curious? - 'Until they email me, I am assuming the level of debate is within the acceptable guidelines for posters.'

Is Col's rule: lower the standard until you're forced to stop?

Yabby: '...women in the third world, who are treated like chattels, who would love more access to family planning, but its not available, partly due to your fanatical church.'

Actually Yabby the Catholic church is having real success in providing natural family planning elsewhere in the world too, successes now acknowledged by WHO. In the third world women have many children because of the high infant mortality rate - as they did in 1st world countries before the advent of modern health care, vaccinations, etc. Care for existing children and you'll solve many humanitarian problems.

Yabby: 'Modern family planning works very well in the 1st world.'

I wouldn't call 100,000 abortions/pa (plus abortions from the morning after pill) - contraceptive success in 1st world Australia.

Yabby: 'It would work well in the third world too, if women were empowered with choices.'

Which is it Yabby? You argued previously that WHO were providing your idea of 'choice' ...which clearly only includes YOUR choice to kill off increases in their populations.

Yabby: '...a crazy pope who claimed couples should not have sex, unless there was a possibility of it leading to pregnancy. Read your Humanea Vitae!'

Yabby, like Col, you are incapable of truthfully researching or presenting anything in context...HV argues against artifically preventing or destroying a pregnancy. There is a very big difference. Your suggestion that couples are being told to produce as many babies as possible('little Catholics'), or are discouraged from intercourse at infertile periods of the cycle is far from the truth and simply adds further inaccuracies to your already discredited and bigoted posts.

Go and re-read the text, I know it very well thank you very much.
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 6 March 2006 4:02:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Col Rouge (cont) [his post 27/2; my post 5/3]

... At times their ministry is not unlike the hypocrisy of the Pharisees - (some) priests as predatory sexual perverts & drunkards. But doesn't that sound a bit like a Secular Human household too - drunken father who bashes his wife & mistreats his kids? It could be an Aboriginal household from Redfern or Bourke too. Or, possibly minus alcohol, a Muslim family from Auburn or Arncliffe (Sydney).

Christ wisely said of the 'religious' leaders:
(1) "Woe to you, teachers of the law & Pharisees, you hypocrites. You give a tenth ... but you have neglected ... justice, mercy & faithfulness.";
(2) "Woe to you, teachers of the law & Pharisees, you hypocrites. You clean the outside ... but inside they are full of greed & indulgence.";
(3) "Woe to you, teachers of the law & Pharisees, you hypocrites. You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside ...". Matthew 23:23-27.

Christ goes on to say to His disciples (about the Pharisees): "Don't do as they do, do as they say." Pretty profound.

Singling out the Catholic Church for its faults serves no real purpose. There were just as many (statistically more) Satanists & Atheists who did/do despicable things.

It might help us all to remember that it's easier to target an organisation than say 10-million independent individuals who in isolated 'coordination' commit the same or similar crimes. ...

(t.b.c.)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Monday, 6 March 2006 8:47:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Col Rouge (cont #2) [his post 27/2; my post 5/3]

Comments to "moi" (LAB:
I don't quite know what you mean by "blight". If you mean no injury or no effect then that is categorically wrong. The woman's hormones begin to alter from conception - certainly within the first 6- to 10-weeks.

Yes the foetus is co-habiting the woman's body. But as early as 10-weeks it is very-much its own entity.

You seem to be saying that the foetus - until born - is not a human. I would dispute that - so would many doctors. Strangely, so does the law in the case where the mother is murdered. In that instance the law says that two persons have been killed - a double homicide.

If the foetus is aborted, then under that criteria, that must be a single homicide.
(27/2/06)

Te (post 11:28:33 PM 27/2/06)

Your explanation confirms my earlier thoughts: you want parents to be parents to their children. That includes giving advice & 'protecting' the vulnerable. I agree with you.

Sadly many/most parents want to be their children's "best friend" rather than taking on the role of a parent. Compliance with a child's wrong thinking only fortifies wrong decision-making by the child during their adult life.
(28/2/06)

Te (post 11:38:00 PM 27/2/06)

Of course there must be absolutes. But Post-modernism has lulled society into the belief that all things should be "subjective". Everyone can't be telling the truth. Everyone can't be right. But try arguing that fact to a Humanist. They're generally bound in "relativism".

Remember: "The only things that are invulnerable are those things that never claimed objective value, such as entertainment & fashion, which are taken with unprecedented seriousness & are at the heart of the infantilisation of the Western culture." Merc PEARCE.
(28/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Monday, 6 March 2006 8:54:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col - I wasn't 'whining' for a moderator but it seems illogical that this forum seems to only consist of comments about 'crazy popes', paedophile priests, Catholics 'forced' to produce lots of babies on one had but 'discouraged' from having sex on the other?? Where is the logic to these comments when this forum is meant to be about the semantics of abortion?

If it is going to be a 'bag out the Catholics' forum, why don't you at least read what is taught by that faith - maybe "Theology of the Body" for a start. It may make you a little 'hot to trot' and your wife may be in for a pleasant surprise :-)) You will see that "Theology of the Body" promotes the unitive and procreative aspect of the physical relationship in a truly wonderful way.

Also, I stand by my comment re 'angry/bitter' - I have a lot of contact with a many people both male and female who have been through an abortive experience and some of them sound like this too. One wonders........ and my heart aches for how they must feel the day they truly acknowledge that a little child lost his/her life because the parents didn't see that little life as important enough for them to see him/her to birth.

I urge you to read "Giving Sorrow Words", "Forbidden Grief", etc etc - many many aching hearts.
Posted by Te, Monday, 6 March 2006 9:06:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, WHO promotes 14 contraception methods. The Catholic version is the most likely to fail, when used incorrectly. Illiterate women who are treated as chattels, are not able to fill in mucus charts or decide on their sexual fate. Yet something like a norplant solves their problems and empowers them. Thats the issue, women should have choices, something that the Vatican wants to deny them.

No 100'000 abortions in Australia, more like 85'000. How many of those are by women who went to Catholic schools and never learnt proper family planning? Besides, you case against abortion is based purely on theology, which is meant to have floated down from the heavens. Many of us things its rubbish and you have no evidence to show that its any more then that.

Your next point Meg, choice. Not my choice, women should choose.
They should be empowered with choice, not restricted in choice by religious dogma.

Next point, the HV. Read my earlier posting of a few days ago,
copied straight off the Catholic website. Thats exactly what your religion claims. No bigotry by me, just confusion within the church,
as a so called infallible pope made claims which are clearly ridiculous in real terms, so a confused church is left with frustrated followers, versus the question of papal infallability.

My philosophy is far ahead of yours Meg. I am against human or other species suffering, unlike your beliefs. I am for a sustainable planet for future generations, which you can't get your mind around due to religious dogma. Being humanitarian involves more then religious texts. It means actually caring for the welfare and suffering of humans and other species and their continued survival.

Now tell me why people should suffer, just to satisfy religious
dogma.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 6 March 2006 9:45:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby: (Contraception) - ‘...Catholic version is the… most likely to fail, when used incorrectly.’

Every method of contraception is GUARANTEED to fail if used incorrectly – are you foolish enough to suggest otherwise?

The WHO is failing with 14 methods! – yet acknowledges the Catholic Church is educating couples with significant success using NFP.

NFP is offering REAL choice. ‘Churches’ also provide sustenance and infrastructure for people to live with dignity.

85000 not 100000 dead babies? Did you count them? - Quote official figures, add tens of thousands more for unrecorded victims of morning-after pills. How many are acceptable, Yabby?

RE: (Humanae Vitae 14).

It doesn’t say reserve sex for fertile days or have 400 babies?

On fertile days, don’t artifically prevent pregnancy or use another day – clear?

Artificial contraception + babies, ALWAYS = mistake. With NFP, couples plan families.

Yabby, your Catholic Church obsessions may well end by finding the peace you are seeking…there.

Your posts are increasingly frantic and disjointed - ’ Your next point Meg, choice. Not my choice, women should choose.’

Confused? Next sentence ‘choice’ again repeated twice…then…

‘My philosophy is far ahead of yours Meg.’

Is this a COMPETITION?

‘I am against human or other species suffering, unlike your beliefs.’

How obtuse you are - my previous posts and my actions indicate my preparedness to pull my weight rather than yabbering - locally and 'with third world projects since my youth…’

There’s a difference between SAYING you’re against human suffering and DOING something besides bagging churches.

How can you condone tearing a baby limb from limb in its mother’s womb and then argue you are AGAINST human suffering…YOU ‘choose’ who’s ‘less human’? Read “Animal Farm”, George Orwell portrays you perfectly.

‘Now tell me why people should suffer, just to satisfy religious
dogma.’

I have no idea why you feel they should Yabby, again you are quite disjointed and erratic in your comments.

The Catholic Church recognizes there’ll always be suffering - Christ’s teaching says respond where needs arise…

Wishin’n’hopin won’t change anything, each one of us can make a difference if we ACT.
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 10:17:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg
May I ask a question? As I understand it you oppose abortion because a being with a soul is killed & the killing of such an ensouled being can only be considered murder. Correct? After all neither of us oppose the killing of non-souled creatures (ie animals or plants). It is the destruction of a being with a soul that is objected to, correct?
So My question is - without some obscure quote from the bible or from a fallible pope could you provide scientific evidence not only that souls exist but at what time exactly in the birth process a soul enters the foetus? After all the Catholic church used to teach that a baby became ensouled only at the point of quickening. Now of course it teaches that the baby has a soul from birth. Both positions can't be correct. Yet the church teaches that its teaching is infallible. It is due to contradictions such as this that I prefer scientific evidence as to when a foetus is ensouled.
Thanking you in advance.
Posted by Bosk, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 10:44:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Meg.
My last post should have read "now of course the catholic church teaches that the foetus possess a soul from conception".
Posted by Bosk, Tuesday, 7 March 2006 10:47:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Bosk,

No Biblical quotes, Papal encyclicals...it's a deal!

Check my posts, I doubt there’s one…unless in response.

However, you are confusing all Catholic Church statements with ‘infallible’ Papal decrees.

Catholic Bishop, lay-person, whomever…has no more infallibility than rugby players have jurisdiction to declare new rules in NRL.

Infallible decrees made ONLY by the Popes through the ages…are documented and remain so.

RE: ‘ensouling’ at the point of quickening…

There was no official papal decree, about ‘ensouling’ at the point of quickening…

Bearing in mind that ‘quickening’ meant at natural birth, miscarriage or whenever the baby was delivered from the mother. The Church taught that whatever stage the baby was delivered of the mother, it was considered to ALREADY have a soul and able to be baptised. This allowed mother’s to baptise babies at any age or stage, not just at term…rather than a contradiction of the soul being present from point of conception, it actually compliments that position. It compassionately allowed parents of babies who did not survive, to have that comfort, without question.

Until relatively modern times, the subject of conception was not an issue publicly or generally discussed (in or out of the Church) and so, I would presume that the local religious would have ministered to their communities using generally accepted terminology, i.e., ‘quickening’, etc.

‘I prefer scientific evidence as to when a foetus is ensouled.’

Bosk, you raise the issue of scientific evidence. At conception, human life begins to grow, develop, follow a genetic path until, unimpeded, birth takes place. Birth is little more in the process than a change of address…the newborn is as dependent as an unborn, in real terms.

Other than conception, at what other point can a human ‘body’ (life extinguished) commence growing and developing even if provided with sustenance, genetic material, anything necessary to sustain life?

It can be suspended, and survive, but it cannot have life extinguished (soul left) at any stage from conception and then revive to grow and develop.
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 12:46:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

If the comments truly are not founded in hate you certainly are more indifferent to the sensitivities of others than anyone I've known. If so, to say you don’t kowtow to the sensitivities of anyone is an incredible understatement.

"“Both display a negative attitude”
“This sounds rather hostile.”
“According to your value system.”

How “judgemental” of you,"

After all your judgemental and inaccurate comments about Catholics (particularly priests) are you seriously trying to insult me by calling me judgemental?

“Paedophile priest are one thing, I commented not only on their actions but the systematic “coverup” which has taken place.”

But it is a pretty darn significant label to put on someone who most probably is not a paedophile.

“Any institution can acquire a “bad apple” most do their utmost to root out the diseased and corrupt and cast it out from the rest. The hierarchy of the priesthood of many denominations showed a complete absence of morals and values … covering up and hiding their shameful brethren, instead of facing the rot, excising it and being honest, ….”

In relation to paedophiles I have discussed this above. In relation to homosexuals I can understand that, given the religious belief on the topic, the homosexual priest issue is not something that anyone would want to make public. Demanding silence and then taking steps to reduce the number of homosexuals going into priesthood is a logical approach. Rather than considering homosexuals as rot, given that they are human beings and given that secular influences might cloud their theological views, their particular challenge needs to be understood and the issue addressed sensitively and properly.

“…like I was always taught to be a “man” we had to do.””

It is a shame you didn’t have a Christian background or even a typical secular background where you were taught not to make the types of comments you make about people apparently in cold blood. Christians are taught to “do unto others …” but even most non-Christians have more regard to others sensitivities.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 6:08:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Scout (post 7:30:57 AM 28/2/06)

Life/living is about choices. Often decision-making is difficult. However, making choices which only serve as self-indulgence & which somehow negatively affect someone else only encourages more selfishness & greed.

If one decides to drink'n'drive & subsequently causes an accident, then that person is culpable. Similarly, if someone indulges in sex, & the possible consequence is the creation of a foetus, then the participants are culpable. Killing the foetus is tantamount to killing a surviving injured person from the aforementioned vehicular accident, just to avoid the consequences.

A woman is only fertile about 3- to 5-days per month. My former-wife fell pregnant if either of us 'sneezed'. But we only had 3-children in 9-years. She never needed an abortion. We planned the pregnancies - within reason. I generally knew when she was about to have her period before she did - I understood her because I loved her & cared about her. Her attitude, temperament & physical appearance were clear signs.

Abortion is killing - no matter how we justify it.
(28/206)

mjpb (post 8:24:05 AM 28/2/06)

A good response.

I don't agree with everything that is your Catholicism - in fact there's substantial with which I disagree. But at least the documents on morals & ethics are generally sound - even if some of the practitioners are flawed with errancy.

I concur: the comment to Meg 1 by Brownie was not only uncalled for but also cruel & callous.
(28/2/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 6:24:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ROFL Meg, do you have any idea how many women miss a pill some days and then take two the next day? They are not guaranteed to fail at all as you claim. I merely quoted what WHO had written about your
method, which is one of their 14. My comment on choice was purely in response to your statement that it was my choice of method. Nope its womens choice. More objective NGOs, free from religious dogmas, will show you what works in the third world. Real choice is any of 14 methods, not acceptance of one method.

85k abortions is the figure quoted by more objective sources in the industry then the pro life movement. People like Trish Gillard etc.
To me, any abortion in the first tremester is acceptable Meg.

"But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the
spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose
of sex, which is procreation. God's gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure
and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural
end-procreation"

Above is copied and pasted straight from your Catholic website. I rest my case lol.

Regards suffering Meg, again read what your church teaches. They thinks its ok to suffer, thats why they rob peoples dignity and force them to suffer, by not accepting euthanasia. Australians have to fly to Switzerland to be able to die with dignity. Once again
Catholic intrusion in our lives. Then you wonder why I am against the Catholic Church. I'd have thought it was bleeding obvious by now.

Human organisms without a human brain do not suffer Meg. At 12 weeks organisms don't have a human brain. Its concious people, in pain,
who would like to die with dignity, who feel pain. Yet your church thinks thats fine.

My posts might seem erratic to you, as I make various points on various issues, within the 350 words. Try to keep up intellectually Meg :)
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 7:30:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A woman should have access to health care, and pregnancy is no exception, it is our duty to give people the information required to make an infirmed decision as to the direction they will take, and this does not exclude pregnancy, those people who sit in judgment of women who have abortions, remember they will not be by your side if they railroad you into deciding to go further with the pregnancy, they are idealistic, and believe that all children should be raised in loving homes. The anti's won't be there to put the bread and butter on the table. My wife and I have never been in a situation where she had to make a choice for pro or against, but I believe that the soul lives on, let God be the judge.
Posted by joseph, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 8:45:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Heaven and hell will never have any agreement for no one in hell can go to Heaven nor the other way around !

The Lord Jesus Christ is A Holy and Loving God so does His children;

on the other side

the devil is the lover of sin and always sinning, rebellious against God and got his strength from the suffering of human being, he likes to tell lies, deceitful reasoning just to hurt God's heart. The devil doesn't like people to know that The Lord Jesus Christ has died for them and has resurrected for our salvation (Roman 10:10); the devil is the murderer so does his children for YOU CAN RECOQNIZE A TREE FROM IT'S FRUITS !

So choose today : The Lord Jesus Christ (means to obey all His commandments) or you will choose the devil (means you will go with the the devil till eternity in the devil's house).

See you
Posted by Lady, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 4:49:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, many women who miss pills become pregnant – artificial methods of contraception WILL fail if used incorrectly.

Common illnesses can also cause the pill to fail, i.e., gastroenteritis.

‘85k abortions is the figure quoted by more objective sources in the industry then the pro life movement. People like Trish Gillard etc.’

Calling Trish Gillard ‘objective’ on abortion is akin to calling your post’s compassionate – ‘industry’ accurate word to discuss abortion though.

So Ms Gillard has counted the killings herself? Why am I expected to accept her fabrications?…add the victims of over-the-counter morning-after pills and her figures would far exceed 100000. Do you think 85k looks more acceptable than 85000, Yabby…?

‘To me, any abortion in the first tremester is acceptable Meg.’

If it’s your view that those who aren’t the mother should butt out, then why should it matter when you consider it acceptable?

"But sexual pleasure within marriage becomes unnatural, and even harmful to the spouses, when it is used in a way that deliberately excludes the basic purpose of sex, which is procreation. God's gift of the sex act, along with its pleasure and intimacy, must not be abused by deliberately frustrating its natural end-procreation"

Yabby, you're obtuse and repetitive - 'try keeping up'.

The quote doesn't tell Catholics they cannot have sex on infertile days…just that they shouldn’t PREVENT (i.e., contraception) conception on fertile days.

‘They thinks its ok to suffer, thats why they rob peoples dignity and force them to suffer, by not accepting euthanasia.’

Another tangent?

Noone is immune from suffering Yabby, but what is ‘bleeding obvious by now’ are your irrational accusations. Dying with dignity has nothing to do with the availability of euthanasia. Effective palliative care means suffering is minimised or removed altogether.

Are you ‘keeping up’?

The Catholic Church has provided some of the best palliative and hospital care available, for centuries…they don’t cause suffering, they help alleviate it.

‘At 12 weeks organisms don't have a human brain’.

What do they have Yabby? A chimps brain and swap at 12 weeks? Now you’re really stretching the bounds of rational debate…
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 11:17:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby - if you would look up a few recent embryology books you would see that electrical activity in the brain of a foetus (latin for 'little one, not a derogatory term like pro-aborts try and make it) can be picked up at 5 weeks, the heart beats at 18 days, fingerprints are there at 7 weeks, pain receptors are operating at 9 weeks. Yes, the tiny unborn baby feels pain, in fact in many places now (the UK for one) they have passed a law recently making it mandatory to give anaesthetic to the unborn baby prior to aborting it. Convoluted thinking or what?? Let this 'little one' not have pain while we kill it. Suppose one should be grateful for small mercies!

I wonder if you had a dog, would you say it has a number of organisms within it? and I'll bet whales and baby harp seals are high on your 'protected' list.

Re your 'missed pill, take 2' - the logic? It takes 3 days for the hormone level to rise again to a 'protective' level if a birth control pill is missed - so they are deluding themselves. Even the most basic instruction from a doctor if you miss ANY medication is NOT to take a double dose next time round.

Re your cliched catchcry 'die with dignity' - dignity is something that comes from within, it is not something that can be bestowed, it is the way you live your life and LIVE your death.

PS You do a lot of 'ROFL' and 'LOL' but I feel you are not a happy person on the inside... why the angst? Is there something too that you are not divulging?
Posted by Te, Thursday, 9 March 2006 1:14:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Pro-choice"="Pro-killing of human foetuses when a pregnant woman makes that choice".
"Pro-life"="Pro-making pregnant women carry the life of their foetuses to term".

The mostly unstated assumption of "pro-choice" is that foetuses are not persons and the choice of a woman to not undergo an unwanted process (pregnancy), or to not want responsibility for raising a child is more important than the life of the non-person. This does raise issues for pro-choicers who ignore the personhood of non-homo sapiens if they eat them on a daily basis.

Alternatively, this position can be based on an assumption that an individual's choice of how to use her body as she wishes is more important than the life of a non-independent being, regardless of that being's personhood.

The mostly stated assumption of "pro-life"ers is that a human foetus (and zygote/morula/blastocyst/embryo) has a right to life. The mostly unstated assumptions are on why this right exists.

To say it is "human life" or "human" is unsatisfactory. What makes it human? What does human status confer? Possible answers are-
1) It is genetically human. But so are many of the live cells I shed every day, as are my attached parts, but they have no special moral status. Plus the arguments about point 3 apply here.
2) It has a soul. This is not empirically verifiable, so may theoretically be true, but is not open to scientific debate. I feel this position is probably the main reason "pro-life" and "pro-choice" can not fundamentally agree.
3) It has human parents. Why then is conception the particular point of importance? Sperm and eggs have human parents too. (And that 2 parents are needed seems an arbitrary number, as it is theoretically possible for life forms with anatomies close enough to other humans to seem they have similar feelings to develop from 1 or 3 parents).
Maybe at conception a "separate" genetic being is formed (at least one, as twins can form after this). This position, for consistency, must try to defend the life of hydatidiform moles and anacephalic babies or invoke some other position as well.
Posted by wibble, Thursday, 9 March 2006 1:28:57 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Meg
A well reasoned argument. You seem to be arguing (correct me if I'm wrong) that because a foetus is growing from conception that it has a soul from conception. Is that correct?

In your post you said "At conception, human life begins to grow, develop, follow a genetic path until, unimpeded, birth takes place. Birth is little more in the process than a change of address…the newborn is as dependent as an unborn, in real terms." That would seem to imply that biological development is a sign of ensoulment.
But hold on a minute. Animals grow & develop in the womb & they DON'T have souls. It follows therefore that biological development is NOT caused by the soul.

However we are jumping ahead of ourselves. First we MUST prove that the soul exists. So what evidence do you have that a soul exists Meg?

Reagarding papal infallibility I'm afraid you are mistaken Meg.
A pope is only infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra" NOT in encyclicals or papal bulls, etc. This doctrine was only proclaimed in the 19th century by the way.

The idea that the offical teaching of the catholic church (i.e. teaching which has been tradionally taught by the church or proclaimed by a church council) is considered infallible has been accepted & taught for centuries. Please don't accept MY say so. Ask any priest or visit any Catholic theological site. They will say the same thing.

Thanking you in advance for your reply.

P.S. The quickening is NOT when a child is born, it merely refers to the first time a baby moves. This would seem to imply that the soul was linked in the churche's conception with movement.
Posted by Bosk, Thursday, 9 March 2006 7:10:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Pericles (post 1:41:02 PM 28/2/06)

A long recitation might admonish your comments. But as my 82-year old aunty says; "You are entitled to your ridiculous opinions."

Comparing the value of a goldfish to the sanctity of a foetus exposes your thinking. You've probably never made a life & death decisions - I have.

Your criticism of me over the disenfranchised? Read what I said. I am appalled at society's disregard for the less-fortunate.
(1/3/06)

mjpb (posts 9:50:25 PM & 10:51:31 PM 1/3/06)

I agree with most of your comments, but I am not Catholic.

I must differ with the semantics of your utterance: "There is no right to harm others.". You probably meant that 'there ought to be no right ..' because, unfortunately some democratic individuals assert a "right" which can only be made illegal by consensus or regulatory law. Thus a thief justifies the 'right' to steal - on the basis of the 'right' to survive. A clash of philosophies.
(2/3/06)

Yabby (post 10:52:14 PM 1/3/06)

The Holy Bible illustrates many "great men & women of God" who sinned. Solomon & Simon Peter are just 2.

Unlike Catholics, I believe that the Pope is full of error - including John Paul II & Benedictine. Catholicism only claims "ex cathedra infalliblity". The Apostle Paul (Saul of Tarsus), a Roman Jew persecute the early Christians. Priests are like other humans - fallible. Part of their 'problem' is celibacy - it's optional in Scripture. Statistics show more molestations of children by close relatives than clergy. Notwithstanding, it is deplorable when a priest or minister is involved.

You link the 'woman's rights' in the 1st 12-weeks to claimed non-attributes of the foetus. However, as medical science becomes better informed it discovers its own errors.

At 10-weeks the foetus has its own blood-type? Prior, a separate heart can be detected. Simultaneously the foetus reacts to stimulae. Those realities suggest the foetus is a "feeling person", & many well be 'thinking' - in a limited format. Science will reveal further truths.

Now that's not too emotive, is it? ...

...(t.b.c)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Thursday, 9 March 2006 8:51:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

reply to Yabby (post 10:52:14 PM 1/3/06) cont

The comments of former-abortionist, American Bernhard NATHERSON, make interesting reading. In the 70s & 80s he was about the single largest provider in the USA. He is now pro-life.
(2/3/06)

Col Rouge (post 3:33:10 AM 2/3/06)

Indifference is one of the "7 Deadly Diseases of Attitude".

If a person neither cares whether his/her daughters are married or not, & accepts the lesser standards of the boyfriend/girlfriend (not the p/c "partner"), then it can be argued that the parent is failing their "duty of care" - to protect the daughter. Letting a male into the 'lollyshop' without accepting responsibility for their behaviour doesn't really respect the female.

I defend your rights to criticise the Roman Catholic Church - but predominantly only its corrupt practitioners rather than much of its sound dogma.

That 1,790,000 people criticised Catholicism isn't significant. Some criticism may have been valid - some wasn't. If the Internet had been available when Chamberlain, Churchill & Hitler were alive, in 1938, then Churchill would have been the pariah. The dissenting would have been numerically greater. That doesn't equatre to correctness. Opinions are only opinions. They aren't facts.
(2/3/06)

billie (post 11:18:15 AM 2/3/06)

I'm saddened that you see anti-abortionists as "god botherers". I held an anti-abortion stance 30-years before I ever contemplated Christianity. And I'm not Catholic!.

I do have, however, great empathy for those who are 'victims' of "unwanted pregnancy". But looking only from the "women's rights" perspective ignores the conflicting rights of the foetus to also survive.

Whilst not totally pragmatic - within modern societal attitudes - abstinence & some 'protection' should avoid most pregnancies. However, if a couple wishes to play "Russian roulette" then they take the risk of having a child.

A woman is only fertile about 5-days out of 28.

Backyard abortionists? Yester-year's standards should never be reverted to. However, abortion is still illegal in NSW, Victoria & especially QLD (plus others). In NSW it directly contravenes Sections 83 & 84 of the Crimes Act.
(2/3/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Thursday, 9 March 2006 9:07:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg and Te, perhaps you emotionally engulfed types should spend a bit of time learning what goes on in that 3 pound lump behind your eyes, before making emotional but factually incorrect claims on here.

The discussion in Britain has been about fetal pain after 26 weeks in late term abortions. At 12 weeks there is no functioning human brain. If you don’t have a cortex connected to the rest of the body, ie. if you are not conscious, how can you perceive pain? Do you feel pain when you are asleep? Yet you move when you are asleep.

Te your comment about abortions requiring anesthetics is nonsense, and is probably some babble you read on an anti choice website. Nowhere does a 12 week old organism require an anesthetic. If so show me where.

Meg, the 85k number is used by various people in the medical industry. The morning after pill does not cause abortions, it just stops that little sperm meeting the egg. So even in Catholic terms, that’s not an abortion.

You asked me what number I thought was acceptable Meg, that’s why I replied. Next post you ask why it should matter what I think is acceptable.
You are losing your marbles dear :)

By scheming to only have sex on non fertile days Meg, you are clearly deliberately frustrating its natural end- procreation, so even you are going against what your infallible pope claimed.

Dignity is in the eye of the beholder and it should be up to them to decide how
much pain they are prepared to endure and for how long. If Catholics want to suffer, ok, so suffer, but don’t try to force that suffering on the rest of us. Again the Church is trying to infringe on our rights to make decisions about our own lives.

Yes the Catholic Church runs hospitals, so do lots of large corporations.
People pay huge amounts per day to go there, hospitals make money from
full beds.

.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 9 March 2006 11:44:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby - you are 'all over the shop' with your comments. They are becoming less and less coherent. What is going on?

You make the comment "Meg and Te, perhaps you emotionally engulfed types should spend a bit of time learning what goes on in that 3 pound lump behind your eyes, before making emotional but factually incorrect claims on here." - at what point in any of my posts is there 'emotional engulfment'? Surely not when I say my heart goes out to people in pain? Do a "Pauline Hanson" and 'please explain'.

I also suggest that you obtain the documentary that has been shown both on SBS and the ABC called "The Miracle of Life". It was NOT put out by the prolife groups but is a medical/scientific production. It clearly shows the brain as one of the first organs to be formed.

It is hard to understand how one can be so blind as to not be able to see when the evidence is easily available.

I thinks thou protesteth too much.

Cheers and happiness,
Te
PS Oops, how that wasn't my emotional engulfment happening agains :-))
Posted by Te, Thursday, 9 March 2006 11:00:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"at what point in any of my posts is there 'emotional engulfment'? Surely not when I say my heart goes out to people in pain?"

Te, your posts are full of it lol. Get used to it, hearts pump
blood, they do no more. Fingerprints don't matter, little feet
don't matter, etc etc. What matters is brain development and
ability to consciously feel pain.

You high oxytocin types make great, nurturing moms, sadly reason
is not one of your strengths :)

This link might be over your head, but try to understand the arguments anyhow. http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/comm53.asp

My posts are quite coherant, it seems its simply above you and Meg to understand and follow the arguments.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 9 March 2006 11:29:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wibble: ‘To say it is "human life" or "human" is unsatisfactory. What makes it human?’

How do you know that the unborn young of any species belong to them? Because the parents of a species will produce progeny of the same species...simple logic.

No Bosk, I can see no other logical time for a body to be ‘ensouled’… no other point in human life is so dramatically, irrevocably and instantly altered as at conception.

To say that other forms of life are also created from a certain point is correct, but other species do not have the same thought processes and ‘free will’…other beings act from instinct…that difference is indisputable.

‘First we MUST prove that the soul exists. So what evidence do you have that a soul exists Meg?’

If you have experienced being revived from ‘near-death’ (for want of a better description), as I have, you would need no more proof. You have no proof of other intangibles like love, lust, hatred, peace, etc. or the air you breathe. You see the results or feel a breeze and so you believe they exist. There is as much ‘scientific’ proof of the existence of a soul as there is of any of these intangibles…

US Doctors have done studies on the power of prayer in medical cures…the results have been dramatic. If you or I believe or disbelieve that power, doesn’t make it more or less real.

Whether we accept it or not doesn’t change reality…human life exists from conception, if we do not defend innocent life then we condemn society to an acceptance that some lives are ‘more equal than others…a dangerous scenario.

’Other than conception, at what other point can a human ‘body’ (life extinguished) commence growing and developing even if provided with sustenance, genetic material, anything necessary to sustain life?

It can be suspended, and survive, but it cannot have life extinguished (soul left) at any stage from conception and then revive to grow and develop.’

tbc
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 10 March 2006 12:57:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont...)

Bosk,

My post clearly indicated: ‘Infallible decrees made ONLY by the Popes through the ages…are documented and remain so.’

Not: ‘…in encyclicals or papal bulls...doctrine...only proclaimed in the 19th century...’

No, the original proclamation was made by Christ himself – reputable word has it. (Refer: Bible for confirmation if you wish) –

Infallibility rests ONLY with the Pope…when speaking accordingly.

‘…quickening…refers to the first time a baby moves…’

Yes it does, my apologies, however, as I suggested, the Church's ministers (as distinct to an infallible statement from the Pope) would have used the best evidence of the day in a language readily used at the time.

For all the reasons I outlined, the issues remain the same.

‘’would seem to imply that the soul was linked in the churche's conception with movement.’

I have seen my own children on scans from four weeks…moving. Bernard Nathanson (former US abortionist – now pro-life) held a tiny sac with a baby the size of a thumbnail inside and the baby was making swimming motions inside the sac…at approx. 5-6 weeks old. (Time Life)

Modern science will inevitably extend our knowledge, accordingly the Church's stand will be further proven ...

Yabby: ‘it just stops that little sperm meeting the egg’ – NO, it stops the fertilized ovum from implanting in the lining of the vagina…i.e., an abortion.

Your 85k not 100k comment was made BEFORE mine, not in answer to mine, check your own marbles are around…

And… ‘To me, any abortion in the first tremester is acceptable Meg.’

Me: ‘If it’s your view that those who aren’t the mother should butt out, then why should it matter when you consider it acceptable?’

Who’s lost those marbles, Yabby?

Questions re: my love-life and dignity in suffering/dying – re-read my posts…you may pick up the actual message by reading each post ten times or so…it will save me saying the same thing to you that many times or more…

RE: Paranoia on Catholic hospitals, Te and Me. Yabby, your obsessions are unhealthy especially in the proportions displayed.
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 10 March 2006 1:17:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"doctrine...only proclaimed in the 19th century"

Bosk I think I know where the confusion is arising. I have to concur with Meg that the above quote is incorrect. Apart from the biblical derivation writers from the early Church proclaimed the same doctrine so it wasn't a 19th century proclamation. For example, in about 256 AD Cyprian of Carthage's observation "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" clearly expresses the doctrine.

Having said that, terms like "Trinity", "Papal Infallibility" or "Purgatory" are not stated in the bible and I do not know when the term "Papal Infallibility" arose but it could have been considerably later. Catholics have accepted all these doctrines for the last 2000 years even if they haven't always used the jargon. Further, since the 16th Century, the Catholic Church has retained all three of the above doctrines but most Christian denominations have only accepted one out of three of the above doctrines being the "Trinity". The corollary of this is centuries of rejection of the Papal Infallibility doctrine in all but the Catholic Church. Accordingly, the variablity of Christian belief and the comparatively late commencement of the jargon describing the doctrine must lead to much confusion about commencement dates.

I hope this helps.
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 10 March 2006 3:10:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, the morning after pill is legally seen as a contraceptive pill, not an abortion pill. It can work in various ways;-
http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/sex_relationships/facts/morningafterpill.htm

Mind you that should really be irrelevant to the abortion statistics apart for Catholics and their holy sperms dogma. To the rest of us that dogma is irrelevant.

Regarding the order of the questioning, its there for anyone to read,
so they can decide for themselves whose marbles are missing :)

No magic in near death experpiences either Meg, most likely your brain chemistry fooled you, but the religious are known to be a bit gullible. Anyway, read this if you want :-
http://skepdic.com/nde.html

The concept of a soul is an old philosphical concept going back to the Greeks and before. The Xtians stole the idea from there.
No evidence of a soul, the worms will eat you just like me Meg :)
Heaven is here and now so remember to enjoy!

It doesent matter how many times I reread your posts, its still just
old tiered Catholic dogma from medievil times. We live in a pluralistic society now. People have, want and demand their rights.

We've already been through the right to divorce, the right to contraception, the right to abortions. Next will be the right to euthanasia in Australia, as is happening elsewhere in the world.

If the Catholic Church fights it politically again, then they can be accused of being responsible for the unneeded suffering of tens of thousands. Suffering is accepted under Catholic dogma. They are free to suffer, but should respect the rights of the rest of us,
who think their belief is gobbledygook, to make our own choices and
decisions about our lives.

I have no obsession with the Catholics, just an insistance on mine and others human rights. If Bin Laden or the Pope are in the way
and take a political stand, I will point out ther flawed politics and theology.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 10 March 2006 8:55:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby - if you are right and there is no Heaven ("Heaven is here and now so remember to enjoy!" - your response to Meg1) NO ONE will know you are right as there will be nothing after death.
However, if you are wrong, Meg1 will be proved right FOREVER AND FOREVER AND FOREVER and you will have to put up with that for all eternity.

Cheers - :-))
Posted by Te, Friday, 10 March 2006 9:05:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, not sure how serious you were but I'll take your post at face value.

Remember that serious discussion of an afterlife has more than two alternatives. It's not the christain heaven or nothing.

Probably no such thing as an afterlife but if there is there have been an amazing lot of ideas put forward as to what it could be and what the deciding factors are about how it is spent.

Just to start with plenty of christain based groups would exclude all the christians who are not part of their group from their heaven let alone all of the ideas that have come from other religions.

Then you could add in the possibility that the nature of the afterlife (if it exists) has not been revealed to mankind.

One possibility I like is the idea that we all get what we believe in (but not quite). Imagine all the fundy christains when they find themselves stuck with each other for eternity - priceless.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 10 March 2006 9:33:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's right Te, we don't know what happens when we die. You might be right or I might be right.

So I will give you the freedom to live according to your beliefs and I expect you to give me the freedom to live my life in harmony with my beliefs and experience. Its called tolerance and requires respect for the other person.
Posted by billie, Friday, 10 March 2006 9:33:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, the very thought of spending forever with Meg and those old popes would be my idea of HELL!

All those colourful characters like Dave Allen, Kerry Packer,
Bill Clinton, the team from Monty Python and the Glasshouse,
etc, sounds much much much more appealing :)
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 11 March 2006 3:23:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Im with Yabbie, I would sooner sit around with Dave Allen and the Python team anyday.

Whilst we are having a joke break…

This fellow went to heaven. He was a Methodist.

He used to sit around with the Anglicans and the Baptists etc. in heaven happy debating religions or whatever.

Then he noticed at meal times, from all the plates of food which the angels brought out, some of them were thrown over a wall, which set a bit of heaven off from the rest.

He was intrigued by this.

Eventually he could resist no longer and asked why the food was thrown over the wall.

The passing angel said

“Well we have to feed you all. Over that wall is where we keep the Catholics but they prefer to think they are the only ones here.”

We are all responsible for how we live. Supporting a particular religious order is a personal choice, no different to supporting a particular football team.

It is how we act and behave as individuals that matters.
That is all that has ever mattered.

The nature of any co-dependent religious relationships we might choose to develop has always been irrelevant, except of course to those who live suffer a particular mental disease.
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 11 March 2006 7:06:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby & Col Rouge - be careful what you wish for. :-)))))
Posted by Te, Saturday, 11 March 2006 11:39:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not much 'tolerance' and 'respect'from anti-lifers though?

Yabby's desperately denying Papal paranoia and proving otherwise! Have you any posts NOT vilifying Catholics?

Don’t argue, “Only the Catholic Church is pushing pro-life arguments”. LAB and others have already debunked that rot.

I haven’t worked in any pro-life support network without meeting a cross-section of Christians, etc.

The morning-after pill works to prevent conceived life from implanting in the womb…medically causing abortion. Re: legal issues – abortion is also classified as contraception.

RE: order of questioning, please feel free to refer back. Are you really as obtuse as you are coming across?

Yabby, the worms will eat both of us, our souls will’ve left our bodies by then…I’m happy for my body to return to the earth, it’s the destination of our souls you should be more interested in.

Heaven! Yes, Robert – wouldn’t it be priceless…

I’ll give you a really scary thought – could you see Yabby, Billie, Col , you & Co at a BBQ wherever you all end up? Maybe Brownie will suggest what your family might be up to back here – when he’s finished peeping through windows.

…What makes you think Dave, Kerry and Co will be where you lot are? Are you JUDGING their lives comparative to yours?

Col: We’re ‘all responsible for how we live. Supporting a particular religious order is … no different to supporting a particular football team.’

Do you concede you should follow rules the footie club lays down? The national body too? Rather hypocritical, Col!

Col: ‘It is how we act and behave as individuals that matters.
That is all that has ever mattered.’

Don’t tell me Yabby’s worms are convincing you to have two-bob-each-way – you’ve been the advocate of no rules, parental guidance or morals to get in the way of a good time for Col.

Which is it? Act responsibly and morally or follow your instincts – like the chimps and bonobos?

There are a few of you showing serious signs of an amoral, anti-life co-dependency here, does that qualify you for Col’s ‘mental disease’?
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 12 March 2006 2:08:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1 I am pleased you acknowledge the similarity between religions and football teams.

It is reassuring that we have an analogy which you agree with.

As in “Do you concede you should follow rules the footie club lays down?”

Well Meg1, I would agree completely and totally.

However, I would choose which footie club I support.

You are here demanding to tell me which team I must support.
You demand to deny me choice of club.

My club rules differ from your club rules.

On my club, everyone is involved in electing the officials.

Your leave it to just the main players only to agree among themselves on the rules and those main players have been corrupting the set of rules since the time your club was founded.

My club respects everyone as individuals.

Your club sees the common member as a drone and money supply to support the edifice of corruption which your main players have built to their own glory.

My team tolerates those from opposing clubs.
Your team has a history of rioting and burning to death people who they hear singing the anthem of opposing clubs.

I CHOOSE not to be part of your club.

I feel morally obligated with a duty to do everything I can to expose your club for it for its corrupt and manipulative “mission statement”.

Now that we have “footie clubs” sorted

“amoral, anti-life co-dependency” I think that is an oxymoron.

Suggesting such is a sign of pitiful desperation.


“Which is it? Act responsibly and morally or follow your instincts”

Being a person endowed with freewill and a capacity for reason,

my “own instinct”

is to “Act responsibly and morally”


That you're co-dependency upon papal edicts (to tell you how to act) is your personal limitation and not a universal deficiency.

I am independent of religious doctrines. However, that does not mean I am devoid of recognising, for myself, what are the responsible and moral options.

I do not need the Pope.
And that denies the co-dependency which the Pope and RCC need to maintain their immoral power base
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 12 March 2006 7:57:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was going to write a well argued reply to the pro abortionists but these pictures are worth more than 100 000 of my words.

This is the fruit of the culture of death

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/index.htm

Meg thank you from my heart for all the wonderful work you're doing. I think Australia is extremely lucky to have you. I know you love them and hate the crime.

If its any consolation in God's beautiful wisdom He seems to be allowing the horror to extinguish itself. The tares are pulling themselves up by the roots.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK09Aa02.html

P.s. The more I look at what we're capable of the more scared I am of myself - we can do wicked wicked things. There's so much vanity and evil in me. I want it out!
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 12 March 2006 12:04:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, fyi some years ago I subscribed to a number of email lists published by your anti abortionists and "breed like rabbits" brigade.
Invariably they had links back to the Catholic Church and were run
by Catholics. Yup there are a few of the "Christian Taliban" fundamentalists involved, but they matter mainly in the US, not in global terms. In Australia they are still insignificant.

Even within your own Catholic Church, 80% of customers
and 50% of priests disagree with what your Pope preaches on contraception and abortion. So you and Martin are part of a radical
but noisy minority. In Australia its maybe 6-7%, thats all.

The morning after pill can also work by delaying ovulation, it can work in a number of ways. You are clearly too opinionated to even bother to read the website that I provided for you.

No evidence of a soul Meg, other then that its a human philosophical invention. The Christians simply stole the concept and claimed it
as literal truth. The largely illiterate masses of the time were
then duped and power and wealth went to those who made the claims.

Martin clearly you should be a large supporter of the morning after pill and RU 486, so that terminations happen much sooner.
I support that. My problem is when Meg gets emotional about cells which are smaller then "." Luckily nearly all terminations happen
in the first 12 weeks, which has been my philosophy all along.

If abortions were given as a human right in the first 12 weeks, rather then Catholic interference, hundreds of thousands of lives a year would be saved, just in South America. Instead women have to suffer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3194680.stm
Shame that we can't show pictures of their dead bodies, to make you think a bit.

The Vatican should be ashamed of itself for being responsible for the deaths of so many women. In fact one of Australia's top scientists has blamed the Vatican for being responsible for more deaths in Africa then Hitler:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/parting-shot-to-pope-get-real-on-aids/2005/12/03/1133422148025.htm
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 12 March 2006 2:13:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Laurie (post 12:13:22 PM 2/3/06)

My objection to RU-486 is on the basis that it is an abortifacient - a foetus killer.

It's tragic that consequential pregnancy & the welfare of the foetus are ill-considered in the totality of the processes of consenting sexual intercourse. But a likely 'minimal' catastrophe will be the eventual death of RU-486 users. When &/or if it is one of your loved ones who becomes a statistic, then your eagerness to support RU-486 may diminish.

It's also interesting to note that there are only 2 worldwide producers of RU-486 - one in China & one in France. No other large pharmaceutical manufacturers are willing to produce it. Is it possible that they're rather nervous about the probable long-term effects &/or potential future litigation? Time will tell.

Meanwhile, I hope none of the projected 10,000 potential Australian women users will die as a consequence. Certainly by using RU-486 there will be many less young children - deprived of their survival rights. May the loss of a "woman in distress" not be one of your relatives. Only then might the sadness impact you directly.
(2/3/06)

Coraliz (post 9:03:51 PM 2/3/06)

When seeking clarity of the meanings of words it is rather superfluous to describe the very word in dispute by itself. Dictionaries therefore use synonyms to create clarity of the connotation.

Murder is as you say ".. an act done with intention to kill ..". That is specifically why abortion is murder - it is premeditated.

Would you suggest that a bodyguard in a scenario of warfare doesn't have the right to protect an 'official' from assassination? Bodyguards often 'struggle' "after-the-fact" in a killing. But it is the same premise as protecting my wife & children against an armed invader. I must in such circumstances use force against force. In this case it is lethal force against potential lethal threat. The reaction time is generally less than 3-seconds. There is little time to plan - one simply reacts in accordance with training.

Abortion meanwhile is a calculated, pre-meditated killing - murder.
(3/3/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Sunday, 12 March 2006 2:43:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Yabby (post 10:48:23 PM 2/3/06)

I don't resort to melodramatic language to ".. keep (myself) occupied ..". I believe in being 'open' & transparent, that way those who disagree with me can consider my logical suppositions.

Needless killing of other creatures is appalling. However, a swatted fly can't surely be proportionately valued against the life of an aborted foetus - or an Alzheimer-effected 80-year old either.

Morality is essentially objective. We choose to make it subjective, viz: murder is intrinsically abhorred. However, if one argues that another person is of lesser value, then all protection is eradicated (according to those who hold that view). That's why terrorists kill people. They justify death as collateral. Claiming a foetus to be a 'blob', then 'justifies' abortion.

That facilitates government policy which begins to value less importantly .. the weak, the less-attractive, the aged, the less-wealthy, the less-influencial, the less-vocal.

That's OK only if you aren't marginalised.
(3/3/06)

Col Rouge (post 5:49:56 AM 3/3/06)

I agree that the Catholic Church has much to answer for. Its people have been decidedly wicked & corrupt throughout its history.

But so have wiccans, Atheists etc. Sadly, the predominantly anti-Christian media tackles large organisations as "easy targets" for criticism - partly because it is more sensational, is easier to investigate, & is economically advantageous.

If Hetty JOHNSON from Bravehearts is correct - & statistics suggest she is - then we should fear more the numerically greater, 'silent' & covert broader community. We must nonetheless expose priests (or anyone else) who is corrupt.

I can, however, understand your frustration with the Catholic Church. I too have issues with some of their beliefs. Notwithstanding, the actual values aspired to in some of their dogma - if practiced by its adherents - could/would make society less self-focussed & greedy. It is covetousness which encourages conflict.

Please refer to my comments to Coraliz in the previous posting. Being "pro-life" ought to be an aspiration for all human beings if we genuinely care about our co-inhabitants. That includes famine -sticken & suppressed peoples.
(3/3/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Sunday, 12 March 2006 3:02:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LAB I’m not sure I follow I properly understand your position.

When you make statements about the Catholic Church you ought to balance it with Protestant errors also or fellow Christians may believe you are anti – Catholic.

Denominational arguments wouldn't help in this forum while so many, I realise now, have the strangest ideas about Christian Orthodoxy
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 12 March 2006 3:27:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin Ibn Warriq, ”we can do wicked wicked things. There's so much vanity and evil in me. I want it out!”

Have some regard for other people who might prefer you “keep it in”

As for posting sensationalist photos from a papist propaganda site, I suggest you get a grip, grow up and stop trying to assume some significance in your pointless quest for self-aggrandisement.

Yabby well said

LAB –“But so have wiccans, Atheists etc. Sadly, the predominantly anti-Christian”

All the ills and shortcomings of all the atheists, secularists, wiccans witches and hob-goblins do not excuse the Church of Rome for a moment for the the crimes they have committed in the name of God.
All you are doing is showing your ignorance if you think for one minute it does.

I do not have issues with what Roman Catholics believe, provided they do not expect to impose those beliefs on me.

I will not accept that anyone else has spiritual authority over me or has right to put themselves between me and God.

You can be as big an apologist for RCC but it will never wash the sin off the hands of the priests, bishops, Cardinals and Popes who have for centuries perverted the word of God and pursued their quest for personal wealth and glory whilst systematically abusing children and covering that abuse up under a mountain of lies.

This debate will never end. There are those who believe they have a right to inflict their religious beliefs on others and people like me who will always stand to resist such tyranny. Fortunately we live in times more enlightened than when the Papists ruled huge tracks of Europe and the poor folk of Spain, after 300 years of inquisition, were lining up to welcome Napoleon in the hope he would end the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church.

Australia is a secular state. It will remain so and abortion will be a matter for the private choice of individual women, just like it should be.
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 12 March 2006 11:54:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your quote Col, not mine…no acknowledgement from me.

You agree ‘completely and totally’, choose which footie club you support…electing your own office bearers…locally anyway.

1. The Catholic Church doesn’t force you to ‘join’. Your paranoia re-surfaces.

2 Your ‘main players’ are the NRL, you have NO say in their deliberations…any more than you choose the agenda of the main players in the abortion ‘industry’ – the money-makers.
3 I choose which ‘club’ I support-join…I too have made my choice - joyfully. Mine welcomes all as equals and the leader is a dutiful servant to all.
4 Your club threatens our community by demanding assassinations of some of my club and community members so there are less people to share community facilities and you can control the local council through your club.
5 My club respects EVERYONE and shares the facilities and our food with some of the players that your club rejects and wants to kill.
6 Your club gives a façade of ‘reasonableness’ but has a history of brutally killing these innocents, saying they are of lesser importance than your club members; they may use food and space your members want to party with; they have to pay for the ‘good times’ you enjoy; your club has no tolerance for these innocents or those who care for them, etc.
7 Your club has very different rules to mine and changes them at will to suit the evolving agenda of your club members, no matter how brutal or irresponsible that agenda becomes.

Thank you MIW for your kind remarks.

Despite differences with the CatholicChurch and to Yabby’s chagrin, LAB sees abortion from another perspective and logically concludes it’s wrong…along with many other Christians, non-Christians, etc…

LAB argues that terrorists regard some as ‘lesser humans’ seeing their deaths as collateral damage, therefore justifying their murder – and yes , as you say, similar attitudes – ‘… facilitate government policy which begins to value less importantly ‘ the marginalized in society…including the unborn.

Col, your hypocrisy knows no bounds…killing babies is a cruel use of power, i.e., tyranny…will you resist it too?
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 13 March 2006 12:51:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALB, the evidence shows that morality is grounded in biology. Social species evolved to generally not kill those of their own tribes etc,
for obvious reasons, unless their very survival is threatened, say by overcrowding.

Care for the weaker happens in societies which have the resources to do so. In the West, where abortion is common, we care for our old, weak, mentally ill etc. In the Congo, which is largely Catholic,
human life has little value, as they fight over resources to survive.

The problem with your objective morality theory is that it gives ultimate and complete power to those who claim to be in touch with the source, over those that believe them.

Take our Meg here. She believes in the infallibility of her pope, so in effect what he says is god. So what she promotes on here is endless Catholic dogma, just like her pope said.

If Meg's main concern was those little children that were aborted,Meg would logically support couples who have enough kids, to have hers or his tubes snipped. The result would be less abortions and one would think that would make her happy. But nope, she doesent, as her pope doesent. That kind of blind faith in other peoples claims to objective morality gives them huge control over her.

In the 30 year Christian wars of Europe, where alone in one day, 20000 protestants were killed in Paris, it was all about whose interpretation should be the accepted one regards objective morality. The protestants claimed it wasn't the pope, for religion had become big business, as the Catholics sold indulgences, even for those who had already died
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 13 March 2006 9:43:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘Social species evolved to generally not kill … their own …,
for obvious reasons, unless … survival is threatened…by overcrowding.’

…’obvious reasons’,…then Yabby attempts to justify killing using ‘overcrowding’…hypocrisy-hot air…either way, your rational presents no logic whatsoever.

You claim ‘societies that can afford to do so’ care for the weak: ‘In the West, where abortion is common, we care for our old, weak, mentally ill etc. In the Congo, which is largely Catholic, human life has little value, as they fight over resources to survive.’

Ask the (Australian) mentally ill and elderly, who die without being missed for six months, or live on our city streets…wrong again, Yabby.

In poorer countries where corrupt governments control food sources and therefore people, human life is valued poorly by governments. Move amongst the people (Catholic or otherwise) and it’s a very different story, Yabby. They care for their young, elderly and weak…they share what little they have. They exude joy in the midst of seemingly insurmountable difficulty.

Greed by corrupt governments and corporate transnationals who control them through the farce of globalization is the real cause of world hunger, not overcrowding.

Get your facts right, Yabby.

RE: infallibility of the Pope…only when speaking with that authority.

RE: controlling lives by sterilization…shades of Hitler again, Yabby. Teach people about their body and its functions so they can responsibly and naturally manage their reproductive lives…BEST option.

Your assertion - sterilizing those who’ve had ‘enough kids’ will lead to less abortions is statistically untrue…those who have abortions often have no children.

Neither the Pope, nor anyone else, including you, Yabby…has ‘control’ over me…I exercise my free will on every decision.

That my decisions and beliefs are dissimilar to yours, despite your attempts at intimidation, etc. is an indication I am willing and able to decide and implement my own decisions and support my own beliefs.

If my beliefs and values are those of the Catholic Church, that only means that I have come to the conclusion that those beliefs are right and good – something many of you find particularly distressing…while arguing individual’s ‘choices’. Hypocrisy?
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 13 March 2006 1:05:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1-
You answered "What makes it human?" with my point 3 "It has human parents", although you have not directly answered the question of what this then means for the treatment of a fetus ("What does human status confer"), or the objections that I had to this point(3).

Can we deduce your answers to those questions from the rest of your post?-
"To say that other forms of life are also created from a certain point is correct, but other species do not have the same thought processes and ‘free will’..." implies the value a human foetus has is derived from its free will and thought processes.

Other species express emotion, can count and make logical decisions. Since a fetus (or undisputably a zygote) shows none of these things I can only conclude you believe either-

1)Belonging to a species that has some memebers that show these qualities is the condition that gives this value (this seems a discriminatory view, but if this is your view I will debate its points)

2)This is a necessary but insufficient source of the value of a foetus' life

Since you cite your near death experience as proof that souls exist, and cite an example of study about prayer in medical cures, I am inclined to believe that point 2 is more in line with your beliefs (but please let me know).

If thought processes and a soul are necessary, then entities such as anecephalic babies without thought processes (other than autonomic processes common to all animals) can legitimately be killed with no evil being done.

Otherwise thought processes are superfluous if a soul is a necessary and sufficient cause of a fetus having enough value that it should not be killed.

I disagree with claims of scientific evidence of a soul (and how this gives particular moral claims), but it would be fruitless to debate this if it is not your view.

I have not really offered up my views for criticism yet (although hinted at them with my first post), and will happily do so if you desire.
Posted by wibble, Monday, 13 March 2006 3:35:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have you no empathy? Papist propaganda! Is that all you have to say about what you saw?
You would only make a mockery of these butchered, seven week old, fetuses. Surely you can see that any action that results in these pictures is terrible?

The attitudes of extreme pro-abortion zealots, who have to demean life to support their cause, go way too far. They can't bear the real consequences of abortion so they have to lie and obfuscate about when life begins. And they have to demean the unborn.

It is one thing to say that abortion is a necessary evil. I can appreciate this argument to some degree. But, they won't stop there. They need to glorify the killing of the innocent and the helpless as some great exercise in women's liberty.

The original leaders of the women's suffrage movement condemned abortion. The new feminist movement broke from the movements past completely by advocating for abortion. The reason, of course, is that it had nothing to do with a feminist revolution. Instead it had everything to do with a sexual revolution that is now reaching its logical extreme: death, isolation and misery.

The modern so-called feminist suffers from total amnesia about the women’s movement that preceded her. Below is a link to few quotes from prominent and famous feminists of yesteryear condemning the evil of abortion.

http://www.feministsforlife.org/history/foremoth.htm

Extreme pro-abortion zealots, who demean the unborn, are poisoned and blinded by a ruthless ideology. Indeed they are the gruesome and macabre agents of the culture of death. And the women among them who call themselves feminists are no such thing at all. They have abandoned the ideals of the original feminists for the ideals of a sexual revolution completely at odds with women’s interests. However, these ideals of the sexual revolution are nothing new. They are an old and tired monstrosity that have helped destroy countless cultures and civilizations of the past.

Women are mistaken if they think that abortion is an ideal of women’s liberation. Abortion is the product of female enslavement.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 13 March 2006 4:43:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As for the Inquisition

All during the Church's history any temporal authority exercised by the Church in fact pretty much came from civil authority. When problems arose that required the use of temporal authority, it was generally the state which carried it out and in whatever way the state wanted to, just as is done today.

A lot of Catholics lost their lives under King Henry VIII and his daughter Elizabeth because they were "heretics" and considered "against the state". The same was true in Germany and Switzerland under the Lutherans and the Calvinists. Execution of heretics is not a unique situation historically or culturally.

Anyone who thinks that the state carried out the will of the Church in all things the day after Constantine declared the state to be Christian is unbelievably ignorant of basic history. Some of the emperors and kings have been Christendom's biggest heretics. Go look up the Arian controversy.

Part of the reason for the death penalty for heresy was that it was also a source of civil unrest.

"Innocent III, coming to the papacy in 1198, saw in these developments [The rise of the Cathar heresy] a threat to both Church and state. He recognized some excuse for criticism of the Church, but he felt that he could hardly remain idle when the great ecclesiastical organization for which he had such lofty plans and hopes, and which seemed to him the chief bulwark against human violence, social chaos, and royal iniquity, was attacked in its very foundations, robbed of its possessions and dignity, and mocked with blasphemous travesties. The state too had committed sins and cherished corruption and
unworthy officials, but only fools wished to destroy it."

(The Age of Faith, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1950, 772-773)
Written by a non-Christian humanist.

Maximum numbers executed were 2000.

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html

Compared with the thousands killed in the womb everyday it is morally and logically outrageous to attack the Inquisition when a far greater holocaust happening today you are vigorously defending!
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 13 March 2006 4:48:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

mjpb & Col (posts 3/3/06)

Hope that you 'guys' can put away your daggers & stop 'fighting' with each other!
(3/3/06)

mjpb (post 9:36:01 AM 3/3/06)

"Most people (hopefully) don't put faith in media stories."? Tragically I think that they do!
(13/3/06)

Lady (post 1:21:02 PM 3/3/06)

Sadly most people feel comfortable sitting in the darkness - they don't have to see reality.
(13/3/06)

Rex (post 5:19:02 PM 3/3/06)

".. Some will say that if something [or even just the thought of something] "offends" them, then they are unreasonably affected." That's why the absurdly restrictive & draconian Racial & Religious Vilification laws came into being.

Once Australians used to predominantly ignore the unflattering & ill-informed remarks of others - "Sticks & stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Now we litigate.

I am unashamedly pro-life. As someone who has 'legally' killed others, witnessed suicides, & been the 'victim' in a murder - my mum was killed - I am against all murder. That's why I oppose abortion. I also oppose "capital punishment". But I see little point in quoting passages from the Holy Bible to those who co-post on this site.

Australia is a secular democracy based on Christian ethics & morality. However, the majority of citizens from within Christendom are 'nominal' Christians at best.

Hopefully non-believers will be attracted by what I represent - not what I say. I was a non-believer who felt as you do - offended by brow-beating. I empathise.
(13/3/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Monday, 13 March 2006 8:02:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

mjpb (post 10:36:59 PM 3/3/06)

Protestants would very much argue that Peter wasn't the first Roman Catholic pope.

If he set the template, then he lived in contravention to the celibacy that is demanded by Catholicism. Peter was married. Christ healed Simon Peter's mother-in-law - Matt 8:14; Mark 1:29, &; Luke 4:38.

I would challenge that Peter was "the rock" upon which Christ's church was built, too. Interpretation could be that "the rock" was:
(i) Christ Himself;
(ii) Peter's confession of faith;
(iii) Christ's teachings;
(iv) Peter himself.
I favour # 1 or 3. But, if you favour # 2 or 4, then the church is indeed built on unsafe foundations - Peter was a fallen man who denied Christ 3-times.
Moreover, there is little to suggest that the Roman Catholic Church, persay, existed much before the 3rd Century.

Notwithstanding, we are not here to debate Christian dogma. We are here to discuss abortion. Rightly, the morals & ethics of religion ought to play a part in that debate.
(13/3/06)

Meg 1 (post 3:47:12 AM 4/3/06)

Thanks Meg! - "Littleagreeablebuddy 28-02-06 is correct, .."
(13/3/06)

Te (post 4:16:39 PM 5/3/06)

"It now appears to be 'Kick the Catholics' instead of 'Semantics of Abortion' - get back on track." I agree, & I'm not Catholic.
(13/3/06)

billie (post 5:52:28 PM 5/3/06)

"How many women out there have a regular cycle?" Probably more than 50%, otherwise there wouldn't be a 'regular'.

When I saw what damage the Copper-T & various 'claimed' contraceptives were doing to my wife, we went to a "Russian-roulette" method. By the normal complexities of life, a little understanding of her body, & a degree of self-control on my part, we only had 3-children in 9-years. Two of those were planned.
(13/3/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Monday, 13 March 2006 8:05:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, if a species evolved to regularly kill each other, they would not have survived. Duh, obvious ain’t it. When things get overcrowded and resources run out, like Easter Island, people turned to cannibalism to survive. That’s the danger of overcrowded ecosystems.

Australia spends 50 billion$ a year on social welfare Meg. Nobody needs go
hungry, but some will fall through the cracks, for various reasons. Yes in cities life is more impersonal. Go to country towns, it all changes. See what
happens with overcrowding? You should read the Human Zoo.

In the Congo life has essentially no value. Commit murder and you go to
jail for a week. Fall off a boat and they will let you drown. Read “No Mercy”,
Redmond O’Hanlon’s trip through the Congo.

Corrupt Govts, corporations etc, are essentially groups of people Meg.
Like the Catholic Church, a large corporation selling religion, selling indulgences, selling hope and threatening fear. Power corrupts, even within religions.

Having far more kids then they can afford to feed and educate, is one reason why Africa is in the state its in. Those women should be empowered with choices which they don’t have right now.

If couples decide to have the snip, that has nothing at all to do with Hitler lol.
Its their choice. You are against it for no good reason, other then what your pope says. Many married women who have had enough kids, have an accident, have abortions. It should be their choice, or even better, have the snip and avoid the abortion.

Yes the pope has control over you. For you believe the heaven/hell story and you believe in the infallibility of the pope. If you therefore go against what he says, you might miss your so called ticket to heaven. So fear and hope drive you to behave in the manner that he suggests. Anything else would leave you anxious about burning forever and anxious people are stressed people.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 13 March 2006 9:34:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby - the reason Africa is in the state it is in is due to corrupt governments, militia, and the fact that wheat, sugar, rice etc is dumped in the sea to keep the prices up. Also, people of your ilk offload contraception off the planes bringing aid FIRST and what money is left is spent on supplying food to the people.
God isn't so stupid that He would say "Go forth and multiply" but then leave the human race on its own without resources. If everyone in the world with "a little extra" shared it around, no one would go hungry.
I have to ask - how often have YOU contributed to help others - volunteer work perhaps, cash donations to the needy in poor countries, do you sponsor a World Vision child? One would have to guess, no, no and no again. But perhaps I "judge" too harshly..... me thinks not. No compassion resonates through your posts. I wish you peace and joy in your life.
Posted by Te, Monday, 13 March 2006 10:16:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“… those main players have been corrupting the set of rules since the time your club was founded.”

The main players advocate respect and avoiding corruption. If you took a break from your fiction writing and checked the rule book you would find that the basic rules they advocate haven’t changed in 2000 years.

”My club respects everyone as individuals.”

Then play by its rules.

Re: respect: In one of my first posts I bemoaned the lack of moderation and stated that I was becoming extremely annoyed by the defamatory comments you were making about Meg.

Re: individuals: Throughout your posts you have bagged Catholics particularly priests because of behaviour that is underrepresented among them. How can you seriously make that assertion?

” My team tolerates those from opposing clubs.”
See above.

”Your team has a history of rioting and burning to death people who they hear singing the anthem of opposing clubs.”

I believe that if you went into any football club and started singing the anthem of opposing clubs you would be taking a risk. The history of your club is much worse and continues to be much worse. When our club started yours derived sadistic pleasure gathering in stadiums to watch our followers being torn apart by wild animals. To this day they abuse children much more commonly.

”my “own instinct” is to “Act responsibly and morally””
Then why are you arguing with those who advocate this?

””LAB –“But so have wiccans, Atheists etc. Sadly, the predominantly anti-Christian”

All the ills and shortcomings of all the atheists, … do not excuse the Church of Rome for a moment for the the crimes they have committed in the name of God.””

If your club really did requiring respecting people as individuals they would have booted you out long ago.

”… but it will never wash the sin off the hands of the priests, bishops, Cardinals and Popes … systematically abusing children …”

Statistically less of these abuse children than the rest of the world. It is more logical to criticise your club for this behaviour.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 5:52:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 13 March 2006 4:43:08 PM

“Have you no empathy? Papist propaganda! Is that all you have to say about what you saw?”

I assume that little hissing-fit is directed at me.

I bet you were an “infant-terrible” when younger, nothing much seems to have changed, self-righteous indignation abounds.

Let us get the record straight. I did not bother to go look at your propaganda. Dead bodies, including embryonic ones are always sad and often gruesome,

As for “The attitudes of extreme pro-abortion zealots”.

I have never ever recommended anyone have an abortion.
I have always advocated that it is an individual’s choice and expressed my continued support for the individual, regardless of what their choice may be.
I have always defended the individuals right to self-determination over the right of any governmental or religious expectation to control the individual in the deployment of their own body.

The Zealotry is all yours, demanding to interfere in the sovereign choices of others and using propaganda photos because you have discovered that it is easier to impose your will over them if you first “mess” with their emotions.

As for “Women are mistaken if they think that abortion is an ideal of women’s liberation. Abortion is the product of female enslavement.”

Pure Gingoism. Get out of the pulpit Martin and mix with real people for a change. You are just blowing socio-religious smoke and causing an EPA hazard.

I fail to see how a woman is “enslaved” by exercising her freedom of choice.
You are merely miffed because your will and demand for control over their bodies is being denied. If anything it is you would see women enslaved by forcing them to comply with the demands (to go full term) which you would place upon them.

Next time you address something to me I suggest exercise the common courtesy of using my logon name. I realise you would wish to see me declared an un-person (excommunicated and warranting no identification) but your religion is not universal and its rules of conduct inappropriately applied in this “secular” forum.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 9:44:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“As for the inquisition”
Suggesting the crimes of the RCC are justified by comparisons to the Church of England under Henry VIII is to excuse one wrong with another and merely a pitiful attempt to minimise Catholic atrocities.

“Maximum numbers executed were 2000. “
Similarly, the number of deaths involved in the inquisition, that there was ONE is an outrage. That you claim it was merely a few thousand is disgusting. That the Spanish were welcoming Napoleon (300 years later) as a hopeful source of relief from inquisitorial terror suggests your claims of “minimal damage” which were merely incidental, is a wacking great big LIE.

As it was, Napoleonic rule saw the suspension of the inquisition but I would note “Schoolmaster Cayetano Ripoli, garroted to death in Valencia on July 26, 1826 (allegedly for teaching Deist principles), was the last person executed by the Spanish Inquisition.” And that was almost 350 years after its inception in 1478.

I would further note Queen Isabella of Spain required permission from the Pope to institute the inquisition and the office of Inquisitor General was always an appointment of the Holy See (Pope).

Of course your laughable figure of “2000” does not include the victims of the Italian and Mexican Inquisitions.

The difference between abortion and inquisition – simple,
Abortion - What someone does in regard their own body is a matter of individual sovereignty.
Inquisition when the office of the corrupt state, aided and abetted by a malevolent Church seeks to maintain or impose civil order and control through the implementation of terror.

Only a complete fool would attempt to justify one by claiming a relatively fewer numbers of deaths (supposedly!) to the other.

Te – your simplification of the issues facing Africa (oh its all the fault of the Caucasians) is laughable.

mjpb “The main players advocate respect and avoiding corruption.”

Double-talk, What they might advocate was not translated into action.

Just Ask the Diocese of Boston USA.
Confer with the Girls held in slavery in Irish RCC Laundries.
Using my entire word allowance would only scratch the surface of RCC abominations.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 9:46:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, no I don’t give money for human projects in Africa. I’ve been there and I am aware that they are aware, that dangling a few starving babies in front of Western TV cameras means that hey presto, boatloads of food will turn up on the horizon, which is far easier then growing the stuff. If the Catholic Church thinks that more and more people are required in Africa, let the Catholic Church feed them.

I do however give both time and money to the things associated with my god. Projects related to sustainability and animal welfare, things you don’t seem to care about.

My god says that if humans live unsustainably and in ever increasing numbers, they will land up killing each other as they fight over scarcer and scarcer resources, as their ecosystems collapse. Keep you eye on the Middle East and you’ll see if my god is right or not.

As to your holy book, I can’t remember it saying anywhere that people should multiply and ruin the planet in the process. I think that your holy book is nothing more then the figment of human imagination, to give some people control over others. Perhaps you’ll yet find out in your lifetime, that you’ve been duped into believing in the wrong version of god. I am not so gullible.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 10:04:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LittleAgreeableBuddy- you say
"Needless killing of other creatures is appalling..."
Eventually we justify our beliefs because they are self-evident (the state of the world they support just happens to be true).

It is productive when debating a complex topic like abortion to see where that point is:

Eg- I agree needless killing of other creatures is appalling. Why? Because lifeforms strive to survive, so thwarting that effort thwarts the purpose of that life form.
Why is that important? Because morality is based on some form of equality, morality is important, and since we have no choice about what we are, to show equal treatment to all things, we should respect its efforts.
Why? Because I don't like the consequences of a world in which morality is unimportant, and some form of egalitarianism based morality seems to allow the best world with the best results for all creatures.
Why is that important? And I run out of answers- moral realism and egalitarianism become "self-evident" ideas I base the rest of my thoughts on.

I guess moral realism is important to most on this forum (otherwise why post?). Most moral paradigms we know include egalitarianism, so most of us think egalitarianism an important part of morality (though expressed in many ways).

What point do you reach to justify a swatted fly can't proportionally be valued against the life of an aborted foetus?

"...if ... another person is of lesser value, then all protection is eradicated... Claiming a foetus to be a 'blob', then 'justifies' abortion."

You don't believe a "person" can be of lesser value than another person, but a fly can be. What makes one a person? Why is personhood important?

Claiming personhood as important leaves most to claim animals are "blobs" which "justifies" their killing.

But without a hierarchy of the value of life it would be morally wrong to administer antibiotics.

My hierarchy is based on abilities to change lives to enjoy them the most (based on abilities to plan, logic, experience emotion etc), so a foetus is more a "blob" than most of the mammals we eat.
Posted by wibble, Tuesday, 14 March 2006 1:30:47 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

”Only a complete fool would attempt to justify one by claiming a relatively fewer numbers of deaths (supposedly!) to the other.”
Another example of respect for the individual?

You try to dismiss arguments in favour of abortion by attacking a subset of your opponents namely Catholics. Your criticism cites deaths in the inquisition. He points out that abortion resulted in many more deaths and you attempt to take a high moral ground in the above quote. As you are arguing for abortion this is unmaintainable. This forum is about abortion and you are arguing against people who say it is wrong. The forum is not just a discussion of Catholicism in a historical context and his point is quite logical in the context.

”mjpb “The main players advocate respect and avoiding corruption.”

Double-talk, What they might advocate was not translated into action.”

Just Ask the Diocese of Boston USA.”

In that Diocese. James Porter, a former priest with 4 children, confessed to molesting children and was imprisoned for 18 to 20 years in 1992. Another priest has also attracted media attention for engaging is similar behaviour.

Fr John Geoghan’s disgraceful behaviour resulted Cardinal Law’s resignation due to allegations that Cardinal Law must have known that Geoghan molested boys but allowed him to continue as a priest.

Geoghan was moved around parishes and extensively treated for his paedophilic problems by psychoanalysts in private practice, psychotherapists in private practice, and at St Luke’s institute in Maryland, the Institute of Living, and at the Hartford and Southdown Institute Ontario. He was not defrocked until 1988.

Geoghan was found guilty of indecent assault and battery in 2002 and sentenced to jail. The subject of the charges that resulted in the conviction was a ten year old boy whose buttocks Geoghan grabbed at a swimming pool.

Whilst this may have been a proliferation of paedophiles in the context of a Catholic Diocese this is consistent with my post on this topic above. In any event your ‘team’ has a much worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour. People in glass houses …
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 2:51:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Yabby (post 7:58:34 PM 5/3/06)

Our focus is Australia - though I admit we need to acknowledge overseas events. However, in an affluent well-educated society like Australia, the male ought to be able to say to his wife, "It's a bit 'risky' right now. How about we just mess around & I'll do without?"

Does the male testosterone have to dominate so much, here in Australia? Does the male has to "throw a leg" every night? To miss out for 3-days & get a 4-fold dose on a wine'n'dine "dirty weekend" is much more respectful to the woman, & much more appreciated. Maybe she wouldn't feel so much like a chattel - reminiscent of 3rd-world women?

Though I also have empathy for unwanted pregnancy outcomes, I also treasure the life of the foetus which didn't ask to be conceived, & is discarded into a stainless-steel bucket once its head & torso have been mutilated.
(13/3/06)

Martin ibn Warriq (post 8:32:10 PM 5/3/06)

In a commodity-driven, wealth-creation society we have lost the art of creating loving/caring families & community groups. The outcome? The aged are looked after by "the state" instead of remaining part of the family household.

Children, the diminishing number that we have within Australia - relative to the total population - rarely get to interact with their grandparents. Is it any wonder that there is little cross-generational understanding, harmony & communication?
(13/3/06)

Meg 1 (post 1:36:28 AM 6/3/06)

"Where Natural Family Planning is taught, it’s been far more successful ...". And so I've heard. However, that wouldn't suit the "bottom-line" of Ansell, now would it?

Great quote from G K CHESTERTON.
(13/3/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 2:51:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Yabby (post 9:45:27 PM 6/3/06)

We're into a discussion about 3rd-world countries again, rather than Australia. I comprehend that a contraceptive-protected woman won't fall pregnant as easily. But how does that begin to teach the man how to respect the woman. If in the process, because she won't fall pregnant, he can just 'bonk' her all-day - whether she wants sex or not, how does that teach him respect?

It's like taking away the "security guard" from out the front of the bank, & then closing the local Police Station, too. With no consequences, the testosterone-drive male will continue to treat his wives/slaves just as tradition demands - like a 'slut'.
(13/3/06)

Bosk (post 10:44:33 PM & 10:47:10pm 7/3/06)

I'll let Meg 1 answer that question, but thanks for the 'correction' - I was at first confused.

Tragically, anti-lifers (pro-abortionists) also make a similar 'error' in thinking. If a foetus, just prior to or until birth, isn't worth saving, then if the 'stated' & agreed-to cut-off point is say 24-weeks, then how does one accurately measure that? If the man & woman are nightly coital indulgers, how could a doctor accurately know on which night the child was conceived?

As for my wife: we might get excited at any one of the 24-hours when we might see each other - depending on our schedules.
(13/3/06)

joseph (post 8:45:18 AM 8/3/06)

Yes, women should be fully informed. But how many women have actually seen a 10-week old foetus? Have you?

".. they (presumably the pro-lifers) will not be by your side .." (presumably) during the latter stages of the pregnancy, at birth & beyond. Well, would the pregnant woman want that? It is more likely that the woman has been referred to other health &/or psychiatric professionals.

By your (silent) inference you insinuate that the abortion doctor sits with the traumatised woman after the termination - lovingly concerned. The doctor has his/her "services' payment" & unless there are medical complications doesn't really care beyond the clinic time. There's your emotionally-involved & caring medical practitioner for you!
(13/3/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 3:01:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LAB

You asked, "Yes, women should be fully informed. But how many women have actually seen a 10-week old foetus? Have you?"

Along with the plethora of information available for women through hospitals, medical clinics, family planning centres etc I have also been a direct witness of my own 12 week old foetus when I miscarried into a toilet a number of years ago.

I still claim sovereignty over my body and fertility.

I do not see abortion as murder - I never will. I do see anti-choice people as fixated on control over others in the guise of pro-life. Given the poverty throughout much of this world, I believe in supporting those who already draw breath.

Cheers
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 7:05:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ALB, I think you are kidding yourself, if you think that you will teach men to respect women, by removing a woman’s right to an abortion. In fact you would achieve the opposite. Women were seen as chattels, when they became totally dependant on men, with little chance of an alternative.

Having a few kids to a guy and no other source of money then him, makes it
pretty difficult for her to leave, for both emotional as well as financial reasons.
Other things teach people to respect one another, including education.

The testosterone driven male that you talk about, is not going to pay too much
towards any kids either. He’ll be in jail or find a loophole, or on the dole.

The thing is, people will make mistakes in life, we all do. Those people need
various options and assistance to bring their lives back on track, in the way they best see fit.

At the end of the day, morality is subjective. There are various objective claims to it, by various religions etc, but they all squabble amongst themselves which one is right. So there is no clear objective morality on this planet.

So all we have to go on is reason and evidence. My personal morality revolves around inflicting the least possible conscious pain and suffering on the least amount of thinking, feeling creatures, of whatever species.

I don’t rate the rights of organisms as the same as that of people. They don’t feel or think. They can be produced in unlimited amounts. So the question arises, when does a fetus become a baby. The evidence suggests that when it has a developed human brain that might be able to start to feel and think.

That happens at around week 25, when those connections to the cortex finally are formed
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 15 March 2006 2:11:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

I agree with most you say on this and other "abortion" forums.

I'm curious about your views on how consistent a pro-abortion stance (based on reducing suffering to thinking creatures at the expense of non-thinking creatures like a foetus) is with the many horrible practises done to non-human, thinking feeling creatures supported by pro-abortionists who, for example, consume meat.

If your "...personal morality revolves around inflicting the least... pain... on...thinking, feeling creatures, of whatever species.",I hope this means you support animal "rights".

Arguments that we can kill thinking, feeling non-human animals, though not thinking, feeling humans, but can also kill non thinking (foetal) humans seem nonsensical, without an extra source of moral value for humans that anti-abortionists must use (eg- human souls).

What about criticisms that the development of thinking (and feeling) is a continuum with no distinct time from when a being can not think to when it develops that capacity?

I like your attitude that "...all we have to go on is reason and evidence".

We use arbitrary times to mark many development dates, that could be on a continuum (voting? first communion?).

The "benefit of the doubt" seems to fall on the side of least harm-eg we legally vote well after most of us can rationally vote.

Anti-abortionists can (and have) claim that the benefit of the doubt means abortion is never right (though why would sperm think less than zygotes?).

The answer emerges from a clash of "rights"-the right to not be destroyed Vs the right to have personal physical sovereignty. Ceribus paribus, the first right "wins".

We know with certainty women can think and feel.
To me this means the benefit of the doubt must make abortion ok until we're reasonably certain a foetus thinks as well as any other creature we would protect at the cost of sovereignty.

I don't believe we reach this point even at week 25, with the connections in the cortex that are formed not particularly more impressive than in the cortex of a fish, but I'm happy to cede the benefit of the doubt at this point.
Posted by wibble, Thursday, 16 March 2006 3:03:03 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am indignant.

Why didn’t you look at the pictures of abortion?

Afraid to? Is the reality of abortion at will too confronting for you?

But Col you should be the most comfortable you’ve argued for the moral rightness of abortion on pretty much any grounds.

You miss much being emotionally fixated on the shadows of the Church. If all you’re interested in are shadows all you have to offer is a shadow play. Deliberately step in puddles and you make the way harder for yourself.

You keep mentioning the Inquisition haven’t but bothered to get across the real story and can’t bear to put the errors of the Church in context, or in proper proportion.

Individual rights, individual self determination? When you utter the words they seem to me like pious vestments worn to disguise a tyranny. The moral weakness that leads to the killing of those who are defenseless “ .. . . then they came for the trade unionists and I said nothing, then they came for me”

You’ve constantly sought to demolish the moral legitimacy that our society has inherited from its religion, you have replaced it only with “individual rights”. What are your reasons – social, political or philosophical for thinking they exist? The natural state of man is vice and the natural state of government is tyranny you want nothing to interfere with this kind of sovereignty?

Instead of argument “get out of the pulpit” “pure gingoism” “infant terrible” “hissy fit” “self righteous indignation” “messing with emotions” “socio religious smoke” “get down off your pulpit” lol

If imposing my will means revealing things that you would prefer remain hidden then yes that is indeed what I am using my will for. What you really mean by messing with emotions is that you haven’t the courage to face up to the real consequences of abortion. Its ironic you accuse me of preaching and not mixing with real people when you are too afraid to view pictures of real abortions!

Your arguments are fraudulent your name calling is an attempt to cover over that fact.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 16 March 2006 9:06:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wibble, you make some great points, I agree with alot of them, but I think that they go right over the heads of the fundie true believers on here. Most don't understand much about nature at all. They just want their ticket to heaven, agreeing with what their church says is their way of getting it. Life is kind of black and white for them.

I'd be happy to discuss the meat/vegan story with you. I don't agree with you, but as you seem intelligent and a thinker, I'd like to hear your views, either privately or on an appropriate forum. This one is for discussing abortion, so I respect the rights of those who come here for that.

Martin, I looked at those photos and they basically are papal propaganda, as those priests are trying to use emotion to dominate peoples ability to reason. Here is a URL of thinking, feeling beings and what has happened to them, in the name of an ever growing human population.

http://karlammann.com/
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 16 March 2006 10:58:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mjpb answers the ‘hissing-fits’ from Yabby and his ideological twin, Col particularly well, however factual content holds little worth for them.

Unsurprisingly Col has acknowledged he won’t look at MIW’s suggested URLs, but then labels it as ‘Papist propaganda’(later mimicked by Yabby)…so much for credibility Col. You refuse to inform yourself first. That explains why you continue to post contradictory and irrelevant posts on this and other threads. (e.g., 4167 and 4192)

Some may have been ‘infants-terrible’, but you haven’t grown out of it Col, check you own image.

Col: ‘Only a complete fool would attempt to justify one by claiming a relatively fewer numbers of deaths (supposedly!) to the other.’

You mean like Yabby did with his 85k rather than 100000 abortions pa in Australia?

Wibble your assertions regarding swatted flies, blobs and other mammals run around in lots of circles ending in a suggestion that, ‘so a foetus is more a "blob" than most of the mammals we eat.’

Are you suggesting that you’d prefer to eat a foetus?

LAB re: Ansell…well, they could always stick to balloons and kitchen gloves…or branch out into car covers.

re: contraception, third world testosterone and women’s rights – a crude but accurate assertion. Perhaps your ‘humour’ will effect some comprehension and understanding by anti-lifer posters where reason and logic have not.

Scout, women who undergo abortions, risk a much higher incidence of spontaneous abortions (miscarriage) later. Ignoring your generalized attacks on pro-lifers, you would find that those organizations offering post abortion counseling do so with compassion and empathy to help you ‘move on’ as you discussed on another thread.

Yabby, you’ve moved the goal posts from the first trimester to 25 weeks …then claim African children are of less worth than the chimps and bonobos they eat. Wrong colour, creed, it can’t be the species can it? Humans are of less worth than chimps and chumps?

Let African babies starve but roll the whales over – is nature taking its course there? Double-standards and blatant hypocrisy?

You can justify anything Yabby, read "Animal Farm", George Orwell must've known you...

tbc
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 17 March 2006 12:52:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont...)

Wibble: ‘…with certainty women can think and feel.’ …killing the unborn is ok…therefore an unconscious, drunken woman can be killed?

Incidentally 25-week-babies have survived…with good long-term-health.

MIW good points – but they’ve probably gone over the heads of those fundie-anti-life zealots. Crikey, insults must be catching.

If Yabby and wibble keep talking about eating chimps, steaks and fish, everyone will get hungry and I'll have to fire up the BBQ.
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 17 March 2006 1:11:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is needed here are a few FACTS.

These can be found at

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Abortion_emotional_issues
The following is an excerpt:

"Recommendations from women
Women who have experienced abortion tend to want changes to the current system, including:

* The final decision to abort should rest solely with the woman.
* Clear and unequivocal abortion legislation throughout the country.
* The removal of abortion from the various State and Territory Crimes Acts.
* The genuine experiences of abortion should be reported."

and at

http://www.betterhealth.vic.gov.au/bhcv2/bhcarticles.nsf/pages/Abortion_Q&A

This is another excerpt:

"In general, a termination of pregnancy will not affect a woman's future chance of conceiving, any more than if a woman has had to have a curette for a pregnancy miscarriage. It is important to remember that a woman's fertility decreases after age 33."

Meg1 - I suffered my miscarriages at age 41 and 42 - not uncommon to have miscarriages at this age, my dear woman.

I am a very healthy woman, regular periods and all that. So is my sister who also had a couple of abortions in her youth and went on to produce a healthy boy at age 37 and girl at age 40.

The majority of women who have abortions go on to have healthy children and become good mothers.

You claim to be a counsellor - well, for such great responsibility you should, at the very least, GET YOUR FACTS RIGHT.

Or are you, instead, pushing you own ideology instead of offering help? Hmmm.

One thing every counsellor knows (I have worked as a counsellor to low income people during my days with Dept of Human Services) is to leave your opinions at the door and

REFRAIN FROM JUDGEMENT.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 17 March 2006 7:55:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have moved no goalposts at all Meg, you just don't understand the issues. Womens right to an abortion up to the end of the first tremester, has become somewhat of a standard around the world, certainly in many countries. I think that the same should be enshrined in Australian legislation. 25-26 weeks is when the experts tell us is the point that the brain has developed to a point where it can be called a human brain, not a potential human brain.

LABs crude assertions did nothing but imply that well in that case clearly there was no reason why Catholics could not "throw a leg over" on unfertile days. The argument made no sense in the first place.

Unsustainably raping and pillaging the planet in the name of Catholic dogma doesent seem to be a problem for you Meg. To hell with all the other species. Even the last few thousand chimps and bonobos. Cook em up in the name of going to heaven. That shows me how much you really care deep down
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 17 March 2006 8:15:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb “In any event your ‘team’ has a much worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour.”

Maybe you could enunciate for us all which “Team” is “My Team”.

I hold fealty to no religion. I am neither atheist nor agnostic.

So please tell me “Which Team” are you referring to in your pitifully defensive claim that “mine” is worse than “yours”.

LAB “In a commodity-driven, wealth-creation society we have lost the art of creating loving/caring families & community groups.”

Oh yes the world was a better place when the resources of production and collection of wealth was the exclusive preserve of religious deities. If you seriously think that, you are sadly mistaken. I know for a fact, my family, myself and daughters and brother and sisters are as loving as they come. Likewise my partner and her sons.

Martin “I am indignant”.

So! I could not care less

As for “Is the reality of abortion at will too confronting for you?”

I have no stomach for blood of any sort. I avert my gaze even when having a blood test. Whilst I have experienced heart bypass surgery first hand, I would pass-out watching a video of the operation on myself or anyone else.

I miss nothing. I am not fixated on the shadow of the Church but “shadow” it is.
Not the source of light it is supposed to be but the shadow of corruption well practiced in the dark arts of terrorising small children.

I do not deny the moral legitimacy of this society, I separate that moral legitimacy from any claim the religious might make to having contributed it, based on historic abuses.

Strange place for me to hide, – in plain view engaging in public confrontation with you. I would not hide even if the inquisition were to be reinvoked and your mob started to cart free men and women off for to be tortured and murdered.
Better dead than the no-choice living-dead.
I note the Office of the Inquisition still exists in the Vatican, so who knows.

My “Fraudulent Arguments”? You display self-righteous CRAP!
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 17 March 2006 12:52:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Meg 1 (post 11:17:43 PM 8/3/06)

As you correctly state, illness will most certainly affect many of the contraceptives. Despite the fact that many of the so-called contraceptives are actually abortifacients, nothing will necessarily work is taken incorrectly, or the dosage is contaminated by additional chemicals such as medications or poor-health.

Abstinence is 100% infallible!
(13/3/06)

Yabby (post 8:55:14 PM 10/3/06)

A contraceptive is designed to prevent conception - viz, the condom.

An abortifacient allows conception then destroys/prevents implantation of the embryo. The 'old' Copper-T was one example, & RU-486 is another. That's its stated function. If it is dispensed like Paracetamol then women's lives will surely be endangered.

Meanwhile, if it has beneficial properties in the treatment of cancer, then I would have no objection to such usage. Who would?
(13/3/06)

Te (post 9:05:30 PM 10/3/06)

A frightening thought!
(13/3/06)

R0bert (post 9:33:19 PM 10/3/06)

It matter little what the mainstream churches think, nor what the Mormons, the SDAs, the Armstongists, the Christadelphians et alii say. It's what God (Yahweh) says, thinks & does that ultimately counts.

Imagine all the anti-god protagonists watching & listening as God simply says: "Well, I gave you a chance, but you told Me to go away." "I suggested that you concentrate less on yourself & genuinely cared more about others. But you said, that your career, affluence & lifestyle were more important than Me & the welfare of those whom I love (mankind)."

Says God: "Well, it's eternal damnation for you." Priceless!
(13/3/06)

Yabby (post 3:23:02 AM 11/3/06)

Dave ALLEN apparently sought God in the end! So you wouldn't want to be with him.

Bill CLINTON was a hypocritical practising Catholic. You probably wouldn't want to share your time with him - he'd 'screw' anything that wasn't "nailed-down" & he'd lie to you (just like he did to Hillary & Chelsea over his infidelity; & the American people over the status of the budget in 1996 & 1997).
(13/3/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Friday, 17 March 2006 4:06:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,
I agree arguments about vegetarianism aren't on topic per se. I'm comfortable that if more people held your views, cruelty and suffering from to any entity, would be at a minimum.

Being utilitarian, I don't support rights based morality(including animal “rights”), but because the anti-abortion argument had somewhat dried up, I was playing devil's advocate and developing some assumptions behind pro-abortion arguments, to show how these can be attacked by anti-abortionists.

However, Meg1 has risen again to the challenge, and presented in analogy a better attack of "cognitive" based morality than my development continuum argument.

Meg1,
I'm not sure why you're asking if I'd prefer to eat a foetus to other mammals- I'd prefer neither (I'm vegan), but yes, I do value other, more functional(happier) mammals more than a foetus (so technically if I had to eat one, I'd choose the foetus. If you had to choose, would you rather eat a baby or a foetus?)

Your analogy about an unconscious woman is an astute critique of tying moral value to an impermanent state such as thought, although it doesn’t represent the situation of abortion. If the unconscious woman threatened the sovereignty of another woman (like the unconcsious violinist argument) the analogy would better represent an abortion situation.

But the attack shows good method; attacking the margins of a state that provides value (in this case thought/feeling) to ask why that value exists. It is similar to attacks of the margins of belonging to the category of human (anacephalics, hydatiform moles, aliens with human characteristics, even bonobos etc), to see why being human is important.

The main defense of “cognitive” based morality, when unconscious people remain morally protected, is that unconciousness isn’t a permanent state. This is ironically similar to the "potential" defense protecting foetuses from being non-persons- they’re not permanently non-persons (they’ll develop into persons).

Taken too far, I’m no fan of “potential” arguments- we’re all potentially dead, at which point it is dubious we have any moral value, yet that potential would not justify treating live humans in a manner we could acceptably treat the dead.

(continued)
Posted by wibble, Saturday, 18 March 2006 3:29:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(from previous post)
As a consequentialist, I argue an unconscious person will soon be experiencing the happiness of their lives, so killing them won’t result in good consequences (usually).
I don’t believe cognitive processes have primary moral value, only value as they create happiness, so I don’t have to defend conscious thought as a necessary source of moral value (though it is sufficient if such thought creates happiness).

The foetus, with currently limited capacity for happiness, isn’t as important as the more definite happiness of the mother. Some effort is required to get this foetus to a point where it can, through growing awareness, thinking, and other capacities, enjoy its existence, and it is not particularly certain the foetus will get there.
Additionally, the foetus, and the effort to get it to the same moral value of mothers, can easily be replicated elsewhere.

At its base, my defense is;
*the happiness from these capacities is intrinsically valuable
*I know this from moral intuition
*and this forms part of my world-view
(to others being human has intrinsic value, this value is derived from their world-view, and conforms to their moral intuitions).

The last resort to test these world-views, based on moral intuitions, is to use heuristic examples (such as is it ok to kill a drunken, unconscious woman?)

Try these-

Is it ok to remove a foetus to keep in permanent “frozen” storage (not technically killing it)? What could be done to the foetus as long as it isn’t killed?

Choose between saving a child or a tray of foetuses?

Is abortion ok if childbirth kills the mother?
What if childbirth kills others?
(eg an embryo infected by a virus that won’t be virulent until birth? How many people should be at risk before abortion is ok? What if at birth, the virus kills the child anyway? and mother? and x others?)

If a woman wants to abort a foetus we know is infected with a virus, but we can cure it and thereby get a vaccine that will save millions, how does the woman’s right to choose come into it?
Posted by wibble, Saturday, 18 March 2006 3:30:05 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
““In any event your ‘team’ has a much worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour.”

Maybe you could enunciate for us all which “Team” is “My Team”.

I hold fealty to no religion. I am neither atheist nor agnostic.

So please tell me “Which Team” are you referring to in your pitifully defensive claim that “mine” is worse than “yours”.”

When I pointed out that your team has a worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour I was referring to the group you were referring to when you said:

“My club rules differ from your club rules.”

If you wish to make an issue of the use of ‘team’ rather than ‘club’ than substitute ‘club’ for ‘team’.

“You display self-righteous CRAP!”

You would never be self righteous would you?

Deep down you must know that you are putting forward ‘CRAP” about Catholic priests. I still think that you are being deliberately obtuse to obvious reality and are pretending to be a slave of media sensationalism just because you hate Catholics.
Posted by mjpb, Saturday, 18 March 2006 5:34:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wibble

While I am enjoying the intellectual thrust of your posts - eg "would Meg1 choose to eat either a foetus or baby" LOL at that one.

As a woman I have had to face the cold hard reality of:

1. Failure of contraceptive
2. Domestic violence
3. Rape (acknowledge rape is a crime against men also, but men do not get pregnant as a result).

My point is that women have to live with the consequences of any sexual activity, in a manner that does not effect men except on a peripheral level - that they choose to become involved is a conscious decision not a consequence of their sexual behaviour.

It is no doubt amusing for you to conduct such intellectual musings. However it makes not one jot of difference to me. I have had to make the decision of obtaining an abortion after very careful consideration - as do the majority of women.

The decision remains with the individual woman concerned - regardless of any possible 'virus vaccines' or any other theory you may wish to raise in debate.

I guess I am offended, Wibble - having dealt with the reality leaves me rather bereft of patience for your intellectualising.

Abortion is a hard choice for any woman to make. People who call us murderers, harass us outside clinics, cast aspersions on our intelligence/morals are those whose motives have to be regarded with the utmost suspicion.

What are your motives Wibble?
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 18 March 2006 7:58:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb “When I pointed out that your team has a worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour I was referring to the group you were referring to when you said:

“My club rules differ from your club rules.””

So maybe now you might like to tell me which team / club you are referring to.

NAME IT!

I call your team “The Roman Catholic Church” it claims a membership of 1 billion (but then it claims a lot of things).

What is the Name of “my team / club”, how many members does it have?

What evidence do you present to support your claim that my team has a “worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour”.

You have made the claim to my team's decline into the worst excesses of human depravity.

I FEEL IT FAIR TO DEMAND YOU PRESENT SOME REFERENCES TO SUPPORT THAT ACCUSATION.

If I need to find evidence of in statements of claims of depravity enacted by roman catholic priests and covered up (the real corruption) by the religious hierarchy of the catholic church, I can go onto the net and find items by using keywords like

catholic paedophiles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_scandal

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3157555.stm

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws95/paedo44.html


That is just 3 from a list among hundreds of thousands.

I challenge you to produce just one indictment of “my team / club”.


mjpb bring it all on.. make some attempt to be a man and prove your assertion



Produce JUST ONE internet reference to support your claim that my team has a “worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour” of any sort, let alone worst than yours.

Be a man and rise to the challenge OR be seen as a bungling, impulsive, judgementalistic liar, devoid of credibility and credence.

(I do not intend to hold my breath while we wait).
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 18 March 2006 8:28:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Col Rouge (post 7:06:42 AM 11/3/06)

Thanks for the joke - we needed that! You forgot to mention that Methodists wouldn't dance, though.

The Christian principle of salvation through grace by faith is supposed to translate into resultant "goodworks" & righteousness. It rarely does.

I often suggest that people should obey the last 6 of the Ten Commandments - removing God from the equation. But even Christians struggle with those few.
(13/3/06)

Martin ibn Warriq (post 12:04:12 PM 12/3/06)

Pretty definitive & graphic. Unlike many, though, I've seen a 10-week old foetus & carry around a life-sized replica. Very disturbing when you see the reality.

Is it any wonder that abortionists often fail to full inform their patients?
(13/3/06)

Yabby (post 2:13:15 PM 12.3.06)

".. your anti abortionists and "breed like rabbits" brigade. .."
Where do you get such 'licence' to untruthfully link two unassociated philosophies? Not every pro-lifer seeks to have large families.

My former-wife & I only had 3-children. That was our choice. If she'd conceived again we would have happily accepted the additional child/children. Once again: we weren't/aren't Catholic.

This post is NOT about overseas activities - as shameful as they are. It's about Australia, & what our views are &/or should be.
(13/3/06)

Martin ibn Warriq (post 3:27:04 PM 12/3/06)

I appreciate your comment.

I'm certainly not anti-Catholic. I may not agree with all that you uphold, but we are substantially in agreement on many issues.
(13/3/06)

Col Rouge (post 11:54:36 PM 12/3/06)

"All the ills and shortcomings of all the atheists, secularists, wiccans witches and hob-goblins do not excuse the Church of Rome .."
No they don't! But equally, Protestants should recognise that Luther was an anti-Semite - not to ignore that Roman Catholics varyingly were too. The Brethren Church was one of the last to eradicate "slavery"; the SDAs get Daniel 8 & 9 and Revelation interpretation wrong; the JWs are just about totally wrong, ad infinitum.

When are Christians going to stop arguing with Christians & focus on our common 'enemies'? Christendom is more & more emulating Islam.
(13/3/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Saturday, 18 March 2006 5:13:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LAB, the link between the 2 philosophies is made by the Catholic Church. If you had looked at the URL of the pro-life ph that I posted, you would have noticed global links. Yes there are people like you and your wife, but one swallow doesent make a summer lol.

In Australia, the right to an abortion is easy. If they tried to take it away,there would be riots in the streets and politicians would lose their testicles :) So what is wrong with having some empathy with those hundreds of thousands of women, dying around the world, because of the Catholic agenda? Where is the Christianity in all that? Seeing its a global issue, why should we not mention
what happens globally?
Morality and questions about it do not stop at the Australian border.

Scout, I don't think that Wibble means any harm, he/she is just looking at the issue from a different perspective. Yup there are the intellectual musings on one hand. In a way they do affect you,
certainly other women. The fact that you had a choice to abort,
choice to leave your husband etc, is not one that all women have.

Since the Vatican tried to claim a patent on the right to define objective morality, they have also kept folllowed their agenda to change laws in various countries. I don't know if you follow what happens in the US, but right now the pro life lobby are doing their darndest, using legal means, to take away American womens rights to an abortion. Given half a chance, they would try the same in Australia.

So we really have to see the abortion-contraception debate, from various perspectives. One is the philosophical perspective. Two is the human rights perspective, as in your case. Thirdly the sustainability perspective, as is an issue globally.

Perhaps Wibble's big mistake was to respond to Meg's ludicrous claims in the first place. She's got no valid arguments, apart from wanting to get to heaven by being a good Catholic. So she's making these totally ridiculous claims, just to say something
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 18 March 2006 6:16:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby

I understand where you are coming from and I know that Wibble was challenging Meg1's presumptions with a bit of intellectualising, but after the hell I, and many women, go through it just appeared to be both pretentious and trivialising very difficult circumstances. Not that I didn't find it interesting - I did. (BTW Yabby you make my 'choices' sound like a walk in the park - they didn't feel very much like 'choices' more like survival born of desperation. Not a real choice, Yabby.)

Anyway, I'd like to take this bit of hypothetical play further and ask the righteous anti-abortionists out what they would like to see happen to all the frozen embryos that are no longer needed for in vitro fertilisation.

Should the mother be made to give birth to all? Should these embryos be implanted in other women?

Of course, personally speaking, I see a need for research into stem cells that these foeti could provide.

However, I would like to know from those who hold the foetus as above the rights of the lives of others, just what they believe should be done with all these frozen foeti?
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 19 March 2006 9:38:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, I've known a few women who had to make a decision about abortion and its quite traumatic. I can empathise with with what you went through, I've had staff and friends in similar kinds of circumstances, domestic violence etc.

Its perhaps because of those things that I am so passionate about this topic, even though its never affected me personally. Having lived for some time in Africa, I saw the other side, where no choice is available. Life is relative so to speak. Some of those women came close to death, all because a few religious nuts are totally judgemental about the world and want to enforce their dogma on everyone.

When I read the figures of women dying in South America, where the Catholic Church has huge influence politically, they just blew me away.
These people are meant to belong to a religion that cares for others, yet here was their dogma, killing people by the tens of thousands every year. We Australians get upset if one Australian is hanged in Singapore, yet here is a huge tragedy, caused by people who claim to care about others. The hypocracy is totally overwhelming.

Thats why I attack the Catholic Church. They are in total denial of the misery they are causing around the world, their view must be right and they will surely get to their heaven. I have a huge problem with that kind of ignorance and stupidity.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 19 March 2006 4:51:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Yabby

I understand where you are coming from. It is all relative. We can only judge our circumstances based upon the culture in which we live.

I know that I would rather be a woman in a western style democracy than any other. However, as you will no doubt decipher from the tenor of many posts here, we still have to remain ever vigilant for there are those whose agenda would have all women with the same appalling lack of choice as those experienced in many other countries - Africa, Middle East and so on.

I have yet to see ANY religion treat women as equals to men - there is always some kind of 'catch 22'.

It was this inequality, along with many other reasons (eg evolution) that turned me away from Christianity when I was 12.

Kind regards

Dianne
Posted by Scout, Monday, 20 March 2006 8:12:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Yabby (post 9:43:32 AM 13/3/06)

Morality is a conscious, rationalised thought process. Few animals on the face of earth have been blessed with the ability to rationalise. Only homosapien has been granted true comprehension of right from wrong. That doesn't mean that we consciously apply such rationale though.

Without applying "absolutes" we begin to create excuses to justify why something that's immoral, unethical or untruthful is abided by.

With children, we create Santa Claus, the "tooth fair" & the "Easter bunny" & justify those lies & deceits by calling them "'white' lies, which give our children fun".

Is it any wonder that after a lifetime of us lying to our children that they see nothing wrong in lying to us?

I do not oppose sterilisation for medical or family planning reasons. That certainly is preferable to a resultant abortion - the killing of the foetus.
(13/3/06)

Meg 1 (post 1:05:02 PM 13/3/06)

Correct, Meg. For much of the starving 3rd-world countries it isn't a matter of over-population. Rather, it's lack of food, resources & skills. Droughts, government corruption & warfare exacerbate the situation.

We initially should/must freight food to the masses. But until warfare & corruption is halted, & the inhabitants are supplied with machinery & given skills, their lot will hardly improve.

When economies are racked by inflation rates of 100% per day/month/year, even the workers cannot maintain an adequate survival.

If abortion is practised on a large-scale in some of these countries, they will within 20-years possibly suffer a generation loss. However, we are here to discuss Australia - not African or Asian nations' woes. That is for another posting.
(13/3/06)

Martin ibn Warriq (post 4:43:08 PM 13/3/06)

"Abortion is the product of female enslavement."
Often women won't see it as thus. They won't/don't comprehend that if the male isn't made co-responsible, then the woman is likely to be little more than a "r**ting machine". Great for male egos, but not necessarily enduring to mutual respect & long-term love (admiration).

Isn't it another form of the rabbit-mentality which occurs in less-sophisticated countries, too?

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Monday, 20 March 2006 10:37:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Martin ibn Warriq (post 4:48:05 PM 13/3/06)

Killing people for religious dissent is abhorrent - as is letting the impoverished starve. But as you rightly infer: it is no less disgusting to destroy a foetus.
(15/3/06)

Yabby (post 9:34:47 PM 13/3/06)

"Having far more kids then they can afford to feed and educate, is one reason why Africa is in the state its in."
Yes, & the reason(s) that much of that has occurred is because of:
(i) Constant killings & dictatorial civil-wars;
(ii) A generation of almost non-productive farming;
(iii) Drought;
(iv) Lack of adequate aid - often supplies diverted or stolen;
(v) Non-implementation of adequate modern technologies;
(vi) Resulting in estroyed economies, etc.

Isn't it interesting that many of the famine-ridden countries were flourishing economies when the British, Dutch, Spanish & others colonised them. Since? Warfare & terror!

With despotic idiots like Robert MUGABI at the helm whole nations have disintegrated. People, such as Australia's Peter DANIELS who was an advisor to the World Bank, were warning of this more than 20-years ago. No one wanted to listen.

But wide-spread abortions practices on these people isn't the answer. If we replicate China, that might mean imprisonment for a pregnant woman with more than 1-child. That's not a solution either - & who'd enforce it? The UN I suppose?
(15/3/06)

Te (post 10:16:52 PM 13/3/06)

".. the reason Africa is in the state it is in is due to .. "
Absolutely!
(15/3/06)

mjpb (post 5:52:29 AM 14/3/06)

"All the (Atheist) ills and shortcomings ... do not excuse the Church of Rome ..".
I never suggested that they did. Kindly read the complete content & context of my words.

"If your club really did requiring ..."
What 'club'? I don't belong to a 'club' - I'm not Catholic (as I keep saying, in almost every post).

Oh, I think you meant "require" NOT "requiring".
(15/3/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Monday, 20 March 2006 11:53:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, I post regularly on a USA abortion board. This is a world wide issue, just as slavery was once a world wide issue.
The Catholic Church is a world wide organisation and as insidious as any other organisation which sees itself as an omnipotent force with divine right to mess with the lives of individuals.
You are right, the organisation of priest is not interested in the congregational cannon fodder, just in retaining their power base.
AS I have repeatedly stated here and elsewhere, Organised religion is a blight on society. “Humanity” is compassionate and loving by nature, despite the efforts of organised religion, not because of it.

It is only by respecting someone else and loving their right to exercise “freewill” that we come to accept their right of decision, the very right which the religious would demand be denied them.

LAB
RE “If abortion is practised on a large-scale in some of these countries, they will within 20-years possibly suffer a generation loss”

I thought that was what AIDS was doing – today and not in 20 years time.

As for the bit about corruption, wars inflation etc. These social curses have nothing to do with people exercising sovereignty over their own body.

RE “"Abortion is the product of female enslavement."
Often women won't see it as thus.”

It must be a particularly perverse mind which manipulates “respecting someone else’s right of self determination” into “enslavement”.

Again, I see nothing “Egoistic” of the male in respecting a females right of choice, quite the opposite.

As for co-responsibility, our child support laws make the male “co-responsible”. However I do not believe that gives tha male any right of decision over the female. We are talking about the females body and only the female should have right to make the final decision or choice. I guess it is a bit rough on the male but, as a male, I recognise that the world is not always a “level playing field” especially when only one half of a couple is the pregnant one.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 20 March 2006 12:09:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout,
I'm sorry you found my post offensive. I'm not trying to offend.

1)if it is my style you find offensive, I'm not sure what I can do about that; it is the way I think and write.

2)As I haven't had an abortion, I can't convey the human nature of the debate like you can, which is why it is vital you (and others) continue to explain why abortion is really important as an option for people who actually experience unwanted pregnancy. It makes no real difference to me whether others choose to have abortions or not, but if abortion could be approached more from an "intellectual" perspective, I think it would be a less distressing issue for those actually faced with it.

3)Additionally, as many people (as voters) have some say on abortion but are unlikely to experience abortion, examining the philosophy of abortion may be one route to involving them in the issue, to the extent that they can understand it is not really their issue, so they too can choose to leave abortion to the people it really is an issue for (pregnant women). Just appealing to the experience of being pregnant may make some feel excluded from the debate (even though upon intellectual reflection it should not really be their debate), so emotional appeals like showing aborted foetuses may have an undue and unhelpful influence on them.

4)As I have this "intellectual"(neutral-ish?) style, you may suspect my motives. In one sense, if my arguments are sound, this should not matter. Nevertheless, my motives are to promote pro-choice over anti-abortion, because the motives supporting an anti-abortion argument are oppressive and impact on everyone (including me). As I said, on the actual issue of abortion, I am indifferent except as I need to oppose people who feel they can tell others what to do for no good reason.

5)Finally, as you mention my "virus vaccines" dilemma, it may be this which has offended. The point of a heuristic device is to challenge. If it has offended you, I would ask that you examine why this is so.
Posted by wibble, Monday, 20 March 2006 1:45:52 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dianne,

What you went through was horrific and words are thin compared with experience.

I can only speak in principle about abortion.

Having said that though my times of desperation may be analogous?

If you're interested I can share my experience of the healing presence of God, the same kind that our ancestors have been speaking of for thousands of years and people continue to feel to this day. This is the most important thing in my life. Our Lord is waiting for you, I know he loves you but that is between you and Him.

Sincerely,

Martin

P.s. Evolutionism isn't really very solid as a metaphysic Dianne, you deserve better. I think Michael Behe writes well on it. Also Antony Flew the most famous contemporary atheist has converted to theism because of the massive problem with evolutionism.

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=antony+flew+conversion&hl=en&lr=&start=10&sa=N

Must run
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 7:47:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wibble

Thank you very much for your well considered response. I feel it is necessary to question motives due to the appalling abuse I have received for my honesty.

I have not missed the point of your technique in introducing hypotheticals to engender some thought in those who are anti-abortion. I guess having experienced the hard reality of an unwanted pregnancy - reading the 'holier-than-thou' posts has brought out some hypersensitivity on my part. That I should have the luxury of posting heuristic style arguments - it is something to be indulged in when one isn't so emotionally entangled in the issue.

I actually agree with your post - but it is not my nature to accept something without looking at it from all angles. I am glad I challenged you and am very pleased with your response.

I notice, thus far, not one of the anti-abortionists have provided any suggestion as to what to do with unneeded embryos. Interesting, no?

Martin - I find the concept of God itself limiting in the extreme. Compared to the size of the universe and then down to the worlds within a single atom: he/she/it is a small thing with a very big ego. I do not intend to insult you with these remarks - this is MY belief. I look to find peace within myself, I look towards helping others find their own inner peace. I do not find peace worshipping some deity for which there is no evidence of its existence. I prefer to get on with my life and live it to the best of my ability.

Regards to all
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 9:36:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout,

I'm glad you challenged me as well. As you suggest, our different approaches highlight that abortion is really a debate those of us who haven't had one, are imposing on pregnant women.

Though abortion is an important issue for each individual pregnant woman to consider, that is none of my affair; I speak on the topic only because the anti-abortion debate is based on a "philosophy" of an absolute moral stricture(eg doing God's work).

If each anti-abortionist decided for themselves that abortion wasn't for them, I would not object. But because the whole anti-abortion argument is pitched in terms of the good/evil of the action irrespective of individual circumstance, and thus judges women with unwanted pregnancies (as you have been judged in this forum), I'm compelled to offer an alternative good/evil debate.

To this end, heuristic devices are an indulgence, and most specifically aimed at anti-abortionists (most of whom will never have to contemplate an abortion) to test the limits of their philosophy. I also find it interesting that there have been no attempts to answer any of these "philosophical" questions, particularly about unneeded embryos.

I appreciate that anti-abortionists genuinely feel that abortion is evil and violates some holy decree. But then the onus is on them to-

1)Prove the metaphysics behind their argument (ie that God exists)

2)Prove that God believes killing humans is wrong, and that humanity starts at conception (and must then defend why their interpretation of God's will is better than others- a point Col Rouge is working on)

...and since these first 2 things form their world-view, they need to test that world-view by-

3)Adequately answering philosophical questions to test the limits of their beliefs, or to compare their moral intuitions with everyone else's

Since the topic of this forum is the "semantics" of abortion, this debate started on the premise that abortion is a "topic" that we can debate, so I am, though it is actually an issue we should leave to those who it concerns.

Thankfully, our society and politicians seem, on a whole, to agree that abortion is an individual choice.
Posted by wibble, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 12:52:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Wibble
Anti-abortionists [at least the religious ones] believe that life begins at conception because that's when ensoulment occurs. The only trouble is NO ONE can prove that the soul exists, or if it does when the soul is implanted in a human. There are NO infallible reasons given by a pope or church council, no verses from a holy book. It is just a guess.
This being so it follows that such a guess [based on a complete LACK of data] has a high probability of being wrong. It is also true that any unsubstantiated guess is equal to any other.

I for example might claim that all babies MUST be aborted since it is MY guess that invisible aliens impregnate women in the middle of the night with the intent to take over the world. Silly? Absolutely! Unsupported by facts? Totally! But My guess is no more unsupported by facts than the guess of the protestant & catholic churches.

Since the soul's existence & when [& indeed if] it is implanted in the body is guesswork it would seem logical that the one to make the decision as to the relevance or irrelevance of these guesses is the one who will be most affected. ie the woman concerned.

If there are any anti-abortionists still reading this thread perhaps you would like to deal with this argument.
Posted by Bosk, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 2:20:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wibble, for the very sake of democracy and to avoid religious tyranny, people like myself, you, Col etc etc need to have our say and to say it loudly lol. Bosk you are correct, they don't have any evidence to justify their beliefs, no evidence for good reasons to force their views on others, but that does not stop them trying to manipulate the political system.

One thing I give the Catholic Church credit for, they have learnt how to lobby. Seldom under their own name, usually the name of some catchy sounding organisation, that just happens to be affiliated with them somehow.

Note that when the RU 486 debate took place, one of Abbot's old media people was employed, 100k$ was found in a hurry, thousands apon thousands of pro forma letters against RU 486 were mailed to politicians. A dubious survey was produced, all this is a very short timeframe. So the noise that they make is far out of proportion to their numbers.

When abortion was finally legalised in West Australia, various surveys showed that well over 90% of the population were for it.
But the pressure from the anti abortion lobby on politicians was phenomenal! I guess that is what happens, when people are fanatical
about their religious views, wanting to get to their heaven at any cost :)

Its a pity that people like Martin, don't stop and smell the roses,
have a look around them at the beauty of nature etc, and take notice
of natures laws. They might not be written in one single book, but they are plain for all to see, who are interested. If I have any god, its those laws, I've taken the trouble to understand them and
admire them, also the sustainability of the system they represent.

Its a shame that people like Martin can't quell their anxieties by observing the same, but need to turn to a few manipulative old men in Rome to cope with life. Don't forget, heaven is here and now,
so enjoy! After that, the only guarantee is the worms :(
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 4:59:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Yabby (post 10:04:53 AM 14/3/06)

".. killing each other as they fight over scarcer .. resources .."
Often we don't have lack of resources, we just fail to re-distribute them.

Part of the 'problem' is the restrictions brought on by civil war; part is because of business 'greed'; part is logistics.

Israel turned much of the once-rich farmland laid barren by the Arabs back into farmlands. They did that post-1948 by the use of technology & their kibbutz.

Africa could emulate Israel. Firstly they must cease fighting.
(15/3/06)

wibble (post 1:30:47 PM 14/3/06)

For most of what you write (concerning my post), you & I aren't in conflict - if you read what I said & 'read between the lines'.

My hierarchical order is obviously not the same as yours.

In an emergency, I would firstly save my former-wife before any other human being. Next would be my children. Then would be any other human whom I could rescue.

Animals would be rescued as best I could, but I would not rescue an animal in preference to your wife, husband, children, friends or enemies. Thus a foetus takes priority over even my dog - & I loved my dog (deceased).

In all that, I am opposed to senseless killing of all animals - I abhor the use of animals for experimentation.
(15/3/06)

mjpb (post 2:51:02 AM 15/3/06)

I agree with you that the molestation of children by priests & others was often badly handled. Their culpability was sometimes denied. Re-deployment of the guilty is an affront to the victims, & society generally.

But non-admission of guilt is a human trait which extends throughout society. Some simple examples:
(i) my mum's killer tried to blame a Kings Cross (Sydney) pimp;
(ii) my younger son denied defrauding me - photos & finger-prints proved otherwise;
(iii) I witness multiple court cases where people from all walks-of-life deny their culpability. Most aren't Christians.
(15/3/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 5:22:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi all

Scout (post 7:05:55 AM 15/3/06)

A miscarriage must be a dreadful experience for women. Traumatic for a loving husband, too.

I empathise. I cannot begin to comprehend.

Women have sovereignty over their body ... until they create another life. Their responsibility then is, to also protect the life inside her.

Women who continue to smoke, drink excessively, & do things which endangers both lives, are culpably negligent.

I don't disagree that those who "draw breath" should receive priority. I'm simply opposed to foetus killing - unless the woman's life is endangered.

And there lays the ethical dilemma for a doctor who has ulterior motives, or a woman who sees abortion as a life-style choice.

Rape? Domestic violence? My compassion extends to those women. "The jury is still out" for me. The foetus & woman are both valued creatures.
(15/3/06)

Scout [Dianne] (post 8:12:12 AM 20/3/06)

You seem to possess a beautiful heart. That often comes from repetitive/mass trauma. Little could be worse than what you revealed - only death.

I likewise walked abandoned religion when at 11-years when I heard hypocrisy from a minister's wife. Recently I've learnt not to judge. Priests, ministers, truck-drivers & astronauts aren't perfect.

Multiple traumas brought me back to Christ - many years later.

I mean no disrespect for a woman when I oppose abortion. I don't diminish women's status - they are my equal. But I don't expect them to lift heavy weights.

We were created physiologically different - thankfully! True Christians will recognise that because He said through Paul:
"Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the church (body of Christians) & gave Himself up for her."

My former-wife was always more important to me, than I was to me. My children were next. But under God, all (human) life is of equal value.

That's what makes decision-making during war difficult for Christians. Churchill struggled with it throughout his ministry. It brought him to mental illness - Cyclothymia.

So, too is it with euthanasia & abortion. It is the taking of another life. However, ......
(20/3/06)

Cheers all
Posted by LittleAgreeableBuddy, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 5:44:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LAB, no wonder people around the world regard Europeans as an arrogant bunch, as we try to force our culture, our lifestyle, our religions on them. Comparing solutions in Israel with say Rwanda,
smacks of European ignorance!

Israel has a highly educated population, where 92% live in urban areas. They have all the money they need, usually from America.
The abortion rate is similar to that in Australia, contraception is
freely available, the Catholic Church has no influence! People have a choice to have a couple of kids and educate them. They make that choice, the birth rate is half of that in Rwanda.

In Rwanda 8% live in urban areas. The rest lack an education, so make a living from the land. The population density is quite a bit higher then in Israel. Of course they will fight over this little bit of land, if that all they have! Sheesh, that is not rocket science....

In Rwanda abortion is illegal, contraception hard to obtain, thanks to the Catholic Church. Most women have around 6 kids, they are slaves to their circumstances. Trying to give all those kids an education is nearly impossible, so they live off the land. So they fight over land. Under these circumstance, for you to suggest that these uneducated and impoverished people should employ high tech methods, based on high capital inputs and an educated workforce, smacks of European arrogance and stupidity!

LAB, clearly you needed religion to deal with some trauma in your life. Fair enough, some people become anxious and can only achieve homeostatis of the brain, with that kind of belief in the supernatural. People often ignore the fact that emotions play a larger role in human behaviour, then we are led to believe about
ourselves.

Other then that you seem to come across as a thinking individual.
Why you cannot see the trauma and heartache that Catholic dogma is creating for Africans, beats me.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 21 March 2006 10:00:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, still advocating killing babies rather than eating chimps…please use correct terminology and facts. The terminology is trimester (as in three months) - that means it is roughly a third of a 40-42 week (nine months) pregnancy (normal term). A trimester is NOT 25-26 weeks…so that leaves you with a dilemma, do you now regard killing as acceptable up to the end of the 2nd trimester, or still the first trimester – 12-14 weeks?

Wibble the comparisons were yours and I’d eat neither for all the reasons I have given regarding the value of both babies and foetus’.

Your admission of cannibalism by choice rather than eating other mammals is illegal and repugnant – you are not one to trust with small children, are you?

I enjoy meat, fish and poultry though I don’t eat my pets…or my children.

Your suggested ‘choices’ are invalid and absurd, like your posted banter…

‘Is abortion ok if childbirth kills the mother? ‘

An aborted child must still be born…it may be torn apart or killed before it is delivered, but it will still be delivered. Your ignorance is astounding…abortion does NOT eliminate delivery of the child.

’What if childbirth kills others?’

Your question and its subsequent answer are not even plausible theories – as such I can’t imagine why you would ask then ‘answer’ such questionable argument ,unless you’re short of something to do…things a bit slow at work and trying to look busy?

Based on similar comparisons, Col’s CLUB are those who accept killing of babies to term…there are significant numbers of men who abandon or abuse their partners violently if they don't abort when it's demanded of them, some also abuse or kill their partner’s children.

Col says that the actions of a/some priests indicates the actions of many billions of other Catholics and priests, it follows that these anti-life, abusive men are indicative of Col’s team-club members by the same comparisons. i.e., All anti-lifers must therefore be abusive, violent and may kill their partner's children.
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 23 March 2006 12:44:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont.)

RE: “free-will” – the teachings of the Catholic Church demand the exercise of freewill. Freewill does not mean in ignorance or selectively doing what you want and hang the consequences.

Freewill does not exclude the rights of others.

Freewill also demands that the individual makes a choice based on accurate information, not out of convenience...or the easy way out.

Scout – are you suggesting shades of Hitler again, experimentation with human life now.

RE: Trays of frozen embryos…and stem cell research.

Look into the GIFT program for couples experiencing difficulty with conception and using stem cells of adult family members which does not require experimentation with embryos.

There is no need for trays of frozen embryos with the GIFT program and other less interventionist, available methods that are much more couple-friendly but not as financially lucrative for the medicos involved.

Yabby, the corruption of governments in Africa and other places results in lack of food, usually NO access to education except for the elite few and civil unrest and war which also diverts funds away from food and necessities for the people…your determination to lay the blame at the feet of the Catholic Church does not make it valid…it just points out your bigotry.
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 23 March 2006 12:51:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1 “Col’s CLUB are those who accept killing of babies to term…there are significant numbers of men who abandon or abuse their partners violently if they don't abort when it's demanded of them, some also abuse or kill their partner’s children.”

Whilst, from your posts, you have admitted a relationship between yourself and the Roman Catholic Church, I have no formal or informal association with people who abuse women or children, Meg1.

So stop slandering me by pretending mythical associations between me, “My Club” with the sort of abusers which you, by admission associate with.

I challenged your colleagues to establish a single website which suggested any association between me and derogatory practices, after I had identified sources to millions of website containing damning evidence of Corruption by Roman Catholic Priests. I would further note I have never suggested anything about the conduct of ordinary “Roman Catholic Congregants” as a group, other than to allude to their gullibility in placing their faith in an organisation of liars and perverts.

Your posts are degenerating into posting the vilest slanders Meg1, so I suggest you give up. You have no reputation to protect nor position of credibility to hold on to and I am quite able to display the levels of your own corruption from what you have already posted.

As for “the teachings of the Catholic Church demand the exercise of freewill.”

And that is what the RCC was doing as it tortured and murdered heretics, is it?
That is why it retains the office of the Inquisition?
That is why people who would seek to exercise freewill will be refused communion or participation in the mass or even be threatened with excommunication?
That is why the Pope decides that contraception will be outlawed?

I can only conclude, the RCC idea of “freewill” must be a farce!
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 23 March 2006 12:56:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg 1

Your latest bit of venom "Scout – are you suggesting shades of Hitler again, experimentation with human life now.

RE: Trays of frozen embryos…and stem cell research."

My question Meg1, was not 'do you approve of stem cell research?'

As if I couldn't guess your answer to that.

No, my dear woman, it is this:

Given that there are unneeded embryos left over after in vitro fertilisation, what do you suggest be done with all these little frozen foeti?

See, Meg1, when I said that I was in favour of stem cell research that was simply my OPINION. You may well disagree with my OPINION - that's fine. But cut the vitriol and behave like an adult for a change.

I will repeat the question just to be sure you understand.

What do you believe is the best solution for unneeded embryos?

No one from the anti-abortion lobby has answered this question yet and I really would like to know.
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 23 March 2006 2:00:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, I fully aware that a tremester = 3 months. My argument has stayed the same all along. The problem is your inability to comprend it. Let me repeat it for you. A fetus is not a baby ie. person, until it has, what can be called a human brain. The scientific evidence shows that that is finally in place at about week 25-26,
ie the end of the second tremester. Abortion as a woman's right,
is accepted in many countries up to 12 weeks, in other words with a huge error factor built in. In my personal opinion, there is no problem with abortion until a fetus does have a human brain, ie. 25-26 weeks. But I am happy to support the 12 weeks "standard", as I feel that right has more chance of being
given finally to women worldwide, then any other suggestion. Its
time that the UN puts the Catholic Church in its place!

I have not advocated killing babies, but the difference between a fetus and a baby is clearly beyond your intellectual abilities.

Chimps and bonobos are simply good indicator species, directly affected by Catholic dogma in Africa. The real issue is one of global sustainability, regarding what we humans are doing to the planet. Without biodiversity, there won't be humanity either,
but as that is far above your head to understand, I'm trying to explain it in language that even maternally engulfed and intellectually challenged housewives should be able to understand.

Meg, it is not Government's role to feed people. In Africa most people simply grow the food that they and their families need, given available land. When that land becomes scarce, because women, against their will, are being forced to have 6-7 kids, largely because of Catholic interference in the African political system,
then clearly the Catholic Church can be blamed for the problem.
They should be responsible for their actions. African women should be given a choice as to how many children they have, just as Western women have that choice. Only then will Africa start to make progress.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 23 March 2006 3:45:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1,
indeed, I started with the comparisons between non-human mammals and humans, though you used that context to frame a question about which I would prefer to eat.

I asked about your motives, feeling sure you posed your dilemma merely to say something like "[my] admission...is illegal and repugnant"; an unfair and intellectually dubious tactic (setting someone up to respond with rhetoric over argument). I backed my convictions and answered the question with my “technical” answer though I’m as unlikely as you to ever eat a human.

The point of the dilemma was to ask which you would choose, if you had to, between the life of a foetus and a baby. Can I assume, if you had to choose between any two human lives, your decision would be random? Otherwise, what factors would you consider make one life more important than another?

That you go between the horns of the similarly phrased dilemma I returned to you shouldn’t surprise me. You seem to be trying any tactic to avoid actually answering a question, and exposing your position. Even with more detractors than supporters in this forum, a disproportionate bulk of your posts consists of countering arguments with questions, and although it is a generalization, the questions seem formed from narrow interpretations of opponent's arguments.

Two examples-
1)At my dilemma, ‘Is abortion ok if childbirth kills the mother?' , you interpret the word childbirth in an unusual manner that includes abortion.

You then say I show astounding ignorance for not knowing this definition, despite the fact I have not defined childbirth in that question, and no part of my phrasing of the question excludes your unusual interpretation of childbirth (otherwise you would be unable to make that unusual definition from that question).

Additionally, your answer does not address the question, with or without your unusual definition of childbirth.

However, to make the question clearer, if the development of the foetus to a certain point would kill the mother, unless the foetus is aborted before that point, would you support that abortion? Why/why not?

(continued)
Posted by wibble, Friday, 24 March 2006 12:08:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(from previous post)
2)I ask “What if childbirth kills others?”, and you again go through the horns of the dilemma by saying my “question and its subsequent answer are not even plausible theories”.

Rather than attacking my work habits, your response would have had more impact if you’d attempted an explanation of why my question is not plausible. My understanding is that something can be plausible either if it is possible, or only if it is likely, depending on one’s interpretation. Given the difference between us on a definition of “childbirth”, I’m not sure what plausibility means to you.

However, if the dilemma only needs to be possible (however unlikely) to be plausible to you, then do you concede that some remote possibility exists whereby the birth of a child (not including abortion in that definition) may result in the death of another human (other than the mother)? If so, are you able to now answer the question, and give reasons?

If not, or if the dilemma needs to be likely, to be plausible to you, can you explain how the implausibility of the dilemma affects your answer, as you seem to have an absolute deontological morality that does not normally rely on contingent factors of circumstance for differentiating good from evil?

You say I am "not one to be trusted with small children", my "ignorance is astounding", and ask me are "things a bit slow at work and [you're] trying to look busy?"

Are you attempting humour, or trying to flame me?

In the spirit of fair debate, I will assume the former, but as your counterarguments seem mostly based on willful misinterpretation of my points, and you seem reluctant to directly answer my questions or to promote your own philosophies, it is difficult for any fair debate to occur.

As we only have limited posts in any given period, if you can not or will not use yours for developing some sort of argument in defense of your anti-abortion views, I can not waste any more of my posts assuming that you have a reasonable argument to make.
Posted by wibble, Friday, 24 March 2006 12:09:40 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘in an organisation of liars and perverts…’ another of your ‘vilest slanders’, Col and more generalized slandering of ALL Catholics…despite your denials.

Applying your generalizations regarding paedophile priests and all Catholics…the same absurd ‘logic’ condemns you as a paedophile-abuser-murderer-rapist…because some in the human race are…and you are a human in contact with other humans, aren’t you?

Manipulated absurdities aren’t logic, Col…the cap can easily fit you too.

You’ve continuously vented your spleen regardless of the truth, I wonder what regret and bitterness led you to such irrational hatred of so many…you’re to be pitied, rather than despised or taken seriously, if your posts are any indication.

I don’t waste time, as you do, on hatred or any of its other forms Col, so stamp and bully - it neither frightens nor impresses me.

‘You have no reputation to protect nor position of credibility to hold on to…levels of your own corruption…’

What a gargantuan ego! You have no idea what reputation or anything else I have or haven’t…nor I you.

You argue individuals hold prime importance – yet deny respect to other fellow humans…your contradictions and hypocrisy are as transparent as your huffing-puffing about your own importance.

You’ve much talk-no action when it comes to supporting ‘individual’ rights for anyone who doesn’t succumb to your bullying and bluster, Col.

RE: ‘corruption’…slander away, you’ve a serious credibility problem Col, I’d guess your circle of friends is much smaller than your ego if you judge without even knowing the person…don’t judge others by your own behaviour, some aren’t prepared to stoop to your level.

RE: Free will…rules apply even to local footie clubs…haven’t we been here before?

If you’re Catholic and break the rules, consequences apply as they do for the rest of the world.

If you don’t play by NRL rules, you’ll be penalized accordingly…wake up Col, not all of us are baffled by your absurd, erratic attempt at logic.

tbc...
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 24 March 2006 1:03:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont...)

Scout, re-read c-a-r-e-f-u-l-l-y I’ve no need to freeze embryos, nor will I have a say on their fate…those who are accustomed to killing foetus’ will likely remain as foxes commanding the henhouse.

If you employed factual research, you’d know embryos remain parent’s ‘property’ with legal rights…interestingly?

Statistically, the most dangerous location in Australia is mother’s womb…

Yabby, your posts indicate you supported abortion to the end of the FIRST TRIMESTER, not second…but these are ONLY babies in your jaundiced view aren’t they, not your kindred chimps?

‘in language that even maternally engulfed and intellectually challenged housewives should be able to understand.’

Your own words condemn you as a hypocrite and ego-driven but not very bright fellow, who has to put others down in order to assert your own pereceived superiority…re-read of your last post, and then read my comments to Col, above…the comments apply to you in kind.

Check my comments on corruption in African governments. Are you unaware of it, or do you approve of it? That’s one reason for lack of productivity, add drought, civil unrest…then despite your ignorance, face reality on the situation in Africa.

What hypocrisy wibble, it’s you who assert that one life is more important than the other…not I.

I have been in the position where another life was threatened and chose to offer my own life, twice – I am alive, so the situation was obviously resolved.

Contrary to your dribble, wibble…my pro-life position is abundantly clear.

When is a baby responsible for another’s, unrelated death? You are really fantasizing now.

Anti-lifers aren’t the only posters permitted to question. You assume your narrow view to be superior to any contrary view and demand control over others accordingly.

If you can’t tolerate the opinions of another, don’t accuse others of what you are guilty of yourself…I couldn’t care less if you post or not.

In debate, try offering something other than science fiction, fabrication or hyperbole and your credibility may improve.

RE: Good and evil…are you asking the world to follow rules you expect exemption from if you find them inconvenient or difficult?
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 24 March 2006 1:11:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, yes I support abortion up to the end of the first tremester, which should be the right of every woman on the planet! In a sense its a compromise between the holy sperms fanatics and the partial
birth abortion people. Its worked extremely well in much of Europe.

Women in Europe are aware, that if they accidently fall pregnant and can't cope with another child, they have to make a decision early in
the pregnancy. So by far the majority of abortions happen early, which I see as a good thing.

On a philophical level however, I personally don't have a problem with abortion, until a fetus becomes a baby, or a so called person.
The evidence shows that the human brain reaches that point at around
week 25-26. I don't believe in the sanctity of potential people,
but people.

One would think that if we lived intelligently and sustainably on this planet, there would be space for both baby humans and a few
baby chimps, but not according to you it seems. Sustainability and the future of our planet, are not part of Catholic dogma, so Meg doesent seem to care either.

You are in denial about the affects of Catholic dogma in Africa.
If parents had the choice to only raise as many children as they were able to feed and clothe, much of Africa's problems would go away. Corrupt Govts exist all around the world, they are not specific to Africa. When Catholic pro life commandos go burning condoms in pharmacies, with Govt approval, clearly members of that Govt have been influenced and manipulated by the Catholic Church.
Nobody else in the world promotes that kind of ludicrous dogma.

Droughts are a normal part of nature. The idea is to put away in good years, to provide for bad years. If women are forced to have far more children then they can feed or clothe, clearly there is nothing left to put away for bad years.

The Catholic Church, due to its fanatical interference in Govt policies, is responsible for much hunger and misery in Africa.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 24 March 2006 9:24:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1

How unfortunate that you do not understand a hypothetical question.

Anyway, if there are any anti-choice/pro foetus readers still left on this fast unravelling thread I extend the following HYPOTHETICAL question:

What, in your opinion, should be done with the surplus embryos no longer required for In Vitro Fertilisation?
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 25 March 2006 12:31:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Dianne,

Christianity is a strange beast indeed. It is attacked for being too free and fancy and not realistic then at the same time too narrow and limiting. Damned if the universe is too big damned if it is too small.

One view claims that the universe is an accident and our existence a matter of chance. That death is final.

The other sees the universe a result of design and our existence a part of that design. That glory and joy beyond imagining awaits in Heaven.

Whether true or not Christianity is the much more liberal philosophy than is philosophical materialism.

God chooses not to exercise the power to prevent us believing lies about him. Yet the truth is God loves us so much he wants to just eat us up. We have to be patient with a God who is denied all the usual means we use to communicate love.

Of course our first responsibility is ourselves and included in that is deciding for ourselves what constitutes the good life. Intellectual honesty demands a proper hearing for Christianity here, and sentences like “there is no evidence” look very much like excuses for not thinking.

“Why do I need to be a Christian – why can’t I just live my life and be a good person”. Which sounds a lot like believing a thing because its agreeable not because it is true.

God offers glory, joy and lasting happiness a position humans were created to enjoy. He can’t offer anything outside this because God can’t be something he is not.

Lets say you created little beings whom you loved. You put great effort into designing a world that would be wonderful for them. You gave them freedom. You hope that they will want to get to know you because you are their creator and no one can love them as much as you do. What you have to offer is simply enormous because you are good and know what is good for them.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 26 March 2006 12:53:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
They decide to stick their finger up at you and call you a tyrant for making demands of them. They are going to do things their own way.

They in their capacity as co creators create death, something never in your plan.

You designed them and their environment and its impossible for you to keep your children and at the same time redesign the world, change who you are and bow to the demands of your little children to make a new world apart from you.

They don’t have the ability to make worlds, to know what you know and what is best for them, because they can’t have your massive mind. What do you do? You are hurt but you love your little children very much.

You eventually go to extraordinary lengths to rescue your beloved children and take up their nature into yourself - become like them and live among them. You show them who you are, as much as they are able to take, and urge them to follow your lead not those who would lead them to dead ends.

You present a threat to those whose power comes from entrenched ideas and are taken and slowly tortured to death. You bless and forgive them as you’re dying.

But your plan is not foiled, little do they know that in this event you have cancelled death’s power forever. You have defeated it. Your life is not in time, like theirs is, so the nature you change by bringing it into yourself works backwards and forwards in their time.

This new life is available now and all that your children need to do to live with you, to be raised up, is that they accept this life with a humble and open heart.

When you return as a new creation, body and soul united in glory you show your people what awaits them. Things beyond their wildest dreams. There exists one thing that is not too good to be true.

Come follow me, I will be with you even until the end of the world.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Sunday, 26 March 2006 1:02:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, your ‘hypothetical’ question wasn’t even legitimate as a hypothetical question – for all the reasons I’ve given.

Ask those who ‘own’ them…and have sought control over their lives.

Yabby, your lack of consistency is only overshadowed by your egotistical judgments of others.

In fact, I do believe in sustainability and sharing this planet with other species…and do my bit to ensure it in my own corner of the world. However, so many of the frenetic, fanatical, animals-at-the-expense-of-humans brigade, like you Yabby, have such a twisted set of priorities regarding the environment and other humans that you do more harm to other species by alienating most rational human beings who would otherwise work well towards that end.

Instead of indicating practical and workable initiatives, you prefer to attack the integrity and intent of others and suggest killing off babies is the solution to all the world’s ills…and of course there’s the obsessive paranoia about the Catholic Church thrown in to boot, just to prove your own questionable motives.

I wonder how much you do to dirty your own hands and show others conservation in action?

If your neighbour is clearly not using the recycling bin properly would you:

1. Report him/her to the relevant authorities?

2 Attack him/her verbally over the fence and bad-mouth him/her in the neighbourhood?

3 Ask if he/she understands the system and offer to sort the rubbish if necessary until he/she feels comfortable using the system…

From your diatribe of assumptions and abuse, I’d say either or both of 1 & 2.

In fact, I became aware of a woman who was elderly, isolated by a mental breakdown and afraid of the ‘environmental audits’ done on recycling bins…and so put all her rubbish in the regular bin to avoid fines, confrontation and ‘making a mistake’.

Not an environmental vandal, not a bad person, not a deliberate attempt to sabotage the local recycling program…just in need of a little compassion and understanding.

tbc
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 26 March 2006 2:48:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont...)

A little thing in the big picture, Yabby, but a gentle enquiry and the offer of help to learn the system and she now confidently not only uses the recycling bin, but also recycles other waste and is becoming involved locally in other initiatives.

The additional benefits are her own personal health and confidence is greatly enhanced.

Personal effort was involved, but the result was a win-win.

Contrary to your bigoted assumptions, Yabby, I was raised to use what I need not what is greed…to think of those who come after and to leave things as good as or better than when I came. Each of the homes I have rented, have been left with suitable trees planted and cared for at our expense, environmental areas around cleaned and maintained by us as a family interest and without resorting to attack and vitriol to do so. We simply see and do as our faith and common sense encourage us to do.

I’ve seen no evidence that you have any sensitivity to those shut out by your judgmental and bigoted opinions and agenda. You decide that the way to go is to kill babies and attack the Catholic Church and the world according to Yabby will be all things to all chimps…and you wonder why some thinking homo sapiens question your agenda or the credibility of your argument?

You not only pass inaccurate judgments on others, but you present fabricated and distorted statements about Africa and such things as Catholic Church views on the environment.

It is clear that you have little credibility and no intention of putting forward any evidence on any of your bigoted claims or misrepresentations.

Yabby, you indicate little practical or personal contribution to society in general, but indicate far more about your own inadequacies by your jaundiced assumptions of the intent or contributions of others.

MIW you make valid and contrasting posts to those filled with paranoid hatred from others, keep it up.

It is important to retain the belief that all humans have good in them, even if some have it well hidden.
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 26 March 2006 2:53:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, I am happy to hear that you sort your rubbish and have taught the little old lady down the road to do the same. But may I suggest that the global sustainability issue goes well beyond those things.

World population, mostly in the third world, keeps increasing by
80 million or so a year. More and more of the worlds rainforests, ie the oxygen producing lungs, are being chopped down to feed the ever increasing masses. Global warming, fished out oceans, multi species extinction, future energy supplies, are all real issues that we cannot ignore. If 6.5 billion are not living sustainably, what will
10 billion do to our planet? Your faith ignores all these things and they are mega issues. Wether Meg sorts her rubbish is only a major issue for Meg, it doesent address global problems.

My initiatives are quite practical and workable. ie. that all women on the planet have the same access to family planning methods that women in the West have. ie. that people live sustainably and only produce as many children as they can manage to feed, clothe and educate. ie. that women are not forced by religious dogma to have far more children then they want or can provide for. All common sense and practical.

Which evidence have I fabricated and for what don't I have evidence?

Martin, your religion is not liberal at all. If you don't agree with your popes view, you are clearly not a good Catholic and chances are that you will burn forever! At least thats what they tell you to control you.

You present your God as not such a smart fellow, when most Christians
present their version of God as an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient being, who knows everything and can do anything. In that case he was clearly aware of the hunger, misery and starving babies that his world would create. It doesent seem to bother him,
for according to your old testatment, he ordered the murder of thousands of innocent babies.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 26 March 2006 4:20:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout - re your post Sat 25 Mar - "...surplus embryos..."
The question should be "WHY were they created in the first place?" Two reasons - greed and expediency. Recently speaking to a woman 39 who had a 2 yr old and 13 "spare embryos" 'in the freezer' - at 39 she had no intention of having numerous pregnancies and when asked what she was going to do with her young child's brothers and sisters, she said, "yes, I know that is what they are but I prefer not to think about it that way". Prefer not to think about it that way?? Yet fully acknowledging that is what those tiny ones were.
Sooo many similarities to the way people think about abortion.
Posted by Te, Monday, 27 March 2006 7:46:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby - "There are none so blind as those who will not see".
Posted by Te, Monday, 27 March 2006 7:47:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A vexed question as to where life begins. Brings out a lot of emotion and not a little judgement.

Te

I did not ask you for your opinion on IVF. Like Meg1 you are unable to answer a simple question.

1. Frozen embryos remain the property of the couple involved.
2. They may be stored from 5 to 12 years depending upon which state in Australia they are.
3. Many embryos are unneeded after successful preganancies are achieved.
4. Many couples do not like to offer their embryos to other couples for a variety of reasons, for example - the idea that their offspring have siblings elsewhere. Refer to article In The Age for further info rmation on this reluctance:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/02/1044122262548.html

Further information about the creation and storage of embryos may be accessed at:

http://www.hunterivf.com.au/factsheetdis.asp?sheetid=14

The result is that there are many surplus embryos. The question remains what should happen to them?

Is there anyone who can respond in a polite and reasonable manner to this question?

There doesn't have to be a single answer (in life there rarely is a single solution).
Posted by Scout, Monday, 27 March 2006 10:21:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, as usual you have ignored the issue and any likelihood of reasonable debate with you.

Firstly, what individuals like you or I do with, or for one another and our environment on a local scale, is what makes any real difference in the world in the long term, not what you ram down anyone else’s throats or how many accusations you make against others. Making accusations against others doesn't ring true when your own actions condemn you as guilty of exactly what you falsly accuse in others.

You have spent a lot of time accusing the Catholic Church and others of forcing dogma on the world, without any evidence, yet your own actions prove your guilt on the very same charge.

… ‘live simply so that others may simply live’ is the most effective advice for a sustainable planet.

Secondly, when you insist that women are currently “…forced to have far more children then they want or can provide for”…you are both fabricating your own fantasies and not providing evidence for any of it.

Are you suggesting that women are all mindless creatures or that they are all raped…how are they ‘forced’…Yabby, your obsessions need some sort of treatment before they get you in serious trouble.

RE: environmental issues being addressed…

There is no point disallowing Australian fishermen from fishing as sustainably as they have done in the past and then turning a blind eye while Indonesian and other fishing vessels strip our northern oceans. Nor is there much point Australians eating the polluted imported rubbish that passes for Pacific Dory in our fish shops…fish that is fed on sewerage and household effluent, caged under houses on the Mekong River. (Pacific? Dory)

Each other issue you raised is as easily discredited…

If you want to solve an issue that relates to Africa or Indonesia, you can’t solve it by belting the Greeks or Irish over the heads to do it. You also can’t solve overfishing in Indonesia or elsewhere by disenfranchising our fishermen in Australia who have fished our coastline prudently.

(tbc)
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 27 March 2006 6:44:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont...)

Unless you face the real issues by educating the people involved where they are, you will always suffer failure - environmentally and otherwise.

The environmental movement continues to be plagued by a blame-game mentality and gross exaggerations of practically everything that occurs either naturally or unnaturally on the face of the earth.

All of the issues you have raised have more to do with corrupt governments and the greed of transnational corporations and their grossly over-paid executives than any so-called over-population of the world.

Your beliefs may ignore these things, but my faith does not. It provides guidelines for these and many more issues of life, which is why I support them.

There is no need for concern on future fuel if we use renewable fuels, what are you doing to lobby governments for the use of bio-fuels in this country? Waste bio-mass should be used, not discarded…

I guess it depends on your commitment for the long term and your willingness to look with an open mind, doesn’t it?

Scout, you seem unable to comprehend any of what you write, let alone what others post.

‘1. Frozen embryos remain the property of the couple involved.’

That’s pretty clear, you and I (unless some of those embryos are yours), have NO SAY in what happens to those tiny lives.

As such, your question is not a hypothetical one…it is an irrelevant one.
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 27 March 2006 6:52:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te you are quite correct. What those who see and think at the same time can observe, is that religion is about geography. Had Te been born in Iraq or India for instance, there is a 95% chance that she would be a devout little Muslim or Hindu. That tells us that all that childhood brainwashing works!. It also tells us alot about how
the human mind works.

Meg, there is all the evidence in the world for you, if you actually
know how to spell family planning and unmet needs, plus know how to use your google bar. Here are just two of many:

http://big.berkeley.edu/ifplp.unmetneed.pdf

http://www.unicef.org/pon95/fami0007.html

Get used to it, what Meg does might make Meg feel good, but she doesent matter in the bigger scheme of things. If Meg dropped dead tomorrow, the family and perhaps the parish priest would shed a few tears, the planet keeps spinning, nothing will change much.

What a large and wealthy corporation like the Catholic Church does,
matters a great deal. They have control of the lives of millions,
who believe their story. Whilst they keep encouraging the unsustainable breeding of millions more, they need to be held accountable for their actions.

Meg, if 200 million Indonesians can't manage their waters to sustainably fish them, what will happen when there are 400 million in 40 years time? Australia is simply very fortunate to not yet
have an overpopulation problem, like much of the rest of the world.

If too many people crowd on too little space, what you will be eating is exactly what you claim to want to avoid: recycled human
excrement, as fish, as veggies, as whatever. Thats the world that your church promotes Meg.

I agree with you btw. The greed of the transnational corportation named the Catholic Church, rich as it is, wanting more followers and power at it does, is a real problem for the world.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 27 March 2006 10:11:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col

”What is the Name of “my team / club”, how many members does it have?”

When I pointed out that your team has a worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour I was referring to the group you were referring to when you said:

“My club rules differ from your club rules.”

That is a quote from you so you tell me. What do you hope to achieve from failing to name your club then asking me to? It does not matter what your club is named my point will still hold. Unless your club is Catholic priests (obviously not) then it is a safe bet that your club has a higher proportion of paedophiles.

”What evidence do you present to support your claim that my team has a “worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour”.”

The low incidence of paedophile behaviour in the Catholic clergy.

”You have made the claim to my team's decline into the worst excesses of human depravity.

I FEEL IT FAIR TO DEMAND YOU PRESENT SOME REFERENCES TO SUPPORT THAT ACCUSATION.”

I don’t suppose you could just attend any sittings of the District Court in its criminal jurisdiction and see how many paedophiles pass through the courts? I assure you that it would not take long to match the number of depraved degenerates who have been exposed after infiltrating the priesthood.

Try this for some perspective on how badly behaved your club is:

http://www.pastornet.net.au/fwn/1997/jun/art10.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_scandal”

6 historical examples

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3157555.stm”

nil priests named as paedophiles

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws95/paedo44.html”

1 historical example who was one of the 6 above

”…Produce JUST ONE internet reference …”

Do you seriously think that the extremely low incidence of paedophilia in the Catholic clergy is reflected in the wider community?

”Be a man and rise to the challenge OR be seen as a bungling, impulsive, judgementalistic liar, devoid of credibility and credence.”

I am starting to think that you seriously believe that because media highlight Catholic priest paedophiles paedophile behaviour is unknown elsewhere.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 12:12:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1

You still have no understanding of a hypothesis. As I feel sorry for your I will assist with the following definition

"Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption."

Now either your are completely stupid or deliberately attempting to avoid answering a simple hypothetical question. Which is as follows:

Given that there are surplus embryos what what suggestions would be suitable for the future of these embryos?

My suggestion has been for stem cell research.

Are there any intelligent anti-choice people capable of a cogent response? Clearly Meg1 has exempted herself from this debate.
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 28 March 2006 10:07:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Now either your are completely stupid or deliberately attempting to avoid answering a simple hypothetical question. Which is as follows:

Given that there are surplus embryos what what suggestions would be suitable for the future of these embryos?

My suggestion has been for stem cell research."

Isn't it the case that the embryo's are unavailable for anything? If so, as Meg pointed out, what is the relevance of the hypothetical question? Stem cell research is not an option so what do you want? Do you want someone to say "yes that is a great idea pity it is impossible" or "no that would be awful I'm glad it isn't possible"? Isn't that pretty pointless?

"Are there any intelligent anti-choice people capable of a cogent response? Clearly Meg1 has exempted herself from this debate."

After that comment I hope you don't follow the example of another contributor and blow your horn as an advocate of respecting other people.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 3:23:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjpb

In an attempt to sideline my question you are trying an argument on semantics.

The future of frozen embryos may be a variety of options from stem cell research to adoption by other infertile couples to flushing down the toilet.

Fact is there is a finite term for the storage of frozen embryos - so what would be the best solution?

Is everyone on this thread brain dead?
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 10:15:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout: 'Is everyone on this thread brain dead?'

There, there Scout - It's not you it's the rest of the world, isn't it?

How many times do you need to hear the same thing said?

Your question is totally irrelevant...if the embryos aren't yours, then you will have no say anyway.

The situation would not arise if the lives of those embryos were shown more regard in the first place.

Experimenting with them may be ok if you have abandoned regard for life, but in essence is no difference to Hitler's human experimentation, or those of like minded barbarians.

You can hardly argue that you are objective, as you have stated that only the 'mother' should decide...

...now you want to have the cake and eat it too...
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 2:22:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mjbp “I was referring to the group you were referring to when you said:

“My club rules differ from your club rules.”

So,

I still insist you IDENTIFY that team which according to you “has a worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour”

Reality is you cannot declare or identify the team, whilst I am able to punch two words into google and get 364,000 references. The two words “catholic paedophiles”

I have never claimed paedophilia is the preserve exclusively of the priesthood, catholic or otherwise.

I challenged you to present one single web site which alluded to any acts of impropriatry by “my team”.

Your observation “see how many paedophiles pass through the courts” – that does not identify them as being on “my team”.

This is very simple, you do not have a clue who is and who is not on “my team”, the name of “my team” the terms of its charter or its objectives.

YOU HAVE FAILED ABSOLUTELY AND COMPLETELY AND STUPIDLY TO SUBSTANTIATE ANY CLUB ASSOCIATE OF MINE AS BEING OR HAVING A “PAEDOPHILIC BENT”, UNLIKE NUMEROUS CATHOLIC PRIESTS I CAN NAME THROUGH REFERENCE TO THE INTERNET WITH CRIMINAL PAEDOPHILIC BENTS AS TWISTED AS CORK SCREWS.

Your attempt at retreat is nothing else other than a humiliating yet complete abdication from your slanderous claims.

Mjpb, I have come to a conclusion. You are a jackass.

You cannot claim impropriatory conduct of an organisation which you cannot identify. You can, like a jackass, make all the petulant claims but since you have no clue to the identity of my TEAM , you have no target on which to fix your sights or focus your aim.

Scout – I suggest you ignore mjpb’s “pontificating”, it is pure “faux-pontiff”, the sort of thing one has come to expect from a ranting, foaming catholic seeking to inflict the mind control of the inquisition and dictates of the cardinals upon us all, regardless of our personal religious choices or allegiances.

Oh Meg1, desperation exudes from your post when you sink to trawling for Hitler references. PATHETIC!
Posted by Col Rouge, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 9:49:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Experimenting with them may be ok if you have abandoned regard for life, but in essence is no difference to Hitler's human experimentation,"

Meg dear, you really need to put down that Cathecism and apply some common sense to your life. The above statement is clearly ludicrous.
Comparing thinking, feeling people, with dividing cells is an insult to those people.

Even the Catholic Church cannot ignore the laws of nature. Far more
potential individuals of any species will be created, then can ever survive, limited by available resources.

Now you are free to try to obtain your so called ticket to heaven, by blindly following Catholic dogma. Many of those of us who can think for ourselves, are far more concerned with thinking and feeling individuals of various species, who already suffer, then
the future of dividing cells.

Comparing what Hitler did to people, with the future of embryos,
is plainly ridiculous!

Te talks about "brother and sisters". How many potential "brothers and sisters" has she flushed down her toilet in her lifetime?

Its time for a reality check, even for Catholics.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 29 March 2006 9:52:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As jackasses go Col, you win hands down. You are so afraid of your club’s history that you have yet to name it…you need to come out of your closet if you are serious about asking for references – what is it you and your friends really do in that secret club of yours ?

Of course your past pitiful attempts at logic left much to be desired, no surprises there. You have not lost your ability to contradict and discredit your own rants, often in the same sentence.

I notice you can rant and spit bile and vitriol, but you haven’t answered the references to your club that I posted, based on your own spurious logic…I guess the cap fit too well.

Yabby: ‘Meg dear, you really need to put down that Cathecism and apply some common sense to your life.’

‘The above statement is clearly ludicrous.’

Well you’re right, it is, so why did you post it?

If I put down my Catechism (you really do need a spell check too), then I might display as little common sense as you have in your posts…and as much hostility…that I can do without in my life, thanks anyway.

You continue to blindly follow ‘Darwin’s theory’ for goodness sake, I’d have to say that you are in no position to pass any criticism of other’s beliefs on that basis alone.

As for reality checks – Col and Yabby, you both like to TALK about tolerance and other virtues…I’m still waiting for either of you to show evidence of any…you are two of a kind for all the wrong reasons…
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 30 March 2006 12:11:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To all anti-choice proponents, I extend my thanks (an extra-special commendation to Meg1) in assisting me to prove what I already suspected:

You don’t give a rat’s about foeti.

You have been completely incapable of producing a single, reasoned response to the issue of surplus embryos.

Apparently you are quite content to trust the parents to dispose of their surplus embryos as they see fit; be it stem call research, to other infertile couples or to simply flush down the drain when the term of storage expires.

This brings me to another question.

If you don’t care about the future of surplus foeti, then why do you expend so much energy condemning women for seeking abortions?

A foetus is a foetus – whether it resides in the womb of a woman or in a test tube. Guess it was all about controlling the lives of women after all.

Very interesting indeed.

Thank you again for all your help in clarifying this issue for me.

Not that I’m suggesting you are hypocrites, but one could be forgiven for thinking that that is indeed what you are.

Regards
Posted by Scout, Thursday, 30 March 2006 9:42:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, the only one who stands condemned by your post is you.

I have NO likelihood of any control whatsoever over other women or their babies…of whatever age or stage.

Your hypocrisy in demanding that I issue statements about what I would do deserves no response at all.

That any of us have bothered to respond, has more to do with our effort to offer some reasoned debate, despite your nonsensical flagellating and hyperbole, than because of any obligation to respond to questions you or anyone else pose.

I am not going to be in a position to make that decision because I would not put those tiny lives in that position to start with.

More to the point, what would YOU do with them?

Your hostility and defensiveness is not only an indication of your dissatisfaction with aspects of your own life, but also a clear sign that you are not convinced of the logic of your own argument.

You are more to be pitied than condemned.
Posted by Meg1, Thursday, 30 March 2006 2:29:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg dear, the ludicrous part of your statement was referring to Hitler. Btw, he was a Catholic :)

You are free to ignore what virtually every university in the world
accepts, based on the evidence. Even the Catholic Church accepts
evolution theory, given the overwhelming evidence. You are free to
claim there are fairies in your garden, I really don't care, whatever gets you through the night as they say :)

What it is time for, is that you are your church became tolerant
and stopped trying to force your dogma down the throats of others.

At the end of the day, the Catholic Church has no substantiated evidence for its claims, just people who had visions and heard voices in the past. Today we understand schizophrenia and epilepsy, mind you the Church still has a dept for "excising demons"

If you read the URLs that I posted for you, you would have come to understand how women are suffering in the third world, through lack
of family planning. Its sad that your church is encouraging the lack of these options for women. Ah well, it took them 400 years
to concede that Gallileo was right after all. Perhaps one day your
Church will catch up on this debate, just a few hundred years late
of course.

Scout your questions made perfect sense. These people just repeat what they are told, to get their so called ticket to heaven. Its intellectually bankrupt, but it makes them feel better.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 30 March 2006 3:18:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1 I see you are keeping up the vitriol, it is all you can muster.

You must be frustrated that you cannot make a sensible prediction to the organisation which I represent.
You spew out your crass and petulant twaddle, incapable of NAMING the Organisation and I can punch two words into google and get all the damning evidence of atrocities committed by those who are in charge of the Roman Catholic Church.

If I try “catholic abuse” I get 14,400 hits
If I try “catholic paedophile” I get 431 hits
If I try “catholic corruption” I get 741 hits
If I try “catholic inquisition” I get 27,700 hits.
If I try “Catholic child abuse” I get 1,060 hits and the first is

Catholic child abuse scandals 360 years old - World - www.smh.com.au

The list goes on, too many to count or read..

Meg1, you are not very smart. Hurling abuse at an un-identifiable organisation is as smart as peeing uphill, all that happens is your own waste comes back to wash you away.

mjpb, he (or maybe she) made the stupid claim in the first place and you have merely picked up his stained and soiled banner, since he seems to have slid away with his tail between his legs.

I seriously suggest you never, ever, make attacking claims about a completely “unidentified target” or you will only look as stupid as you do now and give me lots of opportunity to torment you for such stupidity.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 30 March 2006 3:40:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We were all embryos once. Your mother and father, your best friends and your work-mates. All were embryos once. Remember that.
Posted by tubley, Thursday, 30 March 2006 4:16:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course any abuse committed by clergy is horrible. We should never minimise it, and its opaque to my imagination how men can act this way, they have deeply diseased characters. That some Bishops acted stupidly and almost unforgivably is a matter of record.

But what you omit and what puts you, unfortunately in the same class as Yabby and seemingly Scout, is to take an extreme example of something and present it as the whole. If you were able to talk about the great service 99% of male and female religious have made to our society then what you say might have an effect. If you were to put clerical abuse in context - i.e it is very rare compared with the rest of society - all of a sudden you become persuasive.

Being able to google isn't interesting, your willingness to seek out anti-Catholic support isn't challenging. But could you write an historically accurate piece that shows Christianity's great force for good?

All who've tried to follow Jesus have been evil?!

You were right about Napolean preventing further execution of heretics http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HC28Df01.html but with that kernel of truth you damn all Christianity. This is a mark of a superficial mind. It invites the question of revolutionary atheist governments and the millions upon millions of murders committed in the name of 'liberation from religious authority'. The around 6000 priests murdered in Spain, the 100's of thousands in Germany and Russia etc. Not a peep about these crimes.

To argue that history has been one big pile of mistakes is revolutionary futurism. It is a kind of secular chiliasm - we will usher in a 1000 year reign of peace if we just get rid of religion.

Jesus Christ is an irreplaceable part of human culture. Half of sub Saharan Africa is Christian, China 2 million in 1949 now around 100 million. There is a Christian revolution occuring in Latin America.

"..they listen but do not hear, look but do not see lest they repent and be converted" Gospel according to St Mark.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 30 March 2006 7:17:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Christianity is the key to modernity. It exalts the lowly and humbles the 'great man'. The Christian virtues have been a revelation for mankind and wherever practiced has led to the flourishing of society. Jesus truly was the Son of God. What you have heard actually happened.

Having said that I was where you three were not that long ago. I can't pretend it was my good work that led to my conversion - far from it. "You did not choose me - I chose you"

Who can say what plans Our Lord has for you. It seems you may have the job of keeping those who claim to be Christians honest. If so at least do your job well. Yabby you are just like the fanatical Christians you rail against. Can you not see that?

Repeating all the popular prejudices about Christianity isn't courage its conformism. Its much easier to be that way than a Christian in our society. To step out of the prison of our time you have to rise above that kind of path of least resistance.

We could have accomplished so much by now, but it seems we haven't got past the Inquisition, clerical abuse, saying Hitler was Catholic, ignorant quoting of the Old Testament, and the Crusades.

When it comes to religion Scout thinks Islam is like Christianity or like all religion. This is not thinking.

Your agnosticism, atheism and its purposes are none of my business its between you and God. But at least be good atheists, and agnostics.

Yabby the problem of evil is where you should focus your attention. Scout Islam and Christianity are VERY different, you are religious too. Argue for your religion, know what your own starting assumptions are. Col Christianity is the best defender of your individuality and rights. Look carefully.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Thursday, 30 March 2006 7:34:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thankyou Martin Ibn Warriq,

I see every day the good work that's being done by religious groups and I'm glad you put this into perspective.

Tubs.
Posted by tubley, Friday, 31 March 2006 3:09:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

“I still insist you IDENTIFY that team which according to you “has a worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour””

How many times do I have to tell you that it doesn’t matter as the outcome will be the same? It is absurd to slander priests due to the rare exceptions. Priests are statistically extremely unlikely to be paedophiles. Thus if I use your approach of overgeneralising from the paedophiles in the group to your team, irrespective of how you reasonably categorise it, statistically they will perform more poorly. When you finally understand this I am going to clap.

”… I am able to punch two words into google and get 364,000 references...””

…and this is expected to impress me how?

”I have never claimed paedophilia is the preserve exclusively of the priesthood, catholic or otherwise.”

…but you seem to find it extremely challenging to understand that your vilification of priests is unfair and ill conceived.

”Your observation “see how many paedophiles pass through the courts” – that does not identify them as being on “my team”. “

It is to make you aware that the rare examples of Catholic priest paedophiles however well publicised are a drop in the ocean.

“… I CAN NAME … WITH CRIMINAL PAEDOPHILIC BENTS ..”

…from all over the world who have molested children over a period of at least decades and are hardly representative of priests as a whole.

”Mjpb, I have come to a conclusion. You are a jackass.”

No need to lash out Col I am happy to keep trying to explain things to you.

“Meg1 I see you are keeping up the vitriol, it is all you can muster.”

Is saying this about someone else meant to be funny?

”mjpb, he (or maybe she) …, since he seems to have slid away with his tail between his legs.”

For the record I am a he and my name is Michael. I hadn’t yet responded to your post 29/3 9.49pm by 30/3 3.40pm and you post this. This is no more logical than your other comments.
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 31 March 2006 4:40:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…tubley, so few words…yet, so much common sense…

MIW, thank you for re-introducing intelligent balance to the debate and greater compassion.

Col, you’re obviously hiding something, consistently refusing to identify your CLUB, why would I assume or guess what that club is? Who cares?

It’s difficult to believe anyone would choose to be in a club subjecting themselves to your crass bile voluntarily…

‘never, ever, make attacking claims about a completely “unidentified target” or you will only look as stupid as you do now and give me lots of opportunity to torment you for such stupidity.’

Re-read my previous posts, Col, I suspect from your responses that many arrows have hit the bulls-eye despite your cowardice hiding behind your unnamed ‘club’ or cult, or whatever…

Your attempts to ‘torment’ or bully me continue to be unsuccessful…like most of your ilk, you are basically all hot air and ego when confronted.

Most on these threads are ‘unidentified targets’…so you’re looking pretty stupid yourself, arguing against your own tactics again, Col.

…your comments about mjpb are a case in point…slanderous abuse without identifiable evidence and without knowing basics like his gender…guilty by your own accusations.

Perhaps mjpb posts on his own time instead of paid work time…can you say the same? Perhaps he has other significant events in his life than responding to your ‘twaddle’ and ‘vitriol’.

Thanks for your support and your informed comment, Michael.

Scout, correct plural is foetuses not foeti…

Let it be VERY clear, I do not condemn, nor have I ever condemned the woman or any person, I deplore the act, not the person…I will and have offered all help possible, to anyone in need, whether their past choices were positive or negative.

I’ll let my actions be judged on merit, no one needs abandon their beliefs to help others. On the contrary, it’s those with high ideals we admire…whether we attain that ideal or not. Dragging everyone down to the lowest common denominator sounds like conformity to me and I prefer to remain an individual, responsible for my free will, as the Church allows-demands.

(tbc later)
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 31 March 2006 10:13:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

Mother Teresa was also Catholic Yabby, do you judge work she did amongst the poorest in Calcutta as a scourge on humanity too?

Scurrilous references to Pope John Paul 11 only proves the fanaticism that blinkers some of you to genuine good in others…I once watched Pope John Paul 11 drive along the South-East Freeway towards Brisbane city…traffic spontaneously stopped on both freeways, cars were abandoned as people ran to the sides of the freeways to cheer and wave. The scene was one I have never witnessed before or since for any other individual, religious or otherwise. I witnessed the same overwhelming support and love for the man at a massive ceremony earlier that day…all spontaneous and in an atmosphere of genuine admiration for a man who people clearly recognised as decent and good, with a tremendous love for all. His life proves that beyond doubt.

You hypocritically and falsely accuse Catholics of blindly following without individual thought, then demand that I accept Darwin’s theories…BECAUSE THE CHURCH DOES. I find the arguments related to evolutionism, implausible and unconvincing. Many distinguished scientists support the same position, so I’m in good company…Google that one, for your enlightenment. No triumph in googling…a five-year-old can google, Col.

Even if your ancestors WERE bonobos, Yabby, the Church’s acceptance depends on evolving mammals being ‘ensouled’ at some point on the path to ‘your humanity’. I don’t automatically swallow what YOU”RE shoving down my throat…you see, some may see you as gullible in your ‘beliefs’ too, Yabby…

As for my ‘ticket to Heaven’, that must be earned ‘til my last breath and we aren’t ‘guaranteed’ it until the measure of our lives is judged then…as MIW says, you’ve as much right to Heaven as I do…whatever your past mistakes, you make the final choice. God chooses us, we accept or reject Him…He gives us until our very last breath to say YES!
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 31 March 2006 2:59:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, Col, Col, I thought you had reformed! Oh well, lets get on with it then. Col could you please supply the numbers of peodophiles convicted in the past 20 years, and the proportion of Catholic Priests? Only to give us some idea, try Google!

Generalised sumation will only lead to tears, you show your narrow vision in your comments, please mate, I have a bit of pity for you mate as Catholism has taught me to tolerate fools, but sadly I still don't do it easily! Meg1 please don't bite at this feeble excuse of humanity, he knows not what he does.

Col, I don't quote the Bible often, however I must at this stage, "let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" I'll garuntee it won't be you.....
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 31 March 2006 8:22:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col... who cares what your Google search yields? I could type in 'man in a pink frock' and get about a million hits. So what?

Good point Meg, about Mother Theresa. She'll be remembered in a thousand years, Col will be forgotten, God rest his soul.
Posted by tubley, Friday, 31 March 2006 8:31:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tubley,
Please show mercy on this incredibly stupid soul!
Posted by SHONGA, Friday, 31 March 2006 8:36:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin ibn Warriq “If you were to put clerical abuse in context”

I will put it in context. If you care to read back over my posts you will see I identify two acts of “corruption”. The first the 1% who commit the abuse. However, they alone do not corrupt the whole. The REAL corruption is the 1% who, as bishops and the hierarchy of organised religions, used their positions of authority to cover-up the corruption of the 1% who perpetrated child abuse.

It is this second 1% who have trashed the efforts of many who work tirelessly to help others.

AS you rightly suggest “Jesus Christ is an irreplaceable part of human culture.” I would agree but I would also suggest, Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the manipulation of society by the management tiers of organised religions as they exist today.

mjpb your last post lacks the one thing which might give it meaning – you have failed, yet again to identify the “team” which you claimed I am a part of and which has a worse record of abuse than priest.

OUT WITH IT mjpb, stop pussy-footing around, name the team !

Meg1, you too have promoted mjpb’s fatuous slander and now try to sniffle away. Another with more mouth than sense!

Tubley, I thought GY had banned you following your last outrage.

SHONGA, running along at the heels of others? I need no mercy from tubley and your assessment carries as much weight as your double digit IQ.

Back to the point of all this.

1 None of you have the authority to make demands on women you do not know to decide how those women will use their own bodies.

2 The claims to virtue made by organised religion have been dashed by the coverup and hypocrisy which organised religions perpetrated to protect the corruptors. It is this cover-up which has made organised religions the sanctuary of the scurrilous and which has destroyed their standing in modern society.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 31 March 2006 11:47:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col,

”It is this second 1% who have trashed the efforts of many who work tirelessly to help others.”

Certainly any bad behaviour is not helpful for those who work tirelessly to help others and the associated media frenzy is even less helpful for their image but I suspect that many who don’t like the religion use it as an excuse to slander priests generally. For the record to characterise that second subsection all as corrupt relies upon an oversimplification as I have previously discussed.

”… Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the manipulation of society by the management tiers of organised religions as they exist today.”

Seek and you shall find but I believe that where there is any attempt to participate in the decision making processes in society it normally is in full accord with Jesus Christ. I am thinking of things like JPII calling for sexual ethics and protection of children. What do you have in mind?

”mjpb your last post lacks the one thing …, name the team !”

Sorry I can’t say much more than has been said.

”Another with more mouth than sense!”

Didn’t you get mouth and sense in the wrong order?

”… how those women will use their own bodies.”

That brings in the question of perspective on the central issue. If it is women’s use of their bodies than that suggests one conclusion and if it is killing of babies then another conclusion.

”2 The claims to virtue made by organised religion have been dashed by the coverup and hypocrisy which organised religions perpetrated to protect the corruptors. It is this cover-up which has made organised religions the sanctuary of the scurrilous and which has destroyed their standing in modern society.”

Organised religions exist to promote the God’s Word not for the purpose of supporting corruptors by protecting them even if individuals have made mistakes. People hate organised religion because worship of God and loving and respecting others is threatening to a self indulgent culture. They bark at any fault of the individuals in the religion rather than admit it.
Posted by mjpb, Saturday, 1 April 2006 5:49:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby thank you for your support

However, intelligent readers here will note that Meg1 confuses derision with debate. Clearly she is incapable of reasoned discussion on the subject of FOETI.

Perhaps if both she and Col Rouge could desist with the personal diatribe, Meg1 would settle down and talk some sense as I have seen her do on another thread entirely. I was quite surprised to find that she can be quite informed and intelligent but not when it comes to women's reproductive rights, nor when the issue of surplus FOETI is raised. She has demonstrated a double standard on these topics.

BTW - Meg1

Before taking swipes check that you know what you are talking about.

You stated I hadn't given any suggestions for surplus FOETI - I have many times - in fact you yourself compared me to Hitler with the suggestion of stem cell research, I have also suggested assistance to other fertile couples.

Also I suggest you purchase a dictionary - FOETI is the English version of the plural for foetuses.
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 1 April 2006 8:55:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin, lots of people do good in society, without being religious.
Look at Fred Hollows. Look at the huge philanthropical donations made. The notion that people will just be self indulgent without religion is a flawed one. Fact is, empathy and altruism are part of our genetic herigate, as a social species. Lots of societies have thrived without Christianity too, so your claims are flawed.

The three Abramic religions all have a history of violence. If we wanted a more peacefull world then Buddhism as a religion would make far more sense. Still today, Christianity threatens to burn people forever, if they don't toe the line.

I'm sure that the old papa is a nice old fellow. Sure people flock around him when they see him, but they do the same for most pop stars.

My reason for highlighting the misery and suffering being caused by the Catholic Church around the world, is that its seldom highlighted and pointed out. The image that the Church tries to promote is one of peace and love etc. Thats not the reality of the result. Thats
just Catholic spin.

Most people don't hate religion at all. They just hate the fact that some fanatically religious try to use legal means to force others to live by their dogma, dogma for which they have not a scrap of subtantiated evidence. Both Islam and the Catholic Church are highly political religions. Why should we refrain from criticising those
who try to play politics with our lives?

Christianity is certainly not the key to modernity. A secular state, with freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion, is the only way for a tolerant society to evolve and without that tolerance there can be no peacefull society. Thats why I am intolerant of the intolerant.

Meg, your ensouling is what religion sells you, but they never have to deliver. Its an old philosophical concept, that was stolen by the Xtians and used to sell and promote their religion, no evidence for anything more.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 1 April 2006 11:26:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, Meg Tubley et al.
Here are a few sites you might like to visit. They contain very interesting material.

First is this one:
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/political/conception.html

It contains medical arguments concerning abortion. They PROVE that human life CANNOT begin at conception. Have a read.

The second is this one:
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/political/Bible.html

This one shows that the bible does NOT forbid abortions. In fact quite the opposite.

The third is this one:
http://lancemannion.typepad.com/lance_mannion/2006/02/life_begins_at_.html

It gives a theological & philosphical argument that shows that the anti-abortion position has no intellectual basis.

I won't try to summarize the arguments. I couldn't do them justice. Please have a read & see for yourself. I found them most impressive but I would be interested in any counter-arguments you might offer.
All the best.
Bosk
Posted by Bosk, Saturday, 1 April 2006 9:47:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I would like to also provide an analogous argument.
Imagine a woman goes out on a date. She takes all the necessary precautions but her date attacks her & she wakes up to find herself secured to a table providing a blood supply to the guy's infant son.

He explains that his son [for various reasons] requires her blood for the span of nine months. At the end of that time she will be released.

Now the woman is obviously frightened & is there against her will. Do you agree that, if given the chance, she has the right to escape? Even if the infant child will die because of her escape? I would argue that most people would say that she has such a right. Most would hope she would stay to give the infant a chance at life but few would be prepared to force her.

What has this to do with pregnancy? Quite simply this. Many women, despite their precautions find themselves pregnant [perhaps because of rape]. They find themselves in a very similar situation to the woman in the example given above.

The question now becomes if you agreed that the woman in our hypothetical example had the right to escape her captivity [even though the infant would die] why is it unethical for a pregnant woman to escape her metephorical captivity [i.e her pregnancy] & have an abortion? See the dilema? Either you would force the woman to have the child [& likewise the kidnapped woman to supply her blood to the infant] or you would support the right of abortion for one & escape for the other. There really is no consistent 3rd option.

Hope I've given everyone something to think about.
Posted by Bosk, Saturday, 1 April 2006 10:40:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col, still no credibility apparent…expecting respect for anyone on these threads with differing viewpoints is obviously beyond your limited capacity for self-restraint.

RE: ‘management positions of organized religions’, are you referring to Mother Teresa, ‘managing’ the Sisters of Charity? … the present or past Pope? … all the Cardinals, Bishops and Priests world-wide?

Your inability to post without gross exaggeration or blatant falsehoods would suggest your club, if you are an example to go by, is representative of blatant liars and-or ego-driven bullys…bulls-eye? Your posts indicate complete disregard for the truth…

That team?…hmmm, I’d hate to discredit all of the others just because you are a member.

1. I haven’t asked for that authority, or claimed it, neither have any other pro-lifers here.

2. ‘organised religions perpetrated’ – no Col, INDIVIDUALS perpetrated, as you perpetrate slander and bullying on these threads, not your team.

‘organised religions the sanctuary of the scurrilous...’

No Col, like the rest of society, they contain wide diversities of people, and many levels of virtue.

To answer your latest spew, let’s quote Christ himself, “Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone…”

Hiding Col? Running off with your tail between your legs…?

I hope you’re not a school-teacher, Col because your tendency to threaten, bully and torment those you can intimidate, isn’t a good authority-figure-role-model. Nor would your demands for conformity to your viewpoint, OR ELSE, motivate young minds to search for truth and reason.

Ditto Yabby…

I heard an old priest tell how he’d gone as a young man to Papua New Guinea, eager to help the people there.

After some years, he sat with an elderly tribesman and asked if he’d made a 'difference'…

The old man explained that when he was a small child, a woman had haemoraged and died in childbirth, leaving a healthy son.

At the graveside, the tribe were asked if anyone would take the child, no-one volunteered so the baby was laid in the grave beside the mother and buried alive.

“Father”, said the man,”that woman was my mother and I watched my brother buried alive.

tbc...
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 2 April 2006 12:06:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont...)

While you're here I know that'll never happen to anyone else…you've made a big difference to me.”

No 'Catholic spin' either…

You claim to attack the Catholic Church because it’s seldom done - where’s your credibility-logic?…your posts are an indication of something more akin to paranoia and obsession.

RE: Islam, little criticism from any of you directed there…perhaps for fear of reprisals…much ‘safer’ to kick the Catholics.

RE: Pope John Paul 11…I doubt in my lifetime, we'll see the sort of response he received wherever he went…nothing like that given to any ‘pop star’, Yabby. Open your mind and see…

‘Fact is, empathy and altruism are part of our genetic herigate, as a social species’…

…actually Yabby empathy and altruism are learned virtues that result from having and exercising free will and accepting consequences…as many of us have recommended on the abortion issue, instead of killing babies, as you suggest…no empathy or altruism evident in your course of action.

Pope John Paul 11 and Mother Teresa developed their extraordinary empathy for others and undisputed altruism, because they were selfless and freely chose to live a life of service to others…not the self-indulgent, no-consequence lifestyle you promote.

Scout – re: personal derision, diatribe and double standards…your posts are examples of all three. FoetusES - correct, in both English and Australian dictionaries.

Re-read your posts - unpleasantly condemning anyone with differing viewpoints.

I’m an employer who demands the same rights for workers as I do for all human life, including the unborn…it’s you who has double standards.

You see Scout, Catholics don’t have three heads and eat atheists for lunch…tolerance and justice is part of Christian faith…individual Christians aren’t perfect but Christ’s teachings apply to every aspect of life.

‘she is incapable of reasoned discussion’ and

‘she can be quite informed and intelligent’

More than a little contradictory and both directed to me…YOUR double standards?

Again, it’s not you that’s wrong is it? It’s the rest of the world…others have to accept that truth MUST bend to your convenience, right?

Bosk,you've abandoned all logic and reason with this post...desperation setting in?
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 2 April 2006 12:26:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

“The three Abramic religions all have a history of violence. If we wanted a more peacefull world then Buddhism as a religion would make far more sense.”

Having grown up in a secular society and been a teenager and as a result being open to Buddhism to the point of taking a keen interest in it, identifying with the religion, meditating, burning incense sticks and reading their scriptures I don’t accept the secular perception of Buddhism based solely on the nice sounding things that Buddhist monks say.

Speaking from a Western perspective of such things non-violence is very prominent in Buddhist teaching but violence is very prominent in Buddhist actions and society. Things aren’t as straight forward in that religion as we are used to in our Christian based society. Indeed my personal conclusion was that the talk and the actions are rather contradictory. I am not suggesting that Buddhists aren’t sincere in their beliefs or are trying to be less than candid in their talk but the religion is derived from a culture that has a different perspective on such things.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/ctbw.htm

Buddhists hate all violence including killing and think it has negative consequences for people. As a result of this and their take on it we have the anecdote in the above link of a Buddhist killing someone upon discovering that they intend to kill others out of compassion to protect him from the consequences of his intended actions.

http://library.thinkquest.org/12255/temple/martart.html

The above link is a confirmation of something you probably already know. Many martial arts are courtesy of Buddhist monks.

People get a warm fuzzy feeling when Buddhists (in their mind correctly) point out that their religion condemns violence and call for non-violence. However I would submit that this should not be taken at face value as many secular Westerners tend to.

Personally I believe that if we want a more peaceful world Christianity makes the most sense. Give me a mother Theresa any day rather than someone killing another with murderous intent. What if the intended murder changed their mind?
Posted by mjpb, Sunday, 2 April 2006 4:42:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hehe Meg, you clearly havent been to many rock concerts, where teenybopper girls faint at the site of their rockstar :) No doubt religious zealots become emotionally engulfed by their guru as well, even Catholics.

Regarding empathy/altruism, you are about 50 years out of date as to how the mind works. Various primates display empathy/altruism, so according to you, they must have learnt it and used their free will to act on it :) Do you really think that say a mothers love for her kids, is just freewill? Hormones, peptides, ligands etc, all affect the human brain and our behaviour. The tabula razza theory was thrown out years ago.

No need for me to say anything on this forum about Islam, as its flooded with fanatical Christians doing that in excess, including Martin. What is seldom highlighted anywhere, is exactly how much misery is being caused by Catholic politics, as few people are even aware of huge political effect of the Catholic Church, on a worldwide basis. As we are debating abortion here in Australia right now and there is no organisation campaigning as the Catholic Church does, who would like to remove womens right to abortion, it makes perfect sense to highlight the misery that they are responsible for around the globe.

Fighting for peoples rights from the tyranny of religious political power and being concerned with the environment and sustainability of our planet, is not exactly promoting a self-indulgent, no consequence lifestyle Meg. Thats my very point. The Catholic Church should be concerned with the consequences of its actions and the misery they are causing, I see no sign of that at all.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 2 April 2006 4:47:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1

You see the world in a totality of black and white. It IS possible to be too emotionally engaged on a particular subject to be able to debate reasonably - as you repeatedly demonstrated on the question of abortion. You have, however, argued quite eloquently on the subject of IR changes - perhaps you are less emotionally engaged here - however no-one has disagreed with you thus far - be interesting to see how you respond to someone vehemently in favour of new IR laws.

Now you also state I "unpleasantly abuse" contradictory views to mine. Whatever - I respond to how I am treated and you fail to look at your own abusive behaviour on the abortion threads, you continually attempt to belittle opponents - and only wind up making yourself look ignorant. (eg spelling; and I suggest you check out Dicionary.com for the variety of spellings for the foetus - expand your mind).

You also contradict yourself - one minute according to you I don't offer suggestions for surplus FOETI and then you claim I am a facist for suggesting stem cell research - and YOU talk about double standards!

As for catholics you state "Catholics don’t have three heads and eat atheists for lunch…" I have NOT EVER mentioned Catholics in my posts - are you now confusing me with Yabby and Col Rouge?

And as for your claim "tolerance and justice is part of Christian faith…"

Practise what you preach!

Now, if you wish you may respond - you have the same addiction as Col Rouge - you can't back down from a put-down - you both can be very tiresome with your vitriolic replys to each other.

For myself, I maintain my sovereignty over my reproductive rights - and there is not a thing you can do about it.

Farewell (you need it).
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 2 April 2006 9:57:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
”Regarding empathy/altruism, you are about 50 years out of date as to how the mind works.”

Just on the issue of innate v learned …if they are hardwired then why doesn’t everyone display those qualities?

”… What is seldom highlighted anywhere, is exactly how much misery is being caused by Catholic politics, as few people are even aware of huge political effect of the Catholic Church, on a worldwide basis. As we are debating abortion here in Australia right now and there is no organisation campaigning as the Catholic Church does, who would like to remove womens right to abortion, it makes perfect sense to highlight the misery that they are responsible for around the globe.”

On the contrary the general rule is that the Catholic Church alleviates the suffering and helps protect the innocent.

”Fighting for peoples rights from the tyranny of religious political power … is not exactly promoting a self-indulgent, no consequence lifestyle Meg. Thats my very point.”

Then your point is wrong. Overregulation can be oppressive but Christianity can be quite liberating by providing clear guidance on right and wrong and it makes things easier. Remove Christianity from a Christian society and it is like playing cricket without knowing the rules. As soon as the rules are introduced it is so much easier. People who attack Christianity do so because they find the truth threatening to their desire for a self-indulgent and no consequence lifestyle.
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 3 April 2006 3:18:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ
Quote "On the contrary the general rule is that the Catholic Church alleviates the suffering and helps protect the innocent."

Not in South America MJ. There the catholic Church [as well as fundamentalist churches from the US] have done deals with right wing dictators & preached patience to the poor & opressed.

Second quote: "Remove Christianity from a Christian society and it is like playing cricket without knowing the rules. As soon as the rules are introduced it is so much easier. People who attack Christianity do so because they find the truth threatening to their desire for a self-indulgent and no consequence lifestyle."

You might like to read this site MJ.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-2-1798944-2,00.html

It shows that on the contrary societies are harmed by being intensely religious. The article does this by comparing [in many areas] religious societies with secular ones. The evidence surprised the heck out of me I must admit.

Meg
Obviously you can't answer my arguments which is why you are now merely dismissing them instead of even attempting to answer them. Wish to prove me wrong. Then point out where my analogical argument falls down. Your attempt to then guess at my motives were particularly insulting & supercilious. How can I respond except to say I forgive you Meg & turn the other cheek. Would you like to strike that one too?
Posted by Bosk, Monday, 3 April 2006 7:47:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, you clearly can’t comprehend the vast difference between the genuine affection and admiration shown towards Pope John Paul 11 and the giddy, often intoxicated adulation ‘where teenybopper girls faint at the site of their rockstar’.

I can assure you that non-Catholics and Catholics alike indicated their admiration and appreciation of the Pope…no giddy crowds, just people whose minds were open enough to see and appreciate an ordinary man who had lived an extraordinary life of selfless service and love. People who wanted to simply say, “ Thank You for the man you are.”

‘primates display empathy/altruism’

No Yabby, they display instinctive or learned behaviour from other members of the group.

As usual, you are making up the theories as you go along…and discrediting them as quickly…

‘empathy and altruism are part of our genetic herigate, as a social species’

You say that empathy and altruism are genetic and then that a mother’s love is hormonal, etc…which is it? You need to make up your own mind before you try to convince others. A mother who prepares for and anticipates the birth of her child with confidence and love will relate to that child more readily than a mother who anticipates the birth and the child with fear and dread…hormones play a part Yabby, but there are many other factors, including support, previous experience with children, etc. No one is GENETICALLY or HORMONALLY a good or bad mother…that theory lost any credibility before you spat it out.

RE: This thread being ‘flooded with fanatical Christians doing that in excess’ (criticizing Islam)…your paranoia is again evident with this claim while at the same time stating…that criticism of the Catholic Church ‘is seldom highlighted anywhere’

…you’re kidding, right? There are few anti-life posts on these threads that aren’t obsessive, paranoid rants claiming the Catholic Church is responsible for every pernicious, evil deed on earth…the reason? Just because they have rules you and your anti-life ilk can’t or won’t live up to and so feel obliged to discredit at every opportunity using fair means or foul and with scant regard to truth.

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 3 April 2006 3:43:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

‘…we are debating abortion here in Australia right now and there is no organisation campaigning as the Catholic Church does’

You are delusional Yabby…I have heard only one Catholic Church leader speak out, George Pell…who are all the others you claim are involved? I am on this forum as an individual who has an opinion as I do on other forums, or wherever I choose…just as you do, I presume! Or are you speaking on behalf of only the bonobos and chimps - on this thread?

‘You see the world in a totality of black and white. It IS possible to be too emotionally engaged on a particular subject to be able to debate reasonably - as you repeatedly demonstrated on the question of abortion.’

Scout, this surely refers to YOU, doesn’t it? If anyone’s expressed extremes of emotion on the abortion issue repeatedly, it’s you…also black and white on what YOU demand others accept…simply because you say so.

‘you can't back down from a put-down’…

So you’d rather indulge in your ‘put-downs’ and have no one respond - you like to belittle and have others cower instead?…black and white, no resistence? Hmmm...

Rather than specify Catholics, Scout, you have instead berated ALL Christians in your posts, so the comment on open mindedness and finding we don’t have three heads… still applies…

Bosk, I’d hardly think you’ve turned the other cheek…dismissing your arguments is hardly striking you…even metaphorically.

Neither you nor I are obliged to respond to anything, don’t pose irrational scenarios and be insulted when they’re dismissed as such.

Isn’t it curious that you anti-lifers demand Catholics defend THEIR position, defending the lives of the unborn, the existence of a soul, etc…yet fail to defend your own position denying the existence of one and the rights of the other…

If I entered my local police-station saying I’d just killed someone, they wouldn’t shrug and say I must’ve had good reason for doing it…and leave it at that.

The onus is on you to prove why you are 'more equal' than any others…and should have the right to kill.
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 3 April 2006 3:56:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg
Thank you for once again disdainfully dismissing my argument. Such a reaction by you IS insulting by the way. And disdainfully dismissing an argument [in this case as illogical without giving reasons why] is NOT the same thing as not responding. In that case you would NOT have mentioned my argument at all!

Now to your contention that an analogical argument is illogical.

First you may ask why should I use an analogical argument? To quote a philosophy site "The simplest variety of inductive reasoning is argument by analogy, which takes note of the fact that two or more things are similar in some respects and concludes that they are probably also similar in some further respect."

How important is the use of analogy you may ask? To quote the wikipedia "Analogy plays a significant role in problem solving & has been argued that analogy is "the core of cognition" . Sounds pretty important wouldn't you say Meg? Doesn't sound like an analogical argument should just be disdainfully dismissed as illogical.

By the way Meg the analogical argument was not mine. It was first published in the "Philosophical Review" by a professor of ethics from Cornell University. I heard it debated a few times at various universities by professors on both sides of the abortion issue. Do you know that NOT one professor seemed to realise that they should just disdainfully dismiss the argument as illogical? On the contrary they seemed to believe it was a logical argument & well worth debating whatever their position.

Finally, in your last post you complained that no one posts any argument supporting the pro abortion position but expect the anti abortionists to always defend theirs. Are you serious Meg? I've posted 4 arguments! one biblical, one theological, one medical, & one philosophical.
Posted by Bosk, Monday, 3 April 2006 6:36:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, I've been away, so havent read your Buddhism urls. Suffice to say, Japan, without much Christian influence, has a far far lower crime rate then America, the most Christian Western nation on the planet!

As to genetics, why isn't everyone extremly good looking? DNA will
vary in individuals. Fact is that most people are hardwired to some extent to be part of a social group and display what you call "morals" Most people want friends and they won't have friends if they lie, cheat and steal from them .

If the Catholic Church alleviates suffering, then why do hundreds of thousands of women in say South America, die because of its policies?

If clear guidance on what is right and wrong is clearly flawed, then why should anyone take notice? Morality is subjective opinion, in the end. There is no evidence of objective morality, as claimed by the Church.

Meg, we are going from endocrionology 101 here, back to endocrinology 01. Endocrine levels are genetically controlled, get used to it. So the question of "either or" does not even arise.

You do not change your blood levels of say oxyticocin, by freewilling them to change. They are as they are, due to your genetic heritage. Yup, some mothers are just naturally good mothers,
not just in humans, but in many species. That feeling of love for their children, just comes naturally, not by freewill or thought process.

The pro life lobby is dominated by Catholic associates Meg. Follow the links of the one I posted some time ago. Invariably they all lead back to the Catholic Church.

Meg, people clearly feel affection and admiration for the Beatles, still today. Catholic zealots feel the same for their papa, the principle is much the same...

"No Yabby, they display instinctive or learned behaviour from other members
of the group."

ROFL, you mean just like humans :)



Regarding the soul, you have to prove that there is one, for one cannot prove a negative. Just like you cannot prove that the tooth fairy or Santa don't really exist.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 3 April 2006 11:25:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
[Deleted for abuse and poster suspended.]
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 3 April 2006 11:59:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk
”Not in South America MJ… done deals with right wing dictators & preached patience to the poor & opressed.”

What deals? Obviously none in Brazil where the Church helped produce leaders for mass opposition movements. The previous Pope called for non-violent change and rejected a Marxist approach to change that some of his flock in South America had leaned toward including revolutionary violence. The Church has also been critical of Government policies concerning the poor, and attacked the government and failure to address social problems. Preaching peace and pressuring the Government to reform is not the same as doing deals.

” You might like to read this site MJ.
…The evidence surprised the heck out of me I must admit.”

The study compares the social peformance of some relatively secular countries with the US because the majority in US believe in “a creator”. That America had more crime surprised you?

”Now to your contention that an analogical argument is illogical.”

I doubt if it is deliberate but you are creating a straw man. She didn’t assert that analogical is necessarily illogical. She said you were being illogical.

Yabby

“… Japan, without much Christian influence, has a far far lower crime rate then America…”

Crime is not a behaviour characteristic of Christians. Sri Lanka is largely Buddhist but they have problems with terrorism and organised crime and allegations of genocide. In both cases the problems are due to the country not the religion.

If the Catholic Church alleviates suffering, then why do hundreds of thousands of women in say South America, die because of its policies?

From what?

”If clear guidance on what is right and wrong is clearly flawed, then why should anyone take notice?”

If the world is clearly flat why should we send out international ships? It is not clearly flawed.

Col
“… old woman Meg1, (typical catholic)”

I don’t recall her age being mentioned. Am I to infer that you are also prejudiced against old women?

“hypocritic”
People in glass houses! You are the one who claims to advocate respecting others.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 5:21:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Legal Abortions in selected countries for 1990.

Russia 4103425
United States 1429577
India 596345
Japan 456797
United Kingdom 184092
Italy 161285
France 161129
Cuba 147530
Germany1 145267
Bulgaria 144644
Hungary 90394
Canada 71092
Poland 59417
Sweden 37489
Norway 15551
Israel 15509
Finland 12232
New Zealand 11173
Greece 1216
Iceland 714
Posted by tubley, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 10:12:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tubley, your figures are meaningless, whats your point?

MJ, the Catholic Church uses every method in can, to restrict women in South America from having access to family planning, as they do in the West. The net result is that desparate women undertake desparate measures, hundreds of thousands die in the process.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3194680.stm

Of course Catholic dogma is clearly flawed. In nature sex is
quite normal and natural, all those hormones have an effect on
creatures of whatever species. The warped attitude to sex,
is Catholic dogma and no more. Basing all this guidance on
some old testament text of a few spilt seeds is patently ridicilous.
Here we have Martin, telling us exactly the opposite, ie don't take
the OT too literally.

At the end of the day, women and their partners, have to decide how
many children they can feed and clothe. Denying them that right in much of the third world, something that is taken for granted in the first world, is a disgrace. Women are dying in their hundreds of thousands because of Church policies. The Catholic Church should be ashamed of itself.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 8:08:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk, Professor or garbologist - education doesn’t guarantee all utterances are pearls of wisdom.

No worthy Professor discourages debate based on credentials alone…innovation and genius is not restricted to academia.

Your analogy indicates some with too much time and insufficient work to occupy their minds…being paid for the privilege.

The ludicrous presumption baby would die if she disconnected the blood supply begs the question… What was baby’s blood-supply before the ‘date’?

Countless billions in grants, are frittered away on such waffle for debate or thesis, while more pressing issues remain ignored because they require greater effort, a moral stand or a step outside-the-square.

Academics often preach creativity, while practicing conformity.

Take a look throughout history at any creative genius who steps outside the square in any profession…they are invariably treated with derision by their own, until the success of their creation is proven to the general public and they instead become heroes, AFTER THE FACT.

(1985 WA ‘cure-cause’ for stomach ulcers discovered…ridiculed by medical profession. 2005 – recognition gained world-wide.)

The Bible is berated, yet the theories-writings of others are consumed avidly as worthy of serious and prolonged debate, because the promoter has academic qualifications…again enlightened or creative debate is neither confined to, nor guaranteed by, academia alone.

Additionally, the professors involved in Bosk’s ‘debate’ were paid to teach…and secondly, they weren’t confined to 350 words…neither applies on these threads…

I don’t disregard arguments based on the writers ‘credentials’ but on the validity or otherwise of its content.

During mass killings throughout history, many supported the perpetrators and their brutal methods (whether out of fear, agreement or convenience)…few stood ‘against the mob’…history proved the few correct in every instance, as it will again. The wheel turns full circle.

Yabby, extremes of nature, corruption and-or greed by corporations or governments who don’t allow workers a living wage, kill millions, civil disobedience inevitably follows when desperation for basic sustenance is denied. ‘Where injustice becomes law, resistence is inevitable…’ Nelson Mandela.

Remember Poland Yabby, that’s what happens when influences of Catholicism change the oppression of government, peacefully. Brazil too, Michael, well said.

(tbc)
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 4 April 2006 11:54:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

Bernard Nathanson wasn’t Catholic, Yabby…he was an abortionist who accepted he ‘had overseen the killing of many thousands of babies and became a pro-life advocate.

There’s been involvement from Christians-and-non-Christians-alike in pro-life advocacy and pregnancy assistance…

Instinctive or learned behaviour IS POSSIBLE in humans, Yabby…but humans exercise free-will and virtues, not possible in other species.

Yabby, should we seek genetics of ‘good mothers’, allowing only them to bear children? The jury is still out in academia on 'nature or nurture'...

Having had considerable experience with babies-children in my life, I approached motherhood with confidence and little apprehension. Mothering has been second-nature because of the life-time of experiences and example I had. A friend with minimal contact-experience with babies or their care, was extremely apprehensive and overwhelmed by the prospect of having sole care of her baby for much of each day…she couldn’t face many tasks initially. Support and her determination to develop an understanding of her children’s needs and meet them, has made her the wonderful mother she is today.

That’s not genetic, Yabby, neither are many of the other attributes of motherhood. Her initial difficulties don't make her a worse mother than I, nor does anyone’s genetic inheritance…

Your suggestions to that effect are offensive and ignorant of the requirements for successful parenthood.

I hope you aren’t in a position to advise new parents…the results could be catastrophic…

I’ve no obligation to prove existence of anything at all…as I’ve stated, the debate’s on abortion…deliberate killing of a tiny human life…I don’t support such killing.

If you do - the onus is on you to prove that you are ‘more equal’ than another human and therefore have the right to kill by whatever means, however barbaric.

You and other anti-lifers are yet to provide such proof.

Tubley’s figures are as relevant as yours are inaccurate...hundreds of thousands of women aren’t dying from ‘policies’ of the Catholic Church…but many more than that are cared for by Catholics like Mother Teresa’s Sisters of Charity.

Respecting his inability to respond (Not my doing), I’ll ignore Col’s final post.
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 12:08:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg
Quote "The ludicrous presumption baby would die if she disconnected the blood supply begs the question… What was baby’s blood-supply before the ‘date’?"

@ points
1) your objection is irrelevant given the purpose of the analogy which is to examine the principle that abortion is always wrong when it it takes a human life. I've provided you with a situation when it would NOT be wronf to take a human life. yet you dismiss my argument for such a trivial objection. Is this really thereason Meg?

2) All I need do to ensure the argument is valid is that it follows the principle of analogy I have previously supplied. The argument does this. Therefore it follows that the argument is valid.

3) Because you have requested it I supply a reason for the child's condition. A freak accident & a genetic condition has brought about his need at just these last few hours. There you go Meg satisfied. I await your next stalling tactic with great anticipation.

Now to deal with a lie of yours. In a previos post you had dismissed the argument I had provided because it was illogical. Now you claim you were engaged in debate. Debate may be defined as reasoned argument Meg. Dismissing someone's argument without giving reasons is NOT a reasoned argument. It is a display of sheer prejudice. So your claim is lie #1.

Lie #2
In your last post you you FINALLY gave your reasons why the analogical argument was illogical. [As I have noted above your reasons are foolish & invalid]. But you then go on to say you couldn't have given it before because of the 300 word limit. So why can you do it now? Have they increased the word limit? This is a lie Meg.

It has become increasingly obvious to me that you will do anything rather than answer the question. Could it be because you have no answer & refuse to admit it? I see little point in continuing a discussion with someone who has so cavalier a regard for the truth.
farewell.
Posted by Bosk, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 1:41:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby
“MJ, the Catholic Church uses every method in can, to restrict women in South America from having access to family planning, as they do in the West. The net result is that desparate women undertake desparate measures, hundreds of thousands die in the process.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3194680.stm”

The non exclusive focus of the story is on the following woman:

“One Peruvian woman who narrowly survived such an operation described her experience to Outlook.

"When I found out I was pregnant I was desperate," she said.
She explained how she had been separated from her children's father, but had fallen pregnant to her new partner after being given misleading advice on how to use the contraceptive pill.”

Neither abortion, nor contraceptive pills, nor sex outside of marriage are condoned by the Catholic Church. The story doesn’t blame the Catholic Church.

In non-Catholic Australia the decision to allow an abortion is with the doctor not the recipient. From the comments in the article it seems that South America is similar and the contraceptive pill is clearly available. The main difference seems to be many more women seeking abortions and the bizarre methods of their 'backyard abortions'.

”Of course Catholic dogma is clearly flawed.”

It is a fair bet that you will disagree but the dogma comes from a higher authority than secular opinion.

“In nature sex is quite normal and natural, all those hormones have an effect on creatures of whatever species. “

If you don’t think Catholics have sex look at the size of the families.

” Women are dying in their hundreds of thousands because of Church policies.”

Again if they complied with Church policies they wouldn’t have sex outside of marriage, wouldn’t take the contraceptive pill, and wouldn’t have an abortion if the contraceptive pill failed. If they complied with Church policies they would be alive.

Bosk,

” … 300 word limit. .. This is a lie Meg. “

I would have thought it was a typo.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 4:27:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If they complied with Church policies they would be alive."

MJ, as a humanitarian, I find your reasoning absolutaly disgusting,
especially somebody who belongs to a religion who claims to preach love and compassion. You are implying that its ok that hundreds of thousands of women are dying, because they did not follow Catholic
dogma, despite the fact that these deaths could be prevented by modern medical means. So much for the Catholic Church being a loving and caring organisation! Thats exactly why I have not a spec of respect for that Church, even though I was born a Catholic.

Do you have any idea of the trauma that women go through, before they decide to abort? Are you so perfect that you don't make a mistake in life? Is forgiveness not what your church preaches,
yet here its just too bad if these women die by their thousands?

That is what disgusts me about religion, blind following of dogma
takes preference over any real compassion and caring for people.

The main focus of that article was not one woman, it was the fact that hundreds of thousands are dying, not the rich, but the poor.

Meg, who claims to be compassionate, shows far more concern for a dividing cell, then she does for a thinking, feeling, grown person.
Too bad if those women suffer, the Church said its ok. I find that disgusting too.

Mandela was quite correct Meg, when injustice becomes law, resistence is inevitable. The "mob rule" of the Catholic Church is slowly fading, from the days when they were all powerfull. In the first world we had to fight for our human rights and continue to do so. In the third world the Church still has more influence, although step by step it will be fought all the way, until justice for women
in the third world prevails too!

What this debate shows once again, is that for religious addicts, religious dogma is far more important then real caring for other people. Sometimes I am ashamed of my species and this is one of those times.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 5 April 2006 2:44:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""If they complied with Church policies they would be alive."

"...You are implying that its ok that hundreds of thousands of women are dying..."

What!? First you blame the Church because people use contraception and get abortions when that is the opposite of the Church dogma. I argued that you can't blame Church dogma if people do the opposite of what it teaches is the correct thing to do. Now you type this. I think it is tragic that this happens and see Catholicism as the solution not the problem. How do you read in that I think it is ok? I think that Catholic dogma should be followed and the deaths prevented. Do you think I want people to be non-Catholic? Please explain your reasoning. You have lost me. Is this some type of attempt at a straw man argument?

"The main focus of that article was not one woman, it was the fact that hundreds of thousands are dying, not the rich, but the poor."

The article focussed on one example particularly to show the horror of what is happening. The overall theme of the article was the thousands dying.

"Meg, who claims to be compassionate, shows far more concern for a dividing cell, then she does for a thinking, feeling, grown person.
Too bad if those women suffer, the Church said its ok. I find that disgusting too."

Re-read her posts. She argues that not only is the killing bad but women suffer from abortions. Is this another straw man?

"The "mob rule" of the Catholic Church is slowly fading, from the days when they were all powerfull."

Some think it exerts a tyranical leadership. You think it represents mob rule. From one extreme to the other.

"What this debate shows once again, is that for religious addicts, religious dogma is far more important then real caring for other people."

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Without religious dogma and the resulting respect for human beings the world can be incredibly uncaring.
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 6 April 2006 1:06:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem with the Catholic Church is that it doesent just preach to its flock, it tries to enforce its agenda politically, resulting in the unneeded deaths of hundreds of thousands of women around the world.

If saving womens lives and lowering the abortion rate was the main issue, the examples are clear. Countries like Holland and Belgium
achieve that by good sex education, easy availability of modern contraception etc. Their abortion rate is less then a third that of many countries where abortion is illegal. Despite abortion being provided for free, their rates are some of the lowest in the world.

Desparate women do desperate things:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/24/mexico13072.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3028820.stm

46 million abortions are performed each year, 26 million legal,
20 million illegal. If you want to save womens lives, make them all legal. Banning abortion won't change the abortion rate, it simply means that women die for no good reason.

Most illegal abortions are performed in South America and Africa,
countries where the Catholic Church has a large influence in politics. Luckily in the first world we have told the church to shove it, third world women are not so lucky. So they keep dying.

Clearly the church and its followers care more about dogma then about people dying.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 6 April 2006 9:35:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have just been listening to Jo Wainer being interviewed on the radio. She was comparing the abortion landscape in Victoria in the 1960s with todays situation.

In 1971 there were about 90,000 abortions in a population of 12 million.
In 200? there were about 85,000 abortions in a population of 22 million.

It was estimated that 20% of maternal deaths in 1970 were from botched abortions. The Royal Womens Hospital used to have a 30 bed ward for botched abortions and 1 patient would be sent to the morgue each week. And many women simply disappeared - presumabluy dead from botched abortions.

I do not want to return to the good old days of restricted access to safe abortions, although my family was always wealthy enough to access safe abortions. The restricted access to abortion was coupled with restricted access to reproductive information which meant women were unable to pass information between the generations.

Many anti-abortion posters appear more concerned about controlling women that they are about women's and children's welfare.
Posted by billie, Thursday, 6 April 2006 10:19:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

“The problem with the Catholic Church …enforce its agenda politically, resulting in the unneeded deaths …. “

So the Catholic Church who don’t support sex outside of marriage or abortions is to blame for people getting abortions.

” Countries like Holland and Belgium achieve that by good sex education, easy availability of modern contraception etc…”

All Dutch I have known are anti-abortion so I figured there is another explanation. Stats I found (albeit old) indicated that only 22.5% are atheists and approximately 31 - 40% of the population are Catholic. Thus another more likely possibility for the low abortion rate is Christian influence.

46 million abortions are performed each year, 26 million legal,
20 million illegal… Banning abortion won't change the abortion rate...”

Then why is there 6 million less illegal than legal when illegal abortions are associated with well populated third world countries sometimes with less available contraception where you would expect a greater demand? How about teaching people to value human life and not have an abortion in the first place.

”Most illegal abortions are performed in South America and Africa, countries where the Catholic Church has a large influence in politics…”

But aren’t most Africans either Muslim or following their traditional religious beliefs? If so how does the Catholic Church have a large influence on their politics?

In South America there is clearly a higher proportion of Catholics than Africa but in the article on South America you put forward it seemed to indicate that contraception is available. I also note that the Catholic Church clearly doesn’t see eye to eye with the South American governments so I doubt that they have “a large influence on their politics”.

”Clearly the church and its followers care more about dogma then about people dying.“

The whole purpose of opposing abortions is to stop people from dying. Babies will always die if there is an abortion.

You argue that the Church is responsible based on some lateral inference that relies upon your theory about the reasons for laws in overseas countries. That isn’t exactly a compelling argument.
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 6 April 2006 11:04:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bosk,
1. She won’t artificially sustain the child’s life for long…unborn’s (placenta) completely different scenario, not simply blood-supply. Will you ‘date’ another when she dies?

My objection’s relevant, not-trivial - it’s the basis for your ‘analogy’.

2. This ‘case’ is relevant only to fifth-rate-Frankenstein-movies…it’s neither medically-valid, nor conducive-to-reasonable-debate.

3. What ‘freak accident and genetic condition’ happened ‘within the past few hours’…name both the condition and accident before expecting answers… You’re straw-building again…

Your-Lie-1 I said YOU were illogical…

Your-Lie-1a I referred to ‘professors involved in Bosk’s ‘debate’’ – no claim to be involved in it.

Your Lie-1b ‘Dismissing someone's argument without giving reasons…’

Immediately contradicted by your-Lie-2 – ‘…you…gave your reasons why the analogical argument was illogical.’

…there are plenty of valid reasons given, as you admitted FINALLY in Lie 2…

Your-Lie-3 ‘…say you couldn't have given it before because of the 300 word limit.’

Mine - ‘Additionally, the professors involved in Bosk’s ‘debate’ were paid to teach…and secondly, they weren’t confined to 350 words…neither applies on these threads…’

You clearly have a problem with comprehension and-or truth, Bosk…you’re not the only poster I responded to in that post…I provided a more complete response, when my 24-hr-limit expired. Refer also to my subsequent comment.

‘I don’t disregard arguments based on the writers ‘credentials’ but on the validity or otherwise of its content.’

Your last…‘you will do anything rather than answer the question…farewell.’

You’re welcome to take your bat-and-ball-and-go-home, Bosk but you’ve again contradicted yourself…

Yours: ‘In your last post you FINALLY gave your reasons why the analogical argument was illogical.’

So I did give the reasons? Do you believe repeating a lie ad-nauseaum will convince others it’s true? Curious…

Yabby: ‘You are implying that its ok that hundreds of thousands of women are dying, because they did not follow Catholic dogma…these deaths could be prevented by modern medical means.’

YOU identified the women AREN’T following Church teaching and ARE using contraception, non-marital sex and abortion. How’s the Catholic Church responsible when-it-advises-against-all-three?

Another contradiction - the Church prevents access to the contraceptive pill…it’s clearly accessible in the case presented.

(tbc)
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 7 April 2006 12:54:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

‘even though I was born a Catholic’

No-one’s ‘born’ Catholic, Yabby – you’re baptized Catholic…I guessed that one already from your posts…as I’ve said before, some who fail to keep rules feel bound to justify their actions by denying or trying to discredit those rules…

Instead Christ asks for repentance and gently lifts us up to try again…we all stumble, He simply asks us to try again…

As I’ve stated, I’m well aware of pre-abortion anguish, and lifetimes of post-abortion trauma…that’s why I argue against it…to protect both life and welfare, of mother and baby.

…I deplore the ACT and its devastating consequences for mother and child…I don’t condemn mother. I’m neither judge nor jury and she has no reason to seek my forgiveness…

Judgment is God’s - it’s His forgiveness that’s relevant.

‘thousands are dying, not the rich, but the poor.’

Yabby, corrupt governments and corporations are responsible for manipulating these people and denying them a living wage…not the Catholic Church.

Additionally…droughts, floods, wars and unrest mean farmlands cannot be planted, maintained, or are destroyed…

…compounding the effects of corruption and poverty…millions die DESPITE best efforts of the Catholic Church and other Churches and aid agencies…

‘Too bad if those women suffer, the Church said its ok’

I find your bigotry disgusting too, Yabby, I put actions with words and beliefs, helping in practical ways. Human life’s God-given and sacred from Conception to natural death…I care for and speak for ALL human life…in many ways.

Another contradiction - you claim the Catholic Church exercises ‘mob rule’ and then the ‘papa’ uses tyrannical, political pressure to influence government and rule his subservient followers…which is it?

Which species are you ashamed of? Those who abort their defenceless unborn or bonobos and chimps who still instinctively nurture and protect?

Billie...Jo Wainer’s abortion-statistics are inaccurate…and maternal-death statistics, dubious at best. Damned lies and statistics…!

Perhaps the 30-bed-ward was for spontaneous (mis-carriages) AND deliberate abortions?

Many women STILL disappear…refer ‘missing persons?’

RE: ‘passing information between the generations’…were they mute?

RE: Women’s and children’s welfare…criticism’s easy, how do you help?
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 7 April 2006 1:02:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg1, Jo Wainer is a senior lecturer in Medicine at Monash University so I think her figures are accurate and she was actively involved in the field 35 years ago so she should be believed.
Posted by billie, Friday, 7 April 2006 8:20:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, all these things have been analysed in a huge way around the world. The Dutch story is easy to explain, free availability of
good contraception to anyone. If you want less abortions, provide
better and cheaper contraception methods, along with better education.

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html

Their website has a huge amount of data on this topic.

The Catholic Church has always made it a point to try to influence politics to the best of its ability, where it operates. There was a myth that the Church was untouchable, luckily that is finally breaking down.

http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/conflictinperu.html

Rwanda is 65% Catholic. Central Africa has a high Catholic population. Northern Africa is Muslim.

The evidence from around the world is clear. Women will have abortions, legal or not. Many more will die, if its illegal.
If you want less abortions, provide better contraception.

The Catholic abstinance story is a dismal failure in practise,
not even Catholic priests manage to abide by that one.

Meg, if the Catholic Church didn't try to have abortion-contraception banned everywhere as it does, then those women would not die, simple as that. Women in Holland don't die needlessly, the abortion rate is also low. Perhaps you could learn something from them.

Forget the Christ stuff, time to focus on people and their suffering, the rest of what you believe is no more then dogma, to me as valid as the Santa story.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 7 April 2006 10:18:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

“ The Dutch story is easy to explain..”

That explanation doesn’t work. Contraceptives are used in the UK but their abortion rate is much higher.

” Their website has a huge amount of data on this topic.”

Certainly and carefully selected data. The Planned Parenthood’s Alan Guttmacher Institute’s web page that you quoted also contains a lot of opinion. Further, it is all very nice to put the label “it takes time” on a graph where abortion rates increase in direct proportion to an increase in contraception use for two decades and then decline. However, they didn’t consider that it takes time in the Soviet Union when the trend suited them.

If you think the article writers were trying to give an objective account then why don’t they put Korean stats in with the list of countries. Obviously they had those stats as they cited Korea when it suited them. Is it because that a 40 year period of increasing contraceptive use achieving a whopping 80% contraceptive rate is associated with a 20% abortion rate which is the original rate before contraceptive use was even 10%?

Isn’t it interesting that the European countries that formed the old ‘Christendom’ have retained low abortion rates compared with South American countries, America or China (25.1), Mongolia (25.9), Armenia (35.4), or Turkey (25).

http://www.mosquitonet.com/~prewett/conflictinperu.html

This URL that you cite again confirms that rather than colluding with South American governments the Church is in conflict with them.

“Rwanda is 65% Catholic.”

And is one out of 55 African countries.

“Central Africa has a high Catholic population.”

And is a second out of 55 African countries.

“ Northern Africa is Muslim.”

I expect that you will find that most Africans are either Muslim or following their traditional religious beliefs

” If you want less abortions, provide better contraception.”

Converting to Christianity would be much more effective.

”The Catholic abstinance story is a dismal failure in practise, not even Catholic priests manage to abide by that one.”

Actually it is a requirement for those wanting to enter priesthood.
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 7 April 2006 11:25:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm a primary school teacher who has worked in over a dozen different schools (public and private) in three different cities. The Catholic education system, I must say, provides a much better, safer and more fulfilling environment for children. The additional key learning area of Religion that is either not offered, or done so in a token manner in public schools, provides children with a spiritual outlet that helps them to deal with traumatic events in their lives, such as illnesses and deaths in the family.

These children are more adjusted, emotionally. The level of education throughout all subjects is so much better. Why? Because non-government schools have greater power to expel bullies who continually disrupt classes and restrict others from their right to learn. In the public system a kid basically has to burn down a school and murder a couple of teachers before being expelled.

This year I'm doing relief teaching, so I get a good mix of schools and year levels. But I must admit I really dislike working in public schools because I know my day will consist of breaking up fights and copping insults from disrespectful children, all the while the students who actually have a desire to learn, cannot, due to the others.

Catholic schools are connected to the local parish in their community, which provides for needy people through services such as St Vincent de Paul. The church welcomes all citizens and is supportive and compassionate.

The Catholic church teaches us to live a life that isn't dependent on the kinds of monetary and material things that lead to greed and corruption. It teaches that personal fulfillment comes through "putting others first", a quality lacking in the "Me" generation.

The Catholic church of today supports all people and, while it does frown upon abortion, it certainly doesn't condemn those who have gone through with one. Yes, the church is judgmental – Jesus is depicted in the Bible as such, but there's a definite difference between judgment and condemnation. Pope John Paul 2 spent his life representing this difference.
Posted by tubley, Saturday, 8 April 2006 2:19:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, the difference in abortion rates between England and Holland has long been explained, there is a huge difference in school sex education, that also explains the low teenage pregnancy rates in Holland. Perhaps you are unaware as to what a pragmatic and liberal society exists in Holland. Gay marriages are accepted, euthanasia is accepted, sex is considered natural and normal, no big religious hangups about it. Clearly you have never been to Amsterdam :)

Abortion rates are low in Europe as contraception has been freely available for decades, its a pragmatic attitude to life and its problems. I lived there in the 70s and girls were on the pill if they were in a relationship, religion did not even come into the discussion.

The Americans are the most religious Western country of all and what we see is that in the bible belt, where school sex education is least given and abstinance is suggested, teen pregnancy and abortion rates are higher because of it. So much for Christianity being a solution, so far its been a dismal failure at preventing people from having sex or reducing the abortion rate.

You might not like what the GMI publishes, you might quibble on the edges about a couple of stats, but the fundamentals of what they are saying are correct and can be seen in worldwide trends.

Central Africa as a region, including a number of countries there, has a high Catholic population. Countries like the Congo, Uganda,
Kenya, Tanzania etc.

Abstinance might be a requirement for the priesthood, perhaps that explains why nobody bothers to become a priest in Australia anymore. It also doesent mean that priests keep their vows either. Last I read about a third of them were thought to be gay.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 8 April 2006 10:09:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
…billie, your ‘statistics’ are easy to dispute and published figures have varied markedly during the recent abortion debate (check Hansard). Lies, damned lies and statistics…being an academic doesn’t eliminate the possibility of statistics being manipulated to suit the argument.

Your figures for 30 bed ward…many interpretations can be made, spontaneous abortions (mis-carriage) are just one point of contention.

I’ve also been actively involved for many years, at local level, State/Federal level. Your statistics are dubious at best and inaccurate at worst…

Figures on abortions in 1970’s were 1 abortion for every four live births…rising to around one abortion for every three live births (2005), with abortions now more freely accessible. … Dispels the ‘theory’ that abortion, freely available will educate women to be more reproductively aware, responsible…or more in control of themselves or their partners, doesn’t it?

Relevant statistics on pregnancy-related deaths or ‘botched’ abortions do not back up your spurious claims either.

Abortion was easily accessible in the 1970’s (‘risk to mother’s health’) in most public hospitals and some private doctors. Abortion statistics as indicators of women’s health in Australia, indicate a serious health crisis – curious that those women continue to ‘risk’ their lives again and again…why do you think that is, if they’re so enlightened regarding sexuality?

Your claim ‘many women simply disappeared – presumably dead from botched abortions.’…is mischievious and deceitful in the extreme, billie.

Provide evidence to back the statement up. If every missing woman is assumed dead from a botched abortion, police wouldn’t be looking for more missing women annually…with abortion more accessible.

With abortion legalized, statistics prove it becomes far more prevalent…just another form of contraceptive – what is legal becomes 'right' for many and therefore 'acceptable'… Then tragic consequences force the wheel to turn full circle…as society deals with the aftermath…individually and collectively.

Osama Bin Laden preached terrorism over 30 years ago too…articles warned of his terrorist activities then…should that give his argument more credibility too?

Many medical professionals disparaged two WA doctor’s cure-cause for stomach ulcers (1985)…but world acclaim in 2005 for those same doctors forced acknowledgement!

(tbc…)
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 8 April 2006 10:15:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

Jo Wainer’s credentials don’t guarantee validity of content…or ability to make moral-ethical judgments.

I re-iterate: ’I don’t disregard arguments based on the writers ‘credentials’ but on the validity or otherwise of its content.’

You accused pro-lifers of appearing ‘more concerned about controlling women than…about women's and children's welfare.’

Where’s your evidence? Again…criticism’s easy, how do you help?’

I’m also curious to hear your response as to why information could not be passed through the generations as you allege?

Yabby - the Catholic Church doesn’t dictate policy to the Dutch government on contraception or abortion then…despite the large Catholic population? Another contradiction…?

‘There was a myth that the Church was untouchable’

Only in your dreams Yabby…

Your statistics are vague, convoluted…then directly contradictory…

‘If you want less abortions, provide better contraception.’

Australian statistics completely disprove your argument…abortions in Australia have gone from one abortion in four live births in the ‘70’s to one abortion in three live births in 2005…with freely available contraception.

You suggest lower mortality rates with legalised abortions, ignoring that abortion is ALWAYS LETHAL FOR THE BABIES involved…statistically you’re wrong again...maternal deaths WILL increase with RU486 - already proven.

RE ‘Catholic abstinence story’ Babies aren’t a ‘mistake’ with NaturalFamilyPlanning, Yabby, Catholics plan to have families too, not difficult to comprehend, surely.

Millions of Catholic priests successfully follow the teachings of Christ…you need to stop obsessing on a few, your generalisations are inaccurate and unhealthy.

‘those women would not die, simple as that’

…so now you’re fantasizing, ‘those women’ could live forever? We all die, Yabby. You obviously can’t produce supporting evidence here...

You should refrain from fabricated statistics…perhaps it’s Dutch Catholics following Church teachings who don’t have pre-marital sex, use contraception or abort their babies who are affecting your selective statistics.

Judging from significant Dutch-Catholic populations, one could assume a significant Church influence there…again discrediting your contrary arguments.

Yabby, the Catholic Church has ‘focused’ on relieving human suffering from the time of Christ…their focus is trying to alleviate it, while you appear determined to create mischief and misinformation which solves nothing, then offer no practical help yourself.
Posted by Meg1, Saturday, 8 April 2006 10:40:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
One of the amusing things about the pious and religious fanatics,is how they can keep kidding themselves. Reality does not go away, because we close our eyes and wish it would!

Meg, stop kidding yourself about Holland. Fact is that less then 10% of Catholics even bother to turn up in church once a week. Of those few who do, most are over 50, so too old to worry about contraception or abortion. As elsewhere, most Dutch Catholics disagree with the Vatican about contraception, abortion etc.

But lets look at a more pious nation then Holland. The US. The more they go to church, the more they vote for George Bush! Thats a huge worry in itself!

Fact is that most US Catholics ignore church teachings on contraception and the abortion rate for catholics is only slightly lower then for others. So even within the Catholic Church and its followers, your views are regarded as nonsense.
http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/articles/state_of_the_church_2006.html

Australia's problem with abortion is still one of student education not being good enough. Pious parents will complain when their little darlings are exposed to being shown how to put a condom on a penis, so it doesent happen in schools. Dutch parents are far more pragmatic, so their abortion rate is lower.

In Holland, abortion has not become far more prevelant. Good education works, even if it upsets a few doting parents.

Meg, in Holland much of the large Catholic population is in name only, much like here. People fill out surveys and tick Catholic in the box under religion, but give it little thought after that, its simply what they were born as. I used to do that too, until I became aware of how much damage religious fanatics do to our way of life and to peoples rights.

If we look around, what % of the population take religion seriously to any extent? Perhaps 10-20%, no more, the rest have other interests. I still think there is a genetic component there as the trend seems similar around the world, especially as people become more educated.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 8 April 2006 9:27:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, you rail against the Catholic Church, yet google away referencing every post with comments about it…arguing you know the minds of practicing and non-practicing Catholics world-wide (impossible but most amusing :) )…

…one thing’s apparent…you should face your unresolved ‘issues’ … and accept the inevitable conclusions.

‘Reality does not go away, because we close our eyes and wish it would!’

For some, failing to live by-or-up-to, rules of the Catholic Church creates an obsession to denigrate and tear down all things Catholic…rather than face reality and acknowledge that the rules apply equally…providing guidelines for life…like guideposts along the highway, showing where dangers, slippery roads, detours, freeways and rugged roads are…it’s up to us to ‘drive’ responsibly to our destination, without harming others along the way.

I reject your demands which disclaim the rights and responsibilities of parents and your anti-religious and political fanaticism and bias...

You preach ‘choice’ but would allow none but your despotic and contradictory agenda.

Received on e-mail:

A University professor … challenged his students with this question. "Did God create everything that exists?"

A student bravely replied, "Yes he did!"

"God created everything?" The professor asked.

"Yes sir, he certainly did," the student replied.

The professor answered, "If God created everything; then God created evil.
And, since evil exists, and according to the principle that our works define
who we are, then we can assume God is evil."

The student became quiet and did not respond to the professor's hypothetical
definition…The professor, quite pleased with himself, boasted to the
students that he had proven once more that the Christian faith was a myth.

Another student raised his hand and said, "May I ask you a question, Professor?" "Of course", replied the professor.

The student stood up and asked, "Professor does cold exist?"

"What kind of question is this? Of course it exists. Have you never been
cold?"

The other students snickered at the young man's question.

The young man replied, "In fact sir, cold does not exist. According to the
laws of physics, what we consider cold is in reality the absence of heat.

(tbc)
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 9 April 2006 1:32:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

Everybody or object is susceptible to study when it has or transmits energy,
and heat’s what makes a body or matter have or transmit energy. Absolute
zero (-460 F) is the total absence of heat; and all matter becomes inert and
incapable of reaction at that temperature. Cold does not exist. We’ve
created this word to describe how we feel if we have no heat." The student
continued, "Professor, does darkness exist?"

The professor responded, "Of course it does."

The student replied, "Once again you’re wrong sir, darkness doesn’t exist
either. Darkness is in reality the absence of light. Light we can study, but
not darkness. In fact, we can use Newton's prism to break white light into
many colors and study the various wavelengths of each color. You cannot
measure darkness. A simple ray of light can break into a world of darkness
and illuminate it. How can you know how dark a certain space is? You measure
the amount of light present. Isn't this correct? Darkness is a term used by
man to describe what happens when there's no light present." Finally the
young man asked the professor, "Sir, does evil exist?"

Now uncertain, the professor responded, "Of course, as I have already said.
We see it everyday. It's in the daily examples of man's inhumanity to man.
It is in the multitude of crime and violence everywhere in the world. These
manifestations are nothing else but evil.

To this the student replied, "Evil does not exist, sir, or at least it does
not exist unto itself. Evil is simply the absence of God. It is just like
darkness and cold, a word that man has created to describe the absence of
God. God did not create evil. Evil is the result of what happens when man
does not have God's love present in his heart. It's like the cold that comes
when there is no heat, or the darkness that comes when there is no light."

The professor sat down.

The young man's name -- Albert Einstein

I’m in good company…however small the percentage of population!
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 9 April 2006 1:37:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, your company is less good then you think! Einstein was not a Christian and certainly not a Catholic. But Osama bin Laden is another religious fanatic, so if you think thats good company, so be it :)

The minds of many Catholics can be evidenced by their deeds. Those deeds can be evidenced by statistics. That might be a pain in the butt for many of the devoutly religious, but the evidence does not go away, when you wish it would.

Yup I preach "choice", not religious tyranny, as your church tries to inflict on others.

The "rules" that you follow, mean as much to me as those who follow the rules of Santa or the rules of the Easter Bunny. If they keep you happy, its your choice, but don't inflinct that choice on others.

I preach tolerance, but I also preach intolerance of the intolerant,
as your religion has shown to be.

IMHO, if Meg was born in Iraq, she would most likely be a devout little Muslim, clearly you need religion and its rules to cope with life. Fair enough, so do your thing, but let the rest of us do our thing.

I preach living sustainably, so that this planet is around for future generations for many species, not just anthropocentrism.

I preach doing good for others, as we all benefit, its natural and its sustainable.

I preach taking note of the laws of nature, rather then the laws of the pope, for to me he has no more relevance then the Easter bunny,
although at least the Easter bunny celebrates the joys of yummy
chocolate :) The pope seems more focussed on denying people their
human rights.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 9 April 2006 2:14:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To anyone reading Meg's post. I offer this as a rebuttal.

Quote from Meg "Bosk,you've abandoned all logic and reason with this post...desperation setting in?" The point is clear here. I am being personally dismissed as illogical.

Lie from Meg " dismissing your arguments is hardly striking you…even metaphorically. Neither you nor I are obliged to respond to anything, Don’t pose irrational scenarios and be insulted when they’re dismissed as such."

So according to Meg only my SCENARIOS & NOT myself were being dismissed. Not exactly what she said before is it?

Quote from me "Dismissing someone's argument without giving reasons is NOT a reasoned argument."

In reference to 1st lie "I said that YOU were illogical"

She clearly wrote both.

Lie by Meg "Your Lie-1b ‘Dismissing someone's argument without giving reasons"

Another lie of Meg's "there are plenty of valid reasons given, as you admitted FINALLY in Lie 2" It should be noted I have agreed that Meg's arguments were valid. On the contrary, right from the point at which she gave them I have argued that they were INVALID.

Response to my argument given on 2nd April by Meg "Bosk,you've abandoned all logic and reason with this post...desperation setting in? " No reasons given.

Response to My argument given 3rd April by Meg "Neither you nor I are obliged to respond to anything, don’t pose irrational scenarios and be insulted when they’re dismissed as such." No reasons given.

In both cases there was merely an assertion "this is illogical" yet Meg claims to have provided plenty of reasons.

Next lie 7th April - "You clearly have a problem with comprehension and-or truth, Bosk…you’re not the only poster I responded to in that post…I provided a more complete response, when my 24-hr-limit expired."

I originally posted the analogical argument 1st April.

Meg replied 2nd April [no reasons given], 3rd April [no reasons given], invalid reasons provided April 4th. 3 days after My post & 2 days after Meg's initial reply.

I will leave it to any reader to decide whether Meg or myself is the one lying.
Posted by Bosk, Sunday, 9 April 2006 2:36:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For any who are still reading this thread I repeat the argument.

Imagine a woman goes out on a date. She takes all the necessary precautions but her date attacks her & she wakes up to find herself secured to a table providing a blood supply to the guy's infant son.

He explains that his son [for various reasons] requires her blood for the span of nine months. At the end of that time she will be released.

Now the woman is obviously frightened & is there against her will. Do you agree that, if given the chance, she has the right to escape?
if you hold that human life [especially infant life] MUST be preserved then your answer should be no. If on the other hand you hold that the important thing is the free choice of the woman then your answer should be yes.

Meg argues that we must first know the name & nature of the disease the infant suffers before we can make a moral decision. Should that make any difference? How will knowing the name & nature of a disease help you make a MORAL decision? Will your moral decision change if I supply you with the name of a particularly nasty disease? it shouldn't. Unless you are acknowledging limits on the life principle.
Posted by Bosk, Sunday, 9 April 2006 5:47:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

“MJ, the difference in abortion rates between England and Holland has long been explained, there is a huge difference in school sex education,…”

So you increasingly accept that availability of contraception doesn’t prevent abortion by itself but hypothesise that sex education makes the difference?

Of the two current hypotheses namely education or religion my experience with Dutch people suggests the latter as negativity to abortion seems to be present and I doubt that sex education would teach that.

”Abortion rates are low in Europe as contraception has been freely available for decades, its a pragmatic attitude to life and its problems. “

What about the UK?

”The Americans are the most religious Western country of all and what we see is that in the bible belt..”

Please provide more details so that I can comment.

”You might not like what the GMI publishes, you might quibble on the edges about a couple of stats, but the fundamentals of what they are saying are correct and can be seen in worldwide trends.”

Their own stats contradict them. They even did a list to show “worldwide trends” which cherry picked to the extent of even omitting stuff they had elsewhere on the page ie. failing to list Korea. Naturally I am suspicious about motive as it so clearly contradicted the view they were pushing. 40 years of contraceptive use achieved a whopping 80% contraceptive rate associated with a 20% abortion rate which is the original rate before contraceptive use was even 10% It is obvious why Australia didn’t get a mention.
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 10 April 2006 3:29:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
”Fact is that most US Catholics ignore church teachings on contraception and the abortion rate for catholics is only slightly lower then for others. So even within the Catholic Church and its followers, your views are regarded as nonsense.

http://www.catholicity.com/mccloskey/articles/state_of_the_church_2006.html”

They might not be followers of the Catholic Church. Read the whole paragraph. They may be box tickers like you were before you became illusioned.

“Meg, your company is less good then you think! Einstein was not a Christian and certainly not a Catholic.”

Comments such as “God does not throw dice with the universe” indicate that Einstein had some type of belief in God and public comments such as that indicate that he takes it seriously. This was the issue she was addressing. In any event if the population of believers is so low we should live in a wonderful society if your theories were correct.

”I preach tolerance, but I also preach intolerance of the intolerant,
as your religion has shown to be.”

Translation: You like to claim tolerance because it sounds good but even you can see how your comments about Christians prove otherwise so you want to make this excuse.

Contrary to your claim of Christian intolerance it has proved the opposite whereas secular and other intolerance of Christianity screams at the obvious conclusion that tolerance is difficult outside of the religion. I guess one of the fundamental principles of Christianity "Do unto others as you would that they did to you." goes a long way in this regard.
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 10 April 2006 3:42:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, read the text of Einstein’s comments…he argues there is a God…I agree.

Bin Laden encourages killing of innocents, more akin to your comments, not mine…

…he believes the end justifies his means too…

…the possibility of having less bonobos and chimps eaten in Africa justifies killing babies around the world through abortion…by your illogically ‘sustainable’ world order?

‘The minds of many Catholics can be evidenced by their deeds.’

You mean like St Vincent De Paul, Mother Teresa and the Sisters of Charity or Pope John Paul 11? Lots of 'evidence' there…

'Evidence' on good or bad deeds of most INDIVIDUAL Catholics doesn't exist, Yabby…unless you mean that held by St Peter at the Pearly gates…

You’re a long way short of knowing the minds of many others, Catholic or otherwise…

‘Yup I preach "choice", not religious tyranny’

You PREACH ‘choice’ Yabby, but demonstrate your own brand of tyranny, under the guise of ‘sustainability’…with a blighted bias on everything Catholic…no one’s forcing you to practice Catholicism BTW.

You insist that killing babies is necessary to prevent chimps being eaten…? Questionable logic aside, you certainly force your views on others…'tolerance' and ‘choice’? – non-existent apparently.

‘Farewell?’ Bosk you’re back…was that a ‘lie’ too?

Mine-‘don’t pose irrational scenarios and be insulted when they’re dismissed as such.’

Yours-‘Now to your contention that an analogical argument is illogical.’

Not the same ‘contention’, is it Bosk…more ‘lies’?

‘Bosk, you've abandoned all logic and reason with this post’ and quote above…

‘my SCENARIOS & NOT myself were being dismissed. Not exactly what she said before is it?’

You AND your scenarios…including ‘data’ are illogical and irrelevant to the topic for debate…I’m still waiting for the ‘9 month disease’ the son has and how you will ‘find’ another ‘blood donor’ when this one dies…she won’t last 9 months.

(tbc)
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 10 April 2006 2:27:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

Deliberate killing of a baby (abortion) versus…killing woman (fictitious, Frankenstein movie) - despite your protests, infant’s ‘condition’ is medically impossible as you’ve presented it…NO ANALOGICAL COMPARISONS of these babies or women. Hence my request for disclosure of ‘disease’ and other details…don’t bother, Bosk…you’ve already eliminated possibility of rational debate.

Hmmmm…quite obtuse, Bosk…? "…plenty of valid reasons given…”

You stated I’d given NO reasons, then contradicted yourself saying I HAD GIVEN REASONS…I’m stating your contradictions (proven) and that my reasons are valid, I wouldn’t present them if I considered them invalid…check quotation marks and your other inaccuracies in my posted quotes…300? No Bosk…wrong again.

My response was already WRITTEN when you posted yours…then posted later (with one additional sentence to you – using remaining words available), I responded to you WITH REASONS on April 4th…

…my further posts on 5th-7th-8th-9th-April continue comments to others also. I’m not confined to comment on your posts alone, Bosk…and thankfully my life holds more than awaiting your posts, or responding on your schedule…

Consider reading posts carefully…then ensure your facts are straight before placing both feet in up to your knees.

‘Meg argues that we must first know the name & nature of the disease the infant suffers before we can make a moral decision. Should that make any difference?’

No, Meg didn’t mention ‘a moral decision’, (another ‘lie’?)…it’s reasonable to ask for data if the probability of any such ‘disease’ is unlikely or medically impossible. IF you promote barbaric methods of abortion as ‘acceptable’ (for convenience, no less?) instead of pro-life alternatives available, it follows that I may not trust you to have explored all possibilities of ‘saving’ this infant (without killing others in the process).

…or your medical ‘diagnosis’ to begin with.

Don’t you think the woman is owed a second opinion, Bosk? Where’s all that ‘choice’ you talk about.

Again…

The onus is still on you to prove why you are 'more equal' than any others…and should have the right to kill.

Mjpb, your ‘translation’ of the ‘tolerance’ statement, sums up the situation very well…couldn’t put it any better…
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 10 April 2006 2:52:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, if people like you and Meg, who are obsessed with the abortion rate, want it reduced, Holland has shown how to do it. Nope its not religion, few Dutch youth bother with it, just a few oldies.
http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/mens-maatschappij/leefsituatie/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2004/2004-1519-wm.htm

For abortion rates to come down alot, you need both good contraception plus good education, its the combination that matters.
Here is the difference between Holland and Britain.

http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend2.htm

and http://www.unesco.org/courier/2000_07/uk/apprend.htm

The delay in Korea is easily explained, people in Asia are coy in talking about sex, its a cultural thing.

The Economist regularly quotes GMI figures, clearly they are better informed then either MJ or Meg:) Yup Australia was not quoted, the report was short, there are 200 countries. Did you want an epistle?

What details about America would you like? Can't you google?

Re tolerance, I don't have a problems with Buddhists or Hare Krishnas, only with those who want to force me by law to live by their religion. If Chrisitians were tolerant, they would live their lives by their religion and leave the rest of us to live ours. That is clearly beyond you. So the intolerant are easy to identify.
Most Xtians actually accept that today, just a few fanatical Catholics and Muslims don't.

Meg, tolerance is about choice in your life, not dictating how others should live their lives, as your church does. I believe in giving women worldwide a choice, you want to force your dogma on them through legislation if possible, thats where we differ. If you feel that I am wrong in preaching sustainability, feel free to tell me why I am wrong.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 10 April 2006 3:15:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was so intrigued that Meg1's response to me was to casually refer to Hansard. I remember that she has said that she has children, and has worked with women overseas. On other forums she displays details of how dairy deregulation was first discussed, is keenly aware of sugar industry and also has an interest in IR. I started to wonder whether Meg1 could be a federal politician. The only one that fit the bill voted for RU486 to be controlled by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
Posted by billie, Monday, 10 April 2006 4:10:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, tolerance is allowing others to express opinions or beliefs without being unjustifiably attacked because you may have unresolved issues or contrary opinions of your own…

You say you give women a choice, but argue that abortion is desirable to reduce the population of the world … especially African babies it seems, so that they won’t be tempted to eat chimps or bonobos…

…i.e., you promote abortion as the means to YOUR end VERSION of a ‘sustainable’ world … women should have X number of babies? Or none…? In your own version of “Animal Farm”?

‘you want to force your dogma on them through legislation if possible, thats where we differ.’

Yabby, you want to force your agenda on others world-wide, ‘through legislation if possible’, to the extent that you promote killing of babies because you see them as lesser value than animals…

‘If you feel that I am wrong in preaching sustainability, feel free to tell me why I am wrong.’

My quote: ‘You PREACH ‘choice’ Yabby, but demonstrate your own brand of tyranny, under the guise of ‘sustainability’…with a blighted bias on everything Catholic…no one’s forcing you to practice Catholicism BTW.’

I did NOT state that you were WRONG in preaching true sustainability, which includes humans too btw, yes there’s ample space and food for all…the African babies also…but that you DEMONSTRATE ‘your own brand of TYRANNY, under the GUISE of ‘sustainability’…

…you argue for preferred animals (and you?) to be protected…‘sustained’…but for the human population to be culled by abortion…and expect others shouldn’t find that repulsive?

It seems there is little room for humans in your tolerance zone…

‘published figures have varied markedly during the recent abortion debate (check Hansard). Lies, damned lies and statistics…being an academic doesn’t eliminate the possibility of statistics being manipulated to suit the argument.’

…billie, my reference was quite specific, do you think Hansard is only read by politicians?

Stick to your day job billie, you aren’t detective material…

I’m not THE Federal Politician you refer to, whomever that may be, nor am I a Federal Politician at all.

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 4:08:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

Is it only Federal Politicians who have children these days? …or have worked with women…? (…don’t recall what references you refer to there that are specific to Federal Politicians…)

RE: other issues mentioned, you’ve left out many other areas of interest to me also…I read, meet and speak to lots of others and google too, billie…and I take a keen interest in people and their interests or concerns.

Does that make me politician material?

You wouldn’t think so by looking at most of those occupying the parliaments around the country…would you?

I heard one party ‘hack’ describe potential candidates as ‘anyone from the Centrelink line who will put up their hand when they’re told to’…doesn’t sound like me, billie, I prefer to have my say based on my own well-founded beliefs and opinions.

…but thanks for the ‘compliment’?, I think?

Here’s something else I support…the Eureka Blockade, implemented yesterday…10th April, 2006:

“We demand today Legislation to be put in place to set viable sustainable rates for Owner Operators in the following industries:
• The Australian Interstate Long Distance, Local and Intrastate Transport Industry
• The Australian Marines & Fisheries Industries
• The Australian Farming Industries Incorporating, Dairy, Beef, Sheep, Pork, Egg, Fruit, Vegetable & Grain (ALL INDUSTRIES)
• We also demand the overturning of the Industrial Relations Reform recently implemented to deregulate our Australian workforce.

No longer will we sit back and let our future be ruled by this government, who do not listen to the people and who act to benefit the multinationals that place large amounts of funds into their party coffers at the Australian Industries’ expense.”

I applaud those responsible for this Blockade…but no billie, it’s not me either.
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 4:12:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, tolerance means letting others make decisions about their lives, free from religious manipulation. Tolerance means attacking others who try to deny them those rights, as say the Catholic Church does.

You are free to be a Catholic, free to think your pope is wonderfull,
free to cross your legs in the name of religion as you please, but don't expect others to do the same, just because you think its a good idea.

Abortion in the first tremester should be a womans choice and right.
You have put forward no good reason that it should not be, except emotively flawed, semantically miscoloured dogma. Get used to it,
you think what your pope thinks matters, nobody is forcing you or any other catholic to have an abortion. Get used to it, others don't think like you, so stop trying to deny them their rights.
Your pope just expressed his opinion, its no more valid then the opinion of anyone else.

I have never, anywhere, suggested that any woman should be forced to have an abortion. Clearly there is an unmet need in Africa, where women want better family planning methods. They want the same as women in the West have. They should be given that choice!

If African women were given that choice, the result would be much as elsewhere. Women would choose to have smaller families. They could then provide better nutrition and care to the kids they do have. They could give those kids a better education then they receive now.
Those kids would then have a better future then they have now.
The environment would benefit too, as the population explosion threat would be taken off Africa. Rather then eat chimps, they could be developed into a tourism industry etc.

Yes I preach choice, women want that choice, why not give them that choice?

You may well continue your Catholic inspired rant about holy sperms etc, personally I prefer to focus on thinking, feeling people.
I don't care if the Catholic Church thinks that wasting sperms as Onan did is a major crime.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 9:21:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Bin Laden encourages killing of innocents, more akin to your comments, not mine…”
LOL Well put.

Yabby,

“… its not religion, few Dutch youth bother with it…”

Not going to Church regularly doesn’t mean that the influence from traditionally having a high proportion of Catholics isn’t responsible.

"For abortion rates to come down alot, you need both good contraception plus good education, its the combination that matters.
Here is the difference between Holland and Britain."

The links don’t mention any influence of a tradition of Catholicism but that doesn’t mean that it isn’t there.

Your links establish that in Holland there is no mandatory national sex education but nearly all secondary schools provide it and over half of primary schools provide it. In Britain they don’t institutionally sex educate them before 10 and compulsorily educate in secondary school even if a survey of 700 14 to 15 year old English youths found that they didn’t like the sex education in schools including complaints that there was too much focus on the mechanics of sex and contraception rather than on emotions. Are you saying sex education is needed younger?

“The delay in Korea is easily explained, people in Asia are coy in talking about sex, its a cultural thing.”

Delay!? That was their smoke screen because nothing useful to them happened for so long. The abortion rate is 20%!

” Did you want an epistle?”
No just more candour and less cherry picking.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 5:24:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
”Re tolerance, I don't have a problems with Buddhists or Hare Krishnas, only with those who want to force me by law to live by their religion.”

I presume you mean laws based on Christian principles. I’m sure in both religions you cite if they have the numbers they would do so. This is hard to imagine with Hare Krishnas but Buddhists countries have adopted Buddhist laws and if you lived there you would be forced to act accordingly. Examples include Tibet and Thailand.

“ So the intolerant are easy to identify.”

Particularly when they are so intolerant they feel the need to make excuses for their behaviour as you did in a previous post.

“Meg, tolerance means letting others make decisions about their lives, free from religious manipulation.”

No. Tolerance means recognizing and respecting the beliefs and practices of others. This includes Catholicism. You display no respect whatsoever. I understand that you have unresolved issues and contrary opinions but that doesn’t obliterate the fact that you are extremely intolerant.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 5:27:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
mjbp says that Yabby is intolerant and that abortion is condemned by all Christian churches.

The views of the Uniting Church in Australia can be found at http://assembly.uca.org.au/news/mediareleases/2005/release030205.htm. The press release can be summarised as while all human life is sacred because we live in a broken world we have to recognise that abortion occurs and support women in the decision they make - not judge them.

I agree with the sentiments expressed in the press release.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 8:16:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, sadly the effects of the policies of the Catholic Church, kill far more women in the third world every year, then bin Laden ever killed.

As the Dutch article highlights, contraception among young people in Holland is the highest in the world, doesent sound much like Catholic policy to me lol. What the Dutch have shown is that with a pragmatic curriculum and easy availability, abortion rates will be
quite low, as there is no need for them. But keep grasping at straws to come up with a reason for the situation in Holland, as straws is all you have.

No 20% in Korea, 20 per thousand women, which is much better then the abortion rate in the highly Catholic Philipines, where tens of thousands of women are hospitalised due to botched backyard abortions. I've yet to look up as to how many of them die, due to flawed Catholic policy.

I meant Catholic policies. No other Christian religion is as political as the Catholic Church and tries to deny people people
their human rights, as the Catholic Church does. It was not so long ago when the last pope was still trying to stop Catholic lawyers from assisting even non Catholics with their divorce procedures!
If the Catholic Church had its way, even divorce would be illegal.

I am intolerant of one thing, that is intolerance. I respect your right to be a Catholic or a Hare Krishna, but I don't respect what you believe. Respect is earned, not given for no reason.

So be a Catholic, swing from your chaneliers by your testicles, its none of my business, but when you try to deny others their rights as you have your rights, then I will protest loudly, especially when they are third world poor people who don't have the luxury of defending themselves or even telling you what they think. When religious or political power are misused, I get cranky and fair enough.

Human rights come before religious dogma in our world these days.
Religions can't just do as they please any more, as they used to.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 12 April 2006 8:47:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘Tolerance means attacking others’

Yabby, you attempt to re-write the English language to suit yourself…e.g., tremester not trimester – 26-27 weeks instead of 12-14 weeks…it doesn’t validate your attempts.

Tolerance - the quality of respecting others’ beliefs, practices,...; the capacity to endure something, as pain, hardship, ...

Tolerance NEVER means ATTACKING others…it’s an invalid interpretation under any circumstances.

Your latest post makes little sense and shows little valid reasoning once again.

You describe what you’re producing - ‘emotively flawed, semantically miscoloured dogma’… preached about chimps and bonobos…’ nobody is forcing you or any other’…to eat a chimp or bonobo... ‘Get used to it, others don't think like you, so stop trying to deny them their rights.’

Appropriate words for yourself, when mirrored back…aren't they Yabby?

No one’s forcing you to practice Catholicism Yabby…

...your own posts verify choice and free will is practiced by Catholics.

You claim many are Catholic in name only…no one chains them to an altar to force them to practice their faith…clearly there’s choice and free will, despite your contradictory and mischievous claims.

‘You may well continue your Catholic inspired rant about holy sperms etc, personally I prefer to focus on thinking, feeling people.’

Yabby, I haven’t raised the ‘issue’ of sperm to my recollection.

You’ve consistently focused on sperm(s), anti-Catholic vitriol, chimps, bonobos and Darwinism…humans (especially babies…African babies) have trailed far behind in associated value…little positive focus on people at all, contrary to your claims.

‘I have never, anywhere, suggested that any woman should be forced to have an abortion.’

You claim almost every virtue’s meaning contains ‘attack’ clauses Yabby, yet you’re very sensitive to others right-of-reply…

...once again you’ve misrepresented my statements…re-posted again here…

‘You say you give women a choice, but argue that abortion is DESIRABLE to reduce the population of the world … especially African babies it seems, so that they won’t be tempted to eat chimps or bonobos…

…i.e., you PROMOTE abortion as the means to YOUR end VERSION of a ‘sustainable’ world … women should have X number of babies? Or none…? In your own version of “Animal Farm”?

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 14 April 2006 12:21:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont...)

‘you want to FORCE your dogma on them through legislation if possible, thats where we differ.’

Yabby, YOU want to force your agenda on others world-wide, ‘through legislation if possible’, ...you promote killing of babies because you see them as lesser value than animals…’

All of the statements are valid summaries from your posts…

Clearly your paranoia with Catholics is specific, you claim it alone seeks to argue the case for abortion…I regularly see material from many other religious groups, including the Jehovah’s Witnesses who go door-to-door to preach their beliefs…yet, no vitriol directed there, Yabby.

You seem incapable of posting without reference to any aspect of the Catholic Church, sperm or Darwenism…based on your postings to date.

‘sadly the effects of the policies of the Catholic Church, kill far more women in the third world every year, then bin Laden ever killed.’

The teachings of the Catholic Church protect and care for human life, including women…your hypocrisy knows no bounds, you argue for protection of chimps above lives of African babies who MAY eat them…then preface your misinformation on the third world with ‘SADLY’…

…scary how you defend Bin Laden…you keep ending up on the same side…

You promote abortion then argue you are against killing ‘women’…half of the babies are female…abortion kills them Yabby!

You clearly have issues with the Catholic Church and I sincerely hope you are able to resolve them and gain some peace.

…billie, Dr Dean Drayton’s Media Release (Feb, 2005) may well be superseded by now or could be at any time … however, that is why MANY Christian Churches exist, not just one – because one point(s) of Christ’s teachings became too difficult for a particular group or their interpretations differed and they eventually broke away…free will again, you see.

You collect media releases on abortion from 2005? Watch the women going in and out of the abortion clinic…and watch them spoken to by pro-lifers…live in Melbourne.

Do you work at an abortion clinic? or just spend a lot of time there?

A Blessed, Safe and Happy Easter to all…
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 14 April 2006 12:32:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg, clearly my posts are passing over your head, for if I present
a number of arguments from various perspectives in one post, they become one confusion in your mind. So I will try to simplify things, so that even you can understand them.

Perhaps its time that third world women have the right to decide how many babies that they want to raise and have the same facilities and choices as first world women do. It should not be Meg's business, the popes business, but their business. Religious dogma should not interfere with their business. They should not need to die by the hundreds of thousands, because of the effects of religious dogma,
as is happening now. That is one issue.

Sustainability is a separate issue. If we do not live sustainably on this planet, then there will be no future humanity, but thats way above your head it seems, so no point me discussing it further with you, even though most kids can understand the point.

The holy sperms of Onan is the biblical bit that your church uses to justify its contraception policy. Religions are meant to be based on holy books remember and thats the critical bit for Catholics. Just read what your own church writes on contraception.

The so called good intentions of the Catholic Church really don't matter, if the effect is that they kill people. People often have good intentions, but the effects of what they do can be serious. In this case its very serious, hundreds of thousands of people are dying every year.
Those deaths could stop tomorrow, if those women had the same choices as they have here in Australia and in other Western countries. So your church can be blamed for those deaths.

I won't write any more in one post, it might only confuse you further.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 14 April 2006 6:43:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“MJ, sadly the effects of the policies of the Catholic Church, kill far more women in the third world every year, then bin Laden ever killed.”

Nonsense. Abortion kills them and their children. The Catholic Church policy is anti-abortion.

” But keep grasping at straws to come up with a reason for the situation in Holland, as straws is all you have.”

The key thing with Holland seems to be an anti-abortion value derived from their history Catholic tradition. That counts for a lot. Nothing else explains their situation. For the record I’ve known Australians who consider themselves Catholic, accept contraception but draw the line at abortion.

”… where tens of thousands of women are hospitalised due to botched backyard abortions…”

and many even more babies are killed due to failure to embrace Catholic policy by all involved..

”I meant Catholic policies. No other Christian religion is as political as the Catholic Church and tries to deny people people their human rights, as the Catholic Church does.”

The Catholic Church policies are the best protection of human rights by valuing human life.

“I am intolerant of one thing, that is intolerance..”

Stop being so modest. You are intolerant of the Catholic Church. That is clearly established.

“Meg, clearly my posts are passing over your head…”

Enjoy the fantasy.

” They should not need to die by the hundreds of thousands, because of the effects of religious dogma…”

Stop blaming the Church because someone gets an abortion and someone else botches it. If Church dogma was adopted it would not happen.


”The so called good intentions of the Catholic Church really don't matter, if the effect is that they kill people.”

Abortions always kill people. The Catholic Church does not approve of abortions.

“… So your church can be blamed for those deaths.”

The Church is both blamed for restricting liberty by denying abortions and blamed for the consequences of abortions.

”I won't write any more in one post, it might only confuse you further.”

She clearly isn’t confused. The truth hurts so you lash out and engage in personal attack.
Posted by mjpb, Sunday, 16 April 2006 5:57:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"If Church dogma was adopted it would not happen."

MJ, you show similar logic and similar intolerance of others as the Taliban. You'd be fine in their country, if you adopted their religious dogma too.

You also show a complete lack of empathy for the plight of women and why they have abortions in the first place. Risking their lives for such a procedure, clearly they are experiencing huge trauma to make the decision in the first place. All that seems to matter to you is dogma, if they don't follow it and die, well so be it. Those deaths could be stopped tomorrow, if the church undertook its proper role, ie to preach to its flock, but stopped trying to enforce its dogma as law in many countries. That makes the Catholic Church as political as the Taliban and I criticise them too.

In Holland about 3-4% of the population regularly attend a Catholic Church. Abortion is legal and is available for free to anyone who wants one. People just don't need them to the same extent as elsewhere, as good contraception does the job. If that same policy was adopted in other countries of the world, the world would be a better place.

The Catholic Church is welcome to fantacise about its holy sperms dogma, if followers want to believe that stuff, fine. Some of us actually value thinking, breathing, suffering people as more important. Keep that dogma for fanatical Catholics, don't try to enforce it on the rest of us politically, or you are no better then the Taliban in your philosophy.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 16 April 2006 10:42:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

“"If Church dogma was adopted it would not happen."

MJ, you show similar logic and similar intolerance of others as the Taliban. You'd be fine in their country, if you adopted their religious dogma too. “

Don’t even bother trying to twist it like that. We have been there before.

We both know that Meg stated that “Bin Laden encourages killing of innocents, more akin to your comments, not mine…” so you want to turn it around the other way but you are stringing a long bow.

” if they don't follow it and die, well so be it.”

No. What I think it is horrific if either mother or baby die. But that doesn’t change the fact that they are not following Catholic dogma yet you blame Catholics for them not following Catholic dogma.

Lets be candid. The game you are playing could be useful to silence a Catholic lacking in faith or intellect but blaming the Church for abortions is not a sound basis for intellectual discussion and we have called your bluff so why bother?

”In Holland …”

In discussing the low abortion rate you tried to explain it by legal abortion. I cited UK’s much higher rate. You tried to claim that it was due to sex education but the links you provided established that sex education is not compulsory in Holland and is in the UK and that in the UK contraception is one of the focuses. It may be that the Dutch sex education is better in one way or another but the relevant issue is contraception.

Sweden has an 18.1 to 21.5 per 1000 abortion rate. They rejected Catholicism a long time ago. They are not a third world country. They introduced sex education in 1942 and made it compulsory in 1956. Yet their abortion rate is almost as high as the Phillipines.

In any event, are you so lacking in argument with regard to the merits of abortion that you need to sidetrack things with the bizarre argument of trying to twist things to show that the Catholic Church promotes abortion?
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 17 April 2006 6:34:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Bin Laden encourages killing of innocents"

Bin Laden encourages killing of those who don't follow his religious dogma. You are saying that if people die, who don't follow Catholic dogma, well so be it. The effect is much the same. I think that is shamefull.

What we know is that desparate women do desparate things, if they are legal or not. We know that if better family planning, ie contraception and abortion under proper medical conditions was made available, the lives of hundreds of thousands of women a year could be saved. No children are involved, a dividing cell is not a child.
At 12 weeks, or the first tremester, it cannot be called a child, no matter how you try to twist the semantics.

In sex education as in any education, its not just about money spent or compulsion, but about the what works to achieve results. The Dutch have clearly figured it out with their pragmatic approach and are quoted time and time again in all debates on teenage pregnancy, where their rates are 10% of say in the US, where abstinance etc is preached and has failed. When those abstinance intentioned girls are then hormonally struck at some point, they know very little about contraception and snap, next thing they are pregnant.

The world would be a better place, if other countries adopted similar methods and laws as the Dutch. There would be far less suffering and misery, hundreds of thousands of lives would be spared.
Those are all very valid reasons for me to believe what I believe,
religious dogma or not. I would also campaign against FGM if it was religious dogma, or beating wives, even if its relgious dogma.
Rational thought, to make the world a better place, with less suffering and misery, all makes far too much sense to me to ignore.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 17 April 2006 7:32:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby (17/4/06)- I can hardly be bothered to comment on some of your absolute trash - no offence of course. But how you can say it is not a baby when ALL organs are clearly present, including those needed for VISUAL gender identification is beyond me. Do you truly know NOTHING about embryology? Please educate yourself. There is an old saying "Better to keep your mouth shut and let everyone THINK you are a fool, than to open your mouth (or your post in this case) and prove it".

Re your comments 29/3/06. Much to my great joy, there has never been ONE brother or sister flushed down the toilet. I am pleased to say my health, heart and conscience has never been compromised by contraception.

Scout - Re your post 27/3/06 Of course you didn't ask for my input re IVF - in case you haven't noticed, this is a forum and one does not need to be ASKED to repond to anything. So I not only stand by but reiterate my comments.

God bless you all at Easter!
Posted by Te, Monday, 17 April 2006 8:15:08 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby - a further comment. Surprise, surprise, we are all a clump of cells - cells in a very distinct order making a human being. Whether we are 2 days gestation, 10 days gestation, 6 months gestation or 103 years old, we are all clumps of cells. This does not and will never diminish our worth. it is merely a statement of fact. We are all, as is every living thing, a clump of cells, albeit some of us more intelligent and content with our lives than others. :-))
Posted by Te, Monday, 17 April 2006 8:24:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
”You are saying that if people die, who don't follow Catholic dogma, well so be it. The effect is much the same. I think that is shamefull.”

Are you being deliberately obtuse? We discussed this before and I called it “tragic” not “so be it”. I am simply saying that it is inappropriate to blame the Catholic Church for abortion. If you blamed Catholic dogma for homosexuality, contraception, Buddhism or Atheism it would be equally ridiculous and I would be arguing with you. You are blaming Catholicism for abortion which it opposes.

”What we know is that desparate women do desparate things, if they are legal or not.”

The reality is that blaming the Catholic Church is a smokescreen to hide the dirty secret of pro-abortionists. We say that abortion is wrong because children are killed. Pro-abortionists say that abortion is good because it helps women. However many women are killed or injured by abortion. In third world countries this is particularly true with back yard abortions.

“We know that if better family planning, ie contraception and abortion under proper medical conditions was made available…”

What is available? Legal or affordable or available for some other reason? Remember the woman who made a mistake using the available contraception and chose a back yard abortion. Why she didn’t get a legal abortion is anyone’s guess but there are many possibilities. For example cost, convenience, lack of knowledge of the dangers of illegal abortions, or the attitude of doctors. We are dealing with real people many of whom are poor. About the only thing that would help them overnight is religious conversion not some hot air. Stop oversimplifying to cover up the dirty secret that you advocate something that takes the lives of thousands of women.

”…. if other countries adopted similar methods and laws as the Dutch…”

Swedes did it first and have many more abortions. The laws and sex education clearly aren’t the explanation. Chances are the thing preventing abortions for the Dutch is their attitude toward abortion which probably derives from their history of Catholicism.
Posted by mjpb, Monday, 17 April 2006 1:27:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, it is quite common for people to go into complete denial, when faced with reality. Clearly you are human :)

Perhaps you should reread your embryology books, forget the maternal engulfment and ask yourself what actually constitutes a person. We can give you a pigs heart, we can replace your arms, your
legs, your eyes, ears, your face, you are still you, as you are what your mind is and your mind is what your brain does. Without a mind,
you are nothing but a bunch of human cells. There is no functioning mind/brain in place in a 12 week old fetus. Its an organism, not a person. Like it or not, get emotional about arms or legs if you want.

If you are a normal woman and have had your period, then you have flushed many potentially cute babies down the toilet. All that is missing was some cells. You chose to flush, to not give that potentially cute baby a life, your choice.

MJ, she didn't have legal abortion, because legal abortions are banned in much of the third world, thanks to the political influence of the Catholic Church. She probably could not obtain contraceptives as the Church has done what it can to avoid those being available as well. The one thing that will help these women overnight is if the
Catholic Church sticks to preaching to its flock and stops interfering in the politics which deny third world women these things. Even here in Australia, they did their share to stop the introduction of RU 486.

The abortion rate for Sweden is fairly average for Europe, quite a bit lower then for South America or Central and East Africa, where abortion is usually banned and contraceptives are hard to get hold of, partly due to Catholic lobbying.

The Dutch are simply a pragmatic lot. They accept euthanasia and gay marriages, so much for Catholic influence :)
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 17 April 2006 3:07:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having watched Mel Gibson’s portrayal of Christ’s torture and crucifixion shown on Good Friday, I’ll preface my comments with the observation that there was only one perfect man who’s walked the Earth and he was betrayed, tortured and crucified…if we can find any consolation in remembering his betrayal, it’s in seeing his teachings in action and participating…from these threads and your comments Yabby, it’s apparent we can’t expect to be treated any better. I know which side I’d prefer to have been standing on 2000years ago too.

‘you show similar logic and similar intolerance of others as the Taliban’

Actually, Yabby, you show most similarities there…as I’ve previously shown. Mjpb doesn’t advocate killing anyone, you however advocate killing the unborn, accepting that RU486 will kill some women and that abortion has women...‘Risking their lives for such a procedure’…

You and the Taliban risk the lives of innocents and promote actions that kill them…can I spell it out any clearer…so that even you can grasp it?

‘Bin Laden encourages killing of those who don't follow his religious dogma’

Actually, Yabby…get your facts straight…Bin Laden, again like you, doesn’t care who the people are…he sends HIS OWN on SUICIDE missions…and many of those who have been his victims are also his followers.

‘if they don't follow it and die, well so be it’

Your suggestion is that they should follow YOUR dictates, kill their babies and risk their own lives…someone WILL DIE on your dictatorial demands…whereas, the Catholic Church advocates respect for all human life. With today’s medical knowledge, it’s a fallacy to suggest that an abortion is safer for a woman than pregnancy is…you are living in the dark ages with your evolving relatives on that one, Yabby.

‘Those deaths could be stopped tomorrow, if the church undertook its proper role, ie to preach to its flock’

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds, which deaths could stop tomorrow? The babies who die from abortions, the women who have abortions, or the millions around the world who die from starvation or lack of effective medical care or clean water…?

(tbc)
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 11:13:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont...)

The tragedy is that all of this COULD be prevented if the Church’s ‘law’ WAS implemented and followed…because then the corruption of governments, transnational corporations, so-called ‘conservation movements’ and the greed and manipulation that goes with them would be seen for what it is…all very different from the Church’s teachings, Yabby.

‘What we know is that desparate women do desparate things’

…and desperate men do too…many may even push desperate women to do things they don’t want…

…your condescending attitude to women shows more than a little insincerity Yabby, the solution should be clear even for you…don’t put them in such desperation – if you are responsible, take responsibility or don’t put her in that position in the first place. Contraception hasn’t lessened the killing of the unborn in Australia, it’s freely available, even in public toilets…but the abortion rate is now one in three live births…and rising.

Abortion therefore must be seen to produce even less sexual responsibility in either male or female…and further promiscuity.

As mjpb has indicated, Sweden led the foray into contraception and abortion…freely available…it hasn’t led to respect for women or sexual responsibility there, that’s documented fact…nor has it lessened the abortion rate. It’s abortion rate is well above the average…

‘When those abstinance intentioned girls are then hormonally struck at some point, they know very little about contraception and snap, next thing they are pregnant.’

You could do with a ‘birds and bees’ talk yourself Yabby, have you heard about the failure of contraception?

‘Rational thought, to make the world a better place, with less suffering and misery, all makes far too much sense to me to ignore.’

Suffice to say you haven’t produced any rational thought yet Yabby, though I’ve waited patiently…you seem to think that obsessing on the Catholic Church and your fantasies of destroying it and all Catholics is sufficient to validate your mindless repetition.

G K Chesterton said…”Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it had been found difficult and not tried.”

You’ve again proved his words correct…Yabby.
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 11:21:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“MJ, she didn't have legal abortion, because legal abortions are banned in much of the third world, thanks to the political influence of the Catholic Church.”

In South American countries the Church has also been critical of Government policies concerning the poor, and attacked the government for its failure to address social problems. The Church and governments don’t see eye to eye so I have difficulty accepting that the Church has a strong political influence.

“She probably could not obtain contraceptives as the Church has done what it can to avoid those being available as well.”

In the story she was reported as having an abortion after she failed to use the contraceptive pill correctly and got pregnant.

”The abortion rate for Sweden is fairly average for Europe…”

It nevertheless can be contrasted with the Dutch abortion rate. Sweden demonstrates there is something explaining the Dutch rate other than contraception and sex education. The Dutch attitudes I have encountered indicate it is their attitude that keeps the abortion rate low and the history of Catholicism is a possible explanation for the attitude.

”The Dutch are simply a pragmatic lot. They accept euthanasia and gay marriages, so much for Catholic influence :) “

I understand what you are saying but it still seems to be the best explanation. They may have abandoned many Catholic values but the line seems to be drawn at abortion.
Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 18 April 2006 11:28:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Church law WAS implemented Meg, history shows what a disaster that was! Apart from a highly corrupt church, crusaders would head off to kill the muslims, heretics were burnt at the stake with crucifixes being pushed towards them in the flames, so that they could repent at the last minute, before they died a cruel death. Perhaps we should make a movie of all this, plus the tens of thousands of dying
women each year from present church policy, to stir your emotions.

In fact the history of the church is a bit like bin Laden, killing for the church was common, so stop ignoring history.

Contraception works pretty well, when its properly taught and made freely available, look at Holland!

Perhaps the women of the third world should have a choice, if they prefer the life of women as in Sweden, or the present life they are living, not just chattels and baby making machines. Religious fanatics should not deny them that choice. The thing is Meg, most
women even disagree with you, just a few religious fanatics don't. Look around you in your church, the pews are empty, the believers make up maybe 3% of the population mostly oldies. People have been voting with their feet to say what they think of your church! They can't even find priests anymore!

http://www.womenonwaves.org/article-1020.42-en.html

MJ, you are correct, Govts and people are rebelling more and more against Catholic dogma. Many of the abortion laws date back to earlier times, so they need to be updated and changed. I see that in Chile, divorce is now finally legal, whew.
Not so long ago, smuggling anti baby pills into Ireland was a huge
business. Luckily women there now have freedom of choice too.

My argument with religion is when people want to enforce their ideas on the rest of us as law and when people die and suffer due to religious dogma being enforced by law. At the end of the day, religion is no more then an idea, no substantiated evidence has been presented to show that its any more then that.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 2:35:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, Yabby, Yabby, you do 'yabba' on sometimes..... No matter what pieces of a human being you replace - the person is human NOT because of his or her mind, but because of their SOUL. This is the distinguishing feature that makes us human.

Re the rest of your post - The venomous nature of your constant attack on faith, the Catholic church in particular, suggests to me that you are a lapsed Catholic. In my experience, those who most attack the church are those who have left it. They seem to feel the need to attack to justify their position.

Re "no functioning brain at 12 weeks" - electrical activity is present in the brain at 5 weeks. The degree of 'awareness'of a pre-born is the correct level of awareness for a preborn. The level of awareness of a 40 year old (in most instances :-)) is the level of awareness of a 40 year old. And as I have said we are ALL just a bunch of cells, but cells with a soul.

"If you are a normal woman and have had your period, then you have flushed many potentially cute babies down the toilet." No egg/ova is a potentially cute baby. As you commented, it needs not a cell but a sperm to enter it and create a baby. God designed women this way and He is the author of life. It is ludicrous to say that an ova/period is a potential human. An ova is one half of the equation needed to create a baby. Please do some research on the topic and stop proving how silly you are.
Posted by Te, Wednesday, 19 April 2006 7:57:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te dear, no doubt as a little kiddie, the concept of a soul was brainwashed into you as the literal truth, but thats no more then a philophical then later a religious idea, no evidence for it.

My "venomous attacks" as you describe them, are not against people believing whatever, but on them wanting to enforce those beliefs on the rest of us by law. I read recently where Augustine was described as the first jihadi, because it was his huge influence and belief that it was ok to use compulsion and fear to get people to abide by catholic dogma, making his philosophy similar to present day muslim jihadis. I strongly disagree with religious dogma and associated laws being forced on anyone.

Electrical activity does not make for a functioning human brain.
Electrical activity can move a removed piece of muscle tissue, nothing special about that. About 25 weeks is when the neural connections are formed, to make what we could call a functioning human brain, not before that. To be described as a person, child, baby whatever, you need a human mind. The mind is what the brain does.

A sperm is basically a cell with a little tail. Your egg could quite easily have become another cute baby, it was your choice, so if you are going to become emotional about the morning after pill, you might as well be emotional about that potential baby you flushed down the toilet, it would have been pretty cute too.

Your god interpretation of the world is once again just an idea that you were brainwashed into. In a world of reason, we need more then just faith to believe and follow silly rules.
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 20 April 2006 11:38:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby

"...crusaders would head off to kill the muslims,"

Who had conquered the entire Middle East the source of Christianity and had moved into Turkey and were trying to conquer the whole of Europe.

"heretics were burnt at the stake ..."

I would suggest it is misleading to say it like that. See the discussion of this in previous posts

"...plus the tens of thousands of dying women each year from present church policy..."

They are dying from abortionist's policy. Abortions are killing them.

"...so stop ignoring history."

You stop ignoring history. It is mainly a history of kind deeds. To put it in a way you might understand part of the 'mission statement' of the organisation is treating other people the way that you would have them treat you. We call it the Golden Rule.

"Contraception works pretty well, when its properly taught and made freely available, look at Holland!"

Look at non-Catholic Sweden.

"My argument with religion is ..."

If that was all you were saying I wouldn't have been arguing with you so extensively. I take exception to venomous attacks on the Church. You want to enforce your ideas and attack the group you see as the main voice of disagreement with your ideas. Abortion prohibited by law is no more a religious dogma than manslaughter prohibited by law. They would both simply be legal protection of human life.

"At the end of the day, religion is no more then an idea, no substantiated evidence has been presented to show that its any more then that."

How regularly would God coming to earth in human form and bringing people back from the dead be required by you?

"I read recently where Augustine was described as the first jihadi"

Don't believe everything you read.
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 21 April 2006 6:20:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby

If there were prizes for perseverance in the line of unreasoned and unreasonable fire, you deserve it.

You continue to argue coherently and fairly - without resorting to personal invective.

Simply because you do not believe in a particular religion you subjected to abuse.

Simply because you believe in freedom of reproductive rights - you are accused of dogma - how more oxymoronic can one get?

Thankfully abortion IS legal.

Thankfully there are legal and safe options for women to terminate unwanted pregnancies.

Thankfully there are people like you, Yabby.

Cheers

Dianne
Posted by Scout, Friday, 21 April 2006 10:10:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1964…a long time ago to find a death from ‘illegal’ abortions in the US, Yabby…and then misrepresent the facts.

Gerri Santoro had 14 siblings, using your criteria for ‘sustainability’, she’d have been aborted along with many of her siblings and her mother sterilized. You’re then as guilty as her defacto, Clyde. You suggest aborting her baby was ‘helping’ her - that’s what he did, not ‘backyarders’- but the father-of-her-child…your methods may be different, your means and the result for the child, are the same.

‘Gerri Santoro was six and a half months pregnant’, evidently planning to carry the child to term until ‘her ex-husband announced he was about to visit his two children. Clyde, who tried to perform an abortion, fled to another state when he saw the consequences of that action. It sounds as if he left before she died.’

Another anti-life hero?

So this has NOTHING to do with the Catholic Church or the availability of abortion…the abortion was performed in great haste so that the ex-husband would not know of the pregnancy to another man, that’s why Clyde did it, ‘botched’ it, then left Gerri dying for the maid to discover next day.

This is no advertisement for abortion to be legalized or trivialized, quite the opposite – this is a consequence of NOT taking responsibility for your actions and trivializing the consequences. Had the Church’s teachings been followed, Gerri would not’ve been in the situation to start with. Had Clyde respected Gerri enough to take responsibility for the child and Gerri, the situation may not’ve happened. Where was Gerri’s family? Where was her support? Where was Clyde’s protective support for his de facto and child? Obviously it was not the availability or otherwise of abortion that was the reason for this illegal abortion. It was so only the two of them would know.

How distressing that you would use this woman and falsely display her like an anti-life trophy or advertisement when the opposite is the case. Are you employed by the anti-life lobby? Is your livelihood dependent on abortion being commercially available?

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 21 April 2006 11:18:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, has it ever occurred to you that present day Arabs use much the same justifications for their actions, as you do for the crusaders, ie the West stealing Palestine, stealing their oil, invading their countries (Bush etc). It seems that
killing in the name of religion is tolerated on both sides.

Previous posts established that the Church had heretics burnt.

Lots of people perform kind deeds, it is not the exclusivity of the religious.

Sweden is going along fine, its only a problem for those who follow Catholic dogma. But that dogma has been wishy washy over the years.

http://liberalslikechrist.org/Catholic/abortion.html

My ideas are to give people choices MJ, free of religious dogma. I don’t think that the giving them choice, is a bad idea. You have yet to point out why it is.

No evidence of god coming to earth or bringing people back from the dead.
God is free to write his rules on the moon for all to see, he has never bothered.

For details about Augustine the jihadi, see “The History of Christianity” by historian Paul Johnson.

Dianne, many thanks, its appreciated :)
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 21 April 2006 11:20:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

Your anti-life website states Portugese:
‘family planning services are provided free of charge…contraceptives requiring prescription are free…teenage pregnancy in Portugal is one of the highest in Europe (25 of 1000 adolescents).’

A direct contradiction of your contraception argument.

Your anti-life website provides only mischievous and misleading half-truths.

‘20 million of 46 million abortions annually are ‘illegal’ or ‘unsafe’ resulting in ‘80,000 deaths each year due to infection, hemorrhages, uterine injury and the toxic effects of agents taken to induce abortion.’ (no references)

All of the above deaths would include legal and illegal abortions...including RU486 deaths...no available statistics are specific to ‘illegal’ abortions.

Most Australian abortions are illegal under present laws, Scout…so too in most countries.

…availability of abortion…‘can therefore be considered part of the struggle against poverty.’
So Yabby it’s not about women’s choice? Abort all those ‘poor’ babies rather than allow the parents a living wage to support their family.

‘Of the 29,266 abortions performed there (Portugal) in 1997, the complication rate for first trimester treatments was 0,3% with no resulting deaths whatsoever.’

Wrong – there’s at least 29,266 infant deaths overall and no statistics on maternal deaths-or-complications past the first trimester… If you’re amongst the 0.3% who suffered ‘complications’ of first trimester abortion - perhaps septicemia-resulting-in-a-radical-hysterectomy, involuntary-sterilization or subsequent-spontaneous-abortions, you wouldn’t be so statistically dismissive.

The site has at least two webpages no longer available…statistics can’t be substantiated perhaps?

Re: fictitious statistics for ‘empty’ church pews…join the ‘welcome back’ groups in my own parish, the pews are filled at Sunday Masses, including Youth Masses. Most Christian denominations are well represented in our community…regularly combining for community activities.

Your agenda’s clear…not ‘choice’, it’s about ‘anti BABY pills’ …your own admission condemns your hypocrisy.

Yabby, don’t assume your ‘women-friends’ are representative of women, statistical fantasy again…

If religion’s simply an ‘idea’ then why haven’t you a better one…or any rational idea at all?

SCOUT: ‘Simply because you do not believe in a particular religion you subjected to abuse.’

Yes Scout, Yabby has subjected the Catholic Church and Catholics to irrational and unreasoned abuse, it’s good you have admitted it…
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 21 April 2006 11:37:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout (alias dianne?) - re your post to Yabby

"If there were prizes for perseverance in the line of unreasoned and unreasonable fire, you deserve it.

You continue to argue coherently and fairly - without resorting to personal invective.

Simply because you do not believe in a particular religion you subjected to abuse."

I am sure you made a few errors in those statements - didn't you mean...... "If there were prizes for perseverance in unreasoned and unreasonable thinking, you deserve it."

"You continue to argue incoherently and unfairly - resorting to personal invective."

Being simple and because you do not believe in a particular religion you subject those who do to abuse."

:-)) just a thought....
Posted by Te, Friday, 21 April 2006 12:32:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, I am going to have to ask Graham to give me some extra daily posts, considering I have all three of you to re-educate about the world :)

Meg, I had hoped that you would at least show some empathy for the fact that another women dies of unsafe abortion practises every six minutes, but clearly religious dogma is more important to you then dying women.

The World Health Oranisation figures are about as close as we can get to accurate figures, but anything illegal is hard to be sure about. Clearly many could be hospitalised and dying, that we are not aware of.

http://www.who.int/docstore/world-health-day/en/pages1998/whd98_10.html

No ru 486 figures in there, as they are practically non existant in places like Europe, where people have Medicare etc.

Portugal has no clear cut figures as yet. They are still in the throws of throwing out the old Catholic dogma and giving women choices. Meantime, many Portugese women have done exactly what Irish women do, ie hop over the border, which in Europe is not far away.
In the the third world, many women don't have that option.

No religion is declining in Aus, as fast as the Catholic faith.

http://www.ncls.org.au/default.aspx?docid=2250

Work out the numbers for yourself, my quote was pretty well correct.

My agenda is choice. Choice about contraception, choice about abortion. I don't "abuse' the Catholic Church, I simply use informed criticism to point out their failings, as I and anyone else does, to those who participate in politics. As the Church is highly political, fair enough if people cricise its many failings, contradictions and point out how the effect of its policies are killing women in the third world. Those women could stop dying almost immediately, if reason, rather then religious dogma prevailed.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 21 April 2006 7:23:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

"I don't "abuse' the Catholic Church, I simply use informed criticism to point out their failings, as I and anyone else does, to those who participate in politics. As the Church is highly political, fair enough if people cricise ..."

Wow that is the most sincere sounding rationalisation for promoting hatred and public vilification of a group that I ever saw. You really believe your rationalisation that Catholics deserve it and it is okay don't you?

What doesn't sound so sincere is innuendos of Meg not being concerned about dying women and ...

"Those women could stop dying almost immediately, if reason, rather then religious dogma prevailed."

They are dying from abortions (something you not the Catholic Church advocates) in countries where religious dogma is rejected not prevailing.
Posted by mjpb, Saturday, 22 April 2006 4:10:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, sometimes I get the distinct impression that first world catholics like you, have no idea as to the effect that your church, specifically the beliefs of the last pope, have had on the the third world and how many have suffered because of them. The results are truly shocking and sad.

I am not alone in the belief that forcing flawed religious dogma
onto people, even non catholics, is causing misery. When 9 year olds who were raped, are forced to have babies, when church leaders peddle superstition and ignorance in Africa, when your last pope clearly had inadequate knowledge of the plight of women and girls in the third world, then its time that people speak up. In the real world things are pretty different to what he seems to have understood.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/3147672.stm

leads you to a bbc url, that will let you download the trancscript
of the programme. Read it and then tell me if you still think as you do now. Personally I think that the Catholic Church should be ashamed of itself and its sad that the influence of one man has led to so much misery for so many, because of it. No wonder that thinking Catholics have left the church in droves, or openly disgree with some of these weird views.

Religious dogma, enforced under those conditions, is not much better then what the Taliban do.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 22 April 2006 2:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby - the simple reason these women die from abortion is that the doctors that perform them are bottom of the barrel. Any doctor worth his while protects life - remember the original Hipocratic Oath (now frequently're-written' with each graduating group) has as its opening statement "FIRST DO NO HARM". I certainly want any doctor I see to have taken that first statement seriously.

David Grundeman (abortionist in Australia operating in Brisbane and Melbourne)said at the 1993 Seattle conference of abortion 'providers' that they - the doctors doing abortions - were not the cream of the crop, that most of them had either a death or a malpractice suit behind them and that the abortion industry had trouble attracting 'good' doctors. REALLY?? No surprise. 'Good' doctors want to heal not hurt.

Interesting that even "one of them" recognises the lack of quality in the 'care' given by these "doctors".
Posted by Te, Saturday, 22 April 2006 10:28:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby - by the way, interesting that you can quote websites but if those of us who believe in life do, you refute it. Can't go just one way.....

May God bless you and open your heart, mind and soul and help you to see that you are truly loved by Him. You are, you know.
Posted by Te, Saturday, 22 April 2006 10:29:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
‘I am going to have to ask Graham to give me some extra daily posts’

…still consider you're above the rest of humanity Yabby…existing rules don’t apply to you here either?

‘the effect that your church, specifically the beliefs of the last pope, have had on the the third world and how many have suffered because of them. The results are truly shocking and sad.’

What is 'truly shocking and sad' is your inability to acknowledge true goodness and selflessness in another individual…read the life-story of Pope John Paul 11, then tell me you still believe the prattle you repetitively post.

‘No ru 486 figures in there, as they are practically non existant in places like Europe, where people have Medicare etc.’

Yabby, don’t assume that your posts will be regarded as fact just because you post them…your statement is clearly rubbish, RU486 figures would most definitely be in there and RU486 causes deaths with or without Medicare, etc…you are fantasizing again with statistics manufactured in your own convoluted meanderings.

‘Portugal has no clear cut figures as yet. They are still in the throws of throwing out the old Catholic dogma and giving women choices. Meantime, many Portugese women have done exactly what Irish women do, ie hop over the border, which in Europe is not far away.
In the the third world, many women don't have that option.’

On the contrary, Portugal has very clear cut figures or your website is publishing lies… ‘family planning services are provided free of charge…contraceptives requiring prescription are free…teenage pregnancy in Portugal is one of the highest in Europe (25 of 1000 adolescents).’ Additionally, ‘there’s at least 29,266 infant deaths overall’ from abortion…undeniable even to someone bent on convincing himself it’s all ok…

In the third world most women have many children because of the high infant mortality rate…they don’t need abortion to kill their babies, starvation, corrupt governments and misguided, pseudo-conservationists ensure they receive condoms and contraceptives(including some banned in the developed world)…instead of clean water, medical care and food…therefore killing off millions annually.

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 23 April 2006 2:09:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

‘women dies of unsafe abortion practises every six minutes, but clearly religious dogma is more important to you then dying women.’

I repeat my remarks on the use of Gerri Santoro, six and a half months pregnant…’How distressing that you would use this woman and falsely display her like an anti-life trophy or advertisement when the opposite is the case. Are you employed by the anti-life lobby? Is your livelihood dependent on abortion being commercially available?’

As you have not answered the questions posed, I will assume that the answer is in the affirmative…therefore financial gain is more important to you and your ilk than dying women and their babies?

‘The World Health Oranisation figures are about as close as we can get to accurate figures, but anything illegal is hard to be sure about. Clearly many could be hospitalised and dying, that we are not aware of.’

So why does your website lie about the 20 million out of 46 million abortions and the 80000 deaths from illegal abortions? Many could be hospitalized and dying from legal abortion also then…and of course, you continue to ignore the 46 million babies that die to keep your lucrative industry raking in the money rather than healing the sick.

Te you are right about the doctors involved in the abortion ‘industry’ – fortunately the good doctors still believe in their primary role as healers and protectors of all human lives…

RE: Your jihad claims…allow me to reaffirm your own similarities with jihad…you have openly indicated your intention to persist with your anti-Catholic propaganda until ‘you’ succeed in your obsession to ‘destroy’ the ‘power’ you perceive it has ‘politically’…

May I repeat other similarities to your reasoning…

‘Bin Laden, again like you, doesn’t care who the people are…he sends HIS OWN on SUICIDE missions…and many of those who have been his victims are also his followers.’

Your agenda’s clearer than ever…it’s not about ‘choice’, it’s about ‘anti BABY pills’ …your own admissions continue to condemn your hypocrisy.
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 23 April 2006 2:14:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, the reason those women die, is that that its illegal, under the threat of jail, for any doctor to assist them in the first place!
Coathangers and knitting needles are used in desperation, so women
die, by their thousands.

BTW, you sound like a lovely lady, with a sense of humour, despite being a Catholic :) Meg clearly missed the last comment to you and the smiley. She appears overcome with vitriol, so could perhaps learn something from you.

Meg, thanks for the compliments! You clearly think that my posts are so informed and well written, that somebody must be paying me! You are wrong, I simply have an interest in philosophy and the future of the world, as well as having a strong sense of justice. I stick up for little people, downtrodden by political and church leaders.

Yup, Portugal has a high teen pregnancy rate. Due to its Catholic background, proper sex education classes have never been provided in schools, so 70% of kids use no contraception on their first sexual encounter. Things are changing however, now that they have joined the EU and are throwing off Catholic cultural shackles.

JP might have been a nice old man with good intentions Meg, but he was obsessed with contraception etc. He was also out of touch with the realities of the third world, so thousands and thousands have people have suffered and died, because of his ideology. Your church has also suffered hugely in credibility, because of those obsessions. I see that Martini is now coming out with a bit more reasoned thoughts, so all is not lost yet for the Vatican, things may yet turn around one day.

You still however, miss the main issue: Every month you flush another potentially cute baby down the toilet without much thought.
Then you expect people to become teary eyed about fertilised eggs.
If you want more children Meg, have them or adopt them from the thousands in orphanages around the world. Stop trying to tell other women by legal means, how many children they should have.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 23 April 2006 3:56:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
YABBY - do you seriously think that if we made going through red lights LEGAL it would suddenly become safe? The analogy of course is making aborion legal would not make it safe.
Posted by Te, Monday, 24 April 2006 7:21:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, your emotive fantasies forget poverty-stricken Africans haven’t adequate food or clothing and haven’t coathangers or knitting needles…another lie?

’BTW, you sound like a lovely lady, with a sense of humour, despite being a Catholic :) Meg clearly missed the last comment to you and the smiley.’

Your Jekyl and Hyde mood swings indicate that you regard anything with a smiley is ok, no matter the content…you’re a strange one, despite being baptized a Catholic : )

Yabby, I’m sorry to disappoint but my post clearly indicated my revulsion and distaste at your mis-use of Gerri Santoro’s tragic death at the hands of her partner as an anti-life trophy, against her daughter’s wishes…NO CONGATULATIONS implied : (

It is your obsessive and repetitive vitriol that prompted me to ask: ‘ Are you employed by the anti-life lobby? Is your livelihood dependent on abortion being commercially available?’

Your suggestion that your posts are ‘well-written and informed’ is another joke, right? : ) I got that one… : )) I’d suggest spell and grammar checks for starters : )) then find a reputable website that references ALL statistical material and webpages to quote from : ))

To clarify - I dispute the accuracy and content of your posts and your anti-life website – still lacking in at least two of the webpages of ‘statistics’, clearly a farce. It fails to reference most of its emotive and exaggerated claims…so like your own posts : )

Your ‘interest in philosophy and the future of the world’ clearly doesn’t include African babies – or babies at all…NO ‘sense of justice’ for them. Your claim to ‘stick up for little people, downtrodden by political and church leaders.’ …promotes ‘killing’ the little people…with friends like you, who needs enemies? : (

Third world women have many children because of the high infant mortality rates…they don’t need abortion to kill their babies, starvation, corrupt governments and misguided, pseudo-conservationists ensure they receive condoms and contraceptives(including some banned in the developed world)…instead of clean water, medical care and food…therefore killing off millions annually…that’s reality Yabby. : (

(tbc…)
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 24 April 2006 8:58:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

More Portuguese statistics…but still no verifiable data…and your own questionable stats continue to contradict your claims…

Pope John Paul 11’s record’s a direct contradiction of your own and your dismal attempt to besmirch him has again failed miserably…

No-one’s as obsessed with contraception as you are Yabby…nor as out of touch with world-wide reality…as a direct result of your abortion propaganda and that of your doctors-of-death…billions of babies and millions of their mothers have died around the world…and continue to do so.

…including the two US mothers who died last week and their babies after using RU486 – the drug that’s bringing the abortion industry into the ‘backyards of Australians’…a lot like the Santoro tragedy…women who’ll die alone, unnaturally…

Trivialize the differences between ova and foetus’, Yabby, it only displays your obtuse and insensitive disregard for women generally…and total contempt for babies universally.

You claim you’d campaign against beating wives, if it was a religious dogma…so because it’s not, you don’t campaign against it? Do you condone it as well as the abuse of babies by abortion?

Your advocacy of ‘anti-baby pills’ spells out your repulsive agenda clearly…pressuring women to kill babies, particularly African babies, displays consistently racist overtones that I find particularly distasteful.

Promoting that the ‘…availability of abortion…can therefore be considered part of the struggle against poverty.’

…clearly indicates…it’s not about women’s choice? Abort all those ‘poor’ babies rather than allow the parents a living wage to support their family…that’s your reality – discrimination!

Contrary to your accusations Yabby, I have NEVER attempted to ‘tell’ any woman, by any means…’how many children they should have’…I have however, offered to care for temporarily, or raise as my own, children whose mothers needed either of those options offered to them. The option of overseas adoption is available to me as it may be to you Yabby…guess who is the more likely to consider it? : )

Having my own Swedish-links I’ll re-educate you:

Sweden led the foray into contraception and abortion (freely available)…it hasn’t led to greater respect for women or sexual-responsibility, documented fact…nor has it lessened the abortion-rate.
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 24 April 2006 9:12:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, the deaths of tens of thousands of women are due to illegal abortions,
performed in backyards with faulty equipment. A vacuum aspiration is much like a d&c, ask your doctor as to the safety of that. If abortion were legal
in the third world, it could be performed by doctors, rather then threatening
them with 10 years jail.

No Meg, my livelihood has nothing to do with abortion. I care for living, breathing, thinking, feeling people, not flawed dogma about potential people.

If the Catholic Church did in Australia what they do in say Nicaragua, as
is evidenced in the bbc paronama series that I quoted, there would be
riots in the streets here! It is truly disgusting that a religious organization
can get away with that, just because its the third world. You have yet to
say if you agree that a nine year old who was raped, should be forced to
have the child. You have yet to say what you think about the lies peddled
by the church in Africa, as the documentary highlights.

The Portugese stats are there to be read if you want
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/portugal.html

The huge lobbying of the Vatican around the world, to fulfill JPs obsessions
can be read about here:

http://www.population-security.org/cffc-97-02.htm

Read you own posts Meg. You are telling third world women what they need
and what they don’t. Let them decide what they need, not your forced ideology. But of course JP felt that people should be forced to live by Catholic dogma, much like the Taliban think we should accept their dogma.

Swedish women are doing fine Meg, unlike third world women, where your church wants to force raped 9 year olds to have children.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 24 April 2006 1:45:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, at the moment it is safer for a woman in Australia to have a medically supervised abortion rather than complete a full term pregnancy.

So if a woman doesn't want to have and rear the child the law allows her to have an abortion. I want the status quo to remain as I have no religious belief that says every sperm is sacred and I want every child to be a wanted child and every child to be reared so it can attain its potential - not live a life stunted by lack of food, or lack of education or lack of adequate health care.

Like Yabby I am appalled that women in developing countries are denied the same rights to control their lives that women in western Europe and Australia take for granted.
Posted by billie, Monday, 24 April 2006 8:24:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Billie - please give me the references that you used to come up with the 'safer to have an abortion' myth. And that is what it is - a myth. There is absolutely NO WAY that a NATURAL function ie childbirth is more dangerous than a TOTALLY UNNATURAL MECHANICALLY obtained abortion. This does not mean that all childbirths go smoothly, but there are far less deaths, infections, injuries etc with childbirth than abortion.

Planned Parenthood (read - never-plan-for-parenthood) took off their website a few years ago the disclaimer that one could download off the net - it went on and on and on with the list of most likely damages to occur with an abortion - incompetent cervix, perforation of the uterus, loss of blood requiring a transfusion, incomplete abortion (read little baby parts that have been ripped off left inside), missed abortion (oops, that darn child escaped the canula) necessitating another abortion etc etc etc ending with'death'. Sounds safe to me!

Billie, sounds like you and Yabby and the now at least temporarily defunct Col Rouge meet up in fairyland and tell each other tales.

Still, God loves you all.
Posted by Te, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 1:11:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Question is Te, who actually lives in fairyland here ? :) All this
stuff has been hashed over on OLO before, on various threads. If I repeat it, I am accused of repeating myself. Yet there are so many like you, who seem clearly sucked in by the huge catholic spin machine which was so well highlighted in the Catholics for choice report that I referenced to yesterday. Sometimes I think that Meg is part of that machine, the way she distorts information.

If you question the data, learn to operate your own google bar, freely available from google. Then you can search for your own reference for an objective source of your choosing, not one with a religious agenda.

http://www.who.int/whr/2005/chapter4/en/index1.html

is a world health organisation url on childbirth risks.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/aboru486d.htm

is one of many website discussing the risks of ru 486. If you don't think they are credible, there are many more with similar referenced data. Fact is that virtually no deaths have occured in Europe from
ru 486. Ok one, maybe another. Its insignificant. America has a handfull more, still only a handfull, due to their lack of medicare etc. Meantime 200 women a day die, mostly in the third world, because abortions are illegal, so knitting needles and coathangers are used. Thats the real scandal! 200 a day! Yet Meg focuses on the one or two ru 486 cases. Thats real spindoctor stuff to me.

http://www.who.int/docstore/world-health-day/en/pages1998/whd98_10.html
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 25 April 2006 1:56:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, the WHO (no, not the group :-)) is one of the foremost 'promoters' of abortion. Before they drop food to a country, they unload boxes and boxes of condoms and other pills and potions to extinguish life.

Re RU-486 How you can flipantly say that one or two deaths due to UNNATURAL means is ok is beyond me. Lack of Medicare causes it?? What the?? Are you aware that with RU-486 a woman needs to make not 1, not 2 but THREE (3) visits to the doctor within the week? And please explain how RU-486 will 'get rid of' an ectopic pregnancy? So you are informed, one of the two drugs that make up the RU-486 shuts down the placenta and the second drug starts the contractions. If it is an ectopic pregnancy, these women can contract until the cows come home and it will not remove the dead baby. How is this in any way better for women? One of the side effects of the drug is that it supresses the good bacteria allowing the bad bacteria to flourish causing sepsis, so the woman basically has gangrene inside ie rotting from the inside out. Yep, sounds healthy and better for women to me.

You are aware of course that most 'backyard' abortions happened out of hours in a doctor's surgery. Of course the simple solution to all these 'unwanted babies' is that there parents could practise self-control (yes, that word is still in the dictionary) and leave the marital act for what it was designed for - ie within marriage. But we are the 'me' generation, aren't we and self-control just doesn't exist. If one does life a chaste life, they are accused of being frigid, gay, 'having issues' etc etc instead of being admired for their control over their very strong passionate feelings. Maybe you should try it sometime.....
Posted by Te, Thursday, 27 April 2006 12:02:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te the World Health Organisation is a medical organisation, providing independent medical advice, which is their role. Are you claiming that their data on deaths in childbirth is flawed?

Contraceptives are seen by all except a few religious zealots, as part of
normal everyday emergency supplies, along with food, toothpaste, and many other items that people use in refugee camps around the world, to
live their daily lives. You still don’t get it Te, this Catholic obsession with
condoms and other contraceptives, is a religious obsession that is your problem, not that of the rest of the world. Just like toothpaste, nobody is forced to use them, they are simply made available, as they should be.

This talk by the church of what is natural or unnatural, has been cherrypicked
by the church, to suit its religious agenda. Driving cars, flying in planes, growing crops by tilling soil rather then being hunter gatherers as we evolved, are all unnatural. In fact pairbonding and the sex that goes with it evolved so that males would stick around to help the females provide resources for the offspring. So do you now believe in only doing things that are natural? :)

Backyard abortions in countries where abortion is illegal, are done by anyone who claims they know what they are doing, hence the high death rate and the problem in the first place.

RU 486 is working fine in Europe Te. Look at the medical evidence, not the
distorted stuff of the Catholic spin machine. It was that spin machine that claimed that latex rubber condoms would let viruses penetrate the material,
which is utter humbug. If people used more condoms in Africa, they would not have the HIV problem that they have now. The effects of Catholic dogma
are killing people, that’s the sad part of this story
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 27 April 2006 5:19:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby

“ When 9 year olds who were raped, …”

it shows the consequences of a rejection of the value of human beings. Contrast with the value given to these by the Christian faith. The more you erode a value system that accepts the value of human beings the more there is rapes of 9 year olds. It is shocking and disgusting but that is what people like you catalyse when you attack the Church. You attack the Church for wanting to save the unborn child but doesn’t it mean anything to you that a 9 year old gets raped? You trivialise a rather horrific situation. That the Church didn’t condone the abortion leads to hypothetical thoughts but the rape actually happened.

“No wonder that thinking Catholics have left the church in droves, or openly disgree with some of these weird views.”

Another swipe at Catholics. Those who leave the Church or who openly disagree are ‘thinking Catholics’. Are you saying that if we accept reality we are stupid? I have always found that Catholics who adopt a secular view do so because they don’t know what their own faith teaches. It is a characteristic of thinkers to look at things more deeply. Doing so with the Catholic faith prepares people to answer secular propaganda and not be sucked in.

“You are wrong, I simply have an interest in philosophy and the future of the world, as well as having a strong sense of justice..”

If that were true you could become a Catholic. Your justice doesn't extend to millions of unborn children and millions of Catholics.

”JP … He was also out of touch with the realities of the third world, so thousands and thousands have people have suffered and died, because of his ideology. Your church has also suffered hugely in credibility, because of those obsessions.”

He valued life. He valued humans. He was true to his faith. He travelled extensively and fought for the poor and suffering. The Church gained credibility because of his ethics.
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 27 April 2006 6:08:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby

”… unlike third world women, where your church wants to force raped 9 year olds to have children.”

They and their children are dying in droves because of your policies. Re: raped 9 year old had an abortion. 9 year olds should not be raped. However things like this are part and parcel of a society that rejects God.

“Yup, Portugal has a high teen pregnancy rate. Due to its Catholic background...”

Are you seriously blaming the Catholic Church which calls for no sex outside of marriage for teenage pregnancy? I strongly suspect if you went way back to a historical time when the Church had genuine influence the teenage pregnancy rate would have virtually non-existent.

”… Thats the real scandal! 200 a day! Yet Meg focuses on the one or two ru 486 cases. Thats real spindoctor stuff to me.”

They are dying because they fail to confine sex to marriage and then do something that you promote – abortions. Yet you try to twist things to blame the Catholic Church who don’t condone either of these things. That is real spindoctor stuff to me. Their children are also dying but you reject their value. That is real spindoctor stuff to me.

Meg

”On the contrary, Portugal has very clear cut figures or your website is publishing lies… ‘family planning services are provided free of charge…contraceptives requiring prescription are free…teenage pregnancy in Portugal is one of the highest in Europe (25 of 1000 adolescents).’ Additionally, ‘there’s at least 29,266 infant deaths overall’ from abortion…undeniable even to someone bent on convincing himself it’s all ok…”

Clearly Portugal is achieving enormous success in “throwing out the old Catholic dogma”.

” Your claim to ‘stick up for little people’, … ‘killing’ the little people…with friends like you, who needs enemies? : (“

and

” …as a direct result of your abortion propaganda …billions of babies and millions of their mothers have died around the world…and continue to do so.”

Here here.
Posted by mjpb, Thursday, 27 April 2006 6:18:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, you still have not answered the question. Do you think that a 9 year old who is raped, should be forced to have the child?

Note the catholic priests, JW ministers, anglicans, school teachers and others, who have been caught molesting children! All Christian sinners! So much for your theory of respect for humanity.

The best thing that has happened in secular society is that we now discuss sex honestly and openly, no more hush hush, as it was in the bad old days. Children are taught that if adults abuse them, they can come foreward, talk about it, they will be believed and the perpetrators prosecuted. All the media publicity about church sex scandals has achieved something. You will be caught, if you interfere with children. Unlike the dark old days where those many
Christian perpetrators relied on cover ups and silence of their victims to protect themselves.

Many married women who have abortions in the third world, die too MJ, so nothing to do with marriage. Legalise abortion and backyard abortions would not happen. No children dying either, you have yet to learn the difference between a fertilised egg and a child. Its been pointed out to you, but perhaps the Catholic spin has told you not to accept the difference, much as they denied the fact that latex is not penetrated by viruses.

Of course I attack the Catholic Church. As the Catholics for choice report highlighted, today's Catholic Church has a huge political agenda, with an enormous spin army to try to politically enforce its dogma on the rest of us. Why should politics not be debated openly and subject to scrutiny? IMHO the role of the church should be to preach to its flock of believers, not to be a political machine.
The Church is mistaken in its claims about universal truths. It has no right to try to inflict them on me or anyone else, but its true believers.

JP confused quantity of life with quality and sustainability of life. His dogma was flawed, that is the real problem
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 27 April 2006 10:49:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby - if YOU would bother looking at REAL statistics - Uganda has a 6% to less HIV infection rate - down from 31% about 5-6 years ago. why? Because an abstinence program was put forth to the community and they embraced it. People inately know they were created for a higher purpose and when you call them to it, they thrive.
Re your comment about condoms - please educate yourself. The AIDS virus is about 100-1000 times smaller than a sperm and condoms, you may remember, were created to stop sperm, not viruses. Also, again, please check with any doctor - they will tell you that herpes and the human wart virus can be caught from around the genital area. I certainly wouldn't be trusting my sexual health and future fertility to a piece of latex. A condom only covers a few inches. Certainly it will lower the risk, but if you are in the percentage of failure, even if that was only 1%, you would be 100% affected! In experienced hands, the rate of breakage is 1 in 7, in inexperienced hands it is 1 in 5. It would be surprising if you didn't know someone who got pregnant using condoms.

I suspect that you will always need to agree with abortion as then you can sow your wild oats (and I am not talking about being a farmer :-)) willy and nilly (no pun intended) wherever you want and walk away, a few dollars poorer perhaps but at least there wouldn't be a baby, would there??
Posted by Te, Thursday, 27 April 2006 7:19:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Facts about Uganda

"Back in 1986, many countries were still struggling to come to terms with the implications of the disease. But the Ugandan government took action and set up an AIDS Control Program in the Ministry of Health. It was one of the first countries to work with the World Health Organization to create a national HIV/AIDS control plan.

The Uganda AIDS Commission was set up under the Office of the President. Involving the President directly was a powerful way to get the message across to the Ugandan people. The strategy was to tackle HIV/AIDS by working with a range of groups in the community – including people living with HIV/AIDS.

Next, the Ugandan government began a widespread campaign to raise awareness about HIV/AIDS and how to prevent it. Prevention was based on the ABC model – Abstinence, Being faithful and Condom use.

A range of activities were promoted, like HIV testing, sex education, counselling, changing behaviours that increased the transmission of the disease and condom distribution."

Source: http://www.worldvision.com.au/onebigvillage/content.asp?topicID=19

Note the use of condoms - something not supported by the catholic church.

Abstinence alone simply doesn't work.

Now has anyone had some thoughts on the best outcome for frozen embryos?

;-)
Posted by Scout, Friday, 28 April 2006 10:24:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te you really do need to read more then the Catholic Spin Weekly or whatever, for your information, for once again its incorrect.

Scout is correct, a similar article was published in the Economist, 9th September 2005. Basically Museveni set up the ABC programme with huge success and the aids rate dropped. Schoolkids were even taught about condoms and in the mid 90s Uganda was seen as the way to deal with aids. By 2003 the aids rate had dropped to 6%.

But then things changed a little. Uganda came under pressure from
the US with its religious prez, so that abstinence only was preached, so aids rates are creeping up again, by 2005 they were 7% for men and 9% for women. Clearly abstinence alone is a dismal failure in Uganda and elsewhere around the world.

If one out of seven of your condoms are breaking Te, I strongly suggest you change brands :) Again lots of spin in those figures, use your little google bar to read up on more accurate data.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 28 April 2006 11:02:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby & Scout - if I was to issue you with a condom and invite you to have sexual intercourse with someone HIV positive/AIDS, would you have sex with them trusting just the condom to protect you?? ?? ??
Posted by Te, Friday, 28 April 2006 12:15:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, ok I will answer your question by providing you with some imformation that is unlikely to be in your Cathecism or in the Catholic Spin Weekly :)

HIV is actually a very difficult virus to transmit, unlike many STDs.
It transmits best through blood, not through vaginal sex. I first became aware of this when the ABC ran a documentary, many years ago now, about the manager of the Divynils at the time. He married a women who unknowingly was infected with HIV, through a previous relationship, ie. anal sex with a bisexual. He slept with her on a regular basis, yet never conctracted HIV. Philip Adams at the time
made a valid statement "Buggery kills" Yet society does not want to talk about this stuff.

In Africa, anal sex is actually quite common, as its the sure way not to land up pregnant if there is no alternate contraception around. No wonder HIV has spread so fast in Africa.

I'll include a link regards condom testing, but it also discusses trials where HIV infected people had partners not infected and the difference that condoms made in transmission.

http://sqzm14.ust.hk/condom-ratings-95.HTML

Get used to reality Te. Our sex drive is normal and natural. Only
a small % of the population will spend night after night, crossing
their legs for god :)
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 28 April 2006 8:01:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te:

Would I have sex with someone you selected? Good grief, the answer is never.

Would I have sex with someone HIV postive using a condom? I did, 17 years ago. Alive and well and HIV free today.

Now, Te

I have answered your question, quid pro quo.

What do you believe is the best solution to unwanted, unused frozen embryos?

Now Yabby

You stated: "HIV is actually a very difficult virus to transmit, unlike many STDs.
It transmits best through blood, not through vaginal sex. "

HIV can be transferred through vaginal sex. It is far more risky for women rather than for men, because of the proximity of blood vessels in the vagina. Whereas, for men, unless there is an open wound on the penis, they are far less likely to contract Aids from an infected partner or either sex, although the same risks apply for anal sex for men and women.

See:

http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/public-health/phb/HTML2002/june02html/factsheetHIVAIDS.html

"....HIV can be passed on from one person to another through:

* unprotected sex (anal and vaginal intercourse);
* shared injecting equipment;
* pregnancy, birth, or breastfeeding (from mother to child);
* contaminated blood or blood products;
* contaminated piercing and medical equipment used on the body."

Safe sex is any sexual activity that prevents semen, vaginal fluid or blood from entering the bloodstream of another person. And that means either complete and total abstinence or using a condom.

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks ;-
Posted by Scout, Saturday, 29 April 2006 11:44:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dianne, you are quite correct, HIV certainly can be transmitted by
vaginal sex. I guess the point I was trying to highlight, was that the whole issue is more complex then appears in Cathlic Spin Weekly.
HIV is certainly not transmitted with the ease of other STDs, but debating these things with true believers is difficult at best, as they have usually only ever heard a very limited side of the story.

I see that the present pope is perhaps also more forward thinking then the last one. He's realised that its a huge problem, when for instance a couple, with one partner infected with HIV, perhaps due to a blood transfusion, have to make decisions about their lives.
He's launched an inquiry into the situation, which is alot more then JPs blind obsession achieved. The fact that HIV might be killing alot of Catholics, because of church policy, has finally dawned on them.

I see a huge difference between Te and Meg. Meg was more your fantical spin machine catholic, wheras Te seems more of a nice lady,
most likely brainwashed as a kid into what she believes today.

As a matter of interest Te, no, I am not out there fornicating with everyone :) The last serious relationship I had, was with a surgeon from America. We solved the STD question by both having blood tests and then took things from there... It was huge fun, but her life was in the US, mine is here in country West Aus.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 29 April 2006 8:29:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Yabby

Thanks for response. Maybe we can edify the misinformed.

Te is certainly more communicative than Meg - whose M.O. is to stifle debate.

I agree when starting a relationship the best first step is an STD test, then both parties know where they stand.

I am trying to find the transcript of a lecture I heard on Radio National recently about the spread of STD's in Africa - one of the most causative factors in reducing the spread was education - especially for young women, when they were better educated (in general not just about sex) they were better able to either refuse sex or demand safe sex procedures.

I noticed you brought up the issue of school fees in Africa - this was also was discussed as being the major reason for children not attending school (especially girls). Where fees were abolished, education rates increased and spread of STD's decreased.

regards
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 30 April 2006 9:02:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"MJ, you still have not answered the question. Do you think that a 9 year old who is raped, should be forced to have the child?"

Indeed as it was not far from asking you if you thought that 9 year olds should be raped. I did however point out that the alternative to Christian values is increased rapes of 9 year old children. Both are focussing on extremes rather than discussing the fundamental issues. I feel very strongly that a child should not be raped in the first place. In respect of Christian values you don't have to scour the world for a tough ethical dilemma in the form of a pregnant raped 9 year old to see the damage that a lack of respect for humans does.

"Note the catholic priests, JW ministers, anglicans, school teachers and others, who have been caught molesting children! All Christian sinners! So much for your theory of respect for humanity."

As I said people who leave the Church usually don’t appreciate it because they don’t know what it teaches. These aberrations are totally at odds with Christian values which does respect humanity.

"The best thing that has happened in secular society ... no more hush hush, as it was in the bad old days."

That secularism makes things statistically work is offset by the plausible sounding explanation offered by secular spindoctors who claim that this is solely due to more reporting. It is a good way to hide the problem. Having respect for humans and ethics is a much more effectual system. In the Christian society there has also been less hush hush but in that context it is likely to show much better results.

IMHO the role of the church should be to preach to its flock of believers, not to be a political machine.

It does seem somewhat arrogant to tell a group what they should or shouldn’t do and it seems a “humble opinion” seems a strange rationalisation for vilification but at least you aren’t telling God what He should do like many atheists
Posted by mjpb, Sunday, 30 April 2006 11:20:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, you make the fundamental flaw of assuming that morality and ethics are grounded in Chritianity, when in fact they are grounded in biology. The rape statistics for the US, the most Christian of Western countries, are 20 times higher then say Japan, where Christianity has had little influence.

You also highlight the problem of religious dogma. When faced with real moral dilemma as I have asked you to answer, you have no answer. Islam is much the same, caught up in its inability to
interpret things in a modern way, where things like human rights matter. Their dogma is out of date and I suggest that yours is too.

Scout, yup, better and free education in Africa would help enormously, but the problems there are complex. For a start, most Africans live by subsistance agriculture, there is hardly industry, so no workers to tax. If our Govt did not have a tax base, they would struggle to provide services like education too.

There are answers, such as written land titles, micro credit facilities, empowering women with family planning etc, so that they can create their own businesses and economies can be developed.

We make the mistake of viewing Africa through our own eyes, when things are quite different there. Women are often bought in marriage, so become possessions. Rape is extremely common, in many areas its a tool of war. (see today's BBC) Empowering them to survive and prosper despite these handicaps, would make a huge difference.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 30 April 2006 2:13:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby - at no point have I mentioned that I was Catholic - in fact I have only mentioned God in the last couple of posts. I was RAPT to see that through what I had written, it was obvious I was Catholic. Guilty as charged!

Something for you to think about. Those of us who believe in God and have faith are like a violin string, firmly anchored at both ends, we know where we came from and we know where we are going and hopefully, from one end to the other, we create some beautiful music of life. Then there are people who choose not to have faith and say "How terrible that this piece of string is held bound at both ends, it must be set free to just "be" and remove the string and put it down. It is adrift, blowing this way and that with every breeze, struggling to find its use and value and losing its way in the process.

Yabby, I sense a deep loneliness in you and not matter what your written words say, a deep hurt. The US surgeon (was that to impress me? didn't work) chose her work and country over you. That must have made you feel very valuable. Also the 'use' you had out of each other's bodies must have also added to that valuable feeling. My heart truly does go out to you that you have been so deceived by this world and all these temporary pleasures.

You also commented that you both had blood tests at the start of the relationship. Big deal. That only proves that at THAT point in time neither of you had anything transmittable. If either of you decided to 'dally'..... what guarantees did you have?

Scout - you comment that 17 years ago you did have sex with a HIV positive person. But my question was, - would you now? Being older and ?wiser? now would you??
Posted by Te, Sunday, 30 April 2006 4:54:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, some of the biggest critics of Catholics are in fact other Christians! Each convinced of their own brand of religion. I have yet to see other Christians defend the Catholic faith.

Your analogy of a violin string tells me what I had basically expected. Let me tell you, violin strings lead terribly boring lives, don't think for themselves and unquestiongly accept the world as a given, as instructed. You and I are quite different in character. I am an innovator and a thinker Te, not a boring old
violin string :)

From what you say, I can only summize that you are an anxious and emotional type, only content with perceived certainty. That relates to brain chemistry, fair enough. Let me give you the bad news however: nearly every religious person of every conceivable religion is just as convinced of their perceived certainty as you are. Clearly most or all religions are wrong, one or none are correct.
So your chance of being in love with an illusion is extremely high!

I know, it doesent matter, its how religion makes you feel that matters, correct?

In what way have I been deceived by this world? Life is a journey, full of experiences, I have treasured every day so far. If we risk living, we risk dying. Do you drive a car? What about the risk?

My experience with the surgeon is a long story lol. I chose my life here over her. Umm so what? We all have a right to be happy, doing what we are happy doing, living with whoever we are happy with. Where is the problem in that?

Pleasure is part of those life experiences Te. Heaven is here and now so enjoy, it will be too late when the worms get hold of you :)
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 30 April 2006 11:13:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Deaths of tens-of-thousands-of-women are from abortions – legal-and-illegal and lack of food, medical-care and clean water they are denied in favour of haphazard and costly (often-banned-in-developed-countries-as-dangerous) methods-of-contraceptive …add deaths-of-tens-of-millions-of-babies also.

D&C, Dilation-and-Curettage – your ignorance of medical complications is selective as usual…possible complications of D&C are significant for those suffering them; including haemorrhage, uterine perforation, incomplete evacuation, infection, damage to muscles in the neck of the womb resulting in miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies. These complications are greater in pregnant women due to the pregnant womb being very soft. The risks in non-pregnant women (for-gynaecological-procedures) is much lower.

Nine-year-old-Rosa, was forced to abort her child…not her choice. Again Yabby, if rapists aren't given the death penalty…why should babies?

Your anti-life stance has nothing to do with victims-of-rape as you’ve often identified.

1. Incidence of pregnancy-in-rape is rare…according to your maternal-deaths-from-RU486-comment, you’d dismiss the statistics if they were anti-life. (Even if the woman doesn’t actively fight her aggressor, natural reactions within her body make pregnancy unlikely.)
2. Women presenting to casualty wards after rape are routinely given vaginal douches to reduce risk of STD’s – it’s unlikely sperm could survive the procedure to impregnate the ova.
3. Where a woman was raped and became pregnant. The FIRST thing she would need was support-and-security, not another violation-of-her-person as abortive surgery is. Rapists aren’t given the death penalty…why innocent children? Rosa’s RAPE is tragic, her family and all associated suffered…Adding the killing of her child (and acknowledged serious long-term mental consequences) to her already-fragile-state has to be regarded as questionable, ethically-and-medically.

I was once amongst women questioned on rape…the responses were varied and interesting…anguishing over the victim-baby dilemma. The last woman stated, “I’m adopted and I’ve met my biological mother some time ago.”

She continued, “I was lucky she placed her name on the register and informed family about me, our meeting was mutually welcomed, as a result.
My mother told me she’d been raped at 15. In my interests, she and her parents felt that keeping me wasn't possible, but they could not kill an innocent child because of its father’s wrongs."

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 1 May 2006 2:57:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

“I was placed for adoption. I love my life, my husband and children. I’m glad my mother didn’t abort me. I’m glad I mattered to her and I love her.”

Like the Taliban Yabby, you insist that killing innocents is justified by choosing convenience over responsibility…consequences catch up, however they’re avoided.

Billie I notice you’ve ignored my question…affirmation-by-omission?

Suggesting it’s safer to abort than carry a child is nonsense also…you’re killing a child for starters…apart from the other valid arguments Te raised. Is this a plug for business? The ‘status quo’ ‘legalises’ only a tiny percentage of current abortions btw, not your promoted ‘convenience’ killings.

Your ‘wanted’ child argument is fallacy as adoption-waiting-lists in Australia make adoption unrealisable.

Yabby, most children can use google too…

RU486 has caused deaths in Europe and another two in the US a little over a week ago… ‘Its insignificant’…to you, when they’re deaths FROM ABORTION, but not to those affected.

‘HIV…a very difficult virus to transmit, unlike many STDs…it transmits…not through vaginal sex.’

Yabby, check your facts, a minute quantity of blood content is ejaculated during vaginal sex which places women at risk…not men (unless he has a wound)…hence the woman not infecting the male. Another reason why homosexuals are so much at risk.

RE: Uganda’s HIV statistics from 31% to 7-or9% in 5-or-6-years shows abstinence works…you do know what abstinence is right? :)))

Scout, your disrespect for yourself is hardly an advertisement to follow your advice-HIV’s no joke, sorry you find my arguments too-difficult-for-you-to-understand.

Yabby, you need to google some biology data or at least use dictionary definitions…you’re way off beam.

Prevalence of African rapes is indicative that disrespect for women is problematic…contraceptives don’t improve that.

It seems you don’t appreciate much that’s uplifting, like violin music, Yabby…your US surgeon (woman? I’m unimpressed too) has left, perhaps because YOU'RE boring.

Every post contains anti-Catholic vitriol and little else, how boring, off-the-point and unimaginative is that?

While a nation prays and waits for rescue of two Tasmanian men, your arguments against the value of individual-human-life are again completely nullified…
Posted by Meg1, Monday, 1 May 2006 3:12:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te

I have politely and reasonably answered your question.

The fact that I am alive and well today is a result of being well informed all those years ago and of course practising safe sex (condoms).

Today of course I still would use condoms.

Now if you are at all genuine you would have had the courtesy to answer MY question, which in case you have forgotten, is:

What, in your humble opinion, would be the best outcome for unwanted, unneeded embryos created as a result of IVF?

Until you have the grace to answer my question, which was posed prior to your questions, I will remain convinced that you do not care about the welfare of either women or children, least of all any posters to OLO who have the temerity to disagree with you. Your raison d'etre appears to be the same as other anti-choice advocates: an implanted foetus has rights above and beyond all other independent life.

Yabby - do you think we will ever get straight answers to our questions?

I don't.

They will just continue to puff a smokescreen over the issues - of course not answering is of itself an answer. If it isn't in religious text they are clueless.
Posted by Scout, Monday, 1 May 2006 7:59:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby You actually miss the whole point of being involved in a faith. It is not for what it does for you, it is all about loving God and doing our best not to offend His. I lead a far from boring life - as most of my friends will tell you, I do more in an hour than many people do all week. No, I am not 'frantically' busy but do my best to ensure this world is a better place for me having been in it, not worse.

Yabby If there is nothing after this life as you claim, than noone will ever know you are right, as there will be nothing. However, if I am right, I will be proved right forever and ever and ever. :-))

Again I say, my heart goes out to you in the emptiness of your life. Sex, drugs, rock'n'roll, bigger houses, better cars, more gorgeous women/men, more money never creates more happiness (in the long run), just a better class of misery. To see this point proven, just look at all the rich high profile people - suicide by the score. Contrast that with Mother Teresa living a life of poverty picking up rat-eaten dying beggars off the street. Not an ounce of despair in her life, constantly smiling and happy and doing all she could to improve this world.

A question - whom do you help? When was the last time you went out of your way to help someone? do people feel they can call on you for assistance? Do you visit your aging parents?? etc etc

I am so blessed to have the brothers/sisters that I have as they are giving and caring. I wonder can your family say the same about you?
Posted by Te, Monday, 1 May 2006 9:40:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, your flawed perceptions of the world seem due to your inability to see it through others eyes, not just your limited view. Flawed perceptions lead to flawed assumptions, which is what you are making.

You cannot imagine that people lead fulfilling lives without religion, yet they do!
Do you think that Ian Frazer, Fiona Woods, Fred Hollows, David Attenborough,
David Suzuki, Socrates and a host of others, really lead or led empty lives?
Do you think that those people just want fast cars and more money? You are kidding
yourself if you do. Because you think that life is empty without religion does not make it so. You have clearly never thought about what those many people, all who do
good for the world and want to leave it a better place, have thought about and why.
Perhaps you should try reading some philosophy 101.

I don’t see Mother Theresa as you do. She was an obsessive religious fanatic who was happiest living her obsession. Obsessives are happiest doing exactly that.
Forget the Catholic spin and read what the critics wrote about her. Huge amounts of
money were raised, much of it was never accounted for, nobody knows how much went to the poor and how much went to promote her religion. Many people who actually worked for her, saw her in a very different light.

You also misunderstand the emotion of love. Love is an emotion based on how somebody or something makes YOU feel, so clearly loving your god makes you feel good, that’s why you believe so strongly. Anxiety about uncertainty limits your thinking beyond that. The violin string explains that.

There are plenty of miserable Catholics in the world. Plenty of greedy ones too.
Many of the Mafia were churchgoing Catholics remember. There are also plenty
of people who lead fulfilling lives without needing religion as a crutch to cope,
Because you can’t imagine such lives, doesn’t mean that they don’t happen, as the
evidence shows.

Meg, I’ll leave your distorted and vitriolic rant for when I am allocated another post
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 1 May 2006 3:11:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby I believe. You choose not to. Mother Teresa was a saint. You say no. Malcolm Muggeridge became a Catholic because of her.

I believe in the value of EVERY life. You believe only in the value of your own.

I see no point wasting more of my posts on you and your endless 'merry-go-round' logic.

Meg1 and mjpb - good on you for your posts.
Posted by Te, Monday, 1 May 2006 7:05:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If God was woman, at least a third of us would not be here… hey, I just stumbled across my own personal epiphany!
Posted by Seeker, Monday, 1 May 2006 11:58:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, if I only believed in the value of my own life, I would not be here, arguing
for the lives of women in the third world, demanding answers to the question as to why we should accept that the effects of Catholic dogma
are killing them by the tens of thousands. I would be
out playing golf or something.

I have continued with these posts for one good reason. I believe in the butterfly effect and if some lurkers read some of the links that I have posted,
think about some of the points I have made and pass on that information,
we might yet expose to the general public the tragedy that Catholic dogma is inflicting on the third world. Luckily by far the majority of 1st world Catholics have basically told the church to get lost on these issues.

Its quite disgusting but not surprising, that none of you has expressed outrage
that your church thinks that 9 year old girls who are raped, should be forced to have the child. Clearly its not people you care about, but blindly followed
dogma, right over the cliff of decency and any kind of morality.

Te, I did not expect any different reaction from you then the one I got. Clearly
the questions I have posed, you have never even thought about and don’t have answers to. Its easier to just be a violin string, following your feelings.

If you girls really cared about potential people as much as you say do and not
just dogma, then clearly you would care about the many potential children that you have flushed down your toilets, not just pretend to become teary eyed about fertilized eggs. Blind faith in dogma is what its all about, as the
evidence shows.

Meg, your attempt to try to use the tragedy of the Tasmanian miners to
try to score a few cheap points on OLO in a discussion, shows the standards of your ethics. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Dianne, you are are a great lady and I appreciate your honesty.
Many thanks!
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 12:11:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mother Teresa lived amongst the poorest of the poor…what do you suggest she did with ‘all that money’ you fantasise about at Alice’s tea parties? Maybe she bought shares or gold bars to take to Heaven with her. It’s my guess however many millions were raised, the cost of feeding the millions was greater…duh?

I’d rather she held the purse strings on my donations than you Yabby…rolling the whales over isn’t my idea of gainful employment…

No doubt she’s asking God to forgive you Yabby…I’ll follow her example on that one too…

Let’s take two from the list you admire, Yabby…Fiona Woods (6 children), Fred Hollows (5 children), both were born into religious and devoted families who instilled a desire to take care of those around them and value Christian principles. Fred Hollow’s wanted to do missionary work, then decided to be a doctor, working voluntarily amongst aboriginal children and all those African people that you’ve such a problem with, Yabby…right until his death.

His motto: “I believe that the greatest attribute of mankind is to look after each other.”

Neither believes-d that individual human life was ‘insignificant’ or worthless or that unborn babies aren’t human…each made the choice to devote their lives to their fellow human beings based on their own Christian upbringing.

Anyone who knew Fred Hollows would lol at the thought of what he’d say to your comments on line…ROFL

You’ve nothing in common with these people Yabby…as they obviously love-d children…had large families of their own…and love-d to work amongst people.

‘You also misunderstand the emotion of love. Love is an emotion based on how somebody or something makes YOU feel’

ROFL…any wonder your ‘US-friend’ took the first flight out…it’s only about YOU, Yabby? That’s not LOVE…a-picture-in-a-magazine can make some people feel ‘something’…LUST! You seriously aren’t suggesting that your ‘relationship-history’ qualifies you as an expert-on-LOVE? ROFL…LOL. :)))))

LOVE is all about wanting to be with, share with, care for, look outwards in the same direction…not get-what-you-can-out-of-one-another-and-then-jump-ship.

(tbc…)
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 10:22:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

Relationships work when things that matter are given consideration by both partners, when you’re where you want to be because you’re there together –happy…complementing one-another…you’re in LOVE. Then the passion doesn’t die, Yabby…it grows stronger-and-deeper.

Yabby ‘was an obsessive religious fanatic who was happiest living’…his ‘obsession. Obsessives are happiest doing exactly that.’

Yabby, once again you describe yourself, indicating your dislike and disapproval of all you are…I feel very sorry for you. You anxiously dictate what you WANT as the ‘norm’…anxiously wanting to ‘fit’ but not wanting to make the effort to see life as it is. The rest of the world should conform to your dictates, the world owes you…doesn’t it Yabby? It’s all about Yabby…

RE: Fred Hollows and Fiona Wood…you see intrinsic good in them…you want to be admired like them, but fail to see they’re the very epitome of all you rail against and reject in behavioural characteristics.

You seem to think that fame or notoriety equates with happiness or fulfillment…you really don’t understand life at all, much less happiness…

You truly are more to be pitied than despised Yabby.

Scout you’ll have to decide the fate of your embryos, I wish you and them the very best. The Catholic Church has a position on the issue but you and Yabby have indicated your position on anything Catholic, so why ask Catholics?

Scout, I hope your search for peace on the issue brings you to the answers you are really seeking.

Seeker, don’t you mean epitaph?

Yabby, unless you’re ‘right over the cliff of decency and any kind of morality’ you’d be outraged at the rape…why aren’t you?

I’m praying for the safe rescue of the two miners and the families of all three…it’s you who should be ashamed, judging individual life as ‘insignificant’ and worthless…forcing your lack of decency on those of us who’d rather aim higher…

Do you consider ‘the tragedy of the Tasmanian miners’ is in rescuing them? Are the lives of two men trapped underground as ‘insignificant’ to you as ‘only’ two USwomen victims of RU486? Are you so callous?
Posted by Meg1, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 10:32:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg you really are an expert on spin! First you distort what I have written, then you criticize what you have just invented. Good xtian values indeed :)

Those names were to show that people don’t need to be religious fanatics to do good for other people. Hollows was in fact a secular humanist, the sworn enemy of the Catholic Church. He learnt exactly what I learnt, he had been hoodwinked in his youth by religion.

Religion tries to take credit for anyone who ever did any good.
Well in that case take credit for Hitler too, he was a Catholic. Picking
and choosing your credits is nothing more then spin, as we know that
altruism is grounded in biology, good people exist all over the world, without input from religion.

There is a huge difference between caring about people, which most
Australians do, and going off on ideological rants about the evils of
condoms, birth control, abortion and other human rights. On that score most Australians agree with me . You are in fact seen as
a religious extremist, representing a fanatical but insignificant %
of the population. Even most Catholics disagree with you.

Of course charities should be accountable for donated funds, especially religious ones!. If people give money for spending on hospitals etc, they want to know it was spent for that, not diverted for other causes, such as paying out multi million $ lawsuits for pedophile priests, to finance the vast Catholic spin machine, or to
finance the pomp and splendor of Rome. Nobody knows where the
Mother Theresa money went, but there are claims that substantial amounts were diverted to causes other then helping the poor.

Love is pretty well understood by science. As neuroscience is a hobby of mine, I take an interest in the latest findings. Clearly you delude yourself as to what is happening in your own mind, as many
Christians do. To give you a hint, women can sniff sweaty t shirts
to figure out who they are really attracted to :) Chemistry matters.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 3:44:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Indeed Meg1 – it was our common epitaph representing the 30 or 40 percent who are annually terminated, which lead to my epiphany.
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 2 May 2006 10:23:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a mountain of posts as usual!

Yabby,

“Let me give you the bad news however: nearly every religious person of every conceivable religion is just as convinced of their perceived certainty as you are. Clearly most or all religions are wrong, one or none are correct. So your chance of being in love with an illusion is extremely high!”

Another alternative belief system that all those people agree with even less is atheism. Does this make it likely to be an illusion?

“Te, your flawed perceptions of the world seem due to your inability to see it through others eyes, not just your limited view…You cannot imagine that people lead fulfilling lives without religion, yet they do!”

You make rationalisations for vilifying a group clearly not empathising in the slightest and definitely not seeing the world through others’ eyes but on this assertion alone you claim that she isn’t able to see things through others eyes.

Do you think that … Socrates … led empty lives?”

I thought that while Socrates rejected ancient Greek Gods he believed in a great and perfect God.

“Because you think that life is empty without religion does not make it so.”

Of course not but it is usually correct nevertheless. If (in the hypothetical) you interacted with people with an open mind while gaining life experience you would see it time and again. You would see so many people pursuing fast cars and more money but it doesn’t make them happy. A strong faith in contrast always leads to happiness. A reasonable conclusion is that life is empty without religion.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 1:33:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

”Many of the Mafia were churchgoing Catholics remember.”

But were they really practicing Catholics? Seems that the “Do unto others” thing got a bit lost on them.

“ religion as a crutch to cope”

Don’t fear religion as a result of a cliché constraining your thinking. Religion is not about weakness. It is about love and fulfilment.

“Te, if I only believed in the value of my own life, I would not be here, arguing for the lives of women in the third world, demanding answers to the question as to why we should accept that the effects of Catholic dogma are killing them by the tens of thousands. I would be out playing golf or something.”

Of course you would. How can you enjoy your golf when you knew that you were preaching self centredness and death. Nonsense like this makes you feel better about what you do. Abortion is killing these women in the tens of thousands. The only reason that someone made up this nonsense is as a smoke screen to cover the fact that even framing the issue as “women should have more rights than foetuses” instead of “don’t kill babies” doesn’t work when we consider the tens of thousands of third world women being killed by the thing they condone – abortion. It is clearly scraping the bottom of the barrel blaming Catholics for abortions or claiming that Mother Teresa embezzled money. Some people use those arguments strategically. Either you actually believe in them or you are committed to spin. If you were sincere it would probably indicate a loneliness and emptiness and religion could help you. (Although I am concerned you might approach it like those Mafia.)

“Meg you really are an expert on spin!”

Come on now! No need to be so modest. She doesn’t try to blame Catholics for abortions.
Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 1:39:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, your church tries to force women to have children that they don’t want and often can’t provide for. The net result is huge suffering, dying women, starving babies. My philosophy is that we need less suffering, not more. If only women who wanted children had them, the world would indeed be a better place, with a lot less suffering. Most people agree with my philosophy, except for a small % of religious fanatics. Your church, because it tries to use force of various means, has to bear responsibility for that suffering, when it could be avoided.

Yup atheism has its problems, that’s why agnostics and skeptics
make more sense.

Socrates was a philosopher with a very active mind and life. No need for religion or to follow dogma to achieve that.

A strong faith does not always lead to happiness. Plenty of miserable religious people are around, many have killed themselves in the name of religion. Many people lead fulfilling lives, interested in all sorts of things. Those lives are not empty
at all, they might just seem empty to those who need religion as a crux to cope with life. That’s why it exists after all, to help people deal with anxiety. We are not all such anxious beings to need that drug. Te needs her violin string, I don’t. Look around
you, if people have a purpose in their lives, they are generally happy. They can be all sorts of purposes, dealing with all sorts of things.

Women need not die from abortions, if they are performed in a
safe, hygienic environment, by skilled operators. In Australia
it’s a safe operation for instance. Your church is preventing women in many countries around the globe, having the benefit of that same safe environment, so has to carry the moral responsibility for their deaths. Without the interference of your church, those women would not be dying.

Details about Mother Theresa and what others claim about her are in Wikipedia for all to read. Read them for yourself.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 9:17:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for your kind remarks on my Christian values, Yabby…I can’t claim your credentials on ‘spin’…lol, after you casually drop occupations of ‘long-story’-conquests-etc, you ‘mention’ your ‘hobby’ - ‘neuroscience’…in the WA bush…yeeesss Yabby, you leaped-tall-buildings last week too, what’s next week?

It’s not surprising you’d object to the use of your own words to discredit your argument…but your attempts to flagellate and convolute your own argument to ‘spin’ it into bile to tip on the Catholic Church must be close to certifiable by now.

Fred Hollows saw nothing in common with your stance on anything Yabby…read his motto again…it sums him up well. He liked to get things done - didn’t stand around ranting about the Catholic Church or anyone else, unless they were a bureaucrat who stood in the way of him helping the people you argue should be killed…I can picture him meeting you…rofl : )))

‘a huge difference between caring about people…and going off on ideological rants’ … like yours Yabby? I’ve seen NO EVIDENCE of you ‘caring’ about anyone... Unless you’re counting the ‘standing up for little-people’…by killing them by the tens of millions…again, with friends like you Yabby, one would need NO ENEMIES!

‘You’re in fact seen as’ … an ‘extremist, representing a fanatical but insignificant % of the population.’ … ‘most… disagree with you.’ Yes it’s you…YABBY!

BTW…‘No-one’s as obsessed with contraception as you are Yabby…nor as out of touch with reality…as a direct result of your abortion propaganda and that of your doctors-of-death…billions of babies and millions of their mothers have died around the world…and continue to do so.’

‘charities should be accountable for donated funds’…’ there are claims that substantial amounts were diverted to causes other then helping the poor.’

Wouldn’t it be a novelty if just once you had something positive to offer about someone who got off their butt and did something for someone else…no proof, no effort from you to help others Yabby, but open your mouth and spill out all that bile. You discredit yourself rather than the objects of your vitriol.

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 6:07:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont...)

If Mother Teresa was the thief you claim Yabby…why would she live amongst the poorest of the poor, caring for them with the compassion of a saint? There are descriptions for those who stoop so low…but I’m sure you’ve been described as all of them before. You’re a sad case…

‘Clearly you delude yourself’…

Yes Yabby, you do…and it’s not just the neuroscience in the back shed in Wiluna that tipped us off…you haven’t offered differences from one post to the next. You should get out more. I daren’t ask if you’re doing any neurological experiments in ‘country WA”.

You can sniff sweaty t-shirts or any other used garments, Yabby…I prefer to launder them and wear clean garments instead…my preferred option.

I can imagine there’d be ‘chemistry’ in those clothes after a week…more than I’m interested in, thanks anyway. (:0

There’s a big difference between sniffing smelly garments and ‘choosing’ the-man-of-your-dreams…I guess it would sort out which men you wouldn’t touch without a bar of kerosene soap too, huh, Yabby? : ))

I’m happy to leave your mating rituals to you and suggest it may take a while to catch on in the real world, Yabby….hopefully :(

‘Women need not die from abortions, if they are performed in a
safe, hygienic environment, by skilled operators. In Australia
it’s a safe operation for instance.’

Yabby, your ability to delude yourself while adopting the usual ‘spin’ cannot be backed by evidence…ALL medical procedures have consequences and risks.

…and the obvious…around half the babies being killed are female…they WILL die, along with their male counterparts, no matter how sterile the environment or the determination of the ‘operators’ who are highly paid for their grizzly work.

Mjpb you sound like the sort of man who’d make the BEST type of husband and father – taking responsibility for his own life and supporting the best interests of those he loves…you’re to be admired and I’m certain have the respect of those who know and deal with you.

Te shows the same characteristics…

Congratulations to both of you! :)
Posted by Meg1, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 6:16:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ROFL Meg, whilst you have absolutely no talent in the areas of philososphy, economics, neuroscience or human behaviour, an expert in spin you are!

You distorted what I wrote on hiv transmission, aids in Uganda, your knowledge of my love life, etc. etc, then added your invented answers to your spin.

Its ok Meg, I know that the philosophical concepts are beyond
you, so you have no option to save face, but to try to rubbish my
character. It won’t work sorry :) In religion, you wear your heart on your sleeve like you do in economics. The whole world is wrong, they just don’t understand, the big parties are all wrong, everyone is wrong except Meg, the Pope and Mother Teresa :)

Hitchens wrote a whole book on Mother Teresa, I have yet to see anyone prove him wrong. He saw her as I do, as a fanatic. But google for the info if you like, there are plenty of references on the net. Even one from ABC TV. Pass comment when you are actually informed about his claims.
Mother Teresa thought that it was ok that the poor should suffer. When she got sick, she got the best treatment in the
West, not in one those Indian clinics where the poor were suffering.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s266592.htm

The great thing about neuroscience Meg, is that we learn about the sub conscious areas of the brain, things we aren’t even aware of. New Scientist has a long article on why you perhaps chose your partner by his sweaty smell but were not
even aware of it :) Here is another short reference, but you would have to buy NS to read that article.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_08.html

Abortions performed as in Australia, are about 8-10 times safer then having a baby Meg. Religious dogma is preventing women in other parts of the world from receiving similar treatment and saving their lives. But then as suffering being
ok is also part of Catholic dogma, well so they should suffer it seems. Even your Mother Teresa agreed with that.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 3 May 2006 8:05:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Meg,

Thanks for the thumbs up.

Yabby,

“ If only women who wanted children had them, the world would indeed be a better place, with a lot less suffering.”

A more equitable distribution of resources would achieve the same result without all the babies being killed.

“ Most people agree with my philosophy, except for a small % of religious fanatics.”

I don’t know the stats on abortion versus no abortion preferences but most people aren’t as extreme as you.

“Your church, because it tries to use force of various means, has to bear responsibility for that suffering, when it could be avoided.”

If I am to ignore the word “force” which is misleading and take it in the context of the statement at the beginning of your post you are entitled to that opinion but that isn’t the bizarre conclusion that you stated and that I found offensive in earlier posts.

”Yup atheism has its problems, that’s why agnostics and skeptics
make more sense.”

Skeptic sounds broad and you obviously have a particular profile in mind. What do you consider the main differences between skeptics and atheists?

”Socrates was a philosopher with a very active mind and life. No need for religion or to follow dogma to achieve that.”

I only know of his beliefs, teaching, and termination through Plato’s writings. Do you distinguish a belief in God from religion?

” That’s why it exists after all, to help people deal with anxiety.”

Anxiety has nothing to do with it. It is a way of meeting a need for love and fulfilment.

” Without the interference of your church, those women would not be dying. “

It is one thing to string a long bow but that is too lateral to work and very offensive to Catholics. They are dying because they think it is okay to have an abortion.

Meg:”Unless you’re counting the ‘standing up for little-people’…by killing them by the tens of millions…again, with friends like you Yabby, one would need NO ENEMIES!”

This was hard to overlook.
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 5 May 2006 3:06:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

”The whole world is wrong, ... everyone is wrong except Meg, the Pope and Mother Teresa :)”

Even the Dutch who you say have no Catholic influence agree.

”Hitchens wrote a whole book on Mother Teresa”

Mother Teresa has deceased. She can’t sue him for slander. He can write whatever he likes to profit from her fame.

” Here is another short reference, but you would have to buy NS to read that article.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/6/l_016_08.html”

A sample size of 49 women who volunteered to smell T-shirts isn't compelling. Assuming the comments about “mate choice” in the article are in the study and the article is otherwise accurate then any conclusion in the study that it demonstrates mate choice is incorrect. It only demonstrated that the women preferred a particular smell not that women choose partners by smell.

Don’t worry even qualified researchers make this type of mistake. In Australia a study looked at driving speed and car crashes. At blackspots researchers found an average speed of about 60km/h and an increased risk driving above that average speed by 5km/h or more. As the speed limit was 60km/h the researcher assumed/concluded that going 5km/h above the speed limit must be dangerous. It took peer review to point out that the finding about average speed cannot be translated to the speed limit as typically average speeds on 60km/h roads are well above 60km/h. Accordingly, even accepting the study findings implicitly, on a road where the average speed is eg. 67km/h there would be no demonstrated increase in crash risk under 72km/h. Peer review pointed out this obvious mistake but the original study including the faulty conclusion was published and widely publicised.

In case you are not clear on my point…if I was single and showed a series of photographs of women I might prefer a particular look. However dealing with the preferred person for 5 minutes and discovering that they were a heroin addict would rule out any possibility of a relationship. Preferences could be demonstrated on a number of characteristics. The important thing would be priorities.
Posted by mjpb, Friday, 5 May 2006 3:15:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, this whole problem that we have, was really created when your church came up with its contraception dogma, cherrypicked out a few bits about what was natural law and ignored the ramifications of the rest of natural law. The net result is unneeded suffering for millions.

In natural law, the role of parents is to provide resources to feed the offspring. If they can’t, the offspring die from starvation. Resources is the way nature controls unlimited growth in populations. Potential beings of any species, will always be far
greater then can ever survive.

Most in the West are actually extremely generous, working a good
half of their lives to provide for others, schools, hospitals, welfare, etc. Look at Govt budgets. Look at Govt spending of gdp.

Now your church may see suffering as natural and therefore
acceptable. My personal philosophy is that we evolved to be intelligent enough to be able to avoid all that suffering, so its unacceptable, pointless and extremely sad.

On abortion in WA, when it was made legal, 90% were for,10% against. A similar figure in a referendum in Italy some years ago.

Political power is a force, that’s why I used the word.

Skeptics demand evidence when people make claims. Atheists claim there is no god, but of course you cannot prove a negative.
Nobody can prove that Santa or the tooth fairy don’t really exist for instance.

Socrates pondered about god, as he pondered about lots of things. There is a difference between pondering and following various rituals of a religion with absolute conviction.

I have strung no long bows. The evidence shows that the abortion rate is similar in countries where it is legal or banned.
When women are desperate, perhaps as they can see that they cannot provide for another child, they undertake desperate measures. Women do not risk their lives for no reason you know.
Those desperate women in countries where abortion is banned,
would not die by their tens of thousands, if it was made legal and
proper health care was given to them.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 5 May 2006 10:19:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, ok next couple of points: Hitchens clearly has a lot of evidence, which he has offered to present to your church, to show that Mother Teresa was a religious fanatic and not what people made her out to be. As a journalist, that is his job, we need a strong press to keep people honest.

On the one hand you are saying that more resources should be provided to help the poor, yet when people provide them in good faith, you don’t seem concerned about accountability of those funds. I remind you that our press is full of stories of money being
provided to charities, where nobody knows where it goes. Just last week the Weekend Australian published a story questioning where the 50 million$ a year that Hillsong receives goes, asking some very valid
questions. These institutions want tax free status. Why should they be above the law of accountability?

The study on smell was only one of many being done by neuroscience, when it comes to attraction. I just quoted one url of one trial. National Geographic of Feb 2006 discussed it a little more extensively, but you would really have to be interested in brain function, to learn more about it. Suffice to say that the old
dogma of “freewill” is flawed.

You could always start here:

http://staff.washington.edu/chudler/neurok.html

What we are learning is that its all very well to theorise about how one would react when meeting somebody, but in reality when people “fall in love” their behaviour becomes quite irrational, as various evolutionary buttons are pushed, of which they are seldom aware of. When those love struck teenagers come home, trying to explain to their parents why that long haired, dope smoking, tattooed hippie is the greatest thing since sliced bread, reality has been rationalized away by brain chemistry. If during that period
of chemical irrationality they land up marrying the guy, to suggest that they should stay married for life even if he beats them or whatever, is plainly ridiculous! Clearly their will was not so free at all
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 5 May 2006 3:03:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby

Love the work you are doing here. Did you know that reality is now considered a left wing concept? :-0

I find it edifying that none of the anti-choice posters have had either the courtesy or the courage to respond to our questions yet demand we answer theirs - which we have.

At first I thought it was just rudeness on their part given their vitriolic ad hominen attacks, but I think it is something deeper than that.

People who believe in reason over religion tend to think more broadly on life and living. We are not afraid to answer ethical questions. We have demonstrated that those who blindly and unquestioningly follow religious dogma are unable to think around moral and ethical conundrums such as 'raped and pregnant nine year old' and 'unwanted embryos'.

It is also evident that these same posters want to 'debate' (I don't really think of personal slurs and demands as true debate) only on their terms with no regard to the questions of others. I guess this is another consequence of blindly following formal religion.

My conclusion, therefore, is that formal religion is a dead end for the intellect of the individual, politics, science. We cannot progress as a species while we remain in thrall to a primitive doctrine that holds little relevance to the lives of people in the 21st century.
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 7 May 2006 10:39:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, many thanks for your comments. I read Cardinal Pell’s
comments this week, mentioning Pagan rituals of burning animals. Well of course the Xtian bible is full of those! I also wonder if Cardinal Pell pondered about the rituals performed by Opus Dei, which are in the news right now. They represent the conservative end of the Catholic faith. It’s a very secretive organisation, said to be worth billions of $, whose members wear the cilice, a spiked chain to inflict pain on themselves, who also whip themselves and have other cult like tendencies.

http://www.odan.org/

Perhaps we should insist that all politicians, as well as divulging their financial interests, divulge their religious interests. If my MP
is into whipping themselves or wearing spiked chains in the name
of Jesus, I really think that I should know about that before voting!

I do however see hope for the future. People are a product of their environment and their genes. I’ve spoken to a few JWs who eventually quit, the true believers can’t be blamed for everything. These people were often brainwashed from childhood,
they were discouraged from associating with people who thought unlike they did. Not all were born with an inquisitive mind, some just cling to their violin string to cope.

The internet poses great hope for humanity! They will come here to argue about the evils of contraception and abortion, but people like you and I will at least get them thinking in different directions.

My ex JW friends tell me that it’s a gradual process. Once exposed to other ways of thinking, over time these things add up,
until one day, all this accumulated stuff adds up, they finally realize that they have been hoodwinked.

Slowly they realize that all the slogans about empty lives etc, are
pretty much no more then religious propaganda. They even realize that sex is quite normal and natural too, no need for all those hang-ups :) Life is full of purpose, if you decide what your purpose is, without religious interference.

Pain does not need to be blessed, as Opus Dei think!
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 7 May 2006 3:46:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby/Scout
Unlike both of you, those of us like Meg1 and mjpb, we actually have a life outside of our computers :-)) and are out there in the real world helping young mums and expectant women in crisis. So your comment re not responding to questions is a time issue. I will be back in front of the screen with more time next week - trust me, you WILL have answers to your questions. Sadly though, neither of you ever like what your hear/read. Cheers, Te :-)
Posted by Te, Thursday, 11 May 2006 11:07:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Te, no doubt you are busy, with all that praying, going to mass
and then to confession, to tell the priest about any impure
thoughts that you may have had :)

For a while I thought that perhaps you had joined Opus Dei
and were busy perhaps whipping yourself of wearing your spikey
chain :) it all sounds pretty kinky to me lol.
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 12 May 2006 10:24:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby, hearing you classify anyone else as 'kinky' is ROFL...REALLLLY ludicrous...ROFL again!

What was that you said about your chimp and bonobo 'evolving relatives' and their preferred sexual positions...which you apparently follow with great interest. If they are so 'human', they may prefer a little privacy, rather than being exposed as peep show performers by their supposedly evolved relatives, don't you think?

Then there are your fantasies about all things Catholic and what happens in 'Catholic bedrooms'...you display seriously 'kinky' obsessions there...however it's understandable as you may feel you are missing the satisfaction of a 'real' relationship, especially since your abandonment by the US ex.

...and your posts have only deteriorated from there.

Of course your advocacy of various methods of killing babies couldn't be classified as 'kinky'...there are more macabre descriptions that would be better suited there.
Posted by Meg1, Friday, 12 May 2006 11:09:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sheesh, this is getting interesting now, as the truth is revealed!

Meg seems to think that what bonobos and chimps do quite naturally and normally should be considered kinky. I have news for you Meg,
its natural and normal, but then bonobos and chimps were never brainwashed by the nuns to think otherwise, lucky them :)

Luckily they are not into whips and spikey chains either, as Opus Dei seems to be, but you don't don't mention that you think thats kinky. Is that what your religion has taught you? Do you have
whips and spikey chains in your cupboard Meg ? :)

BTW, I have never advocated killing babies, which is what they become once they have a functioning human brain. I have advocated family planning and choice by women as to how many children that they want to raise. That includes various forms of contraception, the snip, abortion of fetuses. Just like you flush that potential little MiniMeg down the toilet each month, ignoring what she would have said on her wedding day, had you decided to keep her, other women have the right to use their forms of family planning to achieve the same ends.

Now if we are going to talk about sexual behaviour, its not me trying to tell couples what they should or should not do in bed, but in fact your Catholic Church! Add a few chains and whips and things get kinkier all the time in the Catholic religion :)
Posted by Yabby, Friday, 12 May 2006 8:36:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby,

“ cherrypicked out a few bits about what was natural law “

The information you have provided from pro-abortionists demonstrates that if the church cherry picks then it is congenial company.

”Now your church may see suffering as natural and therefore acceptable. My personal philosophy is that we evolved to be intelligent enough to be able to avoid all that suffering, so its unacceptable, pointless and extremely sad.”

We are so intelligent that our solution for helping people is killing babies. This type of bizarre loss of ethics happens when we reject the guidance of a much more intelligent being.

”I have strung no long bows..”

You blamed the Catholic Church for deaths from abortion. That is a long bow however you want to dress it up. People who follow the Catholic faith don’t have abortions. You have taken a propaganda twist and seem to be taking it seriously.

”Women do not risk their lives for no reason you know.”

Can you honestly say that you can be certain that if they knew the dangers of abortion they would do it? If they knew the consequences of abortion both healthwise and ethically they would not do it.

”Those desperate women in countries where abortion is banned,
would not die by their tens of thousands, if it was made legal and
proper health care was given to them.”

Making abortion legal won’t change a third world country into something better and make the women wealthy and the health care system good. More significantly they would not die by their tens of thousands if people like you didn’t push abortion and instead discouraged it.

“ Hitchens clearly has a lot of evidence..”

The obvious person who would be able to counter the evidence if it were incorrect is Mother Theresa and she won’t be arguing with him.
Posted by mjpb, Saturday, 13 May 2006 5:28:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MJ, if the church cherrypicks about natural law when formulating its dogma, then clearly its dogma is based on flawed thinking. There is no substantiated evidence of any god being involved in the formulation of that dogma.

The abortion rate between catholics and non catholics is in fact quite similar,
so most people clearly ignore those teachings on contraception and abortion which they disagree with. Meantime Catholic numbers in the first world continue to dwindle, as people find the teachings more and more irrelevant.

A fetus is not a baby, you continue to confuse them. Meg, our local loyal Catholic here, continues to kill one potential child a month, as she flushes it down the toilet. All mothers have a right to choose how many children they can afford to raise, other women make similar decisions to Meg. Mothers are aware that if they can’t feed and care for their families, the whole family suffers. Here we differ, I am for choice and for reducing suffering. Catholic
dogma has some weird notions about suffering, which I totally disagree with.

If the church was really so concerned about babies and the welfare of people,
it would have no objection to people doing what most these days do in the
First world, ie the snip. But nope, they want to control exactly what Catholics do in bed, with whom and how.

Making abortion legal in the third world would have benefits all round. Less starving babies, less dying women, better educated children, more wealth for the parents, a rising living standard for the poor. Its not rocket science to work out that if a woman has 2-3 kids and only has enough resources to care for them properly, the whole family will do better then if she is forced to have 6-8, many of them going hungry.

The evidence about Mother Teresa is all there is writing, considering that hundreds of millions of $ were involved, the accountability of how it was spent and where it went, should be in writing too. Her many fans are free to prove Hitchens wrong.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 13 May 2006 1:15:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yabby…the ‘kinky’ part is YOUR OBSESSION with ‘what comes naturally’…it isn’t healthy to obsess over it constantly – human, chimp or bonobo - nor is it ‘natural’ to refuse to accept the ‘natural’ consequences of your actions…even chimps and bonobos do that. Perhaps they should have the ‘snip’ too? Should they be taught to use condoms also in your new world order?

Your ‘choices’ to maim and kill only involve human babies…’kinky’, twisted, macabre…you choose.

I wouldn’t rip a LIVE kitten apart either Yabby-or any other creature-born or unborn. Cruelty to unborn human babies, involving tearing them limb from limb…well that 'reality' will be judged by history just as it is…barbaric and brutal punishment and killing of the innocent.

A human foetus is an ‘unborn’ baby, Yabby…as an infant is a baby that has been born…the difference is simply a change of address, even you should be able to grasp that.

If you're ‘into spikey chains and whips’, that’s definitely your problem, Yabby. Another good reason for the exit of the US-ex, huh? As I’ve said to your ‘friend’ Brownie…it’s not healthy to fantasise about the bedroom relationships of others…nor to peep and obsess either.

‘its not me trying to tell couples what they should or should not do in bed’

…well that’s a contradiction since you haven’t missed a post without railing against your fantasized version of the sexual habits of Catholics and the teachings of the Church…and telling all and sundry, whether they are interested or not, that you don’t wanna take any responsibility for any 'possible relationship' that you might have in the next century or so…(between neurosurgery appointments and ‘research’ in the WA bush)…AND you don’t see why anyone else should either.

Sounds like your anti-life demands regarding black African babies and condoning the use of unsafe (banned elsewhere)and dangerous contraceptives in developing nations…is doing exactly what you deny…

Your knowledge of the meaning of ‘foetus’ is as sadly lacking as your regard for the women whose bodies you profess to ‘defend’…

You make many presumptions, Yabby, none of which you can back up…

(tbc...)
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 14 May 2006 12:12:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(Cont…)

Unlike your claims, Yabby, I haven't EVER taken, maimed or mutilated the life of another human being…nor have I financed killing by the above means…quite the contrary…how about you?

RE: your claims on Catholics and abortion…remembering that you are also a baptized Catholic, Yabby, I’d suggest your ‘statistics’ are another reflection of your obsessive and delusional attempts to justify your own failures by trying desperately to besmirch others.

Regarding Mother Teresa – you’ll have a chance to see if you can hold a candle to her when your judgment comes…meantime, your bile and venom does you more harm than it will ever do to her or those who knew and loved her.

How sad a life when the pedestal you'd stand on is built by besmirching and falsely diminishing the reputations of others…no satisfaction, no joy, no life of greatness in that, Yabby. Dragging others down doesn't make you more 'important' or raise you up...

Another reflection on the great joy and celebration of the miracle rescue of Todd Russell and Brant Webb…just two human lives amongst billions…and their value was considered immeasurable by a world unified in prayer for their safe recovery. That’s what is the result of a Christian country – with predominantly pro-life values still.

Flip the coin to miners in the same situation in China…dozens are killed or buried alive in China every month…lives rendered valueless by a regime forcing women to have their babies killed to term at the government's directive. That’s your brave new world Yabby…you’re welcome to it.

Who did the townspeople and miners call on? Who did they thank? Interestingly Fr Kerry Crowley of Tully, who figured in the thanks from Brant Webb, was humble about the part he played…so far away. No surprises there, that’s why people like you like to attack Catholics, Yabby…I wonder who you’d call on from a kilometre underground, when the chips were down?

I’ll pray for you too…that you’ll climb out from under all that waste and crushing failure and reclaim your faith…however far ‘underground’ you are. : ))
Posted by Meg1, Sunday, 14 May 2006 12:26:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sheesh, more strawman arguments from you Meg, as you invent imaginary friends of mine, or claim to know about my love life.

You really need a good dictionary like the Australian Oxford, unless you want to keep distorting language as part of your spin.

That egg you flush down the toilet every month is a being,
Its also human, so by your definition, you are killing one human being a month.

Learn the difference between a zygote, an embryo, a fetus and a baby. A fetus is an embryo 8 weeks after conception. A fetus is what is usually aborted, cruelty is impossible, as it neither feels nor thinks. What is cruel is the suffering that your church
insists on, read up the definition of cruelty.

You should really stop and reflect on what your church has become in this world. It used to be somewhat respected, a lot has changed in the last 30 years. As the JWs are known as the anti blood transfusion church, the Catholics are now known as the anti condoms church. Most newspapers articles deal with
either paedophilia by members or issues to do with contraception.
When Australia’s most eminent expat scientist states that your church is responsible for more deaths then Hitler, clearly people
take note!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/parting-shot-to-pope-get-real-on-aids/2005/12/03/1133422148025.html

The miner rescue was a triumph of Aussie mateship, that’s who they said they owed their lives to, quite correctly.. Australians are pro life as in people, not into fantasizing about holy eggs or sperms. That’s why your church is ignored more and more.

Yup, the Chinese had to become tough on population increase, its said that without those measures, there would be 300 million more now, making life in China even more unsustainable then it is now. The Chinese were smart enough to see what can happen if they did nothing.

In Catholic Rwanda they did nothing and left things up to Gods plan and the result was swift and brutal, what those Catholics did to one another, in one huge genocide. All very sad really, that religious dogma can cause so much suffering.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 14 May 2006 3:30:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 80
  7. 81
  8. 82
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy