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 > Mifepristone: not a panacea > Comments

Mifepristone: not a panacea : Comments

By Helen Ransom, published 2/11/2005

Helen Ransom argues the abortion drug endangers the lives of women.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. All
Ok Al, I will use up my valuable 2nd post for the day to explain further the principle I am getting at here, for you to get your mind around and think about...

Lets say its 2055, the Indonesian population doubles to 400 million, ie 2% per year growth, millions sail to Australia and the Greens say it humanistic to keep them all here so we do. One of Osama's sons starts the Osama party, he's charismatic and wins 55% of the vote of the people.

The Osama Party decides that you will pray to Mecca 5 times a day,
your wife will wear the burqa, no music, no pictures, the Koran will become the new constitution etc. Its part of the theology of the Australian majority after all. Would that be democracy or religious
tyranny?
Posted by Yabby, Thursday, 8 December 2005 10:24:06 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, The Christian religion, whether Ctholic or Protestant, is engaged in Faith AND MORALS. Abortion is a moral issue, so the Church has a view about it, and expresses that view and backs it up with action, just as the Secular Humanists and Feminists do with their ideas. Do you have the same objections when a Leftie priest or parson criticises America and George W. Bush?

Islam taking over? You are really pushing the envelope with this. You ask whether it would be democracy or something else. Well, in the first place, please don't blame the Pope if Indonesia doubles its population by 2050. His influence there is nil. He can't even save Christian girls from being beheaded. The prospect of the Greens being the Federal Government is virtually nil. If millions of Indonesians tried to come, it wouldn't be democracy or anything like it. It would be an invasion, and I would resist it if I were still around [which is somewhat unlikely!] I would not like to live under Sharia law, and I back every move to defeat terrorism and any move which would strengthen our capacity to resist Islamic extremists.. We have to beat Osama, no matter what it takes and how long it takes. I hope this makes my opinion about dictatorship clear, regardless of who is in charge, Osama, Hitler or Stalin.
Posted by Big Al 30, Saturday, 10 December 2005 1:22:53 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
Al you missed the points I was trying to make. You clearly don't have a problem with theology trying to impose its morals on those who do not believe. We'll see if you still feel the same if Islam should ever want to impose its morals on you or your kids, grandkids etc. If religion wants to be political, then accept all the resulting open slather, like me saying exactly what a backward organisation I think that the Catholic Church is.

My hypothetical was simply that, to see if you operate by any kind of philosophical principles or if you just doggedly follow theology, no matter what.

The Vatican has an influence on just about every country, by its efforts to manipulate the work of WHO. Family planning etc is a world wide health issue and funding for many countries, especially the third world, is decided in the US, where the Vatican has huge
influence.

The sad part of all this is that whilst either the Vatican or Islam continually try to impose their theological values on the rest of us, there can never be peace as there will never be tolerance.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 11 December 2005 6:05:43 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 are splitting straws about "philisophical" and "theological". What you want is religious organisations [especially the Vatican] to confine their views ro the church pews and not comment on moral questions of public interest. In other words, you want to censor them. Jesus said "Go teach all nations". He didn't say don't go beyond the church doors. Incidentally, I guess it's OK for Leftie priests and ministers to attack John Howard and George W.Bush, march against apartheid, ban the bomb and end capital punishment? Did you carry on against them as you do against Christians and others who oppose abortion?

Also, when you talk about the Church forcing its values on the community, how about the Secular Humanists forcing their values on us by No Fault divorce, decriminalising homosexuality, and the Menhennit Ruling on abortion which opened the door a little, so the abortionists could kick it open the rest of the way to the point where it is out of control. [Aided an abetted by the Feminist lobby.] I guess you believe it's OK or them to do this, but not OK for the Church to respond by opposing it.

You want to impose censorship and ban their activities where they don't suit your ideas. Who's doing the "imposing" now?
Posted by Big Al 30, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 7:22:49 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
Al there is a huge difference between philosphy and theology. We can reason about one, the other is simply claims about the supernatural, for which there is no substantiated evidence. So its like chalk and cheese.

There is a huge difference between religion stating its views and trying to manipulate the political system, to enforce its agenda. The Vatican are experts at that, so are open slather for abuse because of it. I carry on against Xtians or any other religion who want to deny me or others our human rights, based on their theology.

Big difference in what the secular humanists and Vatican are doing.
Nobody is forcing Catholics to divorce, abort, or be homosexual.
You can live your life as you please. But Catholics want to deny the rest of us to live life as we please, to force their values on us. Huge difference. One is about respecting the rights of others, one is about intolerance and trying to force their religious agenda down the throats of others.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 10:25:54 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
Yabby, first your statement that there is no substantiated evidence for the supernatural. I believe it is obvious from the complexity and balance of the universe that it could not have just happened by chance. It must have been created by a super-intelligent being. But that's a whole new question. Furthermore....

There were many people like you at Fatima, Portugal on October 13, 1917 when the Great Miracle of Fatima occurred. There were 70,000 people, including members of the anti-religious government of the time who were dumbfounded when, after hours of pouring rain, the sun appeared. Then it began to spin, gyrate across the sky and then plunge towards the crowd. People were terrified, some who had been jeering finished up on their knees praying, confessing their sins aloud. I can hear you saying "mass delusion" The fact that the ground which had been saturated was now bone dry answers that theory. This was all reported in the secular newspapers controlled by the government e.g. O Seculo. It really happened. Check it out.

You think the Church shouldn't intervene in social questions. If Christian missionaries hadn't intervened and lobbied for change with the authorities of the time, children in China might still having their feet bound tightly so they lived in agony with deformed feet as they grew. Widows in India might still be forced to throw themselves on heir husband's funeral pyre in the practice of "Sutee". Will you tell me the Church should have stayed out of it? Now some sections of the Christian Church [notably Catholics} and others who just think abortion is wrong are trying to save the unborn from being killed by chemical or other means in the womb. Seems reasonable to me

You claim that what the Secular Humanists have done is different from Church lobbying. They have changed the Laws under which we have to live. If we do want to divorce, the rules are now very different thanks to SH and Lionel Murphy. The innocent party has lost all the former advantages and can be left in great hardship.
Posted by Big Al 30, Friday, 16 December 2005 9:20:42 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. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 14
  7. 15
  8. 16
  9. Page 17
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy