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. 31
  7. 32
  8. 33
  9. Page 34
  10. 35
  11. 36
  12. 37
  13. ...
  14. 80
  15. 81
  16. 82
  17. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 31
  7. 32
  8. 33
  9. Page 34
  10. 35
  11. 36
  12. 37
  13. ...
  14. 80
  15. 81
  16. 82
  17. All

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