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

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.

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

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

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.

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.