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.

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.

Sorry Meg.
My last post should have read "now of course the catholic church teaches that the foetus possess a soul from conception".

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.

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.

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