“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.

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.

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.

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 …

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

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