Te you are quite correct. What those who see and think at the same time can observe, is that religion is about geography. Had Te been born in Iraq or India for instance, there is a 95% chance that she would be a devout little Muslim or Hindu. That tells us that all that childhood brainwashing works!. It also tells us alot about how
the human mind works.

Meg, there is all the evidence in the world for you, if you actually
know how to spell family planning and unmet needs, plus know how to use your google bar. Here are just two of many:

http://big.berkeley.edu/ifplp.unmetneed.pdf

http://www.unicef.org/pon95/fami0007.html

Get used to it, what Meg does might make Meg feel good, but she doesent matter in the bigger scheme of things. If Meg dropped dead tomorrow, the family and perhaps the parish priest would shed a few tears, the planet keeps spinning, nothing will change much.

What a large and wealthy corporation like the Catholic Church does,
matters a great deal. They have control of the lives of millions,
who believe their story. Whilst they keep encouraging the unsustainable breeding of millions more, they need to be held accountable for their actions.

Meg, if 200 million Indonesians can't manage their waters to sustainably fish them, what will happen when there are 400 million in 40 years time? Australia is simply very fortunate to not yet
have an overpopulation problem, like much of the rest of the world.

If too many people crowd on too little space, what you will be eating is exactly what you claim to want to avoid: recycled human
excrement, as fish, as veggies, as whatever. Thats the world that your church promotes Meg.

I agree with you btw. The greed of the transnational corportation named the Catholic Church, rich as it is, wanting more followers and power at it does, is a real problem for the world.

Col

”What is the Name of “my team / club”, how many members does it have?”

When I pointed out that your team has a worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour I was referring to the group you were referring to when you said:

“My club rules differ from your club rules.”

That is a quote from you so you tell me. What do you hope to achieve from failing to name your club then asking me to? It does not matter what your club is named my point will still hold. Unless your club is Catholic priests (obviously not) then it is a safe bet that your club has a higher proportion of paedophiles.

”What evidence do you present to support your claim that my team has a “worse track record for engaging in paedophile behaviour”.”

The low incidence of paedophile behaviour in the Catholic clergy.

”You have made the claim to my team's decline into the worst excesses of human depravity.

I FEEL IT FAIR TO DEMAND YOU PRESENT SOME REFERENCES TO SUPPORT THAT ACCUSATION.”

I don’t suppose you could just attend any sittings of the District Court in its criminal jurisdiction and see how many paedophiles pass through the courts? I assure you that it would not take long to match the number of depraved degenerates who have been exposed after infiltrating the priesthood.

Try this for some perspective on how badly behaved your club is:

http://www.pastornet.net.au/fwn/1997/jun/art10.htm

”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church_sex_abuse_scandal”

6 historical examples

”http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3157555.stm”

nil priests named as paedophiles

”http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/ws95/paedo44.html”

1 historical example who was one of the 6 above

”…Produce JUST ONE internet reference …”

Do you seriously think that the extremely low incidence of paedophilia in the Catholic clergy is reflected in the wider community?

”Be a man and rise to the challenge OR be seen as a bungling, impulsive, judgementalistic liar, devoid of credibility and credence.”

I am starting to think that you seriously believe that because media highlight Catholic priest paedophiles paedophile behaviour is unknown elsewhere.

Meg1

You still have no understanding of a hypothesis. As I feel sorry for your I will assist with the following definition

"Something taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption."

Now either your are completely stupid or deliberately attempting to avoid answering a simple hypothetical question. Which is as follows:

Given that there are surplus embryos what what suggestions would be suitable for the future of these embryos?

My suggestion has been for stem cell research.

Are there any intelligent anti-choice people capable of a cogent response? Clearly Meg1 has exempted herself from this debate.

"Now either your are completely stupid or deliberately attempting to avoid answering a simple hypothetical question. Which is as follows:

Given that there are surplus embryos what what suggestions would be suitable for the future of these embryos?

My suggestion has been for stem cell research."

Isn't it the case that the embryo's are unavailable for anything? If so, as Meg pointed out, what is the relevance of the hypothetical question? Stem cell research is not an option so what do you want? Do you want someone to say "yes that is a great idea pity it is impossible" or "no that would be awful I'm glad it isn't possible"? Isn't that pretty pointless?

"Are there any intelligent anti-choice people capable of a cogent response? Clearly Meg1 has exempted herself from this debate."

After that comment I hope you don't follow the example of another contributor and blow your horn as an advocate of respecting other people.

mjpb

In an attempt to sideline my question you are trying an argument on semantics.

The future of frozen embryos may be a variety of options from stem cell research to adoption by other infertile couples to flushing down the toilet.

Fact is there is a finite term for the storage of frozen embryos - so what would be the best solution?

Is everyone on this thread brain dead?

Scout: 'Is everyone on this thread brain dead?'

There, there Scout - It's not you it's the rest of the world, isn't it?

How many times do you need to hear the same thing said?

Your question is totally irrelevant...if the embryos aren't yours, then you will have no say anyway.

The situation would not arise if the lives of those embryos were shown more regard in the first place.

Experimenting with them may be ok if you have abandoned regard for life, but in essence is no difference to Hitler's human experimentation, or those of like minded barbarians.

You can hardly argue that you are objective, as you have stated that only the 'mother' should decide...

...now you want to have the cake and eat it too...