The Forum > Article Comments > Is it all about babies? > Comments
Is it all about babies? : Comments
By Mary Smith, published 18/9/2007Is the opposition to abortion simply about saving babies? Or are there other motives behind the graphic images of advanced fetuses?
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- ...
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 10:11:49 AM
| |
Bravo, bravissimo.
Yes I think its all about the frightened child within the essentially childish mentality which Christianity panders to. If "they" can "murder" even sperms and eggs in the ovary, what hope is there for us. We are all threatened. And what about our "immortality" via reproducing ourselves individually and collectively via "our" children. We are all threatened. The trouble is that medieval cultists make IDOLS out of the processes of nature, rather than permit men and women in their Spiritual consciousness to be responsible for the processes in nature. The processes in nature are not holy in themselves. They are made holy only through conscious God-Communion. We, not nature alone, must be responsible for birth. But the conventional religious point of view with its parental "deity" tends to keep us irresponsible, eternally parented, as if only nature in the abstract (not in the form of conscious living humanity) can be responsible for life. The notion of not wanting to "interfere" whether responsibly or irresponsibly, in the workings of "Mother Nature" is behind the common dogma relative to birth control. And then these same medieval cultists are also fundamentally opposed to any kind of comprehensive sex education. Why? Because they are very squeamish about the body and bodily existence altogether---peoples underwear being the source of all kinds of horrors. Sexuality and the body EQUALS sin. Sex and bodily existence altogether is basically problematic to them. They have thoroughly mis-understood what the body IS altogther. We are "sinners" in this vale of tears. Fundamental DE-LIGHT in existence-being is TABOO. Real life and happiness is elsewhere in the "next" life. Bodily pleasure is TABOO. See: 1. http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch2 2. http://beezone.com/AdiDa/jesusandme.htm Posted by Ho Hum, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 10:25:20 AM
| |
I agree with Yabby, it is an interesting question.
Why do some people so vehemently oppose the right of choice of other people? Is it because of the potential of an embryonic fetus or is it something else? I am told rape is not about sex but about power. From what I have seen and understand of the history, the Church of Rome, it is not about Christianity, it is about Power, I wonder if the same of the Church of Rome’s surrogate, “Pro-Life” organs, it is not about potential babies, it is about Power? Another point from the article “In the US, 86 anti-abortion groups have committed to opposing all forms of contraception.” Opposing the rights of strangers to exercise responsible family planning sounds egocentric and obsessive, to say the least. I wonder, whilst they may claim to be committed, should such people be clinically “committed”. I guess they would be committed to oppose me – I had a vasectomy about 20 years ago. The sole purpose of the procedure was as an effective means of contraception. I have 2 daughters, I have had no regrets for undergoing the procedure when I did and would recommend it to anyone as a safe and effective way of controlling the number of offspring one is prepared to take responsibility for. Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 10:40:09 AM
| |
I wonder if the anti-choice lobby supports artificially keeping children with anencephaly alive?
In which case they can look after them. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anencephaly Posted by Lev, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 10:47:03 AM
| |
What is the pro-life position on miscarriage, or the 25%-50% of fertilised ova that are spontaneously aborted by the uterus long before a foetus begins to form? Murder by God?
Politics and religious power are never far from the surface in the anti-choice movement. Posted by Sancho, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 11:00:37 AM
| |
For all the good the church claims to do, they sure managed to do a lot of damage. The church is nothing but a political organisation yearning for its glory days of the crusades. Faith and spirituality have no need of dictatorial 'morality' regimes or ill-conceived baseless dogma.
Col Rouge: "Why do some people so vehemently oppose the right of choice of other people?" They oppose the 'right' to actively kill another human. While this is a view generally shared by most people, it's something that the anti-choice people take to the extreme. Firstly in their definition of "human"; as far as I'm aware there's no biblical guidance as to when life starts so defining it as a fertilized egg is not mandated by Christianity. Secondly they believe that the single act of actively killing someone is infinitely worse than suffering and death of millions of children through abuse, neglect and lack of resources. I do find your 'right of choice' mantra interesting in light of your views on drugs. As far as their views on contraception, if there had a screw up with your vasectomy that resulted in an unwanted pregnancy, would there have been the possibility of an abortion? To the anti-choice people, an abortion is so horrible they see anything that has even the slightest chance of increasing the number of abortions as being wrong. Posted by Desipis, Tuesday, 18 September 2007 11:44:03 AM
|
world, caused by the influence of Vatican dogma.
Methinks their real issue is concern about demographics. Once
the pill became popular and birthrates started to decline in
the West, the Vatican could see that they might might be
outbred by their big enemy, the muslims. So the last two
popes have been pretty fanatical about this stuff, the
future of the Vatican and its power clearly is paramount
to them. Less believers means less power and money.
Even on OLO we've read comments about how the secular
movement is meant to be a dying breed, yet their number
keep increasing!
What they forget of course is things like the internet,
which are having a large inpact about informing people
and their rights, much much better. People in general
don't really want the Vatican in their beds, forcing them
how to lead their sex lives, so many have simply abandoned
the Catholic Church and the pews have emptied.
If the Vatican is good at one thing, its political lobbying
behind the scenes, to try and enforce their agenda on
others by law in various countries. Third world women
are paying an enormous price for this in terms of poverty,
deaths, suffering etc. The West has luckily basically told
the church to get lost.
That does not mean that they won't keep trying to enforce their
agenda on us. The Vatican is a highly political organisation,
thats why to me, as with other political groups, it is open
to scrutiny and questioning about their true agenda