19 Jun 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerI thought we were talking about the baby. She can do whatever she wants to her own body. That doesn't necessarily mean that she can do whatever she wants to someone else's body.
Why not? Are you telling me that you support the Government in its bid to override her right to choose what she does with her body?
20 Jun 07
1 edit
OK I see now this discussion has now became focused on pro-life versus pro-choice, but nethertheless I will also point out Catholics within some parishes are called to boycott the two charities 'Chlidren in Need' and 'Comic Relief' in which money raised is used to fund abortions.
As one of the policys of Comic Relief is to stop third world hunger by lowering the demand for food by decreasing the population. The Catholic Church with their belief in the Sanctity of LIfe Principle believe the supply of food would be an area better focused on.
20 Jun 07
2 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat constitutes intelligence is a very separate question from how it is facilitated in a particular instance. With humans it involves a biological nervous system, sure. With other species/life-forms it simply needn't.
[b]Since intelligence is measured by the abilities of your brain, which is part of your nervous system, I don't think that this is possible.
What constitutes intelligence is a very separate question from how it is facilitated in a particular instance. With humans it involves a biological nervous system, sure. With other species/life-forms it si e right to vote while the 18-yr old citizen of a state with a minimum voting age of 18 is?[/b]
As I already said, intelligence is measured by the abilities of your brain. If you want to use some other definition of intelligence, you will have to explain what it is before you ask me whether organisms possessing it have rights.
So, an 18-yr old citizen of a state that has a minimum voting age of 21 is not old enough to handle the responsibility of the right to vote while the 18-yr old citizen of a state with a minimum voting age of 18 is?
yes. The citizens of society decide for themselves on when things like the right and responsibility of voting should be granted. Really any line you draw for a right like voting is bound to be arbitrary on some level (17 vs 18). However, they are necessary to avoid things like a two year old having the right to vote, when they clearly are not ready for the responsibility.
20 Jun 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerExactly how is the Christian use of masculine language for God used as an excuse for women being second class citizens?
[b]yes. Especially when use use this belief as an excuse for why women should be second class citizens.
Exactly how is the Christian use of masculine language for God used as an excuse for women being second class citizens?
Ever heard of the crusades?Inquisition?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Catholic_Church
The Inquisitio ...[text shortened]... to the child growing in the womb as a "parasite"😉 render those accusations rather hollow.[/b]
A man controls the world and makes the rules, so women should just obey. Why else would women not be allowed any positions of power?
The Crusades were wars (in a sense), but defending your territory and civilisation against armed aggression and annexation is not "starting a war". Bad example; try again.
I don't really care how you want to define war. Both the crusades and the inquisition involved catholics killing lots of people in the name of the church. How is it not hypocrisy, then, to condemn abortion?
In this case, it does. Or are you going to tell me that organisms do not exist with undifferentiated cells?
An organism with undifferentiated cells does not equal an organism with differentiated cells.
There is a distinct possibility of death when having sex -- do you propose humans stop doing that as well?
You certainly have the right to choose to stop having sex if you want to, it's your body. The same thing applies to pregnancy and abortion.
]b]For all the accusations of misogyny you level at Christianity, your views above (and previously, in referring to the child growing in the womb as a "parasite"😉 render those accusations rather hollow.[/b]
How so? I am simply pointing out the fact that a fetus fits the definition of a parasite and that pregnancy is dangerous. I fail to see how this is misogynistic.
20 Jun 07
LH,
I understand what you are saying. You are saying that a facet of Amnesty International funds an
institution which you find immoral and repugnant. And, while they do a lot of good that other groups
cannot do and while the restrictions on them are pretty severe, they still fund what you consider evil.
I get this.
Can you then understand why American Roman Catholics would be reluctant to continue to give money
to the Church, despite the good She does, because it is evident that She protected pedophiles rather
than turning them over to the police for prosecution, and continues to deny this?
Nemesio
20 Jun 07
Originally posted by NemesioAnd similarly, how do you deal with a government that has some good and some bad policies?
Can you then understand why American Roman Catholics would be reluctant to continue to give money
to the Church, despite the good She does, because it is evident that She protected pedophiles rather
than turning them over to the police for prosecution, and continues to deny this?
Nemesio
20 Jun 07
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesWhat percentage of mothers are men? Wives? Daughters?
What percentage of priests ordained by the Catholic Church are women?
How about for Bishops, Cardinals, and Popes?
subjugate: To make subservient; enslave
Explain how the fact of male-reserved ordination "subjugates" women.
(Btw, there is no canonical impediment to women being cardinals. I fully expect one within the next few years)
20 Jun 07
Originally posted by whiteroseShe isn't actually doing anything to the child's body -- it's not like she's stabbing it with a knife or anything.
I thought we were talking about the baby. She can do whatever she wants to her own body. That doesn't necessarily mean that she can do whatever she wants to someone else's body.
Why does the Government have the right to force her body to take care of (directly or indirectly) the child's?