ans Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 I don't think Chinahand needs you to hold his/her hand somehow. Suggest you direct your replies to him by PM if you don't want anyone else to respond. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted March 8, 2009 Share Posted March 8, 2009 Whatever, I'm not rising to your trolling. Back on topic, I don't see exactly what the issue is in this thread. If one can divorce oneself from the nature of the crime, then it remains that the life of the mother has been selected as more important than the lives of the foetuses. The Catholic Church quite clearly states that it is against direct abortion in all circumstances and if you believe that life starts at conception then it is easy to see where they are coming from on that. The actions of the child's mother and the doctors are incompatible with the church so excommunication seems a practical direction for all parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I don't think Chinahand needs you to hold his/her hand somehow. And it's not trolling, it's discussion. It's a very sensitive subject, abortion, and I sympathise somewhat with the Catholic Church's position on it. (Although I admit I missed that medical reference in the article). So you "sympathise" with the God Squad's position on abortion? Fair enough. Unfortunately they also condemn the use of barrier contraception. Do you "sympathise" with their stance on that as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theman Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Whatever, I'm not rising to your trolling. Back on topic, I don't see exactly what the issue is in this thread. If one can divorce oneself from the nature of the crime, then it remains that the life of the mother has been selected as more important than the lives of the foetuses. The Catholic Church quite clearly states that it is against direct abortion in all circumstances and if you believe that life starts at conception then it is easy to see where they are coming from on that. The actions of the child's mother and the doctors are incompatible with the church so excommunication seems a practical direction for all parties. lol but IF there where no Catholic Church bu115hit . hmmmmm Eggzakly.,;'... the world would of ended by now..by Overpopulation if it wer not for the ,,,,,,,,,,,.,.;bl00dy....belief in something eg gods!& 5h17...BIG (eg)..no sex before marriage .... it has good points tha Catholic Church.....,.,.,.,.ps. lol dude if you cud put a time cap on are planit what woud it be . ... god rest her soul or let think that poor poor kid''''''Nn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 they also condemn the use of barrier contraception. Do you "sympathise" with their stance on that as well? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share Posted March 9, 2009 if you believe that life starts at conception then it is easy to see where they are coming from on that. The actions of the child's mother and the doctors are incompatible with the church so excommunication seems a practical direction for all parties. I have a very different point of view than the soul bestowing dogma of the Catholic Church. In my view life is not created at conception - life was created eons and eons ago when the glory of physics and chemistry resulted in reactions which replicated. How this occured in detail nobody yet knows, but for an idea of the principles and current state of the art and/or . I doubt there was a single event in a single place which suddenly produced a clear distinction between life and non-life - rather muds and crystals and lipid oils floating as scum on pools of water slowly developed the ability to reproduce with variation - at this time there would be such continual swapping of chemistry that the idea of inheritance would be combined with the idea of exchange, but the result would be enough to start off an evolutionary process of which we and all life on earth are all the inheritors. I feel there is a huge majesty in the idea that these early sparks of life are still burning now - passed on in every baby, in every flower, in every bird and bee - and in every E. Coli, H5N1 and HIV! A pregnancy is the process by which life is passed on from mother to child. There is no inevitability to that process - every month a woman attempts to pass on her life and bleeds her failure away - an event seen as making her unclean and sinful if you have certain religious points of view. Men waste their seed by the hundreds of million and even when sperm and egg unite fewer than one in three are able to recieve that gift of life which is being attempted to be passed on to them. The Catholic church's point of view is that a woman must be forced to pass on her life. Quite simply I find that attitude repugnant - this example is a 9 year old child. Just think about that for a second - oh yes she could ovulate - to be blunt, so? What is your point? She was 9 years old. More than likely raised in poverty, and worse than that abused by those who should have nurtured and protected her. Passing on life should be seen as a precious thing - it should not be undertaken carelessly, lightly, or selfishly, but reverently, responsibly, and after serious thought (to take words from a ceremony celebrating another keypoint in life - a marriage). I could not disagree more with the idea that if an egg so much as meets a sperm then that collection of cells suddenly becomes embued with a soul and all the same rights as a person. That bunch of cells will only be able to inherit life if it is put in an environment suitable for it to be developed. It must be nurtured and cared for not only in the 9 or so months it is in the womb, but for years after. Life is too precious to force a child to become a mother just because she has been raped. I see nothing divine in that. Suffer the little children someone said. I do not think that should be twisted to make them suffer for a dogma that holds a sperm, or a foetus more precious than that of the life of a little girl. Edited to add another link and spelling and stuff! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I have a very different point of view than the soul bestoying dogma of the Catholic Church. I'm not sure if you meant bestowing or destroying but nevertheless I sympathise with your point of view as well. There's never going to be a general consensus on abortion, plenty of agnostics are anti abortion so it's not purely a Catholic thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share Posted March 9, 2009 I can't spell - it was meant to be bestowing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Are you sure about that? Destroying would make more sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted March 9, 2009 Author Share Posted March 9, 2009 As far as I'm aware the Catholic Church believes Souls cannot be destroyed, merely created - and if life starts at conception then the vast vast majority are in hell - unbabtised and subject to original sin. For every sinner that walks this earth there are at least one or two that never got beyond the zygote stage and so with no hope of redemption - how does a zygote ask for grace? - were consigned down below! I genuinely ask - how the heck can people believe this crap? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 I genuinely ask - how the heck can people believe this crap? I don't know - someone who does believe it would have to answer that, and there are no shortage of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 Although, for personal reasons, I despise and detest the Roman Catholic church, I can appreciate the point that, because of it's dogmatic stance on the issue, the excommunication of those involved was inevitable. It is not simply that religion is dangerous. The dogma that is attached to it is the true evil - and the same can be said of all forms of determinism, whatever it's basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jehovah Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 The nine year old CHILD VICTIM is punished by losing all support of the catholic church, probably the only type of social support available in her society. Pity her. The doctor chooses science and proven fact over superstition and unproven ideology Praise him/her The church punishes a child who has been brutalised Shame on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Posted March 9, 2009 Share Posted March 9, 2009 This whole case just fills me with disgust and sadness. I agree with Jehovah though, shame on the church. Idiots, total idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted March 18, 2009 Share Posted March 18, 2009 Papal foot in papal mouth time again Popes attack on condoms sickens aids campaigners Really not on this planet at all is he? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.