Catholic Church Calls for Civil Disobedience.

Makavali · November 25, 2009, 6:13am

[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Yes, let’s tell women what to do with their body parts. And two consenting adults getting married is just a perversion.

You’re missing the fact that they are protesting the government funding abortion clinics with tax dollars. While I think abortion should be legal, I am strongly against using tax dollars to fund abortions. If you “support a woman’s right to choose” why can’t you simply donate your money to an organization that funds abortions for people who can’t afford them? Why does the taxpayer have to foot the bill?[/quote]

No, it’s generally a purely religious exercise. I’ve never heard people protesting how tax money is being misused, I hear instead of how “life begins at conception” and other such bullshit.

Maybe the people so opposed to public funding of abortion should speak up more. Because that is a whole different kettle of fish and we’d probably agree a lot more.

Makavali · November 25, 2009, 7:17am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I can agree there is some crazy ass people (bigots), but if you look at the Catholic Church and her statements recently. They have been very, for the lack of the word I am thinking of, patient with other people’s beliefs.

Yes, the Catholic Church wishes that everyone would be part of the Church, but we also know that is God’s Will that will be done. [/quote]

When the Church changes its doctrine, it isn’t a sign that faith is wise, it merely shows that one of its dogmas has become untenable.

lanchefan1 · November 25, 2009, 6:28am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
JLu wrote:
milod wrote:
JLu wrote:
I asked what abortion laws say about the matter, not religious viewpoints.

Under current US law, all women have a right to an abortion provided by a licensed medical practitioner at any time prior to the birth of the child. The biological father of the child has no legal right to keep the child alive or to force an abortion against the mother’s wishes.

I’ve lost track of the current status of abortion funding in the evolving health care reform legislation currently under consideration by congress. At one point, abortion coverage would be paid for only by monies collected from insurance premiums, not general fund taxes. This is basically the status quo today for people who have health insurance that offers abortion coverage (i.e. most people in the United States). I don’t know how or if that has changed in the current versions of the bill.

Ok thanks for the response, this is exactly what I was wondering.

My next question then in response to this is if the woman decides to keep it and the man didn’t want it, is he still obligated to pay child support? I’m envisioning 2 situations that create a double-standard (maybe that’s not the right term, anyway); one in which the woman says “I can’t afford it/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and has the abortion meanwhile the man wanted to keep it, and the other in which the man says “I can’t afford this/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and the woman says tough beans fucker you get to pay me half your salary for the rest of your life because I want to keep it.

I do not think that it’s half the salary of the man, but for a 35,000 a year salary I think it is around 180 bucks every couple of weeks.[/quote]

Oh if only it was that easy! Most states have a formula worked based on both incomes, who pays for insurance, who pays for daycare and who has more “overnights” with the child.’

So you can see how this works based on all the data a person making around 40K/yr can get hit with $700 for one child per month.

lanchefan1 · November 25, 2009, 6:33am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Waaaaaaah. A bunch of christians bitching about their ‘freedom of conscience’ being threatened by the government. If they dont want the government meddling in their shit, then they need to stop forcing their superstitions on the government (mostly referring to the public school system here). What a bunch of hypocrites, as usual.

You’re as funny as a bag of dicks. Grow up, people can input their beliefs as much as they want. Freedom of speech.

People can voice their opinions on government-endorsed prayer in the schools all they want; but when they actually start forcing it into the schools, it’s not simply the freedom of speech that’s at issue.

Freedom of speech is: “I think public schools should endorse my religious beliefs.”
Far more is at stake when a government employee actually puts this into action.

Bottom line is they are still the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the country. Always crying about keeping their freedom of conscience intact but are all too willing to push their beliefs on every single individual they can possibly get their hands on.

If christians had their way, every public school child would grow up to be good little bigoted jesus-fearing citizen of the good 'ol Christian Nation of America.

Let me edit one part of this: I don’t dislike/wasn’t referring to all christians.
I’m only talking about the nut jobs that make it their mission to force their beliefs onto others.

I can agree there is some crazy ass people (bigots), but if you look at the Catholic Church and her statements recently. They have been very, for the lack of the word I am thinking of, patient with other people’s beliefs.

Yes, the Catholic Church wishes that everyone would be part of the Church, but we also know that is God’s Will that will be done. [/quote]

If only the church was more tolerent 10-20 years ago maybe I would still be part of it today. But alas when some of those same crazy ass people are you family talking out of their mouth and ass at the same time it’s easy to make a decision to walk away.

Vegita · November 25, 2009, 2:12pm

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Yes, let’s tell women what to do with their body parts. And two consenting adults getting married is just a perversion.

You’re missing the fact that they are protesting the government funding abortion clinics with tax dollars. While I think abortion should be legal, I am strongly against using tax dollars to fund abortions. If you “support a woman’s right to choose” why can’t you simply donate your money to an organization that funds abortions for people who can’t afford them? Why does the taxpayer have to foot the bill?

No, it’s generally a purely religious exercise. I’ve never heard people protesting how tax money is being misused, I hear instead of how “life begins at conception” and other such bullshit.

Maybe the people so opposed to public funding of abortion should speak up more. Because that is a whole different kettle of fish and we’d probably agree a lot more.[/quote]

It’s not just religious, it’s moral also. I’m anything but religious, yet I still feel scientifically, life begins ahen the sperm fertilizes the egg and a cell is created with DNA that is unique. I’m not so sure why this is hard to understand, I mean yea, it’s inhabiting the mothers womb, and the mother provides it nutrients to grow, but I’m pretty sure we could grow a human outside of a woman, so it is in fact a separate human life. It’s growing and consuming nutrients and excreting waste. That pretty much makes it a living organism. It has different DNA than the mother so that makes it not part of her body. Killing it is killing a human.

I don’t lose sleep over it but if you are going to have laws against killing humans, it should apply to all humans, not just only humans after a certain arbitrary stage in thier growth.

V

Brother_Chris · November 26, 2009, 4:28am

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
MeinHerzBrennt wrote:
Waaaaaaah. A bunch of christians bitching about their ‘freedom of conscience’ being threatened by the government. If they dont want the government meddling in their shit, then they need to stop forcing their superstitions on the government (mostly referring to the public school system here). What a bunch of hypocrites, as usual.

You’re as funny as a bag of dicks. Grow up, people can input their beliefs as much as they want. Freedom of speech.

People can voice their opinions on government-endorsed prayer in the schools all they want; but when they actually start forcing it into the schools, it’s not simply the freedom of speech that’s at issue.

Freedom of speech is: “I think public schools should endorse my religious beliefs.”
Far more is at stake when a government employee actually puts this into action.

Bottom line is they are still the biggest bunch of hypocrites in the country. Always crying about keeping their freedom of conscience intact but are all too willing to push their beliefs on every single individual they can possibly get their hands on.

If christians had their way, every public school child would grow up to be good little bigoted jesus-fearing citizen of the good 'ol Christian Nation of America.

Let me edit one part of this: I don’t dislike/wasn’t referring to all christians.
I’m only talking about the nut jobs that make it their mission to force their beliefs onto others.

I can agree there is some crazy ass people (bigots), but if you look at the Catholic Church and her statements recently. They have been very, for the lack of the word I am thinking of, patient with other people’s beliefs.

Yes, the Catholic Church wishes that everyone would be part of the Church, but we also know that is God’s Will that will be done.

If only the church was more tolerent 10-20 years ago maybe I would still be part of it today. But alas when some of those same crazy ass people are you family talking out of their mouth and ass at the same time it’s easy to make a decision to walk away.[/quote]

Well Sir, I welcome you back to the Church anytime. Drinks on me if I lived anywhere near you.

Brother_Chris · November 26, 2009, 4:29am

[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
JLu wrote:
milod wrote:
JLu wrote:
I asked what abortion laws say about the matter, not religious viewpoints.

Under current US law, all women have a right to an abortion provided by a licensed medical practitioner at any time prior to the birth of the child. The biological father of the child has no legal right to keep the child alive or to force an abortion against the mother’s wishes.

I’ve lost track of the current status of abortion funding in the evolving health care reform legislation currently under consideration by congress. At one point, abortion coverage would be paid for only by monies collected from insurance premiums, not general fund taxes. This is basically the status quo today for people who have health insurance that offers abortion coverage (i.e. most people in the United States). I don’t know how or if that has changed in the current versions of the bill.

Ok thanks for the response, this is exactly what I was wondering.

My next question then in response to this is if the woman decides to keep it and the man didn’t want it, is he still obligated to pay child support? I’m envisioning 2 situations that create a double-standard (maybe that’s not the right term, anyway); one in which the woman says “I can’t afford it/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and has the abortion meanwhile the man wanted to keep it, and the other in which the man says “I can’t afford this/I’m not ready/insert other excuse” and the woman says tough beans fucker you get to pay me half your salary for the rest of your life because I want to keep it.

I do not think that it’s half the salary of the man, but for a 35,000 a year salary I think it is around 180 bucks every couple of weeks.

Oh if only it was that easy! Most states have a formula worked based on both incomes, who pays for insurance, who pays for daycare and who has more “overnights” with the child.’

So you can see how this works based on all the data a person making around 40K/yr can get hit with $700 for one child per month.[/quote]

Just going off what my father used to have to pay my mother for my child support coughher gambling habitcough

Brother_Chris · November 26, 2009, 4:37am

[quote]Vegita wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Yes, let’s tell women what to do with their body parts. And two consenting adults getting married is just a perversion.

You’re missing the fact that they are protesting the government funding abortion clinics with tax dollars. While I think abortion should be legal, I am strongly against using tax dollars to fund abortions. If you “support a woman’s right to choose” why can’t you simply donate your money to an organization that funds abortions for people who can’t afford them? Why does the taxpayer have to foot the bill?

No, it’s generally a purely religious exercise. I’ve never heard people protesting how tax money is being misused, I hear instead of how “life begins at conception” and other such bullshit.

Maybe the people so opposed to public funding of abortion should speak up more. Because that is a whole different kettle of fish and we’d probably agree a lot more.

It’s not just religious, it’s moral also. I’m anything but religious, yet I still feel scientifically, life begins ahen the sperm fertilizes the egg and a cell is created with DNA that is unique. I’m not so sure why this is hard to understand, I mean yea, it’s inhabiting the mothers womb, and the mother provides it nutrients to grow, but I’m pretty sure we could grow a human outside of a woman, so it is in fact a separate human life. It’s growing and consuming nutrients and excreting waste. That pretty much makes it a living organism. It has different DNA than the mother so that makes it not part of her body. Killing it is killing a human.

I don’t lose sleep over it but if you are going to have laws against killing humans, it should apply to all humans, not just only humans after a certain arbitrary stage in thier growth.

V[/quote]

V,

I agree with you, most of the arguments I hear are just arbitrary ways of discriminating against other humans. So what if the unborn baby is dependent on the mother, so is a week old new born. Not many week old new born babies taking care of themselves, yet the mother does not have the right to kill the baby just because it is dependent on her body and she has choice over her body.

Makavali · November 26, 2009, 6:04am

[quote]Vegita wrote:
It’s not just religious, it’s moral also. I’m anything but religious, yet I still feel scientifically, life begins ahen the sperm fertilizes the egg and a cell is created with DNA that is unique. I’m not so sure why this is hard to understand, I mean yea, it’s inhabiting the mothers womb, and the mother provides it nutrients to grow, but I’m pretty sure we could grow a human outside of a woman, so it is in fact a separate human life. It’s growing and consuming nutrients and excreting waste. That pretty much makes it a living organism. It has different DNA than the mother so that makes it not part of her body. Killing it is killing a human.

I don’t lose sleep over it but if you are going to have laws against killing humans, it should apply to all humans, not just only humans after a certain arbitrary stage in thier growth.

V[/quote]

Then how is sperm not a life? How is an egg not a life? Should we consider every menstruation murder? Not mention guys doing what guys do. Given advances in genetics in the recent years, every time you scratch your nose, you have just committed a holocaust. It’s a very gray area, and needs more study, away from sensationalist claims by people who aren’t like you (i.e. overly religious).

Personally, abortion makes me uncomfortable. I am not a huge fan. But I’m not going to tell a woman she isn’t allowed to have control over her body.

Stronghold · November 26, 2009, 7:15am

[quote]Makavali wrote:

Then how is sperm not a life? How is an egg not a life? [/quote]

Technically, a sperm or an egg is only 1/2 of a life.

Brother_Chris · November 26, 2009, 7:43am

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Vegita wrote:
It’s not just religious, it’s moral also. I’m anything but religious, yet I still feel scientifically, life begins ahen the sperm fertilizes the egg and a cell is created with DNA that is unique. I’m not so sure why this is hard to understand, I mean yea, it’s inhabiting the mothers womb, and the mother provides it nutrients to grow, but I’m pretty sure we could grow a human outside of a woman, so it is in fact a separate human life. It’s growing and consuming nutrients and excreting waste. That pretty much makes it a living organism. It has different DNA than the mother so that makes it not part of her body. Killing it is killing a human.

I don’t lose sleep over it but if you are going to have laws against killing humans, it should apply to all humans, not just only humans after a certain arbitrary stage in thier growth.

V

Then how is sperm not a life? How is an egg not a life? Should we consider every menstruation murder? Not mention guys doing what guys do. Given advances in genetics in the recent years, every time you scratch your nose, you have just committed a holocaust. It’s a very gray area, and needs more study, away from sensationalist claims by people who aren’t like you (i.e. overly religious).

Personally, abortion makes me uncomfortable. I am not a huge fan. But I’m not going to tell a woman she isn’t allowed to have control over her body.[/quote]

This is how I see it it, the argument on abortion comes down to one question. When do we consider the unborn baby a human (i.e. valuable).

If they say because it is inside the womb, that is a matter of location. That is like saying the people in Darfur are not valuable because of their location, and who ever kills them has the right.

If they say because it is dependent on the mother, that is a matter of level of dependency. You can compare it to a one year old jumping in the swimming pool and you are the last one to leave, that one year old is dependent only on you, 100% on you. So, should you be able to just leave that child die?

If they say because it is not developed, that is a matter of the level of development. That is equivalent to saying a two year old girl, since she has not developed her reproductive organs fully she is not as human as an 15 year old girl. And that two year old girl if her mother choose to do so because she is not as developed should be able to kill her.

If they say because it is small (usually stated it is only a mass of cells), that is matter of size. Again, because something is smaller than you it is okay to kill it? So a man should be able to kill a woman because he is bigger than her? A mother should be able to kill her two year old because the two year old is smaller than her?

And if they say it’s the woman’s choice, I believe in women choosing what to do with their body, but what if they have a nursing baby? Would the law see it justifiable if the woman killed her baby, or just stopped feeding it because it was using her energy? No, well why should they allow it when the woman choose to have sex. She should be responsible for her actions.

Makavali · November 26, 2009, 11:07am

[quote]Stronghold wrote:
Makavali wrote:

Then how is sperm not a life? How is an egg not a life?

Technically, a sperm or an egg is only 1/2 of a life.[/quote]

What about Chimeras? This arithmetic of yours doesn’t pan out in the real world.

EDIT: Or twins?

Makavali · November 26, 2009, 10:17am

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
This is how I see it it, the argument on abortion comes down to one question. When do we consider the unborn baby a human (i.e. valuable).

If they say because it is inside the womb, that is a matter of location. That is like saying the people in Darfur are not valuable because of their location, and who ever kills them has the right.

If they say because it is dependent on the mother, that is a matter of level of dependency. You can compare it to a one year old jumping in the swimming pool and you are the last one to leave, that one year old is dependent only on you, 100% on you. So, should you be able to just leave that child die?

If they say because it is not developed, that is a matter of the level of development. That is equivalent to saying a two year old girl, since she has not developed her reproductive organs fully she is not as human as an 15 year old girl. And that two year old girl if her mother choose to do so because she is not as developed should be able to kill her.

If they say because it is small (usually stated it is only a mass of cells), that is matter of size. Again, because something is smaller than you it is okay to kill it? So a man should be able to kill a woman because he is bigger than her? A mother should be able to kill her two year old because the two year old is smaller than her?

And if they say it’s the woman’s choice, I believe in women choosing what to do with their body, but what if they have a nursing baby? Would the law see it justifiable if the woman killed her baby, or just stopped feeding it because it was using her energy? No, well why should they allow it when the woman choose to have sex. She should be responsible for her actions.[/quote]

I think we can agree a two year old is human. A forming fetus is still in question, whether you like it or not. All you can hope for is better contraception, because the only thing that would remove the need for abortion sure as shit isn’t going to happen unless people stop being horny.

MikeyKBiatch · November 26, 2009, 2:11pm

When I was in high school(I graduated in 2003) there were quite a few people that did not take proper precautions against getting pregnant because of the fact that abortions were available. Maybe my reasoning is wrong here, but if we make abortion illegal people will have to be more responsible when it comes to sex. I mean look at all of the teen mothers out there.

I have talked to a few girls that ended up having their babies because they felt it would give them purpose and change their life and all of that bullshit that a selfish teenage girl thinks. Are they good moms now? Fuck no, their kids will end up as entitled as they are with just as many emotional problems too.

Pregnancy is so accepted these days for teens that noone blinks an eye if a girl gets knocked up. Yes that girl may have the maternal instinct to take care of that child, but no way in fuck does she have the life experience to raise the kid in an emotionally healthy manner. The guy will most likely not stick around because, well, look at our society and the way a lot of us have been raised.

Also in regards to a women’s choice, what about a guy’s choice? What if I want my damn sperm back? Oh hell no bitch your egg clearly assualted and harrased that poor lil guy while he was just peacefully swimming around and then ate him. You will be hearing from my lawyer.

JLu · November 26, 2009, 2:18pm

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Vegita wrote:
It’s not just religious, it’s moral also. I’m anything but religious, yet I still feel scientifically, life begins ahen the sperm fertilizes the egg and a cell is created with DNA that is unique. I’m not so sure why this is hard to understand, I mean yea, it’s inhabiting the mothers womb, and the mother provides it nutrients to grow, but I’m pretty sure we could grow a human outside of a woman, so it is in fact a separate human life. It’s growing and consuming nutrients and excreting waste. That pretty much makes it a living organism. It has different DNA than the mother so that makes it not part of her body. Killing it is killing a human.