- Status
B
benedictus2
Guest
AAhh, reason prevails. You are so right.I don’t get it!!
I double checked to see if I was in the correct topic and I keep reading different issues.
What women’s pay has to do with IS ABORTION EVER JUSTIFIED?
Because women are paid more or less than man, abortion exists? or
Are men now disputing the right to get pregnant?:
I’m just confused!!!
I’m not sticking to the title of the discussion?
Have a great weekend! I’m exhausted trying to figure it out!
Why is it that feminists always try to tie women’s rights to the right to kill their babies? Why is that the right to life only apply to those already living outside the womb when if they had been killed whilst still in the womb they would not have the chance to advocate for a right to their life at atll?
B
benedictus2
Guest
And I don’t expect you to.
Yes it had but of course you would not know about them. At Fatima. But then you would not know of such things. Again understandable.
Bad argument for atheism. But going along with your line of thinking, a lot of people already believe in One God or another.
Based on this site http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html;
Christians outnumber atheists two to 1. Not to mention if you include other theists such as Muslims, Jews, etc.
Yes God is responsible. But then again, you would not know that. That is for another thread which is currently ongoing called Dishonest Apologetics. You might want to put your two bits on that thread.
And how does that rebut my statement that God works through medicine as well? All that says is that God did not ordain for us to know the cause of the blackdeath early enough.
B
benedictus2
Guest
BTW, Since you have started posting again, may I remind you that you have not given an answer yet to my hypothetical about you, your daughter and the robber.
WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO ANSWER HMMM?
Surely, being of the pro-abortion persuasion, it should be so easy to say: I will let the robber shoot my baby so I will live.
L
limerick
Guest
**If you’re referring to my post regarding equal pay, please refer to page 34 of this thread, post number 498, wherein a new member made the unfortunate remark that “Men and women are equally in charge.”
Any woman, any reader**, who would let this slide needs to turn in her autonomy card and hang it up. It’s a disgraceful lack of awareness of what is going on in this country today. Maybe she’s never worked a day in her life. Maybe she worked in Daddy’s business and didn’t have to be concerned about job security, harassment, or any of the rest of it.
In any case, the “feminist” didn’t veer off to the extreme right on this thread; the newcomer did.
Limerick
S
St_Francis
Guest
We are endowed with free will not because God wanted us to do whatever we wanted to do, but because God wanted us to come to Him freely. It is a gift we are supposed to use *well, *not one given to us to do as we please with. We are supposed to be stewards of our free will and use it wisely.
You say that you recognize the right for other women to have abortions because they have a different moral standard than you do? So do you think that all laws should be abolished because they do not allow people to use their free will and decide what they will do? Maybe use their free will and decide that they will pay women less? Or maybe rape women or kill people?
I doubt it. You seemed quite excited by the fact that pay between men and women will be made equal by government fiat. Why do you think that that’s all right, but that saying that it is illegal for people to kill unborn babies is not all right? What about those who have different moral standards than you do when it comes to equal pay? Why can’t they be allowed to make their own decisions and be fully culpable for them like women who are considering killing their own babies?
B
benedictus2
Guest
No I wasn’t. I have not evern read any of your posts as I don’t have the time. Believe me if I have, I would have posted a reply.
And still to now I haven’t (even this post save for the first line) and will intentionally not read because I am already spending far too much time at CAF.
L
limerick
Guest
**
It may be so that God would be “pleased” if we chose wisely each and every time we were faced with a difficult decision. But free will is not free if strings are attached, or some codicil states that we may have it as long as we choose the high road. That is the dilemma of human existence. That is also the hook of temptation. We have all made decisions which were not in our best spiritual interests: unless you are superhuman you have done so as well. If God wants us to come to Him freely we must choose to do so. We are not hard-wired to do so.
This is the last time I am going to ask you to refrain from putting words in my mouth with regard to this subject. If you cannot interpret what I have said you may ask for further explanation, but your paraphrasing is intentional baiting and I am at the end of my patience with it. Yes, people use free will to rob banks, kill people, pursue a cure for Alzheimers and sponsor orphans. Yes, free will is in play in each of these activities. What do you not understand about that?
I do not** know that pay will be equalized by the government, and I’ve not yet lit all my sparklers over this issue. I have simply stated what the current figures are regarding male and female income in this country. You may say anything you want pertaining to abortion and whether or not I agree or endorse your opinion is immaterial. Since I have neither the power nor the inclination to persuade people to change their minds and opinions about such volatile topics, I live my life the best way I know how, attempting to “please” God, asking for His will to be done, asking for acceptance in all matters, not forcing my opinions on others but instead sharing another viewpoint. Take what you can use and leave the rest. If you can use none of it, that’s fine.
Limerick
L
limerick
Guest
**If you haven’t read the posts, how are you qualified to weigh in?No I wasn’t. I have not evern read any of your posts as I don’t have the time. Believe me if I have, I would have posted a reply.
Limeric**k
C
ceciliatherese
Guest
I’m not exactly sure what I said in my comment was wrong. I was stating that I’m not satisfied with the way women are treated today. What did I say that was wrong?
L
limerick
Guest
“Men and women are both equally in charge.
”Was this meant to be a joke? How is one to determine by this remark that you really meant that you are not satisfied with the way women are treated today? If so, you may want to consider how you present your humor on the internet, because someone like me who has been on the receiving end of rape and assault, robbery and other violence does not find it one bit funny. In context, you were responding to Cinette’s post which claimed, *"When I was a little girl I was so happy to be a little girl and now that I am a woman I continue to enjoy being a woman. I also love my gender - I think we have some wonderful attributes.
“H O W E V E R, I confess that we are inclined to be more aggressive than men. Men have done some stupid things and have made a mess of the world but if we were in charge we would probably have started World War III long ago!”*
**How did you intend for your post to be interpreted? And if you dare to think I am just a little over-the-top sensitive, consider my history: how would you expect me to respond? With a guffaw and a hee haw? The wage issue is only the tip of the iceberg here. Men and women are certainly not “equally in charge”. If you have a relationship like that you are in a rarified minority. Look around you. Read the paper. Check this world out. Do you truly see equality between the sexes?
Limerick **
D
djeter
Guest
The main discussion forum on the Archdiocese of Boston’s present mess with abortion was shut down after some made less than charitable comments about Archbishop O’Malley.
Over the weekend the Pilot, the Archdiocese’s newspaper issued a statement from the Cardinal that cast more smoke on the matter. Now it appears as though Caritas Christi is “requesting changes” in the agreement.
The more I read about this the more confused I get. I continue to follow the story from various sources and have posted the links and story to my blog. See below.
Over the weekend the Pilot, the Archdiocese’s newspaper issued a statement from the Cardinal that cast more smoke on the matter. Now it appears as though Caritas Christi is “requesting changes” in the agreement.
The more I read about this the more confused I get. I continue to follow the story from various sources and have posted the links and story to my blog. See below.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Since you have not previously asked me, I find your comment confusing.
The basic thrust of your comments has been that you do not think that it is right for anyone to do anything to influence one way or another a woman’s decision to kill her unborn child, as this decision comes under the heading of “free will,” according to you.
When others post that taking your statements to their logical conclusion means a bad outcome in other areas, you protest that they are putting words in your mouth.
Sorry, but it doesn’t really make sense to say that in one area you are ok with people doing whatever they please, when in other areas, you are not ok with their doing whatever they please.
If you are not attempting to persuade anyone of anything, what are you doing and why?
L
limerick
Guest
S
St_Francis
Guest
Thanks for explaining that
B
benedictus2
Guest
I am beginning to think that failure to read posts properly is spreading wildly like the swine flu.
First. I did not say I do not read THE posts. I said did not read YOUR post except for the first line of YOUR post that I responded to.
Secondly, when I do “weigh in”, I have read THE POST I am responding too (say Abaddon’s or someone else).
As far as I know, I have not responded to any of your posts except the one prior and now I am doing another reply.
If you re-read my post 541, I said NO I WASN’T meaning I was not responding to your post regarding equal pay.
I hope that clears that up.
L
limerick
Guest
**I am beginning to think that failure to read posts properly is spreading wildly like the swine flu.
First. I did not say I do not read THE posts. I said did not read YOUR post except for the first line of YOUR post that I responded to.
Secondly, when I do “weigh in”, I have read THE POST I am responding too (say Abaddon’s or someone else).
As far as I know, I have not responded to any of your posts except the one prior and now I am doing another reply.
If you re-read my post 541, I said NO I WASN’T meaning I was not responding to your post regarding equal pay.
I hope that clears that up.
Not really, but I’ll take your word for it.
Limerick**
N
NEWCATHOLICJEFF
Guest
Their are current abortion laws on the books…
Some people believe that no laws exist on abortion they do and they are often ignored. Some people have stated that disobeying laws are a crime and that the criminals should be punished, usually this is stated when condemning anti-abortion tactics, which I too believe should be peaceful, but laws should be enforced for all things and therefore IF a law is violated by an abortionist they should be held accountable. I think the question is to what standard. That answer is to the current legal standard, but like most laws in our land they will not change or become more stringent until people demand it to be so. The famous saying “For evil to win, good men but have to do nothing” applies.
Webster: In Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), the Supreme Court declared in a 5:4 decision that a Missouri law was constitutional. It stated that:
Human life began at conception, That Missouri state property could not be used to conduct abortions, and A fetal viability assessment could be required before late term abortions are performed. Akron Center:
In Ohio v Akron Ctr. for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502 (1990), the Court ruled 6:3 that a state could require a parent or guardian to be notified before an under-aged woman received an abortion. However, a provision must be in place for a judge to by-pass this requirement if he/she regards it to be in the best interest of the woman.
Casey: In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the court ruled 5:4 that Pennsylvania could require:
A 24 hour waiting period before an abortion is performed.
That the woman give her informed consent to the abortion.
That parent or guardian be notified before an abortion on a woman who has not reached her 18th birthday.
The above laws are on the books and are Federal so apply to all. Many states still have laws on the books that are currently unconstitutional due to Roe V Wade but if overturned will immediately take effect.
The questions that I pose to all abortionists for them to ponder is this…
If you transport a fetus or embryo to an artificial womb would that be acceptable? Or would an abortionist no longer cry for the rights of the wounded mother, but demand death because they argue no fetus or embryo has the “Right to Life” they are owned by the mother?
These questions are central to the question as to motive. If it is true that abortionist cling to the belief that it is only due to rights of the mother to end an association in order to maintain control of their body, then the “Transport” of the life satisfies these demands. If the end is more sinister then DEATH is the only payment that these mothers wish for their children.
Some people believe that no laws exist on abortion they do and they are often ignored. Some people have stated that disobeying laws are a crime and that the criminals should be punished, usually this is stated when condemning anti-abortion tactics, which I too believe should be peaceful, but laws should be enforced for all things and therefore IF a law is violated by an abortionist they should be held accountable. I think the question is to what standard. That answer is to the current legal standard, but like most laws in our land they will not change or become more stringent until people demand it to be so. The famous saying “For evil to win, good men but have to do nothing” applies.
Webster: In Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 492 U.S. 490 (1989), the Supreme Court declared in a 5:4 decision that a Missouri law was constitutional. It stated that:
Human life began at conception, That Missouri state property could not be used to conduct abortions, and A fetal viability assessment could be required before late term abortions are performed. Akron Center:
In Ohio v Akron Ctr. for Reproductive Health, 497 U.S. 502 (1990), the Court ruled 6:3 that a state could require a parent or guardian to be notified before an under-aged woman received an abortion. However, a provision must be in place for a judge to by-pass this requirement if he/she regards it to be in the best interest of the woman.
Casey: In Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), the court ruled 5:4 that Pennsylvania could require:
A 24 hour waiting period before an abortion is performed.
That the woman give her informed consent to the abortion.
That parent or guardian be notified before an abortion on a woman who has not reached her 18th birthday.
The above laws are on the books and are Federal so apply to all. Many states still have laws on the books that are currently unconstitutional due to Roe V Wade but if overturned will immediately take effect.
The questions that I pose to all abortionists for them to ponder is this…
If you transport a fetus or embryo to an artificial womb would that be acceptable? Or would an abortionist no longer cry for the rights of the wounded mother, but demand death because they argue no fetus or embryo has the “Right to Life” they are owned by the mother?
These questions are central to the question as to motive. If it is true that abortionist cling to the belief that it is only due to rights of the mother to end an association in order to maintain control of their body, then the “Transport” of the life satisfies these demands. If the end is more sinister then DEATH is the only payment that these mothers wish for their children.
C
ceciliatherese
Guest
I’m sorry if what I said offended you, and even more that you went through such terrible, terrible things. But my comment wasn’t meant to be a joke. I wasn’t intending to be funny. It was just supposed to have sounded pleasant in responding to Cinette instead of sounding snippety or whatever. I apologize though for upsetting you.“Men and women are both equally in charge.
Was this meant to be a joke? How is one to determine by this remark that you really meant that you are not satisfied with the way women are treated today? If so, you may want to consider how you present your humor on the internet, because someone like me who has been on the receiving end of rape and assault, robbery and other violence does not find it one bit funny. In context, you were responding to Cinette’s post which claimed, *"When I was a little girl I was so happy to be a little girl and now that I am a woman I continue to enjoy being a woman. I also love my gender - I think we have some wonderful attributes.
“H O W E V E R, I confess that we are inclined to be more aggressive than men. Men have done some stupid things and have made a mess of the world but if we were in charge we would probably have started World War III long ago!”*
**How did you intend for your post to be interpreted? And if you dare to think I am just a little over-the-top sensitive, consider my history: how would you expect me to respond? With a guffaw and a hee haw? The wage issue is only the tip of the iceberg here. Men and women are certainly not “equally in charge”. If you have a relationship like that you are in a rarified minority. Look around you. Read the paper. Check this world out. Do you truly see equality between the sexes?
Limerick **
I didn’t mean that terrible crimes like rape and assault against women don’t go on today. They certainly do. I was referring mainly to the fact that in the United States, generally, there isn’t much discrimination among men and women when it comes to general public life. That’s all I meant, and all I ever intended to mean.
L
limerick
Guest
**OK, then, we’ll just start over. I admit I can get a little animated on the topic.
Limerick**
- Status