1. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    29 Dec '06 20:44
    Originally posted by whiterose
    Because, in case you hadn't noticed, the planet is way overpopulated with humans at the moment.
    Which is one of the reasons I brought up this subject. We either bring the population down in some controlled manner or the forces that control the planet and our inept (understatement) way we are handling the environment will combine to crash the population in a way we would never want, IE, not being able to grow crops if the climate takes a dump, either hotter or colder, etc., and of course it would be the shortsightedness of the power elite who will precipitate this coming crisis so the population WILL go down, the main question is, can we overcome our religious indoctrination to do the job right, with birth control which precludes any talk of abortion. Just remember folks, if we don't do it the planet will do it for us but we won't like that result I venture to say.
  2. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    48441
    29 Dec '06 20:542 edits
    Originally posted by XanthosNZ
    When the Pope tells us it is.
    No, the universal Natural Moral Law tells us that.
  3. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    48441
    29 Dec '06 21:021 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    No, I haven't figured that one out. I do think, however, the RCC should get off its collective ash and allow birth control by direct means, like the pill, etc., so we can avoid the whole issue for the most part. If the sperm never meets the egg, there will be no abortion. Obviously, there will still be pregnancies in spite of any birth control but the absol ...[text shortened]... s the egg, even before the egg starts dividing, which is nuts in my perfectly unhumble opinion.
    It is a fairy tale that the RCC does not allow birth control.

    The RCC allows birth control, based on the natural infertile period of the woman. The Church objects to unnatural, artificial ways of birth control.
  4. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    48441
    29 Dec '06 21:37
    Originally posted by whiterose
    I never knew that the bible said life begins at birth. Why is it always the religious fundamentalists who insist that it begins at conception, then?
    Not just "religious fundamentalists" claim that human life begins at conception.


    Atheists and agnosts: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/

    Libertarians: http://www.l4l.org/

    Democrats: http://www.democratsforlife.org/

    Feminists: http://www.feministsforlife.org/

    Gays and lesbians: http://www.plagal.org/

    the liberal case against abortion: http://www.all-creatures.org/murti/pub-thelib.html

    Pagans: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/8383/




    Labelling all pro-life people as "religious fundamentalists" is a very popular fallacy, a very old trick, in the abortion debate.

    As you can see atheists and agnosts, feminists, libertarians, gays and lesbians, democrats, pagans and liberals can be pro-life.

    The abortion debate continues to suffer from this unhealthy and mind-narrowing dichotomy "Secular" vs "religious" in the American political landscape.

    Richard Dawkins is one of those people who advocate and promote this simplistic and silly dichotomy.
  5. Felicific Forest
    Joined
    15 Dec '02
    Moves
    48441
    29 Dec '06 21:571 edit
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Which is one of the reasons I brought up this subject. We either bring the population down in some controlled manner or the forces that control the planet and our inept (understatement) way we are handling the environment will combine to crash the population in a way we would never want, IE, not being able to grow crops if the climate takes a dump, either h ...[text shortened]... if we don't do it the planet will do it for us but we won't like that result I venture to say.
    Social Darwinism revisited.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

    We've seen this before.

    There are ways of solving problems other then killing (unborn) human beings !
  6. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    29 Dec '06 22:08
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    It is a fairy tale that the RCC does not allow birth control.

    The RCC allows birth control, based on the natural infertile period of the woman. The Church objects to unnatural, artificial ways of birth control.
    Just another case of a thrice damned church sticking its puke ridden nose where it doesn't belong. There is no mention of birth control one way or the other so it is just making up rules as it goes along. We all know how effective the 'natural' birth control method is. There is one reason and one reason only the RCC does not back real birth control:
    It wants more and more faithfully doctrinated Catholics so they can add even more riches to their sickening coffers and make more gold plated relics.
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    29 Dec '06 22:14
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Social Darwinism revisited.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

    We've seen this before.

    There are ways of solving problems other then killing (unborn) human beings !
    What the pig ridden hel do you think I am talking about here? I am trying to say if we use real birth control, pill, foam, whatever and NOT the "natural' way, there will be no need for abortion. I thought I made that clear in about 3 separate posts. I don't like the idea of abortion when the infant may have a brain capable of feeling pain so the real issue is this: why does the RCC stick to its sickening position on birth control? You notice, even if the RCC changes its mind, the birth rate in India is so great as to ruin on a planetary scale any birth control we appy in the west. China is actually machavellian about it, vigorously pursuing family size limitations. So I guess the RCC decision is just one step on the road to this impossibly insane population we humans have grown on this planet. If the whole planet contained say, one billion people instead of approaching ten, things would be one heck of a lot easier on the planet and we would be able to sustain that many for sure.
  8. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    29 Dec '06 22:31
    Originally posted by lucifershammer
    [b]The Bible is very clear the life begins at birth, literally, 'away from the womb.'

    Really? Where does it say that?[/b]
    I posted an entire treatment about where human life originates here about a year ago, entitled (erroneously) "Who Give Human Life?" I believe the thread was numbered 36516.
  9. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    29 Dec '06 22:32
    Originally posted by whiterose
    I never knew that the bible said life begins at birth. Why is it always the religious fundamentalists who insist that it begins at conception, then?
    See above response.
  10. lookin for a way out
    Joined
    12 Dec '06
    Moves
    4087
    30 Dec '06 01:11
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    I posted an entire treatment about where human life originates here about a year ago, entitled (erroneously) "Who Give Human Life?" I believe the thread was numbered 36516.
    Can't you just tell us where it is in the Bible? Saves me having to work out how to find your year old posting. Thanks 🙂
  11. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    30 Dec '06 01:18
    Originally posted by Pawn Qween
    Can't you just tell us where it is in the Bible? Saves me having to work out how to find your year old posting. Thanks 🙂
    For some things in life, there is no Reader's Digest version.
  12. Joined
    29 Oct '06
    Moves
    225
    30 Dec '06 01:32
    Originally posted by ivanhoe
    Not just "religious fundamentalists" claim that human life begins at conception.


    Atheists and agnosts: http://www.godlessprolifers.org/

    Libertarians: http://www.l4l.org/

    Democrats: http://www.democratsforlife.org/

    Feminists: http://www.feministsforlife.org/

    Gays and lesbians: http://www.plagal.org/

    the liberal case against abortion: ...[text shortened]... ins is one of those people who advocate and promote this simplistic and silly dichotomy.
    Being a Libertarian, Democrat, Feminist, Gay, lesbian, liberal, or pagan does not preclude being a religious fundamentalist. So my theory that the majority of people (of course not every single one, there are always exceptions) that believe abortion at any stage is morally wrong are religious fundamentalists still stands.
  13. Joined
    21 Jul '06
    Moves
    80
    30 Dec '06 01:501 edit
    I am inclined to think that the fact that abortion is in existance proves that this country has alienated itself from the God who their forefathers once trusted in and revered. Remember that the founders of America were wholly devoted the God and the Christ. Over the years, these doctrines have been diluted through our accptance of foreign rituals and religions until this present day. Abortion proves that the masses of this country(whoever they may be) only indulge themselves in the act of fornication for the sheer pleasure of it and they have abandoned the meaning of procreation. Therefore, I have concluded that the liberty of this country is the gift and curse which will ultimatley result in it's downfall. We accept the new ways and adopt the rituals which removes us from out original faith in the Christ. By doing this, we further indulge ourselves in in the pleasures of the world and sin.
  14. Unknown Territories
    Joined
    05 Dec '05
    Moves
    20408
    30 Dec '06 01:56
    Originally posted by royaltystatement
    I am inclined to think that the fact that abortion is in existance proves that this country has alienated itself from the God who their forefathers once trusted in and revered. Remember that the founders of America were wholly devoted the God and the Christ. Over the years, these doctrines have been diluted through our accptance of foreign rituals a ...[text shortened]... e Christ. By doing this, we further indulge ourselves in in the pleasures of the world and sin.
    Great historical revision, RS. You're either forgetting or in ignorance of the fact that abortion was practised without incident (albeit not common) until self-righteous arrogance became a more acceptable means of expressing one's religious beliefs in the 20th century.
  15. Joined
    21 Jul '06
    Moves
    80
    30 Dec '06 02:21
    Originally posted by FreakyKBH
    Great historical revision, RS. You're either forgetting or in ignorance of the fact that abortion was practised without incident (albeit not common) until self-righteous arrogance became a more acceptable means of expressing one's religious beliefs in the 20th century.
    Yet in the self-riteousness of man is he not self-riteous. Man cannot do anthing of his own. If one seeks to be riteous, only his God can declare such to him(she included). By way of our prosperity are we corrupted and in our pride we declare that the riches are our inheritance and we are the ones who acquired them. It remains so, it has been said on the anointed one, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of Heaven." By way of our pride are we corrupted indeed, and by our riches we declare ourselves self-riteous. We think that our wealth validates us and not our characteristics. It is true "The rich man trusts in his wealth. They imagine it an unscalable wall."
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree