Amen.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Actually, "pro-life" is probably a term that originated in opposition to the equally emotional "pro-choice" moniker.

Classic sentence--"actually, it's probably..."

Wikipedia history--

"While "anti-abortion" is the neutral term most often used in news accounts, many people within the movement prefer to call their beliefs "pro-life" or "right-to-life", names that began to appear in the early 1960s. This designation is a controversial, perhaps even loaded, term because it takes for granted that an embryo or fetus qualifies as a full living human, complete with concomitant human rights. This assumes precisely the point that is in controversy, in that many would say that a fertilized egg does not deserve the same consideration as a woman. The term is also ambiguous with regard to whether quality of life or quantity of life is at issue, and even seems to imply that the alternative is "anti-life" or even "pro-death", both of which sound monstrous. Specifically, it appears to imply that abortion is homicide or even murder.

In response to this, those in the abortion-rights movement have accepted the label of pro-choice, which reflects their support for the woman's legal right to choose whether or not to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term. This is consistent with the possibility that someone is against abortion but supports the woman's right to choose. Some in this movement even reverse the term so as to brand the anti-abortion movement as anti-choice, which is factually correct."

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]"Pro-life" is a label given by the vatican to some of its practices in order to promote them with an emotional appeal.

Actually, "pro-life" is probably a term that originated in opposition to the equally emotional "pro-choice" moniker.

It is inconsistent when those practices lead to children being born with HIV and an overall inc ...[text shortened]... uganda.htm
(See the "Why was Uganda's response so effective?" section halfway down the page)

[/b]Actually, "pro-life" is probably a term that originated in opposition to the equally emotional "pro-choice" moniker.

Pro-choice is a good label because it expresses the fundamental idea of the movement. Pro-life doesn't mean anything.

Is it? Do you have the actual statistics to back this up?
Yes, I do.
http://www.unaids.org/wad2004/EPIupdate2004_html_en/epi04_00_en.htm

Just read the "until death do us part" highlight. You'll also find the statistics on your Uganda example.

And for your information the ABC approach (used by Uganda) explicitely promotes the use of condoms. What do you think the C stands for?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Classic sentence--"actually, it's probably..."

Wikipedia history--

"While "anti-abortion" is the neutral term most often used in news accounts, many people within the movement prefer to call their beliefs "pro-life" or "right-to-life", names that began to appear in the early 1960s. This designation is a controversial, perhaps even loade ...[text shortened]... the term so as to brand the anti-abortion movement as anti-choice, which is factually correct."

Classic sentence--"actually, it's probably..."

Is there a point here or is it just another example of the 'proof by sarcasm'* technique that has been perfected by the liberals on this forum?

This assumes precisely the point that is in controversy

But the moniker "pro-choice" doesn't?

This is consistent with the possibility that someone is against abortion but supports the woman's right to choose.

Right. I can be anti- but support the criminal's right to commit it?

Some in this movement even reverse the term so as to brand the anti-abortion movement as anti-choice, which is factually correct."

No points for guessing the ideology of this author.

Peace,

LH
---
* "I can make a sarcastic comment about your position; therefore you are wrong."

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Is there a point here or is it just another example of the 'proof by sarcasm'* technique that has been perfected by the liberals on this forum?

This assumes precisely the point that is in controversy

But the moniker "pro-choice" doesn't?

This is consistent with the pos ,

LH
---
* "I can make a sarcastic comment about your position; therefore you are wrong."

Dear me.

Your sentence makes it clear that you are taking an authoritative stance (actually) on something you have no clear evidence for (probably). (It seems that pro-choice was actually coined in opposition to pro-life.)

Pro-choice can never be as emotionally loaded as pro-life, because death holds greater sway over people's emotions than choice. (A blanket assumption to be sure, but do you dispute it?)

Many people are not in favour of abortion but weigh in on the side of choice--I know that is Nemesio's stance (hands up the rest of you). (Who mentioned criminals, or was that a Freudian slip?)

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Ridiculous. A gem.

Yes this is a classic.

It can be quoted whenever LucifersHammer criticises others opinion.

Such ignorance and blind support for faith has never before been seen on these posts.

Originally posted by Palynka
Actually, "pro-life" is probably a term that originated in opposition to the equally emotional "pro-choice" moniker.

Pro-choice is a good label because it expresses the fundamental idea of the movement. Pro-life doesn't mean anything.

Is it? Do you have the actual statistics to back this up?
Yes, I do.
http://www.unaids.org/wad ...[text shortened]... ch (used by Uganda) explicitely promotes the use of condoms. What do you think the C stands for?[/b]

Pro-choice is a good label because it expresses the fundamental idea of the movement. Pro-life doesn't mean anything.

Pro-life simply means that the right to life trumps all other rights.

Let's not get into a silly debate over two equally emotionally loaded terms.

Yes, I do.

Let's go back over your assertion:

[The discouraging of condom use] is inconsistent [with a pro-life position] when those practices lead to children being born with HIV and an overall increase in contaminated individuals.

Let me rephrase my question - do you have any statistics to show that the teachings of the Church are directly responsible for the increase of AIDS incidence in Africa? And what percentage of this increase is despite adherence to the Church's other teachings on abstinence and fidelity, particularly among men?

Just read the "until death do us part" highlight. You'll also find the statistics on your Uganda example.

This box has an interesting quote:

Women and girls often lack the power to abstain from sex or to insist on condom use—even when they suspect that the man has had other sexual partners and might be infected with HIV.

For one thing, the male in question has already violated Church teaching on fidelity. There's nothing to prevent him from violating Church teaching on condoms as well. It would be silly for him (and you) to blame the Church teachings on the latter when the former, much more crucial, has been ignored.

Second, in Asia and Africa, the use of condoms is culturally seen as being a hindrance to enjoyable sex. Even if the Church permitted the use of condoms, many men would simply not use them anyhow for cultural reasons. And, as pointed above, the women would have no power to force them.

And for your information the ABC approach (used by Uganda) explicitely promotes the use of condoms. What do you think the C stands for?

I know what the C stands for. That doesn't detract from the fact that condom-focus programs have had nowhere near the success that abstinence-focus programs have.

Originally posted by Palynka
"Pro-life" is a label given by the vatican to some of its practices in order to promote them with an emotional appeal.

It is inconsistent when those practices lead to children being born with HIV and an overall increase in contaminated individuals. When the situation of Africa is what it is, I find it hypocritical to call such discouragements pro-life.

When the situation of Africa is what it is, I find it hypocritical to call such discouragements pro-life.

Uganda (the only African country to turn its HIV infection rate around) used mainly abstainance-based prevention programs. The liberal press might not like it, but it's been one of the few success stories in a very hard-hit continent.

I am of the opinion that free-for-all condom approaches compound the HIV problem - especially in Africa.

Edit1: I notice the Uganda chain has been yanked before.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Dear me.

Your sentence makes it clear that you are taking an authoritative stance (actually) on something you have no clear evidence for (probably). (It seems that pro-choice was actually coined in opposition to pro-life.)

Pro-choice can never be as emotionally loaded as pro-life, because death holds grea ...[text shortened]... io's stance (hands up the rest of you). (Who mentioned criminals, or was that a Freudian slip?)

Pro-choice can never be as emotionally loaded as pro-life, because death holds greater sway over people's emotions than choice.

Does it always? Especially when talking about cases of euthanasia (particularly regarding severely mentally or physically disabled persons), it's not so clear.

Who mentioned criminals, or was that a Freudian slip?

Nothing Freudian about it. I'm merely pointing out that it's incoherent to hold an anti-abortion stance (with the perspective of unborn child having right to life etc.) and simultaneously uphold an abortionist's right to choose.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
Does it always? Especially when talking about cases of euthanasia (particularly regarding severely mentally or physically disabled persons), it's not so clear.

[b]Who mentioned criminals, or was that a Freudian slip?

Nothing Freudian about it. I'm merely pointing out that it's incoherent to hold an anti-abortion stance (with the perspecti ...[text shortened]... rn child having right to life etc.) and simultaneously uphold an abortionist's right to choose.[/b]

a) Someone ought to run an emotional semantics test for the comparative emotional impact of the terms in question. Anyway, abortion was the original context from which the terms arose--euthanasia etc are extensions, not necessarily shared by people who favour choice in the matter of abortion--so take your red herring somewhere else.

b) Being against abortion doesn't necessarily entail being a pro-lifer. So, I might not be in favour of abortion and do everything I can to persuade someone not to have one, but it doesn't necessarily follow that I must view people who abort as criminals.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
a) Someone ought to run an emotional semantics test for the comparative emotional impact of the terms in question. Anyway, abortion was the original context from which the terms arose--euthanasia etc are extensions, not necessarily shared by people who favour choice in the matter of abortion--so take your red herring somewhere else.

b) Being agains ...[text shortened]... to have one, but it doesn't necessarily follow that I must view people who abort as criminals.

Anyway, abortion was the original context from which the terms arose

'Choice' and 'life' have wider implications than just abortion - and it is not always clear-cut which way a person's barometer will swing.

so take your red herring somewhere else.

Funny - I don't recall you saying anything about "red herrings" when hg brought up the Inquisition.

Being against abortion doesn't necessarily entail being a pro-lifer.

How would you construct a basis for being anti-abortion (let's just use pro- and anti-abortion to cut down on the emotional rhetoric) that is not pro-life?

I suppose one could think of abortion as being something that is just distasteful (rather like wearing casuals to a black-tie affair) rather than based on fundamental issues like rights.

EDIT: Besides, a person who personally would not go for an abortion but supports the rights of abortionists is pro-abortion, not anti-abortion. The two positions represent normative objective positions, not subjective ones.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

Funny - I don't recall you saying anything about "red herrings" when hg brought up the Inquisition.

[b]Being against abortion doesn't necessarily entail being a pro-lifer.

How would you construct a basis for being anti-abortion (let's just use pro- and anti-abortion to cut down on the emotional rhetoric) that is not pro-life? ...[text shortened]... ike wearing casuals to a black-tie affair) rather than based on fundamental issues like rights. [/b]

Halitose is the official red herring spotter in these parts. He identified HG's catch as a red herring. I'm not sure that it is.

Nemesio anti-abortion and pro-choice. Haven't you read his countless posts detailing his stance on the matter? I refer you to them.

TTFN

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Halitose is the official red herring spotter in these parts. He identified HG's catch as a red herring. I'm not sure that it is.

Nemesio anti-abortion and pro-choice. Haven't you read his countless posts detailing his stance on the matter? I refer you to them.

TTFN

Nemesio anti-abortion and pro-choice. Haven't you read his countless posts detailing his stance on the matter? I refer you to them.

I know of Nemesio's position, though not the reasoning behind it. Do you have a link?

Besides, as I pointed out in my edit to the last post, pro-abortion and anti-abortion are normative positions, not personal ones. So, even if Nemesio would not personally abort a child, he is still pro-abortion in the same way that a person is still pro-death penalty even if he would not personally execute a criminal or try to have one executed.

EDIT: What's 'TTFN'?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Nemesio anti-abortion and pro-choice. Haven't you read his countless posts detailing his stance on the matter? I refer you to them.

I know of Nemesio's position, though not the reasoning behind it. Do you have a link?

Besides, as I pointed out in my edit to the last post, pro-abortion and anti-abortion are normative positions, not perso ...[text shortened]... would not personally execute a criminal or try to have one executed.

EDIT: What's 'TTFN'?[/b]

EDIT: What's 'TTFN'?

You didn't watch Winnie the Pooh?! You missed half your childhood! 😵😵

Ta Ta For Now

Originally posted by howardgee
Ivanhoe, LH, all you Catholics out there;

you should watch this film.

It is based in fact and demonstrates how your wonderful religious organisation has helped God's people in recent history.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0280653/

As I tried to explain in my first post in this thread (the second post in this thread) this film, this thread's subject, is an attempt to place the Roman-Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic faith and Pope Pius XII in a very negative light. As I have indicated this film is based on a play, "Der Stellvertreter" by the German author Rolf Hochhuth, not a man who is famous for his conscientious historic scientific work, on the contrary. For this I can refer, among other things, to his friendship with ánd his defense of the British historian, David Irving, a far-right advocate and a notorious holocaust denier.

Hochhuth's play, Soldiers, Necrology on Geneva (1967) criticizes the allied bombing campaigns as war crimes and Winston Churchill as a war criminal. The play heavily relied on the work of the young British historian David Irving, whom I mentioned earlier.

Originally posted by ivanhoe
As I tried to explain in my first post in this thread (the second post in this thread) this film, this thread's subject, is an attempt to place the Roman-Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic faith and Pope Pius XII in a very negative light. As I have indicated this film is based on a play, "Der Stellvertreter" by the German author Rolf Hochhuth, not a man ...[text shortened]... e of the British historian, David Irving, a far-right advocate and a notorious holocaust denier.

That's a weird friendship - a Holocaust-denier and an anti-Piusist.

Then again, they probably had a lot in common that the Holocaust didn't matter. Chess, perhaps?