Vatican accuses Amnesty of immorality

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[Mind-reader alert!]

How do you equate a fully sentient man with a 2 hour-old infant and afford them equal rights?


The rest of your post is just radical feminist plonk.

Shall we start with the capacity to feel pain? Or how about the fact that they are both independantly viable human beings?

In any case, I wouldn't necessarily afford them completely equal rights (children are not afforded completely equal rights with adults in most countries)

No answer to the rest of my post, huh? Why is it that you consider God to be male? Why is it that it is fine for men to start wars and kill thousands, but God forbid a woman wants to get rid of a parasitic ball of cells within her own body?
I'll bet these questions will just be dismissed as well, because you don't have answers for them.

Originally posted by whiterose
Shall we start with the capacity to feel pain? Or how about the fact that they are both independantly viable human beings?

In any case, I wouldn't necessarily afford them completely equal rights (children are not afforded completely equal rights with adults in most countries)

No answer to the rest of my post, huh? Why is it that you consider God to b ...[text shortened]... bet these questions will just be dismissed as well, because you don't have answers for them.

Why converse with these religious idiots? Just insult them.

Originally posted by whiterose
Shall we start with the capacity to feel pain? Or how about the fact that they are both independantly viable human beings?

In any case, I wouldn't necessarily afford them completely equal rights (children are not afforded completely equal rights with adults in most countries)

No answer to the rest of my post, huh? Why is it that you consider God to b ...[text shortened]... bet these questions will just be dismissed as well, because you don't have answers for them.

Amazing how some women exude warmth as they progress through their motherhood whereas you call such the fetus, "a parasitic ball of cells". Of course, that assertion is not even true: By week three the embryo loses its "ball" shape and by week four, the cells have already begun to differentiate.

Originally posted by shavixmir
From the BBC:
[i]The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating money to Amnesty International, accusing the human rights group of promoting abortion.

The Vatican also said it was suspending all financial aid to Amnesty over what it said was the group's recent change of policy on the issue.

Amnesty said it was not promoting abortion as a univ ...[text shortened]... ly stand humans up to a certain degree before that I feel they need a lesson teaching.

Maybe you'll get lucky and get a lesson just for you.
It's good to see that you're up on things going on around the world. It's to bad you're powerless to do anything about it.

Does this post make you angry. I guess I'm just looking for a fight today.

Originally posted by Conrau K
By week three the embryo loses its "ball" shape and by week four, the cells have already begun to differentiate.[/b]

Which means that before week 3 it is, as I said, an undifferentiated ball of cells. Pregnancy can be a wonderful thing for some women. However, for others it can be pure torture which they should not be forced to endure against their will.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If all you want to do is fund abortion, why not Planned Parenthood?

EDIT: Sorry, forgot. The Government already does that on behalf of its people.

No, if I were pro-abortion, I'd send money directly to abortion clinics. I am against people telling me who I can and can't support financially (or vote for in an election, etc.), especially when they've selected one small item of a huge package and focused on that. It is quite unlikely that there will be an agency or person with whom I agree 100%, but when an entity decides to proclaim for me what should matter most to me, I get annoyed, and that tends to lead to defiance. Generally I don't like being told what to do anyway.

You must have missed a day in mind-reading class -- my focus was not on If all you want to do is fund abortion... but rather on the RCC deciding that this one spot of the huge organization was enough to not support it. I can't help but believe that there is more to the RCC's stance than that.

Originally posted by whiterose
Shall we start with the capacity to feel pain? Or how about the fact that they are both independantly viable human beings?

In any case, I wouldn't necessarily afford them completely equal rights (children are not afforded completely equal rights with adults in most countries)

No answer to the rest of my post, huh? Why is it that you consider God to b ...[text shortened]... bet these questions will just be dismissed as well, because you don't have answers for them.

Shall we start with the capacity to feel pain?

Sure, let's start there. How do you define 'capacity to feel pain'?

Also, I'm sure you're aware that there exist neurological conditions that mean persons cannot feel pain. Do they not have rights?


Or how about the fact that they are both independantly viable human beings?

'Viability' is a biological term -- why should it be morally determinant?

And how is a newborn baby 'independent'? If all you mean is biological, then my question above stands.


In any case, I wouldn't necessarily afford them completely equal rights

Are you saying that they do not actually possess rights until the State/Society grants them those rights?


No answer to the rest of my post, huh?

No non-trivial ones, no.

Why is it that you consider God to be male?

Of course I don't consider God to be literally male. Orthodox (small-o) Christian theologians understand that the term is used in an analogical sense. We consider God male because that is how He revealed Himself -- as Father.

Why is it that it is fine for men to start wars and kill thousands ...

Who said it was fine for anyone (men or women) to start wars?

but God forbid a woman wants to get rid of a parasitic ball of cells within her own body?

1. Because the "ball of cells" is a human being.
2. Because the "ball of cells" is not a parasite.

Originally posted by pawnhandler
No, if I were pro-abortion, I'd send money directly to abortion clinics. I am against people telling me who I can and can't support financially (or vote for in an election, etc.), especially when they've selected one small item of a huge package and focused on that. It is quite unlikely that there will be an agency or person with whom I agree 10 ...[text shortened]... ot support it. I can't help but believe that there is more to the RCC's stance than that.

There isn't. It's quite simple -- abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. No matter what other good an organisation does, if it supports such killing, it's off the list.

As I asked bbarr, would you support Amnesty Int'l if it, say, facilitated the killing of black people?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
abortion is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being.

Dude.
Duder.
El Duderino.

Let me run this by you one more time:

1. If a pregnant woman commits suicide, does the foetus live?
No.

2. If a pregnant woman wants to chop off her fingers, is this her own choice?
Yes.

3. If a pregnant woman wants to get rid of anything of her own body, is this her choice?
Yes.

4. If in so doing she destroys something that needs her to be sustained, is this her own choice?
Yes.

And so there you have it.
IT IS HER OWN CHOICE.

Now, agree with it or not, you're gonna have to live with it. It is her choice, end of story.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Dude.
Duder.
El Duderino.

Let me run this by you one more time:

1. If a pregnant woman commits suicide, does the foetus live?
No.

2. If a pregnant woman wants to chop off her fingers, is this her own choice?
Yes.

3. If a pregnant woman wants to get rid of anything of her own body, is this her choice?
Yes.

4. If in so doing she destr ...[text shortened]...
Now, agree with it or not, you're gonna have to live with it. It is her choice, end of story.

If a mother starves her infant child to death because she does not want to use her body in activities that would feed it, would you say that's her own "CHOICE"?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If a mother starves her infant child to death because she does not want to use her body in activities that would feed it, would you say that's her own "CHOICE"?

There is, however, the slight difference of an infant child actually not being physically attached to, or 100% reliant on, solely the mother.

I think, when you look at it closely, that even you will notice the difference.

Originally posted by shavixmir
There is, however, the slight difference of an infant child actually not being physically attached to, or 100% reliant on, solely the mother.

I think, when you look at it closely, that even you will notice the difference.

You're right - the difference is only slight. In one case the difference is biological, in the other sociological. What makes one form of dependence more morally determinant than the other?

EDIT: Besides, the question was whether it was her own "CHOICE".

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You're right - the difference is only slight. In one case the difference is biological, in the other sociological. What makes one form of dependence more morally determinant than the other?

EDIT: Besides, the question was whether it was her own "CHOICE".

Yes. It could be my choice to murder you, but you're not physically 100% dependent on me, you're not growing inside me. Should I kill myself, I'm not automatically gonna take you down with me.

That is the difference.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Shall we start with the capacity to feel pain?

Sure, let's start there. How do you define 'capacity to feel pain'?

Also, I'm sure you're aware that there exist neurological conditions that mean persons cannot feel pain. Do they not have rights?


Or how about the fact that they are both independantly viable human beings?

'Via ...[text shortened]... ll of cells" is a human being.
2. Because the "ball of cells" is not a parasite.[/b]

How do you define 'capacity to feel pain'?"

Having a nervous system.

'Viability' is a biological term -- why should it be morally determinant?

Of course biology is morally determinant. You afford people different rights than other animals based on biology, why should this be any different?

Are you saying that they do not actually possess rights until the State/Society grants them those rights?

I am saying that a newborn baby does not possess the same rights as an adult. Do you think it should? If so, on what grounds?

Of course I don't consider God to be literally male." but......
We consider God male because that is how He revealed Himself -- as Father.

So you do consider God to be male. What a horrible, misogynistic religion. I suppose that's why you won't let women become priests or hold any other office of authority. It's a wonder any women adhere to your religion at all. I feel sorry for them.

Who said it was fine for anyone (men or women) to start wars?

The catholic church

1. Because the "ball of cells" is a human being.
2. Because the "ball of cells" is not a parasite.

1. As I said before, a ball of cells does not equal a human being. You have yet to show otherwise.

2.Parasite - An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.
I think that just about sums up what an embryo does.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
If a mother starves her infant child to death because she does not want to use her body in activities that would feed it, would you say that's her own "CHOICE"?

A mother can give her infant child to someone else to feed if she cannot/will not take care of it. The same cannot be said for the ball of cells growing inside her.