Catholic Church Waging War on Women a...

Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays

There are 215229 comments on the Fables of the reconstruction story from Oct 30, 2007, titled Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays. In it, Fables of the reconstruction reports that:

“Pharmacists must seek to raise people's awareness so that all human beings are protected from conception to natural death, and so that medicines truly play a therapeutic role”

Pope Benedict XVI said Monday that pharmacists have a right to use conscientious objection to avoid dispensing emergency contraception or euthanasia drugs - and told them they should also inform patients of the ... via Fables of the reconstruction

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Fables of the reconstruction.

Economist

Buffalo, NY

#253063 Jul 25, 2013
Tre H wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't want to lynch Zimmerman. In no way do I advocate or encourage anyone who is dissatisfied with the verdict to become vigilantes and take the law into their own hands, like Zimmerman did. I just think he needs to be held responsible for what he did, or society is saying it's perfectly okay that this happened.
As far as not knowing whether Zimmerman had any malicious intentions, perhaps you just didn't follow the story very closely and missed some of the facts. There are many things in this case that people were left to speculate and guess about, but there are some facts we KNOW because we have Zimmerman's words on tape. There is not one iota of doubt in my mind that Zimmerman had profiled Trayvon Martin as a criminal. He expressed great frustration that "f-ing punks" and "a-holes" "always get away!"
We know that that night Trayvon was just walking home, not committing any crime, minding his own business. We know that Zimmerman was on a mission to make sure that THIS "f-ing punk" wasn't going to get away with (something) if he had anything to say about it. He likely did not set out to shoot or kill anyone, but he WAS determined to "catch" the person he referred to repeatedly as a "suspect." He pursued the kid even after he was told not to. He had already called the police... he should have let them do their job... but HE is a wannabe cop and wanted to make sure that HE was involved in nabbing this kid who just happened to not be doing anything wrong.
It's pretty friggin simple to me. A kid is dead. A kid who was not doing anything wrong. Zimmerman shot him. He needs to be held accountable. We can't just say "oh well, life is messy and sh!t happens."
As far as anything racial goes, I'm not convinced that Zimmerman is necessarily a racist, but I do still think race played a part in how everything happened and how it was handled and how people perceive it.
I do believe public 'outrage' can be helpful. It is fairly natural that society speaks up on such issues, and it can and does have an impact. People like MLK believed in non-violent protest and civil disobedience in order to effect changes that would eventually make monumental changes to our society. It is doing nothing and accepting the status quo that causes things to decay and fall apart.
My apologies for being so off-topic, but this thread was flat-lining and I have strong feelings about this case for some reason. I won't blame you if you tell me to find a thread about it to post on.
Tre H

Right to the point!

Strong feeling indeed!

The kid was only being in a place that gunman Z thought that the kid ought not to be

So Z ran the kid down and accosted the kid.

Gunman Z got some push back from the kid so Z shot the kid dead.

It certainly looks as if Z was out hunting that night.

..
Economist

Buffalo, NY

#253064 Jul 25, 2013
By Tom Heneghan, Religion Editor (Reuters)-

Traditionally Catholic Ireland has allowed an atheist group to perform weddings this year for the first time, and the few people certified to celebrate them are overwhelmed by hundreds of couples seeking their services.

Demand for the Humanist Association of Ireland's secular weddings has surged as the moral authority of the once almighty Catholic Church collapsed in recent decades amid sex abuse scandals and Irish society's rapid secularization.

Until now, those who did not want a religious wedding could have only civil ceremonies.
Outside of the registrar's office, only clergy were permitted to perform weddings.But statistics show rising demand for non-Church weddings.

In 1996, 90 percent of Irish weddings were performed by the Catholic Church or the Church of Ireland. But by 2010 that percentage had fallen to 69 percent.

The pent-up demand from those who want more than a civil ceremony in a registry office but reject a religious wedding has created a major backlog for the humanist group's ceremonies director.

Brian Whiteside, initially the only humanist "solemnizer" certified to legally marry couples, was already booked well into next year when the civil registry office agreed in late June to approve 10 more humanist n"solemnizer", taking some of the pressure off him.

"It remains very, very busy," Whiteside said. "We're all finding it difficult to keep up with the inquiries. We had 595 new inquiries in the first three months of this year, which in a little country like Ireland is quite a few."

The Irish parliament legalized secular wedding services last December, after a 10-year campaign by the Humanist Association. The law went into effect on January 1.

Similar options are also allowed in Australia, Canada, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway, Scotland and some U.S. states. In California there are fewer church weddings than non-church weddings.

Brendan Hastings, originally from South Africa, and his Irish bride Suzy Addis had "solemnizer" Whiteside preside at their recent humanist wedding in Slane, a village north of Dublin.

Soft modern music accompanied the relaxed ceremony and the main reading was a passage on love from the 1994 novel Captain Corelli's Mandolin.

"Basically we are both atheists and didn't want a religious ceremony," said the groom. "Other weddings we have been to tended to be all about Jesus and we're not into that."

"Solemnizer" Whiteside, a retired Dublin businessman, said he began presiding at humanist weddings back when they were simply a symbolic ceremony rather than this official wedding ceremony.

The Humanist Association of Ireland also offers strictly secular funerals and naming ceremonies.
Economist

Buffalo, NY

#253065 Jul 25, 2013
Plan B To Hit Shelves, Protected From Generics By Julie Rovner

The Plan B One-Step morning-after pill will now be available to women as young as 15 without a prescription, and will have another three years of protection from generic competition.

As expected, the Food and Drug Administration has granted an additional three years of protection from generic competition to the makers of the most popular form of the emergency contraceptive pill, Plan B One-Step.

The decision is one of the last formal pieces of business as the drug makes its way to retail shelves after a more than decade-long battle to make it more easily available to women who want to prevent pregnancy after unprotected sex.

The government dropped its fight to keep the medication age-restricted last month after losing a series of court battles.

But as with almost everything involving this fight, even this last bit of policymaking is, well, complicated.

Here's a recap: As part of its original plan floated this spring, the FDA had granted Teva Pharmaceuticals, the maker of Plan B One Step, three additional years of exclusivity to sell its product on pharmacy shelves to 15- and 16-year-olds.

Everyone would still have had to show ID to obtain it.

Other generic emergency contraceptives containing the hormone levongestrel (there are older, two-pill versions as well as a generic version of the one-pill product) were to remain behind the pharmacy counter.

Then the FDA decided in June to remove all age restrictions from Plan B One Step. And that was followed by Wednesday's decision to grant another three years of exclusivity to the product's manufacturer, this time to sell to all ages.

Those three year terms, however, will run concurrently. So generic competitors can apply to the FDA to sell to women of all ages without restriction beginning in 2016.

But there's a twist in the latest development. Because now there will be no prescription version of Plan B One Step any more it will be fully over-the-counter with no age restrictions its generic counterpart can no longer be prescription, either.

But it also can't be sold to those under age 17, because of the new protections for the brand-name drug granted by the FDA.

The result is that Plan B One-Step, which costs around $50, will be available on pharmacy and other retail shelves without restriction.

The generic one-pill product, which costs about $10 less, may also be available on retail shelves, if when and if it gets the FDA's blessing, but only to those age 17 and older. Those younger won't be able to purchase it at all.

And the much cheaper, two-pill versions will remain behind the pharmacy counter, where it will have to be requested and proof-of-age shown, with prescriptions required for those under age 17.

It's a less than perfect result, say those who wanted the full array of products make fully available.

"We are disappointed by FDA's most recent decision to maintain age restrictions on generic brands of emergency contraception, which will leave more affordable alternatives of safe and simple emergency contraceptive products out of reach for many women," says Jessica Arons, president and CEO of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, a group that advocated for the switch to over-the-counter status for the products.

"This decision is not supported by the evidence to the Administration, will only lead to more confusion on the part of consumers and pharmacies, and will unnecessarily continue to feed the false assertion by some that emergency contraception is unsafe or risky."

****And still the obstructionist, the Faux Life people say that they are against abortion. It really appears that they are against sex.****
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Kitwanga, Canada

#253066 Jul 25, 2013
Economist wrote:
<quoted text>
Tre H
Right to the point!
Strong feeling indeed!
The kid was only being in a place that gunman Z thought that the kid ought not to be
So Z ran the kid down and accosted the kid.
Gunman Z got some push back from the kid so Z shot the kid dead.
It certainly looks as if Z was out hunting that night.
..
Do you believe that the jury had more access to information than was given to the public by the news media?

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#253067 Jul 26, 2013
Svaha wrote:
<quoted text>
the case neatly ties in from a "right to life" standpoint as just who has that right to life. I agree with everything you say Tre. I don't think Mr Zimmerman is an inherently evil person. I think he had a gun and thought he knew how to use it instead of letting police handle it. If that's how people FEEL than stop wasting tax payer money on police force, fire them all and arm everyone with a pistol to stand their ground. Make mine a glock. Another example of "right to life" insanity is Texas Gov Rick Perry proudly saying his state supports the "right to life" in restricting abortions and THEN turns around and signs the execution papers on three people who were, um, KILLED. Statistics show that a disturbing percentage of executions are on innocent people. Talk the talk WALK THE WALK
Exactly. Florida needs to decide if they want a competent police force, or just arm and deputize every citizen who wants to go out and catch bad guys, and if innocent kids get killed, oh well, sh!t happens, life is messy.

Yes, Rick Perry is right up there with Rick Scott and Scott Walker as crappy governors go. Sounds like he plans to waste more money on another try for potus in 2016. I think his chances are even less than Mitt Romney's.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#253068 Jul 26, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you believe that the jury had more access to information than was given to the public by the news media?
Of course they did.

At least one of the jurors recently spoke out. She believes George Zimmerman got away with murder, but felt pressured by both Florida laws and some of the other jurors to find him not guilty.

The public had access to most of what was brought up in court, but we don't know what went on in deliberations with the jury.

When this first happened, I didn't realize just how political this case would be. I had this naive idea that most people would recognize what happened here regardless of political affiliation. There are of course many exceptions, but it seems like mostly democrats believe Zimmerman is guilty and republicans believe he is not guilty. I don't know if that applies to average citizens as much as politicians or those on TV and radio.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#253069 Jul 26, 2013
Junket wrote:
Svaha, I believe that Mr. Zimmerman acted impetuously. One young man dead and another whose life will never ever be the same. There are adverts - if you see something, say something. That's all that had to be done and a true tragedy could have been avoided.
Sorry for all. Pointing fingers won't change facts. The jury decided after long arduous deliberations that Mr. Zimmerman acted in self defense. I hope he can live with that verdict because taking a life is a scarring event, and if not, should be.
{Waves to June and Tre.}
Everyone should listen to the complete 911 tapes that Zimmerman made. They show that he did stop following Trayvon and Trayvon had time to get home.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/911-call-sh...
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#253070 Jul 26, 2013
Tre H wrote:
<quoted text>

When this first happened, I didn't realize just how political this case would be. I had this naive idea that most people would recognize what happened here regardless of political affiliation. There are of course many exceptions, but it seems like mostly democrats believe Zimmerman is guilty and republicans believe he is not guilty. I don't know if that applies to average citizens as much as politicians or those on TV and radio.
There is no doubt that he killed Trayvon Martin. The question is whether or not he felt that he was in grave danger.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#253071 Jul 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no doubt that he killed Trayvon Martin. The question is whether or not he felt that he was in grave danger.
That may be A question, but it is not THE question. There were two people involved here, and one is not alive to testify about how he felt HE was in danger. Trayvon Martin was walking home, he was not pursuing anyone to fight with. Zimmerman was out trying to catch an "f-ing punk" and determined to not let him "get away" this time. Give me a break. The big ARMED neighborhood watch captain/cop wannabe is afraid the teenager with the skittles and iced tea will hurt him? THEN STAY IN YOUR TRUCK AND WAIT FOR THE FREAKING REAL POLICE, YOU FREAKING MORON.

You can try to tell me that Zimmerman was afraid for his life, but this never would have happened had he not pursued him in the first place. You have to consider that whatever Trayvon Martin did was ALSO in self defense, because all he was dong was walking home. Zimmerman was the one out looking for trouble.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#253072 Jul 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone should listen to the complete 911 tapes that Zimmerman made. They show that he did stop following Trayvon and Trayvon had time to get home.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/911-call-sh...
Everyone should take a grain or two of salt with any "facts" found in this right-wing garbage rag 'The Daily Caller.'
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#253073 Jul 26, 2013
Tre H wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone should take a grain or two of salt with any "facts" found in this right-wing garbage rag 'The Daily Caller.'
This is the tape from the 911 call. It doesn't appear that he was 'chasing' Trayvon. It appears that he was waiting for the police when he was attacked.

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/32670...
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Chilliwack, Canada

#253074 Jul 26, 2013
Tre H wrote:
<quoted text>
At least one of the jurors recently spoke out. She believes George Zimmerman got away with murder, but felt pressured by both Florida laws and some of the other jurors to find him not guilty.
And you believed that ONE juror?

I don't wonder why! You want to believe he planned it all out ahead of time to murder a black man.

You might be right, but you also might be wrong.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Chilliwack, Canada

#253075 Jul 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the tape from the 911 call. It doesn't appear that he was 'chasing' Trayvon. It appears that he was waiting for the police when he was attacked.
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/32670...
Because that was not the end of the story, that doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Chilliwack, Canada

#253076 Jul 26, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Everyone should listen to the complete 911 tapes that Zimmerman made. They show that he did stop following Trayvon and Trayvon had time to get home.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/04/02/911-call-sh...
Thanks for posting this.

I believe that Zimmerman didn't want to kill, but felt threatened by (the imagined or real) situation at hand. However, only he knows what his motives were at that moment.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#253077 Jul 27, 2013
I was pondering about the juror that felt "pressured" to change her vote.

That says more about her than it does about the other jurors.

If she had felt that he was innocent, would she have allowed her self to be "pressured" by other jurors to vote what she believed was an innocent man "guilty."

That is one scary women.

I've never been on a jury, but I would hope that if I was called to duty, I would never be pressured by other jurors to go against my own conscience in such a serious matter.

That is not to say that the pressure wouldn't get to me ... but I would hope it wouldn't, as I would hope that I would be strong enough to stick to my own principles.

My guess is, there was another reason she voted him innocent, and that is because what the other jurors said to her made sense and her conscience gave way to the idea that it was better to set an innocent man free than to take a chance that he was guilty and that she would have THAT burden of guilt on her own conscience for the rest of her life.

However ... I'm just guessing, but that makes more sense to me than the story she gave to the news media.

By putting the blame on the other jurors as bullies, it gave her her moment of fame in the spotlight of the cameras ... even though it might in some viewers minds make the other jurors look bad.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#253078 Jul 27, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
And you believed that ONE juror?
I don't wonder why! You want to believe he planned it all out ahead of time to murder a black man.
You might be right, but you also might be wrong.
If he planned to murder a black man, why call the police and keept them abreast of the situation. He was waiting for them to arrive so they could see him shoot Trayvon, I guess.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#253079 Jul 27, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
Because that was not the end of the story, that doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
The injuries to Zimmerman's head and face back up his story of being attacked.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#253080 Jul 27, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
I was pondering about the juror that felt "pressured" to change her vote.
That says more about her than it does about the other jurors.
If she had felt that he was innocent, would she have allowed her self to be "pressured" by other jurors to vote what she believed was an innocent man "guilty."
That is one scary women.
I've never been on a jury, but I would hope that if I was called to duty, I would never be pressured by other jurors to go against my own conscience in such a serious matter.
That is not to say that the pressure wouldn't get to me ... but I would hope it wouldn't, as I would hope that I would be strong enough to stick to my own principles.
My guess is, there was another reason she voted him innocent, and that is because what the other jurors said to her made sense and her conscience gave way to the idea that it was better to set an innocent man free than to take a chance that he was guilty and that she would have THAT burden of guilt on her own conscience for the rest of her life.
However ... I'm just guessing, but that makes more sense to me than the story she gave to the news media.
By putting the blame on the other jurors as bullies, it gave her her moment of fame in the spotlight of the cameras ... even though it might in some viewers minds make the other jurors look bad.
To paraphrase herwords, she wanted to find him guilty but there wasn't any proof that he was.
June VanDerMark

Since: Sep 09

Willow River, Canada

#253081 Jul 27, 2013
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
To paraphrase herwords, she wanted to find him guilty but there wasn't any proof that he was.
It's all very complex and that is why there are so many people with opinions of what happened, what should have happened, et cetera.

The jury decided that he should be set free. If I met him or O.J. Simpson on the street, I would treat them as though their debt to society had been paid in full ... because I believe that to treat them otherwise would not be a healthy attitude for me to carry as an extra unnecessary load.
Ink

Drexel Hill, PA

#253082 Jul 27, 2013
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
It's all very complex and that is why there are so many people with opinions of what happened, what should have happened, et cetera.
The jury decided that he should be set free. If I met him or O.J. Simpson on the street, I would treat them as though their debt to society had been paid in full ... because I believe that to treat them otherwise would not be a healthy attitude for me to carry as an extra unnecessary load.
I agree.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Abortion Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 5 min cpeter1313 346,235
My girlfriend wants an abortion And I dont (Apr '11) Jun 18 K lynn 69
News Will abortion become illegal in the United States? Jun 17 puppy power 1 7
News Texas abortion clinics sue to undo laws dating ... Jun 16 Choicerocks 2
News How One New York Group is Defending Abortion Ri... Jun 16 Margaret Sanger 1
News Americans' Support For Abortion Rights Wanes As... Jun 13 puppy power 1 1
Abortion: Divine punishment Jun 12 Uncle Sam 5