Catholic Church Waging War on Women a...

Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays

There are 220355 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.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241608 Nov 16, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
What part of "for medical malpractice" is giving you so much trouble, Moron?
You adore your special little phrases Bitner, but within the phrases is YOUR malpractise concerning DISHONESTY.

You are one of the most deceptive people I have ever encountered.

You can phrase it any way you desire ... but you believe the physicians intentionally caused her death ... which (if that were true) would be murder in the first degree!!!

“Never look back unless”

Since: Sep 09

you're in a rough neighborhood

#241609 Nov 16, 2012
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You adore your special little phrases Bitner, but within the phrases is YOUR malpractise concerning DISHONESTY.
You are one of the most deceptive people I have ever encountered.
You can phrase it any way you desire ... but you believe the physicians intentionally caused her death ... which (if that were true) would be murder in the first degree!!!
June, many malpractice suits do not involve premeditation.
I haven't read all of the current batch of posts, but I don't think Sis used the word "intentional".

Did you read the article in its entirety?

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#241610 Nov 16, 2012
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
You adore your special little phrases Bitner, but within the phrases is YOUR malpractise concerning DISHONESTY.
You are one of the most deceptive people I have ever encountered.
You can phrase it any way you desire ... but you believe the physicians intentionally caused her death ... which (if that were true) would be murder in the first degree!!!
No, that is not my position. The dishonesty is all yours.

My position is that they allowed her to die by deliberately NOT doing everything medically in their power to save her. That is not "murder", nor did I ever imply that it is. It is medical malpractice, and it is not my "special phrase". It's a legal and medical phrase, but I can see that it's yet ANOTHER phrase YOU are too stupid to use properly, or even understand.

You're a fricken moron.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241611 Nov 16, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is not my position. The dishonesty is all yours.
My position is that they allowed her to die by deliberately NOT doing everything medically in their power to save her. That is not "murder", nor did I ever imply that it is. It is medical malpractice, and it is not my "special phrase". It's a legal and medical phrase, but I can see that it's yet ANOTHER phrase YOU are too stupid to use properly, or even understand.
You're a fricken moron.
I disagree.

Your attitude toward the physicians indicated that they chose to let the woman die, when they knew they could have saved her ... which would be murder ... no matter how you now try to pretty up your harsh judgment concerning the physicians.

I believe their intent was to save the woman.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241612 Nov 16, 2012
Junket wrote:
<quoted text>
June, many malpractice suits do not involve premeditation.
I understand that. I am referring ONLY to Bitner's attitude toward the INTENT of the physicians.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241613 Nov 16, 2012
Malpractice most certainly does not indicate intentional harm.

Bitner's attitude toward the idea that the physicians intended to harm the woman by depriving her of necessary care, is an attitude that irritates the bejeepers out of me!

Such an attitude could cause harm to the physicians that I believe did their best within very trying circumstances.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241614 Nov 16, 2012
When in NEED to prove religious "truths" ... always fall back on the words written by others.

If the gullible believers can be persuaded that the words of ancient peoples contain absolute truth ... YOU, as a leader of a religious cult will have it made.

Again and again, history proves it is so.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>

From the book,“A History of Christianity”… volume 2 Clyde L. Manschreck, Editor, comes the following………

In addition to the need for a canon and a creed, the early church also felt the need for the authority of authentic leadership. With so many voices being raised, some of them claiming direct and superior revelation, it was only natural to turn to the apostles for a way out of the confusion.

“Blessed Be”

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#241615 Nov 16, 2012
June VanDerMark wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree.
Your attitude toward the physicians indicated that they chose to let the woman die, when they knew they could have saved her ... which would be murder ... no matter how you now try to pretty up your harsh judgment concerning the physicians.
I believe their intent was to save the woman.
You are wrong. It would not be murder at all, but medical malpractice. Just because YOU are too stupid to understand that, doesn't change the facts.

I'm not trying to "pretty up" anything, you lying piece of shit.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241616 Nov 16, 2012
Without Gerald Gardner and his cohorts preaching and writing words about ancient witches, etc., modern Paganism would not exist.

The modern Pagans mentally ingested SOME of those words in a very serious manner in deed ... but they threw away Gerald's words that the "goddess curses homosexuals."

It was and is to the advantage of the modern Pagans to distance themselves from that specific "nasty" teaching of Gerald, as other religions already taught such nonsense.

You will see the deceptions of the modern Pagans ... only if you choose to see!

They no-doubt value their ritual silliness as did and do all people of religion ... but the silliness of ALL religion stems ONLY from fantasy ... PERIOD ... and Gerald Gardner's fantasies and written words are from my perspective of no more value than were the words of the hairy ape-like, ignorant ancient peoples.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241617 Nov 16, 2012
Bitner wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wrong. It would not be murder at all.
Of course it wouldn't! But if you had your way ... it WOULD!

My guess is, you would have no mercy on those physicians ... NONE!!!

"How DARE they," is your attitude!

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241618 Nov 16, 2012
My guess is, if one such as Bitner went into law, she would be a prosecutor, NOT a defense lawyer.

Everyone would be guilty until proven by further testimony of countless witnesses as innocent ... unless they were Wiccan.

Bitner would let other prosecutors take those cases, as she wouldn't want to appear to favor her own religion.{{{snicker}}}

Atheists do not favor those in any religion, so a lawyer who is Atheist, whether a prosecutor, or a defense lawyer would be best to keep quiet about his/her Atheism.

Very quiet indeed.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241619 Nov 16, 2012
Observe the hard features of the prosecutor Nancy Grace, and through his religion, the prosecuting pope (concerning who will burn in hell)... and you will see that harsh judgment takes its toll on the facial features of those who KNOW such certain answers!

But sometimes there IS a backlash.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>

Nancy Grace will likely get sued for her unprofessional crusade to deny Casey Anthony a fair trial, put her to death, and gin up public hatred against her

The prosecution’s case fell apart by overcharging Casey Anthony and trying to put her to death.

Had they charged her with manslaughter or some lesser murder charge, they might well have gotten a conviction. The prosecution made a strong circumstantial case that Casey Anthony had something to do with the death of her daughter.

http://www.escapetyranny.com/2011/07/05/nancy...

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241620 Nov 16, 2012
Nancy Grace's fiance of many years past was "murdered."

My guess is, Nancy had her "reasons" for becoming a prosecutor!

Note her mention of how "god" ultimately gave her "something good."

Whether her aggression to make her fiance's death meaningful is "good" ... is a matter of opinion.

I believe she "could be" dangerous to those that she believes gets in "her" way of settling an over-due debt to HER.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241621 Nov 16, 2012
The Catholic "church" has been sued many times for the cover-up of the pope in the sex-abuse scandal.

But the pope has not been sued!

Religion often protects criminals that otherwise would have to answer to an earthly judge.

Whether real justice will ensue is any body's guess, but if there is simply more of the same after death ... the pope will be sitting on a throne, still claiming he IS in deed preaching "truth."

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241622 Nov 16, 2012
What NEXT???
>>>>>>> >>>>>>

Top court hears botched home circumcision case Friday

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada will hear on Friday the dramatic case of a B.C. father who, for religious reasons, tried to circumcise his four-year-old son on his kitchen floor with a carpet blade and a blood coagulant meant for horses.

Counsel for D.J.W. will argue that the man’s actions were performed with “reasonable care” and without intent to harm his son.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/court+hears+bo...

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241623 Nov 16, 2012
It is NEVER the children that choose to have their genitals mutilated.

It is the sickness of adults suffering from religious indoctrination that keep on inflicting the needless suffering.

And they carry on the rituals because they don't question that the rituals were created by ancient human mental-malpractice.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241624 Nov 16, 2012
The idea that a god would create a foreskin only to have men cut off the foreskin because the god finds it "necessary," is beyond ludicrous.

Yet the rabbis and the mullahs continue to preach their supposed truths.

And the followers continue to follow.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241625 Nov 16, 2012
Chris Hitchens and the "knowing> rabbi!

Joyce

Innisfil, Canada

#241626 Nov 16, 2012
tman wrote:
<quoted text>
I know. We both have diagreements and we both believe we are the ones who are right. However, I believe that my views on abortion are more progressive than yours because new medical science and technology favor the pro-life movement.
No matter what you say the bottom line is you believe the unborn always comes first than the pregnant female. That's the way the Roman Catholic Church sees it and always did.

Since: Sep 09

Prince George, Canada

#241627 Nov 16, 2012
Joyce wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter what you say the bottom line is you believe the unborn always comes first than the pregnant female. That's the way the Roman Catholic Church sees it and always did.
Not ALWAYS. The issue depended on which pope was in "charge" at any given time in history.
>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>

RCC doctrines on abortion have changed over the centuries. According to Augustine ("On Exodus," sections 21 and 80) and Jerome (Epistle 121, section 4), the soul did not enter the body until roughly 90 days after conception. The reason is that a soul can not enter an "unformed" body. Jerome said, "The seed gradually takes shape in the uterus, and it [abortion] does not count as killing until the individual elements have acquired their external appearance and their limbs." (This matches Bible doctrine, Leviticus 17:11, 14, "the life is in the blood," i.e., not until then, not until the aforesaid development.)
----------
The theory of "delayed animation" of the soul is from Aristotle, "On the Parts of Animals," particularly Book 7, Chapter 3, section 583b. This has the line of reasoning picked up by Jerome and Augustine.
----------
"Six thousand skulls of infants are reported to have been taken from a single fish-pond near a nunnery...." says Republican Senator Charles Sumner, LL.D., "The Barbarism of Slavery" (Washington, DC: 4 June 1860), p 172, in support of the Campaign for President by Abraham Lincoln.
----------
Pope Innocent III once ruled that a monk who had arranged for his lover to get an abortion did not commit murder because the unborn child was not "animated." The idea that the soul enters the body AT conception is essentially a recent invention.
----------
The RCC Canon distinguished between an "animated" (ensouled) and "unanimated" unborn child until 1869 (about the time they invented the notion of papal "infallibility"). Making it up as they go along, the RCC Canon was altered again in the 20th century to allege sinfulness of abortion at any stage of pregnancy.(For background, see, e.g., Uta Ranke-Heinemann, Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven: Women, Sexuality and the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1990). And note that "the Catholicism of today is not the Catholicism of a thousand years ago, or even one hundred years ago," says Prof. Michael Dean Murphy of the University of Alabama, writing in "Catholicism" in Religion and Culture: An Anthropological Focus, Raymond Scupin, ed.[New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 2000], p 341, citing Tali Asad, Genealogies of Religion [Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1993], p 46.)

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Kentucky clerk asks Supreme Court to intervene ... 25 min Jessica 4
News Kentucky clerk defies order, refuses to issue s... 51 min My name is Nobody 286
News Rowan County clerk closes office ahead of gay r... 1 hr annoyed 10
News Same-sex marriage fight turns to clerk who refu... 3 hr NoahLovesU 2,966
News Man claims he was fired because he is gay, file... 3 hr Delmar 888 6
News Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 3 hr NoahLovesU 34,825
News Mormon church backs Utah LGBT anti-discriminati... 3 hr NoMo 7,209
News Court: Baker who refused gay wedding cake can't... 4 hr DaveinMass 1,070
News Is Polygamy the Next Gay Marriage? (Sep '14) 9 hr Pietro Armando 8,771
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 12 hr NoahLovesU 25,627
More from around the web