Catholic Church Waging War on Women a...

Catholic Church Waging War on Women and Gays

There are 216664 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.

Ink

Millsboro, DE

#256290 Aug 15, 2015
Tre H wrote:
<quoted text>
False.
Anyone who is anti-choice... that is exactly what they are saying... that women who become pregnant and don't want to be pregnant should remain pregnant against their own will because of other people's beliefs. They are saying that a woman does not have autonomy and sovereignty over her own body. PERIOD.
<quoted text>
You say you understand these women and don't judge them... then you say they are killers and doing wrong... but no, you're not judging. You need a freaking dictionary to understand what the meanings of simple words are.
<quoted text>
I do respect your right to think that. I respect every woman's right to make her own choices, and not be forced to do something because of what SOMEONE ELSE thinks.
If YOU believe abortion is "murder," don't have one... but respect that sane people don't see termination of an unwanted pregnancy as "murder," and allow them to terminate an unwanted pregnancy if that is their CHOICE. Allow them to have autonomy over their own bodies.
Not only that, stop voting for ignorant misogynist pricks who know they can't change the SCOTUS decision, so they try to remove women's choices by slimy laws that shut down and de-fund clinics and severely limit many women's healthcare options.
Nothing respectful in that at all, and don't pretend that anti-choicers have ANY respect for women. Giving them a choice is respect. Telling them that they have no choice because of YOUR beliefs, has nothing to do with respect. It's the opposite of respect. It's self-righteous crap.
You need to get over yourself and ease off on the pontificating. You want 'me' to allow a woman to choose. What the hell do I have to do with it? Isn't it legal to kill the unborn child? Last I heard, it was.

Yes I think it is wrong to kill your child. That opinion is never going to change and more people are finding it disgusting as they become aware that it isn't 'just a blob of cells' as their are told, but a real human being growing inside. That said, it's legal, have at it.

Why are you wasting so much time and anger on an already settled issue? What do you do in life besides worrying about gays and abortion, all of which is legal. Have you run out of causes? I hope so.
Ink

Millsboro, DE

#256291 Aug 15, 2015
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you see a difference or do you not see a difference between a mother who slits her kid's throat because it's inconvenient to take him to school that day as opposed to a woman who terminates an inconvenient pregnancy? A moral difference is what I'm asking about.
Why don't you use like words instead of the extremes. The question should be, do I see a difference between a mother who terminates her child for convenience before it is born or after?

After would grab the headlines while before would go unnoticed.
Do I think that one child has value and the other doesn't? I guess my answer would be no.
That is my moral answer but as we all know so well, it is legal to kill one and not the other. Settled law.
Ink

Millsboro, DE

#256292 Aug 15, 2015
Tre H wrote:
<quoted text>
That works both ways, lady. It's difficult having a reasonable discussion about reality with someone who believes in ancient superstitions and deities created/imagined by frightened, primitive tribes.
<quoted text>
Neither would I. But I would expect such a deity to lead by example, not just give commandments he expects everyone else to follow, but he gets to break at his own whim.
<quoted text>
So did I. She seems to understand that women need to make their own choices regardless of what she or anyone else thinks. She seems to understand that women who would make a different choice than her are not bad or murderers. She seems to understand the concept of respect. She seems to understand the importance of women being allowed to make their own choices instead of having someone else decide FOR them. I'm glad you acknowledge that her post was a good one.
<quoted text>
Yep. Probably. You get a gold star for finally saying something correct and truthful!
<quoted text>
But I feel I need to keep pointing it out, because some people don't seem to understand the whole concept of non-belief. They keep accusing me of hating god, being angry with god and blaming god. It doesn't seem to compute that I cannot blame or be angry with something I don't believe exists. But I have to converse with believers from the perspective OF their belief.
IF you believe in god, and you believe he created us all with a purpose, THEN how can you NOT blame him for the deaths of those "children" who weren't even born yet? Yes, I'm sure there are some women who actually deliberately cause themselves to miscarry, but many women who actually WANT a baby, and are in good health and do everything right, still lose a WANTED baby.
Not only do you not blame the same god who you say created us all with a purpose, you don't even allow yourself to ask WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE of creating this "baby" who was WANTED, and then it dies in the womb. Your god gets credit for everything, but has no responsibility for anything.
<quoted text>
I've not yet made a choice. Unfortunately, the person I wanted to run is not running.
I very much live in reality just like everyone else.

Again how do I explain about God to a non believer? It just doesn't work You can make your points about your secular view and I understand everyone of them and where you are coming from but the reverse that is impossible. I know that just because you don't see God's purpose doesn't mean He hasn't got one. Sherlayne seems to have figured out why her grandchild was lost in a miscarriage.
As far a God setting an example, Jesus did that.

I think we are farthest apart on our views of death. You see it as an evil or somethingto be angry about and people who 'really' believe and trust the lord see it as a fulfilled promise.
Ink

Millsboro, DE

#256293 Aug 15, 2015
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
They can be frozen and discarded. Do you think that's as immoral as you believe abortion is?
<quoted text>
Most people would agree with you. You do believe it should be the woman's choice, tho, don't you? I mean, she can deny the abortion and choose to die, if that's what she wants.
I do have ethical issues with creating human life just to discard it.

That would in all sense be murder /suicide, but yes her choice
STO

Vallejo, CA

#256294 Aug 15, 2015
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you use like words instead of the extremes.
Your argument against abortion is that they are not extremes.

Why are you now claiming that slitting a kid's throat because it's inconvenient to take him to school one day is at one end of the spectrum while terminating an inconvenient pregnancy is at the opposite end?

Ink wrote:
<quoted text>The question should be, do I see a difference between a mother who terminates her child for convenience before it is born or after?
The question should be what I asked. That's it.
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>After would grab the headlines while before would go unnoticed.
And why do you think that is?

Do you honestly believe that if abortion were banned, suddenly the news of the day would be,

"And another woman in Texas obtained an abortion. Another woman in Missouri obtained an abortion. 5 women in Washington obtained abortions, and 18 in California.

In other news today, a mother slit her 5 year old's throat because she didn't want to take him to school. She claims the timing was inconvenient due to her workout schedule.

BREAKING NEWS! A woman in New York obtained an abortion! She is a 20 year old college student and said being pregnant would ruin her life.

Psychologists try to explain what has made killers out of seemingly ordinary women...
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>Do I think that one child has value and the other doesn't? I guess my answer would be no.
Then why do you claim the two situations I outlined are "extremes"? They both have value, so what makes them extremes?
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>That is my moral answer but as we all know so well, it is legal to kill one and not the other. Settled law.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#256295 Aug 15, 2015
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I do have ethical issues with creating human life just to discard it.
That would in all sense be murder /suicide, but yes her choice
I know it is her choice, as the law stands now. Is it a law you support, even though you believe it meets the criteria of murder/suicide?

As to your ethical issues with discarding frozen embryos, do you equate discarding frozen embryos to terminating a pregnancy?
Ink

Millsboro, DE

#256296 Aug 15, 2015
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument against abortion is that they are not extremes.
Why are you now claiming that slitting a kid's throat because it's inconvenient to take him to school one day is at one end of the spectrum while terminating an inconvenient pregnancy is at the opposite end?
<quoted text>
The question should be what I asked. That's it.
<quoted text>
And why do you think that is?
Do you honestly believe that if abortion were banned, suddenly the news of the day would be,
"And another woman in Texas obtained an abortion. Another woman in Missouri obtained an abortion. 5 women in Washington obtained abortions, and 18 in California.
In other news today, a mother slit her 5 year old's throat because she didn't want to take him to school. She claims the timing was inconvenient due to her workout schedule.
BREAKING NEWS! A woman in New York obtained an abortion! She is a 20 year old college student and said being pregnant would ruin her life.
Psychologists try to explain what has made killers out of seemingly ordinary women...
<quoted text>
Then why do you claim the two situations I outlined are "extremes"? They both have value, so what makes them extremes?
<quoted text>
That isn't what I was saying. I said you should call it the same thing instead of using phrases like "terminating a pregnancy" which doesn't even sound like a child is involved and "slitting the throat"of a toddler.

That is the terminology of the left and it is intentionally misleading.
Ink

Millsboro, DE

#256297 Aug 15, 2015
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
I know it is her choice, as the law stands now. Is it a law you support, even though you believe it meets the criteria of murder/suicide?
As to your ethical issues with discarding frozen embryos, do you equate discarding frozen embryos to terminating a pregnancy?
I personally wouldn't support the choice to die for nothing but plenty of people commit suicide.
You are terminating the lives of those embryos. They could be donated. Some of those embryos have been and they are known as 'snowflake children.' That is a better outcome.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#256298 Aug 15, 2015
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
That isn't what I was saying. I said you should call it the same thing instead of using phrases like "terminating a pregnancy" which doesn't even sound like a child is involved and "slitting the throat"of a toddler.
That is the terminology of the left and it is intentionally misleading.
No, that is what you AC advocates claim. You guys say terminating a pregnancy is absolutely no different than slaughtering a born child.

Yet, YOU turn around and say the two are "extremes". How can they be at opposite ends of the spectrum when you equate the two?

It's a simple question. Would you please answer it, rather than quibble over my phrasing.
STO

Vallejo, CA

#256299 Aug 16, 2015
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
I personally wouldn't support the choice to die for nothing but plenty of people commit suicide.
You are terminating the lives of those embryos. They could be donated. Some of those embryos have been and they are known as 'snowflake children.' That is a better outcome.
"I personally wouldn't support the choice to die for nothing but plenty of people commit suicide."

This is what I don't understand about you. You say "die for nothing", when a woman may be refusing the abortion because she feels it is immoral. Just like you, except she is willing to die for her faith, her principles, her morals. Suddenly the fetus is "nothing" to you?

" You are terminating the lives of those embryos. They could be donated."

And here again. You don't say, "You are terminating the lives of those [children].[Those children] could be donated."

Your entire Anti-Choice argument is that an embryo is a child, but apparently not under these circumstances?

" Some of those embryos have been and they are known as 'snowflake children.' That is a better outcome."

How do they go from "embryo" to "snowflake children"? Why don't you say they go from frozen child to snowflake child?

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#256300 Aug 17, 2015
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>What if the mother has other children and carrying to term would mean her death? Don't you believe in the right to self defense? What about the cost to her entire family?
Tre's beliefs have never been Catholic doctrine; there have always been exceptions for rape and risk to mother's life. I wonder why leftists fail to see the nuance in moral arguments? Why do they think of everything as black and white?
Your post makes no sense.

You either misread my post or you're deliberately trying to misrepresent it.

Please try to understand the difference between me explaining my beliefs and me explaining anti-choice beliefs.

Please understand that although I was raised Catholic, I do not ever even pretend that my beliefs are anywhere close to Catholic doctrine.

Please find a better argument than "leftists are wrong about everything."

Please, if you want to argue with my beliefs, find a belief that I actually stated, not one that you imagined.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#256301 Aug 17, 2015
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you think this is the view of only the Catholic Church? Look around the world.
Never said the Catholics were the only anti-gay religion, but we're on a thread about the freaking Catholic church, so that's what I'm talking about... make sense? JESUS!
Ink wrote:
What does it matter anyway? Aren't the gays modern, intelligent, enlightened and informed enough to not believe any of it? They have all the rights of anyone else so it's time to get on with their lives and stop whining because not everyone sees the lifestyle the same.
Gays vary as much as anyone else in areas of being "modern, intelligent. enlightened and informed." Their beliefs vary as much as anyone else also. Gays do not all have the same personality, intelligence level, or religious beliefs, or "lifestyle"

Where on earth did you get the idea that they have all the same rights? You are sadly mistaken.

What makes you think being gay is a "lifestyle?" It would be really easy for you to pin it down if you could just pretend that all gays are exactly the same and that being gay is some kind of "lifestyle" that you can pigeon-hole all gays into. You are not informed, ma'am, you parrot conservative BS phrases and buzzwords. Propaganda designed to MIS-inform and deceive, not educate and enlighten.

You wanna know what difference it makes? Contrary to ignorant beliefs that being gay is a choice, or some kind of lifestyle, it isn't. Sometimes kids know at a fairly young age that they are different from most others in certain ways. They may not understand exactly what that is right away, but they are beginning to process certain feelings.

When adults teach them that being gay is all these bad things, such as sick, unnatural, evil, perverted, deviant, sinful, etc. etc... kids will often internalize this stuff... Some end up engaging in very destructive and self-destructive behaviors. They feel hopeless because they feel like the world hates who they are and they know they cannot change. Some believe they CAN change, and many try, but all fail in the end, and often harming OTHER lives in trying to be "straight." Many end up suicidal.

THAT"S what difference it makes! It's not just about my personal belief that being gay is not sinful, or that there is no such thing as hell. Billions of other people on this planet have different beliefs from me. Many of them are gay. Many of them are children, and many of them BELIEVE it when adults teach them that homosexuality is something that if they don't change and repent for it, they DESERVE to be PUNISHED FOREVER! They BELIEVE that asinine crap!

I believe that's nonsense, but I'm not every gay person... certainly not an impressionable kid. These kids suffer needlessly because of ignorant hateful beliefs about gay people. How freaking clueless must you be to have to ask what does it matter? Your thinking must be incredibly narrow to not understand why it matters that people are still being taught this barbaric nonsense and ruining people's lives, innocent lives, for no good reason.

It is further demonstrated how much homosexuality is detested, when every day, politicians and religious idiots are constantly saying a bunch of hateful garbage about gays. Words like gay and queer are still used as cruel taunts and generic derogatory terms. People are still bullied, beaten and murdered for being gay.

What does it matter, indeed.

Jesus might ask you to walk a mile in the shoes of a gay child who believes his family, friends and GOD will not accept him because he's gay. THEN you will understand why it matters.

“=”

Since: Oct 07

Appleton WI

#256302 Aug 17, 2015
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to get over yourself and ease off on the pontificating. You want 'me' to allow a woman to choose. What the hell do I have to do with it? Isn't it legal to kill the unborn child? Last I heard, it was.
Yes I think it is wrong to kill your child. That opinion is never going to change and more people are finding it disgusting as they become aware that it isn't 'just a blob of cells' as their are told, but a real human being growing inside. That said, it's legal, have at it.
Why are you wasting so much time and anger on an already settled issue? What do you do in life besides worrying about gays and abortion, all of which is legal. Have you run out of causes? I hope so.
I'm on a discussion forum discussing issues. This is far from the entirety of my existence. Outside of this forum, I spend very little time thinking about abortion at all. Although I did receive an amusing email from a friend today about something Marco Rubio said on the topic.

But how naive can you be?

Ask any conservative if the issue is settled. It is still an issue in every conservative political campaign.

Ask a woman who doesn't have access to legal, clean, well-staffed facility because congressmen and governors draft and pass laws that are designed to close them down. So maybe they seek out available, but far less safe or ideal alternatives, to the legal and safe facilities that have been shut down.

IRL, I don't have much to say about abortion, but it get's brought up on this thread every so often, and just as others give their opinions, so do I. I'm happy to discuss something else related to the topic. If you're done talking about abortion, fine with me.

However, before I finish I want to make one thing clear about what being pro-choice is about for me.

I do NOT advocate abortion. I do not advocate FOR abortion. I certainly do NOT advocate "child murder." I do not tell pregnant women, "it's legal, have at it."

I advocate for CHOICE.

I NEVER encourage anyone to make a particular choice. I NEVER tell anyone that abortion is a good thing and all women should have them.

I advocate that a woman should be the ONLY person to decide how to deal with her pregnancy. If she CHOOSES to solicit advice, help or opinions from anyone else, that is her CHOICE.

I though you said Sherlayne's post was good, but you don't seem to understand or get the same message from it as I did. Her post was really about humility, I think. Humility and wisdom.
ffj

East Meadow, NY

#256303 Aug 21, 2015
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
No one thinks a woman should be pregnant against their will and I have never said any such thing. As I said, I understand why a woman in many instances wouldn't want to have a child. I don't judge those women for making the decision to abort. In fact I don't have to deal with it in anyway since I didn't make that decision. The fact is that no matter what the good reason is, it is still the killing of another human being and I believe that is wrong. We all have to have feelings about right and wrong. It is what our own moral code is. Abortion is 'on demand' and it doesn't matter what the circumstance. All unborn babies are fair game.
I respect your right to think that the unborn are disposible. Respect my right to think that they aren't.
"As I said, I understand why a woman in many instances wouldn't want to have a child. I don't judge those women for making the decision to abort."

Then why were you asking, on topix no less, how a "believer" can have an abortion? Never mind that you labeled them and their actions as "evil" Now you post this rubbish above, saying you don't judge!? You're not as innocent as you wish. Really, you're just a hypocritical little scunt and nothing more. Let us know when you can save face, kitty killer.
Ink

Lansdowne, PA

#256304 Aug 21, 2015
ffj wrote:
<quoted text>
"As I said, I understand why a woman in many instances wouldn't want to have a child. I don't judge those women for making the decision to abort."
Then why were you asking, on topix no less, how a "believer" can have an abortion? Never mind that you labeled them and their actions as "evil" Now you post this rubbish above, saying you don't judge!? You're not as innocent as you wish. Really, you're just a hypocritical little scunt and nothing more. Let us know when you can save face, kitty killer.
First, I owe you no explanation at all. If you could read you wouldn't need an explanation. Your problem is you can't separate the people from the act. The acts can always and should be judged by society. God can judge the people and their hearts and motives. Not my job.
Ink

Lansdowne, PA

#256305 Aug 21, 2015
STO wrote:
<quoted text>
"I personally wouldn't support the choice to die for nothing but plenty of people commit suicide."
This is what I don't understand about you. You say "die for nothing", when a woman may be refusing the abortion because she feels it is immoral. Just like you, except she is willing to die for her faith, her principles, her morals. Suddenly the fetus is "nothing" to you?
" You are terminating the lives of those embryos. They could be donated."
And here again. You don't say, "You are terminating the lives of those [children].[Those children] could be donated."
Your entire Anti-Choice argument is that an embryo is a child, but apparently not under these circumstances?
" Some of those embryos have been and they are known as 'snowflake children.' That is a better outcome."
How do they go from "embryo" to "snowflake children"? Why don't you say they go from frozen child to snowflake child?
What faith asks her to die for it? The fetus would be a casualty but he is dead either way. He can die with her or die alone. I don't know of a religion that requires a woman to die because she is pregnant. When I said she would die for nothing I meant she would die and take her baby with her. No one lives. I doubt the child will survive in a dead body.

I feel these embryos shouldn't be created to be destroyed. They are also aborted pre born babies.
Ink

Lansdowne, PA

#256306 Aug 21, 2015
Tre H wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm on a discussion forum discussing issues. This is far from the entirety of my existence. Outside of this forum, I spend very little time thinking about abortion at all. Although I did receive an amusing email from a friend today about something Marco Rubio said on the topic.
But how naive can you be?
Ask any conservative if the issue is settled. It is still an issue in every conservative political campaign.
Ask a woman who doesn't have access to legal, clean, well-staffed facility because congressmen and governors draft and pass laws that are designed to close them down. So maybe they seek out available, but far less safe or ideal alternatives, to the legal and safe facilities that have been shut down.
IRL, I don't have much to say about abortion, but it get's brought up on this thread every so often, and just as others give their opinions, so do I. I'm happy to discuss something else related to the topic. If you're done talking about abortion, fine with me.
However, before I finish I want to make one thing clear about what being pro-choice is about for me.
I do NOT advocate abortion. I do not advocate FOR abortion. I certainly do NOT advocate "child murder." I do not tell pregnant women, "it's legal, have at it."
I advocate for CHOICE.
I NEVER encourage anyone to make a particular choice. I NEVER tell anyone that abortion is a good thing and all women should have them.
I advocate that a woman should be the ONLY person to decide how to deal with her pregnancy. If she CHOOSES to solicit advice, help or opinions from anyone else, that is her CHOICE.
I though you said Sherlayne's post was good, but you don't seem to understand or get the same message from it as I did. Her post was really about humility, I think. Humility and wisdom.
Yes I think she has the humility and wisdom to wonder if God does really know what He is doing and we shouldn't have the ego to decide who lives and who dies.
ffj

Brooklyn, NY

#256307 Aug 21, 2015
Ink wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I owe you no explanation at all. If you could read you wouldn't need an explanation. Your problem is you can't separate the people from the act. The acts can always and should be judged by society. God can judge the people and their hearts and motives. Not my job.
Hilarious that you pretend you're innocent. You've already judged people and their actions as evil, dimwit. Remember, you're no better than those you condemn, kitty killer.
Ink

Lansdowne, PA

#256308 Aug 21, 2015
ffj wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious that you pretend you're innocent. You've already judged people and their actions as evil, dimwit. Remember, you're no better than those you condemn, kitty killer.
Innocent of what, feces?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#256309 Aug 21, 2015
Investigate and charge the perps at Planned Parenthood®, open the books. Let's see how much they make off their illegal human organ trade.

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 Masturbation, sharing beds lead to homosexualit... 14 min Tre H 12
Gay sex Sur Oman (Feb '17) 15 min ben 4
News All bets are off at the Supreme Court 30 min Tre H 46
News What would Jesus say about same-sex marriage? (Jul '15) 35 min Tre H 15,021
News Lesbian granted rights of 'husband' in same-sex... (May '17) 1 hr King Tangy 41
News Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to hig... 2 hr Wondering 107
News a CDC ban on 'fetus' and 'transgender?' Experts... 2 hr Lawrence Wolf 9
The Spectrum Cafe (Dec '07) 2 hr E X P O S E D 26,933
News Unhinged pastor tells "gay world" to "go to a M... 4 hr Charles 17
More from around the web