Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Ye'll be chanting your old classics such as 'Don't let the fetus defeat us'...:D

Indeed. Right after an a capella rendition of Get your rosaries off our Ovaries.

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

That's the most self explanatory sentence I've written to date. You realy don't understand comprehension, do you... :pac::cool::P:confused::eek::(:mad::):rolleyes::o:p;):D

"you would rather let a woman die in a futile attempt to save a cell cluster"

Now, why refer such a sentence to me..?

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Indeed. Right after an a capella rendition of Get your rosaries off our Ovaries.

The grand finalé...

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

The grand finalé...

Not til the curvaceous woman sings...and she's only warming up now.

Silvio.Dante

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Not til the curvaceous woman sings...and she's only warming up now.

Indeed.

The show's far from over yet...;)

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

"you would rather let a woman die in a futile attempt to save a cell cluster"

Now, why refer such a sentence to me..?

Because that has been proved and admitted by you as your view. Now answer the question, do your friends know of your viewed which I have summarised?

Doctor Strange

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Indeed.

The show's far from over yet...;)

Oh no, you are mistaken. Your show is long over. Ours has just begun.

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

admitted by you as your view.

Now you're digging yourself into a hole here kiddo.

Show me where I said this or retract it as the slur it actually is...

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Now you're digging yourself into a hole here kiddo.

Show me where I said this or retract it as the slur it actually is...

How so is it a slur? It has been seen over the entirety of this thread that you support that view. There is no digging going on, only a statement of an event.


And you are in no position to ask for a retraction.

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

How so is it a slur? It has been seen over the entirety of this thread that you support that view. There is no digging going on, only a statement of an event.


And you are in no position to ask for a retraction.

Let me remind you again.

You said in reference to me: "you would rather let a woman die in a futile attempt to save a cell cluster" and "admitted by you as your view".

Now show me where I said such a thing or withdraw the slur as that is what it is...

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Let me remind you again.

You said in reference to me: "you would rather let a woman die in a futile attempt to save a cell cluster" and "admitted by you as your view".

Now show me where I said such a thing or withdraw the slur as that is what it is...

Let me remind YOU, that the view as explained is evident from every single one of your posts on here, so to me to show it, I wold have to quote an enormous amount.

May I also remind you that you labelled me as a "baby killer", yet you would not withdraw that. Respect is earned Silvio, not demanded.

So back to my question, do your friends know the extent of the views you hold? And how so is what I outlined a slur?

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

Let me remind YOU, that the view as explained is evident from every single one of your posts on here, so to me to show it, I wold have to quote an enormous amount.

May I also remind you that you labelled me as a "baby killer", yet you would not withdraw that. Respect is earned Silvio, not demanded.

So back to my question, do your friends know the extent of the views you hold? And how so is what I outlined a slur?

Baby killer?

You're some fruit loop, who adovcates for partial birth abortions to boot.

Off the richter, for all to see.

Your failure to stand up to the plate and back up your slanderous drivel is clear for all to see.

A lesson learned for you I hope...

Sarky

Answer the lad silvio. Do your friends know the extent of your views, which would rather see women die for the sake of a clump of cells?

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Baby killer?

You're some fruit loop, who adovcates for partial birth abortion to boot.

Off the richter, for all to see.

Your failure to stand up to the plate and back up your slanderous drivel is clear for all to see.

A lesson learned for you I hope...

I actually laughed at that one.

If you had any semblance of memory, or at lest had one un-spun post, you would see that I accepted that there may be a case for it, such as anencephaly. That is math. You however are hell bent in making it seem that I'm running around with forceps, grabbing whatever is in any and every womb out for no apparent reason.

And fruit loop? I don't see how someone such as yourself, who imagines they live in a world where democracy is tailorable, the living are less value, and all foetuses are babies has any, and I mean any, grounding to comment on the psychological state of others.

In no context is showing up someones view slanderous. It is called debating, which is what most of us do on here. Now answer the question I put to you, or back up your stance.

Silvio.Dante

Sarky wrote: »

Answer the lad silvio. Do your friends know the extent of your views, which would rather see women die for the sake of a clump of cells?

Another one working double time with that shovel

Give a link to your claim in bold...:)

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

I actually laughed at that one.

If you had any semblance of memory, or at lest had one un-spun post, you would see that I accepted that there may be a case for it, such as anencephaly. That is math. You however are hell bent in making it seem that I'm running around with forceps, grabbing whatever is in any and every womb out for no apparent reason.

And fruit loop? I don't see how someone such as yourself, who imagines they live in a world where democracy is tailorable, the living are less value, and all foetuses are babies has any, and I mean any, grounding to comment on the psychological state of others.

In no context is showing up someones view slanderous. It is called debating, which is what most of us do on here. Now answer the question I put to you, or back up your stance.

Its gettng embarassing for you now sunshine.

Your abject failure to back up either of your baseless slurs against me speaks volumes

Your implicit retraction is accepted, whether its offered or not. Hopefully this will be a learning experience for you...

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Its gettng embarassing for you now sunshine.

Your abject failure to back up either of your baseless slurs against me speaks volumes

Your implicit retraction is accepted, whether its offered or not. Hopefully this will be a learning experience for you...

Silvio, one does not need evidence for something that is self-evident. Anyone who peruses through the history of this thread will see evidence. What you are' doing, however, is proving me wrong. Your abject failure to even defend yourself speaks volumes much greater than what you wanted to read from my post.


And we have already gone through how you labelled me a "baby killer". I'm not going through it again.

And by the way, there is no retraction. I don't retract the truth.

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

Silvio, one does not need evidence for something that is self-evident. Anyone who peruses through the history of this thread will see evidence. What you are' doing, however, is proving me wrong. Your abject failure to even defend yourself speaks volumes much greater than what you wanted to read from my post.


And we have already gone through how you labelled me a "baby killer". I'm not going through it again.

And by the way, there is no retraction. I don't retract the truth.

Fail...:)

_rebelkid

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Fail...:)

Wow Silvio, you have totally rendered my argument useless. *holds up sarcasm sign*

Now, answer the question. Are your friends aware of your views?

Silvio.Dante

_rebelkid wrote: »

Wow Silvio, you have totally rendered my argument useless. *holds up sarcasm sign*

Now, answer the question. Are your friends aware of your views?

What views are you talking about now kiddo..?

Doctor Strange

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

What views are you talking about now kiddo..?

Do us all a favour and stop being so condescending.

Dades

Hello, all.

So things have got somewhat carried away recently with the introductions of new *opinions* to the thread.

While the thread hasn't exactly gone off-topic, it has become somewhat painful to read (like chewing glass, in fact). To that end we're putting a symbolic end to whatever personal battles we have ongoing, in an effort to get the train back on the tracks.

Temporarily, at least, can new posts in this thread bring something new to the table, please? Opinions are welcome on any new developments, news, media, etc.

Opinions we've all seen a hundred times before, are not, and are liable to be deleted or worse. Drive-by one-liners will also get what they deserve.

In short, everyone drop their weapons, and posts going forward (for the time being at least) need to be relevant to the wider debate, rather than to an entrenched personal battle.

Thanking you.

aloyisious

Part of the problem for the RC church on the topic of abortion is that there are misunderstandings within it (and it's linked organizations) on what it is all about. There's an ongoing hoo-ha in Germany where two catholic hospitals refused to supply the "morning-after" pill to a rape victim on the grounds that it was abortion-inducing. That understanding was apparently due to the stance of the church.

Germany's Catholic Church may approve some morning-after pills for rape victims after a leading cardinal unexpectedly announced they did not induce abortions and could be used in Catholic hospitals.

Cardinal Joachim Meisner of Cologne changed his policy after two Catholic hospitals refused to treat a rape victim because they could not prescribe the pill, which is taken after sex to avoid pregnancy.

The Catholic Church firmly opposes abortion and artificial birth control.
Many Catholics see all emergency contraceptives as abortion-inducing drugs banned by this policy, but Cardinal Meisner said some prevent fertilisation and could be used in rape cases. "The German Bishops' Conference is holding a regular meeting in two weeks and the issue will certainly be on the agenda," Cologne archdiocese spokeswoman Nele Harbeke said. "The bishops' conference must in principle agree on a common line."

Cardinal Meisner, 79, has in the past rejected emergency contraceptives as producing a "just-in-case abortion".

The pills have become a hot issue in the US as many Catholics oppose President Barack Obama's health reform in part because it mandates Catholic hospitals to provide birth control for female employees.

One pill, marketed as "Plan B" in the US and based on the synthetic hormone levonorgestrel, is rejected by these critics as an abortifacient, but might meet Cardinal Meisner's criteria.

The Cologne incident sparked uproar in Germany last month and the cardinal apologised publicly, saying it "shames us deeply because it contradicts our Christian mission and our purpose". Cardinal Meisner's change of mind made headlines because he is known for his outspoken conservative views. The surprise was compounded when another conservative, Berlin Archbishop Rainer Woelki, urged the church to debate the issue.

Cardinal Meisner said he had changed his view after learning from scientists that some newer pills did not abort fertilised eggs, but rather prevented fertilisation altogether. "If a medication that hinders conception is used after a rape with the purpose of avoiding fertilisation, then this is acceptable in my view," he said.

His office stressed in an accompanying statement that this exception was valid only in rape cases and not within Catholic marriage, where artificial contraception is banned. It also said there was no change to the ban on the so-called abortion pill, based on the drug mifepristone or RU-486, and marketed as Mifegyne or Mifeprex.

Archbishop Harbeke said Cardinal Meisner had consulted the Vatican, as well as a 2009 directive for Catholic hospitals in the US that says a rape victim "may be treated with medications that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation or fertilisation".

That directive by the US bishops' conference does not name the Plan B pill, marketed elsewhere as Levonelle, NorLevo, Postinor-2 or Optinor, which some US Catholic hospitals use and others do not, depending on their reading of church teaching.

The German Catholic Hospitals' Association hailed Cardinal Meisner's statement for spelling out what they can do for rape victims.

"We are still against the abortion pill," association official Thomas Vortkamp told Cologne's Catholic broadcaster Domradio. "But it helps to know we can give a 'morning-after pill' in cases of raped women who must be helped urgently."

...............................................................................

I "lifted" (and altered slightly the positioning of it's disjointed sentences) the report from this source:

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=german%20hospitals%20refuse%20to%20give%20rape%20victim%20the%20%22morning-after%22%20pill&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rte.ie%2Fnews%2F2013%2F0204%2F366179-germany-morning-after-pill-catholic-hospitals-rape%2F&ei=HQoRUbbXH4-yhAexmIHYBw&usg=AFQjCNHsGpPpaDmbvQnPVgPeWoznS4scug

Lingua Franca

It would be funny to sit back and watch all this Catholic flip flopping and policy adjustment if there wasn't such a horrible human cost behind it all.

I'm curious, what part of scripture do they point to as prohibiting contraception?

Bannasidhe

aloyisious wrote: »

"We are still against the abortion pill," association official Thomas Vortkamp told Cologne's Catholic broadcaster Domradio. "But it helps to know we can give a 'morning-after pill' in cases of raped women who must be helped urgently."

...............................................................................

I "lifted" (and altered slightly the positioning of it's disjointed sentences) the report from this source:

http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=german%20hospitals%20refuse%20to%20give%20rape%20victim%20the%20%22morning-after%22%20pill&source=newssearch&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQqQIoADAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.rte.ie%2Fnews%2F2013%2F0204%2F366179-germany-morning-after-pill-catholic-hospitals-rape%2F&ei=HQoRUbbXH4-yhAexmIHYBw&usg=AFQjCNHsGpPpaDmbvQnPVgPeWoznS4scug

Essentially still playing semantics. No change there.

Silvio.Dante

Its probably best if you check in on the Christianity forum and seek out some Catholics who know their stuff on the validity of the German Cardinal's decision or lack thereof...

Bannasidhe

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Its probably best if you check in on the Christianity forum and seek out some Catholics who know their stuff on the validity of the German Cardinal's decision or lack thereof...

Why don't you educate us on the difference between the 'abortion' pill and the 'morning after' pill Silvio?

Dades

Or not, if it's just going to be an opinion not grounded in a medical qualification.

In the interim, I'm sure people will keep the suggestion to check with the catholics, on board.

Silvio.Dante

Dades wrote: »

Or not, if it's just going to be an opinion not grounded in a medical qualification.

In the interim, I'm sure people will keep the suggestion to check with the catholics, on board.

I agree...

eyescreamcone

Silvio.Dante wrote: »

Its probably best if you check in on the Christianity forum and seek out some Catholics who know their stuff on the validity of the German Cardinal's decision or lack thereof...

I'd love to, but they 'ahem' excommunicated me...so to speak