Can someone update me on Catholics?

[Baruch]

I ask again: what important decisions pope influenced? How his power shows? Countries sending ambassadors to Vatican do not mean much. In reality current pope has no more influence than late JP II who opposed war with Iraq. I don't remember Bush caring much about this.

President Bush Jr thought about the Pope, the same as Stalin did.  That is because our Presidents are as bad as Stalin ;-)

I think Poland's memory of JP II would be different, if he hadn't been Polish himself, maybe someone the Poles might despise, like German Pope Benedict.

[Shukhov]

President Bush Jr thought about the Pope, the same as Stalin did.  That is because our Presidents are as bad as Stalin ;-)

Or he simply knew that pope could only talk and no one really cares about what he has to say.

I think Poland's memory of JP II would be different, if he hadn't been Polish himself, maybe someone the Poles might despise, like German Pope Benedict.

JP II had if not cult then something approaching it in Poland. I'm still disgusted with presenting him as some kind of ultimate moral authority especially when his failings were well known. But for all praise that was given to him hardly anyone cared about what he has to say which while ironic I deemed to be a good thing cause he wasn't worth listening to.

As for Benedict he wasn't despised from what I heard. He simply was less important to Poles than beloved sun of the nation JP II.

[marom1963]

I ask again: what important decisions pope influenced? How his power shows? Countries sending ambassadors to Vatican do not mean much. In reality current pope has no more influence than late JP II who opposed war with Iraq. I don't remember Bush caring much about this.

Well, in the United States, millions of RCs remain adamantly opposed to abortion and - though Republicans represent a constituency that stands against the RCs on every other issue - they go ahead and pull the lever for Republican candidates. If the pope were to change his position and allow for abortion in at least some cases, RCs in America would be more likely to vote for Democrats, who, on the whole, are a lot less hostile to RCs to begin with. Traditionally, before Roe V Wade, RCs were a reliable Democratic block - not so much any more ... The pope still appoints cardinals, still appoints archbishops, still appoints bishops - at least here in the US. These men control vast amounts of real estate and oversee huge incomes that are tax free - and they are answerable only to the pope. He has at his disposal the monsignors - a squad of priests who are answerable only to the pope, not to the bishops, not to the archbishops, not to the cardinals, but only directly to the pope himself. They are known as the pope's spies. That is how it works in America. Elsewhere, I cannot say.

[Shukhov]

Well, in the United States, millions of RCs remain adamantly opposed to abortion and - though Republicans represent a constituency that stands against the RCs on every other issue - they go ahead and pull the lever for Republican candidates. If the pope were to change his position and allow for abortion in at least some cases, RCs in America would be more likely to vote for Democrats, who, on the whole, are a lot less hostile to RCs to begin with. Traditionally, before Roe V Wade, RCs were a reliable Democratic block - not so much any more ... The pope still appoints cardinals, still appoints archbishops, still appoints bishops - at least here in the US. These men control vast amounts of real estate and oversee huge incomes that are tax free - and they are answerable only to the pope. He has at his disposal the monsignors - a squad of priests who are answerable only to the pope, not to the bishops, not to the archbishops, not to the cardinals, but only directly to the pope himself. They are known as the pope's spies. That is how it works in America. Elsewhere, I cannot say.

In regards to abortion - if and more likely are key words. As for the rest spin this however you want pope isn't some hugely influential figure. He simply is boss to his employees and that's all. He can do shit about important things just like JP II who was against Iraq war.

He have more power than ordinary Joe but times when popes could depose monarchs had passed.

[marom1963]

In regards to abortion - if and more likely are key words. As for the rest spin this however you want pope isn't some hugely influential figure. He simply is boss to his employees and that's all. He can do shit about important things just like JP II who was against Iraq war.

He have more power than ordinary Joe but times when popes could depose monarchs had passed.

Well, I don't recall saying that modern popes were as powerful as medieval popes. A pope's power today resides more in his influence than in his direct power - much as the British monarch's power lies in her influence than in her executive power (or lack thereof). Not even her former prime ministers are able to say that Queen Elizabeth was w/o influence during their tenures. M Thatcher pointed out that she prepared much more carefully for her meetings w/the queen than w/parliament, simply b/c the queen was better prepared and b/c, by law, the PM could neither lie to the queen nor put her off but had to answer her and tell her what she wanted to know: evasion was tantamount to treason.

[Shukhov]

I know you didn't said such and I weren't sugesting that.

As for the rest pope Francis isn't queen Elizabeth.

WysÅ,ane z mojego 6045K przy użyciu Tapatalka

[trdsf]

they are lead by a guy who is infallible when he says something they agree with, but not when they disagree with him.

That was one of the best parts of the election of Pope Frank, watching all the conservative Catholics have collective conniptions about "But but but but he wasn't speaking infallibly when he said that!"

Funny how they didn't make the distinction about speaking ex cathedra when it was JP2 or Benny.

Weird thing is, the dogma of papal infallibility is surprisingly recent: it wasn't declared until the First Vatican Council in 1870 -- although it was asserted before that.

[marom1963]

That was one of the best parts of the election of Pope Frank, watching all the conservative Catholics have collective conniptions about "But but but but he wasn't speaking infallibly when he said that!"

Funny how they didn't make the distinction about speaking ex cathedra when it was JP2 or Benny.

Weird thing is, the dogma of papal infallibility is surprisingly recent: it wasn't declared until the First Vatican Council in 1870 -- although it was asserted before that.

& a sitting pope is infallible - but a future pope can reverse him! Apparently God is apt to change his perfect mind, too.

[doorknob]

In regards to abortion - if and more likely are key words. As for the rest spin this however you want pope isn't some hugely influential figure. He simply is boss to his employees and that's all. He can do shit about important things just like JP II who was against Iraq war.

He have more power than ordinary Joe but times when popes could depose monarchs had passed.

The catholic priest once  told me when I was growing up that an abortion was permitted if it was to save the mothers life. So there are exceptions made from time to time.

I'm not religious and I think that overall abortion is not a good thing. No one would get pregnant on purpose just to have an abortion that's just asinine. I also think that abortion can do serious psychological damage. Damage that could very well easily be avoided with the promotion of birth control! Birth control is 99% accurate when taken correctly. That's pretty damn high!

You would think that if they are so against abortion they'd at least give out birth control on street corners.

The abortion is issue is flowered up far too much for political reasons. I think it's funny that in Japan they just come right out and say that it's killing the baby. Cultural differences and all but call a spade a spade. If you have the balls to go get an abortion than have the balls to admit what it is! If you can't do that you don't deserve the right to have one!

I realize abortion is a complex issue with women who are put in many horrible circumstances and that nothing is black and white. But telling some one that something is what it isn't, is damaging. You know down in your heart you're killing your own baby. That can cause more damage internally for life that just having the baby would have.

I once considered having an abortion. My boyfriend was pressuring me into it and I was afraid of what my mother's reaction would be. I was extremely lucky to have a friend who cared enough about me to notice something was wrong and talk me out of it. I now have a beautiful son that I'm grateful for every day.

There are plenty of women out there that are just like me! Don't want to do it but felt pressured to do it. Some people aren't as lucky as I was and later live to regret it the rest of their life. I also happen to know some one who killed their self because she had an abortion and she couldn't live with the guilt.

So no I don't think abortion is a woman right! I think you should have a really, really good reason. And embarrassment isn't a good reason to kill your own baby.

How ever if any one in society feels the same way, then they should indeed promote birth control, social programs and assistance for women who are facing serious options such as abortion. Maybe we could alleviate the need for it. And also change the stigma of unwed women getting pregnant by accident. So much pressure and so much shunning can cause and unwanted result of abortion.

I do think how ever it's not the laws that should change it is society and the way they treat unwed mothers. So no I don't think killing abortion doctors or setting planned parent hood and other clinics that offer abortion on fire is a good way to solve a problem. Violence in general is usually counter productive to any cause.

Religion is what causes the violence, not the secular community.

It is what it is.

[Shukhov]

The catholic priest once  told me when I was growing up that an abortion was permitted if it was to save the mothers life. So there are exceptions made from time to time.

Or such was opinion of this particular priest.

I'm not religious and I think that overall abortion is not a good thing.

I'm atheist and I do not care about abortion, only about women having right to it.

No one would get pregnant on purpose just to have an abortion that's just asinine.

Did I say such thing?

I also think that abortion can do serious psychological damage.

I don't.

You would think that if they are so against abortion they'd at least give out birth control on street corners.

They aren't against abortion they just want to control women.

The abortion is issue is flowered up far too much for political reasons. I think it's funny that in Japan they just come right out and say that it's killing the baby. Cultural differences and all but call a spade a spade. If you have the balls to go get an abortion than have the balls to admit what it is! If you can't do that you don't deserve the right to have one!

Abortion is not killing a baby. And you don't get to dictate who "deserve" one.

I realize abortion is a complex issue with women who are put in many horrible circumstances and that nothing is black and white. But telling some one that something is what it isn't, is damaging. You know down in your heart you're killing your own baby. That can cause more damage internally for life that just having the baby would have.

I realize that you have biased view of abortion. Killing baby is church nonsense. As for "knowing in your heart" it does not even deserve comment.

As for damage - legal abortion is safer for woman than birth: http://unmfamilyplanning.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/82184965/The%20Comparative%20Safety.pdf

I once considered having an abortion. My boyfriend was pressuring me into it and I was afraid of what my mother's reaction would be. I was extremely lucky to have a friend who cared enough about me to notice something was wrong and talk me out of it. I now have a beautiful son that I'm grateful for every day.

So? Whatever your experience was it is not the same for every other woman.

There are plenty of women out there that are just like me! Don't want to do it but felt pressured to do it.

There are plenty women unlike you who want it but are pressured to not do it or state already decided that they can't do it.

Some people aren't as lucky as I was and later live to regret it the rest of their life. I also happen to know some one who killed their self because she had an abortion and she couldn't live with the guilt.

Other people aren't like you. Your bias in showing in claiming that abortion would be regretted later in life. As for second part anecdotes don't count especially when people are doing their best to make women believe that abortion equal killing children.

So no I don't think abortion is a woman right!

Think whatever you wish but you don't have the right to decide how others should live their life. And remember that by opposing abortion you condemn woman to greater risk of dying.

I think you should have a really, really good reason. And embarrassment isn't a good reason to kill your own baby.

You aren't in church you could stop preaching - abortion isn't killing a baby. Also frankly I don't give a damn about what you think is good reason for abortion. It's not you who should decide what others have right to do.

How ever if any one in society feels the same way, then they should indeed promote birth control, social programs and assistance for women who are facing serious options such as abortion. Maybe we could alleviate the need for it. And also change the stigma of unwed women getting pregnant by accident.

Birth control and social programs should be promoted in that we agree. But opponents of abortion don't care about women or would be children - they want power over woman body. At least in Poland that is.

So much pressure and so much shunning can cause and unwanted result of abortion.

Abortion isn't end of the world.

Thing that should end is pressure on having children - not everyone are fit for being parents.

[Baruch]

Following the chain of cause/effect ...

The main reason why women get pregnant is because of men (except when the Jewish god is involved in magical pedophilia).

Men are the primary impregnators (except test tube babies, where the medical tech may be a woman)

Also men are the primary misogynists (though women can be too)

So with men, the primary misogynist and primary impregnator is combined.  The woman is usually only guilty of being fecund.

The solution to this is a chastity belt, that your commissar for procreation comes around and temporarily releases you from under state approved conditions.  Then there will be a lot fewer unplanned pregnancies.  And number of pregnancies will match Five Year Plan ;-)

Women sometimes want sex, or a baby ... but if we stop this at the male end, we don't need to worry about their gender specific needs.

[marom1963]

Abortion is not killing a baby.

I'm an atheist. I am in favor of abortion being legal. I believe in a woman's right to choose.
But, no - abortion is killing a baby.
Sorry, but, carried to term, a fetus does not come out a dog or a cat or anything but a human baby.
Many abortions are performed when the fetus is viable outside of the womb.
What needs to be said is not that we are not killing a baby but that we are not sentencing a baby to a life of being unwanted. The point behind abortion is this - a human baby has an inalienable right - to be wanted and loved and to be born to parents who can afford to care for it. When these conditions are not present, it is better that that baby not be born. This cowardly nonsense about when a fetus becomes human is - just that - cowardly nonsense. It's no better than saying "passed away" when you mean died. We cannot yet say how aware a fetus is of its environment - or whether it feels pain when it is aborted. However, we can say how aware a baby is of its environment and we do know that babies feel pain when they are not wanted and live in horrible conditions. These scum who are against abortion care nothing about the babies that they force to live. They care only about feeling self-righteous. To Hell w/them.

[Shukhov]

But, no - abortion is killing a baby.

Whatever you say.

Sorry, but, carried to term, a fetus does not come out a dog or a cat or anything but a human baby.

You even read what you write? Yes, after birth we are talking about baby, before it is fetus to certain point unable to live on it's own.

Many abortions are performed when the fetus is viable outside of the womb.

Don't know, don't care. I'm not the one deciding.

And if it is so then perhaps day after pill should be more widely available.

What needs to be said is not that we are not killing a baby but that we are not sentencing a baby to a life of being unwanted.

What's need to be said is that doctors performing the procedure aren't killing babies. That's church talk designed to impart guilt on the women.

The point behind abortion is this - a human baby has an inalienable right - to be wanted and loved and to be born to parents who can afford to care for it.

The point is that only woman have right to decide what to do after she find that she is pregnant. Aside that, yes only people who are ready for heavy burden of having child should have one.

This cowardly nonsense about when a fetus becomes human is - just that - cowardly nonsense.

Pathetic nonsense about fetus being human is just that, pathetic nonsense. Apart from being pathetic it's propagated by church which want to guilt women into being breeding machines.

Sane person would agree that killing children is bad thing so using that kind of language in regards to abortion have one purpose - imparting guilt and forcing women to birth.

It's no better than saying "passed away" when you mean died.

It's accurate.

We cannot yet say how aware a fetus is of its environment - or whether it feels pain when it is aborted.

You're wrong:

[...] A major and important conclusion of the report was that the human fetus did not have the necessary structural integration of the nervous system to experience awareness or pain before 26 weeks of gestation[...]Even after 24 weeks, there is continuing development and elaboration of intracortical networks. Furthermore, there is good evidence that the fetus is sedated by the physical environment of the womb and usually does not awaken before birth.[...]

Here is entire article: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf

These scum who are against abortion care nothing about the babies that they force to live. They care only about feeling self-righteous. To Hell w/them.

I have no respect to people who would deny women right to decide how they should live their life. But people thinking that abortion is killing aren't much higher in my list. Such thinking is playing right into church hands and giving more arguments to people being against abortion.

[marom1963]

Whatever you say.

You even read what you write? Yes, after birth we are talking about baby, before it is fetus to certain point unable to live on it's own.

Don't know, don't care. I'm not the one deciding.

And if it is so then perhaps day after pill should be more widely available.

What's need to be said is that doctors performing the procedure aren't killing babies. That's church talk designed to impart guilt on the women.

The point is that only woman have right to decide what to do after she find that she is pregnant. Aside that, yes only people who are ready for heavy burden of having child should have one.

Pathetic nonsense about fetus being human is just that, pathetic nonsense. Apart from being pathetic it's propagated by church which want to guilt women into being breeding machines.

Sane person would agree that killing children is bad thing so using that kind of language in regards to abortion have one purpose - imparting guilt and forcing women to birth.

It's accurate.

You're wrong:

[...] A major and important conclusion of the report was that the human fetus did not have the necessary structural integration of the nervous system to experience awareness or pain before 26 weeks of gestation[...]Even after 24 weeks, there is continuing development and elaboration of intracortical networks. Furthermore, there is good evidence that the fetus is sedated by the physical environment of the womb and usually does not awaken before birth.[...]

Here is entire article: https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf

I have no respect to people who would deny women right to decide how they should live their life. But people thinking that abortion is killing aren't much higher in my list. Such thinking is playing right into church hands and giving more arguments to people being against abortion.

What guilt? If there is guilt in doing what is right, then there is something wrong w/the person, not the act. I find nothing wrong w/ taking the life if the life is unwanted. A human baby is helpless. It cannot survive on its own. It requires parents who will nurture it willingly. Unwilling parents it does not need. To take its life is not wrong. You are the one who is laboring under Judeo-Christian morality. Many ancient peoples had no problem w/disposing of unwanted babies. They either aborted them before birth or killed them at birth or left them to die after birth. Only those babies that were wanted and which would be raised properly were kept.

[Shukhov]

What guilt?

You're serious? Guilt for "killing children". I don't see abortion as such, but it doesn't mean that at least some women don't see it like this thanks to being subjected to language equaling abortion with killing babies.

If there is guilt in doing what is right, then there is something wrong w/the person, not the act.

I don't see abortion as something right.

I find nothing wrong w/ taking the life if the life is unwanted.

I see. Though we probably have something else in mind.

A human baby is helpless. It cannot survive on its own. It requires parents who will nurture it willingly. Unwilling parents it does not need. To take its life is not wrong.

I'm not quite sure if I understood you correctly. It's nothing wrong to kill the unwanted child? If so then you disgust me and I see no reason to continue discussion with person such like you.

You are the one who is laboring under Judeo-Christian morality. Many ancient peoples had no problem w/disposing of unwanted babies.

I don't give a shit about ancient people thought on the subject. We aren't living in the past where such barbarous practices existed.