http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/21/2522536.htm?section=justin
Quote[...]Pope Benedict criticised the African Union's charter that guarantees women the right to an abortion in case of rape, incest, or major health risk to the mother saying the issue was not a health concern.[...]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iLJ2gzRRfTYc_YuS7r1yuwnmne-gD971UDFG0
Quote[...]He also criticized what he called the "irony of those who promote abortion as a form of 'maternal' health care." [...]
::)
Guys tell me this. I know JP2 was a conservative too, and was often criticized for it, and perhaps I am viewing this through the all "Polish Pope" cult of personality here, but I think Benedict XVI seems much worse than John Paul II? Or am I off here?
Pretty much the same.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 08:31:00 AM
Guys tell me this. I know JP2 was a conservative too, and was often criticized for it, and perhaps I am viewing this through the all "Polish Pope" cult of personality here, but I think Benedict XVI seems much worse than John Paul II? Or am I off here?
It probably helped JP II that he had communism to talk about, not long after which he was stuck in a wheelchair.
There's a Planned Parenthood right outside the university I go to that's surrounded by Pro-Life protesters almost 24/7 now. I've never seen this before, so I thought it was very interesting.
It doesn't help that PP decided to put their huge building within easy walking distance from a couple churches and a big cathedral. :D
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 08:31:00 AM
Guys tell me this. I know JP2 was a conservative too, and was often criticized for it, and perhaps I am viewing this through the all "Polish Pope" cult of personality here, but I think Benedict XVI seems much worse than John Paul II? Or am I off here?
They are the same. Hell, Ben is even a Nazi.
They have the same bad taste in hats.
I am getting all confused by these news stories...I thought the Pope was fighting Texas teen boys in a cagematch?
Quote from: PDH on March 21, 2009, 11:06:51 AM
I am getting all confused by these news stories...I thought the Pope was fighting Texas teen boys in a cagematch?
With the Ayatollah as the ring official
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 08:31:00 AM
Guys tell me this. I know JP2 was a conservative too, and was often criticized for it, and perhaps I am viewing this through the all "Polish Pope" cult of personality here, but I think Benedict XVI seems much worse than John Paul II? Or am I off here?
I think JP2 was more charming, the message is much the same. But Benedict only has the charisma of the office.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 21, 2009, 12:56:08 PM
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 08:31:00 AM
Guys tell me this. I know JP2 was a conservative too, and was often criticized for it, and perhaps I am viewing this through the all "Polish Pope" cult of personality here, but I think Benedict XVI seems much worse than John Paul II? Or am I off here?
I think JP2 was more charming, the message is much the same. But Benedict only has the charisma of the office.
I also think JP2 championed other causes, such as ecumenism whereas B16 finds even that repugnant.
Quote from: Martinus on March 21, 2009, 02:24:51 PM
I also think JP2 championed other causes, such as ecumenism whereas B16 finds even that repugnant.
I think you're over-stating matters. JP2 and Benedict's position on where other churches and other faiths are are the same. They are damned. The Orthodox and the Anglicans are the only other 'churches' but they are heretical.
JP2 released that in Papal Encyclicals but also praised aspects of the different faiths when he met their religious leader (Buddhism's focus on meditation and quiet when he met the Dalai Lama, the importance of prayer when he went to a Mosque). Benedict has done that too when he's met other religious leaders but he's also been more forthright and public about the other stuff.
In terms of ecumenism (by which I mean relations with other groups the Church considers 'churches') Benedict has as good relations with the Orthodox Patriarchs and gets on very well with the Archbishop of Canterbury, they're both, after all, renowned theologians who were made into religious leaders.
I mean in terms of action I think Benedict's been friendlier than JP2. When conservative Anglicans wanted to leave over female priests in the 1990s JP2 put in place a process through which those vicars and their congregations could be fast-tracked into Catholicism. By contrast Benedict has done almost everything he can to discourage discontented Anglicans from coming to Rome because of gay priests (and Bishops), blessing gay marriages and women bishops.
Quote from: Syt on March 21, 2009, 05:48:14 AM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/21/2522536.htm?section=justin
Quote[...]Pope Benedict criticised the African Union's charter that guarantees women the right to an abortion in case of rape, incest, or major health risk to the mother saying the issue was not a health concern.[...]
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iLJ2gzRRfTYc_YuS7r1yuwnmne-gD971UDFG0
Quote[...]He also criticized what he called the "irony of those who promote abortion as a form of 'maternal' health care." [...]
::)
I don't know what you're doing the rolleyes for, this has always been the Catholic position and is the only intellectually coherent one for the church to take.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2009, 04:29:09 PM
the only intellectually coherent one for the church to take.
Kindly explain.
What did the Pope run over your dog today?
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 05:45:05 AM
What did the Pope run over your dog today?
The Popemobile.
Quote from: Syt on March 22, 2009, 12:24:02 AM
Kindly explain.
The Church believes life is sacred and starts at conception. I don't see how the definite loss of one life can, from that position, be better than the possible loss of one, both or neither. Starting from the Catholic Church's basic premises I don't see how any other view could be intellectually coherent.
Of course I don't think intellectual coherence isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2009, 08:33:20 AMThe Church believes life is sacred and starts at conception. I don't see how the definite loss of one life can, from that position, be better than the possible loss of one, both or neither. Starting from the Catholic Church's basic premises I don't see how any other view could be intellectually coherent.
Of course I don't think intellectual coherence isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Except it's not intellectually coherent. Life is sacred, but starts at conception, so where's the damnable offense in
preventing conception? As for the fetus's health versus the mother's health, you'd have to flip a coin... but if the view was intellectually coherent, the coin would be weighted by the fact that the mother's life and death already have material value, while the fetus only has that potential value. The church's argument is doctrinally coherent, but not logically coherent.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 22, 2009, 08:44:02 AM
Except it's not intellectually coherent. Life is sacred, but starts at conception, so where's the damnable offense in preventing conception? As for the fetus's health versus the mother's health, you'd have to flip a coin... but if the view was intellectually coherent, the coin would be weighted by the fact that the mother's life and death already have material value, while the fetus only has that potential value. The church's argument is doctrinally coherent, but not logically coherent.
We're discussing abortion here, not contraception. The Church's position on contraception is to do with a whole different issue.
The Church doesn't view life in terms of material or potential value. Life is life. And, as I say, what we're talking about is one definite death agains only potential deaths or health risks.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 22, 2009, 08:44:02 AM
Except it's not intellectually coherent. Life is sacred, but starts at conception, so where's the damnable offense in preventing conception? As for the fetus's health versus the mother's health, you'd have to flip a coin... but if the view was intellectually coherent, the coin would be weighted by the fact that the mother's life and death already have material value, while the fetus only has that potential value. The church's argument is doctrinally coherent, but not logically coherent.
Two seperate issues:
1. Sex is for procreation, according to the church. Though it doesn't deny the pleasurable aspects of sex, the church maintains that sex for pleasure alone is sinful.
2. According to the church, the value of a fetus isn't potential at all, but as real as that of the mother.
So, I find the church's position logically coherent, once one accepts their premises (which I don't, but that is a personal decision for each of us).
What is not logically coherent is the assertion that abortion should be banned, except in the cases of rape or incest. This position assumes that pregnancy is a punishment for sex, but that the punishment can be waived if the sex was involuntary on the woman's part. No one holding the position will concede the true logic of their position, though.
Quote from: Sheilbh on March 22, 2009, 08:59:51 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 22, 2009, 08:44:02 AM
Except it's not intellectually coherent. Life is sacred, but starts at conception, so where's the damnable offense in preventing conception? As for the fetus's health versus the mother's health, you'd have to flip a coin... but if the view was intellectually coherent, the coin would be weighted by the fact that the mother's life and death already have material value, while the fetus only has that potential value. The church's argument is doctrinally coherent, but not logically coherent.
We're discussing abortion here, not contraception. The Church's position on contraception is to do with a whole different issue.
The Church doesn't view life in terms of material or potential value. Life is life. And, as I say, what we're talking about is one definite death agains only potential deaths or health risks.
Fair enough; sorry about the strawman. Anyway, I realize I need to switch my thinking of pregnancy as punishments to the church's position of pregnancy as a gift that you don't have the right to refuse. But looking at it this way would mean that in a case of health issues, the fetus is the recipient of the gift, not the mother, as the "gift" could, and in some cases will, take the mother's life. For rape victims, in cases where they are not capable of supporting a child, the one that benefits is the one who committed a double sin!
My problem is the church's position applies an absolute across-the-board value on human life without factoring the
cost of human life.
Quote from: grumbler on March 22, 2009, 09:04:46 AM
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 22, 2009, 08:44:02 AM
Except it's not intellectually coherent. Life is sacred, but starts at conception, so where's the damnable offense in preventing conception? As for the fetus's health versus the mother's health, you'd have to flip a coin... but if the view was intellectually coherent, the coin would be weighted by the fact that the mother's life and death already have material value, while the fetus only has that potential value. The church's argument is doctrinally coherent, but not logically coherent.
Two seperate issues:
1. Sex is for procreation, according to the church. Though it doesn't deny the pleasurable aspects of sex, the church maintains that sex for pleasure alone is sinful.
2. According to the church, the value of a fetus isn't potential at all, but as real as that of the mother.
So, I find the church's position logically coherent, once one accepts their premises (which I don't, but that is a personal decision for each of us).
What is not logically coherent is the assertion that abortion should be banned, except in the cases of rape or incest. This position assumes that pregnancy is a punishment for sex, but that the punishment can be waived if the sex was involuntary on the woman's part. No one holding the position will concede the true logic of their position, though.
Of course, the fact that the church's position is inherently cohrent doesn't mean it is not out of whack. This is a classic example why any religion-based reasoning so often exemplifies the G.I.G.O. principle.
Homosexuality is garbage.
Quote from: Neil on March 22, 2009, 11:27:24 AM
Homosexuality is garbage.
I do love men and
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pub.umich.edu%2Fdaily%2F1998%2Fnov%2F11-12-98%2Fphotos%2Fgarbage.gif&hash=69292e1efd5b8fdf649b3fd9354ceab6c0ff3a79)