Letters to the Editor
-
Hey Paul in KY
"Note I said 'criminal' not 'burden'. There's a big difference between a person having mental/physical problems that require some form of governmental/institutional help & a criminal who preys on other people. That is what we call a 'nuance'."
Ok then, just the babies of criminals then...why just the rapists? Why not ALL of them, if they are so predispositioned to be criminals?
"By the way, I note you haven't commented on my & another poster's assertion that all the poor aborted fetuses go to heaven anyway, so what's the big deal?"
Actually I did - I said the yes they go to heaven but does that mean that they don't deserve a chance at a life?
"Here's another one for you to ponder: Why should a woman who has been assaulted in a manner that causes the assaulter to serve a long prison sentence have to carry the result of the assault for 9 months and in doing so possibly damage her long-term health or even suffer a complication that results in her death?"
Hummm...possibly damage her long-term health or suffer complications versus definitely killing a viable human being. Not much to ponder here.
-- Paul in KY
-
Back at Ya, Chief
chiefpayne said in response to a comment of mine: 'Ok then, just the babies of criminals then...why just the rapists? Why not ALL of them, if they are so predispositioned to be criminals?'
You're the one who brought in the rapists when you said the poor women should/must carry their potential offspring to term. We know the father is a violent criminal (100 %). We can either take the chance that the fetus is more stable than the father or we can decide to not take the chance. I leave the decision to the one carrying the fetus. Not chancing bringing another piece-of-shit, rapist scum into the world is a valid reason to abort, IMO. You and I will just have to differ here.
chiefpayne answer to my question about the aborted fetuses going to heaven: 'Actually I did - I said the yes they go to heaven but does that mean that they don't deserve a chance at a life?'
Sorry I missed your response on this one. Sad to say, due to the terrible circumstances of their conception, they don't (IMO). Happily for you & them, they will be exalted in heaven.
chiefpayne response to my last question: 'Hummm...possibly damage her long-term health or suffer complications versus definitely killing a viable human being. Not much to ponder here.'
You know the 'complications' I alluded to potentially include her death. Yes, and 'damage to long-term health' is just words, isn't it? No real post-born person would have to suffer if they had 'damage to their long-term health'. I also object to the characterization 'viable human being' in your response. You cannot first generalize that all fetuses are 'viable' to begin with & then I don't think a less than 7 month old fetus is a 'human being' (I don't care what they look like in the womb). They are at that stage a 'potential human being', IMO. I will concede that at 7 months or so you could consider them a 'human being' biologically, since they generally would have some viability if removed from the womb. Legally, I don't think you have any rights until you come out of a vagina.
You see, if we follow your point of view, any loser will be able to ensure their genetic survival by forcibily impregnating a women. That does happen among some lower creatures who don't know any better, but I think we should aspire to a higher level of morality than the law of the jungle or the law of if-I-get-my-dick-into-you-and-you-conceive-then-I'm-a-daddy.
-
That was the best you could do, chiefpayne? LAME.
Interesting. I said I may be biased because I am Catholic and you take it as my holding it at a Red Badge of Virtue...
Isn't that always at least implicit when Christians (and other religionists) wield their beliefs and affiliations in such a way? That's always been my experience. It's like the Christians who put an equal sign between their religion or church and morality, and assume that mere affiliation with their denomination or avowal of its belief system somehow equates to a moral character, and when confronted by immoral or even criminal acts by their church brethren or parishoners, react by declaring that the guilty parties aren't REAL Christians! But of course! LOL They don't realize that their original error, the original sin of their thinking, as it were, was to totally equate their church or religion with morality in the first place!
...yet I didn't have to say it and I knew there would be those (like you) who would throw the recent problems in my face.
RECENT problems? Oh please. The Church has a very long history of terrible misdeeds, and the pedophilia problem has been endemic for centuries. It's only been recently that it's drawn major public exposure, however. And much of the public remain ignorant of many of the Church's other misdeeds, either historic or contemporary.
Seems to me if I had wanted to show a badge of virtue, I wouldn't have mentioned my religion.
Well, that would have been a good start!
Ah me. So I am guilty by association. So be it. However, I believe you will find almost EVERY religion has had problems in their past.
I never said you were guilty by association; I argued that the Catholic Church is far from the being the beacon of morality that it claims to be, and should hold no special place as a moral purveyor for our society, and those who'd invoke it as such need to seriously re-examine their position. But, since you mentioned it, I DO question the ethics of someone who'd voluntarily associate with an organization whose moral rot has been on such painful public display for years now. And yes, every religion has had its problems, but your Church has a nasty and shameful record that is unsurpassed and unmatched in the West, and looking globally perhaps its only historical peer is Islam. And as it should be painfully obvious to you, by no means are the Catholic Church's immoralities and problems confined to the past. They're still occurring.
The church has certain doctrines which it must follow. If that is a problem, so be it. No one is forcing Latin Americans to be Catholic...it's a choice. The Nazis were dealt with because there was no one to turn to. As I recall, the Italian government at the time were allies of the Nazis...the Catholic church was fighting to remain alive...of course there ARE those who wish the Nazis had wiped the church out. And yes there have been pedophiles in the church. As I have said, every religion has had problems and DO have problems. At least the people of the church are trying to deal with the issues.
This is ridiculous. The doctrines of the Church are more important than the welfare of children? Excommunicating nuns who've spoken out for reproductive rights is more important than protecting children from pedophiles and having kiddie rapists prosecuted for their crimes? Propping up wealthy, oppressive right-wing regimes was more important than helping the poor fight for social justice? Oh, OK. Sounds like a church that I'd want to be a part of! And stop with the historical revisionism of the Church's sordid alliance with the Nazis and fascists--the Church wasn't fighting for survival, it was an ALLY. The Church disliked Western European democracy and despised Bolshevism and it saw fascism and Nazism as powerful vehicles to fight those twin threats to the Church's power and influence. The only Catholics--clergy or laity--who were persecuted by those regimes were the few who outspokenly opposed them. Hitler and many other top Nazis were Catholics-Hitler himself never formally left the Church and was never excommunicated. The Church entered formal treaty arrangements with these obnoxious regimes (the Lateran Treaty of 1929 with Mussolini's Italy and the Reichskonkordat of 1933 with Hitler's Germany, among others), took tax monies from the Nazi and Italian fascist regimes, and ignored, supported, or helped to facilitate their crimes, and helped many of the guilty escape after the war. The Church played an even more direct role in the Croatian Ustashe genocide against the Serbs, in which some 800,000 people were slaughtered and many more tortured, imprisoned, or exiled. And who ever said that they wished the Nazis had "wiped the church out"?! I've never heard anyone express those sentiments, and I've never said or written anything like that. What I do regret is that the Church was not able to rise to a higher level of morality in its dealings with right-wing tyrants, let alone oppose them altogether. Plenty of Europeans, primarily leftists and secularists, actively opposed these regimes in any way they could, but the Church cozied up to them and whispered sweet nothings in their ears. It's a record and a legacy of shame, and nothing more.
As for the "people of the church...deal[ing] with the issues" that's all fine and dandy, but the problem with the Catholic Church (or any similar institution) is how the hierarchy, the leadership, deals with these issues. And on that front, the Catholic Church has failed miserably time after time, on issue after issue.
I never said the Catholic church DID hold any special claim to virtue.
Again, as mentioned before, it's always implied when religionists invoke their religion or church in ethical and moral debates. You were doing the same, if more subtly than many others do, and the only reason you deny it now is because I called you on it.