XL REPUBBLICA - how Mika keeps himself busy ;-)

[sariflor]

Are you serious? Are we talking about a mother who kills her own baby before childbirth? Not even animals do that.

You can always give birth to your child and leave it at the hospital. Lots of families would be happy to welcome a baby who has just been born, even disabled, blind or with Down syndrome.

Anyway if the mother is in danger, the Church allows abortion. But in my country quite a few women decided to risk their life to give birth to a baby and died.

I don't think propaganda is that powerful when motherhood is concerned. And if you think contraception can solve any problem, a woman should just avoid getting pregnant instead of killing her children with no regrets.

 

Wow. I don't even know where to start.

 

Firstly, let's get technical. I'm not speaking of "killing children", but we are discussing aborting an embryo here. This means that if it is left to develop it will (presumably) get to full term, but it is not a child yet. It does not equate to taking a newborn and drowning it in the river, for example, like some cultures have been known to do if it wasn't the right gender, etc...

 

You mention that "not even animals" do it. Well, let me tell you, some animals DO kill their young. A prime example is the male hamster, who will very often do so if left alone with the youngsters.

 

Anyway, whether you or I think that abortion is morally justified is not the point. The point is, that there will always be people in terrible ,desperate situations, and that they should have the right to decide what to do with the protection of the law and access to sanitary help.

It's not for you to decide that because you think that abortion is wrong, and that it's commendable that certain people feel it worthwhile to risk their own life in order to bring a child to this world, or to bring a super disabled child, etc... nobody else has the right to decide and do things within the realm of legality.

Oh, and when you talk of women risking their lives to have a child and dying: how fair is that in regards to the poor orfan child?

 

Re your last point (contraception), sadly this often fails, no matter how much care people put in it. Also, in situations like rapes, it is usually out of the question, so it's irrelevant.

 

 

I think that this is something no one else but the person who is in the situation of an impossible pregnancy can decide. No one else can tell you how to feel or how to think.

And I guess you know too, or should know, that abortion is a thing that has been there since women get pregnant. Illegal and in several countries now legal.

And I DO think that propaganda is that powerful. Just look look at various disputes in the world! Or think back to WWII, that was a thing of just propaganda. Never underestimate the power of the word!

 

Fully agree; Very well said

[Jojotje]

Wow. I don't even know where to start.

 

Firstly, let's get technical. I'm not speaking of "killing children", but we are discussing aborting an embryo here. This means that if it is left to develop it will (presumably) get to full term, but it is not a child yet. It does not equate to taking a newborn and drowning it in the river, for example, like some cultures have been known to do if it wasn't the right gender, etc...

 

You mention that "not even animals" do it. Well, let me tell you, some animals DO kill their young. A prime example is the male hamster, who will very often do so if left alone with the youngsters.

 

Anyway, whether you or I think that abortion is morally justified is not the point. The point is, that there will always be people in terrible ,desperate situations, and that they should have the right to decide what to do with the protection of the law and access to sanitary help.

It's not for you to decide that because you think that abortion is wrong, and that it's commendable that certain people feel it worthwhile to risk their own life in order to bring a child to this world, or to bring a super disabled child, etc... nobody else has the right to decide and do things within the realm of legality.

Oh, and when you talk of women risking their lives to have a child and dying: how fair is that in regards to the poor orfan child?

 

Re your last point (contraception), sadly this often fails, no matter how much care people put in it. Also, in situations like rapes, it is usually out of the question, so it's irrelevant.

 

 

 

 

Fully agree; Very well said

 

This was a thing I wanted to say too, but I couldn't find the right words! Are you from UK?

[sariflor]

This was a thing I wanted to say too, but I couldn't find the right words! Are you from UK?

 

Thankyou . I did really like what you said though.

And no, I'm Spanish, but I've lived in the UK (and before that in Ireland) for many years now, so I guess I'm half "adopted" by now

[suzie]

I am pleased to see the interesting discussion we are having on this thread. There are several posts I might come back on later when I have a bit more time, so let me start from the latest posts now.

 

You can always give birth to your child and leave it at the hospital. Lots of families would be happy to welcome a baby who has just been born, even disabled, blind or with Down syndrome.

Really? So there are no orphanages in Italy then?

My country might be an exception but here most couples willing to adopt a child only want newborns and definitely no gypsies or kids with any disability (physical or mental). It is like picking and choosing on a market. So if a mum whose financial situation or other circumstances in her life do not allow her to bring up her child and she realises it too late, when the kid is over 5, for example, the poor child has little hope of ever growing up in a family.

And then there are also women who do not realise or care that they are pregnant and take drugs, drink alcohol during pregnancy.... In case they have the chance to abort the baby they would just leave at the hospital anyway, should they still keep their child no matter what irreversible damage the poor baby might have suffered? I really don't think so.

I can also vaguely remember a case when an under-aged Irish teenager was raped and got pregnant in the nineties and was not allowed to have an abortion. That was of course, just one case in many I heard about when I was a teenager but the fact that I remember it so vividly shows that it was always cases like that that re-confirmed to me the unbelievable hypocracy of the Catholic church I was already aware of anyway.

 

 

Anyway if the mother is in danger, the Church allows abortion. But in my country quite a few women decided to risk their life to give birth to a baby and died.

 

I'd most definitely not call in martyrdom. There are cases in which I understand this - like a mum being terminally ill and her partner and family reassuring her to bring up the child in case the worst happens -, but in case it is life-threatening for a mum to give birth to a child yet she tries it instead of adopting an orphan, for example, I'd just call it plain stupidity.

Edited October 4, 2010 by suzie

[sienna]

Me too! And it's not just a responsibility that counts in this, but before there were laws to regulate abortion, it often happened in secret, with many women dying because of serious bleeding or terrible infections! Now a woman can go to a hospital! Much safer!

 

Maybe you know the stories about abortions with knittingneedles, or chemicals or other horror stories?

 

So good so far, but there are still too many countries were you don't have that possibility!

 

Yes, that is exactly why it's important. All that these religious fanatics cause, is for people to be in danger. Certain things will always happen; They just need to be properly regulated and legislated, for everyone's safety.

 

This is like the Catholic Church opposing to condoms being used to prevent AIDS, and them coming out with these irresponsible arguments where they say that it doesn't actually prevent the spread of the disease, etc... .

Not only are they wrong, but they are causing SO much horror by trying to impose their views on other people, instead of focusing on the issue at hand, which is to prevent the disease. They have gone so far as to say that the HIV virus can pass through "little holes" in condoms, which is absolutely rubbish, but if they are telling certain uneducated people, their message sticks, and they believe it. The Church has a certain position of authority in many people's minds (especially in subdeveloped areas of the world) and this makes their impact a lot stronger than in other richer, more cultured areas.

 

Of course this means that they should be even more careful about what they say, but instead, they use this fact to spread their "propaganda" and ultimately, as usual, only fulfil their own interests, which throughout the centuries have been of power, richness and domination. It's very sad.

 

I just quoted your post because I think it's important what you say and it's definitely worth repeating!

 

 

Women should have the choice, and should be able to have an abortion in good medical circumstances. The decision to have an abortion is hard enough already.

 

Agree!

[kaisam]

I just discovered this thread. How could I even forget about it:blink:?

 

I just wanted to say, that the second article about religion really touched me. I'm not religious and I'm not an atheist, but the whole life I've had nothing to do with churches or religion. To say, Estonia is not that religious. The way Mika chooses the words and the meaning behind every sentence is just beautiful and so true. It feels like he brought religion closer to me and helped me to understand it better.

[basicamenteyo]

too many posts to quote,but for example here in spain is ilegal to leave your babyborn at the hospital as it´s been suggested here...

 

all the rest has been very well exposed...

[RAK1]

Yes, that is exactly why it's important. All that these religious fanatics cause, is for people to be in danger. Certain things will always happen; They just need to be properly regulated and legislated, for everyone's safety.

 

This is like the Catholic Church opposing to condoms being used to prevent AIDS, and them coming out with these irresponsible arguments where they say that it doesn't actually prevent the spread of the disease, etc... .

Not only are they wrong, but they are causing SO much horror by trying to impose their views on other people, instead of focusing on the issue at hand, which is to prevent the disease. They have gone so far as to say that the HIV virus can pass through "little holes" in condoms, which is absolutely rubbish, but if they are telling certain uneducated people, their message sticks, and they believe it. The Church has a certain position of authority in many people's minds (especially in subdeveloped areas of the world) and this makes their impact a lot stronger than in other richer, more cultured areas.

 

Of course this means that they should be even more careful about what they say, but instead, they use this fact to spread their "propaganda" and ultimately, as usual, only fulfil their own interests, which throughout the centuries have been of power, richness and domination. It's very sad.

 

Does it not say on the packs of condoms, that they are only 99.9% reliable?

It has been known for someone to get pregnant from using them, can't speak for the HIV virus though.

[basicamenteyo]

Does it not say on the packs of condoms, that they are only 99.9% reliable?

It has been known for someone to get pregnant from using them, can't speak for the HIV virus though.

 

yes,i´ve heard it too,but i think they mean that they can get broken....

[RAK1]

yes,i´ve heard it too,but i think they mean that they can get broken....

 

Indeed, so that would mean, that if you have the virus, and you are putting total trust in the condom working, and it lets you down, that could be devastating for both parties.

I think you should use contraception, but the problem with it possibly letting you down, is a factor that should be considered. Wear 2:wink2:

[basicamenteyo]

Indeed, so that would mean, that if you have the virus, and you are putting total trust in the condom working, and it lets you down, that could be devastating for both parties.

I think you should use contraception, but the problem with it possibly letting you down, is a factor that should be considered. Wear 2:wink2:

 

yes you are right.... i´ve got a friend who was pregnant and they used 2 condoms ALWAYS since it was not the first time that that happened.

 

and yes,it´s scary if any of the parts has the virus......

[sariflor]

Does it not say on the packs of condoms, that they are only 99.9% reliable?

It has been known for someone to get pregnant from using them, can't speak for the HIV virus though.

 

Of course it is always "possible", but the likelihood is definitely far higher if you are using NO condom. And it's not due to the "little holes" in them, but due to leakages, or breakage, etc...

 

 

Indeed, so that would mean, that if you have the virus, and you are putting total trust in the condom working, and it lets you down, that could be devastating for both parties.

I think you should use contraception, but the problem with it possibly letting you down, is a factor that should be considered. Wear 2:wink2:

 

yes you are right.... i´ve got a friend who was pregnant and they used 2 condoms ALWAYS since it was not the first time that that happened.

 

and yes,it´s scary if any of the parts has the virus......

 

 

 

Girls, have you never heard that you should never use two condoms together? They are not designed for that, and it creates extra friction which deems them unsafe.

So one should just use one of them, and hope that they are not the 1% where it can go wrong.

[RAK1]

Of course it is always "possible", but the likelihood is definitely far higher if you are using NO condom. And it's not due to the "little holes" in them, but due to leakages, or breakage, etc...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Girls, have you never heard that you should never use two condoms together? They are not designed for that, and it creates extra friction which deems them unsafe.

So one should just use one of them, and hope that they are not the 1% where it can go wrong.

 

That's comforting:roftl:

[suzie]

Does it not say on the packs of condoms, that they are only 99.9% reliable?

It has been known for someone to get pregnant from using them, can't speak for the HIV virus though.

 

I guess not "from" using them but "despite" using them.

 

Anyway, Sariflor's point was that the church argues that 'the HIV virus can pass through "little holes" in condoms' , which is clearly as rubbish as can be. I don't understand why the church refuses to accept the basic principles of science. If women get pregnant it is because condoms might break and not because there are "little holes" in them. This brainwash is simply unbelievable.

Edited October 4, 2010 by suzie

[Sabine64]

Of course it is always "possible", but the likelihood is definitely far higher if you are using NO condom. And it's not due to the "little holes" in them, but due to leakages, or breakage, etc...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Girls, have you never heard that you should never use two condoms together? They are not designed for that, and it creates extra friction which deems them unsafe.

So one should just use one of them, and hope that they are not the 1% where it can go wrong.

 

It´s 0,1%. Most failures come from wrong use and wrong sizes of condoms.

[sariflor]

I guess not "from" using them but "despite" using them.

 

Anyway, Sariflor's point was that the church argues that 'the HIV virus can pass through "little holes" in condoms' , which is clearly as rubbish as can be. I don't understand why the church refuses to accept the basic principles of science. If women get pregnant it is because condoms might break and not because there are "little holes" in them. This brainwash is simply unbelievable.

 

Or, clearly, cause they're slutslaaaaags

[MissPie]

Anyway, Sariflor's point was that the church argues that 'the HIV virus can pass through "little holes" in condoms' , which is clearly as rubbish as can be. I don't understand why the church refuses to accept the basic principles of science. If women get pregnant it is because condoms might break and not because there are "little holes" in them. This brainwash is simply unbelievable.

 

... I WOULD like to point out that this particular impertinence came from the Pope, not The Church. I'm quite aware the pope represents the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean all of the church thinks so. There are a lot of priests who have more sensible views. Besides, I can't help feeling 'meant' as well, being a more or less religious person and registered in the Church. And I know for sure that I don't agree with Benedict XVI. The man's done and said a bunch of stupid things...

[avoca]

Personally, I would just shoot all those who are intolerant.

 

Ok, just kidding - Sorry, I couldn't resist the joke

 

to quote QAF, you can either shoot or educate homophobes. and educatng them is more practical..

[sariflor]

... I WOULD like to point out that this particular impertinence came from the Pope, not The Church. I'm quite aware the pope represents the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean all of the church thinks so. There are a lot of priests who have more sensible views. Besides, I can't help feeling 'meant' as well, being a more or less religious person and registered in the Church. And I know for sure that I don't agree with Benedict XVI. The man's done and said a bunch of stupid things...

As you said, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, which means that he's supposed to be expressing the official views of the Church

If others within the church disagree, they need to make it heard, and somehow challenge it, which was my initial point about me not feeling comfortable with the "cherry picking mentality" when it comes to church affiliation and personal beliefs.

 

 

 

 

to quote QAF, you can either shoot or educate homophobes. and educatng them is more practical..

 

Not to mention, more legal

[RAK1]

... I WOULD like to point out that this particular impertinence came from the Pope, not The Church. I'm quite aware the pope represents the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean all of the church thinks so. There are a lot of priests who have more sensible views. Besides, I can't help feeling 'meant' as well, being a more or less religious person and registered in the Church. And I know for sure that I don't agree with Benedict XVI. The man's done and said a bunch of stupid things...

 

This is true, and if they had elected the African Cardinal (whose name escapes me at the moment) things may have been so much different.

From what I remember, he had so many good ideas for the church, it may have been totally different now, but I think because of his thinking, the old guard put the barricades up, and Benedict XVI got in:sneaky2:

[MissPie]

As you said, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Church, which means that he's supposed to be expressing the official views of the Church

If others within the church disagree, they need to make it heard, and somehow challenge it, which was my initial point about me not feeling comfortable with the "cherry picking mentality" when it comes to church affiliation and personal beliefs.

Official opinion doesn't equal general opinion. Like, right now, Stuttgart 21? (non-religious, yes, but I think it fits) In some cases you have to acknowledge that even the highest authority can be wrong. Same with the Pius brothers. It was an uproar, showing quite clearly that there are disagreements within in the Church. There won't exactly be a split-off for each one.

 

And how do I challenge it, other than voicing my own opinion? Sans dressing up as a man and becoming a priest...

 

And frankly, for me it's either cherry-picking or clean break. And there ARE some things I wouldn't want to miss.

[sariflor]

Official opinion doesn't equal general opinion. Like, right now, Stuttgart 21? (non-religious, yes, but I think it fits) In some cases you have to acknowledge that even the highest authority can be wrong. Same with the Pius brothers. It was an uproar, showing quite clearly that there are disagreements within in the Church. There won't exactly be a split-off for each one.

 

And how do I challenge it, other than voicing my own opinion? Sans dressing up as a man and becoming a priest...

 

And frankly, for me it's either cherry-picking or clean break. And there ARE some things I wouldn't want to miss.

 

It doesn't matter if official is general or not; When someone is representing a body, they are their voice, which means that what they express, is the views of the whole.

Unless there is a disclaimer, the views of the head are seen as the views of the group. When I send an email from my work account, it comes with an automatic disclaimer that reads something like "the views expressed in this email are those of the individual, and not of the company, unless specifically stated".

 

 

I know that change is hard, but it can happen, and it does. It happens if the majority of a body or group feel in one way which is contrary to the way that the "top" feels, as they will then successfully challenge them, stage a coup, whatever, or abandon the institution and create another one that adjusts to their own beliefs better. Isn't this how the whole Protestant movement started? They separated themselves from the church that they didn't really agree with?

This is what I'm talking about. So, as I see it, if the Church is allowed to state (through its "voice" or "head") certain opinions and stances, it means that the majority of the people who belong to that institution are ok with it.

 

I'm not trying to say what you should be doing (cherry picking or a clean break, as you say) but merely stating how I see it.

[guylainem123]

though i don't feel the need to express my feelings/believes on a public forum, i do enjoy reading how we see things differently and yet, there is no right or wrong answer.

[suzie]

... I WOULD like to point out that this particular impertinence came from the Pope, not The Church. I'm quite aware the pope represents the Catholic Church, but that doesn't mean all of the church thinks so. There are a lot of priests who have more sensible views.

 

Yes, true. However, like you said, the Pope represents the Catholic Church so that is basically considered to be the official view on this topic and I find it really sad as it fully contradicts the scientific knowledge even of a clever 12 year old. No wonder they have problems connecting with people.

 

.Besides, I can't help feeling 'meant' as well, being a more or less religious person and registered in the Church. And I know for sure that I don't agree with Benedict XVI. The man's done and said a bunch of stupid things...

I myself hate generalisations, too, so I do not equal the views of an organisation with the views of its members. I know in person many extremely intelligent and open minded members as well as representatives of the Catholic Church and I feel a bit sorry for them as the credibility of any community is highly dependent upon the credibility of its leaders.

[sienna]

It doesn't matter if official is general or not; When someone is representing a body, they are their voice, which means that what they express, is the views of the whole.

Unless there is a disclaimer, the views of the head are seen as the views of the group. When I send an email from my work account, it comes with an automatic disclaimer that reads something like "the views expressed in this email are those of the individual, and not of the company, unless specifically stated".

 

 

I know that change is hard, but it can happen, and it does. It happens if the majority of a body or group feel in one way which is contrary to the way that the "top" feels, as they will then successfully challenge them, stage a coup, whatever, or abandon the institution and create another one that adjusts to their own beliefs better. Isn't this how the whole Protestant movement started? They separated themselves from the church that they didn't really agree with?

This is what I'm talking about. So, as I see it, if the Church is allowed to state (through its "voice" or "head") certain opinions and stances, it means that the majority of the people who belong to that institution are ok with it.

 

I'm not trying to say what you should be doing (cherry picking or a clean break, as you say) but merely stating how I see it.

 

Yes it was, it was one of the main reasons so many people emigrated to America back in the days...freedom to practice a religion they believed in and to avoid starvation of course!