Ron Paul Is The Only Choice For Catholics

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1315005293' post='2299365']
[url="http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO1999034825&recNum=1&maxRec=&office=&prevFilter=&sortOption=&queryString=&tab=PCT+Biblio"]http://www.wipo.int/...&tab=PCT+Biblio[/url]
[url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8473002?dopt=Abstract"]http://www.ncbi.nlm....2?dopt=Abstract[/url]
Specific role of polysorbate 80 coating on the targeting of nanoparticles to the brain [url="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14967540"]http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/14967540[/url]
[/quote]
Wow - that first study injected [b]neonatal[/b] rats with incredible high concentrations of tween 80. There are thousands of compounds that would hurt neonatal rats at that concentration. It's not the same as injected a tiny amount into a grown animal. No one has suggested injecting lots of tween 80 into neonatal girls. The second reference uses tween 80 as a solvent, not an antigen. The third reference has nothing to do with fertility.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1315005293' post='2299365']
Tween 80, Triton X-100, and Nonoxynol-9 are used in vaccines. Nonoxynol-9 (N-9) also is used as a spermicide in vaginal gels to prevent contraception and was used in a H1N1 Vaccine Trial.

Triton X-100 and Tween 80 were mixed with DDT to spray on crops in the 1940s and 1950s – combinations of these chemicals are still in pesticides today. Polysorbate 80, also known as Tween 80, is a surfactant in these vaccines: DTaP, DTaP-HebB-IIPV, DTaP-Hib, Gardasil, Influenza, Rotavirus, and Tdap[/quote]

Triton X-100 and Tween 80 are just solvents & surfactants. DDT was the bad part of that mix. On a side note, I use Triton X-100 in the lab all the time. It's not dangerous. I don't use Tween 80 a lot, but I do use Tween 20 - it's less viscous. Also not dangerous. I don't even wear gloves when I'm handling the stuff.

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1315005293' post='2299365']...
The American Cancer Society says even though infection with the sexually transmitted virus HPV is an important risk factor for cervical cancer, most women with HPV infection do not get cervical cancer. Doctors believe other factors must come into play for this cancer to develop. Some of these factors are smoking, HIV infection, Chlamydia infection, poor diet, long-term use of birth control pills, multiple pregnancies, low income, mothers who took hormonal drug DES, and family history. These are not typical risk factors affecting junior high girls.

According to the National Institutes of Health National Cancer institute, in more than 90% of the cases, HPV infections are harmless and go away without treatment. And according to the CDC, most cervical cancer can be prevented and cervical cancer is very rare in women who get regular PAP tests. The CDC says there are more than 100 strains or types of HPV and over 30 strains are sexually transmitted. Yet the vaccine under consideration for mandate covers only 4 strains. About 30% of cervical cancers can’t be prevented by the vaccine, so women will still need regular cervical cancer screenings.

The only current vaccine manufacturer for the HPV vaccine, Merck, admits on their package insert that the duration of immunity from the vaccine is unknown. In clinical trials, the vaccine’s effectiveness was only followed for 4 years. Yet we do know from the CDC that the incubation period for the HPV virus is about 20 years and the median age of women diagnosed with cervical cancer is 48.

Merck/Gardasil claiming proof of cervical cancer prevention by vaccinating preteen girls is bogus. Despite the safety concerns, the necessity and effectiveness simply is not there. People can give it to their daughter, that is your parental right. I will not be.
[/quote]

The choice is yours to make. I'm not suggesting that you should choose to have your child vaccinated. I was just correcting the scientific and medical statements that you copied.

[havok579257]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1314917574' post='2298846']
The legal definition of "marriage" has certain rights & responsibilities. Hospital visitation can be limited to immediate family only. The person making health care decisions when a person is incapacitated is the next of kin. These are just a couple of the issues that many same-sex couples bring up when discussing "marriage" laws.
[/quote]


power of attorney solves all those issues. problem solved, unless that's not the only reason homosexuals want marriage between them legal

[sixpence]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1314894631' post='2298676']

*off topic*

The side effects of the HPV vaccine are no worse than the side effects of any other vaccine. In a perfect world there may not be a need for an HPV vaccine, but in our world there is. Following Church teaching on sexual morality will NOT keep you from HPV unless everyone you know has also been following Church teaching on sexual morality and everyone they know has been following Church teaching on sexual morality.
[/quote]
I don't understand why I should be required to get the vaccine... How do you get the HPV which causes cervical cancer without having sex??? (I understand there are many types of HPV including the type that causes plantar warts...but those do not cause cervical cancer)

[Socrates]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1314996261' post='2299305']

This is pretty much how I feel about the gay marriage situation as well. I don't think either the state [i]or[/i] the federal government should try to define what is moral or immoral--that's just dangerous.

Also, I don't need any government to tell me when my marriage is valid or invalid. I can make that decision for myself perfectly fine, thank you.
[/quote]
The idea that government and law should be completely amoral, and be completely separated from moral considerations is what is dangerous.

The government can't define what is moral or immoral; it can either be in conformity with the eternal moral order, or be opposed it.

Laws which treat homosexual "relationships" (something intrinsically immoral) as deserving the same benefits as marriage of man an woman (a good essential to human society), it is acting immorally.

Perhaps you (and others) might do well to read what the Church actually has to say on this topic:

[center][url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"][size="3"][color="#663300"]CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH: [/color][/size][i][b]CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS [/b][/i][i][b]TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION [/b][/i][i][b]TO UNIONS[/b][/i][/url][/center][center][url="http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20030731_homosexual-unions_en.html"][font="Times"][size="3"][size="4"][color="#663300"][i][b]BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS[/b][/i][/color][/size][/size][/font][/url]


[quote] [b]The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society[/b]. Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean not only the approval of deviant behaviour, with the consequence of making it a model in present-day society, but would also obscure basic values which belong to the common inheritance of humanity. The Church cannot fail to defend these values, for the good of men and women and for the good of society itself.[/quote]


It's sad that so few Catholics here think with the mind of the Church on this matter.
[/center]

[rizz_loves_jesus]

I just think that the government should stay out of marriage altogether. I don't want to need some government official's nod of approval in order to get married.

It's just the way I see what a government's job is. My view is that government should:

1. Protect the natural rights of life, liberty, and property and
2. Defend the people against invasion/terrorism by another country.

Since my rights are not being infringed upon by a gay couple getting married, and a gay couple isn't being hurt by me marrying a man, I see no need for the government's involvement in marriage at all.

Edited September 4, 2011 by rizz_loves_jesus

[Socrates]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1315105675' post='2299913']
I just think that the government should stay out of marriage altogether. I don't want to need some government official's nod of approval in order to get married.

Also, if you are saying that the government should be the one to define what is and isn't moral, who should get to decide that, and why? What about the people who disagree with you? Not saying I disagree that gay marriage is wrong, but if they want to get married in an Episcopalian church, are you honestly saying you want the police to come and arrest them?
[/quote]
Complete non-sequitor.

Did you even read anything I posted? Did you read the CDF document by Cardinal Ratzinger (now the Pope) that I linked to? (If I dare say so, I believe he has much more wisdom and authority on this matter than any phatmass poster.)

Who said anything about marriages in an Episcopal church, and who said anything about police arresting anybody?
Marriage, as the Church teaches, and in accord with natural law, should be limited to a man and a woman, and that is the only thing that should be recognized as marriage by the state.

In states that don't recognize "gay marriage," homosexuals can live together, and even have a "wedding" ceremony if they so choose, without the police arresting them. The state simply does not reward them the legal recognition and benefits of marriage.

This stuff about people getting arrested and thrown in jail is pure nonsense.

Edited September 4, 2011 by Socrates

[rizz_loves_jesus]

^^ haha sorry, I guess you replied before I edited my post. I think I see what you're saying about gays just not being recognized by the laws, and yes, my scenario was a tad ridiculous looking back, which was why I decided to edit it out.

I do stand by my view of government, though. I don't think the government has much business in marriage--it used to just be a church issue before things like the income tax came about, and as someone else pointed out, things like hospital visits can be worked out with an attorney. I just don't understand the point of the government defining marriage, since I don't think that's the government's job. I want it to be as small as possible. Just my opinion I guess.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

And for the record, yes, I did read your link. It addresses the moral issues associated with legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

I am not for legal recognition of [i]a[i]ny [/i][/i]marriages because I don't feel that's the government's job. My position is in line with the church. If you do feel that way, however, more power to you.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1315078533' post='2299705']I don't understand why I should be required to get the vaccine... How do you get the HPV which causes cervical cancer without having sex??? (I understand there are many types of HPV including the type that causes plantar warts...but those do not cause cervical cancer)[/quote]

Are you directing this question at me? I don't think you should be required to get the vaccine. My reply was only to correct factual errors that were copied from poor sources.

[Socrates]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1315106628' post='2299922']
^^ haha sorry, I guess you replied before I edited my post. I think I see what you're saying about gays just not being recognized by the laws, and yes, my scenario was a tad ridiculous looking back, which was why I decided to edit it out.

I do stand by my view of government, though. I don't think the government has much business in marriage--it used to just be a church issue before things like the income tax came about, and as someone else pointed out, things like hospital visits can be worked out with an attorney. I just don't understand the point of the government defining marriage, since I don't think that's the government's job. I want it to be as small as possible. Just my opinion I guess.
[/quote]
Marriage has always involved legal issues and legal recognition; it has always involves such things as inheritance of property and title, etc. And there's no way to deal with legal issues surrounding things like marital infidelity if marriage is never acknowledged in the first place.

And I don't think, as a married man, I should be required to get and sign a POA for such things as getting to visit my wife in the hospital. (And, yes, I realize my standards on this are different than those involving homosexual couples. That's exactly the point; real marriage is fundamental to and the foundation of any healthy human society. Homosexual relations are not, and they should not be treated the same by law, as Card. Ratzinger explains multiple times in the document I linked to. In short, people should not enjoy any legal status that any other single adult does not have.)

I fail to see how limiting legal recognition to marriages between a man and a woman actually gives any scary new powers to government. It would simply codify what has always been understood, against those who would redefine marriage to mean something entirely different.
Legally defining marriage as between man and woman is not creating a new definition - it merely acknowledges the true definition of marriage which has always existed.
Just as legally defining murder as the killing of an innocent person acknowledges the reality and moral wrongness of what murder is.

The truth is, you can't separate law and morality. All law enforces morality of some kind (that it is wrong to murder, rape, or steal, for instance), and law which does not acknowledge or enforce morality is an unjust law.

The raising of a family - which is the primary purpose of marriage - is quite costly in today's world, and the modest tax breaks given to married couples are just one small way to ease the burden on those with families and preventing it from becoming unduly costly.

If "getting the government out of marriage" is really so important to you, then perhaps when you get married (I'm presuming you're currently single), you and your husband should simply not apply for a marriage license. Then the state will not recognize your marriage at all, and you and your spouse can enjoy the same legal status as any two single persons without government oppression.

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1315107157' post='2299927']
And for the record, yes, I did read your link. It addresses the moral issues associated with legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

I am not for legal recognition of [i]a[i]ny [/i][/i]marriages because I don't feel that's the government's job. My position is in line with the church. If you do feel that way, however, more power to you.
[/quote]
That's not the way the Church views this issue. I'll repeat what I quoted earlier from the CDF document:[b] "The common good requires that laws recognize, promote and protect marriage as the basis of the family, the primary unit of society[/b].[b]"[/b]

If the law fails to acknowledge marriage at all, as you propose, then the law certainly cannot "recognize, promote, and protect marriage," as Card. Ratzinger teaches is not just a suggestion, but a [i]requirement[/i] to promote the common good.

[Mr.Cat]

If state marriage was abolished, it would require some adjustment of law, but marriage would continue.

Although considering that in the United States more than half of marriages end in divorce and more than half of Americans surveyed see marriage as obsolete... might be how state marriage is abolished. But the promotion or protection of marriage cannot be done on the behalf of the state, the state has no business regulating peoples family life or personal lives... or opinions of marriage.

For centuries there was almost no involvement of the state in marriage, it was cultural and religious.

Edited September 5, 2011 by Mr.Cat

[Winchester]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1315172166' post='2300201']
And I don't think, as a married man, I should be required to get and sign a POA for such things as getting to visit my wife in the hospital. (And, yes, I realize my standards on this are different than those involving homosexual couples.
[/quote]
That should be left to the individual hospital.

[Archaeology cat]

Adrestia - didn't see your response until now. I know it also requires that others also follow Church teaching on sexual morality. I didn't state it very well, I suppose. I still don't get making it a mandatory vaccine as some places are doing (unless I'm mistaken), but then I don't like for anything to be mandatory when it comes to medicine. I'm not anti-vaccine, because they certainly have their place. Anyway, I appreciate your response and expertise.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='Archaeology cat' timestamp='1315233208' post='2300480']
Adrestia - didn't see your response until now. I know it also requires that others also follow Church teaching on sexual morality. I didn't state it very well, I suppose. I still don't get making it a mandatory vaccine as some places are doing (unless I'm mistaken), but then I don't like for anything to be mandatory when it comes to medicine. I'm not anti-vaccine, because they certainly have their place. Anyway, I appreciate your response and expertise.
[/quote]

I am [i]very[/i] much for most vaccines that are for highly communicable diseases - in my mind HPV does not fit that category. Governor Perry tried to make it mandatory here in Texas, but that didn't fly. There is no data to suggest that the HPV vaccine is more dangerous than any other vaccine, but HPV isn't like polio or smallpox or the mumps - so I don't think that it needs to be mandatory. The early data suggests that it is effective - but it is early data. Cervical cancer is curable when caught early, but we doctors prefer to prevent cancer than to treat it.

[Archaeology cat]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1315239337' post='2300509']

I am [i]very[/i] much for most vaccines that are for highly communicable diseases - in my mind HPV does not fit that category. Governor Perry tried to make it mandatory here in Texas, but that didn't fly. There is no data to suggest that the HPV vaccine is more dangerous than any other vaccine, but HPV isn't like polio or smallpox or the mumps - so I don't think that it needs to be mandatory. The early data suggests that it is effective - but it is early data. Cervical cancer is curable when caught early, but we doctors prefer to prevent cancer than to treat it.
[/quote]
Makes sense to me. I'd heard about Gov Perry trying to make the HPV jab mandatory. In England, none of the vaccines are compulsory, though of course strongly encouraged and most people get them.