NotreDame Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 .... Im super pumped for this thread to be redirected back towards a real discussion about the Affordable Care Act and Medicare, just fyi whenever you guys are done :) Feel free to interrupt them at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Look, I really hope you read my reply post to FP. I tried my best to explain where I was coming from and my reasoning behind it and I took the time to read through what everyone else said so I hope people take the time to read through mine. I think trying to label poeple is a huge misrepresentation. I agree with the democratic economic policies but not their abortion ones. I dont know what else you want me to say. Cant I pick and choose what I like and what I dont like? Cant I say "Hey, no abortion, but yes welfare and aid to the poor?" I do not support abortion. I do not support the democratic parties choice to support abortion. I want abortion to end. And PS, who cares about this contraceptive debate. That wasnt my goal in my post. PLEASE read it I implore you. I took a lot of time to write it all out. MY MAIN POINT IS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE REASON WOMEN GET THEM. IF WE ADDRESS THE REASON WOMEN GET ABORTIONS AND RECTIFY THE SITUATION, WOMEN WILL NOT GET ABORTIONS. Do we agree? I understand all that, I just want a direct answer to the question, and you have not provided one, you just side step it. I have no doubt that if the Republican Party officially advocated the murder of Homosexual persons and denied their personhood, you would not accept the same reasoning you've given me if I used it for justifying belonging to such a Republican Party. I hope you wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Interesting that its hard to find more sources with that statistic. I think I found the actual article they cited since it was not included in their citations at the bottom but I wasnt able to view the full document to see where these percentages are coming from. Trends in the use of contraceptive methods and voluntary interruption of pregnancy in the Spanish population during 1997–2007 […] Results: During the study period, 1997 to 2007, the overall use of contraceptive methods increased from 49.1% to 79.9%. The most commonly used method was the condom (an increase from 21% to 38.8%), followed by the pill (an increase from 14.2% to 20.3%). Female sterilization and IUDs decreased slightly and were used by less than 5% of women in 2007. The elective abortion rate increased from 5.52 to 11.49 per 1000 women. […] http://www.unav.edu/departamento/preventiva/files/file/a%20mas%20contracep%20mas%20aborto%20en%20Esp%20CONTRACEPTION%202011.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 And PS, who cares about this contraceptive debate. That wasnt my goal in my post. PLEASE read it I implore you. I took a lot of time to write it all out. MY MAIN POINT IS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE REASON WOMEN GET THEM. IF WE ADDRESS THE REASON WOMEN GET ABORTIONS AND RECTIFY THE SITUATION, WOMEN WILL NOT GET ABORTIONS. Do we agree? I agree. But question: do you support contraception? I'm just curious. You sometimes give that vibe in some of your posts, but I wanted to make sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) I understand all that, I just want a direct answer to the question, and you have not provided one, you just side step it. I have no doubt that if the Republican Party officially advocated the murder of Homosexual persons and denied their personhood, you would not accept the same reasoning you've given me if I used it for justifying belonging to such a Republican Party. I hope you wouldn't. Can you repeat the question I agree. But question: do you support contraception? I'm just curious. You sometimes give that vibe in some of your posts, but I wanted to make sure. Hmm, that is a good question. I havent formulated how I feel about it. I have mixed thoughts and it is entirely hinged on whether or not it passively kills the baby by disrupting implantation. Ibe read conflicting things on that. But I believe in error on the side of caution so no, I dont support it. My opion may change depending on what now studies find but right now I do not. Edited April 4, 2014 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Can you repeat the question No, because I've done so repeatedly already, and you know the question, and even if you didn't you do have the ability to reread the question. I will just conclude you refuse to answer it. I am sure we know the answer and have the same answer, there is no other group that we could morally belong to that denied the personhood of a group of people, and the mass killing of those people, even if we objected to that but agree with other polices. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Can you repeat the question Hmm, that is a good question. I havent formulated how I feel about it. I have mixed thoughts and it is entirely hinged on whether or not it passively kills the baby by disrupting implantation. Ibe read conflicting things on that. But I believe in error on the side of caution so no, I dont support it. My opion may change depending on what now studies find but right now I do not. You do realize that contraception is a non-negotiable with the Church? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) No, because I've done so repeatedly already, and you know the question, and even if you didn't you do have the ability to reread the question. I will just conclude you refuse to answer it. I am sure we know the answer and have the same answer, there is no other group that we could morally belong to that denied the personhood of a group of people, and the mass killing of those people, even if we objected to that but agree with other polices. Maybe you can explain it better, like I really dont get it. Does there have to be anoher rgroup? Im confused as to what youre looking for You do realize that contraception is a non-negotiable with the Church?Their stance is based on the fact it passivly kills babies. What if it was shown to not do that? And what are you fishing for? Have you taken the time to read my post? Edited April 4, 2014 by CrossCuT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Maybe you can explain it better, like I really dont get it. Does there have to be anoher rgroup? Im confused as to what youre looking for Their stance is based on the fact it passivly kills babies. What if it was shown to not do that? And what are you fishing for? Have you taken the time to read my post? The Church doesn't condemn contraception because it kills babies. If that were the case it wouldn't object to condoms. Have you ever looked up Church teaching on contraception? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Their stance is based on the fact it passivly kills babies. What if it was shown to not do that? Wow. Not sure if you're for real or just cracking wise. The ban on contraception is not based on it "passively killing babies." That's kind of basic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) Maybe you can explain it better, like I really dont get it. Does there have to be anoher rgroup? Im confused as to what youre looking for Yes, consistency is very important, there can not be one set of rules for one group that advocates bigotry and mass killings for those they hate or are completely indifferent to, and another set of rules for another group that effectively advocates the very same thing. Let's start with defining terms, most people today generally define a "hate group" along the lines of a collective or organization of persons that choose to deny that a certain type of people are persons/fully human, and that violence against and/or extermination of these persons is justifiable. It is universally believed by morally sound individuals that advocating for, defending, or belonging to such groups is completely unacceptable in a civilized society. Even when the advocate, defender, or member disagrees with the 'bad policies' aka bigotry of the group but agrees with other 'good policies'. An example would be advocating for, defending, or belonging to the KKK even if one personally disagrees with that group's bigotry but agrees with other 'good policies'. Are there any other groups that exist where is it acceptable to advocate for, defend, or belong to even though the group(s) advocate bigotry and mass killings? Edited April 4, 2014 by KnightofChrist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 The Church doesn't condemn contraception because it kills babies. If that were the case it wouldn't object to condoms. Have you ever looked up Church teaching on contraception? I know very well what the church says. It makes you hate your partner, it makes you hate babies, it makes you hate everything basically. Logical side effects. But FP, minus the contraception stuff, did you read anything else I posted? Do you have any feedback? Id be curious to see if you agreed/disagreed with anything I said in reference to your sources or just my basic comments towards the end. I put a lot of time into responding to your stuff so Id appreciate your feedback. Yes, consistency is very important, there can not be one set of rules for one group that advocates bigotry and mass killings for those they hate or are completely indifferent to, and another set of rules for another group that effectively advocates the very same thing. Let's start with defining terms, most people today generally define a "hate group" along the lines of a collective or organization of persons that choose to deny that a certain type of people are persons/fully human, and that violence against and/or extermination of these persons is justifiable. It is universally believed by morally sound individuals that advocating for, defending, or belonging to such groups is completely unacceptable in a civilized society. Even when the advocate, defender, or member disagrees with the 'bad policies' aka bigotry of the group but agrees with other 'good policies'. An example would be advocating for, defending, or belonging to the KKK even if one personally disagrees with that group's bigotry but agrees with other 'good policies'. Are there any other groups that exist where is it acceptable to advocate for, defend, or belong to even though the group(s) advocate bigotry and mass killings? Different sets of rules huh? Who is advocating that? Im still trying to understand what youre getting at. Are you saying that everyone fits into either Democrat or Republican? Therefore if someone identifies with certain aspects of one they have to identify with the whole thing? Do you think I am advocating for abortion because I agree with democratic economic views? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhuturePriest Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 I know very well what the church says. It makes you hate your partner, it makes you hate babies, it makes you hate everything basically. Logical side effects. Why are you even still going to Mass if you believe the Church makes you hate everything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lilllabettt Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 (edited) I know very well what the church says. It makes you hate your partner, it makes you hate babies, it makes you hate everything basically. Logical side effects. :headdesk: the Church is not opposed to contraception because of the "side effects." the side effects are an important reason that contraception sux. that is not why the Church opposes it. Edited April 4, 2014 by Lilllabettt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrossCuT Posted April 4, 2014 Share Posted April 4, 2014 Why are you even still going to Mass if you believe the Church makes you hate everything? Hint: sarcasm Srsly. Do you have any interest in discussing the stuff I posted for you? Im kind of upset that you dont seem to care that I took out time specifically to write all that. Or would you rather sit here and diminish my convictions? I hope you dont do that as a priest to the people who will come to your for guidance on difficult subjects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now