Now why did I quit the church again?

[Stormcrow]

Priest goes psycho ,destroying everything in his path with an axe in a abortion hospital.

Action by the church (make a choice):
1. Ends his priesthood
2. Paid the hospital a big sum of money to hush things up (like usual)
3. promotes the priest to a higher position.


Place your bets ladies & gents...


http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-abort06.html

[InsaneApache]

I take it your new to the backroom? :inquisitive:

[Stormcrow]

This was posted before ?

[InsaneApache]

If you stick around long enough, all shall be revealed. :laugh4:

[A.Saturnus]

I don't the a big issue. After all, he didn't hurt anybody. He should be punished for what he did, but I don't see what that has to do with the church.

[Stormcrow]

Promoting him after such a display would not be my first choice.

[Blodrast]

Come on, Insane Apache, don't scare people off. We're really a bunch of huggly cuddly nice people here: ~:grouphug:
Welcome to the Backroom, Stormcrow, the "nasty" part of the Org. Ok, it's not really nasty, it's just a little... different from the rest.

And, I might be wrong here trying to interpret what Insane Apache meant, but I think he was alluding to the fact that church, and abortion stuff, are two of the very hot topics around here, which we usually beat to death, and which resurface periodically.

[Don Corleone]

Welcome aboard, Stormcrow. Blodrast is more right then he knows... all the usual topics make about a 5 week cycle: some more often, some less. Abortion and personal gun ownership tends to produce the most bitter, protracted debates. All of us get a little hot under the collar sometimes, but generally speaking, I (at least like to) think there is mutual respect across the aisle, where warranted.

Blodrast is a fine example... he's a stinkin, commie, whiny socialist Eurotrash surrender monkey, but other than that, he's a heck of a chap. :laugh4: All kidding aside, I think he was right... your post was a genuine out loud inquiry, and I'm certain you meant it to produce a certain level of intelligent discussion. But I could almost hear Insane Apache counting and chuckling before you got the usual suspects.

On topic, if the church is opposed to abortion, and this guy went out on a limb to stop abortion, wouldn't that indicate that he's actually acting in strong accordance with the stated goals of his authority structure, usually a good way to get ahead?

[Stormcrow]

Thanks for the welcome...

Isn't the church opposed to violence ? damaging other peoples properties ?

Using violence to get what you want seems to set a bad example to me, the church is still a rolefigure I think. They should not encourage violence...

[Don Corleone]

Well, you make a very valid point there. I'm not condoning or defending the priest's or the church's actions (don't get me started on why I'm not a Catholic anymore). All I'm saying is that if the guy is acting in a way that is above and beyond what his peers are doing, and he's doing it to advance the agenda of the organization he works for, you can expect him to get rewarded for it.

Now, what I would say on your whole point... the Church has to weigh two competing values: 1) the power of the organization and their ability to implement their agendas versus 2) their reputation for being peace loving followers of Christ. And you're suprised at which of these two won out? Hell, they promoted Cardinal Law (and that dude's the Tony Soprano of the Church world). Par for the course, if you ask me.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

What a novel idea for a Catholic! Opposing abortion?! Egads!

Meh. Nobody got hurt, some property damage but they'll make it up.

It's not much of a promotion, from what I can tell. He was a paster at one church and is now a "parochial administrator" at another. Almost the same thing to my limited knowledge.

Probably would have been best to demote him to standard priest, but its not like they have that many people to begin with.

His actions pale in comparison to the crime of abortion, if not legally than morally. That doesn't justify those actions, but really, Greenpeace and the bomb-throwing vegetarians are worse.

[Louis VI the Fat]

If this was about a Muslim using violence to enforce his religion you'd all go all mental about 'the deafening silence of moderate Muslims'.

But hey, we're dealing with Catholics here, so everything's okay. Where are the calls for turning Vatican City into a sheet of glass? :furious3:


(Let's see if we can't turn this into a nice, fiery welcome party for Stormcrow)


Edit: Don! Good to see you back!
EditII: Undoing a silly mistake. See Crazed Rabbit's post below.

[Stormcrow]

His actions pale in comparison to the crime of abortion, if not legally than morally.

abortion is not a crime, forcing raped children of 9 to have a child is a crime.


( I think I'm getting the hang of this backroom stuff, already there's some discussion and this thread is probably going off topic ~D).



It seems everyone agrees the promotion was not suitable though...

[Ronin]

abortion is not a crime, forcing raped children of 9 to have a child is a crime.


( I think I'm getting the hang of this backroom stuff, already there's some discussion and this thread is probably going off topic ~D).



It seems everyone agrees the promotion was not suitable though...


you´ll fit right in :2thumbsup:


welcome...btw.

[Crazed Rabbit]

If this was about a Muslim using violence to enforce his religion you'd all go all mental about 'the deafening silence of moderate Muslims' and how we should 'turn Vatican City into a sheet of glass'.

Wha..? That doesn't quite make sense. Why would we want to bomb the Vatican if Muslims did something, and do they have enough sand to turn into glass anyways?

As to the topic, it does seem strange that he wasn't at least demoted.

Crazed Rabbit

[Papewaio]

If he was a cop moving him from a street job to a desk job would be considered a time-out away from the public. I don't think it is so much a promotion more of a removing him from as much public contact.

What Would Jesus Do versus What Would the Mob Do:
Attack someone with an ax?
Promote a person who uses violence to further his agenda?

Large organisations exist to look after themselves be they government, corporations or religious bodies. At some point they forget their orginal intent and start just to gather in power for themselves.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Off-topic:


abortion is not a crime, forcing raped children of 9 to have a child is a crime.
I disagree about abortion at large; I believe it is (currently legal) murder which is left completely unchecked and barely regulated here in America. It's disgusting.

And what percentage of abortions come from raped children?! I did not state an opinion on cases of rape, in which I am torn. I would certainly endorse any serious restriction on abortion at large, even if it allowed for cases such as rape; anything would be better than the nothing we have now.

On-topic:

I still contend that it isn't much of a promotion. Its not like he was made bishop. It is more like Pape's analogy, I suspect. Getting him out of the way for a bit.

I also agree with Pape on the nature of the Church, like any organization. We are human, after all, and the Church is no different.

[Csargo]

Thanks for the welcome...

Isn't the church opposed to violence ? damaging other peoples properties ?

Using violence to get what you want seems to set a bad example to me, the church is still a rolefigure I think. They should not encourage violence...

If you look at the history of the Catholic Church I don't know if they oppose violence or not.:dizzy2:

[Stormcrow]

If you look at the history of the Catholic Church I don't know if they oppose violence or not.:dizzy2:
The history yes, but it's principles no. Turning the other cheeck and all of that nonsense :laugh4:

[Csargo]

You gotta remember the church has been going down hill for a while. I guess there just trying to get new members or something like that. It wouldn't surprise me.:no:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Going down hill? I don't know. Though Catholicism in the West is admittedly declining, overall numbers I think are increasing (though I'm not sure). Plus, the Church has been busy reforming some aspects; JPII and the second Vatican Council and all that. The biggest thing facing the church now in the West is probably the sex abuse scandal which inflames the already present population issue.

The Church is hardly using the event detailed in the posted article as a recruitment tool. :inquisitive: I don't really know where you got that from. This is the action of one priest, not the whole chain of command, and though it hasn't been loudly condemned it hasn't been embraced, either.

[Stormcrow]

I edited your post a bit, just to reflect the news of the past few years a bit better.

:bow:



The biggest thing facing the church now in the West is probably the numeroussex abuse scandals which inflames the already present population issue.
....
I don't really know where you got that from. This is the action of one quite a few priests, not the whole and some of the chain of command, and though it hasn't been loudly condemned it hasn't been embraced, either.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Ooo. What an effective style of debate. ~:rolleyes:

There is no evidence from the article you posted that the "axe-attack" was part of a planned campaign by the Catholic Church heirarchy for any purpose whatsoever. The article gives the impression that the single priest acted on his own and the Church took a fairly passive stance on it. End of article.

As to the abuse scandals, true but off-topic. The article is about that one incident. Please mark off-topic sniping correctly as I have done.

[Csargo]

Why didn't the Church punish the priest for his actions instead they just move him to a different church with no punishment. I don't like that one bit.


:no:

[Stormcrow]

There is no evidence from the article you posted that the "axe-attack" was part of a planned campaign by the Catholic Church heirarchy for any purpose whatsoever.

Never did I imply that either...



The article gives the impression that the single priest acted on his own and the Church took a fairly passive stance on it. End of article.
Indeed.Well, not passive, they promoted him, or at least did not demote him...


As to the abuse scandals, true but off-topic. The article is about that one incident. Please mark off-topic sniping correctly as I have done.
Indeed, I only responded to your post, I had not brought up the sex scandals. I only wanted to point out that the "going downhill" of the church was not a single incident, but a long list of incidents.

and please believe me when I say I had no intention to snipe, start a flame or whatever. I do feel like having a nice discussion on the catholic church though ~:).

[Csargo]

I do feel like having a nice discussion on the catholic church though ~:).

I don't know if a nice discussion on the catholic church is possible. But thats only my opnion.:2thumbsup:

[Stormcrow]

:laugh4:

your take on the concept of the church may not be to your liking,
but a respectful discussion could be considered a nice discussion, whatever the subject ~:).

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

and please believe me when I say I had no intention to snipe, start a flame or whatever.

What are you doing in the Backroom then?! :laugh4:


Why didn't the Church punish the priest for his actions instead they just move him to a different church with no punishment. I don't like that one bit.

He did get a fine and payed restitution, and he's on probation. The Church may have felt that was enough. A second reason is that perhaps some in the Church see not demoting him as a quiet way of supporting his actions. Another possible explanation is that they don't want to appear to lose face. Or the priest has friends higher up. Or any combination of these. And the article does not really mention any official statement by the Church, either from the very top (the Pope) or on a local level (the parish where he was pastor). It is unclear why they have chosen to take the action (or inaction) that they did.


I do feel like having a nice discussion on the catholic church though .
I would be happy to oblidge you, but in another thread, perhaps? :balloon2:

[Sensei Warrior]

I wouldn't call it promotion rather then removing him from the public eye. I think Papewaio said something to this effect.

I do agree with that. The Church said, "Uh oh, too much bad press we'll do what we've done in the past and move our poor offender out of the Public Eye until the press gets distracted by some bright shiny object, or an actual murder, and everyone forgets about this whole icky affair."

The real question is what will they do with him in a few months when this thread will be dead and the incident largely forgotten. Will he be "smacked around" or actually disciplined because of what he did, the Church is known for liking to keep things - private, or will he actually be given a real promotion for trying to do his part to follow and enforce Church edicts?

Of course, I am slightly cynical about the Church in general. You could say I am a Recovering Catholic, at least that's what the people around here call it.

[Gregoshi]

:inquisitive: Well, they couldn't very well give him the axe - he already had it! :laugh4:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Badum phsst! :laugh4:

[Gregoshi]

Thanks for the rimshot Alexander. :laugh4:

[Blodrast]

I think I would also prefer to look at it from a slightly different point of view: sure, the Church can't exactly condone his _way_ of doing things, but at the same time, his ideas, his principles, were _very_ much in the spirit of Catholicism (and, probably, religion in general, but this is irrelevant for now).
Although, again, his _method_ left something to be desired.
So for that, I don't think they could have made him, say, a bishop (without causing an outrage, and thus losing whatever face they may have gained by the publicity), but I don't think it would have shown well on them if they had demoted him, or penalized him more seriously, either. Like I already said, while the method was inappropriate, the principle was right (i.e., in accordance with the dogma).

Or maybe I'm just trying to read too much into it.:juggle2:
But if I were his superior, I would try to promote him without making it too obvious, or "in your face". And give him a symbolic punishment at the same time.

[Blodrast]

Welcome aboard, Stormcrow. Blodrast is more right then he knows... all the usual topics make about a 5 week cycle: some more often, some less. Abortion and personal gun ownership tends to produce the most bitter, protracted debates. All of us get a little hot under the collar sometimes, but generally speaking, I (at least like to) think there is mutual respect across the aisle, where warranted.

Blodrast is a fine example... he's a stinkin, commie, whiny socialist Eurotrash surrender monkey, but other than that, he's a heck of a chap. :laugh4: All kidding aside, I think he was right... your post was a genuine out loud inquiry, and I'm certain you meant it to produce a certain level of intelligent discussion. But I could almost hear Insane Apache counting and chuckling before you got the usual suspects.

Errm, OT.
Good to have you back in the back-room (pun!).

And Stormcrow,yeah, we have plenty of intelligent and polite conversations around here (despite what a first glance might make you think~;p) , except that on the hot topics spirits do sometimes collide... but usually it's all in good spirit, and also usually it all ends up in ~:grouphug: and everybody has a ~:cheers:

Oh, and one more thing (I know, I know, nostalgic bastard): couple of years ago, when I stumbled in on these forums, I checked out the Backroom, and soon decided I would rather surf for goatsecx than to waste my time in there. But for the better part of a year, it's been my home away from home, and it's probably the forum I spend most of my time in. And I wouldn't trade it for a million other boards out there. So, it's like that - it grows on you, even if it seems icky in the beginning.:bow:

[Ser Clegane]

and soon decided I would rather surf for goatsecx than to waste my time in there.
And the great thing about the Backroom is, you don't have to choose - you can waste your time here and still surf for naughty goat pics ~:) :smug:

[Blodrast]

ROFL! You're absolutely right, Ser Clegane, thank you for pointing that out! :laugh4: :bow: ~:cheers:

[Sigurd]

What Would Jesus Do versus What Would the Mob Do:
Attack someone with an ax?
Promote a person who uses violence to further his agenda?

You can in Christianity find defence in destroying property to get an end to so-called atrocities.
Yes, I am thinking of Jesus making a scourge and whipping the moneylenders, driving them out of the temple and then destroying their boots or overturning their tables.
In a moment of passion and rage the prince of peace took to violent behaviour to rid the temple of crooks and sharks.
I do see the parallel here… and so apparently did the Vatican (as in letting this happen).

[Keba]

First off, welcome Sotrmcrow.

On topic: Does it really surprise anyone. The man was doing what the church wants. The fact is he did it violently, but that is likely to be handled in the typical quiet fashion of the church.

OT:
Being a soldier also allows you to commit murder quite legally. Now, I don't see calls from people for the abolishment of the army, now do I? Thou shalt not kill (or something close). There is a word for that kind of behaviour, and I suspect you know it.


I believe it is (currently legal) murder which is left completely unchecked and barely regulated here in America

[Aenlic]

Now, I don't see calls from people for the abolishment of the army, now do I?

I'll jump on that one. As the resident anarchist, I hereby call for the abolishment of the military. All of them. And nation states. And borders too. Then we line all the politicians up against the wall and hand them a blindfold. Especially the ones with cheap ties. I hate cheap ties. :wink:

[InsaneApache]

Anyone caught wearing a polyester one should be hung by it. ~;)

[Avicenna]

and soon decided I would rather surf for goatsecx than to waste my time in there

You sure you don't want the sheep (http://www.google.com/trends?q=sheep+sex)? :laugh4:


Anyone caught wearing a polyester one should be hung by it. ~;)

Please sir, no sir, you know you don't want to sir...:sweatdrop:

[Blodrast]

Now that you mention it, my current place of residence IS on that list... damn, this is suspicious...

....must....not...give in...to...impulses....


did this thread derail or what ? :laugh4: but I guess it's a good thing that it derailed in the non-personal attacks direction, so I guess we can keep it around for a while, since it's all fun in good spirit.

[Reenk Roink]

If this was about a Muslim using violence to enforce his religion you'd all go all mental about 'the deafening silence of moderate Muslims'.

But hey, we're dealing with Catholics here, so everything's okay. Where are the calls for turning Vatican City into a sheet of glass? :furious3:

What!?! Stop twisting things...

You know that this is a clear case of the Backroom's "double standards"...

We always hear about every Christian nutjob and extrapolate it to draw scrutiny on the Christian religion but this never happens with Muslim nutjobs...

Now let's all stop this bigotry of opposing Christian Skate Day (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=66603) and continue to list the ways Muslim Funday (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=66553) is bad...

Besides, everyone knows that Islam is the only religion where the mainstream members are required to speak up against their coreligionists actions...

:rolleyes2:

*hmm, why is 'nutjob' not a word recognized by the dictionary...?*

**hmm, why is 'nutjobs' not a word recognized by the dictionary...?**

[Xiahou]

Sounds like it was a demotion. Not a particularly severe one, but going from pastor to some administrative position is a demotion of sorts. A pastor is the person in charge of the running of a particular church. Being an administrator, not a pastor sounds like something more book-keeping or care-taking role.

As some have suggested, it was probably done with the idea of removing him from public interaction.

[Husar]

OT:
Being a soldier also allows you to commit murder quite legally. Now, I don't see calls from people for the abolishment of the army, now do I? Thou shalt not kill (or something close). There is a word for that kind of behaviour, and I suspect you know it.
But there is a small difference between war and abortion. In war the soldiers are only legally allowed to shoot at other soldiers who also have guns.
In abortion doctors are legally allowed to vacuum-clean babies who do not have a vacuum-cleaner...:inquisitive:

[Keba]

But there is a small difference between war and abortion. In war the soldiers are only legally allowed to shoot at other soldiers who also have guns.
In abortion doctors are legally allowed to vacuum-clean babies who do not have a vacuum-cleaner...:inquisitive:

It is still murder, no matter how you spin it ... it is also murder on a massive scale, much more than abortion, thus, it is worse.

I'm just being pig-headed, nothing personal.

So, you religious folks quit butting in ... those that go to an abortion clinic usually aren't religious, and those who work there, most probably aren't religious either. It's a small thing called freedom of choice. If you find it offensive, then don't choose it, and let those that don't find it offensive choose it.

[Husar]

I wasn´t saying war is right, I was just saying that there is a difference.
And the existence of abortion clinics doesn´t really sound like abortion is of much lower scale than war.

[Keba]

I wasn´t saying war is right, I was just saying that there is a difference.

Oh, don't mind that, I was just making a simple example of how some people turn a blind eye to one problem and concentrate on a completely different one, even though both problems are similar (but not the same).



And the existence of abortion clinics doesn´t really sound like abortion is of much lower scale than war.

They exist for people who do not care for what religion says. Perhaps numbers could be lowered if the religious went about it the proper way, instead of frothing at the mouth, using axes and causing destruction or saying that anyone who gets his hands involved in the process will be excommunicated (yes, the Vatican decreed that).

What would the proper way be? Rising awareness, helping people decide to keep babies, whatever, but going around with an axe is not the proper way.

I personally do not think abortion would be a proper move, but I like to keep my options open, and therefore support the existance of such options. But, it should be viewed as a last option, not simply as something that can be done any day.

[Husar]

What would the proper way be? Rising awareness, helping people decide to keep babies, whatever, but going around with an axe is not the proper way.

I personally do not think abortion would be a proper move, but I like to keep my options open, and therefore support the existance of such options. But, it should be viewed as a last option, not simply as something that can be done any day.
I agree with most of that, but the last option for me would be only in a medical sense for example if the mother is in huge danger or so.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

You have to understand, for some people, myself included, this isn't about choosing or not choosing abortion like it was some flavor of ice cream. It's state-sponsored murder. And different from war because those dying cannot defend themselves. However, I would argue that the scale of war and abortion are not too dissimilar. There have been a lot of abortions since 1973.

[Aenlic]

What about if the pregnancy is the result of a 13-year old girl raped by an anti-abortion priest who happens to be her uncle? Inquiring minds want to know.

Or space aliens! I'm sure I've seen headlines for "news" stories on the covers of magazines sold in grocery stores all over the place, including trailer parks in the Bible Belt (probably one of their best customers), detailing space aliens impregnating 40-year old women with blue hair and filterless cigarette burns on their lips named things like Thelma Lou and living near Paducah. What about them? Abortion, no abortion? Inquiring minds want to know.

Just trying to cover all the hypothetical bases here. :grin:

[Navaros]

abortion is not a crime

Murdering children and calling it "abortion" is always a crime, whether evil men have "allowed" it via the lawbooks or not. Crime is a bit of an understatement, though, "Abortion" is more akin to genocide and a Holocaust rather than merely a "crime".

That Priest should definitely have been promoted.

[Keba]

Murdering children and calling it "abortion" is always a crime, whether evil men have "allowed" it via the lawbooks or not. Crime is a bit of an understatement, though, "Abortion" is more akin to genocide and a Holocaust rather than merely a "crime".

That Priest should definitely have been promoted.

Just going to be pedantic here. One, Holocaust is genocide ... they are the same, Holocaust simply refers to a single case of genocide, namely, WWII and the Nazi regime in Germany as well as all it's puppet goverments.

Secondly, genocide means the purposeful extermination of a certain group, based solely on their identity. Now, I see a problem in tying that in with abortion, mainly because I do not see the purposeful extermination, nor a certain group. Once you prove to me that the babies are a group (which, by default includes an internal identification with the other members of such a group), I might concede to your use of this word, but until then, please stop misusing terms.

That priest, if he did that stunt over in my country would:
A) get his ass sued for damages, along with the church for supporting the move (by promoting him)
B) get arrested on the spot for disturbing the peace, threatning the public (by running around with an axe) and probably another thing or two, as covered by law, the law plays no favourites

Evil ... how does one define evil? For example, I want to help a poor woman who cannot possibly offer a proper quality of life to her child go through abortion. So, I would be evil in this case? Absolute morality in black and white is never the proper answer in this world.

And again, children is a wrong term. If you are to insinuate that it is murder (which I do not believe it is), then at least use the term babies. I'm helping you here, the term brings up an even more vile image than murdering children.

And I am sick of people trying to put their morality upon me. I do not believe in your God, nor do I consider your God and your religion neither proper nor right. My morality and the morality of many does not consider this murder ... so quite forcing your misguided, outdated ideals stemming from a book written by some forgotten man on me or those who are like me. So we will burn in the fires of hell, not your problem.

[Ronin]

Just going to be pedantic here. One, Holocaust is genocide ... they are the same, Holocaust simply refers to a single case of genocide, namely, WWII and the Nazi regime in Germany as well as all it's puppet goverments.

Secondly, genocide means the purposeful extermination of a certain group, based solely on their identity. Now, I see a problem in tying that in with abortion, mainly because I do not see the purposeful extermination, nor a certain group. Once you prove to me that the babies are a group (which, by default includes an internal identification with the other members of such a group), I might concede to your use of this word, but until then, please stop misusing terms.

That priest, if he did that stunt over in my country would:
A) get his ass sued for damages, along with the church for supporting the move (by promoting him)
B) get arrested on the spot for disturbing the peace, threatning the public (by running around with an axe) and probably another thing or two, as covered by law, the law plays no favourites

Evil ... how does one define evil? For example, I want to help a poor woman who cannot possibly offer a proper quality of life to her child go through abortion. So, I would be evil in this case? Absolute morality in black and white is never the proper answer in this world.

And again, children is a wrong term. If you are to insinuate that it is murder (which I do not believe it is), then at least use the term babies. I'm helping you here, the term brings up an even more vile image than murdering children.

And I am sick of people trying to put their morality upon me. I do not believe in your God, nor do I consider your God and your religion neither proper nor right. My morality and the morality of many does not consider this murder ... so quite forcing your misguided, outdated ideals stemming from a book written by some forgotten man on me or those who are like me. So we will burn in the fires of hell, not your problem.


what else can I say?

~:thumb:

[Navaros]

So we will burn in the fires of hell, not your problem.

Advocating for and taking part in the murder of babies is indeed everyone's problem.

Pro-"abortionists" favorite tactic is try to use semantics and wordplay to try to "gloss over" these horrible acts of murder by "renaming" them to something else. But renaming a genocide to "ethnic cleansing" or "racial purification" or "abortion" does nothing to stop it from actually being what it is: a genocide.

No semantics in the world will ever change the fact that "abortion" is an act of murder --- one which murders babies and is the most evil act possible.

[Kralizec]

Except that there's a difference between using words properly and raping the English language to produce a sentimental argument.

Nice try, though. :balloon2:

[Keba]

Advocating for and taking part in the murder of babies is indeed everyone's problem.

Pro-"abortionists" favorite tactic is try to use semantics and wordplay to try to "gloss over" these horrible acts of murder by "renaming" them to something else. But renaming a genocide to "ethnic cleansing" or "racial purification" or "abortion" does nothing to stop it from actually being what it is: a genocide.

No semantics in the world will ever change the fact that "abortion" is an act of murder --- one which murders babies and is the most evil act possible.

Very well, I am willing to grant you that it is murder. I do not consider it so, but, I am going to accomodate you for the sake of discussion, that it is murder.

However, I would still like to know how it is genocide. Abortion is not targeted at a group ... the most basic part of the definition of a group requires internal identification with other members of so-called group. It is also a willing, planned and purposeful process of extermination, usually based on certain qualities of said group. Abortion does, most definately, not qualify as genocide.

Ethnic cleansing is a form of genocide, one based upon ethnicity (one nation trying to exterminate another), racial purification is a form of genocide based on race (as in, Holocaust). Those two are simply refined versions of the concept of genocide which is quite broad ... subtypes if you will.

It is not semantics, but I am curious, what qualifies abortion as a genocide ... it is not done en masse, it is done individually.

EDIT: Grammar correction.

[Navaros]

"Abortion" is a deliberate murder of unborn babies, which is a group. It "being done individually" one murder at a time does not change that. The "legalization" of it ensures that it is indeed done en masse.

@Kralizec: your post there describes perfectly exactly what words (I use that term very loosely) like "abortion" and "pro-choice" attempt to do.

[Papewaio]

Except that there's a difference between using words properly and raping the English language to produce a sentimental argument.


Kind of an ironic statement IMDHO.

[Keba]

"Abortion" is a deliberate murder of unborn babies, which is a group. It "being done individually" one murder at a time does not change that. The "legalization" of it ensures that it is indeed done en masse.

I said it before, and I will say it again. Any definition of group requires identification with other members of such a group. Secondly, it is not a planned attempt to wipe out every unborn baby. If they were a group, then attempts would be made to make sure all unborn babies were wiped out, something which is not happening.

The fact that it happens on an individual basis is precisely what makes it not be genocide. Why? Simply, it is not part of a larger planned attempt. I could go so far as to postulate that abortions are completely unplanned, as in, an attempt to do away an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy. The legalization allows it to be done on a large scale, which is not en masse (as in, you do not gather unborn babies in one place and kill them all).

As a third part, let us put everything in religious terms. Babies (especially unborn ones) did not commit any sin. They die, they go to heaven. If they are born, then, most parents (who did not want them in the first place) would send them off to an orphanage. Now, the number of adopters, compared to the number of orphans is very, very low, meaning that most of these orphans will end up on the street after orphanage. And what is left for a youg person with no hope in life, living on the street? Yup, you guessed it, crime, and murder, and a lot of other not-so-nice things. Oh, and when such people die, they are cursed with eternal damnation. Mull on that one a bit.

[Banquo's Ghost]

As a third part, let us put everything in religious terms. Babies (especially unborn ones) did not commit any sin. They die, they go to heaven. If they are born, then, most parents (who did not want them in the first place) would send them off to an orphanage. Now, the number of adopters, compared to the number of orphans is very, very low, meaning that most of these orphans will end up on the street after orphanage. And what is left for a youg person with no hope in life, living on the street? Yup, you guessed it, crime, and murder, and a lot of other not-so-nice things. Oh, and when such people die, they are cursed with eternal damnation. Mull on that one a bit.

I believe the simple flaw in that argument is that the death of the potential human being removes their choice to be good or evil. The religious might argue that since God has provided that foetus with life, it is not up to Man to take away that potential.

(In Roman Catholic doctrine, for example, unbaptised babies end up in a place called Limbo, which is neither Heaven nor Hell, as they have never had the chance to make life choices that deserve either).

And it is faintly disturbing that your argument actually implies all orphans become bad people, and thus would be better off dead.

Perhaps some mulling due on your own thoughts?

[Keba]

And it is faintly disturbing that your argument actually implies all orphans become bad people, and thus would be better off dead.
Perhaps some mulling due on your own thoughts?

Yes, it may sound wrong, and I would not necessarily imply such things, but, the truth of the situation is that many (if not the majority) have few chances to turn to an honest profession. Many orphans are taken in by adoptive families, some orphans succeed despite everything and become good people. However, the cut-off age is 18, not enough to finish education, at which point they are thrown in the street.

That means that they either work the most menial jobs, or have no jobs at all, a point at which, they might be attracted to a life of crime. It is even more visible in the event of a high unemployment rate.

Actually, it is quite the opposite. Raise the cut-off age to at least 22 (or even 23), provide some basic support to those after the cut-off age, and provide more funding to orphanages. I do not believe that they would be better off dead.

Hmm, didn't know about the limbo thing ... serves me right for getting religion into my arguements.

So, I'll ask everyone to please disregard the last paragraph in my previous post.

[Banquo's Ghost]

"Abortion" is a deliberate murder of unborn babies, which is a group. It "being done individually" one murder at a time does not change that. The "legalization" of it ensures that it is indeed done en masse.

@Kralizec: your post there describes perfectly exactly what words (I use that term very loosely) like "abortion" and "pro-choice" attempt to do.

Navaros, I can understand why you would prefer to use the word 'murder' to describe acts of which you deeply disapprove, and in many respects it is an accurate term to apply.

However, so is the term abortion. It describes the act of aborting a foetus from its term of pregnancy.

The former carries emotional weight which is intended, just as the latter is more clinical. To a woman considering such an act, using emotive terms is a deliberate attempt at coercion to a particular end, whereas trying to conceptualise the more clinical terms allows a more rational reflection at a very emotional time.

Pro-choice on the other hand, is a simplistic but useful political label, no more insidious than pro-life. Both could be framed negatively as anti-choice and anti-life. :shrug:

I am pro-choice because I believe every woman has the right to decide what happens in her own body. I would prefer that no abortion ever took place and that we had the social and moral support that ensured that children who were 'unwanted' by their mother, were deeply wanted by the community who would bring them up positively. There has always been an unpleasant thread in the religious community that condemns women for considering abortion whilst also condemning them for being single mothers and 'anti-family'. It is rare to hear the same blame being showered on the errant fathers.

I am also not so naive as to think that women will not find ways to choose regardless, as they have done throughout history, or that unplanned pregancies can be avoided.

I think that the current late term laws in the US are particularly unhelpful and wrong, and that much stricter term limits should apply. But in all cases, women should be counselled in a supportive and calm atmosphere, by skilled people who can present the choices before her in a rational, unthreatening and guilt-free environment. I believe that if churches could do this without moralising, they would be the best places for this help and would reduce abortion rates significantly.

However, I recognise that if one believes a thing is wrong, compromise is difficult.

My views derive from watching a favourite priest of mine, working in Catholic Ireland which not only banned abortion but also had the nastiest fate in store for those unfortunate women who fell pregnant outside marriage. This man counselled women, protected them and their secret and arranged abortions in England and orphanages/ places of refuge in France and Spain. Many women I know went on his 'pilgrimages' to Lourdes and Santiago. Almost all chose to have their baby when they knew their choices could be discussed sensitively, in faith, and that they actually had a choice.

To my mind, he was a Christian. :bow:

[Banquo's Ghost]

Actually, it is quite the opposite. Raise the cut-off age to at least 22 (or even 23), provide some basic support to those after the cut-off age, and provide more funding to orphanages. I do not believe that they would be better off dead.

Indeed, having much better community support for orphans would be an ethical response, if expensive. Some churches do just this, for which they should be commended, but many others just snarl that 'she should have been abstaining'.



Hmm, didn't know about the limbo thing ... serves me right for getting religion into my arguements.

The problem with religions is that there are so darn many. No doubt a Protestant of some persuasion will drop by and dismiss such papist nonsense as 'Limbo'. I was just illustrating the idea that not everyone believes babies automatically get a ticket to heaven. There are some catholics of my acquaintance that would charge that having a child born and baptised a Presbyterian would be worse that having them aborted - and be entirely serious. :rolleyes:

We're also talking just about Western Christian mores here - plenty of other religions, past and present, have no problems with abortion or even infanticide.

God likes confusion. :smile: (Oh, and beetles :wink:).