| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"L. Raymond" |
| Date: |
28 Jan 2005 05:05:41 PM |
| Object: |
Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death". I resisted the urge to comment on this,
grotesque as it is, as though an adult woman has no value to the world
beyond her womb, and the implicit assumption *any* life is better than a
woman's.
But today there's a blurb about euthanasia being condemned by the pope
on the grounds that elderly people should be considered a valuable
resource. Unless, one assumes, these are elderly women who've become
pregnant, in which case they're just so much offal in the making.
It's a religion devoted to the worship of a woman in heaven and the
damnation of women on Earth. They forbid women to take responsibility
for their own health by opposing both birth control and abortion. They
won't allow women into their little boy's club to speak up for
themselves. They blame all woe and suffering the world on women, and
say they'd offend the sight of their god if they were priests, all the
while doing what they can to support and protect those worthy men of the
cloth who violate little children. Is there any greater misogynist cult
on the face of the Earth?
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
| User: "Clayton Based Life Form" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
28 Jan 2005 11:36:50 PM |
|
|
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:d0px780ze3tf$.17xgr4eh0flo1.dlg@40tude.net...
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death". I resisted the urge to comment on this,
grotesque as it is, as though an adult woman has no value to the world
beyond her womb, and the implicit assumption *any* life is better than a
woman's.
But today there's a blurb about euthanasia being condemned by the pope
on the grounds that elderly people should be considered a valuable
resource. Unless, one assumes, these are elderly women who've become
pregnant, in which case they're just so much offal in the making.
It's a religion devoted to the worship of a woman in heaven and the
damnation of women on Earth. They forbid women to take responsibility
for their own health by opposing both birth control and abortion. They
won't allow women into their little boy's club to speak up for
themselves. They blame all woe and suffering the world on women, and
say they'd offend the sight of their god if they were priests, all the
while doing what they can to support and protect those worthy men of the
cloth who violate little children. Is there any greater misogynist cult
on the face of the Earth?
When paganism was prominent, the woman was at the centre of religion and
worshiped. Christianity has always hated and suppressed women....to totally
dismantle pagan practices they had to make the subduing of women not only
standard practise, but dogma!!!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
28 Jan 2005 06:04:16 PM |
|
|
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:d0px780ze3tf$.17xgr4eh0flo1.dlg@40tude.net...
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death".
Ok, so is the Vatican pro-euthanasia now? What's the difference between what
they're condoning here, and having someone request his life-support be shut
off?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
28 Jan 2005 06:26:08 PM |
|
|
In article <vrydnSBGHdaI4mfcRVn-jQ@io.com> "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> writes:
"L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
news:d0px780ze3tf$.17xgr4eh0flo1.dlg@40tude.net...
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death".
Ok, so is the Vatican pro-euthanasia now? What's the difference between what
they're condoning here, and having someone request his life-support be shut
off?
Well put.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eudaemonic Plague" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
28 Jan 2005 08:10:05 PM |
|
|
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:cte040$hc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
: In article <vrydnSBGHdaI4mfcRVn-jQ@io.com> "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> writes:
: >
: > "L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
: > news:d0px780ze3tf$.17xgr4eh0flo1.dlg@40tude.net...
: > > Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican
praising an
: > > Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She
went
: > > through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even
at the
: > > cost of her own death".
: >
: > Ok, so is the Vatican pro-euthanasia now? What's the difference
between what
: > they're condoning here, and having someone request his
life-support be shut
: > off?
: >
:
: Well put.
Not at all. The woman committed suicide - it was NOT necessary for
her to die at all. She knew she had cancer about the same time she
knew she was pregnant. If she had simply opted for an abortion,
gotten treatment, and gotten pregnant again (assuming, of course, that
she got well and could still concieve). She could have lived, had
more spawn, and not caused those around her unnecessary grief.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
28 Jan 2005 08:25:56 PM |
|
|
In article <cte66t$3m5$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu> "Eudaemonic Plague" <ghod@ameritech.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:cte040$hc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
: In article <vrydnSBGHdaI4mfcRVn-jQ@io.com> "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> writes:
: >
: > "L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
: > news:d0px780ze3tf$.17xgr4eh0flo1.dlg@40tude.net...
: > > Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican
praising an
: > > Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She
went
: > > through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even
at the
: > > cost of her own death".
: >
: > Ok, so is the Vatican pro-euthanasia now? What's the difference
between what
: > they're condoning here, and having someone request his
life-support be shut
: > off?
: >
:
: Well put.
Not at all. The woman committed suicide - it was NOT necessary for
her to die at all.
Ah. You seem better informed about her case than I. What
staging had the pathologist assigned to her case, and
what prognoses were given for the various therapy
options?
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eudaemonic Plague" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
29 Jan 2005 03:07:07 AM |
|
|
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <cte66t$3m5$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu> "Eudaemonic Plague" <ghod@ameritech.net> writes:
[snip]
Not at all. The woman committed suicide - it was NOT necessary for
her to die at all.
Ah. You seem better informed about her case than I. What
staging had the pathologist assigned to her case, and
what prognoses were given for the various therapy
options?
Yes, I seem to be better informed than you....*sigh*....I read the
story. Your snide ***** about the details will get you nowhere. It was
stated that she would have been able to receive treatment (no guarantees
on surviving cancer, you know?) and would have been expected to live.
She made the choice not to receive treatment, even though it was certain
that she would not live, just to bring the baby to term. Do you need to
know more?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
31 Jan 2005 05:52:41 PM |
|
|
In article <360cujF4q7lfeU1@individual.net> Eudaemonic Plague <ghod@ameritech.net> writes:
Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <cte66t$3m5$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu> "Eudaemonic Plague" <ghod@ameritech.net> writes:
[snip]
Not at all. The woman committed suicide - it was NOT necessary for
her to die at all.
Ah. You seem better informed about her case than I. What
staging had the pathologist assigned to her case, and
what prognoses were given for the various therapy
options?
Yes, I seem to be better informed than you....*sigh*....I read the
story. Your snide ***** about the details will get you nowhere. It was
stated that she would have been able to receive treatment (no guarantees
on surviving cancer, you know?) and would have been expected to live.
She made the choice not to receive treatment, even though it was certain
that she would not live, just to bring the baby to term. Do you need to
know more?
This last ("just to bring the baby to term"), was the part I did not understand.
Which explains my puzzlement over that Vatican's stance, as well as my
perception that a cancer patient was refusing treatment purely out of
consideration for her own situation. You have cleared up my confusion.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
28 Jan 2005 08:39:30 PM |
|
|
In article <cte66t$3m5$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu> "Eudaemonic Plague" <ghod@ameritech.net> writes:
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:cte040$hc$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
: In article <vrydnSBGHdaI4mfcRVn-jQ@io.com> "Denis Loubet"
<dloubet@io.com> writes:
: >
: > "L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message
: > news:d0px780ze3tf$.17xgr4eh0flo1.dlg@40tude.net...
: > > Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican
praising an
: > > Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She
went
: > > through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even
at the
: > > cost of her own death".
: >
: > Ok, so is the Vatican pro-euthanasia now? What's the difference
between what
: > they're condoning here, and having someone request his
life-support be shut
: > off?
: >
:
: Well put.
Not at all. The woman committed suicide - it was NOT necessary for
her to die at all. She knew she had cancer about the same time she
knew she was pregnant. If she had simply opted for an abortion,
gotten treatment, and gotten pregnant again (assuming, of course, that
she got well and could still concieve). She could have lived, had
more spawn, and not caused those around her unnecessary grief.
Sorry, but I should also have added: why do you think she was
pregnant? Presumably the "new life" referred to as being praised
by the Church was her new life in heaven -- I can hardly imagine
the Vatican cheering a pregnant woman who chose to die...
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
28 Jan 2005 09:05:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:39:30 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <cte66t$3m5$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu> "Eudaemonic Plague" <ghod@ameritech.net> writes:
Not at all. The woman committed suicide - it was NOT necessary for
her to die at all. She knew she had cancer about the same time she
knew she was pregnant. If she had simply opted for an abortion,
gotten treatment, and gotten pregnant again (assuming, of course, that
she got well and could still concieve). She could have lived, had
more spawn, and not caused those around her unnecessary grief.
Sorry, but I should also have added: why do you think she was
pregnant? Presumably the "new life" referred to as being praised
by the Church was her new life in heaven -- I can hardly imagine
the Vatican cheering a pregnant woman who chose to die...
I left the word "pregnant" out of the first paragraph in my post. She
was pregnant, thus the references to the womb and pregnant elderly
women.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
28 Jan 2005 09:26:04 PM |
|
|
In article <dhpt73adplop.12ht86s5226a6$.dlg@40tude.net> "L. Raymond" <badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> writes:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:39:30 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <cte66t$3m5$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu> "Eudaemonic Plague" <ghod@ameritech.net> writes:
Not at all. The woman committed suicide - it was NOT necessary for
her to die at all. She knew she had cancer about the same time she
knew she was pregnant. If she had simply opted for an abortion,
gotten treatment, and gotten pregnant again (assuming, of course, that
she got well and could still concieve). She could have lived, had
more spawn, and not caused those around her unnecessary grief.
Sorry, but I should also have added: why do you think she was
pregnant? Presumably the "new life" referred to as being praised
by the Church was her new life in heaven -- I can hardly imagine
the Vatican cheering a pregnant woman who chose to die...
I left the word "pregnant" out of the first paragraph in my post. She
was pregnant, thus the references to the womb and pregnant elderly
women.
Ah, thank you. I stand corrected.
And I also stand confused: as mentioned, I am startled that the
Vatican's stance was not that she shouldn't have done everything
possible to save the baby.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
29 Jan 2005 02:18:43 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:26:04 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
And I also stand confused: as mentioned, I am startled that the
Vatican's stance was not that she shouldn't have done everything
possible to save the baby.
She had 2 possible choices - abortion or "let nature take its course".
I guess the Vatican chose the lesser of 2 what to it were evils, but
it's consistent with the anti-choicers' viewpoint that abortion kills
a human being and to hell with the pregnant woman - even if the only
choice is the death of the fetus or the death of the fetus AND the
woman.
--
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be under-
stood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can
comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of
humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism."
- 1954 or 1955; quoted in Dukas and Hoffman _Albert Einstein the Human Side_, p. 39
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
29 Jan 2005 03:08:02 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein" <rukbat@pern.invalid> wrote in message
news:ueslv09reacd9uemcjn8ie01c74unt47ag@4ax.com...
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:26:04 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
And I also stand confused: as mentioned, I am startled that the
Vatican's stance was not that she shouldn't have done everything
possible to save the baby.
She had 2 possible choices - abortion or "let nature take its course".
I guess the Vatican chose the lesser of 2 what to it were evils, but
it's consistent with the anti-choicers' viewpoint that abortion kills
a human being and to hell with the pregnant woman - even if the only
choice is the death of the fetus or the death of the fetus AND the
woman.
This entire thing shocks me beyond belief. If I were faced with this kind
of situation, I would, without question, terminate the pregnancy and get
treatment for the cancer - And that decision would certainly haunt me on
several levels. Call me selfish, but I love my husband and darling daughter
too much to allow myself to be taken away from them when it was completely
unnecessary.
--
---------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
29 Jan 2005 02:42:34 AM |
|
|
In article <ueslv09reacd9uemcjn8ie01c74unt47ag@4ax.com>, Al Klein wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:26:04 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) said in alt.atheism:
And I also stand confused: as mentioned, I am startled that the
Vatican's stance was not that she shouldn't have done everything
possible to save the baby.
She had 2 possible choices - abortion or "let nature take its course".
I guess the Vatican chose the lesser of 2 what to it were evils, but
it's consistent with the anti-choicers' viewpoint that abortion kills
a human being and to hell with the pregnant woman - even if the only
choice is the death of the fetus or the death of the fetus AND the
woman.
In this case the woman lived long enough to give birth to a live
child.
It is my understanding that in Orthodox Judaism the opposite position
would have been taken in this case even among those who are most
anti-abortion. If the woman must have an abortion to live (or have a
chance of living), then she must have an abortion. The mother's life
is paramount.
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
29 Jan 2005 04:20:44 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:42:34 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
<emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> said in alt.atheism:
In this case the woman lived long enough to give birth to a live
child.
I posted before I had read the article. Serves me right for thinking
I understood the situation from reading usenet posts. :)
It is my understanding that in Orthodox Judaism the opposite position
would have been taken in this case even among those who are most
anti-abortion. If the woman must have an abortion to live (or have a
chance of living), then she must have an abortion. The mother's life
is paramount.
My understanding is the same. I don't know the philosophy behind it,
though.
--
"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is
a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the
crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due
to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious
indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility
corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of
nature and of our own being."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr., Sept. 28, 1949, from article by
Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
29 Jan 2005 08:51:57 PM |
|
|
In article <vm3mv05j0efpk23dhkir044qctj84qlqhs@4ax.com>, Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 02:42:34 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
<emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> said in alt.atheism:
In this case the woman lived long enough to give birth to a live
child.
I posted before I had read the article. Serves me right for thinking
I understood the situation from reading usenet posts. :)
It is my understanding that in Orthodox Judaism the opposite position
would have been taken in this case even among those who are most
anti-abortion. If the woman must have an abortion to live (or have a
chance of living), then she must have an abortion. The mother's life
is paramount.
My understanding is the same. I don't know the philosophy behind it,
though.
I think it is that a fetus is not considered a human until it has been
born (or crowned to be more exact). Given the choice between saving a
human (the mother) or a not-yet-human (the fetus), the human must be
saved. However as a potential human the fetus should not be aborted
except in certain circumstances (what circumstances varies in
different sects of Judaism and possibly from rabbi to rabbi).
Musing over this, both the Orthodox Judaism (apparently, I don't know
enough to be sure) and the Catholic positions do not give the mother a
choice. If there is only a small chance of surviving even with an
abortion but a good chance of living long enough to give birth to a
healthy baby, many women might choose not to abort and who is anyone
to deny them that choice?
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
29 Jan 2005 10:02:32 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:51:57 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
<emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> said in alt.atheism:
If there is only a small chance of surviving even with an
abortion but a good chance of living long enough to give birth to a
healthy baby, many women might choose not to abort and who is anyone
to deny them that choice?
Not anyone who's pro-choice, that's for sure. NOT having an abortion
is always one of the choices - or should be.
--
"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid
consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and
ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who
works on the basis of reward and punishment. "
- Letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Emma Pease" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
29 Jan 2005 10:27:01 PM |
|
|
In article <4u1ov09hgk5j6g7455ae73h3uk921ikhfo@4ax.com>, Al Klein wrote:
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 20:51:57 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
<emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> said in alt.atheism:
If there is only a small chance of surviving even with an
abortion but a good chance of living long enough to give birth to a
healthy baby, many women might choose not to abort and who is anyone
to deny them that choice?
Not anyone who's pro-choice, that's for sure. NOT having an abortion
is always one of the choices - or should be.
Correct though things can be tricky if you are talking about a woman
who is a minor and whose guardians want one thing and she wants
another. For instance a 15 year old who is pregnant does not want an
abortion but her parents want her to. What about if she has cancer
and needs the abortion in order to live? What about in the opposite
direction, her parents don't want the abortion and she does? What if
she is 12? 17? What if she has the mental age of a 8 year old? What
if she can't say (e.g., she is pregnant and brought into a hospital
unconscious and the doctors determine that for her to live she must
have an abortion but the parents oppose).
--
\----
|\* | Emma Pease Net Spinster
|_\/ Die Luft der Freiheit weht
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
30 Jan 2005 12:57:04 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 22:27:01 +0000 (UTC), Emma Pease
<emma@kanpai.stanford.edu> said in alt.atheism:
In article <4u1ov09hgk5j6g7455ae73h3uk921ikhfo@4ax.com>, Al Klein wrote:
Not anyone who's pro-choice, that's for sure. NOT having an abortion
is always one of the choices - or should be.
Correct though things can be tricky if you are talking about a woman
who is a minor and whose guardians want one thing and she wants
another. For instance a 15 year old who is pregnant does not want an
abortion but her parents want her to. What about if she has cancer
and needs the abortion in order to live? What about in the opposite
direction, her parents don't want the abortion and she does? What if
she is 12? 17? What if she has the mental age of a 8 year old? What
if she can't say (e.g., she is pregnant and brought into a hospital
unconscious and the doctors determine that for her to live she must
have an abortion but the parents oppose).
Each case would have to be taken individually.
All other things being equal, though (she's conscious, rational,
mentally old enough to understand the situation if it's explained to
her), if she's old enough to conceive it should be her decision, IMO.
--
"If anyone comes to me, and does not hate his father, mother, wife, brothers, and sisters and even himself, he cannot be my disciple."
Luke 14:26
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
01 Feb 2005 01:30:31 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:05:41 -0600, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death". I resisted the urge to comment on this,
grotesque as it is, as though an adult woman has no value to the world
beyond her womb, and the implicit assumption *any* life is better than a
woman's.
But today there's a blurb about euthanasia being condemned by the pope
on the grounds that elderly people should be considered a valuable
resource. Unless, one assumes, these are elderly women who've become
pregnant, in which case they're just so much offal in the making.
It's a religion devoted to the worship of a woman in heaven and the
damnation of women on Earth. They forbid women to take responsibility
for their own health by opposing both birth control and abortion. They
won't allow women into their little boy's club to speak up for
themselves. They blame all woe and suffering the world on women, and
say they'd offend the sight of their god if they were priests, all the
while doing what they can to support and protect those worthy men of the
cloth who violate little children. Is there any greater misogynist cult
on the face of the Earth?
Not that I'm aware of.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
01 Feb 2005 08:31:58 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:30:31 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:05:41 -0600, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death". I resisted the urge to comment on this,
grotesque as it is, as though an adult woman has no value to the world
beyond her womb, and the implicit assumption *any* life is better than a
woman's.
But today there's a blurb about euthanasia being condemned by the pope
on the grounds that elderly people should be considered a valuable
resource. Unless, one assumes, these are elderly women who've become
pregnant, in which case they're just so much offal in the making.
It's a religion devoted to the worship of a woman in heaven and the
damnation of women on Earth. They forbid women to take responsibility
for their own health by opposing both birth control and abortion. They
won't allow women into their little boy's club to speak up for
themselves. They blame all woe and suffering the world on women, and
say they'd offend the sight of their god if they were priests, all the
while doing what they can to support and protect those worthy men of the
cloth who violate little children. Is there any greater misogynist cult
on the face of the Earth?
Not that I'm aware of.
It is rather funny in a way. I remember being taught that the Church
was not anti-female, and the respect given to Mary was used as an
example. I said to the priest that she was a wonderful example for
women to follow. All they had to do was to become pregnant and remain
a virgin.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
02 Feb 2005 04:57:43 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:31:58 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:30:31 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:05:41 -0600, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death". I resisted the urge to comment on this,
grotesque as it is, as though an adult woman has no value to the world
beyond her womb, and the implicit assumption *any* life is better than a
woman's.
But today there's a blurb about euthanasia being condemned by the pope
on the grounds that elderly people should be considered a valuable
resource. Unless, one assumes, these are elderly women who've become
pregnant, in which case they're just so much offal in the making.
It's a religion devoted to the worship of a woman in heaven and the
damnation of women on Earth. They forbid women to take responsibility
for their own health by opposing both birth control and abortion. They
won't allow women into their little boy's club to speak up for
themselves. They blame all woe and suffering the world on women, and
say they'd offend the sight of their god if they were priests, all the
while doing what they can to support and protect those worthy men of the
cloth who violate little children. Is there any greater misogynist cult
on the face of the Earth?
Not that I'm aware of.
It is rather funny in a way. I remember being taught that the Church
was not anti-female, and the respect given to Mary was used as an
example. I said to the priest that she was a wonderful example for
women to follow. All they had to do was to become pregnant and remain
a virgin.
RRRRRRRRROOOOOOLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG
What was his response?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
02 Feb 2005 09:31:10 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:57:43 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:31:58 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:30:31 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:05:41 -0600, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death". I resisted the urge to comment on this,
grotesque as it is, as though an adult woman has no value to the world
beyond her womb, and the implicit assumption *any* life is better than a
woman's.
But today there's a blurb about euthanasia being condemned by the pope
on the grounds that elderly people should be considered a valuable
resource. Unless, one assumes, these are elderly women who've become
pregnant, in which case they're just so much offal in the making.
It's a religion devoted to the worship of a woman in heaven and the
damnation of women on Earth. They forbid women to take responsibility
for their own health by opposing both birth control and abortion. They
won't allow women into their little boy's club to speak up for
themselves. They blame all woe and suffering the world on women, and
say they'd offend the sight of their god if they were priests, all the
while doing what they can to support and protect those worthy men of the
cloth who violate little children. Is there any greater misogynist cult
on the face of the Earth?
Not that I'm aware of.
It is rather funny in a way. I remember being taught that the Church
was not anti-female, and the respect given to Mary was used as an
example. I said to the priest that she was a wonderful example for
women to follow. All they had to do was to become pregnant and remain
a virgin.
RRRRRRRRROOOOOOLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG
What was his response?
That I was obviously very bitter.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
04 Feb 2005 07:00:44 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:31:10 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 08:57:43 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:31:58 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:30:31 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:05:41 -0600, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death". I resisted the urge to comment on this,
grotesque as it is, as though an adult woman has no value to the world
beyond her womb, and the implicit assumption *any* life is better than a
woman's.
But today there's a blurb about euthanasia being condemned by the pope
on the grounds that elderly people should be considered a valuable
resource. Unless, one assumes, these are elderly women who've become
pregnant, in which case they're just so much offal in the making.
It's a religion devoted to the worship of a woman in heaven and the
damnation of women on Earth. They forbid women to take responsibility
for their own health by opposing both birth control and abortion. They
won't allow women into their little boy's club to speak up for
themselves. They blame all woe and suffering the world on women, and
say they'd offend the sight of their god if they were priests, all the
while doing what they can to support and protect those worthy men of the
cloth who violate little children. Is there any greater misogynist cult
on the face of the Earth?
Not that I'm aware of.
It is rather funny in a way. I remember being taught that the Church
was not anti-female, and the respect given to Mary was used as an
example. I said to the priest that she was a wonderful example for
women to follow. All they had to do was to become pregnant and remain
a virgin.
RRRRRRRRROOOOOOLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG
What was his response?
That I was obviously very bitter.
The usual bearing of false witness is no surprise.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
05 Feb 2005 08:35:17 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:00:44 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:31:10 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
snip
It is rather funny in a way. I remember being taught that the Church
was not anti-female, and the respect given to Mary was used as an
example. I said to the priest that she was a wonderful example for
women to follow. All they had to do was to become pregnant and remain
a virgin.
RRRRRRRRROOOOOOLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG
What was his response?
That I was obviously very bitter.
The usual bearing of false witness is no surprise.
The Catholic priesthood is made up of little boys who are still
refusing to believe that their mothers would do anything so nasty.
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
05 Feb 2005 06:27:50 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 09:35:17 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 11:00:44 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Wed, 02 Feb 2005 22:31:10 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
snip
It is rather funny in a way. I remember being taught that the Church
was not anti-female, and the respect given to Mary was used as an
example. I said to the priest that she was a wonderful example for
women to follow. All they had to do was to become pregnant and remain
a virgin.
RRRRRRRRROOOOOOLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG
What was his response?
That I was obviously very bitter.
The usual bearing of false witness is no surprise.
The Catholic priesthood is made up of little boys who are still
refusing to believe that their mothers would do anything so nasty.
Slime mold has a mother?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
02 Feb 2005 10:32:00 PM |
|
|
thomas p wrote:
It is rather funny in a way. I remember being taught that the
Church
was not anti-female, and the respect given to Mary was used as an
example. I said to the priest that she was a wonderful example for
women to follow. All they had to do was to become pregnant and
remain
a virgin.
RRRRRRRRROOOOOOLLLLLLLLIIIIIIIIIIINNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGG
What was his response?
That I was obviously very bitter.
That's *always* their response (and not just the RCCs, either): you're
not rational, or thoughtful, or logical, you're just bitter or Mad At
God(TM).
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herder
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: AQOTM Nomination |
02 Feb 2005 04:58:32 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:31:58 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:30:31 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:05:41 -0600, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death". I resisted the urge to comment on this,
grotesque as it is, as though an adult woman has no value to the world
beyond her womb, and the implicit assumption *any* life is better than a
woman's.
But today there's a blurb about euthanasia being condemned by the pope
on the grounds that elderly people should be considered a valuable
resource. Unless, one assumes, these are elderly women who've become
pregnant, in which case they're just so much offal in the making.
It's a religion devoted to the worship of a woman in heaven and the
damnation of women on Earth. They forbid women to take responsibility
for their own health by opposing both birth control and abortion. They
won't allow women into their little boy's club to speak up for
themselves. They blame all woe and suffering the world on women, and
say they'd offend the sight of their god if they were priests, all the
while doing what they can to support and protect those worthy men of the
cloth who violate little children. Is there any greater misogynist cult
on the face of the Earth?
Not that I'm aware of.
/begin
It is rather funny in a way. I remember being taught that the Church
was not anti-female, and the respect given to Mary was used as an
example. I said to the priest that she was a wonderful example for
women to follow. All they had to do was to become pregnant and remain
a virgin.
/end
Seconds?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tink" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM Nomination |
03 Feb 2005 10:19:34 PM |
|
|
stoney wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:31:58 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:30:31 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:05:41 -0600, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death". I resisted the urge to comment on this,
grotesque as it is, as though an adult woman has no value to the world
beyond her womb, and the implicit assumption *any* life is better than a
woman's.
But today there's a blurb about euthanasia being condemned by the pope
on the grounds that elderly people should be considered a valuable
resource. Unless, one assumes, these are elderly women who've become
pregnant, in which case they're just so much offal in the making.
It's a religion devoted to the worship of a woman in heaven and the
damnation of women on Earth. They forbid women to take responsibility
for their own health by opposing both birth control and abortion. They
won't allow women into their little boy's club to speak up for
themselves. They blame all woe and suffering the world on women, and
say they'd offend the sight of their god if they were priests, all the
while doing what they can to support and protect those worthy men of the
cloth who violate little children. Is there any greater misogynist cult
on the face of the Earth?
Not that I'm aware of.
/begin
It is rather funny in a way. I remember being taught that the Church
was not anti-female, and the respect given to Mary was used as an
example. I said to the priest that she was a wonderful example for
women to follow. All they had to do was to become pregnant and remain
a virgin.
/end
Seconds?
seconded
--
Skydivers don't knock on death's door; they ring the bell and run
away... It really pisses him off.
The World Famous Tink. (I never heard of you either!!)
AA #2069 ASA#33 POPS# 8808
EAC Chairman, Division of Skydiving and Sushi consumption.
.
|
|
|
| User: "*nemo*" |
|
| Title: Re: AQOTM Nomination |
06 Feb 2005 01:27:26 PM |
|
|
In article <ReOdnb3fS7_rPp_fRVn-vg@comcast.com>,
Tink <kjgrish@comcast.net> wrote:
stoney wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:31:58 +0100, thomas p
<tonyofbexarnospam@yahoo.dk> wrote:
Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:30:31 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:05:41 -0600, "L. Raymond"
<badaddress@mylinuxisp.com> wrote:
Yesterday the paper had a small blurb about the Vatican praising an
Italian woman who died after refusing cancer treatment. "She went
through with her choice, the choice of welcoming new life even at the
cost of her own death". I resisted the urge to comment on this,
grotesque as it is, as though an adult woman has no value to the world
beyond her womb, and the implicit assumption *any* life is better than a
woman's.
But today there's a blurb about euthanasia being condemned by the pope
on the grounds that elderly people should be considered a valuable
resource. Unless, one assumes, these are elderly women who've become
pregnant, in which case they're just so much offal in the making.
It's a religion devoted to the worship of a woman in heaven and the
damnation of women on Earth. They forbid women to take responsibility
for their own health by opposing both birth control and abortion. They
won't allow women into their little boy's club to speak up for
themselves. They blame all woe and suffering the world on women, and
say they'd offend the sight of their god if they were priests, all the
while doing what they can to support and protect those worthy men of the
cloth who violate little children. Is there any greater misogynist cult
on the face of the Earth?
Not that I'm aware of.
/begin
It is rather funny in a way. I remember being taught that the Church
was not anti-female, and the respect given to Mary was used as an
example. I said to the priest that she was a wonderful example for
women to follow. All they had to do was to become pregnant and remain
a virgin.
/end
Seconds?
seconded
Recorded.
--
Nemo - EAC Commissioner for Bible Belt Underwater Operations.
Atheist #1331 (the Palindrome of doom!)
BAAWA Knight! - One of those warm Southern Knights, y'all!
Charter member, SMASH!!
http://home.earthlink.net/~jehdjh/Relpg.html
Draco Dormiens Nunquam Titillandus
Quotemeister since March 2002
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "L. Raymond" |
|
| Title: Re: Vatican: Life is sacred, for some |
02 Feb 2005 09:54:35 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 21:31:58 +0100, thomas p wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:30:31 -0800, stoney <stoney@the.net> wrote:
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 11:05:41 -0600, "L. Raymond"
It's a religion devoted to the worship of a woman in heaven and the
damnation of women on Earth. They forbid women to take responsibility
for their own health by opposing both birth control and abortion. They
won't allow women into their little boy's club to speak up for
themselves. They blame all woe and suffering the world on women, and
say they'd offend the sight of their god if they were priests, all the
while doing what they can to support and protect those worthy men of the
cloth who violate little children. Is there any greater misogynist cult
on the face of the Earth?
Not that I'm aware of.
It is rather funny in a way. I remember being taught that the Church
was not anti-female, and the respect given to Mary was used as an
example. I said to the priest that she was a wonderful example for
women to follow. All they had to do was to become pregnant and remain
a virgin.
Using Mary as an example *is* the church's main method of keeping
women down. For men, the biblical examples include countless prophets,
kings, apostles and other "men of action" while they hold women up to
the standard of a goddess, ultra-pure and whose only claim to men's
regard is having given birth. That's their way of letting women know
they're only important if they've bred, and that after breeding, their
only job is to stand back and let the men take care of everything.
--
L. Raymond
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
