Sex w/o responsibility = "Culture of Death"?

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: conjur
BTW, looks like a Virginia Republican lawmaker is trying to go one step further than the Pope:

VA bill would prevent unmarried women from using insemination
http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=4419

Good! If you're so worried about children being raised in better environments...

I'm having trouble translating that sentence into something resembling a thought.

Oh and maybe it's because Michael Medved doesn't get his statistics from running a search on google.

No, he gets them from his staff that run searches on Google.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur
BTW, looks like a Virginia Republican lawmaker is trying to go one step further than the Pope:

VA bill would prevent unmarried women from using insemination
http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=4419

Good! Help ensure that children are raised in proper homes with a mother and a father.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur
BTW, looks like a Virginia Republican lawmaker is trying to go one step further than the Pope:

VA bill would prevent unmarried women from using insemination
http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=4419

Good! Help ensure that children are raised in problem homes with a mother and a father.

Uh, you prefer children to be raised in problem homes? WTF?

 

[BlancoNino]

I'm having trouble translating that sentence into something resembling a thought.

I'm just saying that that's a great bill and you should think so too if you're worried about children being raised in poor environments.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The pope has arrived at his position after decades of study and thought, hardly something ripped from a literal translation of the Bible, which is what fundamentalist Christianity is all about. In fact, I'd be willing to wager he's thought this out a lot more thoroughly than you have, yet you're calling him a fundamentalist in a manner implying that he hasn't carefully considered the situation. Ironic.

Somehow I'd imagine that no matter how many decades the pope spends studying and pondering the matter, his verdict will be the same. Namely, that abortion and promiscuous sex are bad. Promiscuous sex being bad is simply a core tenet of Christianity, and despite abortion not being mentioned specifically in the Bible (or maybe it is?) it has pretty much been accepted into the fold as another naughty no-no. In other words, his late night study and think sessions are irrelevant because he's a Christian and the decision has already been made for him.

 

[zendari]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: conjur
BTW, looks like a Virginia Republican lawmaker is trying to go one step further than the Pope:

VA bill would prevent unmarried women from using insemination
http://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=4419

Good! Help ensure that children are raised in proper homes with a mother and a father.

Uh, you prefer children to be raised in problem homes? WTF?

Corrected my typing error.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I'm having trouble translating that sentence into something resembling a thought.

I'm just saying that that's a great bill and you should think so too if you're worried about children being raised in poor environments.

What's different between a single woman wanting a child and a child of a woman who's single via divorce or death?

This question goes to you, too, zendari.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I'm having trouble translating that sentence into something resembling a thought.

I'm just saying that that's a great bill and you should think so too if you're worried about children being raised in poor environments.

What's different between a single woman wanting a child and a child of a woman who's single via divorce or death?

This question goes to you, too, zendari.

If you'd do some research on children living in poverty you will find that most of them are being raised by single moms.

"In 2001 about 6 percent of all married couples were poor. On the other hand, 35 percent of single-mother households lived in poverty at this time."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577020_5/Poverty.html#p37

 

[conjur]

And those are single moms who are either victims of divorce or where the father isn't holding up his end of the support.

For a woman to be able to afford insemination, it's a pretty damn safe bet she's financially capable of caring for a child.


Now, back to my question please (on the moral basis which is what you and zendari are railing against). We all know you all don't give two sh*ts about the financial welfare of people in poverty. I mean, you want welfare eliminated, right? Hell, you don't even want kids in poverty to have a free lunch at their schools!!

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I'm having trouble translating that sentence into something resembling a thought.

I'm just saying that that's a great bill and you should think so too if you're worried about children being raised in poor environments.

What's different between a single woman wanting a child and a child of a woman who's single via divorce or death?

This question goes to you, too, zendari.

If you'd do some research on children living in poverty you will find that most of them are being raised by single moms.

"In 2001 about 6 percent of all married couples were poor. On the other hand, 35 percent of single-mother households lived in poverty at this time."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577020_5/Poverty.html#p37

Are you suggesting that women who would be in the 65% of single-mother households that are not in a state of poverty should by law not be allowed to be inseminated?

 

[Tab]

Originally posted by: kogase

Originally posted by: CycloWizard
The pope has arrived at his position after decades of study and thought, hardly something ripped from a literal translation of the Bible, which is what fundamentalist Christianity is all about. In fact, I'd be willing to wager he's thought this out a lot more thoroughly than you have, yet you're calling him a fundamentalist in a manner implying that he hasn't carefully considered the situation. Ironic.

Somehow I'd imagine that no matter how many decades the pope spends studying and pondering the matter, his verdict will be the same. Namely, that abortion and promiscuous sex are bad. Promiscuous sex being bad is simply a core tenet of Christianity, and despite abortion not being mentioned specifically in the Bible (or maybe it is?) it has pretty much been accepted into the fold as another naughty no-no. In other words, his late night study and think sessions are irrelevant because he's a Christian and the decision has already been made for him.

Abortion, isn't specifically mentioned in the Bible. There are however, two specific passages that relate to abortion. The first one is where I beileve a man accidentally kills a women's fetus and is just requried to a pay a fine. The second states something simaller too "God knew you before you were born." implying that even fetus's have souls hence they are people.

If the pope does have a logical basis for him being agaisnt abortion, I'd like to hear it... 🙂

 

[raildogg]

The bible is the word of god and true christians need to follow it. These days there are so many different types of Christians out there that its too easy to be confused. Should the Messianic Jews be considered christians?

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: BlancoNino

I'm having trouble translating that sentence into something resembling a thought.

I'm just saying that that's a great bill and you should think so too if you're worried about children being raised in poor environments.

What's different between a single woman wanting a child and a child of a woman who's single via divorce or death?

This question goes to you, too, zendari.

If you'd do some research on children living in poverty you will find that most of them are being raised by single moms.

"In 2001 about 6 percent of all married couples were poor. On the other hand, 35 percent of single-mother households lived in poverty at this time."

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761577020_5/Poverty.html#p37

Are you suggesting that women who would be in the 65% of single-mother households that are not in a state of poverty should by law not be allowed to be inseminated?

Just that the 90+% of married couples that aren't in poverty should be the only ones. 😉

 

[conjur]

I suppose the gov't should start killing the children of those living in poverty? Or killing the children of single parents? I mean, by all things holy and righteous we can't have those children not growing up with a good and solid Christian mother *and* father.


:roll:

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: conjur
I suppose the gov't should start killing the children of those living in poverty? Or killing the children of single parents? I mean, by all things holy and righteous we can't have those children not growing up with a good and solid Christian mother *and* father.
:roll:

Nope, instead the government lends it's big helping hand to everyone who needs it and sends the child support bill to every working tax payer who isn't even related.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: conjur
And those are single moms who are either victims of divorce or where the father isn't holding up his end of the support.

For a woman to be able to afford insemination, it's a pretty damn safe bet she's financially capable of caring for a child.


Now, back to my question please (on the moral basis which is what you and zendari are railing against). We all know you all don't give two sh*ts about the financial welfare of people in poverty. I mean, you want welfare eliminated, right? Hell, you don't even want kids in poverty to have a free lunch at their schools!!

Care to get back to the question?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: kogase
Somehow I'd imagine that no matter how many decades the pope spends studying and pondering the matter, his verdict will be the same. Namely, that abortion and promiscuous sex are bad. Promiscuous sex being bad is simply a core tenet of Christianity, and despite abortion not being mentioned specifically in the Bible (or maybe it is?) it has pretty much been accepted into the fold as another naughty no-no. In other words, his late night study and think sessions are irrelevant because he's a Christian and the decision has already been made for him.

Right. The guy has spent the last 55+ years thinking about these things, but he's obviously never had a single, independent thought. You, on the other hand, who were not even born when he finished his PhD, probably are right. All because Christians are stupid and incapable of thinking for themselves. Brilliant!

Originally posted by: Tab
If the pope does have a logical basis for him being agaisnt abortion, I'd like to hear it... 🙂

The previous pope wrote entire books on this subject. There is a gross overabundance of literature available on this subject, telling once again that you'd rather just spout your trite hatred rhetoric rather than actually follow through on any of your claims of open-mindedness.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: conjur
And those are single moms who are either victims of divorce or where the father isn't holding up his end of the support.

For a woman to be able to afford insemination, it's a pretty damn safe bet she's financially capable of caring for a child.


Now, back to my question please (on the moral basis which is what you and zendari are railing against). We all know you all don't give two sh*ts about the financial welfare of people in poverty. I mean, you want welfare eliminated, right? Hell, you don't even want kids in poverty to have a free lunch at their schools!!

Care to get back to the question?

The question about welfare? Yeah, i want it eliminated. I didn't answer it because you had already implied that I wanted welfare eliminated which we all know is true.

 

[conjur]

oh for crying out loud. Here, I'll repeat it for you as your reading comprehension is ATROCIOUS!

What's different between a single woman wanting a child and a child of a woman who's single via divorce or death?

This question goes to you, too, zendari.

(on the moral basis which is what you and zendari are railing against)

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: conjur
oh for crying out loud. Here, I'll repeat it for you as your reading comprehension is ATROCIOUS!

What's different between a single woman wanting a child and a child of a woman who's single via divorce or death?

This question goes to you, too, zendari.

(on the moral basis which is what you and zendari are railing against)

Isn't it obvious? One of the women is a promiscuous slut who should have kept her legs closed.

 

[BlancoNino]

Originally posted by: conjur
oh for crying out loud. Here, I'll repeat it for you as your reading comprehension is ATROCIOUS!

What's different between a single woman wanting a child and a child of a woman who's single via divorce or death?

This question goes to you, too, zendari.

(on the moral basis which is what you and zendari are railing against)

Do I need to explain? Are you actually serious? The difference is that while death and divorce do happen, they aren't planned. My argument is that it's best to try to keep children raised by single mothers down as far as possible.

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
From CNN

The pontiff, abandoning his prepared sermon, compared the wild excesses of the ancient Roman empire to 21st century society and urged people to rediscover their faith.

"In our times we need to say 'no' to the largely dominant culture of death," Benedict said during his improvised homily in the frescoed Sistine Chapel where he was elected pope last April.

"(There is) an anti-culture demonstrated by the flight to drugs, by the flight from reality, by illusions, by false happiness ... displayed in sexuality which has become pure pleasure devoid of responsibility," he added.

Benedict did not spell out what he meant by a "culture of death", but the phrase was a rallying cry of his predecessor John Paul who regularly used the term to define abortion and artificial birth control.

I get the impression that fundamentalist Christians have always believed that "responsibility" (children, STDs, etc) is somehow God's righteous punishment for "immoral" sexual behavior. It is my opinion there is nothing whatsoever wrong with artificial means of birth control and STD prevention, and I believe that pursuit of sexuality for its own sake is a good thing.

I'm not going to speak to the "flight to drugs" other than to wonder if the Pope has ever had an alcoholic beverage in his life.

I will give him that lack of responsibility is a dead end. Sex is already a dangerous game, given emotions, viruses, children, etc. Practice good hygiene, and good sense, and for Hell's sake take responsibility for your accidents, whether you use god to tell you this or just good sense.

 

[kogase]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: kogase
Somehow I'd imagine that no matter how many decades the pope spends studying and pondering the matter, his verdict will be the same. Namely, that abortion and promiscuous sex are bad. Promiscuous sex being bad is simply a core tenet of Christianity, and despite abortion not being mentioned specifically in the Bible (or maybe it is?) it has pretty much been accepted into the fold as another naughty no-no. In other words, his late night study and think sessions are irrelevant because he's a Christian and the decision has already been made for him.

Right. The guy has spent the last 55+ years thinking about these things, but he's obviously never had a single, independent thought. You, on the other hand, who were not even born when he finished his PhD, probably are right. All because Christians are stupid and incapable of thinking for themselves. Brilliant!

It doesn't matter what he actually thinks. My point is that he is obligated to state a certain philosophy on account of his religion, and that philosophy has been decided regardless of his personal opinion.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: judasmachine

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
From CNN

The pontiff, abandoning his prepared sermon, compared the wild excesses of the ancient Roman empire to 21st century society and urged people to rediscover their faith.

"In our times we need to say 'no' to the largely dominant culture of death," Benedict said during his improvised homily in the frescoed Sistine Chapel where he was elected pope last April.

"(There is) an anti-culture demonstrated by the flight to drugs, by the flight from reality, by illusions, by false happiness ... displayed in sexuality which has become pure pleasure devoid of responsibility," he added.

Benedict did not spell out what he meant by a "culture of death", but the phrase was a rallying cry of his predecessor John Paul who regularly used the term to define abortion and artificial birth control.

I get the impression that fundamentalist Christians have always believed that "responsibility" (children, STDs, etc) is somehow God's righteous punishment for "immoral" sexual behavior. It is my opinion there is nothing whatsoever wrong with artificial means of birth control and STD prevention, and I believe that pursuit of sexuality for its own sake is a good thing.

I'm not going to speak to the "flight to drugs" other than to wonder if the Pope has ever had an alcoholic beverage in his life.

I will give him that lack of responsibility is a dead end. Sex is already a dangerous game, given emotions, viruses, children, etc. Practice good hygiene, and good sense, and for Hell's sake take responsibility for your accidents, whether you use god to tell you this or just good sense.

IMO, having an abortion is a valid means to take responsibility for the accident of getting pregnant. It's a choice to not bring a fetus to term when one is not prepared to raise a child. That's my opinion, and though it's not shared by everyone, it's a valid opinion.

 

[13Gigatons]

It does not shock me that the Pope would want people to live good moral lives and not have orgies, do drugs and other immoral behaviour.

Attacking him as smoking crack is simply not polite.