← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 17380 | Posts: 16 | Started: 2005-03-18
2005-03-18 09:06 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.catholicexchange.com/church_today/message.asp?message_id=6652&sec_id=1]The Bishops Speak [/URL]
Title: Abortion Worse than Murder of Adults Author: Lifesite News Date: Friday, March 18, 2005
Archbishop Fernando Capalla of Davao, the President of the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines said in a weekly radio broadcast, "To me the murder in abortion is graver than the murder of an adult."
The archbishop's comments come in response to a Philippine population control bill which the bishops warn will lead to the legalization of abortion.
Bill 3773, "Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Act," mandates a rule that restricts families to two children, introduces sex education for children and the distribution of artificial abortifacient contraceptives.
"Some of these people think that after conception, you can abort the fetus to get rid of that human life. That we say is not correct. It is really murder," Archbishop Capalla said.
The head of the bishops' conference noted that the fact that some poor people resort to abortion reflects a failure on the part of the bishops. "In that sense, we have failed in some way to educate our people about the issues of abortion and population. I know some people are tempted to abort because of economic reasons, but they are misinformed and weak in their moral conscience to say no to the temptation," he said.
Archbishop Capalla noted promoters of the bill were receiving financial backing from foreign agencies. [B]The Philippine bishops have in the past pointed to the fact that in the declassified 1974 US document, National Security Study Memorandum 200, the Philippines was included in the list of countries whose population growth, and consequent growth in prosperity would threaten U.S. security and overseas economic interests. The solution recommended was the imposition of population control measures through pressure from United Nations and World Bank aid programmes. [/B]
The archbishop pointed to the looming economic downturn of countries with no population growth as a warning against population control. "Again, they think that development and progress can be done by cutting the population. But look at countries that have now zero population. They have no manpower, they have no more people," he said.
2005-03-18 09:26 | User Profile
The murder of a child is certainly seen as being worse then the murder of an adult by a vast majority of society including even hard-core felons. And no matter how much the crazy leftists and feminists would have one think otherwise an unborn child is still a child. What has never made much sense to me is the people who support abortion, but yet, believe in some time period cutoff when abortions should no longer be performed. I could be off on this a bit, but I believe it is usually around the end of the first trimester of pregnancy, or the beginning of the second. Does the unborn "fetus" in a sense, then become a child with "rights" overnight? This makes absoultely no sense and shows they are basically full of crap.
2005-03-18 09:56 | User Profile
This form of words ("murder of the unborn") is a way of negating what life is, outside the mother's womb. In other words, fetus worship. Catholicism has not been historically ant-abortion, only after Vietnam, to gain some moral leverage (John O'Connor getting the revelation that abortion clinics were likke Nazi's stewing jews).
As I have maintained since the entire issue blew onto America's consciousness in the '70's (I have personally confronted Randall Terry in Windsor, N.Y), abortion should be retroactive for whoever opposes it.
2005-03-18 11:28 | User Profile
I'm generally opposed to abortion, but I think sometimes it's much worse than others. I hold that it's far, FAR worse to kill a fetus that's sufficiently developed to feel pain than to kill one that is, literally, still just a clump of cells. If there's no brain activity in that fetus, then it can't feel pain and certainly has no feelings or consciousness. Is it a person? Maybe in the sense that a clump of cells I might scrape out of the inside of my cheek (each of which contains my entire genomic identity) is a person.
Does a fetus have a soul? Well, I don't believe there is any such thing as a "soul" -- your brain is everything you are and ever will be -- but even if killing a clump of cells somehow displaces a living soul, I'm sure God could make provisions for that soul to be inserted into another fetus somewhere else in the world.
As far as murdering adults, that's a different story altogether. Some adults deserve to live, and others deserve to die. I think murdering certain people does the world a favor, but killing a decent human being (say, a charity worker) for no reason at all is MUCH worse than killing a single-celled fetus with a morning-after pill. One has an identity, and the other doesn't. One is capable of suffering, and the other isn't. It's tough to think of anything worse than brutally killing a child in the womb once that child has a brain, though.
2005-03-18 14:20 | User Profile
[QUOTE]The Philippine bishops have in the past pointed to the fact that in the declassified 1974 US document, National Security Study Memorandum 200, the Philippines was included in the list of countries whose population growth, and consequent growth in prosperity would threaten U.S. security and overseas economic interests. The solution recommended was the imposition of population control measures through pressure from United Nations and World Bank aid programmes. [/QUOTE]
What do you think of this little revelation?
Makes you proud to be an American, no?
2005-03-18 15:08 | User Profile
I was talking over the issue of genetic engineering with a female leftist friend the other day. She is very "left" on a range of issues, including genetic engineering (and abortion), and was expressing her shock at the potential use of transposed human genes to develop more productive, higher yield crops. In this context, apparently, there is some kind of innate human spiritual essence associated with the human genome that makes it sacrilege to transfer it to another organism.... BUT... when talking about when a foetus becomes human, the fact that it has human DNA from the moment of conception doesn't seem to confer humanity on it until it reaches some kind of arbitrary stage of development. When I pointed out the inconsistancy I got a blank stare.
Normally, I tend to give my opinions on abortion in a kind of indirect, passive aggressive way, because stating my opinion frankly in such company would instantly classify me as persona non grata and preclude any chance of my opinions being taken seriously. However, I find I can get around this by bring up the issue in the context of other discussions in an "well, I agree, but don't you think it's interesting that..." kind of way by pointing out contradictions between anti-abortion viewpoints and those taken on other issues.
2005-03-18 15:21 | User Profile
[URL=http://www.population-security.org/28-APP2.html]National Security Study Memorandum 200[/URL]
2005-03-18 17:33 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Archbishop Capalla noted promoters of the bill were receiving financial backing from foreign agencies. [B]The Philippine bishops have in the past pointed to the fact that in the declassified 1974 US document, National Security Study Memorandum 200, the Philippines was included in the list of countries whose population growth, and consequent growth in prosperity would threaten U.S. security and overseas economic interests. The solution recommended was the imposition of population control measures through pressure from United Nations and World Bank aid programmes. [/B][/QUOTE]
NSSM-200: No nation has ever had successful population control without legal abortion ... "abortion is vital to the solution".
(Signed by Kissinger for Nixon and, as NSDM-314, signed by Scowcroft for Ford. Interestingly enough -- I had always intrigued by the immense biotech holding Rumsfeld had to divest upon his rotating back in as "public servant" -- I was scanning my cache of Congressional Record excerpts and find that he too was a critical player in the initial architecture and deployment of GOP pop-control ... whilst Dems were busy frolicking in the Summer of Love.)
Recommendations of the Task Force on Earth Resources and Population (George H. Bush, Chairman)
Some points within:
== (quoting the AAS): "If the birth rate does not go down, the death rate MUST go back up."
== If it's moral for governments to save lives, is it not moral for governments to prevent and depopulate?
== Our greatest concern about abortion is "availability" ... far be it from the feds to override the state, but "economic discrimination" exists where poor women cannot afford an abortion and/or cannot afford to travel to a state where legal abortion exists
== Some people should not be allowed to procreate.
== Our well-intentioned efforts at reducing disease and infant mortality have resulted in a "down breeding" of the population
== Couples have the "right" to predetermine the sex of their children.
== Massive government education efforts must be launched such that folks not only accept but demand as their "right" the precepts and tools of population control so that the awkwardness of forcing them may be avoided.
== Using the techniques we currently (1970) use on cattle, it is possible to breed superior human beings. By completing divesting sex from procreation, couples could enjoy sex as part of marriage but purchase a more perfect Potential Child from a clinic if opting to include children as part of their marriage.
I find it passing strange that the white supremacists on this site do not hail George H. Bush and his cohorts (particularly Rumsfeld) as the saviors of the race they truly are given the extraordinarily successful implementation of their Population Control strategies.
Unfortunately, turns out that de black and de brown folks aren't quite as gullible as the whites who -- embraching the raft of faux "rights" promulgated by the GOP who, in fact, waged the Sexual Revolution where it really counted -- no longer reproduce at replacement levels.
"The meek shall inherit the earth."
2005-03-18 17:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=askel5]<aI find it passing strange that the white supremacists on this site do not hail George H. Bush and his cohorts (particularly Rumsfeld) as the saviors of the race they truly are given the extraordinarily successful implementation of their Population Control strategies.
Unfortunately, turns out that de black and de brown folks aren't quite as gullible as the whites who -- embraching the raft of faux "rights" promulgated by the GOP who, in fact, waged the Sexual Revolution where it really counted -- no longer reproduce at replacement levels.
"The meek shall inherit the earth."[/QUOTE]
Ditto.
The thing is that they also directed this at us. As you can see from this document, our own government instituted a "one child" policy in the States, for us whites. The official position of the United STates government was ZPG by 2000. We've been paying taxes to support our own depopulation.
The dirty rotten low down no good sons of bitches.
2005-03-18 19:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE]
I'm generally opposed to abortion, but I think sometimes it's much worse than others. I hold that it's far, FAR worse to kill a fetus that's sufficiently developed to feel pain than to kill one that is, literally, still just a clump of cells. If there's no brain activity in that fetus, then it can't feel pain and certainly has no feelings or consciousness. Is it a person? Maybe in the sense that a clump of cells I might scrape out of the inside of my cheek (each of which contains my entire genomic identity) is a person.
[/QUOTE] That "clump of cells" is still a life and is going to develop into a living, breathing child. I can't understand how a woman, and most abortions are done strickly for selfish reasons, could allow some child killler to stamp out the life of her child, that she created, before the child even has a chance to live.
Why do these same woman, who have had abortions in the past, get upset when they miscarry early in their pregnancy? That type of thing always makes me laugh. Since they, at this point, want the child, it is a child, but before it was just an unwanted thing that was going to disrupt their precious life.
I can't talk about this anymore, it pisses me off too much. LOL.
2005-03-18 23:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]
The Philippine bishops have in the past pointed to the fact that in the declassified 1974 US document, National Security Study Memorandum 200, the Philippines was included in the list of countries whose population growth, and consequent growth in prosperity would threaten U.S. security and overseas economic interests. The solution recommended was the imposition of population control measures through pressure from United Nations and World Bank aid programmes.
What do you think of this little revelation?
Makes you proud to be an American, no?[/QUOTE] Oh, it disgusts me. Even if abortion per se weren't one of the "population control measures" in question, it's another example of US tyranny stemming from unbridled arrogance. It seems as if the US government just can't leave other nations alone. Then those a--holes wonder why we're hated around the world.
2005-03-19 03:18 | User Profile
ZPG? What the hell? The US economy ponzi scheme is completely addicted to enormous base of the pyramid population growth, and the minute it stops the whole thing is going to come crashing down around our ears, economically speaking., The sooner the better too. Buy gold.
2005-03-19 06:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Bardamu]. Buy gold.[/QUOTE]
I say buy sheep. Sell deer.
2005-03-19 15:15 | User Profile
sounds good, just watch out for ticks.
2005-03-20 00:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Why do these same woman, who have had abortions in the past, get upset when they miscarry early in their pregnancy? That type of thing always makes me laugh. Since they, at this point, want the child, it is a child, but before it was just an unwanted thing that was going to disrupt their precious life. [/QUOTE]For the same reason that we, as a society, think that men who kill their children should be handed over for execution to an expert torturer who will be paid a handsome commission for every hour that he keeps the vile filicides alive, whereas we agonize interminably over the most tasteful and compassionate way to compensate and commiserate with the bereaved women who methodically bludgeon their frantically shreiking children to death with blunt household instruments and/or drown them in their bathtubs. WE CONSIDER CHILDREN TO BE THE PROPERTY OF THEIR MOTHERS. This is only moderately worse than the "Conservative" position of considering them to be the chattel of BOTH their parents.
This is the ineluctable fruit of the common shared fantasy of Bolhevist feminists and "Conservative Christians" that men are frightful, untamed beasts in dire need of electric control collars whereas women are the caring, milk-giving, nurturant yin to their feral yang.
2005-03-20 08:54 | User Profile
[QUOTE=John Graziano]WE CONSIDER CHILDREN TO BE THE PROPERTY OF THEIR MOTHERS. .[/QUOTE]
Interesting. I'll have to mull that over.