Big Blue Wave's Comments
Interesting Suzanne, that you don't post photos of the raped, frightened 9 y o that the excommunication was over, nor even mention her existence.
Nor does Sobrinho. No, he doesn't have guts, more like he is guts, or what comes out of them.
I've blogged about this child and her unborn twins on several occasions.
I'm willing to do both. I don't shrink from facts. I am most willing to show anything and EVERYTHING.
But the "everything" includes how fetuses are dismembered. That might illustrate why the Church is opposed to abortion.
Not in this paen of praise for Sobrinho, you didn't, and he didn't.
Oh, so it's the procedure you and the RCC object to? Silly Suzanne, that bit of baldfaced lying won't fly either. We all know it's the patriarchy of the church that wants to punish women and keep them disenfranschised.
Otherwise, you and the RCC should be at the front lines of making sure contraceptives and plan B are available for all women, as well as RU486 which requires no surgical intervention.
I find it interesting how you are looking for "no-nonsense" leadership on the abortion issue. I take this to mean "non-nuanced" leadership. Surely you understand that there is much in Biblical faith (is your Catholicism biblical?) that requires us to wrestle with issues that have no simple answers.
Your post tagged on war proved this point. You don't see the supposed murder during abortion as the same as war. And your post is misrepresentative of Catholic theology on the issue of just wars. The Vatican even tends to follow just war theory set out first by St. Augustine, one of the tenants being the assurance that no innocents be harmed in the process. Our mode of war, marked by technological destruction, would be incredibly difficult in allowing for just wars. Our technological processes also allows for easy abortions, as I'm sure you're also aware. It does seem strange that you don't see dropping a bomb from a plane or lobbing a grenade as an intentional act in the same way that having an abortion is. You can't drop a bomb without an individual signing the declaration of war, or pressing the button opening the belly of the plane the bomb drops out of.
I don't really identify with either of the polemic camps in the abortion issue. No truly sincere followers of the gospels should, either. While abortion is indeed an important issue, you fail to notice that there are a few shades of grey--enough to say "I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it's this way." Such is the problem with Christians who draw rigid blanketing ideological lines, rather than the constantly declarative word of the living God, I suppose.
Silly Suzanne, that bit of baldfaced lying won't fly either. We all know it's the patriarchy of the church that wants to punish women and keep them disenfranschised.
No "we all" don't know that. In fact that is a lie and I know that from experience.
http://bluewavecanada.blogspot.c...s-
reaction.html
Otherwise, you and the RCC should be at the front lines of making sure contraceptives and plan B are available for all women, as well as RU486 which requires no surgical intervention.
PLan B and RU486 are forms of abortion. We protect human life from conception.
We also believe that contraception is wrong.
But it does not follow that our opposition to contraception is born from wanting to keep women down.
Surely you understand that there is much in Biblical faith (is your Catholicism biblical?) that requires us to wrestle with issues that have no simple answers.
Some moral issues are simple. Some are complex.
The issue of whether you can deliberately kill an innocent human being is simple.
The answer is never.
. And your post is misrepresentative of Catholic theology on the issue of just wars. The Vatican even tends to follow just war theory set out first by St. Augustine, one of the tenants being the assurance that no innocents be harmed in the process.
There are two aspects to just war theory. Whether a war is justified, and how to fight a war.
The criteria for whether a war is justified does not include whether innocents would be hurt.
However the criteria for fighting a war DOES include whether innocents would be hurt.
Of course, it would be unjustified to deliberately kill innocents.
But if you *accidentally* kill innocents, then it's an accident. It's not morally culpable.
It does seem strange that you don't see dropping a bomb from a plane or lobbing a grenade as an intentional act in the same way that having an abortion is.
You assume too much.
These acts are defensive acts to repel an invader or possibly a tyrant.
You are morally allowed to do that.
You are not morally allowed to deliberately kill an innocent.
I agree that innocents should not be targeted and that they should not be in the line of fire. I do not agree that the atomic bomb should have been dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in the name of a moral calculus, which considered the lives of Americans more valuable than those of the Japanese.
But just because dropping the bombs was wrong, did not mean that the American action against the Japanese was wrong. The Americans were invaded, the US had the right to repel that invasion (not to mention defend other countries that were invaded). Clearly, the US was in the right in fighting back.
But as for the means, those are absolutely debatable. In City of God, St. Augustine says that even though sometimes war is necessary, there are all kinds of evil that go along with it. Still, he allows for war as permissible. It has ALWAYS been difficult to fight a just war. It is true that at certain times, the battlefields have often been empty of innocents, but that is not always the case. Think of the fall of any city. There is bound to be rape and pillage.
Even the Church allows for termination in a case where there is no possible way for a woman to save her life.
So no, it is not strange at all to allow for war but to not allow for abortion. The goal of war is to disarm an aggressor. The goal of abortion is to kill an innocent. The means of war *can* be permissible. The means for abortion *never* can.
While abortion is indeed an important issue, you fail to notice that there are a few shades of grey--enough to say "I don't know, but I'm pretty sure it's
I think my post on Just War theory was fairly nuanced.
Suzanne, that 3/8 article was about the most convoluted piece of .. I've ever read.
First, you really expect us to believe, as you argue there, that all would have been well if the doctor had only used a different method? No excommunication? Yeah right, and I've got some oceanfront land in Phoenix to sell you.
You next claim that only the abortion not the rape got excommunication because one was hidden - what do you think the father was doing - raping her in the public square?
Either you realize that this excommunication is a foul stain on your beloved church, and you're playing apologist, or you actually believe this - either way you've taken a despicable and disgusting position - is that judgmental enough for you?
You're disgusting Suzanne.
BTW, the just war bit - nuanced but glaring hypocritical vis a vis your abortion stand.
Let's talk about your nuanced view of the 9 y o.
She could have had an induced early delivery - you'd actually put a 9 y o through labor after rape to produce a dead or even a non-viable fetus just to satisfy some mythological skybuddy you and some old Brazilian male farts believe in?
The other option would be a C-section - a more invasive, dangerous and painful aftermath again just to satisfy the letter of the law for you and Sobrinho. While rapist Daddy gets forgiven?
Please tell us you don't have children, or pets? Not even a goldfish. You are a danger to all with your lack of compassion.
You are one SICK, SICK, SICK puppy.
Hello Suzanne, I just published a full translation of the interview on my otherwise French-speaking blog. I used parts of your text but I made a few changes as you shall see.
It's nice to have found you !
http://leblogdejeannesmits.blogspot.com/
"But if you *accidentally* kill innocents, then it's an accident. It's not morally culpable."
Soooooo if you really think a fetus is an "innocent" that can be "killed" by an abortion then start thinking of an abortion as a simple medical procedure to return a body to its former ininvaded state, the purpose of the abortion being to heal the body, the accidental part to "kill" whatever it was that was in there. If you can remove it efficiently and quickly without "killing" it, you can have it. Deal? And then what you do with it after that is up to you.
"The goal of war is to disarm an aggressor."
No the goal of a war is to dominate and win. Sometimes the aggressor wins and sometimes not but neither side is interested in simply disarming its enemy. Either way it causes history.
"The goal of abortion is to kill an innocent."
No the goal of an abortion is to return my body to its original unpregnant state. If it's the fetus that's in the way of that then the fetus cannot be an "innocent" and it must be removed.
You know I really do get that you want all fetuses to be allowed to reach maturity and become born. Your mistake is in thinking that you can compel unwilling women to provide the uteruses for your purpose, which doesn't happen to coincide with their own purposes of being fetus-free.
If you truly want all fetuses to reach maturity you really do have to get with it and come up with a way to grow them outside a woman's body. It is the absolute ONLY way you're ever going to be able to see your dream come true. And I wouldn't count on a hundred percent participation, even then. But it would get you closer.
She could have had an induced early delivery - you'd actually put a 9 y o through labor
Labour doesn't have to be traumatic. If necessary, you can put anesthetize someone into unconsciousness. That's how it was done in my mother's day.
to satisfy some mythological skybuddy you and some old Brazilian male farts believe in?
I don't believe in a mythical skybuddy.
The other option would be a C-section - a more invasive, dangerous and painful aftermath
I've actually had 3 c-sections. How many have you had?
C-sections *can* be painful. But the pain doesn't last.
The children could have survived. That is the whole point.
The bishop was trying to protect all three lives.
Please tell us you don't have children, or pets? Not even a goldfish. You are a danger to all with your lack of compassion.
Not having any compassion towards the unborn is where the real lack comes from. I have given birth to three children. I have had three unborn children inside of me. I have loved them. I have considered them equal.
That is why I did not wish for those twins to die. I wanted them to live. That is compassion: not wishing that any die, and not taking action to kill.
First, you really expect us to believe, as you argue there, that all would have been well if the doctor had only used a different method? No excommunication?
I was not making the point that the method was at play. That is your projection.
My point is that since abortion is hidden, people do not understand what is being objected to. SHOW ALL THE INFORMATION.
You next claim that only the abortion not the rape got excommunication because one was hidden - what do you think the father was doing - raping her in the public square?
You're not getting it.
People understand that rape is wrong.
That's why do not need to excommunicate rapists. Because everyone knows rape is wrong.
But abortion is different because the victim is hidden. That's what make it easier to perform. Not everyone sees the fetus. Not everyone sees or understands that the fetus is dismembered. Many are ignorant of fetal development.
And so, to make it crystal clear to all the people who might not understand, the Church excommunicates all those who are involved in abortion so that no one can claim to be ignorant.
Either you realize that this excommunication is a foul stain on your beloved church, and you're playing apologist, or you actually believe this - either way you've taken a despicable and disgusting position - is that judgmental enough for you?
Very. I guess it's tough luck for the two unborn children, as far as you're concern, huh? No compassion for them?
BTW, the just war bit - nuanced but glaring hypocritical vis a vis your abortion stand.
Explain what is hypocritical? Did I not explain that killing innocents is wrong?
Oh skip the red hat and give him the red shoes already. The hierarchy will collapse from his weight and the church can get back to being what it was supposed to be in the first place, a haven for those who wanted to worship a single diety in their own manner and live their own lives without the political interference of the religious hierarchy.
You say:
"Even the Church allows for termination in a case where there is no possible way for a woman to save her life."
And yet, this archbishop Sobrinho, that you praise so much, proclaims the contrary:
"– Would your Excellency have reacted differently if the little girl had really been in danger of dying?
– No, not at all. We know that even when there is danger of death abortion is never permitted. That is God’s law, as the Church proclaims it. Even in face of this danger, the natural evolution of the situation should have been waited for, trying all the while to save the three lives."
Well, this is what I previously called A PUNISHMENT INFLICTED ON THE LITTLE GIRL PRECISELY FOR BEING RAPED.
Commenting by HaloScan
