The Nature of Evil

[betsy]

But ok, you want to drop the topic you raised, and go back to abortion. That's fine. But don't pretend I'm going off-track, simply because I mentioned the words "Catholic Church."

When talking about ignoring birth control, and then blaming "the left" for this ( I still can't believe it!)...mentioning the Catholic church seems a pretty obvious and organic step in the discussion, don't you think?

The Christian Faith - most notably the Catholic Church - is being used as the convenient "villain." That's part of the strategy of the Feminist Movement, as shown by one of my previous statement somewhere in this thread. It's obvious, as shown by some rebuttals from pro-choice - they automatically invoke religion.

As I've stated before, my argument is with the pro-abortionists....and bringing up the Catholic Church is a sorry excuse. This is what you wrote:

If it weren't for the left, I daresay there wouldn't be the widespread use of birth control devices that we currently enjoy.

Your argument is with the Catholics, who would rather watch Africans die of AIDS than go against their retrograde, hostile to birth control dogma.

Your first sentence nullifies your second statement. The Catholic Church was vocally opposed to birth control - and yet, as you yourself acknowledged, there is a widespread use of birth control devices that we curently enjoy. So it didn't matter whether the Catholic Church approved or not.

Why is there such a resistance to a logical suggestion about the promotion of condoms? Isn't it a practical solution, especially when it will also benefit a lot of issues, - prevention of STD, population explosion, food shortage - issues dear to the liberal hearts?

Why not focus the resources and energy into heavy promotion of condoms? Look what the leftists did when they focused on anti-smoking! I'd like to see that same passion.

Why does it seem more palatable to resort to abortion as the only preferred solution?

Edited March 11, 2011 by betsy

[Mr.Canada]

Betsy, the hard left use what is called Soviet style propaganda to shut down any argument they don't want to partake it.

Same thing with Israel as soon as you start defending Israel they shout "Apartheid State" to shut down discussion. The Soviets did the same thing.

[betsy]

Then you only support late-term abortions when the child is fully formed, alive and well. You're ok with murdering a healthy baby to save a mother's life. The next logical question is this: are you ok with murdering a single person that has no intentions of being a parent, so you can harvest his/her organs to save a mother?

Eh???????

Are you a single person? That could influence my decision....

Edited March 11, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Betsy, the hard left use what is called Soviet style propaganda to shut down any argument they don't want to partake it.

Same thing with Israel as soon as you start defending Israel they shout "Apartheid State" to shut down discussion. The Soviets did the same thing.

Yes. I agree. This abortion that's championed by the left is neck-deep in propaganda.

[Mr.Canada]

Yes. I agree. This abortion that's championed by the left is neck-deep in propaganda.

Then as soon as any Pro Life argument is made no matter how calm and sane they will shout that you hate women and want women to have no rights. All they want to do is shut any debate on a topic.

[cybercoma]

Eh???????

Are you a single person? That could influence my decision....

You're hilarious.

[betsy]

Then as soon as any Pro Life argument is made no matter how calm and sane they will shout that you hate women and want women to have no rights. All they want to do is shut any debate on a topic.

That's because they cannot reason with reason. They tend to throw everything but the kitchen sink - skirt and wander around everywhere but never tackle the real argument.

In the abortion issue, they can't. There is no excuse. And they know it. Their support for abortion is fueled by their abhorrence for religion - that is the real issue for a lot of secularists/liberalists/atheists. And it is the same Communist climate - Godless.

That's why the Feminists Movement is so cunning in painting religion/Catholic Church as the "villain," it galvanized these kind of blind support. If we do not have democracy, this God-less state will be fully enforced. We'd be a society that place so little value on life (except one's own since this mindset places self above all else). All it takes is a Movement that will propagandize something "good," and certain people become in-human. We're now tilting towards the mentality that any imperfect children should be aborted.

Just wait til Euthanasia becomes legal. Those who have no voice make the easy targets.

Drug addicts need to be wary - my hypothethical suggestion isn't quite so far-fetched. All it takes is a powerful lobby group and pandering gutless politicians.

[cybercoma]

betsy, you might not want to go the reason route, considering you seem to completely ignore any rational argument and the reasoned decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada.

[betsy]

for many many years I have been on a personal intellectual quest to understand and perhaps even acquire "faith". I am no closer to acquistion but know a lot more about the objects and sources of the abrahamic faiths.

Over the course of 40 years I've spoken to a number of priests, ministers, imams and rabbis. I've been adivsed to open my heart and talk to god, study HIS word etc. etc.

For all of that, I have acquired a fair degree of knowledge about the objects of religious faith, but still cannot fathom this thing called faith. It seems I can't get over the suspension of reality required to accept the supernatural and most definitely reject mythology as literal truth.

Jonsa, the answer to your unsuccessful quest for understanding lies on the statements you've made, which I highlighted. You cannot possibly open your heart to something you consider as "mythology."

What more, how can you possibly "acquire faith" on something you mock and scoff at as mythology?

So all these many, many years....you were just going through the motion.

If one wants to understand something so important - and it must be that important to you since you've spent 40 years of your life seeking to understand - isn't the logical approach to finding knowledge and understanding be that you approach it with at least, an open mind?

You have to get over that barrier. That which you said is the "suspension of reality." Treat it as you would....psychology.

And your statement below clearly suggests that indeed, you only went through the motion of "seeking".....but understood nothing.

If I understand correctly, those of faith believe that Satan/Lucifer/etc was a cherub made perfect in God's image, but because Lucifer was so beautiful it went to is head and corrupted himself to the extent that he wanted to be God. Of course God would have none of that, so he threw out his once perfect creation, along with 30% of the other perfect creations and cast them into hell. And thus Lucifer began a war for the souls of mankind. And from this we have Satan spreading evil. Like evil is something you can catch.

Now apparently because mankind has free will, he can choose to reject evil and if he doesn't voila he is corrupted and assigned to hell upon death. that sounds suspiciously like a threat to tow the line and/or get absolution before you kick the bucket or you're gonna burn in hell for all of eternity. Seems a tad harsh if your major sins consist of life long masturbation,stealing some candy from a baby, some pre-marital sex and saying G@DD@MN frequently.

Perhaps you wonder why I came back to you about this. Again, I came across a passage in the Bible that made me think of you.

Proverbs 14:6

6 A scoffer seeks wisdom and does not find it,

But knowledge is easy to him who understands.

Proverbs 14:7-9 (King James Version)

7 Go from the presence of a foolish man, when thou perceivest not in him the lips of knowledge.

8 The wisdom of the prudent is to understand his way: but the folly of fools is deceit.

9 Fools make a mock at sin: but among the righteous there is favour.

In the Bible Study interpretation:

Wisdom means wise behaviour, good sense.

Understanding means the capability to distinguish between true and false, good and bad, what matters most and what does not matter at all.

Knowledge means apprehension of reality, including an experiential knowledge of God.

The Simple are naive young people open to any influence.

The wise as well as the untaught can learn from this book.

Fools or the morally dull.

Edited March 12, 2011 by betsy

[bloodyminded]

The Christian Faith - most notably the Catholic Church - is being used as the convenient "villain." That's part of the strategy of the Feminist Movement, as shown by one of my previous statement somewhere in this thread. It's obvious, as shown by some rebuttals from pro-choice - they automatically invoke religion.

As I've stated before, my argument is with the pro-abortionists....and bringing up the Catholic Church is a sorry excuse. This is what you wrote:

Wrong. You've got it all wrong.

You said it was "the left" who weren't being pro-active enough about birth control.

But in fact they are pro-active about birth control. So according to you--you, Betsy--the "villains" here are those who do not actively promote birth control. That's what you're criticizing!

So, therefore, it is a sector of the religious Right who are at fault--because some of them--notably the Catholic church--don't do anything to promote birth control. In fact, they oppose it.

You want it both ways: you want us to blame "the Left" for not doing enough to promote birth control; but God forefend you blame the Right for their far worse behaviour on this subject.

Why?

And why do you hold the religious Right to such far lower standards than you hold this awful entity called "the Left"?

Your first sentence nullifies your second statement. The Catholic Church was vocally opposed to birth control - and yet, as you yourself acknowledged, there is a widespread use of birth control devices that we curently enjoy. So it didn't matter whether the Catholic Church approved or not.

In the Western democracies, their influence has been greatly diluted.

In Africa, and in Latin America, they are profoundly influential.

Edited March 13, 2011 by bloodyminded

[betsy]

How exactly do you condemn taking an abortifacient in one post, and then write a following post supporting the same things?

Let me say it again. As a Christian, my personal endorsement is abstinence until marriage. With that being said, I am also looking at this in a practical manner since not all people are practicing Christians, let alone believe in God. So I do think that birth control devices are the obvious practical means to preventing pregnancy. That's why I'd like to see the same passion given by the left when they tackled an anti-smoking campaign in promoting the use of condoms.

Granted that pills and morning-after pills are considered abortifacent, this abortion process happens before the fetus is developed enough to feel pain. If I'm not mistaken the abortifacent occurs within the 7 days. How does the fetus look like at that stage? Not that this is an excuse for it, from my own personal view as a Christian I must add....for this is still murder.

But in this social climate of self-absorption/self-worship/relativism, when no one takes personal responsibility for their own actions anymore, when distinction between right and wrong is blurred, when instant gratification rules....it's like talking to the wall.

In the meantime, countless fetus at various stages in wombs are being ripped apart. This abortion that's being supported by half the population has evolved into a diabolical, all-too barbaric practice!

It begs question as to the psychological state of doctors who are only too willing to perform this killing.

Some doctors must genuinely think they're helping the women....but how many of these doctors are deriving perverted satisfaction in the actual killings?

If we are going to kill someone, don't we want to do it in the most humane way as much as possible? If we can be humane in killing animals and criminals, surely we can do that to an innocent and helpless fetus. So for me, it's a matter of choosing the lesser evil.

Edited March 13, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

Q. I have heard some people say the pill has an abortifacient capacity. What does this word mean, and is it really true anyway?

A. Before answering this question it is very important that we all have a correct understanding of the key biological terms related to pregnancy. The following definitions have been accept by major medical texts for decades.

'Conception' refers to the moment at which the sperm penetrates and fertilises the ovum to form a viable zygote. It does not refer to the process of implantation of the newly created human embryo, which is a separate event, occurring about 7-8 day’s after conception. A woman is pregnant because conception has occurred, not because implantation has occurred. This distinction is important.

At the precise and unique moment of conception, a woman is 'pregnant' with "a new individual ". This is an accurate and informed medical description. It is the same terminology used by Prof. John Dwyer, pre-eminent Australian AIDS expert and researcher, who has described the moment that the sperm enters the ovum as the creation of a "new and unique individual". Well known medical writer, Professor Derek Llewellyn-Jones, author of Everywoman, has also written that when the male genetic material from the sperm joins with the female genetic material in the ovum, " a new individual is formed".

To stop conception occurring, that is, to stop sperm and ovum joining, is contraception. Condoms, diaphragms, spermicides, vasectomy and tubal ligation are accurately described as methods of contraception. Obviously any drug or device used after conception has occurred cannot be termed a contraceptive.

The correct term to describe any interference with the pregnancy after conception has occurred is ‘abortifacient’. This is the precise biological description for any drug or device that acts to end a pregnancy once it has begun at conception.

You might be interested to know that many major medical dictionaries have definitions of ‘conception’, ‘pregnancy’ and ‘contraception’ that are the same as those listed above.

It is medically dishonest to break from these definitions. And yet, this is precisely what some scientists have recently started to do. They seek to define pregnancy as beginning with implantation, not fertilization. But as I mentioned ealier, implantation occurs 7-8 days after the new human person has come into existence. The pregnancy, and the new human person, are already many days old by the time implantation has occurred.

Therefore, what these scientists are trying to doing is get people to think that abortifacient drugs such as the pill are really just contraceptive drugs. Do you see the clever shift in definitions these scientists are trying to make? Redefine when a pregnancy and new human life begins, and you redefine the key characteristic of the drug – how it works!

Obviously many people object to abortifacient drugs because they can cause a loss of human life. Not so many people object to methods of contraception (condoms, diaphrams etc), because these methods prevent new human life being created. Hence, if scientists succeed in convincing people that human life begins after implantation, eventually most people will have no objection to the pill. They will have been tricked into believing that human life had not begun when the pill exerted its anti-implantation effect.

Q. So how do you prove that the pill acts as an abortifacient?

A. The answer to this question can be found by comparing the rate of break-through ovulation and the detected pregnancy rate. The ovulation rate has been reported to be about 27 ovulations in 100 women using the pill for one year. But the detected pregnancy rate is much lower at around 4 pregnancies per 100 women using the pill for one year.

As you can see, there is a big difference between the number of women who ovulation (27) and the number of detected pregnancies (4). What has happened within the woman’s body to reduce the high ovulation rate to such a low number of detected pregnancies? I suggest that one answer to this important question is that pregnancies have begun, because ovulation and fertilization have occurred, but some of these pregnancies are terminated because implantation cannot take place. The pill has damaged the lining of the womb, stopping implanation.

Q. You talk about the pill causing damage to the lining of the womb, but what does this really mean?

A. The process of implantation of the human embryo into the lining of the womb is a very complex and delicate process. Proper attachment and successful implantation is under the guidance and control of a vast array of ‘implantation factors’. These chemical factors, with names such as interleukins, PAF and LIF, actually cause what is referred to in medical journals as "cross-talk" between the embryo and the cells which line the womb. That is, the cells of the new human embryo and the cells of the lining of the womb chemically speak to each other. The purpose of this chemical communication is so the womb will be fully prepared and ready to bind with the human embryo when it attempts to implant.

The pill’s role in all of this is that it alters the levels of these implantation factors. Too much estrogen and progesterone, via the pill, causes harmful changes to the levels of these implantation factors. Recent research has shown that implantation fails if the levels of estrogen and progesterone are too high.

It is because the levels of these two hormones are wrong that the week-old embryo cannot attach to the womb. Cell talk fails, the proper development of the womb doesn’t occur, and the embryo dies from a lack of nutrition normally supplied to it from the lining of the womb. In fact, wrong levels of artifical progesterone have been shown to cause a very thin lining of the womb, making implantation impossible.

You can understand this concept more fully by considering the example of a space shuttle, low on fuel and oxygen, which urgently needs to dock with the space station. The mother ship and the shuttle communicate with each other so that the shuttle knows which docking bay to go to. Importantly, the mother ship knows which bay to make ready. If this electronic communication fails – disrupted "cell-talk" --, the shuttle may go to the wrong docking bay, fail to attach to the mother ship, drift away, and the crew dies from a lack of food and oxygen. Or it might go to the right bay but not find all the docking apparatus in place. Again, the attachment between the two fails due to faulty communication and the crew dies.

As well, there are a special group of molecules found both on the lining of the womb and on the 7-8 day old human embryo known as integrins. Integrins are referred to as ‘adhesion molecules’. Researchers have shown that these adhesion molecules greatly assist the process of implantation. Going back to our example of the docking process between a space shuttle and the mother ship, integrins could be thought of as grappling hooks that ‘hold’ the human embryo onto the womb whilst the process of implantation is completed. The artifical hormones in the pill have been shown to damage the ability of integrins – the implantation ‘hooks’— to function properly. Because of this damage to the proper functioning of integrins, the limited amount of time the human embryonic person has for attached, known as the ‘window of implantation’, is closed. As a result, the human embryonic person dies.

As you can see, the pill acts as the great communication wrecker.

Q. O.K., but I think that all this talk about ‘human life’ beginning when the sperm and the ovum join is just a bit weird. Isn’t it just a bundle of cells?

A. This is a very important issue. Consider the following:

Given that it was human sperm and human ovum that joined together, you would agree that the result would have to be a human something. But what is that ‘something.’ Is it a human person even though it starts out looking just like a lump of cells? To answer this question, think about what is added to this clump of cells that attaches to the lining of the womb and grows over 40 weeks to be a born baby. This clump of cells receives only three things from its mother; somewhere to live, food and oxygen. If you say that the clump of cells isn’t human at its beginning, then you need to show that there is something magical about where you live, what you eat, or what you drink that can convert you from being non-human to human. I think you would agree that there is nothing.

Hence the only logical conclusion can be it is always human because of where it came from – two human parents. It is very easy to be tricked by the appearance of the human embryo (‘it just looks like a lump of cells’) or its ‘address’ --floating in or newly attached to the lining of the womb. But these superficial features are irrelevant. We must look to what it is, not what it looks like. Human in origin means it is human in nature. It is a human person just like you or I; the only difference is that it just hasn’t fully grown up yet.

Q. What about the morning-after pill? Doesn’t it work by stopping pregnancy?

A. The morning-after pill is a very high dose of the two female hormones called oestrogen and progesterone. A woman takes a dose of progesterone in the ‘morning-after pill’ which is 10-20 times the amount of progesterone she would get via her daily birth control tablet. The dose of oestrogen from the morning-after pill is also very high: about 5 times the amount she gets from her daily birth control tablet. As you can see, these doses are much greater than the daily birth control pill dose. Now if the birth control pill can act as a chemical abortifacient in low doses, it would seem reasonable that the morning-after pill would also act as an abortifacient.

© John Wilks B.Pharm. M.P.S., M.A.C.P.P. Oct 1998

http://www.pfli.org/faq_oc.html

[GostHacked]

Betsy, you are contradicting yourself with this last post.

[betsy]

Wrong. You've got it all wrong.

You said it was "the left" who weren't being pro-active enough about birth control.

But in fact they are pro-active about birth control. So according to you--you, Betsy--the "villains" here are those who do not actively promote birth control. That's what you're criticizing!

So, therefore, it is a sector of the religious Right who are at fault--because some of them--notably the Catholic church--don't do anything to promote birth control. In fact, they oppose it.

Of course the left is expected to do the heavy promotion! After all, whose idea was it to bring about birth control anyway? That's your baby. You promote it!

Why would you expect Christian Churches to promote it???

Birth control runs against most Christians' belief, since it encourages promiscuity! Abstinence is what most, if not all Christian Churches advocates, and indeed, it is a method of birth control. A natural method of birth control.

But the point I'm making is: despite what the Catholic Church says, it did not matter at all. As you yourself said, the use of birth control devices is widespread.

In the Western democracies, their influence has been greatly diluted.

In Africa, and in Latin America, they are profoundly influential.

What's stopping the left from doing a heavy promotion in those places??? If the left was able to persuade millions of people in western societies to ignore what the Christian Churches preach in their pulpits, surely you can do the same in other countries.

Furthermore, just with the additional incentives the use of condoms give (prevention of STD, population explosion, food shortage), one would think the left would strive to re-double their effort, if not more, to get everyone on condoms! You've got a lot of Hollywood celebrities, not to mention the leftist media, who'd be more than willing to do their share to help in this endeavor, I'm sure.

Hence I used the anti-smoking campaign as an example. The amount of focused energy and resources that went into this campaign, which even resulted in the trumping of private property rights, shows what a very determined left can do. How come we don't see that same determination with the promotion of condoms? Especially when you consider the inclusive benefits attached to its success - prevention of STD, controlling population explosion, food shortages - issues also dear to the left?

If you can eliminate several problems with one stone....wouldn't you go for it??

One thing admirable with the left....once they get a target in mind, they do a thorough job to get it enforced. Nothing stands in the way!

Edited March 13, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

And I notice you won't touch my posts. I am on ignore, or I am too much for you to handle?

[betsy]

And I notice you won't touch my posts. I am on ignore, or I am too much for you to handle?

No, you're not officially on "ignore." Ad hominems and unnecessary rudeness. I just don't feel you're worth the time. Bye.

Edited March 13, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

No, you're not officially on "ignore." I just don't feel you're worth the time. Bye.

Nah you just can't admit you have contradicted yourself many times in this thread. Which does not help your position.

[betsy]

Nah you just can't admit you have contradicted yourself many times in this thread. Which does not help your position.

Whatever.

[GostHacked]

Whatever.

Ahh you finnaly admit defeat. Thanks for playing.

[ToadBrother]

Anyway, don't worry if abortion is outlawed, those who are self-centered enough to have an abortion in the first place wouldn't hesitate to have one anyway, and futhermore they'd be far more likely to make sure they didn't get themselves into the position of needing to have one. The most logical for them is not to get pregnant!

1. Contraception is not full-proof.

2. Women get raped.

3. You're right, women will still have abortions, and either doctors will risk imprisonment or women will be forced back into the alleys, just so self-important sanctimonious bigots can feel you've really accomplished something.

[betsy]

Ahh you finnaly admit defeat. Thanks for playing.

Whatever. :lol:

Edited March 13, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Whatever. :lol:

So when other posters call you out on your discrepencies and you get tired of them showing that you are contradicting yourself, you are going to respond with 'whatever' ?? Is this the nature of evil?

[betsy]

1. Contraception is not full-proof.

2. Women get raped.

3. You're right, women will still have abortions, and either doctors will risk imprisonment or women will be forced back into the alleys, just so self-important sanctimonious bigots can feel you've really accomplished something.

Single motherhood no longer bring any stigma and shame! In fact single motherhood is now norm.

So many different types of birth control devices became widespread.

So many $$$ spent on sex eduication!

Birth control devices given as freebies!

You guys cheered and welcomed the morning-after pills. After all, it's an abortifacent....especially made for those who forgot to take precaution, those who threw precaution to the wind, rape case, incest cases, etc..,

And yet, it's true all those are not enough. Which only prove what I've said previously, that abortion is now no longer just about mothers' health at risk. Abortion became just another birth control method. That's what you guys want to achieve. Killing a fetus comes so easily just like squashing a bug. That's the "value" of life.

"Sanctimonious" takes on a whole new meaning when one doesn't want to be told that this is wrong.

So let's throw that "self-important" title directly where it appropriately and rightfully belongs.

As for bigotry, it's not the conservative right who de-humanized the fetus in the same way that Hitler de-humanized the Jews!

Edited March 13, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

double posting.

Edited March 13, 2011 by betsy

[bloodyminded]

Single motherhood no longer bring any stigma and shame! In fact single motherhood is now norm.

So many different types of birth control devices became widespread.

So many $$$ spent on sex eduication!

Birth control devices given as freebies!

You guys cheered and welcomed the morning-after pills. After all, it's an abortifacent....especially made for those who forgot to take precaution, those who threw precaution to the wind, rape case, incest cases, etc..,

And yet, it's true all those are not enough. Which only prove what I've said previously, that abortion is now no longer just about mothers' health at risk. Abortion became just another birth control method. That's what you guys want to achieve.

Killing a fetus comes so easily just like squashing a bug. That's the "value" of life.

So let's throw that "self-important" title directly where it appropriately and rightfully belongs.

As for bigotry, it's not the conservative right who de-humanized the fetus in the same way that Hitler de-humanized the Jews!

But as Toadbrother previously pointed out, the fetus has never legally been considered a human...so no, it was never "de-humanized."

Unless you can point to women or their doctors imprisoned for first-degree murder for aborting a fetus.