What Human Rights?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Reading thru the posts again I think it is very revealing that the primary objection to the pro-life stance is NOT why it is acceptable to terminate a human life (other than failing to recognize it as such), but attempting to paint pro-life people as hypocrites, implying that pro-life believers 1) do not care about new born infants and single mothers, 2) do not care about the humane treatment of animals, and now 3) do not care about AIDS victims. It's really a cheap and disrespectful approach to defending the pro-choice position. Think about the flip-side of that, it suggests that if you are pro-choice then you can ignore the unfortunate, be cruel to animals and ignore the AIDS crisis and consider yourself virtuous if only because no one can call you a hypocrite.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Like I have already addressed with Vic. I don't expect people to approve of the Church's way of dealing with condom use in AIDS, or to agree with them on what the best way is to end the spread of it. My problem is how some articles, as well as with how a couple individuals here, have portrayed the Church and blown things out of proportion to villainize the Church. At this point I would be repeating my last 5 or so posts if I explained again lol.

Forgive my disagreement, but I think that the Vatican has behaved wrongly in addressing the issue of AIDS in Africa. If they are "villainized", might they not review their policies in order to prioritize life over ideology?

Simply assuming that their morality is by fiat correct, and thereby aiding the deaths of hundreds of thousands, is not a sufficient answer for me.

Be aware, I don't think that the Catholic Church is the only Christian organization that has abused the people on that continent; we know already how American Protestant churches have pushed for laws against homosexuality that are extremely onerous. I'm not singling out your church for its failings. But I am pointing out that by my own lights, human life should always take precedence over church doctrine.

You're free to disagree, of course. But you'll need to have some good ammo in your locker to change my mind. Lives are always more important than doctrine.

[Thumpalumpacus]

[...] I think it is very revealing that the primary objection to the pro-life stance is NOT why it is acceptable to terminate a human life (other than failing to recognize it as such) [...]

Actually, many of us who support the right of a woman to choose have laid our positions bare in many places. If you're ignorant of why we think that a woman's life takes primacy over that of the fetus, I'd suggest you read a little more before opining.

[Catholic_Lady]

Reading thru the posts again I think it is very revealing that the primary objection to the pro-life stance is NOT why it is acceptable to terminate a human life (other than failing to recognize it as such), but attempting to paint pro-life people as hypocrites, implying that pro-life believers 1) do not care about new born infants and single mothers, 2) do not care about the humane treatment of animals, and now 3) do not care about AIDS victims. It's really a cheap and disrespectful approach to defending the pro-choice position. Think about the flip-side of that, it suggests that if you are pro-choice then you can ignore the unfortunate, be cruel to animals and ignore the AIDS crisis and consider yourself virtuous if only because no one can call you a hypocrite.

For helping women and their babies, before and after birth:

https://www.heartbeatservices.org/about-us

[Catholic_Lady]

Like I have already addressed with Vic. I don't expect people to approve of the Church's way of dealing with condom use in AIDS, or to agree with them on what the best way is to end the spread of it. My problem is how some articles, as well as with how a couple individuals here, have portrayed the Church and blown things out of proportion to villainize the Church. At this point I would be repeating my last 5 or so posts if I explained again lol.

Forgive my disagreement, but I think that the Vatican has behaved wrongly in addressing the issue of AIDS in Africa. If they are "villainized", might they not review their policies in order to prioritize life over ideology?

Simply assuming that their morality is by fiat correct, and thereby aiding the deaths of hundreds of thousands, is not a sufficient answer for me.

Be aware, I don't think that the Catholic Church is the only Christian organization that has abused the people on that continent; we know already how American Protestant churches have pushed for laws against homosexuality that are extremely onerous.  I'm not singling out your church for its failings. But I am pointing out that by my own lights, human life should always take precedence over church doctrine.

You're free to disagree, of course. But you'll need to have some good ammo in your locker to change my mind. Lives are always more important than doctrine.

I understand what you're saying. 

In reference to the bolded, I think it's not that these Catholics who are out there helping believe "Church doctrine" is more important than human life, but rather, it's that they believe following Church doctrine will ultimately save more lives. Which it would, if it were actually followed. IF being the key word there, of course. It get's really complicated when it's difficult to remain abstinent to all but one monogamous life partner. On one hand, the Church wants to promote something that would ultimately be the best thing, on the other hand, most people will ignore it and sleep around anyway. You vehemently disagree with their decision to keep promoting monogamy instead of passing out condoms, but I think it's important to at least acknowledge that their intentions seem to genuinely be in the best interest of the Africans they are trying to help. These are not evil people.

[abaris]

In reference to the bolded, I think it's not that these Catholics who are out there helping believe "Church doctrine" is more important than human life, but rather, it's that they believe following Church doctrine will ultimately save more lives. Which it would, if it were actually followed. IF being the key word there, of course.

Either they're totally deslusional, knowing nothing about human nature, or they're totally dishonest.

As Parker said, this isn't only about the Catholic church. The evangelicals are even worse pushing for anti gay legislation, which has the only goal of ruining lives because of their sick interpretation of the bible. In any case, when a church does charity, it usually comes with strings attached. And these strings hurt people more than they are helping.

Medicince, sex ed or hygiene isn't a joking matter to be handled by zealous amateurs.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Forgive my disagreement, but I think that the Vatican has behaved wrongly in addressing the issue of AIDS in Africa. If they are "villainized", might they not review their policies in order to prioritize life over ideology?

Simply assuming that their morality is by fiat correct, and thereby aiding the deaths of hundreds of thousands, is not a sufficient answer for me.

Be aware, I don't think that the Catholic Church is the only Christian organization that has abused the people on that continent; we know already how American Protestant churches have pushed for laws against homosexuality that are extremely onerous.  I'm not singling out your church for its failings. But I am pointing out that by my own lights, human life should always take precedence over church doctrine.

You're free to disagree, of course. But you'll need to have some good ammo in your locker to change my mind. Lives are always more important than doctrine.

I understand what you're saying. 

In reference to the bolded, I think it's not that these Catholics who are out there helping believe "Church doctrine" is more important than human life, but rather, it's that they believe following Church doctrine will ultimately save more lives. Which it would, if it were actually followed. IF being the key word there, of course. It get's really complicated when it's difficult to remain abstinent to all but one monogamous life partner. On one hand, the Church wants to promote something that would ultimately be the best thing, on the other hand, most people will ignore it and sleep around anyway.

The thing is, Catholics pointedly argue that human nature is flawed, that we are fallen, and prone to failure -- and yet rather than use a process that takes those same elements of doctrine into account, they demand that humans be perfectly abstinent. It's clearly a matter of talking out both sides of their mouths. If they truly believed that humans were not able to meet your god's requirements, what, exactly, is wrong with at least saving the lives of those who -- just like you -- are fallen and failed?

You vehemently disagree with their decision to keep promoting monogamy instead of passing out condoms, but I think it's important to at least acknowledge that their intentions seem to genuinely be in the best interest of the Africans they are trying to help. These are not evil people.

I've never called your church authorities evil. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. They may wish the best for the church-goers they serve, but they clearly do them a disservice by lying to them, and you should be criticizing them for doing that, rather than defending them.

They are advertising that condoms = death. That is bullshit, you know it, and you should be speaking out against it. Letting doctrine take precedence over lives is obnoxious, and you're better than that.

[Catholic_Lady]

You vehemently disagree with their decision to keep promoting monogamy instead of passing out condoms, but I think it's important to at least acknowledge that their intentions seem to genuinely be in the best interest of the Africans they are trying to help. These are not evil people.

I've never called your church authorities evil. But the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. They may wish the best for the church-goers they serve, but they clearly do them a disservice by lying to them, and you should be criticizing them for doing that, rather than defending them.

They are advertising that condoms = death. That is bullshit, you know it, and you should be speaking out against it. Letting doctrine take precedence over lives is obnoxious, and you're better than that.

Of course I would criticize them if they lied. I told Vic on one of my first posts about this that if the first article he posted was accurate in terms of some people having intentionally lied, then those people need to be reprimanded. I just didn't put too much stalk into it because it was an extremely biased work. The point I've been making though, is that it doesn't seem like they actually lied if you look at all the facts and the context. That's what I spent a few posts talking about in the last couple pages. Saying something you genuinely believe to be true is not a lie, and I feel like I have to defend them a little bit because I'm seeing a lot of stuff getting blown out of proportion. Like the accusation that they told people condoms would kill them. Saying it like that makes it sound like they told people condoms were some sort of poison or something. That is not the case.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Look at that picture again, Cathy. It's the same imagery you see on a can of Raid.

[IATIA]

if the first article he posted was accurate in terms of some people having intentionally lied, then those people need to be reprimanded. I just didn't put too much stalk into it because it was an extremely biased work.

Google "AIDS Vatican condoms" and you will get similar stories from 'Huffington Post', 'New York Times', 'CBS News', 'PBS', 'USA Today' and more.

In an October 2003 interview with the BBC, for example, Cardinal Trujillo suggested that HIV can permeate microscopic pores in condoms.

In December 2003, Cardinal Alfonso Lòpez Trujillo, the president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for the Family, wrote that “condoms may even be one of the main reasons for the spread of HIV/AIDS.”