UN Human Rights Committee oversteps its authority

Remove all ads!

What he said

 

They didn't kill anyone to get to power. Richelieu hasn't even been a priest, and only through his influence in Vatican was able to secure a cardinal scarlet, and it wasn't recognised within the Church itself - he never attended the Conclave and never preached in public even. In fact, there was the cardinal of Paris even during Richelieu's time.

Oh, please. He was only able to do that thanks to fixed elections.

Pretty much the same as with Saddam - Hitler usurped power one post after another. He went on to change the constitution, he voided international arrangements.
Forget even trying to argue this case.

Yep, burning at a stake was a very common execution method during the 12th to 17th centuries. It's likely that at least 8,800 people were burned during Torquemada's period. How many of them were sent in by the Inquisitin.
If you do not trust the Catholic Church, which is the only holder of Inquisition's documents, I doubt you'll find any other more trustworthy source. And the 3,000-4,000 figure isn't even quoted by a Catholic historian. Besides, if you try to find other quotes and figures, you'll find amounts such as 100,000,000 (yes, 100 million), or 30,000,000 during two centuries of the Spanish Inquisition. I believe you'd trust them more than the Church, correct?

No, they don't. There is no point in legalising abortions.
Let's start:
1. It is extremely expensive to cure the long-term effects of abortion in the society.
a) Post-Abortion Syndrome (PAS) occurs in 100% of the women that had an abortion. It happens regardless of the religion (or none) or moral system of the patient woman. Psychologists can pin-point the reason for many suicides, nervous breakdowns and ascribe them to PAS. The effects are not always visible immediately. They often show themselves during menopause, or traumatising moments in woman's life.
b) Survivor Syndrome (SS) occurs in nearly 40% of children born to a woman after she had an abortion, and in over 90% of children of a woman that had an abortion after their birth. It's a subconscious state and is actually very sad to traumatise living children that way.
2. Pregnancy is a natural state for a woman's body. Abortion is not natural. Aside from psychological effects, abortion very often results in permanent infertility or inability to carry oncoming pregnancies due to system shock in the uterus. More specifically, this is permanent damage to the endometrium which is unable to support a pregnancy. Neither backyard nor "clean" abortions are free of this phenomenon. It does not deal with tools used in abortion, but with system shock, which happens regardless of sterility of tools used.
3. Pregnancy is a natural occurence following a normal coitus. Regardless of what medicine speaks now, we are not able to describe many phenomena, and we are not able to invade into the body avoiding damage. Regardless of what is said, we are not able to tell all and/or avoid any side effects. We are not able to invade natural physiological cycles without breaking balance. Even normal healing is always a question whether gains outweigh the costs. In case of abortion, there is absolutely no justification of damages done.
4. We cannot treat the foetus as a part of a woman's body. It is not some wart or ongrowth. Woman has no right to decide about a life of another human being.
a) assuming it is another human being - who holds the decision that it should be killed and on what grounds? We turn away from capital punishment and yet are able to accept murder of children?
b) assuming it is a part of the woman's body - I don't think there is anyone who would consider normal and mentally stable a person who had suicide or autoinjury attempts.

@joacquin

Thank you, I feel so special now.

I believe chev was first to do so.

Really? And to think I'm just a noob.

In other words, you are saying that
you don't believe me yet you will not try to invent further arguments because you have nothing to say aside from insults.
Thank you, you've made my day. Or rather night. Or whatever.

 

We have not even really started on the Crusades yet.

 

Because it's not the Church History debate. If the mods can move that discussion to another thread, it would be greatly appreciated.
As for the Crusades - they were warranted by political and military situation in Europe and Middle East, as Palestine has been the part of Byzantine Empire lost to the Saracen bent on conquest. Since many knights (especially the more pious ones) would not go willingly, the kings needed to obtain papal consent, but that was as far as papacy went into the Crusades. Thankfully, they were won and reaped short-term benefits. Unfortunately, soon afterwards, all scum from greedy lords to outright brigands came with small armies to loot and pillage. I wouldn't be far off saying that Joannites and Hospitaliers, as well as the lesser Knight Orders were the most just force in the Holy Land, and they were the most representative vessels of what influence the Church could have in those lands.
I hope I have kept this to-the-point. Now please, let's stick to the topic.

 

It was Pope Urban II who preached the first Crusade in 1095 at the Council of Clermont, not a "king." In fact, there are a few kings, Henry II comes to mind, who really never cared much for the Crusades, although one of his sons, Richard I was quite active in the Crusades. But they were an invention of the Papacy, make no mistake about it. I can quote my sources if needed...

Yes, except he was not in power at the time of the First Crusade in 1095. A little before the fact, so try about 100 years later - Toughluck.

[ December 18, 2004, 08:06: Message edited by: Chandos the Red ]

 

It just comes across as abortion being encouraged over other alternatives. Again, I believe that life begins at conception, and only under rare circumstances can ANY taking of life be permitted. If the country does not have legalized abortions, then that should factor into the decision. If they go to these "unsafe" places to kill their baby, then that is the risk they know before they go into it.

 

Aah, well, I knew you would say that, so I wrote my reply actually before I read your response. Funny how it fits anyway

My point is that when you refuse a woman medical care after an abortion – because she’s a sinful slut and the problem she’s in is, as some people certainly see it, more or less self-inflicted, you should be so consequent and refuse medical treatment to other sinners and self-inflicters: Failed suicidals, AIDS infected homosexuals heterosexuals (because surely solely their sexual habits are to blame), smokers, drinkers and drunk drivers, snowboarders – and how about people who cut themselves when shaving? Most likely, Jesus had a beard!

Things have consequences. To fail is human. A woman that prefers abortion to divorce, or an honour killing, or social stigma or ruin may fail, but that doesn’t mean she’s doesn’t deserve help because she’s perhaps acted sinful.
Spriritual things are going to happen in another world where heavenly justice is done to the sinners – the job to punish the sinners is not our job. When Jesus went down to the whores and sinners to tell them that God loves them, too, what was that about? And how about that Samaritan analogy? Nevermind, the Old Testament is all that counts and there The Almighty crushes them! Hooray! People who read the bible that way are in my opinion bigoted nuts.

Think about it: To refuse medical care to people suffering is an inhumane and degrading treatment. That’s a violation of a fundamental human right. To fight that is UN’s job.

 

Let me start by asking you - are we still talking about Poland? It is a developed country, not some Third World death camp. If we are, we can continue the discussion.

You'll see how funny it is in just a moment

Ha! This means you have not read the post. Rest assured that women in Poland do receive treatment after abortion. I don't care whether or not it is a drain on nation's resources. If we provide free medical care, it is free for everyone, not just a chosen few, and not limited to physical treatment.

Now, if you had read my post, you would know that I've mentioned suicide attemptees only because they are receiving psychological treatment, yet (assuming the foetus is a part of woman's body), a woman that wishes to injure herself is denied that psychological treatment, and is encouraged to inflict that self-injury.

Actually, in current times, usually these are the reasons on which to blame. Sterile syringes, blood tests, better drug awareness - all these have contributed to reducing, even eliminating, their respective source of AIDS.

Now you're reading too far into it. Beren is right - this is turning into religion bashing, so do not try to go further down that alley.

...keeps her own happiness above the moral law forbidding her to kill another human being. Besides, what kind of husband would sue for divorce because his wife is pregnant if it's due to rape? What kind of wife is she, if it's due to an affair? And what kind of a marriage is one that kills their own child??? Either of these situations are sick. What you are basically saying is that people should have the right to kill a witness to their crime.

We're talking about Poland, goddammit! Don't sidetrack this discussion!

You know, it's funny. A woman that had an abortion is under a lot more visible stigma than one that would carry her child regardless, even if there is such a stigma.

I've already told you - not in Poland! There is a very good adoption system here, and there is absolutely no need for abortions.

Precisely. And she is not denied the help.

The job of trying to rid the world of sin, however - is.

He told them: "Go, and sin no further." It was not like He said to them that what they are doing is ok, God loves you anyway, feel free to do anything, now was it??? And being shown that love, people actually did resign from their old ways.

What about it? How is it relevant to this discussion?

Where did I say that? You are misquoting me.

You weren't paying attention in Sunday school. The Old Testament is a groundwork upon which Christ could act. Thanks to OT, people knew natural law. Christ came to fulfill that law, not take it down. All the smiting is to show, in strong analogies, what power does God have. If the New Testament had natural law laid out, in a complete tract, OT would be redundant. There is no such layout, thus OT is still important. QED.

I could say the same about those that do not read the Bible. Or any person for that matter. Actually, I don't see the correlation. I read the Bible and I'm not a bigoted nut. And try to tell me what is more likely - that an educated Christian that reads the Bible is a bigot, or that an undereducated Christian that doesn't read the Bible is a bigot?

I know that is UN's job. And thus you must agree that UN HRC overstepeed its authority when they issued the report. QED.

By the way, you have made derogatory points in my direction. I expect an apology. Don't try to tell me to turn the other cheek. Christians have no right to complain if it is unjust. If it is justified, though, we have all right to complain. Christ, after being struck, asked to point out the wrong, and if not, explain why he was struck. So there, I expect that you apologise for your unfounded attack based on the fact that you did not read my post, but answered acting on your assumptions and prejudices.

 

Hello toughluck!

Err, not exactly. Rather I'm not quoting you at all. It actually is ... I didn't even reply to you - I directly replied to Gnarff

And no, that wasn't about Poland. It was about no country in particular. I was talking about the risks of illegal abortion and the need of medical care even for weman who illegally aborted.

And I tried to line out that there is no justification whatsoever to refuse medical care to such a woman. And the call to ensure just that was what the UN agency made.

And you lack imagination, toughluck.

Take countries where sons are preferred to girls - there an abortion can happen in order to keep the family quiet because the first kid is expected to be a son. That is silly, but it happens anyway. India is such a country. Or take the Arab countries where abortions are being made when a girl gets pregnant - for whatever reason - to avoid bringing shame on the family, I even heared about hymen restorations.
For the girls that's a life-saver. The argument that abortion is preferrable to killing the girl and ther lover or worse, marrying her to her rapist, makes some sense to me, how sad and bad it however is. It's preferrable to her throat being slit by an uncle.

I know about relationships where weman have decided for abortion - because their guy was a jerk who would have left them otherwise. Sad but true. When a woman loves this man or is dependent on him that can happen. Just a point.
Sure, she would have better left him, but unfortunately men and woman are both fallible and don't act reasonable all the time, but emotional too.

Face it: Abortion is a silly and sad part of our life. The UN is tackling the problem's consequences, because they can't solve the root cause. That's reasonable.

Getting pregnant takes a man, too. Banning abortion outright, or refusing medical care for aborting woman because "it's their fault" can't solve the problem - rather it pushes the blame on the female part of the population. That helps nobody, except the few, primarily male, moralists ruffling up their feathers over the topic of 'abortion'.

[ December 18, 2004, 23:48: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Let me repost the first quote from this thread. I'll split it in two.

Where does it say about unavailability of post-abortion treatment?

(emphasis mine)
Ok, so law in Poland allows abortion after a rape. A sad fact. However, nobody may ever force a doctor to do abortion. If there are no doctors willing to do it, who's to blame? Them??? They are going along with their moral system, and they would be denied it???
Conscientous objection clause??? Let's say it was taken away. Doctors would either:
- be forced to do abortions against their will (I'd say that less than 0.1% would agree to it);
- quit the medical profession;
- change their place of work to a private clinic that does not undertake abortions.
I would wager that the absolute majority would choose the third option. Bam! No more free OBGYN care in Poland, thank you very much.
That is a pragmatic approach. Now from another point of view - why should doctors be forced to do abortions? Ban that clause and they would de facto be forced to do them against their will. Congratulations, from "oppressing" women to actually oppressing doctors.

Do the quotes above change your mind? "deep concern about restrictive abortion laws in Poland, which might incite women to seek unsafe, illegal abortions, with attendant risks to their life and health" doesn't exactly sound like concern for unavailability of treatment following abortion.

We are still talking about Poland, for Pete's sakes!

That is completely unreasonable.
Let's say some country would have it laid out by law that a person must execute someone else if the third cousing in his family gets a bad grade in school. Since it would be deeply rooted, the "root cause" could not be solved. Ergo - allow these killings because they are the consequences. Following your logic, that's reasonable.

So, kill somebody who is completely unresponsible for his or her parents' foolish behaviour. OK, let's say that if somebody murders 50 people when drugged, they should be pardoned because they did not know what they were doing, correct?

India, correct? What's the problem? Put the kid up for adoption, it'll be better off for anyone, but don't go and suggest something completely unneccessary (ie. abortion). There are so many people seeking to adopt a child in India and yet so many are turned down because there are too few...

So it's better that women be harmed than blamed? Nice, really. It's better to contract various illnesses (e.g. infertility, as pointed out in my previous post), or psychiatric conditions (ie. PAS) than feel shamed? Nice "reasoning" on your part, Ragusa. Does abortion harm males in any way? No. They'll get over it. Some will be outraged, but it's no skin off their noses.

Tell me, how it helps those male moralists? Two situations:
1. Abortion is illegal. Women may hold men liable for their children. The man has no way of wriggling out once it is proven that he is the father.
2. Abortion is legal.
a) A woman doesn't have it. The man says: "I've given her money so she can have her treatment." He's okay by law, woman has to live with the child on her own.
b) A woman has it. The man says: "She's had her abortion, now I found me a younger girl whom I told that I never had any woman before her, so - sorry, but I'm leaving." He's okay by law. Technically, he doesn't have children, so no reparations. The woman has to live with guilt, as well as the conditions mentioned.
So, in whose best interest is it to have abortion legal?
Besides, I know many women activists. The fact that men are very often spokesmen does not mean there aren't women in many pro-life organisations.

 

You know what, you’re such a silly brat, toughluck. How about growing up and actually knowing what you’re today just ranting about? 'Aborting womans are silly sluts and sinners and deserve what the get, whatever the circumstances, rah-rah, rah-rah'. What a nonsense.

Seeing you, with your idealised idea of sex and love, is sort of cute, but seeing you rant about abortion really tares me apart. You don’t have the imagination necessary to even to *grasp* what you talk about. No woman would even think about talking to a child about about abortion, so how should you know?
What do you know? Only moralist ramblings caring no one except you and your ego and your roaring guts.

Really, teenage moralists are a blight on the universe, almost as bad as their having-bad-sex-for-life counterparts leading the christian coalition.

Posts like your I only bear drunk, no kidding. Cheers. Oh Lord, I went out of rum; I have nothing else to remark.

 

Ragusa - If you were not so far, in Deutschland: Ich kaufe es Sie, meinem Freund.

 

Those were my actual words. Suppose I ended up playing football. I am aware that I am placing myself at risk by doing so. If I get flipped and land on my head (likely breaking my neck) I knew it was a dangerous sport going in. I can blame nobody else for this.

I never said to do that. If I played football and broke my neck, I should receive medical treatment. Likewise if a woman goes for an illegal abortion and needs medical help afterwards, She should be allowed to receive it. I'm not saying that Abortion should be freely available to anyone who wants it. I'm also not saying that they shouldn't get medical care after an illegal one.

Isn't that a violation of human rights?

And what is the UN doing about that? If they are not allowed to interfere with those cultures, then why can they interfere with other cultures?

Exactly, what is the problem? Or how about telling those who don't like the fact that the kid is female to go **** themselves? Really, if you want to find a solution that doesn't involve murder, you can find one. The UN should seriously think about that...

 

@Ragusa - I take it you are admitting you are wrong if you are lowering yourself to near insults rather than refute my points?

@Gnarr - my sentiment's exactly.

 

I was determined to stay away from this topic and only opened it because of the last poster name, thinking some blood and gore was underway, with warnings etc. But now it seems I have to reply.

The answer to the problem you (Tal) mention is not to allow the killing of those unwanted babies. If it's wrong that those babies are unwanted, declaring another wrong (abortion) legal and licit is not the way to solve the problem. It won't be solved through eliminating just the symptoms. It must be addressed at the core level.

That is, people have no right to discard unwanted children whether by deserting them or by physically eliminating (namely, killing) them. If they are so irresponsible as to produce offspring they don't intend to keep, they have never been ready to engage in sexual activity, in the very first place.

The real culprit is not the unwanted child. The child isn't guilty of anything and thus can't legally be committed to death. The real culprit is the mentality that stigmatises certain categories of children and makes shunned by their own parents, and promotes an irresponsible approach to sexuality.

As a side note, I don't know if you're aware that the Indian law no longer recognises the caste system at least since the fifties.

Have you ever been here even for a day?

You know, there people who actually respect those preachers, that religion and that nationality. And some of those read your words.

Those preachers teach that children are not trash you can eliminate at will just because you wanted to have some fun and something went wrong.

They preach responsibility for your own actions, and consideration for other beings. Including facing those consequences of your actions with which you aren't exactly comfortable.

If that makes you a fanatic, then yes, I am a hollier-than-thou preacher whose Catholic fanaticism is way out of normal bounds. Especially because I'm Polish by nation.

 

So where do those devoted Catholic draw limits and limits to what? To their beliefs? To the extent of applying the Decalogue to their lives? To how their beliefs keep in touch with real life? Or to what else?

I can't think of anyone on these boards claiming to be a devoted Catholic and being in favour of abortion being legal.

I hardly see it as shoving down your throat the only right way you should live your life, if someone demands the legal prohibition of something he sees as homicide. Neither do I consider a "live and let live" attitude to be applicable to matters of life and death, or whatever could cause undue harm to a third party.

Also, I hardly see opposition to homicide (or what I consider homicide, if you prefer to put it this way), to be overzealous.

What matters doesn't it help? Matters of allowing people physically to eliminate their unwanted offspring? I would never consciously do anything to help such matters.

But it's good that you have explained what you meant by holier-than-thou preachers. The way you put it the first time, it sounded a bit too general. Surely, if you had said "sanctimonious preachers", the idea that you mean just a group of preachers would be conveyed, but as it was, it looked pretty much like the usual name calling that goes in threads like this one. What are your criteria for a holier-than-thou preacher, by the way? You said you weren't in Poland to discuss religion, so how comes you know which preacher is sanctimonious and which is sincere?

Also, it's a bit derogatory to put all my beliefs down to blind adherence to papal edicts. Do I look like a mindless drone without a brain or a conscience? Do I pull "the Pope said so" on people? Do you ever see me using religious arguments in abortion debates? What else do you imply, that whatever the Vatican would decree (supposing the Vatican actually would decree something contrary to the faith or morality), I would take one or another priest's word on that and follow what he says blindly without even reading into the documents and giving a thought to the matter? That way, I wouldn't even understand what I believe. So why would I go on posts by posts pages by pages here (wouldn't that be a tremendous waste of time?), and how would I pull that off in the very first place? You're free to have as low or derogatory opinion of me as you like, but it's always good to have something solid to back that up.

Changing the focus a little, as for the caste system in India, the consequences of going against it are not nearly as dire as they could be if it had legal power. As for the adoption of orphaned or unwanted children from higher castes, I believe it would still be found more desirable than letting those children die. Quite obviously, those children would probably lose the higher caste and join the caste of their adoptive parents. I don't even think the caste would matter at all. In fact, I'm not sure if the issue would pop up at all. As for the change in social status, that's what you would get in Europe if you were put up for adoption by parents of an anonymous titled family.