(no subject)

[dreamer_easy]

Vatican clarifies remarks on abortion: "The Catholic church accepts abortion when the death of the foetus is not intentional, but is the result of care provided to the mother". Which means if she needs an abortion because the pregnancy will wreck her health or kill her - for example, if she's only nine years old - she's fucked.

How many abortions have resulted because of opposition to contraception and sex education on religious grounds?

Seriously, that's not a rhetorical question - I wonder if anyone's tried to do the maths.

Comments

[qthewetsprocket.livejournal.com]

stuff like this makes me wonder just how many world religions are actually psychologically based on men being jealous that they can't bear children, and hating women because they can.

[ikhet-sekhmet.livejournal.com]

Frankly, I wonder how much of it reflects a fanboy mentality of making up rules and then elaborating them ad infinitum regardless of proportion, logic, common sense, effectiveness, or anything to do with the real world at all. 'Cos the abortion stuff is at least internally consistent, but it's inconsistent with the policies on contraception and sex ed.

Basically, we need to get the Pope pregnant.

[qthewetsprocket.livejournal.com]

i think if all world religions had something like the hippocratic oath in their basic tenents, the world would be a much better place. unfortunately, the vatican's 'value of suffering' doctrine allows them to wave away any suffering caused by their own dogmas (and there has been a LOT) as an opportunity for the sufferers to 'grow spiritually' or 'offer it up'.

personally, i hope that just before he gets ushered into hell, the pope gets to meet all the little babies who were born with aids and led very short lives full of suffering and misery because he told their parents they couldn't use condoms. although i think i like your idea even better...

Basically, we need to get the Pope pregnant.

AMEN.

[lordalius.livejournal.com]

It may be remarkably straightforward: when it gets down to it, I think, for the church, SEX = BAD.

The sole purpose of sex, via Christian doctrine, is procreation. (Preferably procreation that results in as many more Christians as possible, of course.) The fact that there's some pleasure to be had in the act is secondary, and based on Christian morality, also bad. ("Impure" thoughts, "unnatural" sexual urges, etc.)

Therefore, anything that could make sex more enjoyable, or eliminate the chances at procreation no matter what the consequences, is also bad.

I have a feeling that, if the church could figure out how to do it and still make little Christian babies, they would encourage abstinence after the marriage vows as well...

[hnpcc]

I have a feeling that, if the church could figure out how to do it and still make little Christian babies, they would encourage abstinence after the marriage vows as well...

The Catholic Church at least. Other christian churches have varying interpretations of the value of sex in relationships!

(Personally I'm still amazed that the Catholic church isn't advocating shiftwork as a form of contraception. Because believe me, it works. Can't have sex if you never see each other!)

[lordalius.livejournal.com]

Yes, I really should have said Catholic there, you're right.

[stephen-dedman.livejournal.com]

I have a feeling that, if the church could figure out how to do it and still make little Christian babies, they would encourage abstinence after the marriage vows as well...

Paul, in Corinthians, does say that abstinence is better than marriage, but it's better to marry than have sex without marriage. Either continuation of the species didn't interest him, or he was expecting a lot of virgin births.

While it's difficult not to assume that because many anti-abortionists are also anti-contraception, they're more upset by the idea of sexual pleasure than by anything else, abortion does count as murder if you accept that embryos have souls and preventing them being born (and potentially baptized) condemns them to damnation.

Since even the Catholic Church is unable to say definitively when souls are created and an embryo becomes a human being, it may be that they're back-dating this to before the moment of conception just to be on the safe side.

[kateorman.livejournal.com]

Yah, it's consistent to oppose abortion in all circumstances, but that opposition is inconsistent with opposing contraception. Holding both opinions simultaneously requires a suspicious amount of doublethink.

Your mention of I Corinthians 7:9 got me thinking. Unlike many modern Christians, Paul was explicitly allowing for human fallibility - in fact, his ranking of behaviours makes me think of the "abstinence, be faithful, use a condom" education campaign which has helped reduced AIDS in some African countries. Better to marry than to burn; better to use condoms than to put human lives at risk.

[iblis-kukl.livejournal.com]

Pope Urges Angolans to Convert; Stampede Kills 2 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090322/ap_on_re_af/af_pope_africa)