Comments on: Open Thread: Can the Anti-Birth-Control Pope Be “Green”?

By: FadaEurorgo

FadaEurorgo — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 03:55:57 +0000

I’m the only one in this world. Can please someone join me in this life? Or maybe death…

By: inhiffhen

inhiffhen — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 18:40:34 +0000

Good day — I’m new here
And it looks like a good forum, so just wanted to say hello! :):)
And looking forward to participating.
Going on vacation for a few days, so i’ll be back

By: chakbells

chakbells — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 22:03:14 +0000

The only man accused of Britain's biggest bank robbery walked free from court yesterday after the collapse of his trial. More.. by xrtst302a

By: cbear

cbear — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 05:17:59 +0000

Merriweather, wow. You really honestly believe that sex should be for no other purpose than procreation? Because that’s essentially what you’re saying. Wives who are barren or husbands who are sterile should not enjoy the intimacies of marriage? No one ought to practice the rhthym method or time sex for when they won’t be ovulating? By taking the “every sperm is sacred” stance, you are opening a lot of scary doors. And don’t say you’re not taking that stance, because you just said that “God made the rule” against birth control. And what better birth control is there than being infertile, sterile, not being in the ovulating phase of your cycle or being simply too old to have children? Therefore, by your rationale, all these sinners that have sex under these circumstances or indeed, anyone who has sex without the express purpose of procreating, are just that – sinners. People often fail to realize the practical reasons behind the church’s actions. There is no better way to recruit people to your church than to bring them into it from infancy, (or to conquer another civilization, but that takes lives and monetary resources) and the way to ensure you have the most recruits is to tell faithful followers that preventing new births in any way is an out and out sin.
And as far as the “right circumstances for dismembering an infant in the womb” goes, don’t even get me started. Something like 98% of abortions take place well before the 20th week, which is the absolute earliest that a fetus is considered “viable”, as in, could might possibly on very slim chance survive outside the mother’s womb and then only with the help of extensive modern medicine. In fact, most abortions take place before the 8th week of gestation. And then the vast majority of those that don’t, take place within the first trimester. Oh, and inside the womb, it’s considered an embryo, then a fetus, but never an infant.

By: Baba Yaga

Baba Yaga — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 17:32:57 +0000

...are you arguing that God has a rule against [contraception]? I’m just confused. Yeah, you sure are. There are valid theological arguments against it that go back hundreds of years. I'm not Catholic, but Lutheran, and I think Catholics are probably right on contraception. (And if you read the article, Protestant churches also opposed contraception until around 1930.) Oh, by the way, your bonus question is nothing but a cheap shot. In general, Catholics don't interpret Genesis literally and believe in evolution, although they do believe God is the Creator, no matter how it happened. (Another thing I agree with Catholics about.) In fact, I bet that most Christians are *not* new-Earth Creationists.

By: The Oversneer

The Oversneer — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:09:13 +0000

Maybe she meant “rape and incest” exceptions? I’m just guessing …

Merriweather — if you take abortion out of the equation and just talk about birth control (the prevention of conception), are you arguing that God has a rule against it? I’m just confused.

By: Merriweather

Merriweather — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 02:01:12 +0000

@katie

Please tell me what the “right circumstances” are for dismembering an infant in the womb?

By: Merriweather

Merriweather — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 01:57:32 +0000

“So what do you think? Should the Pope be lecturing the faithful about bending over backwards to preserve God’s creation while denying them the tools to avoid creating too many little destroyers? Or should I just shut up?”

Answer: you should just shut up.

God made the rule, not the Church and the Pope has no power to change it. I don’t see why he should care about what a bunch of tree huggers think anyway.

By: Weon

Weon — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:45:46 +0000

I was at a seminar recently about population growth and the effect on the environment and it basically boils down to the fact that the birth rate should be 2.1 children for every fertile female. This would keep population levels steady.

It is an unarguable fact that countries that are Catholic are those where this rate is higher.

China, despite having the largest population, has managed to stop their population exploding (and before we start down that road, I don’t approve in any way of HOW they did it, I’m just saying they have).

It is socially and environmentally irresponsible for the Catholic church to continue with the “Contraception is a sin” line.

Oh, and I am a Christian who does believe that the Bible is fact.

By: Chronic Malanga

Chronic Malanga — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:12:00 +0000

Another point in support of Scott F.’s post, which was great. The earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling well before we had the power to impact it. Our carbon emissions make up something like .3% of carbon emissions. During one of the “zoic” ages when the dinosaurs were around, we had huge warming trends and far higher carbon levels. I don’t think that the dinosaurs were driving around in SUV’s.

Fact is, that while yes, we have a responsibility to take care of the planet, let’s not martyr ourselves over it. Global warming/cooling, changes in landscape due to natural events, and extinctions due to these trends are all going to happen anyway.