Saturday, September 8, 2007

Lucia The Pope slams abortion

There are not many world leaders consistently speaking out against one of the most heinous crimes against children.

In NZ, Cindy Kiro wants to save 5 children a year in the first 5 years, by introducing mandatory home visits for newborns.

Cindy would do well to instead think about the notion that a country that kills it's unborn, does not value it's children, and that maybe looking at making sure our existing abortion laws are enforced would be a more effective way to save far more than just 5 children.
VIENNA--Pope Benedict XVI slammed abortion as the "very opposite" of human rights on Friday, in an address here at the start of a three-day visit to Austria.

"The fundamental human right, the presupposition of every other right, is the right to life itself. This is true of life from the moment of conception until its natural end," the pontiff said at the meeting in the Hofburg, the seat of the Austrian presidency.

"Abortion, consequently, cannot be a human right -- it is the very opposite," he added, speaking in German.
Related Link: The Pope slams abortion

35 comment(s):

fugley said...

Indeed its wonderful to live in a country where the Pope's pronouncements can be heard and evaluated, and then ignored.

Fortunately we live in a country where the Pope doesn't make the laws.

What a shame he doesn't speak out against his African priests who tell people condoms cause AIDS.

I.M Fletcher said...

I hope the parents of newborns tell Kiro to b*gger off. New Zealanders have already had enough government interference in their lives with smacking being banned and now they want authorities to visit the home of every newborn? Get real.

This is more government control. The sooner we vote these people out, the better.

Oh, and fugley - Pope Paul in 1968 predicted what would happen if contraception was embraced, and he was right.

Four major predictions made by Paul VI:

He warned that the widespread use of contraception would lead to "conjugal infidelity and the general lowering of morality."

He also warned that man would lose respect for woman and "no longer [care] for her physical and psychological equilibrium," to the point that he would consider her "as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment."

The Holy Father also warned that widespread use of contraception would place a "dangerous weapon … in the hands of those public authorities who take no heed of moral exigencies."

Pope Paul warned that contraception would mislead human beings into thinking they had unlimited domain over their own bodies, relentlessly turning the human person into the object of his or her own intrusive power.

And it's all come to pass...

Suzanne said...

The West wants to ignore the pope, and yet its papers continue to print what he has to say.

Must be something about him...

Sb said...

I would point out that you have your maths wrong. The article says 5 lives a year for 5 years that 5 x 5 = 25.

Yes we are lucky to live in a country where we can ignore the pope if we want to however many women in the world unfortunately don't have that freedom.


dad4justice said...

Yes agreed sb , however I cannot support a government that claims to care about the family and does not support it on the world stage ( UN Doha Dec on Family ) . We are out of step with our values on the family unit , hence all the nanny intervention by people with ideological agendas.

Lucia Maria said...

Thanks SB, I've changed my post. Someone had told me that it was 5 in 5 years, and without checking I modified my post. This time I have checked.

ZenTiger said...

My mistake - I misread the article and posted incorrectly. You probably got it from there. Must have been my shock at the whole thing anyway.

Andrei said...

Aha CNN barely mentions abortion or euthanasia in its report.

It prefers to concentrate on he regret at the holocaust and burnings at the stake.

Why is this not surprising?

I liked the look of this Pope from the start and my first impressions have been re-inforced as time has progressed.

May he reign long.

Anonymous said...

It will take a generation or more to be able to forget the assistance of the Vatican [esp Bishop Hudal] in enabling Nazi war criminals to escape to South America [ Klaus Barbie, Adolf Eichmann, Heinrich Mueller, Franz Stangl et al] after WWII.

Also Catholic assistance in banking facilities for stolen Nazi and Croatian gold loot.

As well as the present Catholic heirachy's connivance in covering up or relocating US pedophile priests.

No Pope is a good Pope while this hidden history remains.

Lucia Maria said...

Barry, you know, one of the Twelve Apostles betrayed his God for 30 pieces of silver. Human beings do bad all the time - there's no surprises there.

fugley said...

Lucyna, you know, Judas was betrayed by god.

No Judas, no crucifixion, no resurrection, no religion.

Still, academic really since none of it happened.

I.M Fletcher said...

fugley, you *do* come out with some strange things. Yes, Judas betrayed Jesus, but so did Peter (in a sense) by saying that he denied even knowing Jesus. All the Apostles ran away. The difference is that Judas gave in to the sin of despair. Jesus forgave Peter, and perhaps he would have been able to forgive Judas too if he had come and asked to be forgiven - I don't know, but as I said, he gave in to the sin of despair and hanged himself.

The Pope discussed this in a speech he gave last year -


Vatican City (AsiaNews) – The betrayal of Judas remains a "mystery" and even he who was the "traitor" par excellence formed part of the plan of God, who transformed his action into the foundation of salvation. The figure of Judas and especially the many questions it raises, starting from why Jesus trusted him, were at the heart of the speech given by Benedict XVI today to more than 30,000 people in St Peter's Square for the general audience.

Depicting the personalities of Judas and Mathias, who was called to replace him, Benedict XVI ended his catechesis dedicated to the 12 apostles. In their list, he said, Judas Iscariot "is always last".

Presented by the evangelists as an apostle, his choice by Jesus "seems to be a mystery". Evidently Jesus treated him as a friend, but decided to respect his freedom, which shows how Jesus "respects our freedom".

But why did he betray Jesus, asked the pope, listing all the various speculations mooted throughout history. "Some," he said, "turn to the factor that he coveted money. Others uphold a Messianic type of explanation: Judas was disillusioned when he saw that his country's politico-military liberation was not part of Jesus' plans. In reality, the gospel texts stress another aspect. John expressly says the devil put into the heart of Judas to betray Jesus. Luke writes much the same. This goes beyond historical reasons, explaining the matter in terms of the personal responsibility of Judas, who miserably ceded to the temptation of evil."

In the gospels, then, his betrayal is seen as the effect of the action of Evil. But even this action, his betrayal, is inserted in God's saving plan. "Jesus treated him as a friend but in his invitations to follow him along the path of the beatitudes, he did not enforce willingness nor did he provide against the temptations of Satan, respecting human freedom. In effect, there are truly many possible ways in which the human heart could be perverted. The only way to remedy this consists in not cultivating a vision that is solely individualistic, autonomous, but on the contrary, putting oneself over and again on the part of Jesus, taking his point of view." But at the end, Judas repented, however his repentance "degenerated into desperation and self-destruction" The difference to what happened to Peter, who betrayed, repented and returned to trust in God, is for us "an invitation never to despair of divine mercy".

Recalling that "it is not up to us to judge" the clemency of God, Benedict XVI said that "when we think of the negative role played by Judas in the history of Jesus, we must insert it in the superior management of events by God. His betrayal led to the death of Jesus but Jesus transformed this tremendous torment into a space of saving love, in giving himself to the Father. In his mysterious saving plan, God took on the inexcusable action of Judas as an opportunity for the total self-giving of the Son for the redemption of the world".

The pope then drew a final teaching from the personality of St Mathias, called "for his faithfulness" to replace Judas among the Twelve, "nearly compensating for the betrayal". So "even in the Church, there is no lack of Christians who are unworthy traitors, and it is up to each of us to counteract the evil they commit by clearly bearing witness to Jesus Christ".


Anonymous said...

No surprise that fugley says strange things. Like our great leader comrade clark he rejects God therefore he is cloaked in deception so dark he cannot perceive the truth and everything that comes from an atheist is irrational. "The fool says in his heart that there is no God." Psalm 14:1

dad4justice said...

Judgmental, critical and miserable human beings like Helen Clark and Fugley cannot understand that the antidote to sin is grace .

fugley said...

warped, twisted and insane human beings like dad4justice and peter burns are incapable of understanding that there is no grace other than that shown by one human to another.

peter burns believes he can spew his bile everywhere and god wilkl still forgive him; evolved, rational humanists prefer to live a life in harmony each with the other.

Andrei said...

Well Fugley there is not much grace in tearing a living child apart limb from limb in it mothers womb - now, is there?

While the powers that be rabbit on about Child abuse the Pope is bringing to the fore the ultimate child abuse that for the most part goes unremarked and even sanctioned by some of the loudest voices in the child abuse debate.

You would criticize him for this?

fugley said...

No, andrei, I do not criticise the pope for having an opinion, I criticise him for being wrong and I abhor those ploiticians who put their religious belief above their duty to the electorate.

Religious myth has no place in law making.

If all laws were subject to the strictures all of religions, where would we be? Back in the jungle, I'd warrant.

ZenTiger said...

Fugley - abortion is not just a "religious" issue. You are not making sense.

Andrei said...

Actually Fugley if everybody obeyed the 10 commandments we wouldn't need any other laws.

Just imagine that.

fugley said...

actually andrei, if everyone obeyed the 10 commandments we'd still need a host of laws. Quite a lot of things not covered there, after all god wasted the first 4 of them on his own paranoia, and in fact, a literal reading of 2 could put an end to visual arts.

I don't see anything in there about fair trading (weights and measures), drink driving, divorce (or marriage)let alone child abuse, drug taking, under age sex,or, in fact, abortion.

I suspect the 10 commandments are just a few short.

In fact, come to think of it, honouring mother and father may be difficult for a lot of people, too.

Matthew said...

Hi Fugley,

I read that you believe that there is no God, and that his list of commandments is incomplete and that religion should have no place in law making. I also read that you have a problem with Christians. Fair enough, you are entitled to express your concerns and issues.

I would like to invite you to become a Christian. I would also like to invite you to think about Jesus who died on the cross for all of our sins, including yours. Do you know why? Because he loves you in the agape sense of the word. I would also invite you to study the life of Jesus. The rest of us cannot claim to be perfect, and that is why ultimately we would all want to point you to the life of Jesus, what his message is to you today. If you want, try praying to him and reading the gospels. See what happens.

This invitation is not just for tonight/today, in fact it is there for the rest of your natural life. Even when you are on your death bed, in whatever situation that is, you can ask Jesus for a relationship with him. The door is never closed friend.

Psycho Milt said...

"The door is never closed friend."

Er, except until after you die, at which point God will restrict expressions of his love to having Lucifer and his demonic horde subject you to torments for eternity...

There are two reasons the Pope's the only world leader making an issue of abortion:

1. Real world leaders (as opposed to leaders of a made-up world, eg the Pope) have enough to worry about already with the problems besetting real, actually-existing people, without adding not-yet-existent ones to the list.

2. Real developed-world leaders have to face elections, not simply boss people about from a position of entrenched authority. These days women are voters and don't take kindly to some pompous git telling them they're less important than some blob of gooey in their uterus.

I.M Fletcher said...

I abhor those ploiticians who put their religious belief above their duty to the electorate.

Religious myth has no place in law making.

If all laws were subject to the strictures all of religions, where would we be?

Actually, the question is: where would we be without it?
I have this discussion occasionally with a guy here at work who is a Jehovah's Witness; they don't believe in having anything to do with politics - they don't vote, and they don't believe any Christian should have anything to do with it.

I put it to him that if every Christian did as he did, ie, no Christian voted, no Christian ran for office, then what would we be left with? What sort of force would be left running our countries?

Where would be the William Wilberforces, the Abraham Lincolns, the Micheal Joseph Savages (probably the most-loved of this country's PMs and a Catholic).

Without Wilberforce, for example, would we still have slavery?

Like it or not, many of the greatest changes for good in this world have been made by Christians and Christian politicians.

I told this guy at work that he is relying on my vote ;)

dad4justice said...

PM " These days women are voters and don't take kindly to some pompous git telling them they're less important than some blob of gooey in their uterus."

May I suggest a pompous git would be far more appealing than a deluded cadaverous women lying continually and trying to sweep corruption, cover ups and cop outs under the carpet .

Helen Klark has well and truly mastered the illusion game, as she is a gold medalist in deception measures for total control purposes .
Enjoy it while you can you contorted Prime Minister .

I.M Fletcher said...

Milt, that 'blob of gooey' as you put it is where we all came from; and yes, it is more important to protect something that is completely vunerable and can't protect itself.
What about rights for *unborn* women?

KG said...

"evolved, rational humanists prefer to live a life in harmony each with the other."
Those same evolved, rational humanists living in harmony with one another have no problem with murdering unborn humans though.
I'll stay an irrational, unevolved agnostic in that case.

Matthew said...

Hi PM,

"Er, except until after you die, at which point God will restrict expressions of his love to having Lucifer and his demonic horde subject you to torments for eternity..."

Tell me, do you agree with the truth of this statement or not?

Psycho Milt said...

Not. The idea that we continue to exist following death strikes me as the ultimate in wishful thinking. But my opinion of the truth or otherwise of the Christian view of the punishment awaiting dead sinners is of no consequence - all that matters for the purposes of this discussion is that Christians believe it.

Psycho Milt said...

"What about rights for *unborn* women?"

Good luck trying to persuade real, actually existing women that their rights come second to those of non-existent, possible future women. They seem to have had enough of hearing from men about what they should be allowed to do.

Danyl said...

Those same evolved, rational humanists living in harmony with one another have no problem with murdering unborn humans though.

Advocates of abortion don't accept that unborn humans possess conciousness until later stages of pregnancy, so they can't really be 'murdered' any more than a dead body can be murdered when you cremate it.

I think they're partly right in this respect - for most of the first trimester the foetus has no functioning nervous system, so unless you have a religious belief about the existence of a soul its absurd to give an early pregnancy foetus the status of personhood.

By the mid second trimester, however, the foetus has a functioning CNS and spends most of its time dreaming; at this point I can't see any reason why it shouldn't share the same legal rights as any other person.

dad4justice said...

Abortion is culpable homicide .

Matthew said...

Hi PM,

this my friend is where you are wrong. On whose authority do you make this claim? I guess it's not your own authority because if it is then it a rather shaky claim because you don't believe it. If it's someone else's authority then whose? If it's on behalf of Christians then show me the basis for Christians to assert that claim on others in their own authority.

"all that matters for the purposes of this discussion is that Christians believe it."

You're mixing up the domain of what belief extends to with authority. Belief only has authority over the person who claims it, not on others. Therefore the belief has no truth on another person which means that your initial assertion

"Er, except until after you die, at which point God will restrict expressions of his love to having Lucifer and his demonic horde subject you to torments for eternity..."

has no relevance for Fugley, unless be accepts it to be true for him/herself (which so far there is no evidence for). On that basis my invitation remains:

"The door is never closed friend."

Anonymous said...


Seeing as brain stem activity is present by the 7th-8th week and the heart and limbs function by that time, it is untenable on the part of the abortion advocates that they can consider no potential for conciousness.

And I think that is the issue. As you point out, it gets harder to deny conciousness the further the child develops in the womb; but at what point does that conciousness develop? Abortionists would deny any potential at all. They seem to be advocating sudden conciousness at some point around 18 weeks or so. This makes their claim of the absurdity of a soul all the more silly.

Seeing as most abortions are done between 8-14 weeks, it is getting harder for the abortionists to claim a non-concious state on the part of the child, hence the drive towards RU486 etc.

Danyl said...

Seeing as brain stem activity is present by the 7th-8th week and the heart and limbs function by that time . . .

If brain stem activity, a heart and limbs were the criteria for legal protection we'd have to extend the right to life to most of the animal kingdom. There's clearly some special status we bestow on humans, and since we don't give that status to dead bodies I think you have to agree that the status revolves around conciousness.

at what point does that conciousness develop?

That seems like the real question - since we don't really know what conciousness is, pinning down the precise moment it manifests seems tricky at best. In the absence of furthur evidence I think the best solution is to allow early term abortion, when presence of conciousness is unlikely, but prohibit later term procedures (except for in extraordinary circumstances) when the foetus is obviously concious.

This position has the added benefit of upsetting both 'pro-lifers' and 'pro-choicers'.

Anonymous said...

Damn I seem to love abortion arguments - mainly because they are so pointless - the positions are very entrenched except for a small minority who don't really care so can change their position without too much moral displeasure.

Anyway, I still don't see the problem with killing unborn children - simply because we (you and me and everyone else) don't care about the multitudes of born people who are being killed, raped, pillaged, or exploited on daily basis all over the world. We bitch about the pro's and con's of abortion because all of us in this forum have a) money, b) food, c) shelter, d) an education e) far far too much spare time.

On a relative scale of moral evil, abortion is completely irrelevant. You can argue slippery slope for eternity, and it still makes no difference to those who are already breathing and who are suffering.

Furthermore, animals have a nervous system, consciousness, and intelligence - but I eat them for my supper.

Really, I just don't get it.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.