EU To Force Catholic Doctors To Perform Abortions

[archangel]

Most people haven't heard of it. Of course, the basic idea SOUNDS so nice. After all, who would want to be thought of as being in FAVOR of discriminating against women? The problem is that in order to achieve the goal, we would have to give up our rights as a free people, and our sovereignty as a nation.

I think this illustrates my soon to become famous Theory of Socialist Tricks.

Here it is.... You can apply this scenario to just about anything, be it radical feminsts' definition of rape, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act etc. I believe that, if you apply this to recent news stories, you will see a common pattern.

So here is my Theory of Socialist Tricks….

Socialist Trick #1 - take a commonly used term for an evil e.g. "torture", "discrimination", "racism", "oppression", then redefine it to fit your worldview. However, when you use the term, don't tell the masses your definition, let them instead believe that your definition of the term is the same as commonly understood one. Also, feel free to alter, amend and otherwise change your definition to fit changes in events.

Socialist Trick #2 - use a noble sounding goal e.g. "equal rights", "freedom", "liberation", to justify your actions (also known as "the ends justifying the means"). This noble goal must include items from your actual agenda e.g. taxpayer funded abortion, racial preferences for college admissions etc.

Socialist Trick #3 - combine your twisted definition of a commonly understood word from Socialist Trick #1, contrast it with your noble sounding goal from Socialist Trick #2, to not only justify your actions, but to get the masses to agree with you, believe that you are looking out for the common good and to embarrass your opposition should they complain.

Example:

Most people understand that the term "rape" is defined as "sexual intercourse by forcible means". But the radical feminists have a much broader definition of the term, which includes dirty jokes, staring, lewd remarks, having certain religious beliefs, being pro-life, a wife having sex with her husband, or heterosexual intercourse in general, as well as sexual intercourse by forceful means.

So, when radical feminists use the term "rape", most people assume they mean only "sexual intercourse by forcible means". So when radical feminists claim that most women have been victims of rape, the masses automatically assume that most women have been forced to have intercourse. Now the masses believe that there is a huge problem, when in fact, there isn't.

This now allows the radical feminists to propose, endorse, campaign for and get Congress, school boards, state and local governments to pass laws and policies which discriminate against men, use taxpayer dollars to “educate” the masses to the radical feminist worldview, and to get taxpayer dollars to implement key goals of the radical feminist agenda.

Now, they've achieved their intended goals but couched them in a mantle of nobility (after all, these measures are to prevent RAPE!!!!!). If anyone disagrees with them, then the feminists only need claim that their opposition is in favor of RAPE (the masses assume the commonly used definition is being used), when in fact, the feminists actually mean things that include, among other things, Constitutionally protected rights.

I will never have sex "with that woman again" rape is bad way bad! I will always be celibate from this day forward! Thank you Karl!!!!!! :spank3:

 

[musicman]

It's always tempting to laugh off the hysterical moonbats of the American Left. We shouldn't; we dare not. Their vision for America - given power and carried out to its logical, inescapable conclusion - is precisely the ideology being enforced now in Post-Christian Europe. It is the end of nations - the death of sovereignty - an endless night of tyranny.

Our worst enemies are smug self-assurance and lethargy. America is in a war for its very life - quite apart from the WOT. It's being fought every day on our cultural and political landscape. We've got to stay awake, my friends - and we've got to remain lean and mean.

 

[Bonnie]

Tolerance?

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/596

Very aptly titled K

 

[Powerman]

We're headed there. Eventually, it will also be a crime for a priest, minister, imman, rabbi or other religious leader to preach against abortion.

Don't worry. That won't happen. You're getting too excited here. I think it is wrong to force Catholic Doctors to do abortions also. Abortions should be left to abortion clinics IMO unless it's an emergency situation to save the life of the mother.


But this may bring me into a debate with Kathy on another point. Kathy would it be wrong to force a Catholic doctor to perform a craniotomy in order to save the mother's life? Afterall the operation would be a violation of Church Doctrine. Remember that whole Doctrine of Double Effect scenario we ran into a while back?

 

[Annie]

Don't worry. That won't happen. You're getting too excited here. I think it is wrong to force Catholic Doctors to do abortions also. Abortions should be left to abortion clinics IMO unless it's an emergency situation to save the life of the mother.


But this may bring me into a debate with Kathy on another point. Kathy would it be wrong to force a Catholic doctor to perform a craniotomy in order to save the mother's life? Afterall the operation would be a violation of Church Doctrine. Remember that whole Doctrine of Double Effect scenario we ran into a while back?

Yes and I answered back then. Not doing the semantics dance with you again.

 

[Powerman]

Yes and I answered back then. Not doing the semantics dance with you again.

We never really did resolve that issue if I remember. But do you think that we should respect their wish not to perform a craniotomy or not? How far should hospitals bend to appease to the religious beliefs of their staff? I can understand abortion because you can go to a clinic that specializes in that to have that done.

 

[Annie]

We never really did resolve that issue if I remember. But do you think that we should respect their wish not to perform a craniotomy or not? How far should hospitals bend to appease to the religious beliefs of their staff? I can understand abortion because you can go to a clinic that specializes in that to have that done.

I told you at that time, that Loyola, the largest Catholic teaching hospital in this area, puts the life of the mother first. Would only NOT do an emergency procedure if directed by the mother.

Unlike you, I would not generalize onto all Catholic instititutions, based on my knowledge of this one hospital or your 'knowledge' of one professor. Dance is done.

 

[Powerman]

I told you at that time, that Loyola, the largest Catholic teaching hospital in this area, puts the life of the mother first. Would only NOT do an emergency procedure if directed by the mother.

Unlike you, I would not generalize onto all Catholic instititutions, based on my knowledge of this one hospital or your 'knowledge' of one professor. Dance is done.

I'm willing to let the past be unresolved because I have not seen solid proof one way or the other on this.

But what if the priest is a very serious devout catholic. He couldn't do the operation without violating Church Doctrine. So should he be exempt from doing the procedure because it violates his religious beliefs or not?

 

[Annie]

I'm willing to let the past be unresolved because I have not seen solid proof one way or the other on this.

But what if the priest is a very serious devout catholic. He couldn't do the operation without violating Church Doctrine. So should he be exempt from doing the procedure because it violates his religious beliefs or not?

Not necessarily true about the doctrine. But as far a priest operating on me, :shocked: unless he was also an MD.

 

[archangel]

I'm willing to let the past be unresolved because I have not seen solid proof one way or the other on this.

But what if the priest is a very serious devout catholic. He couldn't do the operation without violating Church Doctrine. So should he be exempt from doing the procedure because it violates his religious beliefs or not?

guaranteed under the constitution...find another Doctor who is not opposed to this procedure! :halo:

 

[Powerman]

Not necessarily true about the doctrine. But as far a priest operating on me, :shocked: unless he was also an MD.

Hah. I meant if the doctor was a devout Catholic. These damn pain killers are doing a number on me

But what isn't true about the doctrine?

 

[Annie]

Hah. I meant if the doctor was a devout Catholic. These damn pain killers are doing a number on me

But what isn't true about the doctrine?

Look up John Paul's encyclical on human life. There is much that will drive you nuts, but this is addressed.

 

[Powerman]

OK honey. I'll take a look at it.

 

[Bonnie]

OK honey. I'll take a look at it.

Hey Kathianne, I mean Honey who's your new friend?? LOL j/k

Your makin inroads here, good job!!

 

[Annie]

Hey Kathianne, I mean Honey who's your new friend?? LOL j/k

Your makin inroads here, good job!!

Don't get me started!

 

[no1tovote4]

Oh, I forgot to ask. Why would this be about only Catholic doctors? Wouldn't other Christians, Buddhists and Muslim doctors also have a problem with this?

 

[Annie]

Oh, I forgot to ask. Why would this be about only Catholic doctors? Wouldn't other Christians, Buddhists and Muslim doctors also have a problem with this?

I'm sure there are some, but one doesn't hear from them too much.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I hope that you're right.....

But the reason I said it in the first place is because I had "CEDAW" in mind.
Most people have never heard of the United Nations' Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

It's scary stuff. In effect, this tidbit gives the UN authority to clamp down on the sovereignty of nations. That means that our rights could be taken away if the US should ever become a signatory of this abomination...


From the UN's website...

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/



The CEDAW Committee at the UN did the following.

Directed China to legalize prostitution
Criticized Belarus for establishing Mother's Day
Directed Kyrgyzstan to legalize lesbianism
Directed Ireland to legalize abortion
Criticized Ireland for the Church's influence in public policy
Directed Libya to reinterpret the Koran to fall within CEDAW guidelines

In other words, the United Nations, via the CEDAW committee, will become your unelected government.

See also...

http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=1578&department=BLI&categoryid=media

If the United States ever signs on to this, you and I can kiss our Constitutional Rights good-bye!

The UN has never had any teeth to go with its bark, and I dont see it ever happening.

Of all those directives you list, were some, none, all carried out?

 

[LuvRPgrl]

See, I am not sure I agree with you. Dont get me wrong I have an optimistic view of the future. For those who are good and decent human beings. But i also forsee alot of death and destruction among people. I think some of us may be imprisoned for what we believe.

Actually, we may be in agreement. My view is very short term, next 20-40 years. I do think eventually your scenario will come to fruition. Cuz the Bible told me so

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Most people haven't heard of it. Of course, the basic idea SOUNDS so nice. After all, who would want to be thought of as being in FAVOR of discriminating against women? The problem is that in order to achieve the goal, we would have to give up our rights as a free people, and our sovereignty as a nation.

I think this illustrates my soon to become famous Theory of Socialist Tricks.

Here it is.... You can apply this scenario to just about anything, be it radical feminsts' definition of rape, the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act etc. I believe that, if you apply this to recent news stories, you will see a common pattern.

So here is my Theory of Socialist Tricks….

Socialist Trick #1 - take a commonly used term for an evil e.g. "torture", "discrimination", "racism", "oppression", then redefine it to fit your worldview. However, when you use the term, don't tell the masses your definition, let them instead believe that your definition of the term is the same as commonly understood one. Also, feel free to alter, amend and otherwise change your definition to fit changes in events.

Socialist Trick #2 - use a noble sounding goal e.g. "equal rights", "freedom", "liberation", to justify your actions (also known as "the ends justifying the means"). This noble goal must include items from your actual agenda e.g. taxpayer funded abortion, racial preferences for college admissions etc.

Socialist Trick #3 - combine your twisted definition of a commonly understood word from Socialist Trick #1, contrast it with your noble sounding goal from Socialist Trick #2, to not only justify your actions, but to get the masses to agree with you, believe that you are looking out for the common good and to embarrass your opposition should they complain.

Example:

Most people understand that the term "rape" is defined as "sexual intercourse by forcible means". But the radical feminists have a much broader definition of the term, which includes dirty jokes, staring, lewd remarks, having certain religious beliefs, being pro-life, a wife having sex with her husband, or heterosexual intercourse in general, as well as sexual intercourse by forcible means.

So, when radical feminists use the term "rape", most people assume they mean only "sexual intercourse by forcible means". So when radical feminists claim that most women have been victims of rape, the masses automatically assume that most women have been forced to have intercourse. Now the masses believe that there is a huge problem, when in fact, there isn't.

This now allows the radical feminists to propose, endorse, campaign for and get Congress, school boards, state and local governments to pass laws and policies which discriminate against men, use taxpayer dollars to “educate” the masses to the radical feminist worldview, and to get taxpayer dollars to implement key goals of the radical feminist agenda.

Now, they've achieved their intended goals but couched them in a mantle of nobility (after all, these measures prevent RAPE!!!!!). If anyone disagrees with them, the feminists need only claim that their opposition is in favor of RAPE (the masses assume the commonly used definition is being used), when in fact, the feminists actually mean things that include, among other things, Constitutionally protected rights.

The feminists (NOW) define rape as anytime a woman, THE NEXT DAY, has regrets of engaging in intercourse.

Pretty radical. So is their group

I think your proposition of socialist tricks has a limited effective factor. After some time enough people come to realize the group has lost its credibility. Its happening with NOW, and with PETA.

The real factor that will help us win back more control as it use to be, in our country, will be regaining control of the schools. And the judiciary, which is underway.