Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Yes! It is the second in a probably endless series of President Obama ordered articles!

This time, Obama has repealed the ban on funding foreign family planning groups which also carry out or advise on abortion. The ban was first introduced by Nixon, repealed by Clinton and banned again by Bush.

The move has pleased groups which support the right to abortions but has angered the anti-abortion lobby.

Here is an interesting piece from the Time magazine.


http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1873904,00.html

Here is the video the article (i omitted it in my quote) talks about:
hN9MJpiODFY

Discuss!

Silly Vatican and their silly make believe rules trying to control the world...

To be all honest...I think both suck.

Benedict for having the wrong opinion and reason for that opinion
And Obama for allowing something which, should probably not be allowed. Though, if it comes down to it I guess I can view Obama as trying to bring more freedom in terms of reproductive rights, even though government money shouldn't be ****ing spend outside the country, which this might do. I mean...COME ON.

On the other hand, Organisations shouldn't be banned from performing services on their own time and money wherever they want.

Well the anti abortion lobby can piss off.

And surely anything Benedict says will have to be balanced by the answer to this question:
'Should the leader of a church synonymous with child abuse, really be getting all pious, giving us moral lectures about child safety/welfare of the young anyhow....?'.

Go Obama.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Well the anti abortion lobby can piss off.

And surely anything Benedict says will have to be balanced by the answer to this question:
'Should the leader of a church synonymous with child abuse, really be getting all pious, giving us moral lectures about child safety/welfare of the young anyhow....?'.

Go Obama.

Should a nation synonymous with warfare be giving moral lectures to people about peace? Should a nation synonymous with using the atom bomb really be giving moral lectures on who can and who cannot have nuclear weaponry?

The answer to both those questions, and yours. Is yes.

From a certain point of view.

And the getting all pious with it while they perpentrate sickening crimes....? Under no circumstances.

Its about choice. Pure and simple.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
From a certain point of view.

And the getting all pious with it....under no circumstances.

Oh...i guess the United States, Britain, Spain, Portugal, Holland etc etc should not be allowed to give moral lectures on racial equality because they are synonymous with the slave trade.

Yup.
Again, from a certain point of view:

If in your analogy they were still doing the slavery whilst lecturing, then they'd have to shut the f**k up.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yup.
Again, from a certain point of view:

If in your analogy they were still doing the slavery whilst lecturing, then they'd have to shut the f**k up.

How many kids do you think the Pope has raped?

Oooh I dont know.. whats the priest daily average right now...?

Seriously though.
All, by proxy, that are abused under his tenancy as Pope,
IF the Pope is deemed to be responsible for the church.
Any that were abused by other nonce priests he and his institution have protected and therefore allowed to continue over the years..
plus any he may have assaulted himself, obviously.

We'll see in time in regards to the latter, but the former counts right away. But even if he has never done any of those things, he still speaks as the public face of the institution and is percieved as such at times.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
All of them, by proxy, that are abused under his tenancy as Pope,
IF the Pope is deemed to be responsible for the church.
Any that were abused by other nonce priests he and his institution have protected and therefore allowed to continue over the years..
plus any he may have assaulted himself, obviously.

We'll see in time in regards to the latter, but the former counts right away. But even if he has never done any of those things, he still speaks as the public face of the institution and is percieved as such.

So...the President who is head of the state is responsible for all the paedophiles in his state?

Nope. Not neccessarily.
But no need to argue against accountability.

Heres where the analogy falls apart:
If you went to Obama alerting him of an abuse crisis, he'd kick some ass and the FBI would come in an arrests'd be made.

But if you go to the priests....they just hide the guy and making it easier for him to abuse kids.

Someone has gotta stop it, and if the leader cant stop it then its a problem out of control, isnt it...?



Maybe the guy will speak, but the message'll still be hypocritical.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Nope. Not neccessarily.
But no need to argue against accountability.

Heres where the analogy falls apart:
If you went to Obama alerting him of an abuse crisis, he'd kick some ass and the FBI would come in an arrests'd be made.

But if you go to the priests....they just hide the guy and making it easier for him to abuse kids.

Someone has gotta stop it, and if the leader cant stop it then its a problem out of control, isnt it...?



Maybe the guy will speak, but the message'll still be hypocritical.

He doesn't advocate paedophilia and is trying to end it in the Church...his methods may or may not be effective but by trying he is not hypocritical when he talks about the need to protect children.

How many abusers have rattled off the same stuff while acting very differently, though...?

I find actions more impressive than words. And if he does magically wipe it out, then all good. But the odds of him actually doing that are millions to one as its a evidently a favourite occuption of nonces and I cant see him stopping that and hundreds/thousands of years of church tradition.... But anyways...

Im always gonna be pro choice when it comes to the development being in those real early stages. But not so much later on, if it can be helped.

I really don't think one can blame the pope for child abuse in the church, if for no other reason, THERE IS SOMEONE MUCH MORE OBVIOUS TO BLAME.

I'd be interested in seeing the rates of child abuse in churches compared to schools, camps and other places where adults have power over children. My thoughts are that the moral salience of a priest touching someone might make us perceive the rate as being astoundingly higher than what is seen in the general population.

Except I dont think thats right that Clinton repealed it.That was about the one thing that I did like about Clinton was I remember hearing it on the major news channels back then that Clinton was very much in favor of abortion.

You just know the next conservative in will reinforce it.

Originally posted by inimalist
I really don't think one can blame the pope for child abuse in the church, if for no other reason, THERE IS SOMEONE MUCH MORE OBVIOUS TO BLAME.

I'd be interested in seeing the rates of child abuse in churches compared to schools, camps and other places where adults have power over children. My thoughts are that the moral salience of a priest touching someone might make us perceive the rate as being astoundingly higher than what is seen in the general population.

Yeah blaming him for the sake of argument might be strong, but the point that That pope this pope anyold pope...picka pope whomever it would be is still connected in the minds of the viewer to that institution thats the only real point I wished to make.

Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Yeah blaming him for the sake of argument might be strong, but the point that That pope this pope anyold pope...picka pope whomever it would be is still connected in the minds of the viewer to that institution thats the only real point I wished to make.
So your point was that people are ignorant and easily led? What a revelation!