You're viewing a single thread.
They do care. And lots of clergy have been excommunicated over it. Turns out pedos like to get jobs where they interact with kids.
Also, it's fucking baby murder.
They do care.
About getting caught. And keeping it going.
And lots of clergy have been excommunicated over it.
First of all: Oh no! Excommunicated! We're gonna have our pretend sky friend not like you anymore, but only because we could no longer successfully cover it up, so we look bad! How about proactively turned in to law enforcement with evidence? How about the institution that let it happen proactively paying restitution to the victims? How about not just transferring the pedo to another parish to fuck more children with the church's blessing, which is what usually happens.
Second of all: Let's see a source for all these "excommunications." The exceedingly rare times I've seen clergy punished by the church, it's just defrocking, not even excommunication. This indicates that the church believes there's a special place in heaven for pedos. And remember, you said "lots." I expect lots. I shouldn't easily be able to counter with even more instances of churches covering up for their pedo clergy.
Turns out pedos like to get jobs where they interact with kids.
Particularly when they are shielded form real world consequences by their complicit employers.
We should tax these pedo factories and use the money to fund abortions and gender affirmation surgeries.
Or maybe rip the churches out of our tax systems (yeah, that's a thing in Europe) and derive them of the only thing they actually care about. Anyone who does 30 minutes of research into the history of the Catholic Church can't seriously believe that this system isn't working just as intended.
In Australia in 2007 the Catholic church successfully argued that it was not a legal entity and therefore could not be sued. The "Ellis defence" https://www.concordatwatch.eu/not-a-legal-entity--k38175
Wait what? Please elaborate. Are you saying churches in Europe GET tax money? And not just don’t have to pay taxes like in the U.S.?
They get tax money from members of the church. You can leave the church at any time. But they also get tax money for administrating things like kindergartens and old people's homes, which is an issue because while they get tax money for this they can make the rules however they like. There have been cases where people who worked in e.g. kindergartens lost their job because they got divorced
Yeah, basically the two big churches don't have to lift a finger to get all of their members to pay up because the state is doing it for them. Opt-out costs a one time fee even, at least in Germany.
Germany isn't secular :s
Most (Many? It's a lot) European countries have official state religions. The Church of England, Church of Scotland, the Lutheran Churches of Scandinavia.
In Germany, if you are associated with a religion, tithes are taken directly out of your paycheck like taxes.
Do you think banning abortion stops it from occurring? Because I have bad news for you.
The goal isn't to stop abortion. The goal is to control women and enable rapists.
@can @Blamemeta so do the 10000s of Irish women who used to come to the UK from Ireland for it. Poor women.
Banning murdering adults didn't stop that happening, but it's still on the books.
yeah but most anti-abortion people pair it with being anti-sex-education, sometimes even anti-conctraception - you know, the thing which actually reduces the need for abortions
so they set a trap for their kids to walk into, and act shocked when people get pregnant young, and then force them into having children before they can self-actualize which is what they actually wanted anyways.
also the bible gives directions for giving abortions. These people are worshipping the GOP instead of GOD
I'm not a christian. I'm agnostic.
Not necessarily talking about you, although WEIRD that you're agnostic but jumped to defend the clergy and also believe abortion is murder just based on your own personal beliefs with zero evidence, and you're willing to enforce that view on others at the cost of their life.
Most agnostics prefer an evidence based approach
It's not that weird. Like you said, agnostics are more likely to prefer an evidence based approach rather than eat all the hyperbole going around. So what do we know?
Did the church cover up pedos? Yep, that they did. And they deserve the ire they get for it and more. Do pedos make up more than a tiny percentage of the church? No, they don't. That's the facts.
I'm agnostic and was never Catholic (I was Pentecostal in my youth, but that's a completely different nightmare...). I don't like that the church covered up sex abuse. It makes me trust the church as an organization less. But I also don't assume the local priest is banging his alter boys.
The abortion/murder thing isn't something scientific. It's a value judgement about whether a particular action is "right" or "wrong." Right and wrong are a human invention - the universe just is what it is regardless of how we feel about it. So it's up to humans to figure that out.
Personally, I tend to favor the rights of the mother, but that's doesn't make someone who disagrees with me wrong. It just means they don't agree with me.
the Pope himself said it could be as many as 1 in 50 https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/07/13/331166102/pope-reportedly-says-that-1-in-50-clergy-are-pedophiles
And when you have an whole organization covering up for pedos, you might as well just consider everyone in the organization a pedo.
The very nature of the catholic church (looking for adult men who will 'be celibate,' excluding women altogether) may be attractive to pedophiles in fact.
That's an off-the-cuff remark that his spokespeople refuted. Essentially the equivalent of a political gaff. Think about it: how would he know, and if he did know, why would he tell a reporter? He likely just pulled what he thought was a small number (2%) out of his hat as a way of saying "very few" before he realized how many people that would actually be. Politicians make that kind of mistake all the time, and the pope definitely falls into the category of politician.
And the "everyone in the organization is a pedo" is just plain unfair. Is a bank teller responsible because the company she works for is making shady investment deals? Is a forest ranger responsible because the president decided to sell off a bunch of national parks? There are specific people who are guilty and should be held responsible, and the organization as a whole should be viewed with suspicion, but the majority of the people there - especially at the bottom levels - are just doing their jobs. The majority of them are even more pissed off at pedophiles ruining the reputation of the church they're dedicated to than you are.
As far as the "attractive to pedophiles" bit, I'm not sure how that computes. Attractive to gay religious men who would prefer celibacy over sin, sure - that's an old argument. I've even known a couple priests that I suspect went into the priesthood because they couldn't express their sexuality. But pedophiles? What does "no women" and "celibacy" have to do with pedophilia? Few pedophiles are exclusive to kids. Most of them are perfectly capable of having a wife and family.
It seems to me like you're treating the church like a storybook organization of villains. Things in the real world rarely work like that.
Nah I have the same opinion of the catholic church that I have of cops.
It takes effort to maintain that much corruption. The whole organization is implicit.
Comparing a bank teller to a companies misdeeds is backwards. That is someone at the bottom of the pyramid. In the church, those at the top of pyramid where the ones who covered up and moved pedophiles around, FOR DECADES. So, thats a rotten organization.
The bank teller thing is exactly what I was saying. Priests are down toward the bottom of the pyramid. Assuming every priest you meet is a pedo is pretty disturbing.
As far as the similarity to cops, the difference there is that the cops all abuse their authority from time to time. Almost every single one of them. Even if it's just fucking with someone for the fun of it, they've all done it. And they've got support from the more authoritative-minded people like the "back the blue" folks. It's definitely an attractive career for people who like to hold power over others - that's not even in question.
No one supports pedophiles. The church covers them up out of embarrassment, not because they condone that sort of behavior.
Would you rather a full grown woman die to let an unviable fetus come to term?
Nah man, we don't even need to go down the niche scenario route where they can wiggle their way out of it. Even if we give them every single point in their favor, abortion should still be legal. Even in some wild world where life starts at conception, nobody ever gets raped, and people can't die from pregnancies, abortion should still be legal.
Nothing is more important than a person's bodily autonomy.
I'm 100% with you. I was trying to feel out their views
It's a problem when other clergy cover for pedophiles instead of bring them to justice.
You can feel however you want about abortion, but I believe that telling others how to live their lives based on your personal feelings is against their personal freedoms.
Okay, can I come over and murder your kids? Its only personal feelings.
It's not murder equivalent though. You probably have this image in your mind of a fully formed fetus when in actuality its something smaller than a pea by the time like 99% of abortions are done. There is no mind formed, the whole "heartbeat" thing was a lie, it was essentially the cells forming parts and doing basic tests on them to see if it works yet. Your logic would also dictate men NEED to have kids every moment because sperm only lives for a day or so and if they don't fertilize then it's the same as a mass murder (even though only one sperm survives fertilization, so still mass murder).
Also what about future possible kids? If you plan to only have a set number of kids, and aren't in a good place, financially, mentally, or otherwise to have them right now you are looking at two possible options.
Option one: have them now and ruin your, your spouse, AND the kids lives by raising them without funds and before living life and maturing into a better person and parent, and in situations of stress like that you end up yelling at them unjustly, hitting them, or otherwise taking your problems out on everyone else (intentional, or not. Directly or not). Not to mention the overworking hours to pay for them takes you out of their lives when they need you most.
Or Option two: wait until you are ready, financially, mentally, or otherwise and give that same number of kids the life they deserve. And you all get to have much happier lives.
Now in both possible universes the same number of lives are born, and even if you picked universe one, now you've deleted the kids in universe two. So it's still removing their futures.
There is no logical, or even ethical, reason to prevent abortions other than to control women and hurt children. Period. Anyone who says abortions are bad are hateful anti-human or anti-thinking people who want to push themself into others lives and force them to live how they demand.
As I like to say, to have individual rights, you need to be an individual first.
I like the way you articulately debated your opinion on this subject without getting your feeling hurt and lashing out with an attack.
I wasn't aware it was a debate. I was just replying to an absurd take with another absurd take.
Maybe you should discuss your behaviour today with your pastor.
Shush abortions will keep happening they’ll never stop get over it and cry 👍🏾
Okay, can I come over and murder your kids?
At least you're open about what you want to do.
I mean, can you really call yourself a Catholic if you don't want to hurt kids?
At the VERY least scarring them for life by drilling all the authoritarian and hyperjudgmental dogma into their too young to understand the big questions minds!
really telling on yourself, neither bible nor science say abortion is murder. Only the GOP say that
What if the baby has a condition that will kill it and the mother on birth? Would you take two lives to uphold your idiotic opinion
Nope, Deuteronomy clearly states that it's only OK to murder your own kids, and that's only if they're being rebellious.
This is the level of delusion and complete disconnection from reality that I have come to expect from Catholics.
Permanently Deleted
I'd be a little more specific with defining abortions.
Permanently Deleted
Because under your defenition a woman can legally murder a kid they're having sex with.
Permanently Deleted
"Children that are inside them"
Yes really
Hey, you're entitled to your opinion. I've been treated like shit for saying I think the limit should be 16 weeks instead of 24. It is a spectrum, and all sides have valid arguments, which is why this is such a divisive matter. Some people say masturbation is killing potential lives. Some people say that there should be no limit for abortion, abort whenever.
I understand your point, you think terminating a human life is wrong, which is a natural human response. I think most people also feel the same way, but they give more importance to other matters. Maybe you should try understanding the people in the other positions of the spectrum. Sometimes people make mistakes at a young age (kids are very dumb), women get raped, families can't financially take care of a new child, birth control fails... It's easy to judge them until you're in their position.
Here's the thing, I get it. The condom breaks, birth control fails, shit happens. But it's still murder. If someone gets drunk, and accidentally kills someone, they don't get let off the hook. If they build something, and they fuck up, and someone dies, that's homicidal negligence, and they aren't let off the hook. In almost every abortion case, it's due to making mistakes at a young age (kids are very dumb), women getting raped, families can’t financially take care of a new child, birth control fails, just like you said. And that's no excuse for homicide. Only real thing is self-defense, and I guess you can argue that if the mother's life is truly in danger.
Everything is what we decide it is. You have decided killing a fetus is homicide, that's your interpretation. It isn't like that for other people. Other people have adopted other definitions of what life is. When does a human life start? It starts when we say so. It is a continuous transition, not a discrete set of steps.
For you a human life starts at a point, for them it starts at a different point. Who is right? Neither. That's just a matter of opinion and semantics. Which is why I gave the example of the people who think jerking off is a sin because "you shall not waste your seed" or whatever.
You are trying to protect the life of a future human, they are trying to protect the freedom of women. You have different priorities.
My whole point is... You just shouted an opinion and got shouted opinions back at you. What's the point? Just vote for whoever you think will make the change you want to see. It is your right. It is also their right.
Permanently Deleted
- Neither of your scenarios are murder. They are both manslaughter, for which negligence must be demonstrated.
- Both murder and manslaughter must be committed against a person, which an embryo is not
To have individual rights, one must first be an individual.