American Church burying murdered babies

[Liam Ó Loinsigh]

... first the press are totally in support of the mass murder of infants - then they have the gall to scandalise or object to their burial! Surely if the wicked mothers and the damnable abortion doctors are prepared to murder these children, then someone has to protect their dignity through blessing and a burial? Perhaps there's a twisted belief among these Satanic abortionist bastards that if the child is not buried, it will be another young soul for Satan to feed on. They are wrong.


Church burying foetuses in secret

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=30&si=1326365&issue_id=11995


A CATHOLIC church in the US sparked an outcry after it announced it has been holding burial services for the cremated ashes of aborted foetuses without the knowledge of the mothers or the abortion clinic involved.

Critics claim the church is exploiting women's grief for political purposes.

The practice was revealed when the church went public as it buried the ashes of about 500 foetuses, one day after the 32nd anniversary of Roe versus Wade, the US Supreme Court decision that legalised abortion.

Abortion is one of the most impassioned divisions in America.

On Sunday, a congregation of 250 prayed at the Sacred Heart of Mary Church in Boulder, Colorado, as the ashes were buried in the cemetery near its Memorial Wall for the Unborn, after 9am Mass.

A handful of protesters gathered nearby holding signs that read "This church is a grave robber" and "Stop forcing your will on us."

Since 1998, the church has interred the remains of 5,500 foetuses, obtaining most from a mortuary hired by the Boulder Abortion Clinic to dispose of them.

Dr Warren Hern, the clinic director, said he had paid the mortuary for its services and added: "This is an outrage. It is completely unethical."

Susan LaVelle, founder of the church's Memorial Wall for the Unborn, defended the services and said many people, including two women who had had abortions at Dr Hern's clinic, had thanked them. (© Daily Telegraph, London)

Catherine Elsworth
in Los Angeles

[Scáthach]

Do you think all women who have had abortions are wicked? What about the girl in the X case?

[Liam Ó Loinsigh]

Do you think all women who have had abortions are wicked? What about the girl in the X case?

Hardest of hard cases aside (which pro-abortionists always seem to resort to), most women who have abortions have them because they've done the deed, and then cannot fit a 'burdensome' child into their hectic career, college or social schedule. "I'm too young", "I don't have the money", "I was drunk", "what about my studies?", "what will Mam and Dad think?" et cetera - all these selfish thoughts take precedent over the existence of a small child within the womb, and, as is usually the case with criminals, they will resort to murder to make life easier.

Hard cases make small percentages. If X-cases (e.g. due to rape) were to make up around 3-5% of all abortion cases, yes, I do believe that 95% of women who have abortions are wicked bitches. And that's enough to keep it illegal.

Then the other hard case is the mother's health - "Well, if I don't have an abortion, I'll die." I don't mean to be stepping on the female ego here or anything, but there was a time when mothers were prepared to die so their child could live. A different time we live in, obviously.

[Milesian]

Candidates for the most ironic statements of 2005:



A handful of protesters gathered nearby holding signs that read .... "Stop forcing your will on us."


Dr Warren Hern, the clinic director, said he had paid the mortuary for its services and added: "This is an outrage. It is completely unethical."

[Scáthach]

I'm not pro-abortion and you don't *really* answer the question.
It's true that some women make very bad decisions after their seemingly first bad decision (contraception perhaps girls and boys?) but most women who get abortions in this day and age can't even be fully blamed for i because despite ts prohibition in our constitution the amendments do not state it to be wrong, in the least, just not to be done here. Women are practically thrown over the Britain and nothing in the least is seen wrong here. We're taught from a fairly easy age that if the worst happens there's always the UK, isn't there? Abortion is not taught to be wrong, it's not taught to be in any way murderous, ads bombard women with the solution of abortion info from clinics all over Ireland who will help you get to the UK and etc, etc,etc.
Again, I feel merely calling them wicked bitches is too simplistic. It remains murder, yes, but perhaps if these women were brought up thinking that rather than ''it's just a cell'' they wouldn't do it. We're basically taught that abortion is last resort contraception. This has to be why people see no issue in having one, or more! The fault as usual it seems lies at least in part with the state. if we are going to prohibit abortion it should be properly prohibited not basically lauded and allowed - just not in our back garden. Just go over the sea to Britain!

Here's another question anyway, being a trad catholic, and as i think Milesian told me a year or more ago, you guys are against contraception. Are you? Why/Why not?

[Scáthach]

WAIT, WAIT.
Before Milesian pounces on me - these women are not totally innocent, society and state are not totally to blame. If I can know at my age that abortion is very generally wrong so could these girls ( My family is not generally anti abortion so it's not an upbringing thing) Basically by the state and constitution acting as it does it influences more innocent minds than mine into doing things that for one making very difficult situations disappear. The state is certainly to blame for this, and so is the family - ''the primary educator of the child'' but so is the girl - and the boyfriend who generally waves the abortion card before the girl finishes telling him she's pregnant :P

[Milesian]

Here's another question anyway, being a trad catholic, and as i think Milesian told me a year or more ago, you guys are against contraception. Are you? Why/Why not?


You mean from a purely Catholic perspective?
First it is worth clarifying that the Church is not opposed to Contraception, but Artifical Contraception

Well, life is considered sacred. It is a gift from God.
When a man and woman have sex then they are co-operating in God's plan to bring life into the world. What results from that act is upto God.
What is not tolerated is that Man attempts to frustrate the natural fruition of the sexual act. To prevent the end result that is the ultimate purpose of something is perversion in any sense of the word, not just theologically.

Thus it is believed that God alone has the power over life and death.
Man may co-operate to bring life into the world (sexual intercourse), bt it is not for Man to play God, and create and destroy life at his whim.

It must be remembered that things like the "Morning After Pill" technically work by chemical abortion anyway.

In the Bible, a Jewish couple practised contraception and were instantly struck down for it. It is the only example in the bible of a sin punished by immediate death. They fraudulently with-held their part of the bargain.
They took the in-built pleasure of the sexual act, that is God's gift. But they were unwilling to allow a potential life to come into the world.
It is worded that they "mocked God" .
But "be not decieved, God is not mocked" ;)

I think the Church basically views contraception as similar to abortion in that they ultimately prevent life from coming into the world.
It also considers contraception to "loosen the marital bond and lessen respect".
Also, it is nice to think that your existence was fully consented to by your parents, rather than being an "accident" that they tried to prevent.

You could substitute contraception for abortion as the subject in the below quotes without much problem


The greatest destroyer of peace is abortion because if a mother can kill her own child, what is left for me to kill you and you to kill me? There is nothing between.


It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish

[Milesian]

WAIT, WAIT.
Before Milesian pounces on me - these women are not totally innocent, society and state are not totally to blame. If I can know at my age that abortion is very generally wrong so could these girls ( My family is not generally anti abortion so it's not an upbringing thing) Basically by the state and constitution acting as it does it influences more innocent minds than mine into doing things that for one making very difficult situations disappear. The state is certainly to blame for this, and so is the family - ''the primary educator of the child'' but so is the girl - and the boyfriend who generally waves the abortion card before the girl finishes telling him she's pregnant :P


That a girl :D

Of course, not just the girl is to blame.
Any man who advocates just "getting rid of it" is despicable.

Basically, if someone feels ready to have sex, they should feel ready to deal with the natural result of sex too. Otherwise, they should stick to playing with their dolls and PS2's and leaving stuff like sex to adults.

[Scáthach]

..or should they just be vigilant and use contraception?

[Milesian]

..or should they just be vigilant and use contraception?

No artifical contraception is 100%. Neither condoms, the pill or even a vasectomy have a perfect success rate. So if you are shagging around and not prepared to face the possible consquences, then at least you better be prepared to have an abortion.

[Scáthach]

why is it always ''by a black'' - i hardly think that if she were raped by a blonde blue eyed 6ft tall Swede, anyone would think that was really handy and avoided having to set her up with someone ''acceptable'' ;)

[Milesian]

So will people who use Artifical Contraception go to hell ?

Repentent or unrepentent?

[Scáthach]

No artifical contraception is 100%. Neither condoms, the pill or even a vasectomy have a perfect success rate. So if you are shagging around and not prepared to face the possible consquences, then at least you better be prepared to have an abortion.

Not 100% no, but a combination can be fairly close if all used accurately.
This avoids the question though, say hypothetically, one could get artificial contraception that was 100% effective, should they use it and avoid abortions or stick to the dolls?

[Scáthach]

hahaha more than half!
Let's go with unrepentant, Fr Milesian.

[Milesian]

ITP what if you had a daughter or wife that got raped by a black would you still be anti abortion then ?

Do you believe black children are sub-human and don't have the same right to life, Ted?

[Scáthach]

This is a very odd one becuase i imagine being raped by anyone would be so disturbing as to leave me without the time to consider who it was as much as what it was. I'm not sure maybe you're right but that implies in a way that being raped by a full blooded good looking Irishman is really just good fun...

[Milesian]

hahaha more than half!
Let's go with unrepentant, Fr Milesian.


I'm not sure how you can look into people's private thoughts and know they have died unrepentent. But certainly. It's a mortal sin to snuff out a life or deny it's existence. If you are not absolved of such a sin you are going to hell.

And rightly so, says I :)

[Scáthach]

..but it isn't technically snuffing out a life, that implies one is already in existence, it's stopping the creation of one. That's not technically the same whatever the church say on the matter, is it?

[Milesian]

Well say a black women got raped by a white man that would be just as bad,

But Milesian would you want your wife or daughter to keep a half cast baby ?


I don't think I could look after any other mans baby, regardless of it's colour.
I would put it up for adoption

[Milesian]

..but it isn't technically snuffing out a life, that implies one is already in existence, it's stopping the creation of one. That's not technically the same whatever the church say on the matter, is it?

Not technically the same, that's why I mentioned both seperately :P

But they both have the same result - the denial of a life, regardless of how far gone it is.

Murder, abortion, contraception.
They all deny life

[Scáthach]

By that logic not having sex denies life so how can one win?!

[Liam Ó Loinsigh]

ITP what if you had a daughter or wife that got raped by a black would you still be anti abortion then ?

Well if my daughter, girlfriend or wife was raped by a black I would advise her to have the child, and give it up for adoption. One crime does not provide a solution to another. It would be a difficult experience - but who says life's a bed of roses?

[Liam Ó Loinsigh]

Murder is the same, even in "extreme circumstances".

This is exactly what I warned about nationalists with no religion - they will always fall prey to "other ways", "other means" and "accommodations" :D

[Milesian]

By that logic not having sex denies life so how can one win?!


Not having sex is upto you.
Using contraception is taking the pleasure but not giving back, hence the view of it as a "fraud"

Hence abstention is not only the only form of contraception that is 100% effective, but is also a moral one from the Church's view

[green nationalist]

But abstention would'nt be "contraception" in my book.

There is no point in even considering contraception if you are going to abstain.

[Scáthach]

Abstention. Contraception. We talk about such fun things.

[Liam Ó Loinsigh]

Milesian what about when farmers give contraception to animals ? does that mean the animals will go to hell ?

Can anyone come up an answer on a level of absurdity commensurate with the above question?

About time you stopped viewing humans on the same level as animals Ted :D God did give us primacy over them, you know? :rotfl

[Steyr]

Milesian what about when farmers give contraception to animals ? does that mean the animals will go to hell ?
I almost reped you, for that Ted:roflmao You pose the questions we want to say but were too afraid to ask.

Now if you'll excuse me I'll be off to stage a prayer appeal in my local church for the sanctity and redemption of animal souls wherever they may be.

[Milesian]

But abstention would'nt be "contraception" in my book.

The definition of Contraception is - "To prevent conception"

Not only is abstention rightly considered contraception, it is the most effective form of contraception there is and is totally natural and free ;)

[Milesian]

Milesian what about when farmers give contraception to animals ? does that mean the animals will go to hell ?

Animals don't have souls to go to Hell. They are purely material beings.
They have their life here and that's it. They are the envy of athiests :)

[Scáthach]

farmers give contraception to animals? what, what, what?

[JSE]

Animals don't have souls to go to Hell. They are purely material beings.
They have their life here and that's it. They are the envy of athiests :)Ah now, that's not quite right. According to Catholic doctrine, non-human animals do have souls (anima, after all) they are just not immortal souls.

[JSE]

farmers give contraception to animals? what, what, what?Well, if you think that's something, consider for a moment what the AI man had to do in the old days . . .

[Milesian]

Ah now, that's not quite right. According to Catholic doctrine, non-human animals do have souls (anima, after all) they are just not immortal souls.


Grrr....:D

Conceded. I was simplifying it for the masses ;)
The point I was conveying was that they are not believed to have an afterlife. When their life is up in this world, that's it. There are no eternal consequences, as is the case for ourselves. There is no further plan for animals other than their existence in the here & now.

In any case, the animals have no control over the aforementioned situation. As they have no conscious choice in the matter, they are not responsible and would incur no sin, if such a thing were possible in the first place

[JSE]

Grrr....:D

Conceded. I was simplifying it for the masses ;)
The point I was conveying was that they are not believed to have an afterlife. When their life is up in this world, that's it. There are no eternal consequences, as is the case for ourselves. There is no further plan for animals other than their existence in the here & now.

In any case, the animals have no control over the aforementioned situation. As they have no conscious choice in the matter, they are not responsible and would incur no sin, if such a thing were possible in the first placeIn that sense they are perfect insofar as they are complete. Man on the other hand is under the awesome burden of freedom and the responsibility that goes with it. Perhaps this is the ultimate point on which we must oppose the NWO - it deprives man of his freedom in the name of prosperity etc by taking away responsibility.

[Milesian]

Man on the other hand is under the awesome burden of freedom and the responsibility that goes with it.

Indeed, although I guess perhaps not so much the burden of Free Will as that of Free Will in combination with knowledge of Good and Evil, which is where the responsibility lies as it turns into into a choice of the utmost importance



Perhaps this is the ultimate point on which we must oppose the NWO - it deprives man of his freedom in the name of prosperity etc by taking away responsibility.

An interesting point which I'm inclined to agree with.

[green nationalist]

All this stuff about animals having a afterlife, whether god is responsible for the evil in the world, whether the angels administer actions on the earth was created by human beings speculating and arguing over the course of many many years, it has to be conceded by you all that it is all pure fantasy, the product of Catholic Doctrine which has very little to do "Pure" christianity.

The huge leap of faith you make in accepting this dogma as Fact, is massive, its as much product of the human imagination as the lord of the Rings, or Star trek.

I really cant understand how you can blindly accept all this as Concrete dogma,

[Milesian]

Ah...here we go again....:D



All this stuff about animals having a afterlife, whether god is responsible for the evil in the world, whether the angels administer actions on the earth was created by human beings speculating and arguing over the course of many many years,

Well, we are debating purely within the realms of Catholic theology here, not debating the reality of it all which in fairness has pretty much been done to death already.




it has to be conceded by you all that it is all pure fantasy,

As nothing can be proved or disproved, not have I seen anything which I would consider a vastly viable alternative, then I choose to keep an open mind rather than jumping to another conclusion which isn't concrete in any sense, namely that it is pure fanstasy and nothing more.


the product of Catholic Doctrine which has very little to do "Pure" christianity.

What is "pure" Christianity and how does it differ from Catholic doctrine?


The huge leap of faith you make in accepting this dogma as Fact, is massive, its as much product of the human imagination as the lord of the Rings, or Star trek.

A similar leap of faith is made by people who accept other explanations.



I really cant understand how you can blindly accept all this as Concrete dogma,

I must admit, I would be hard pressed to blindly accept anything

As we have all discussed before, some people believe without incontrovertible proof for their stance in the same way that others dismiss it with a lack of similar proof for their position.

It's all a question of faith afterall.

It's very frustrating not being in possession of that scientific article now which basically made the statement that at their most fundamental levels, science and religion to not disagree at all.

[green nationalist]

Ah...here we go again....:D

Well, we are debating purely within the realms of Catholic theology here, not debating the reality of it all which in fairness has pretty much been done to death already.


Fair enough





As nothing can be proved or disproved, not have I seen anything which I would consider a vastly viable alternative, then I choose to keep an open mind rather than jumping to another conclusion which isn't concrete in any sense, namely that it is pure fanstasy and nothing more.


You dont have a open mind, you accept catholicism as the be all and end all, even though its a mythology fabricated by human beings. its no more valid than Islam, Judaism or Odinism or anything for that matter.



What is "pure" Christianity and how does it differ from Catholic doctrine?


From our numerous discussions, rants and debates over this highly irritating issue, you ( well not you, puskin and ITP ) have many times rejected any links between European Catholocism and Hebrew Christianity.
The catholics here seem to reject anything that was not contrived by Theologians speculating about the nature of creation. Any real "Christian" message that Christ delivard to his Jewish buddies has been hijacked and tailored to suit European needs and a decidely anti semitic agenda. Not that theres anything wrong with anti semitism, its just that catholics have taken what they like and discarded what they dont like.

Enter into any debate with pushkin and he quotes theologians and greeks, never Jesus himself.




A similar leap of faith is made by people who accept other explanations.



Not really, your leap is bigger than mine.



I must admit, I would be hard pressed to blindly accept anything



To be honest, you have allready blindy accepted Catholic Dogma



As we have all discussed before, some people believe without incontrovertible proof for their stance in the same way that others dismiss it with a lack of similar proof for their position.

It's all a question of faith afterall.


Is it just me or is this going in circles?



It's very frustrating not being in possession of that scientific article now which basically made the statement that at their most fundamental levels, science and religion to not disagree at all.

yeah Id like to see that too.