From the BBC:
The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating money to Amnesty International, accusing the human rights group of promoting abortion.
The Vatican also said it was suspending all financial aid to Amnesty over what it said was the group's recent change of policy on the issue.
Amnesty said it was not promoting abortion as a universal right.
But the group said that women had a right to choose, particularly in cases of rape or incest.
"No more financing of Amnesty International after the organisation's pro-abortion about-turn," said a statement from the Roman Catholic Church's Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace.
It always pleasures me greatly to see a multi-billion enterprise (like the Vatican) with extensive paedophile networks (pove me wrong...) wagging the finger of contempt at a non-profit organisation which is hell-bent on trying to secure better rights for us all.
Most of the Catholics I know are pro-abortion, I obviously don't live in Spain or Italy though (and don't really know what their take is, but after seeing the Italians demonstrate like Poles in a nazi ralley against gays, I wouldn't be suprised), but I hope the vatican's call falls on deaf ears.
What with catholic, moslim, jewish and right-wing christian fundamentalists running amock everywhere, I have the distinct feeling that a world wide nuclear war or disaster is needed to clean the slate.
Perhaps a great flood, but preferably a big bang.
I guess I'm a little like God myself. I can only stand humans up to a certain degree before that I feel they need a lesson teaching.
Originally posted by shavixmir From the BBC:
The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating money to Amnesty International, accusing the human rights group of promoting abortion.
The Vatican also said it was suspending all financial aid to Amnesty over what it said was the group's recent change of policy on the issue.
Amnesty said it was not promoting abortion as a univ ...[text shortened]... ]... ly stand humans up to a certain degree before that I feel they need a lesson teaching.
with extensive paedophile networks (pove me wrong...)
I don't have to. You're the one making the assertion, the burden is on you to prove you're right.
Otherwise it's a bit like the theist who says, "God exists; prove me wrong".
a non-profit organisation which is hell-bent on trying to secure better rights for us all.
Except those of us who aren't older than 30 weeks or so.
Originally posted by SwissGambit Why don't we celebrate birthdays on the anniversary of conception? My first birthday should have been three months after I popped out.
Originally posted by SwissGambit Why don't we celebrate birthdays on the anniversary of conception? My first birthday should have been three months after I popped out.
Why not celebrate a conception day and a birth day! 🙂
Your parents might like the idea of celebrating the conception day though to celebrate it publicly might be a bit embarrassing.
Originally posted by AThousandYoung Because you weren't born when you were conceived.
Thank you, Mr. Obvious. So if I claimed that a pro-choice stance denies rights to those who aren't yet 30 weeks old, it would sound kind of silly, right?
Originally posted by shavixmir From the BBC:
The Vatican has urged all Catholics to stop donating money to Amnesty International, accusing the human rights group of promoting abortion.
The Vatican also said it was suspending all financial aid to Amnesty over what it said was the group's recent change of policy on the issue.
Amnesty said it was not promoting abortion as a univ ly stand humans up to a certain degree before that I feel they need a lesson teaching.
Well, it certainly is too bad that Catholicism is so egregiously wrong on this issue. But why can't the RCC and Amnesty Int. agree on a way for donations to be earmarked for spending such that the RCC could be assured that their donations would only go to programs consistent with ethical views? It seems short-sighted for neither organization to allow for such a compromise.
Originally posted by bbarr Well, it certainly is too bad that Catholicism is so egregiously wrong on this issue. But why can't the RCC and Amnesty Int. agree on a way for donations to be earmarked for spending such that the RCC could be assured that their donations would only go to programs consistent with ethical views? It seems short-sighted for neither organization to allow for such a compromise.
Would such a solution work for you if the charity had, say, a fund to promote the killing of blacks?
Originally posted by lucifershammer Would such a solution work for you if the charity had, say, a fund to promote the killing of blacks?
Of course not. Do you think that a woman who seeks an abortion ought to be subjected to the same legal sanction as one who seeks to kill a black man? Should, say, she and the Dr. be charged with conspiracy to commit murder?
Originally posted by bbarr Well, it certainly is too bad that Catholicism is so egregiously wrong on this issue. But why can't the RCC and Amnesty Int. agree on a way for donations to be earmarked for spending such that the RCC could be assured that their donations would only go to programs consistent with ethical views? It seems short-sighted for neither organization to allow for such a compromise.
Isn't that effectively what they are doing when they say that money should be given to charities other than Amnesty Int.? Also one of their main motives is to try to persuade Amnesty Int. to change their policy so the greater the impact the better. Also it would be difficult to set up a system whereby all donations where checked to see if they came from Catholics and even if that were possible the end result is that some funds from other sources which were formerly used for other programs then get channeled into the abortion related programs thus resulting in no actual change whereas if Catholic funding is withdrawn totally it impacts all programs including the abortion program.
Originally posted by bbarr Of course not. Do you think that a woman who seeks an abortion ought to be subjected to the same legal sanction as one who seeks to kill a black man? Should, say, she and the Dr. be charged with conspiracy to commit murder?
He has a good point. The sanction is not a legal one but a moral one and it is not important whether they are of the same level. He is pointing out that if you fund a charity that is doing something you disagree with for whatever reason you appear to be hypocritical.
Why would you not fund a charity that has a program that seeks to kill black people? Why would you not simply ask them to not use your funds for that program.
[edit] note that I am pro choice myself but I think the Catholic church has a right to decide what it supports.
Originally posted by twhitehead Isn't that effectively what they are doing when they say that money should be given to charities other than Amnesty Int.? Also one of their main motives is to try to persuade Amnesty Int. to change their policy so the greater the impact the better. Also it would be difficult to set up a system whereby all donations where checked to see if they came from C ...[text shortened]... f Catholic funding is withdrawn totally it impacts all programs including the abortion program.
I'm not saying that the RCC has any sort of obligation to give money to AI rather than some other charity. The RCC can perfectly well fulfill their obligations to give by giving to charities that meet whatever ethical standards they endorse. But if there are pressing global concerns that only AI addresses, or that AI addresses better than other charities, then it seems perverse to deny aid to these programs because AI thinks women who have been raped should have access to abortions. Nowhere in my post did I advocate a general system whereby all donations to AI could be earmarked. There is no reason why a charity and a large donor can't work out a bilateral agreement concerning earmarks.
Originally posted by bbarr Of course not. Do you think that a woman who seeks an abortion ought to be subjected to the same legal sanction as one who seeks to kill a black man? Should, say, she and the Dr. be charged with conspiracy to commit murder?
If the legal system adequately factors in such criteria as deliberation, mental state, compulsion, other relevant circumstantial factors etc. -- then yes.
Originally posted by bbarr There is no reason why a charity and a large donor can't work out a bilateral agreement concerning earmarks.
If the charity supports causes that go against some of the most fundamental values of the donor, then it would be hypocritical (immoral, even) for the donor to enter into any such agreement.
Vatican accuses Amnesty of immorality
14 Jun '07 05:18
Back to Top