Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

Religion can easily be wrong. Religious fundamentalism is always wrong (I don't say all religion is fundamentalist!) The moral behind is most of the time right (you won't find anyone who disapproves tolerance, charity, ...).

i don't have enough time to read everything what is written here, but it seems to me that is the first time that you write something and you are totally wright ;)

off course i must add only one thing: every fundamentalism is always wrong.

When I see a catholic person advocate against abortion, even if the mother is raped or when the child is so deformed it would never be able to survive, I cannot but say that is wrong.

do you think we should kill every man who is deformed?


A child is not a child until it is born. Even if you personally disagree with this notion, this is how I meant it. You shall have to read my post with the clear distinction between 'child' and 'unborn fruit' in mind.

i don't understand why you write in the part quoted above: "When I see a catholic person advocate against abortion, even (...) the child is so deformed".

so is he child or is he not???

do you think we should kill every man who is deformed?

I think he should be able to make a decision about his life :)
And what Schepel meant, was the kind of deformation that would make the children die soon after birth.

do you think we should kill every man who is deformed?

Of course not. There are however plenty deformations which make survival after birth impossible. Why endanger the mother with the birth in such a case?

so is he child or is he not???


Ouch. My mistake. No, it is not a child. Not yet, at least.

I think he should be able to make a decision about his life :)

and if he's not able to make decision about his life we (somebody) should kill him?

And what Schepel meant, was the kind of deformation that would make the children die soon after birth.

if the child anyhow would die soon after birth (here i must ask who can be 100% sure to make such prognosis!?), why to kill him already before his birth?

The second one is simple. If the birth endangers the mother.

Ouch. My mistake. No, it is not a child. Not yet, at least.

i agree. but why is it important to call it child? being human embryo is one of necessary stages for a becoming one human being.

But from where on would you call an embryo human?
(edited)

The second one is simple. If the birth endangers the mother.

it is interesting for me that the same thing says catholic church.

if the child anyhow would die soon after birth (here i must ask who can be 100% sure to make such prognosis!?),

Any proper docter worth his salt.

why to kill him already before his birth?

Giving birth is dangerous and highly painful. Plus, it's emotionally incredibly hard to give birth to something which is not viable.

Not until very recently, mind.

On second note: sometimes the women has to give birth, even though the baby is allready dead. As the only other option is an operation, which is not good for the uterus

Neither are abortions in all honesty, and I do not agree with 18yos using abortion as a contraceptive.

Any proper docter worth his salt.

off course not.


Giving birth is dangerous and highly painful. Plus, it's emotionally incredibly hard to give birth to something which is not viable.

we should eliminate everything what is dangerous and highly painfull.

and off course we should employ planty of butchers to do this job.

And what about the people that want to do abortion, because they have heard that their child will be born with a deficit?

But from where on would you call an embryo human?

offcourse from the moment you are sure that from the embryo will not occur penguin or oak tree or tv box ;)