1 posted on
11/12/2006 6:06:36 AM PST by
NYer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
To: Lady In Blue; Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...
Catholic Ping List Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list
2 posted on
11/12/2006 6:07:22 AM PST by
NYer
(Apart from the cross, there is no other ladder by which we may get to Heaven. St. Rose of Lima)
To: Huber; sionnsar
3 posted on
11/12/2006 6:08:22 AM PST by
NYer
(Apart from the cross, there is no other ladder by which we may get to Heaven. St. Rose of Lima)
To: cpforlife.org; scripter
4 posted on
11/12/2006 6:09:01 AM PST by
NYer
(Apart from the cross, there is no other ladder by which we may get to Heaven. St. Rose of Lima)
To: NYer
The church has eloquently stated its non-position.
The Equivocation award goes to the Bishop.
7 posted on
11/12/2006 6:15:27 AM PST by
claptrap
(optional tag-line under reconsideration)
To: NYer
If they now endorse abortion, how does the Church feel about Sharia Law?
LLS
8 posted on
11/12/2006 6:19:05 AM PST by
LibLieSlayer
(Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
To: NYer
The Church of England believes doctors should be given the right to withhold treatment from some seriously disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances, The Observer reported. Like if they had an ugly mother? Who determines what this horrible disability is?
To: NYer
The Church of England believes doctors should be given the right to withhold treatment from some seriously disabled newborn babies in exceptional circumstances, The Observer reported.
Wow!
I'm shocked --- I never knew Josef Mengele had children.
Oh well, ya learn something knew everyday.
10 posted on
11/12/2006 6:24:42 AM PST by
Condor51
("Alot" is NOT a word and doesn't mean "many". It is 'a lot', two separate words.)
To: NYer
This is a very tangled issue. I am a militantly pro life doctor. I see babies delivered now at 23 weeks gestational age, often due to cocaine use by the mother. The normal "term" pregnancy is 40 weeks. many of these babies have life threatening abnormalities. They all have severely underdeveloped organs and have little chance of survival. Many are kept alive for months in intensive care and some who do survive are institutionalized for life. I believe that every life is priceless. However, the cost of this care is ENORMOUS. Of course the mother has no insurance. We believe in lower taxes right? We oppose socialized medicine right? What do we do?
I say we care for them. But believe me, this is a big problem.
To: NYer
The Bishop of Southwark, Tom Butler, was said to have written that "it may in some circumstances be right to choose to withhold or withdraw treatment, knowing it will possibly, probably, or even certainly result in death". How much longer before simply tossing a newborn in the garbage is considered an acceptable form of abortion? After all, no baby is capable of sustaining its own life, and mere inaction is enough to result in the infant's death.
15 posted on
11/12/2006 6:29:37 AM PST by
cf_river_rat
(Just another defender of the faith)
To: NYer
16 posted on
11/12/2006 6:29:51 AM PST by
Jaded
("I have a mustard- seed; and I am not afraid to use it."- Joseph Ratzinger)
To: NYer
If the Anglicans had half a brain, they would be in Rome on their knees begging the Pope to take them back. "Bless me father for I have sinned...."
17 posted on
11/12/2006 6:31:04 AM PST by
BW2221
To: NYer
Sounds like they wish to worship at the alter of Satan.
27 posted on
11/12/2006 6:52:34 AM PST by
big'ol_freeper
(It looks like one of those days when one nuke is just not enough-- Lt. Col. Mitchell, SG-1)
To: NYer
Is this from the church adopted by Henry VIII, murderer and divorcer of inconvenient wives?
Not much of a surprise that the logical extension of abortion-on-demand is coming within grasp: the value of life is in the convenience of the beholder.
30 posted on
11/12/2006 7:00:07 AM PST by
Ghost of Philip Marlowe
(Liberals are blind. They are the dupes of Leftists who know exactly what they're doing.)
To: NYer
Is it any wonder Thomas Jefferson loathed the Anglican hierarchy.
34 posted on
11/12/2006 7:04:47 AM PST by
jla
To: NYer
When did the Anglicans ordain NAZIs?
36 posted on
11/12/2006 7:09:50 AM PST by
Thumper1960
(Unleash the Dogs of War as a Minority, or perish as a party.)
To: NYer
The Church Of England has been taken over by pagans. Its Christian ethic is gone - snuffed out like the flame of a candle.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus
42 posted on
11/12/2006 7:25:23 AM PST by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
To: NYer
This is dangerous. It will lead to the Power of the State to make the determination.
43 posted on
11/12/2006 7:29:34 AM PST by
Sacajaweau
(God Bless Our Troops!!)
To: NYer
Couple of observations:
These things used to be handled in quiet conversations between the family and the doctor. No more. Now the Anglican church wants such extremely delicate matters brought out into the open. It isn't enough that you or I grant other people the freedom to make decisions we might not agree with within the context of their own family - decisions we consider ourselves fortunate not to have to face. As long as they remain private they are between you and God - and He is distressingly silent on questions of social justice, progressive taxation, globalization, the war in Iraq and so on. No, God isn't much help these days. So it must no longer be a matter between you and God, it must become a matter between you and the medical profession and/or the state. God is thus removed from the question.
People, particularly young people, crave absolutes. If they don't find them in the Anglican church - and there's no question of that happening any more - they will look for them elsewhere. Such as in shari'a.
To: NYer
This is a tougher issue than a lot of folks on here want to make it. I'm not even sure of what to make of it and I am militantly anti-abortion. In some cases where the child is in horrible pain and will never be able to escape the pain or function I don't know if it isn't more compassionate to end what we know to be hopeless treatment. Certainly we often times will remove older patients from life support if their cases are without great hope and they are in great pain. Whats the difference?
To: NYer
53 posted on
11/12/2006 8:15:36 AM PST by
Bigh4u2
(Denial is the first requirement to be a liberal)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-36 next last
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson