UN Child Rights Panel Defends Children and Girls—Throws Down Gauntlet to Holy See


In a scathing report released Wednesday on the Holy See’s adherence to the principles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, an aggressive United Nations committee knocked the Holy See off the high ground.

Stunning in its frankness and scope, the report began with the unequivocal rejection of the Holy See’s specious claim that while the Vatican City has a hallowed place in the international community (for example, as a non-member permanent observer at the UN), it is utterly impotent over the workings of the millions of institutions worldwide operating in the Catholic Church’s name.

Recognizing that subordinates of Catholic religious orders are, by canon law, “bound by obedience to the Pope,” the committee rejected the Holy See’s claim of impotence. By ratifying the convention, the committee contended, the Holy See committed itself to implementing the convention “not only on the territory of the Vatican City State but also as the supreme power of the Catholic Church through individuals and institutions placed under its authority.”

The report left no doubt about the committee’s lack of faith in the Holy See’s efforts so far to come to terms with the decades-long epidemic of child sex abuse by Catholic clerics worldwide. “The Holy See has not acknowledged the extent of the crimes committed, has not taken the necessary measures to address cases of child sexual abuse and to protect children, and has adopted policies and practices which have led to the continuation of the abuse by and the impunity of the perpetrators,” wrote the committee.

Its recommendations were unequivocal: immediate removal of all known and suspected child sexual abusers; referral of cases to law enforcement; sharing archives that can be used to hold abusers, enablers, and concealers accountable; amending canon law to make child sexual abuse an actual crime; establishing rules for mandatory reporting; providing justice, healing, and compensation to victims; and fighting to extend statutes of limitations on child sex abuse instead of lobbying against them.

But the UN panel did not stop there. It refused to cede the moral high ground, to stop at the doctrinal door. It unflinchingly called the Holy See to account not only for failing to protect the rights of children sexually abused by priests, but for egregiously failing to recognize, much less protect, the health and rights of girls. One by one, it tackled issues in the context of global justice, not religious teachings.

Taking another skeleton out of the clerical closet, the committee advocated that the Holy See “assess the number of children born of Catholic priests, find out who they are and take all the necessary measures to ensure the rights of these children to know and to be cared for by their fathers, as appropriate.”  The committee also argued for putting an end to the despicable bargain many mothers seeking child support had to strike with the church—signing a confidentiality agreement in exchange for financial help.

The committee expressed “deepest concern” over the church’s treatment of a 9-year-old girl in Brazil who was raped by her step-father and then had a life-saving abortion. Her abortion brought on the excommunication of her mother and the doctor who performed the procedure, a sanction, the committee noted, “later approved by the head of the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation of Bishops.”

Recognizing the enormous risks to women’s health and lives worldwide as a result of the church’s Ethical and Religious Directives for its health-care facilities, which forbid direct abortion under any conditions at all, the committee urged the Holy See “to review its position on abortion and … amend Canon 1398 relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services can be permitted.”

The committee zeroed in on “the negative consequences of the Holy See’s position and practices of denying adolescents access to contraception, as well as to sexual and reproductive health and information.” Among those consequences they listed are early and unwanted pregnancies, high morbidity and mortality for adolescent girls from clandestine abortions, and increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and HIV and AIDS.

In a tone rarely if ever directed at members of the Catholic hierarchy in polite conversation, the committee made a host of eye-popping recommendations. It advised the Holy See to overcome “barriers and taboos” surrounding adolescent sexuality that impede access to sexual and reproductive health information, contraceptives, and means to prevent HIV and STDs; guarantee consideration of the “best interest of pregnant teenagers”; and, most boldly, ensure that adolescent “sexual and reproductive health education be part of the mandatory curriculum of Catholic schools … with special attention to preventing early pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.”

Relentlessly pressing on, the committee advocated for accountability, justice, and redress for the young girls who suffered “inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment as well as physical and sexual abuse” in the notorious Catholic-run Magdalene Laundries in Ireland and similar institutions in other locations. It raised the issue of “the devastating impact of domestic violence on children,” violence that “often has a gender component.” While commending the Holy See for committing “to promoting the dignity of women and girls,” it chastised them for failing, at the 2013 Commission on the Status of Women, to support a document proposing that “religion, custom or tradition should not serve as an excuse for states to evade their obligations to protect women and girls from violence.”

The report represents a shocking rebuke of the Catholic hierarchy’s internal machinations and its application of its doctrinal system to a secular world. Not surprisingly, it almost instantly engendered an outcry of “anti-Catholic” accusations. In its terse reply issued right after the report came out, the Holy See voiced “regret to see in some points of the Concluding Observations an attempt to interfere with Catholic Church teaching on the dignity of the human person and in the exercise of religious freedom.” Furthermore, it said, “the Holy See reiterates its commitment to defending and protecting the rights of the child, in line with the principles promoted by the Convention on the Rights of the Child and according to the moral and religious values offered by Catholic doctrine.”

And therein lies the rub. This is an institution that has succeeded for centuries in straddling the line between secular and spiritual. Today, it regularly shifts sides to suit its purposes—to the secular side, claiming its seat at the UN, when it wants to exercise power on the world stage; to the spiritual side, claiming religious freedom, when it doesn’t want to abide by the world’s civil laws, criminal laws, or international norms.

In a sense, with this report, the UN Committee on the Rights of Children threw down a gauntlet. It has called the Catholic Church on its dual identity and asked it to choose. Some will think that’s unfair. I don’t. Any church can hold any beliefs it chooses, preach those beliefs to its followers, while remaining subject to civil and criminal laws. But no church should be able to hold itself out as also being a sovereign state that is above the law, with the divine right to impose its doctrines and dogmas on everyone.

The UN committee blew the whistle. It’s loud. It’s ear-piercing. And it’s about time.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

  • Defamate

    Yay!

  • DavidPun

    I don’t particularly like the RCC, but the UN???? Really. These scumbags are under investigation for sending in troops to various international problem zones and they routinely abuse a staggering percentage of the vulnerable female victims of these wars and these events have been systematically covered up at the highest level of the UN. If you don’t believe me, go Google it and you’ll see for yourself. This is not a defense of the Church. It is simply saying that you will not improve matters by putting a vampire in charge of blood bank. Total f***ng hypocrisy!!! RH reality Check??? I don’t think you know what reality is!!!

    • HeilMary1

      At least the UN supports reproductive rights for women, gays and children so that rescued trafficking victims can do damage control. The RCC gets away with criminally stomping on all damage control. Get a clue.

      • DavidPun

        Look. Everyone has their views on reproductive rights. I’m not an expert on the RCC and i’m fairly sure I don’t agree with much of what they say, but I can assure you of one thing …just because I don’t agree with the RCC does not mean that I buy into the other side of the argument. In some arguments, both sides are wrong, and when we systematically put a woman’s reproductive rights above the value of a human life then I just don’t but that!

        • Defamate

          When should a woman’s rights be put above that of a single celled organism? If at all?

          • DavidPun

            Here is my opinion on this for what its worth. I don’t believe religion should be anywhere near the core of our society. While I don’t deny religion has done some good things, it has also done its share of evil. But we have to have some moral values at the foundation of our society. To me there is only one core value that all the other important values are based on and it is the value of human life, of the human individual. Women’s rights are very important, but they are not absolute, and the one occasion any rational person will see where they may conflict with a more fundamental value is when there is a moral conflict between the right to life and a woman’s rights.
            Regarding a foetus. Again, we have to be rational. A foetus, assuming it is healthy, is a human being by any scientific standards that I am aware of. It is simply at an early stage of its development . However,there some reasonable boundaries. At 20 weeks for example, there is no doubt in my mind that we are dealing with a human life and its life must respected which means that another human being cannot simply choose to end its life. Of course if a mother’s life is at risk due to the pregnancy, that is a moral case of one life versus another and on any moral scale I can ever think of, the mother’s life has priority. For a church to prevent a doctor performing an abortion to save a mother’s life is not just wrong in my view. It is an inversion of moral values and therefore an evil.
            For the very early foetus…single celled stage…again as a scientist, there is no doubt in my mind. Although that cell has its full complement of DNA and if all goes well, it will develop into complete human being, it still has not reached the point where it has achieved its full complement of things that qualify it as a human person. It doesn’t have a brain for example. So I have no argument with you there. Personally, I wouldn’t take your attitude and view it as if it is an undesirable wart on the womb of the all-powerful goddess.
            While I accept that a woman’s reproductive rights are a very fundamental thing in our society, they are not and cannot be placed as the most basic moral value in our society and at the end of the day have to be placed below the value of human life itself. I believe in the basic values of our Constitution, but I would not put my right to free speech above another persons right to life.

          • Defamate

            If you believe that women have abortions just because they view zygotes as “warts” then you are sorely mistaken. 47, 000 women died last year from illegal and unsafe abortion – because they would rather risk death than be treated like livestock.

            The right to life is not absolute. And you seem to think that the potential for DNA to develop into a person overrides a woman’s right to self determination. No wonder you defend the RCC.

            What kind of scientist are you btw?

          • DavidPun

            I am a physicist actually, but WAS working on a means for extracting identifiable unique strands of DNA from a Chromosome…not just the CODIS approach, but continuous segments. I hate to say it but the work is now being discussed as the basis for development of a weapon. Thats actually the thing that has prompted me to start thinking about these issues of the value and meaning of human life etc, because this technology is really VERY scary and I think historically scientists, particularly physicists have shown themselves to be morally vacuous and many of them have abandoned any basis of broader moral values. They will quite happily design the next, better nuclear weapon if they get their next round of funding. I was struggling with how a scientist who genuinely bases his whole life on rationality can possibly even have moral values. That is what has led me to some of these discussions. I don’t have all the answers, but nor am I the type of person who tolerates being told to shut up and go away and unfortunately that’s what usually happens on these sites when someone has the nerve to oppose the pro women’s rights advocates.

            “7, 000 women died last year from illegal and unsafe abortion – because they would rather risk death than be treated like livestock.”

            You are so intent on mindlessly repeating your own little mantra that you are just not following this discussion. I stated 100% clearly that if the reason for an abortion is to save a woman’s life, then by the basic moral principles that I have laid out, if the health and life of a woman are an issue then OF COURSE she has a right to terminate the pregnancy. But if it is only the preferences of a woman that are stake, while I acknowledge that these are still very important, that cannot be used to justify killing someone.

            As regards supporting the RCC. You must be smoking something. The fact that we both share a respect for the value of human life does not mean I share their rationale for that. I agree with you that a woman has a right to self determination and has reproductive rights,but I don’t agree that permits her to kill another human being. But I don’t believe in souls or God breathing life into them either. Please don’t fall into the usual temptation that Americans seem to be prey to, namely that if person opposes one side of an argument therefore they must support the other. I am supporting a different argument.completely.

          • Defamate

            You are so intent on mindlessly repeating your own little mantra that
            you are just not following this discussion. I stated 100% clearly that
            if the reason for an abortion is to save a woman’s life, then by the
            basic moral principles that I have laid out, if the health and life of a
            woman are an issue then OF COURSE she has a right to terminate the
            pregnancy.

            There is NO such thing as a safe pregnancy. Pregnancy is not a state of health. Period. 47,000 women DIED because they chose unsafe/illegal abortion over giving birth. They didn’t do for those ‘selfish preferences’ you keep talking about.

            I agree with you that a woman has a right to self determination and has reproductive rights,but I don’t agree that permits her to kill another human being.

            Unless the woman is pregnant, of course, then she loses those rights. Rights that are afforded to everyone else…but pregnant women. In your world, women lose the right to bodily autonomy when they have sex. That sounds like discrimination to me.

            And the right to life does not trump all other rights, sorry. The right not to be tortured and assaulted trumps the right to life. Oh wait…if you’re a pregnant woman, the right not to be tortured and assaulted by the fetus comes *second* to it’s right to life! Again, you want to give rights to an embryo that born people don’t even have, and take away rights from women that you afford to everyone else!

            But hey, the well-being of women…pfft. That doesn’t really matter here. They just have the selfish ‘preference’ of putting their own health before that of a mindless embryo.

          • DavidPun

            “Unless the woman is pregnant, of course, then she loses those rights. ”
            No she does not lose rights. The issue is that the picture now becomes more complex because another human being has entered into the equation. Its no longer just the woman. If it was, you be 100% correct. But it isn’t. But you refusal to recognize what is a blatantly obvious and simple scientific FACT is really remarkable to me. As a citizen of the US I have many rights enshrined in the Constitution, but I absolutely do not have the right to kill another human being unless in self defense. That is basic and simple, and you are trashing that value. If the issue is to what degree a foetus can be considered a full person rather than a simple organism then that is a perfectly valid discussion, but you are riding roughshod over that, telling everyone that woman’s rights trump all…maybe you are not… but some of the others on this board are.

          • expect_resistance

            Women have a constitutional right to abortion. Yes, a woman’s rights trump those of a zygote, embryo, fetus. If you don’t like that too bad because that is reality.

          • Defamate

            The issue is that the picture now becomes more complex because another
            human being has entered into the equation. Its no longer just the woman.
            If it was, you be 100% correct. But it isn’t. But you refusal to
            recognize what is a blatantly obvious and simple scientific FACT is
            really remarkable to me.

            It’s a fact that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human organism. It is NOT a fact that it is PERSON/HUMAN BEING with equal rights to that of the woman just because it happens to be a member of the human species.

            As a citizen of the US I have many rights enshrined in the
            Constitution, but I absolutely do not have the right to kill another
            human being unless in self defense.

            Abortion IS self-defense. If the assaults that a ZEF commits upon a woman were committed by one person upon another, the victim would be within their rights to evict the person committing those assaults – even IF the attacker died in the process.

            And ZEF’s have never been considered natural persons as far as the US Constitution is concerned. They Constitutution is for born people. Perhaps the founding fathers were Nazis? eh?

            If the issue is to what degree a foetus can be considered a full person rather than a simple organism then that is a perfectly valid discussion, but you are riding roughshod over that, telling everyone that woman’s rights trump all…maybe you are not… but some of the others on this board are.

            And you came in here, guns blazing, saying that at all stages a ZEF is a human being, and that a woman’s reproductive rights should most definitely *not* trump the life of another ‘human being’.

          • expect_resistance

            He is so full of sheeeet.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            “bases his whole life on rationality can possibly even have moral values.”
            ………..
            Basing your life on rationality is a “moral” value. Do not discuss shyte you have no clue about. It is tiresome.

          • DavidPun

            “Basing your life on rationality is a “moral” value.”
            No its not. If I say 1+1 =2 or the Universe began with the Big Bang, how exactly is that “Moral” ??

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            When you assert “rationality is good and worth striving for,” you have expressed one of your moral values.
            ……………….
            What are moral values?
            Moral values are the standards of good and evil, which govern an individual’s behavior and choices. Individual’s morals may derive from society and government, religion, or self. – See more at: http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/moral-values-faq.htm#sthash.Aft6eYwZ.dpuf

          • DavidPun

            Where did I say rationality was “good and worth striving for” . I believe that to be true, but that is a moral position based on completely different principles. I could also say being kind is good and worth striving for, being honest is good and worth striving for etc etc. Actually being rational is distinct from whether being rational is good or bad. You need to think about what you are saying and see the subtle distinctions at work here because they are important. I know many scientists who, if I asked them what was important about a nuclear reaction, they would ask me whether it was fission or fusion I was talking about. If I ask a non-scientist they might ask me whether it sustainable energy, a medical process or a weapon. These are very different perspectives, yet the same phenomenon behind it. One reflects the operation of the mind in its rational mode, the other reflects the operation of the mind in mode seeing value and significance. They are of course not totally separate but they quite distinct.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Where did I say rationality was “good and worth striving for” . I believe that to be true, but that is a moral position based on completely different principles.
            ………..
            You said above it was not a moral principle. Are you posting while drinking or drugging?

          • DavidPun

            What are Moral values? They are much deeper than just standards of good and evil. Every living organism is an integration of two different sides. In animals we can call it perception and instinctive reaction. An antelope perceives a lion, the antelope runs like h$ll. Evolution has created us this way to survive. Perception and Response. Human beings take it one step further. We have the ability of abstract thought but the objective side of Conception/Knowledge is paired with the response side which in this case is values/significance or whatever words you want to use and in some contexts that emerges as morals sometime other values, but their primary role is to convert the abstract stuff in our heads into response and action. That is what evolution demands. If we do not respond, then the selection process cannot work and as in the case of the antelope, will probably remove us from the gene pool.

          • expect_resistance

            Yes, let’s talk about morality and the immorality of the RCC from the report.

            The committee zeroed in on “the negative consequences of the Holy See’s position and practices of denying adolescents access to contraception, as well as to sexual and reproductive health and information.” Among those consequences they listed are early and unwanted pregnancies, high morbidity and mortality for adolescent girls from clandestine abortions, and increased risk of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and HIV and AIDS.

          • DavidPun

            Again, I am not trying to support the views of the Vatican on anything. Why do you keep bringing this trash up…. because I tried to say that there was value to human life? All these things you list are complex and difficult issues. As a scientist, I support trying to understand the root causes and dealing with them in a rational and respectful respectful manner. From what involvement I have had in these areas I see pros and cons of both sides. On the one hand the UN has been accused by the CDC of actually spreading HIV/AIDS Central Africa by its reckless position on condoms which have increased the rate of promiscuous sex and the Church has been condemned for reckless naivete in thinking that just saying no has even the remotest chance of success. The position of the CDC is much more rational. They recognize that what is needed in Central Africa is a balance between a change of behavior which primarily means encouragement of monogamous relationships and a carefully controlled introduction of contraception and safe sex practices within the bounds of more disciplined sexual behavior. AIDS was spread in that country like wildfire because some African men were habitually having sex with literally hundreds of women. These individuals had no intention of using condoms because they wanted to impregnate the women. But the UN was pushing condoms for ideological reasons and all they did was a cause a more widespread practice of sexual promiscuity in these countries. The UN were actually boasting that although condom use in Africa was less reliable than elsewhere, it was still 60% successful. Surely you don’t have to be a scientist to understand what was going to happen there.

          • expect_resistance

            David “Again, I am not trying to support the views of the Vatican on anything. Why do you keep bringing this trash up…. because I tried to say that there was value to human life?”

            The article is about the RCC that’s why I’m bringing it up.

            David: All these things you list are complex and difficult issues. As a scientist, I support trying to understand the root causes and dealing with them in a rational and respectful respectful manner.

            In a “respectful respectful manner.” I doubt your sincerity.

            David: “Surely you don’t have to be a scientist to understand what was going to happen there.”

            I agree that I don’t need to be a scientist to understand what’s going on.

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            David: “Surely you don’t have to be a scientist to understand what was going to happen there.”

            I like the subtle argument from authority.

          • expect_resistance

            Do you think you could post on an anti-choice site with that name? I would love to see that. I’m just imagining the reaction the antis would have.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You say you’re not here to support the views of the Vatican and yet that sounds exactly like what you are doing.

          • five_by_five

            And you sound like a Kermit Gosnell supporter.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Wow, little girl–you’re really trolling hard to get attention, aren’t you? Must be hard trying to compete with David.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Oh look, 5×5 made a poo poo. Now if we can only get it to make a poo poo somewhere other than the parlor rug.

          • five_by_five

            Are you one of those types that think abortion should be legal all the way up to 40 weeks because “it’s my body, my choice?”

            Because I’ve met some of those types. They are the people who solicit and support people like Kermit Gosnell. You seem like one of those types.

          • goatini

            But since RHRC has been covering the case of criminal Gosnell since 2010, you would be full of BS, as usual.

          • five_by_five

            I’m sorry. Did I claim that RHRC hasn’t been reporting about Gosnell?

            No, I didn’t. So what are you mad about?

          • Jennifer Starr

            Will probably never be housebroken….

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Well, we will do our best to point to the stink and mess and laugh at the dirty thing. I love doing that so it is all good.

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            I have a picture of Kermit gosnell on my wall. Next to the golden crucifix.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I have a picture I keep under my pillow. I take it out and kiss it and burn candles in front of it. Oh Kermie, do me now!!!!!!!!

          • DavidPun

            NO NO NO NO. Proper birth control is absolutely essential in Central Africa. I totally uphold the need for proper contraception. The issue in central Africa is that the monumental level of promiscuous sexual activity is the root disease vector. Simply handing out condoms just won’t cut it and has made things significantly worse. It needs a full program of sex education, proper health care, funding for AIDS vaccines, etc etc etc etc.
            Telling people that using a condom is safe because it has a 60 % reliability rate is just outrageous. You have an 83% chance of surviving a game of Russian Roulette on the first shot!

          • P. McCoy

            Hey, ever hear about Fort Dietrich. Did it every occur to you that scientists created HIV AIDS to get rid of Africans and Gays. Many African cultures practice polygamy, they’re not all rotting baboons as you would have it. At least they were not posing as celibate yet all the time raping women, youths, and children. A Catholic can be such a pretentious lot.

          • DavidPun

            Good grief. So they are wheeling out the big gun conspiracy theorists now.
            So let me keep track of this.
            1. Evil subversive Catholics.
            2. Evil scientists plotting to destroy Africans and Gays.
            3. A few hundred million deaths in Africa is just fine as long as we don’t pretend to be celibate or interfere with peoples sexual liberty.

          • P. McCoy

            I wish that Fort Dietrich WAS an urban legend but it’s not. Well, Mr, Scientist, have you heard of biological warfare. Bing it. Infecting Africans, and Gays was part of the plan to get rid of undesirable. It backfired. In addition, your disrespect for polygamous lifestyles shows your racism too. Let’s see, misogynist, racist, pretentious Catholic bigot. Hey, everyone want to bet that he considers Gays disordered as well.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Word salad. You are not smart enough to be posting here among these folks or about this topic.
            The paragraph you wrote is pathetic bombastic word salad.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            1 plus 1 equals 2 is not a “moral.”

          • expect_resistance

            Just because one is an expert in a scientific field doesn’t mean one has an interdisciplinary background in multiple fields. Technology misused for weaponry is not the same as a woman having an abortion or having agency over her body and her fertility. If you oppose a woman’s right to choose on a pro-choice website, yeh people will get a little ticked off at you.

          • DavidPun

            Agreed. But sometimes we have to step out of our comfort zone to address issues. And some issues are broader than just the specific area that prompted them. I may argue my position vehemently, but I don’t disrespect others rights to hold different opinions. Problems are solved in this world when people of very different opinions battle it out, but at least are willing to engage in debate. I suspect most religious people would not come here even if they were paid to because they fundamentally disrespect you.
            I don’t disrespect you. I disagree with you …quite deeply, but I also listen and learn in order to understand better what motivates you and why it is important.
            I know I am on a website that is guaranteed to be hostile to anyone opposing their core vision, but I have to say, most people have been perfectly respectful. I don’t ever consider a person strongly and vigorously upholding and defending their views to be disrespectful.

          • Defamate

            Indeed. You do disagree. You believe that women, and only women, do not have the right to bodily autonomy and self determination. And then you compare these women to Hitler for daring to ask to be treated as something more than mere broodmares.

          • expect_resistance

            Well said!

          • expect_resistance

            I doubt you are stepping out of your comfort zone. You sound like you’re suffering from “male privilege.” Oh, poor baby.

          • ansuz

            “I was struggling with how a scientist who genuinely bases his whole life on rationality can possibly even have moral values.”

            If you’re being honest here, go read Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality.
            Also, fix your pronouns. Unless I’m reading you correctly, you insinuated that every scientist who genuinely bases hir whole life on rationality is male. As a genderless person who does science for money and does hir absolute best to have rational beliefs, I take offence at that.

            “I stated 100% clearly that if the reason for an abortion is to save a woman’s life, then by the basic moral principles that I have laid out, if the health and life of a woman are an issue then OF COURSE she has a right to terminate the pregnancy. But if it is only the preferences of a woman that are stake, while I acknowledge that these are still very important, that cannot be used to justify killing someone.”

            Does ‘I would rather die than give birth (and am prepared to follow that up with action)’ count as health and life or as preferences? Because most pro-lifers I’ve spoken to have said that that counts as preferences, but your response to the quote made it seem like you feel that it falls under health and life.

          • Defamate

            And the ” goddess” quip was really stupid. Yeah David, women have abortions because they think that they are all powerful goddesses who put manis and pedis above the precious DNA inside them. Why must women be soooo shallow and selfish eh?

            Perhaps you really are an asshole, if you are going to mischatacterize family planning like that.

          • DavidPun

            I wasn’t directing the quip at women. I was directing it at YOU!

          • Defamate

            Yeah, because I wouldn’t stop talking about how women are precious goddesses who have the right to kill baybeez at every opportunity…right? (especially if they are late for a hair appointment)

          • DavidPun

            No . Because you wouldn’t stop talking….and listen to an opinion different from your own. That is not how I view women. That was a response to you who tried to trivialize an argument about the intrinsic moral value of human life to some ridiculous statement about women being killed over the presence of a single cell.
            I am not challenging women who make a traumatic decision to have an abortion for whatever reason. That is not a time for academic debates. Its their choice and their body and I respect that.
            I am challenging the people behind the scene who are trying rewrite the very definition of being a human being to suit their political and social ideology.

          • Defamate

            No . Because you wouldn’t stop talking….and listen to an opinion different from your own

            Really? I made one statement, which was in fact, a question, directed at YOU.

            And you had said this:

            DavidPun wrote:

            “I agree with you that a woman has a right to self determination and has reproductive rights,but I don’t agree that permits her to kill another human being.”

            And seeing as how you believe every zygote is a ‘human being’ simply because it has the full complement of human DNA then yes, it was a fair question to ask.

            You would appear to agree with the Vatican that a woman is of less value than a single celled organism.

          • expect_resistance

            David: “Because you wouldn’t stop talking….and listen to an opinion”

            This creeps me out because he sounds like a control freak.

          • DavidPun

            I’m not trying to control anyone. People will do what they do. But setting principles and moral values are not defined arbitrarily is not being a control freak.

          • expect_resistance

            Insisting that someone stop talking and listen to you Yeah, that’s manipulative behavior.

          • Jennifer Starr

            So you do respect the right of a woman to make decisions concerning her own pregnancy?

          • DavidPun

            Yes. But when another human being is involved that becomes a broader decision.

          • Defamate

            Which is a smarmy way of saying ” no”, women do not have the right to bodily autonomy, because human DNA is more valuable.

          • expect_resistance

            It’s a potential human being, not a human being. Do fetuses have personhood? No.

            There is a woman and an embryo or fetus. This does not equate two people. A woman has agency over her body and anything that resides in her body, like an embryo or fetus. She can remove the embryo or fetus. This is not up for debate.

          • goatini

            There is only ONE patient, ONE citizen, ONE person, and ONE entity with civil, human and Constitutional rights in a pregnancy – the living, breathing WOMAN.

          • expect_resistance

            “You wouldn’t stop talking.” You sound like a control freak. Why are you entitled to shove your opinion down her ears? You cannot force anyone to listen to you. If people don’t listen to you, you don’t have anything compelling to say.

            You play a good game trying to be smart, but you are contradicting yourself. You say, “I am not challenging women who make a traumatic decision to have an abortion for whatever reason. That is not a time for academic debates. Its their choice and their body and I respect that.” (Yeah, bullpucky you do)

            Just who are, “the people behind the scene who are trying to requite the very definition of being human being to …” Paranoid?

            Do you think there is a secret league of feminists scientists who are plotting to eliminate men from the planet via birth control and abortion? (Yes, sarcasm)

          • goatini

            “you wouldn’t stop talking”

            Typical Roman Catholic theocratic misogynist attempting to silence females, like the RCC has been doing for millennia.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh, I love that name :)

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            It’s a great non-sequitur. I will use it at random.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            “Human being” is a term from the social sciences. There is a fetus in the womb which, if it survives to and through birth, will become a neonate.
            We are discussing public healh. Use the appropriate terms.

          • DavidPun

            I think you will find that the term human being or some equivalent, existed long before the social sciences or other similar pseudo-sciences.
            In my world the term “human being” refers to an organism that has the full complement of human DNA. The rest is just the usual “social sciences BS. You like to define it your way. Hitler liked to define it his way. The Chinese Communist party defines it another way. The North Koreans don’t seem to think it even matters. In the US we define it our way. Your stuff is all subjective and has ultimately led to a lot of misery on the planet when people try to enforce a subjective standard on other people.

          • expect_resistance

            My fingernail clippings have DNA too.

            Scientifically a fetus is defined around week eight. Prior to that, it is an embryo. A fetus is a human life, a potential human, but not an independent human being. Hence, not a person. You keep arguing for fetal rights, but woman’s rights trump those of a fetus gestating in her body. She can make the determination to continue or discontinue a pregnancy.

          • DavidPun

            I am quite well aware of human biology….Ooops did I say Human biology? There are certain decisions about a foetus that are based on science and biology and there are other decisions based on social political and moral values. I’m not sure why you want to keep glossing over that.
            I do agree that there is a distinction between being a person and a human being. But most of that is arbitrary. We struggle with that distinction in a whole realm of areas, but my point is that it is a struggle. You can’t just arbitrarily say…oh its not really human …so its ok to kill it.

          • Defamate

            Human being and person are the same thing. This is obvious because we do not refer to rocks, or rabbits or radishes as ‘rock beings’ ‘rabbit beings’ or ‘radish beings’. We do not refer them to as ‘beings’ because we do not regard them as *persons*. A rabbit is a rabbit. A radish is a radish. A human is a human. A human *being* is something above and beyond all of this – a *person*.

            And I ask…what is a person? Can animals be people? How about future intelligent AI’s? Alien life forms?

          • expect_resistance

            I am a woman and intimately aware of my biology, first person. Nope, not glossing over anything despite your claim. Most of what you call “struggle” has already been determined hundreds of years ago. Women have and will strive to determine their fertility, and decide when and if to reproduce. Your “musings about morals values, blah, blah, blah” aren’t going to change anything other than to oppress women.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            “there are other decisions based on social political and moral values. I’m not sure why you want to keep glossing over that.”
            ………..
            What does any of that have to do with me getting an abortion if I want one?

          • colleen2

            As usual the religious right twists the argument. Nobody is saying that a human zygote is not human, what we are saying is that a human zygote is a zygote, not a ‘baby’, not a ‘person’.
            BY your ‘morality’ your should be required to donate at least one kidney or portion of a lung or liver to a human who needs it to live. That way even somebody with a penis can give the “gift of life”. Sure it will hurt but not nearly as much or for as long as a pregnancy and childbirth. That’s OK though. WE understand that men are weaker and less able to endure intense pain.

          • Defamate

            A hydaditiform mole has the full complement of human DNA.

            Terri Schiavo had the full complement of human DNA.

            No, there is much more to being a person than simply having human DNA.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I am not subjective. I am giving you the definition of the terms you are throwing around with such ignorance. “Human being” is not a medical or legal term. You are correct that it has no precise definiton and that is true because it is a philosophical social science term without a precise scientific or legal meaning.

          • fiona64


            In my world the term “human being” refers to an organism that has the full complement of human DNA.

            Well, then, in your world, tumors and hydatidform moles are “human beings.” Way to go.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Goddess? What the hell does that mean, exactly?

          • DavidPun

            A reference to the appointment of oneself as the arbiter of life or death over another human being.

          • Jennifer Starr

            I think that a woman who is actually pregnant should be the one to make decisions about that pregnancy. Unless you can be pregnant for her, who are you to assume that you can make her medical decisions?

          • DavidPun

            Agreed 100%. I would never do anything to distress a woman who was making that choice. She ultimately has a right to make it. But that doesn’t change the issue of whether this is a tragic situation because another human life is involved. This whole debate is not just about caring for pregnant women making traumatic decisions it is about a whole political, social and moral ideology by various activist groups. I’m really not so naive that I don’t see that. I’m on the other side of that debate.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            There is nothing to debate.
            I want an abortion.
            I get an abortion.
            Eeezy peezy.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Peddle shame and blame somewhere else.
            We all think you are a putz.
            I had to decide with my family to unhook my Dad from life support and allow him to die. We did so. We were the arbiter of his life and death. Many people have this experience these days. Mrs Munoz?

          • goatini

            Rights accrue to citizens at birth.

            And civil rights are NOT erased when a female US citizen becomes pregnant.

        • Jennifer Starr

          A woman’s life and rights should be placed above the potential life that is inside her uterus, and directly affecting her life and health in a variety of ways.

          • DavidPun

            No that is too broad. First, at least beyond a certain stage of development there is nothing “potential” about the life. Thats an arbitrary definition YOU are imposing on the foetus to justify your argument. It is like you agree that it is wrong to take human life and so you are redefining the issue so that killing a foetus is no longer taking human life. But that is arbitrary.
            There are plenty of people in the US who have taken that philosophy a lot further than the foetus. In the pre-WWII period a large part of the scientific community accepted eugenics which defined some human beings as lower value than others. The US science community actually flooded over to Germany to hear their mentor ..Hitler….expound his insightful theories on this. That was one of the first major moves towards legally justifying abortion in the US. The elimination of the genetically inferior before they burdened us with their birth.
            That changed fairly quickly when they realized that Hitler was referring to Jews, which had an obvious effect given the number of Jewish people in science in America. They thought he was talking about black people and gays and lesbians and those with birth defects.
            All this doesn’t mean to say that there is no difference between a foetus and a new born. The issue of independence of the human life makes a big difference. That’s why a foetus can be aborted to save the life and health of a woman. What I am questioning is your sweeping mandate that the reproductive rights of a woman are all that counts. I am not saying they are not important. But I don’t agree with that thesis.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh Godwin, Godwin. You realize that Hitler was actually anti-choice–that he actually banned abortion for some women while forcing it upon others, which is not what pro-choice is about.

          • DavidPun

            I’m sure Hitler had all sorts of bizarre views about abortion. So what? If you want a good book to read about what Hitlers actual views were on abortion and a number of other things, read ” Hitler’s Table Talk” . It is probably the most chilling book I have ever read in my entire life. (Sorry I don’t remember the author) . What you will see very clearly is what really defines Hitler is his paranoid vision of himself as the ultimate arbiter of who deserves the dignity of being considered human and who is not which was his path to justifying who he felt he could kill with impunity and who he could not. That is precisely what is behind my argument on this topic. I am not tryng to hurt or demean woman. I am saying that we cannot arbitrarily define the boundary of humanity to justify being able to kill another human being.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Hitler was never pregnant.

          • Defamate

            Bull.

            You baby killers will come up with *anything* to justify your position.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Oh yeah ;) I gave a whole slew of information about fetal heart development to five_by_five, complete with multiple links, and she still denied that it was true. *sigh*.

          • Defamate

            I saw. When in doubt, deny the facts.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Yeah, she also keeps denying the meaning of ‘elective’.

          • five_by_five

            Uhh…the person you are replying to claimed that at 6 weeks the heart was just a thin tube.

            Which was wrong….any way you are measuring fetal development – from LMP or from conception.

            In fact, the heart beats and has four chamber 28 days (that’s 4 weeks after fertilization and 6 weeks after LMP if you couldn’t do the math).

          • Guest

            The person that you are replying to (now named “HitlerWasNeverPregnant”) claimed that at 6 weeks the heart was a thin tube. She was wrong by any way you measure fetal progress – by LMP or by date of fertilization.

            But I wouldn’t expect expect you to quite grasp that.

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            Jennifer proved you wrong.

          • P. McCoy

            You have been brainwashed. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are no babies. Arguing with a religious fanatic is like talking to the insane. Point them out and move on.

          • Mirable

            I was joking with Jennifer.

          • Jennifer Starr

            We were joking with one another. And yes, I am well aware that zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not babies.

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            You’re a wordsmith. Just sayin’.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Thank you :) Love the handle :)

          • Defamate

            I am saying that we cannot arbitrarily define the boundary of humanity to justify being able to kill another human being.

            Humans without minds aren’t people. They are merely animal level organisms. And humans are nothing more than clever animals. And it is wrong to place a merely animal level organism above a woman – an actual person’s – right to their own health and self-determination.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You claim to have such respect for women and then you compare a woman ending her pregnancy to Hitler. Yeah, I can just feel that respect.

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            http://www.amazon.com/Male-Fantasies-Vol-History-Literature/dp/0816614490

            Examines fascism as a Reichian phenomenon gone awry – the fascist male experiences ego-dissolution in early infancy, finds it threatening, and so builds for himself a “body armor” within which are contained such “female” traits and emotions (unaknowledged) as weakness, fear, guilt, etc. Through repetitive conditioning and a brutal pedagogy, these negative, shadowy perceptions are then projected outward onto the despised classes of scoiety and made to represent the chaotic forces of the collective cultural unconscious. Like Adorno said, “fascism is psychoanalysis in reverse.”

          • P. McCoy

            Savita got killed by your so called idol, the fetus. Do you know that an abortion would have saved her life Or is it that you don’t care.

          • DavidPun

            What are you blabbering about?

          • P. McCoy

            Mighty fine way of a even a closet Catholic apologist to speak about a married womanwho died ttragically because of Irelands anti abortion laws. By, the way, that was sexist of you to consider me to be blabbering ; on the contrary, I was quite coherent.

          • W26Supergiant

            Your still blabbering. Try talking sense.

          • colleen2

            She is naming one of the legal human sacrifices the Catholic church made last year.

          • Defamate

            First, at least beyond a certain stage of development there is nothing “potential” about the life.

            Until it can survive outside the womb as a separate, viable, and most importantly, autonomous individual, it still is nothing but potential.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          “when we systematically put a woman’s reproductive rights above the value of a human life then I just don’t buy that!”
          …………….
          You probably should not have an abortion. What is really interesting about this is that Jewish women have the lowest rates of abortion of all ethnic/cultural groups.
          …………………….
          Jewish law not only permits, but in some circumstances requires abortion. Where the mother’s life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.

          An unborn child has the status of “potential human life” until the majority of the body has emerged from the mother. Potential human life is valuable, and may not be terminated casually, but it does not have as much value as a life in existence. The Talmud makes no bones about this: it says quite bluntly that if the fetus threatens the life of the mother, you cut it up within her body and remove it limb by limb if necessary, because its life is not as valuable as hers. But once the greater part of the body has emerged, you cannot take its life to save the mother’s, because you cannot choose between one human life and another. – Judaism 101

          • DavidPun

            “Where the mother’s life is in jeopardy because of the unborn child, abortion is mandatory.”
            I think I made it clear that that was my my opinion also. That is a rational solution because it recognizes the values on both sides of the equation, but recognizes that the mothers right to life must have primacy. There is no other rational conclusion.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Then why did you tell me above that we do not follow the Talmud?

          • DavidPun

            The Talmud also tells you how to stone people to death. I think we have come a bit beyond that barbarism. We also have deeper understanding of what actually makes a person a human being.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Who is “we?” We is not you and me.
            “person” is a legal term. A fetus is not a legal person until it survives birth.
            “Human being” is a social science term. There is a fetus in the womb. It is perfectly legal to abort it. If it happens to die as a result of an abortion, that only proves it was not a “human being” at all. Human being breathe air and are not attached by a cord and sucking another human’s blood.
            You of course ignore the fact that current medical values are the same as the Talmud’s except where laws have been passed that kill women.

          • Defamate

            Human beings breathe air and are not attached by a cord and sucking another human’s blood.

            Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say. Hitler.

            http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/godwin-cat-4e5ea5d-intro.png

          • expect_resistance

            Did you just change your name to “HitlerWasNeverPregnant?” OMG I love you. I about died laughing when you posted that. I immediately saw the image of Hitler pregnant.

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            Thank Jennifer. She’s a nazi.

          • expect_resistance

            Jennifer is the “Instigator of trouble.” :)

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            She debates abortion dressed like this:

            http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/fb/Ilsashewolf.jpg

            (In fact, we ALL do, even the men)

          • expect_resistance

            Wow, I have a new respect for Jennifer.

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            Nice euphemism.

          • expect_resistance

            :)

          • Jennifer Starr

            What a coincidence– I was just watching The Cinema Snob’s review of that movie :)

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I add a single strand of pearls.

          • colleen2

            Hey, I thought we were beyond slavery too and yet the Roman Catholic chur5ch was legally allowed to enslave women in Ireland until the late 90’s. The Church hates women so much it refuses to compensate it’s still living victims The Church valued those human iives so much the women were buried in unmarked graves.

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      What has all that got to do with me or my daughters having a safe and legal medical abortion?
      Are you disputing the information in the UN report. What precisely do you disagree with?

  • PetrusRomanus1

    Thirty years afo, Father Tom Doyle, OP, said and documented the equivalent of what the UN report has said: The Roman Catholic church urgently needs to clean up its act (an understatement).
    The bishops did not listen then, and the bishops are not listening now. The confidence of Catholics in their leadership is being tried, tested and shaken. How much more damage must the people of the church suffer before the bishops and the popes begin to “get it”?

    • HeilMary1

      The abuse will continue as long as the Vatican keeps women in deadly, disfiguring and bankrupting incubating slavery for pedophile priests, and refuses to recognize that no one is born 100% male or female, thanks to undiagnosed prenatal chimerism, microchimerism and endocrine disrupted intersex conditions.

      • DavidPun

        When did you stop taking your drugs? I think you need to get checked out!

        • Defamate

          Why don’t you try discussing the points made instead of making ad hominem attacks.

          Otherwise, you’re just an asshole.

          • DavidPun

            I actually work in an area related to these issues. This guy is talking pure nonsense and has dredged up a few scientific terms like prenatal chimerism as if they have anything to do with this issue. He is talking pure BS and he needs to be called out on it. So please don’t start all this “ad-hominem” attack nonsense on issues that you don’t understand.
            As regards the asshole part, I suggest you check you are not looking in a mirror!

          • Defamate

            David…you are a very knowledgeable fellow. Share some of that knowledge! And no, I didn’t say that you WERE an asshole, just that ad hominem ableist attacks, with nothing more to offer, can make you sound like one;P

            Anyways, when you mentioned UN sex abuse, did you have this in mind:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Whistleblower

          • Defamate

            Your reply is in moderation. And no, I didn’t mean ‘did you have the movie specifically’ in mind. Just what happened. *I* only learned of it by watching the movie – I am glad they made the film.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I would have love to read his moderated comment. Oh well. Must have been a doozy.

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            It was just a link to a UN scandal.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Thank you.
            He is here to tell us what we “should” think about the UN. And he feels we are ungrateful for his efforts. And that he is misunderstood. LOL.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Asshole is as asshole does. You need to read her comment again. You do not understand what she wrote.

          • expect_resistance

            You’re right, David hasn’t got a clue about what HeilMary said.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            He cannot read for content very well.
            Heil is at least 10 times as smart as Pun is. He cannot follow her, but rather than admit he does not understand, he calls her and us names. POS.

          • Tynam

            “When did you stop taking your drugs” is not, in any way, a discussion of scientific terms. It is the _definition_ of ad hominem attack.

            If you can defeat the arguments; do so – but so far you’re just screaming names at everyone you meet. Not impressed.

        • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

          Nothing Heil typed was inacccurate. If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.

          • DavidPun

            Everything Heil typed was inaccurate and exaggerated. Don’t be so ridiculous.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            More pearl clutching hysteria. Yawn.
            What Heil typed has been amply documented here by others.

          • DavidPun

            Documented??? More like vampires in charge of bloodbank. These are people pushing around pseudo scientific jargon to make their position sound as if there is something behind it. Sorry, but I’m not falling for that nonsense

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Which comments are “pseudo scientific?”

          • DavidPun

            Lets start with “no one is born 100% male or female, thanks to undiagnosed prenatal chimerism, microchimerism and endocrine disrupted intersex conditions.”
            Certainly there is scientific jargon in there but what the heck has that got to do with the UN and the Vatican.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            That is not “scientific jargon.” It is an accurate description of how the environment of the womb affects sexual orientation and/or gender. The Vatican insists that gender is static and variation is not physical but an “objectively disordered choice.”

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prenatal_hormones_and_sexual_orientation
            You do not understand what she wrote. Instead of asking questions, you insist that YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING affects the quality of what she wrote. Read it again. When you understand her, we will let you know.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Heil is respected here. She is brilliant and a font of good information about this issue of sexuality/abortion and the history of the Roman Catholic Church.
            You are not respected here. Your scholarship is not a tenth of hers on these issues. We can see that.

          • expect_resistance

            I second that.

          • DavidPun

            Right. I’m not sure exactly how YOU rate a genius, but I suspect it is basically someone who tells you what you want to hear. But then again, Its you web site so I don’t grudge you that. Actually I don’t even know why I came to this site. I was just following a link on Google News and landed in this treasure.

          • Jennifer Starr

            You’ve actually been replying to a few articles talking about this subject. It seems to be a thing with you.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            So he is lying? LMAO.

          • Jennifer Starr

            While he is trying to sound very secular here, if you go back in his history you find that he makes a habit of being a Catholic apologist.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I went looking because of your post. Oh yes, he loves them kiddyrapers. You know, I am a Catholic. I despise the RCC.

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            He is a catholic concern troll and he is lying about being a physicist who studies DNA to make biological weapons.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You came in here to preach to a bunch of women you do not know about “abortion” etc. even though you know absolutely nothing about human biology vis a vis reproduction, ethics, or law where the issue is concerned.
            You got punked. Cry me a river.

          • DavidPun

            No I absolutely didn’t. I came to this site through following a link on Google news about the UN/ Vatican issue and my point was that the UN were a bunch of hypocrites since they have been found to be doing exactly what the Vatican was doing (abusing, moving round and covering up sexual abuse of women) except in much larger numbers.

            I’m not exactly sure how this got into abortion from there except that I got immediately attacked by a bunch of rabid women’s rights activists screaming at me for having the temerity to dare to suggest anyone was as evil as the Vatican and when I suggested that some people in the Vatican are taking the sex abuse issue more seriously then it rushed downhill from there and you launched into all your ” the Vatican keeps women in deadly, disfiguring and bankrupting incubating slavery for pedophile priests” crap.

            I can certainly understand why women with a more liberal outlook have serious problems with the Vatican, but I find it hard to believe that a rational person can become as rabidly paranoid as you and your buddies seem to be.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            Poor thing. Poor poor thing.

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            You are a catholic concern troll who lies about his credentials.

          • DavidPun

            Riiiight. And you are a telepathic alien from Mars.

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            It’s more plausible than your story. “I’m not catholic, but hey everyone, the catholics are wonderful upstanding moral people who do loads of things just right and we should stop criticizing them because of how moral and righteous they are!”

          • DavidPun

            You guys are really funny. Someone comes onto your web site and points out what a load of paranoid crap you believe in and you hit them with the worst insult you can think of “You’re a Catholic in disguise.” That’s hilarious!

          • Mirable

            You sure do like to defend the RCC a lot for a non believer. All with canned responses too.

          • Jennifer Starr

            It’s not just this website. You’ve defended the RCC and their handling of child-abuse cases on more than a few forums, basically using the same excuses/talking points as Bill Donahue and the Catholic League. All the while claiming that you don’t care about the RCC or Catholicism. A practicing Catholic you may not be, but your actions show that you clearly have some kind of dog in this fight.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            He made his disqus shares private so he cannot be caught in lies anymore. POS.

          • Jennifer Starr

            Search “davidpun” and “catholic” on Google and you come up with over two-hundred results.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I am barely computer literate. Thank you. I am going to go there and laugh and gather ammunition.

          • Mirable

            Hahah. Really.

          • colleen2

            How typical of the religious right. They simply cannot be honest with themselves or others.

          • goatini

            Definitely a male RCC concern troll.

          • cjvg

            centuries of child rape and social as well as medical abuse of women that has been denied, excused and perpetuated is nothing to be paranoid about?
            What sort of systemic century long abuse do you find worthy of concern then

          • colleen2

            but I suspect it is basically someone who tells you what you want to hear.

            Yes, but you are a shallow, poorly raised, nasty troll who defends institutionalized child rape, lies and refuses to accept responsibility for his/her behavior and posts here to abuse, insult and denigrate. So, please fuck off. Thanks in advance.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            That is not “scientific jargon.” It is an accurate description of how the environment of the womb affects sexual orientation and/or gender.

            The Vatican insists that gender is static and variation is not physical but an “objectively disordered choice.” Holding that position in face or reality and science and teaching it to children is CHILD ABUSE.
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P

            You do not understand what she wrote. Instead of asking questions, you insist that YOUR LACK OF UNDERSTANDING affects the quality of what she wrote. Read it again. When you understand her, we will let you know.

          • expect_resistance

            Bull.

          • DavidPun

            I didn’t want to call it that, but yes …it was bull :)

          • expect_resistance

            I already used the word “bull.” You need use another word. Come on, be creative.

          • DavidPun

            I’ll have to get back to you on that one. What about a different language? Merde!!

          • cjvg

            Not quite appropriate in this setting the translation would be damn and not BS

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            The anonymous tract Disputatio nova contra mulieres, qua probatur eas hominess non esse (A new argument against women, in which it is demonstrated that they are not human beings), first published in 1595, rapidly grew notorious, and was reprinted many times during the 17th and 18th centuries.

            By selectively quoting scriptural passages, along with a few references to other works, the author attempted to prove that women have no souls, and, being little better than higher animals, will have no afterlife.

            Although a degree of anti-feminine spite is evident, he was less intent to denigrate women that to advance an absurd argument parallel to what he took to be the equally absurd theological propositions of the Socinian sect, that Christ was not divine.

            It was nevertheless inevitable that most readers would take the tract at face value. Many refutations appeared. This new edition, with complete translation, collated text, and copious quotations from many references to it, ranging from the 16th to the 20th centuries, offers the first full assessment of its impact on early modern feminist thought.
            http://mellenpress.com/mellenpress.cfm?bookid=5707&pc=9

          • DavidPun

            I’m not interested in what some 16th century religious nutcase wrote. Ultimately science rules and we know that a woman is defined by the X chromosomes. There really is nothing else. There probably is no afterlife, so why the hell are you agonizing over this nonsense. I mean, if you line up all the stuff people believed in the 16th century, why does this surprise you ….and why is it even relevant?

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You were saying Heil was full of bull. I proved Heil is not full of bull.
            You do not read what you type?

          • DavidPun

            You didn’t prove anything. You just reiterated your usual off-the-wall whacko stuff. You have no idea how ridiulous her post about the microchimerisms was…do you.

          • HitlerWasNeverPregnant

            Don’t be a drag; just be a queen

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            I proved that there was indeed a time when Christians theologians asserted women had no souls, just as Heil asserted.
            YOU WERE WRONG AND ABUSIVE.

            Now let us take the “microchimerisms” assertion. What precisely was incorrect about that?

          • cjvg

            But you follow and want others to respect what several religious nut cases wrote close to two thousand years ago in a book called the bible

          • ansuz

            “a woman is defined by the X chromosomes.”
            Fuuuuck yooooouuuuu.

        • expect_resistance

          You’re rude and clueless. HeilMary knows her stuff.

          • DavidPun

            No she doesn’t!!! I understand exactly what microchimerism and variants are. These represent unusual and tiny quantities of anomalous cell structures that survive in human beings and I might point out that they are only surprising because they represent cells that are not consistent with the genetic identity of the person involved. But they do not change the issue of a persons identity anymore than having a cancer cell suddenly changes your identity because they have mutated DNA.
            This has absolutely nothing to do with the Vaticans position on anything and if you are posting here to suggest it does you are either a troll or a total ignoramus. If you can’t see the crass stupidity of her post then I’m sure there is nothing I can say that will change your mind.

          • expect_resistance

            What does the first paragraph have to do with anything?

            Why are you getting so defensive of the Vatican? The Holy See got busted by the UN. Is this making you a little cranky?

          • DavidPun

            Good grief. Do I have to go back to the beginning of what started on this board? I did not at any point try to justify the role of the Vatican. What I was doing was objecting to the crass hypocrisy of the UN given the fact they have behaved identically to the Vatican in the matters of trying to hide and cover up the outrageous levels of sexual abuse perpetrated by so called UN “peacekeepers” . I also reacted to their overreach in trying to mandate what the Vatican should or should not believe. If they do that with the Vatican, they will do the same to other people on different topics. In fact they already do…and the US one of their regular targets.
            However, I was immediately jumped on by the zealots on this board for daring to say anything against their views.

          • Defamate

            The UN isn’t perfect. Neither is the US Democratic Party. Neither is Google. Everyone, every organisation, is hypocritical in *some* manner.

            So let’s just throw the baby out with the bathwater and ignore what all of these organizations say, because they all have bad elements, ok?

          • expect_resistance

            You’re not daring you’re a troll.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            “However, I was immediately jumped on by the zealots on this board for daring to say anything against their views.”
            ……………..
            If you cannot stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. We will not allow you to write things that are not true. You do not know anything about human biology, law, or ethics. But like ALL WHACKJOBS YOU WANT TO BE IN CHARGE anyway.

          • V. K. Kroe

            The difference is that the UN is trying to address and uphold values that, if adhered to, would improve life on this planet for everyone. The RCC is trying to address and uphold values that, if adhered to, only improve life for Roman Catholic males.

            All institutions of man are only as good as the men who run them; but failure to strive for improvement, to correct flaws in those systems, is a failure to humanity as a whole.

          • colleen2

            The RCC is trying to address and uphold values that, if adhered to, only improve life for Roman Catholic males.

            To be fair it will also improve life for Southern Baptist, Evangelical and Mormon males also. The ‘values’ upheld always result in the lives of women and actual children being treated like garbage but that’s right wing Christianity for you.

          • V. K. Kroe

            Very true.

          • P. McCoy

            I don’t know of any UN officials who call themselves alter Christus and have holy cards written up about them saying never attack a priest, or never question what a priest is doing or where he is day or night. This action created the zombie like victims of sexual abuse in the first place and the church, I use that term loosely, has told people, blame men, not the church. Well, if the hierarchy covers for the predators, how can you not blame the church. The Catholic Church is less a religion but has become a fascist political organization bent on establishing a theocracy in the United States. Trolls make idols out of the so called unborn and vote for Republican rule which cares nothing for the children that are here alive and sentient, feeling hunger, lack of shelter and disease. I wish that in the case of the United States, we had enacted penal laws like the United Kingdom, which would have greatly restricted Catholic influence and power. Power can’t be held by irrational religious fanatics.

          • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

            You do not understand what she wrote. We can see you do not understand it.

          • V. K. Kroe

            When my uncle developed terminal brain cancer, it completely changed his personality, behavior, relationships, reaction to stimuli, appetite, interests. I would define that as a change in identity. It was this striking change that promoted the tests, which in turn revealed the tumor wreaking havoc on his life.

            I understand you were (probably) referring to cell states that are not yet starving healthy tissues of their vital resources, or, in the case of my uncle, pressing on neural systems, causing interference… However, the biological system as a whole does respond to even minor changes in its systems; which can cause significant effects down the line, as a direct result.

            The point about the chimeraism et all, was referring to the RCC’s very black & white view of gender, which has always been based on outward, physical appearances, and corresponding rules of behavior and values based on those outward appearances. Therefore, if “male” genetics may be harboring “female” traits/etc., it messes up the RCC’s bias regarding male superiority, creating a gray zone in their canon. If females are unhuman and soulless

            The post about the article regarding women not having souls, being inhuman

          • colleen2

            what we see is the crass stupidity, dishonesty and tendency towards abuse we have come to expect from conservative Catholics. Well, that and the fact that you’re so pathetic you post as ‘guest’ and up rec your own posts.

      • Ivy Mike

        Mary, see my post in this thread…check the debate at the link. You will find a treasure-trove of evidence presented there of RCC criminality, expertly presented, and another pro-RCC apologist destroyed.

        Enjoy!

    • http://plumstchili.blogspot.com/ Plum Dumpling

      All nine Catholic churches with their schools are closed now in my section of Philadelphia. All thanks to Cardinals Krol and Bevilacqua aiding and abetting child rape.

    • goatini

      Hey Petrus, nice to see you here. Someday the lockdown over at NCR will end….

  • BJ Survivor

    Bravo to the UN! It’s about time the RCC was called out on its hypocrisy and abuse. Maybe this will spur government leaders the world over, including Obama, to stop coddling these homophobic, misogynist pedophile-enablers.

  • Ivy Mike

    Ah, crap…straight into moderation. That was an awesome link, too.

  • Mirable

    DavidPun has deleted his account since he has been found to be a catholic concern troll. Hahahaha.