|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why can't the Vatican look at the bigger picture?
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
I haven't posted on here for a while but have been lurking and so on ..
Anyway, to the point, this morning I read something that left me flabbergasted.
Here's the link BBC News - Vatican urges end to Amnesty aid
In short, because Amnesty International not approves of abortion for women who have been raped or are in poor health, the Vatican is now urging Catholics to no longer donate money to this organisation.
I find this breathtaking. Amnesty International has worked so hard for decades on issues of human rights and freedom of speech, and freedom of worship that all Christians should support, and yet because of the abortion issue, and only for women that have been raped or are in bad health mind you, it is now suggesting that Amnesty International is no longer worthy of Catholic's money.
I find it amazing that the Vatican places abortion above all other issues in its considerations. Aren't hunman rights equally important? Doesn't the fact that Amnesty has campaigned for Christians who have suffered discrimination in various countries.
Anyway, would appreciate your thoughts, particularly from anyone who agrees with the Vatican and come up with a reasonable explanation as to how the Vatican "balances" or "weighs-up" the different factors in coming to this decision, and as to why abortion seemingly takes precedence over all others?
[ 10. August 2007, 00:00: Message edited by: Duo Seraphim ]
--------------------
"A man who does not think for himself, does not think at all" Oscar Wilde
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
I find it amazing that the Vatican places abortion above all other issues in its considerations. Aren't hunman rights equally important? ...
Anyway, would appreciate your thoughts, particularly from anyone who agrees with the Vatican and come up with a reasonable explanation as to how the Vatican "balances" or "weighs-up" the different factors in coming to this decision, and as to why abortion seemingly takes precedence over all others?
The most fundamental of all human rights is the right to live. Without that right, all others human rights simply become meaningless. Freedom of speech, for example, is of no use to you if you are dead. The Vatican considers human life to start at fertilization - or at least so soon after fertilization that it makes no difference. Therefore the zygote / embryo / fetus (ZEF) is a human person with all human rights, in particular the right to live. Clearly, a ZEF is entirely innocent of any crime and no aggressive threat to society and the life of others. Its right to live cannot be limited by other considerations, as for example in capital punishment or just war.
Abortion is thus a clear violation of the most fundamental human right of a human person, namely the ZEF. Clearly, a pregnancy due to rape or incest is a most grave violation of the human rights of the mother, and an incredible personal tragedy. But one violation of human rights does in no way or form justify another violation of human rights. The mother deserves all our sympathy, support, etc., but she has no more right to kill an innocent person - the ZEF - than anybody else has. Abortion cannot be considered as "self-defense with deadly outcome" against the rape, since the killing is not directed against the attacker but against a third person, the ZEF, who is not responsible in any way for the attack.
Thus if you believe that the ZEF is a human person with all human rights, as the Vatican does and as I do, then AI is now actively supporting the violation of the most fundamental human right, the right to live. That it does so only in specific circumstances and for particular people does not change anything. Neither is it of any help that AI clearly does a lot of good work in protecting human rights otherwise. An attack on human rights is simply not acceptable, and an organization which lobbies for it cannot be supported.
It's a pity that AI has chosen to go down that path, but I completely agree with the Vatican's stance on this.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
This is the first time that i have hearded of this, and I have always admired the work that Amnesty International has done for prisoners who are imprisoned wrongfully and for the persecuted.
I am not a Roman Catholic but I can understand their point of view as they see the killing of unborn babies as murder,and I agree on that.
In the case of rape I think that the unborn child comes first, although I realise that some Christians would disagree.
If giving birth means the mother will lose her life then it is a different story.
I do admire the RC stand against abortion and I wish that evangelical churches worldwide would
protest more. Why is it the RC stand against abortion and the other churhes are so tolerant while millions of babies are killed year after year?
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
I know the RCC campaigns and works in all sorts of ways, promoting education, development and so on, and I know the the media selects that to report, showing us the most controversial aspects of world events, but even making appropriate allowances this is a deeply depressing move.
The RCC reserves its most absolute language and trenchant teaching for abortion and homosexuality. These are, it seems, the most important issues facing the world, the ones worth confronting governments over, the ones worth withdrawing support from widely respected organisations over.
Is this really proportionate? I can see how the argument flows from the decision to regard a ZEF as a human person, and although it's not self-evident to the rest of the world, this belief may be regarded as revealed and non-negotiable. But there is a further decision being made here, which is to press the logic of that belief right the way home.
There are other moral wrongs going on. Poverty and poor sanitation kills thousands of children. Corrupt governments and greedy companies make it worse. Human rights are abused, people are killed. You could take any of these and say that because there is a great evil going on here then Christians should stop supporting such and such a government (which lets children die in its gold mines), or such and such a company (which peddles powered milk to women without clean water, and their children die) or any one of a thousand other causes. But the choice has been made to do this only with respect to abortion.
In the name of one human rights issue, the RCC has put itself at odds with the world's best known human rights organisation. It is saying that the rights of the ZEF matter overwhelmingly more than those of the unknown thousands executed in China, more than the rights of child labour, bonded labourers, forced sex workers, political prisoners, torture victims, and so on. These causes are not worth a boycott, but abortion is.
Amnesty may be wrong in its policies, any of us may be, but it is this issue, it is sexual morality yet again, that cannot be compromised.
Why? What is really going on in people's heads such that when and with whom we have sex and make babies is the most important thing in all the world?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
GreyFace
Shipmate
# 4682
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Amnesty may be wrong in its policies, any of us may be, but it is this issue, it is sexual morality yet again, that cannot be compromised.
What has abortion got to do with sexual morality?
Posts: 5748 | From: North East England | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Amnesty may be wrong in its policies, any of us may be, but it is this issue, it is sexual morality yet again, that cannot be compromised.
What has abortion got to do with sexual morality?
Perhaps reproductive would be a better word. Contraception, abortion, marriage laws, homosexuality, masturbation - there are a set of interconnecting issues that seem to be to do with control of sexual behaviour.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
On the question of balance I think the RCC may look at the number of terminations each year (45 million according to the WHO, per the BBC report in the OP) and the number of "real" deaths in this chart, which isn't an awful lot more than that.
I agree that simple numbers aren't everything and that rape, incest and the mother's health are difficult areas within the RCC, but the RCC's view on abortion is well-known and I don't think it can hold that view as strongly as it does without speaking about it at every opportunity.
The assertion that the RCC isn't concerned about other evils doesn't hold up. Pope Benedict raised the subject of Iraq with President Bush last week and while calls for peace may appear naive, the injunction on world leaders to refrain from war is just as serious as that on anyone to oppose abortion.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
In the name of one human rights issue, the RCC has put itself at odds with the world's best known human rights organisation. It is saying that the rights of the ZEF matter overwhelmingly more than those of the unknown thousands executed in China, more than the rights of child labour, bonded labourers, forced sex workers, political prisoners, torture victims, and so on. These causes are not worth a boycott, but abortion is.
Why the heck are you blaming the Vatican for this? Why not say that AI is endangering its work by forcing the abortion issue over and against all those other human right violations they should rather be fighting? Who is obsessed with sex and reproduction as human right violations here? The Vatican's condemnation is not coming out of the blue, even if the AI leadership had been unaware of the problem (hard to believe). This idea for a new AI target has been around for a while and due warning had been given when it first was floated. I think we even had a thread here on the topic a while back.
AI, not the Vatican, choose to make abortion a new "human rights" issue anyway. AI, not the Vatican, decided to risk losing the support of those who consider abortion gravely immoral. AI, not the Vatican, created the moral dilemma through changing its agenda (as if they had run out of other work to do). AI, not the Vatican, has put sex and reproduction in the headlines once more.
The Vatican is reacting, and it is reacting in an entirely predictable manner since the morals it holds true leave very little choice in this matter. If you don't like the reaction, blame the action that inevitably had to lead to it. In other words, blame the leaders of AI.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Vatican considers human life to start at fertilization - or at least so soon after fertilization that it makes no difference.
In short, there's your answer to the question in the thread title. The Vatican is tied.
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
On the question of balance I think the RCC may look at the number of terminations each year (45 million according to the WHO, per the BBC report in the OP) and the number of "real" deaths in this chart, which isn't an awful lot more than that.
If you are going to compare numbers of abortions with deaths, then the deaths figure ought to included miscarriages, and perhaps the unknown number of very early miscarriages and failed implantations.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
On the question of balance I think the RCC may look at the number of terminations each year (45 million according to the WHO, per the BBC report in the OP) and the number of "real" deaths in this chart, which isn't an awful lot more than that.
If you are going to compare numbers of abortions with deaths, then the deaths figure ought to included miscarriages, and perhaps the unknown number of very early miscarriages and failed implantations.
Maybe my stat's should include those, but miscarriages aren't generally taken to have been induced medically or surgically (except by the well-off in Britain before the 1967 Act).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Vatican considers human life to start at fertilization - or at least so soon after fertilization that it makes no difference.
In short, there's your answer to the question in the thread title. The Vatican is tied.
I think that's disingenuous, though. It's arguably a decision to take that view (arguably a response to divine instructions of some sort), but more importantly, it's a decision to follow the logic of that view through to it's end. The Vatican doesn't say the US is prosecuting a sinful war in Iraq, so all you Catholics leave the country now. The pope says 'George, we're not really very happy about this. We prefer peace, you know.'
But with Amnesty it doesn't do dialogue. It says 'Catholics out.'
And IngoB, if the Vatican has an implacable position, right or wrong, on abortion (or anything else), is it always someone else's fault every time the matter is raised, always someone else's obsession?
[ETA an important 'dis']
[ 14. June 2007, 12:12: Message edited by: hatless ]
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
quote:
Originally posted by dogwonderer:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The Vatican considers human life to start at fertilization - or at least so soon after fertilization that it makes no difference.
In short, there's your answer to the question in the thread title. The Vatican is tied.
I think that's disingenuous, though. It's arguably a decision to take that view (arguably a response to divine instructions of some sort), but more importantly, it's a decision to follow the logic of that view through to it's end. The Vatican doesn't say the US is prosecuting a sinful war in Iraq, so all you Catholics leave the country now. The pope says 'George, we're not really very happy about this. We prefer peace, you know.'
But with Amnesty it doesn't do dialogue. It says 'Catholics out.'
And IngoB, if the Vatican has an implacable position, right or wrong, on abortion (or anything else), is it always someone else's fault every time the matter is raised, always someone else's obsession?
[ETA an important 'dis']
I think the RCC is being practical here. It realises that it cannot instruct its members to disobey the laws and specifically military orders of another country but it can tell its members what the doctrinal line is on any matter. That is rarely if ever in conflict with another country's law.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
Sioni Said quote:
I think the RCC is being practical here. It realises that it cannot instruct its members to disobey the laws and specifically military orders of another country but it can tell its members what the doctrinal line is on any matter. That is rarely if ever in conflict with another country's law.
Yes, the Vatican can hardly give anti American instructions. But they could instruct their people not to invest in vulture funds or work for companies with a record of human rights abuse; I'm not aware that they do.
The bigger give away for me, though, is the uncompromising language and stance of the RCC. It really doesn't seem that this is just an easier, clearer cut issue. They are prepared to make enemies over this.
It's a rather village pump point, but think how many Churches Together in Blobtown groups there are going to be with an Amnesty link, with a special service once a year, with a bunch of campaigning Quakers, or whatever. The RCs are going to walk away from all that, are they?
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave Marshall
Shipmate
# 7533
|
Posted
This is what happens when you write out of faith the uncertainty inherent in belief. Faith that acknowledges it is acting on a balance of probability basis, in this case that the life that exists immediately after conception is in the same ontological category as human life after birth, can still include the possibility of error in real world moral choices.
Since this particular ontological categorisation has no means of verification, while the rightness of other causes that Amnesty International support can be and have been objectively verified, such faith if intelligently applied would conclude this kind of action was at best unjustified.
Faith that equates itself with objective knowledge cannot allow such rationality. But I doubt this has much to do with considered theology. More likely in my view it's (parts of) the RCC heirarchy playing politics with a breathtaking lack of regard for the potential human consequences.
Posts: 4763 | From: Derbyshire Dales | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
And IngoB, if the Vatican has an implacable position, right or wrong, on abortion (or anything else), is it always someone else's fault every time the matter is raised, always someone else's obsession?
No. But if someone smacks into such implacable positions, what is it with the whining? It's like running into a wall and then blaming the wall for not getting out of the way. Stupid.
You can disagree with the implacable position in question. Fine. You can defy it through your acts. OK. But then don't come complaining about the inevitable reaction.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hel
Shipmate
# 5248
|
Posted
As an RC and a member of AI, I have written to AI to make their position clear to me before I try and work out the wrongs and rights of this.
I'm not 100% against abortion, but I'm not sure that I'm comfortable with it being promoted as a 'right' either, and it's this area I would like to review.
I had already started leaning towards supporting other charities more (Christian Aid and Shelter being top of the list) so hopefully their response will help me to decide whether to do this.
Posts: 667 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
More likely in my view it's (parts of) the RCC heirarchy playing politics with a breathtaking lack of regard for the potential human consequences.
How about considering it as the amnesty international hierarchy playing politics with a breathtaking lack of regard for the potential human consequences?
Can we sort of remember that the Vatican did not change the status quo, AI did! AI's actions have no utilitarian justification, this is clearly not about "doing more good" in the world. Pragmatically speaking, AI will lose considerable support and hence the amount of good they can do will necessarily be reduced. What AI has done can only be justified through a principled moral stance on abortion, just one contrary to the principled moral stance on abortion that the Vatican has.
The organization that has acted on moral principle with no concern for overall effect is AI. The moral principle it employs is clearly "pro choice". You cannot support AI in this as utilitarian, because it is not that, and clearly you cannot support them if "pro life". So in fact, all this outrage at the Vatican boils down to holding a contrary moral "pro choice" principle. Which turns the outrage into a hypocritical farce...
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
hatless
Shipmate
# 3365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
And IngoB, if the Vatican has an implacable position, right or wrong, on abortion (or anything else), is it always someone else's fault every time the matter is raised, always someone else's obsession?
No. But if someone smacks into such implacable positions, what is it with the whining? It's like running into a wall and then blaming the wall for not getting out of the way. Stupid.
You can disagree with the implacable position in question. Fine. You can defy it through your acts. OK. But then don't come complaining about the inevitable reaction.
Fair enough. I suppose Amnesty should just get on with its good work, without RC support. They're entitled to disagree, though, and that isn't just whining.
But I'm a Christian. I hold to the view that there is one Church. I recognise brothers and sisters amongst other denominations. The best theological teacher I ever had is a Roman Catholic (Denys Turner, whom I know you admire). So I can't just shrug off the RC position on this or that, I feel compelled to try and understand, to try to perceive the strength and wisdom in the beliefs and practices of other denominations, but also to relate them to what I am discovering of God and God's ways.
It is frustrating beyond measure to see the RCC slip ever rightwards, politically. It is deeply depressing seeing them take increasingly entrenched views on so many issues, but above all issues of sexuality. These are my brothers and sisters in Christ, so I feel strained and torn. I lament for the way Christianity is being presented in the world as a reactionary obsession with gender and sexual purity. That isn't what I want to be heard.
--------------------
My crazy theology in novel form
Posts: 4531 | From: Stinkers | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
What has abortion got to do with sexual morality?
Do pro-life campaigners ever hand out condoms? OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
There's a thread in Hell on this same topic.
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It is frustrating beyond measure to see the RCC slip ever rightwards, politically. It is deeply depressing seeing them take increasingly entrenched views on so many issues, but above all issues of sexuality.
Oh, tosh. The RCC is slipping nowhere, she's simply maintaining what she always has maintained. Her views are not increasingly entrenched, they are what they are. That society is slipping to a place where the Church's position is "reactionary right" is the problem of society. If you run away from me to the left, then you cannot complain that I'm trying to escape from you to the right.
quote:
Originally posted by OliviaG:
Do pro-life campaigners ever hand out condoms?
A very poignant question. I would phrase it slightly differently though: Are those who hand out condoms ever pro-life campaigners?
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
I have supported AI for many years and was greatly troubled when it began the policy of seeing Abortion as a human right. As an Orthodox who strongly believes in human rights for all, I could not longer keep supporting an organization which does not see the most vulnerable as also part of the struggle for human rights.
I WANT to be able to support AI again and I truly pray that they make a change in direction as they have been the voice for the voiceless for many years!
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
I lament for the way Christianity is being presented in the world as a reactionary obsession with gender and sexual purity. That isn't what I want to be heard.
Me neither. But is this new? Having seen the restored frieze on the West Front of Lincoln Cathedral and a few frescos on the torments of the damned in Italian churches, I doubt it.
What is arguably new and problematic is an unwitting alliance between uncompromising traditionalists within the Church wishing to broadcast a counter-cultural message as widely as possible, a large proportion of the public amenable to reconfirming their preconceptions of a harmfully reactionary institution, and media with ample capacity to put the two groups in contact. So a fairly run-of-the-mill statement from an unexciting Vatican subcommittee echoes around the world. And the polarisation sought by both the aggressive reactionaries and the secularists continues.
Not everything that contributes to this is intrinsically wicked, stupid, illogical or wrong. Ingo's given a pretty convincing defence of the inevitability and consistency of the Vatican's reaction. But I see it as, amongst other things, contributing to this wider context.
ETA and see this context as posing a difficult but vital challenge to a Church which wishes to communicate with clarity and consistency but also with love and in a manner that attracts rather than alienates.
[ 14. June 2007, 19:00: Message edited by: fisher ]
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Here's Amnesty's press release.
They're saying that in cases of rape, incest, or poor health of the woman, she should be able to choose, without coercion.
I think they're right.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
I think I agree in those instances.
But given that Amnesty are going to alienate a large tranche of potential support I wonder if the decision was a prudent one. It's not like there are large numbers of people out there who are iffy on human rights but dead keen to sign up for legal access to abortion who might be won over by this. But there are large numbers of Catholics who have strong views on human rights but object strongly to abortion. This makes it difficult for them, in conscience, to support Amnesty.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
Sharpening my view slightly:
I believe the RCC teaching on abortion to be far more defensible and worthy of serious consideration - even in a secular context - than its teaching on most of the other contentious subjects that come to mind. But 'pro-life' campaigning is often more poisonously negative and damaging than anything else that the Church does. Undoubtedly it's driven by heartfelt conviction - but it's often still dramatically counterproductive to the anti-abortion cause and the churches associated with it.
I remember reading something by Fr. Timothy Radcliffe with a similar implication, if slightly less dramatically phrased.
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gareth
Shipmate
# 2494
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Here's Amnesty's press release.
They're saying that in cases of rape, incest, or poor health of the woman, she should be able to choose, without coercion.
I think they're right.
In which case, you can donate your money and devote your time to whichever causes put your opinion into action.
The RCC disagrees. Whatever your or my opinion about that might be, I cannot deny that the RCC has every right to use its resources, agencies and influence to put its opinions into action.
We are not talking about a tax imposed by a sovereign state here - we are talking about charitable activities, and it is absolutely acceptable for an individual or agency to say that they don't like a particular bit and are therefore withdrawing support for it.
And I completely agree that this result was inevitable and could have been predicted by anyone with the most basic comprehension of the dynamics of this situation. It looks to me like this 'divorce' between AI and the RCC was engineered.
--------------------
"Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope."
P. J. O'Rourke
Posts: 345 | From: Chaos | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gareth:
It looks to me like this 'divorce' between AI and the RCC was engineered.
Cynic that I am, I believe AI has concluded there's more cash flow from sources outside the RCC than within.
They may be prescient.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Afghan
Shipmate
# 10478
|
Posted
There was a rather apropos article in The Economist a few weeks back...
Many rights, some wrong
--------------------
Credibile quia ineptum
Posts: 438 | From: Essex | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
Seraphimsarov said : quote:
I have supported AI for many years and was greatly troubled when it began the policy of seeing Abortion as a human right. As an Orthodox who strongly believes in human rights for all, I could not longer keep supporting an organization which does not see the most vulnerable as also part of the struggle for human rights.
I WANT to be able to support AI again and I truly pray that they make a change in direction as they have been the voice for the voiceless for many years! quote:
But in the BBC link, which I presume accurately reflects the views of AI, it states that AI only wish to support the right to abortion when a woman has been raped or if having the baby will result in a high chance of her dying.
In this instance of rape/life threatening health condition, the Vatican appears to place greater emphasis on the unborn fetus/baby, than it does on the woman(or girl's) life. I'd like to know more about the reasoning behind this.
And I'd also like to know more about why the Vatican seems to have a black/white with no in between grey attitude towards abortion. For example, according to broad Christian beliefs, AI are doing more good than harm, even if you believe that abortion is wrong.
I think it's fine for the Vatican to contest AI's decision, but to actually tell Catholics to no longer contribute financially to this organisation and to withdraw support, even given all the good (other, if you like) work they do, I find odd. It seems to me the Vatican has more in common these days with fundamentalist Islamist states like Iran who also ban abortion but deny human rights (or other human rights, if you like) In my opinion, it doesn't seem able to see the wood for the trees, and is more interested in Pharisee like rule obeying than the actual message of practical love that Jesus came to tell us about.
quote:
Ingo B said :
But if someone smacks into such implacable positions, what is it with the whining? It's like running into a wall and then blaming the wall for not getting out of the way. Stupid. quote:
Well, other implaccable positions the Vatican used to hold, were such things as all masses being held in Latin, Pope's leading calls for Crusades, the Virgin Mary not rising into heaven, then suddenly in 18hundred and something by Papal order, she officially was...need I go on? Just because this is an implaccable position now, doesn't mean that it always will be. I think in the face of falling congregations even in such countries as Brazil, the Vatican at somepoint in the future (and of course under a different Pope) will change its doctrine on some issues, including use of contraception and perhaps even abortion in the case of rape or mother's ill health. We'll see. (could even lead to a revival of the Catcholic church in Western Europe..)
So to sum up, why does the Vatican not just complain officially to AI but without requesting Catholics to not support AI or continue contribute financially? And why is a baby born of rape, or whose birth may have resulted in its mother's death, deserve greater consideration of its rights by the Vatican than those of its mother?
--------------------
"A man who does not think for himself, does not think at all" Oscar Wilde
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mater et Magistra
Shipmate
# 9966
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
It is frustrating beyond measure to see the RCC slip ever rightwards, politically.
Slipping rightwards like this? Or maybe this or this or this?
Or could it be that there's more going on, when the Vatican takes a position on an issue, than politics? "Left" and "right" are pretty useless labels when it comes to the Church, IMO.
Posts: 110 | From: Northeastern U.S. | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
feast of stephen
Shipmate
# 8885
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Afghan:
There was a rather apropos article in The Economist a few weeks back...
Many rights, some wrong
Interesting link, but it doesn't mention anything about the abortion issue, nevertheless the article is a genral complaint about AI getting too big for its boots and sticking its fingers into too many (unwelcome) pies.
But the Economist is hardly going to write a pro-Amnesty article if the organisation dares to criticize the US where most of the readership are based. Apparently according to the article, Amnesty criticised Guantanamo and said it was like a Soviet Gulag...so obviously according to the Econ., how absurd of Amnesty to state that (or in my opinion, state the obvious!) It also dared to criticise a US ally and Russian enemy, Estonia over it's restrictions on the rights of russian language speakers, who make up about a quarter of Estonia's population, (gasp? -NOT, why should human rights abuses only take place in Africa or Asia, and not the US and Europe? We in the West need to make sure we aren;t being hypocrites and allowing human rights abuses in our own backyard while we criticise the third world for allowing them)
Anyway, getting back to the point, it seems both the Economist and the Vatican are concerned about AI getting too big for its boots and trying to widen its remit from person X under house arrest to the general human rights of millions, to still campaigning for person X and for many millions of those whose names we will never know, and their health, sanitation, education, aswell as their right to free speech and worship. I think, good on AI for becoming more ambitious. And I pity both the Economist article writer and the Vatican for being in my opinion so dull and unimaginative.
--------------------
"A man who does not think for himself, does not think at all" Oscar Wilde
Posts: 85 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The RCC is slipping nowhere, she's simply maintaining what she always has maintained.
Is she?
My impression is that the idea that human life begins from conception, as opposed to either fetal formation or quickening, is relatively recent even among Catholics.
From the Fount of All Knowledge (Wikipedia):
- 1140 - The monk John Gratian completed the Concordia discordantium canonum (Harmony of Contradictory Laws) which became the first authoritative collection of Canon law accepted by the Church. In accordance with ancient scholars, it concluded the moral crime of early abortion was not equivalent to that of homicide.
- c. 1200 - Pope Innocent III wrote that when "quickening" occurred, abortion was homicide. Before that, abortion was considered a less serious sin.
- 1250 - According to ancient English common law, abortion after fetal movement or "quickening" was punishable as homicide, and abortion was also punishable "if the foetus is already formed" but not yet quickened, according to Henry Bracton.[47]
- c. 1395 - The Lollards, an English proto-Protestant group, denounce the practice of abortion in The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards.
- 1487 - Malleus Maleficarum (The Hammer of Witches), a witch-hunting manual, is published in Germany. It accuses midwives who perform abortions of committing witchcraft.[48]
- 1588 - Pope Sixtus V aligned Church policy with St. Thomas Aquinas' belief that contraception and abortion were crimes against nature and sins against marriage.
- 1591 - Pope Gregory XIV decreed that prior to 116 days (~17 weeks), Church penalties would not be any stricter than local penalties, which varied from country to country.
At any rate, it does not seem to be as clear-cut as the Vatican believes, even on the RCC's own terms.
[ 14. June 2007, 20:19: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
fisher
Shipmate
# 9080
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
Anyway, getting back to the point, it seems both the Economist and the Vatican are concerned about AI getting too big for its boots and trying to widen its remit from person X under house arrest to the general human rights of millions, to still campaigning for person X and for many millions of those whose names we will never know, and their health, sanitation, education, aswell as their right to free speech and worship. I think, good on AI for becoming more ambitious. And I pity both the Economist article writer and the Vatican for being in my opinion so dull and unimaginative.
I don't think that has any relevance at all to the point. I'd be surprised if the RCC objected to Amnesty championing a broad view of human economic and social rights, given that the Catholic Church has been at the forefront of that movement for some time. That shift within Amnesty has been underway for a while and the Vatican has waited until now to break links. It looks like it's abortion rather than social justice that has upset them.
--------------------
"Down, down, presumptuous human reason!" But somehow they found out I was not a real bishop at all G. K. Chesterton
Posts: 1327 | From: London | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
The RCC position is clear. Clearly stupid that is. This is like watching the radicals on the left that are fighting like hell to preserve the right to partial birth abortion. Also stupid.
The RCC position that a few cells is a “life” when those cells were manufactured in violence, or worse may kill an ACTUAL life (the mother) instead of a potential, theoretical life is the epitome of harebrained theology (is there any other kind?). That the Pro-lifers then dig in and try to declare some arbitrary and moral high ground when they are okay with killing mothers, but not zygotes is imbecilic. Only religion can be this stupid.
As I said in the Hell thread, I don’t like AI much and I just made a donation to them for their good decision.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
The RCC position that a few cells is a “life” when those cells were manufactured in violence, or worse may kill an ACTUAL life (the mother) instead of a potential, theoretical life is the epitome of harebrained theology (is there any other kind?). That the Pro-lifers then dig in and try to declare some arbitrary and moral high ground when they are okay with killing mothers, but not zygotes is imbecilic.
I don't agree with the Vatican's position, but IIRC they do allow abortion if the life of the mother is in danger.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
That was one of AIs stipulations, supposedly. Afraid I don't see much of a distinction either way. If they can exempt that, they can exempt a rape or incest. Technically incest is risking the life of the baby should it come to term. Genetics and all that.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
In this instance of rape/life threatening health condition, the Vatican appears to place greater emphasis on the unborn fetus/baby, than it does on the woman(or girl's) life. I'd like to know more about the reasoning behind this.
Concerning life threatening conditions for the mother, what is not allowed is direct abortion - killing the unborn life with the intent of saving the mother. This is simply the old moral rule of not doing evil to gain good. However, an abortion which follows predictably from medical actions keeping the mother alive, as long as it is not intended or willed but only tolerated, is morally licit. Once more, this is an old moral rule, that of double effect. Any other consideration, like the serious hardship of carrying a rapist's child to term, cannot top the fundamental right of an innocent person to life. If you have done nothing to me, I may not murder you, even if doing so would tremendously improve the quality of my life. The same applies to unborn life.
quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
And I'd also like to know more about why the Vatican seems to have a black/white with no in between grey attitude towards abortion.
It's quite simple, really. The right to life is the most fundamental right of an innocent person, it is then entirely inviolable. The person whose life is under attack in abortion - the ZEF - cannot possibly be guilty of anything, hence in no way or form can the ZEF's right to life be compromised.
quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
It seems to me the Vatican has more in common these days with fundamentalist Islamist states like Iran who also ban abortion but deny human rights (or other human rights, if you like)
What human right is the Vatican denying?
quote:
Originally posted by feast of stephen:
Well, other implaccable positions the Vatican used to hold, were such things as all masses being held in Latin, Pope's leading calls for Crusades, the Virgin Mary not rising into heaven, then suddenly in 18hundred and something by Papal order, she officially was...need I go on?
No, you've embarrassed yourself quite enough. None of these have doctrinal status, except for the Assumption of Mary, about which you appear confused. The doctrine against abortion is ancient and constantly repeated, and it will not go away:
quote:
Declaration on Procured Abortion:
6. The tradition of the Church has always held that human life must be protected and favored from the beginning, just as at the various stages of its development. Opposing the morals of the Greco-Roman world, the Church of the first centuries insisted on the difference that exists on this point between those morals and Christian morals. In the Didache it is clearly said: "You shall not kill by abortion the fruit of the womb and you shall not murder the infant already born."[6] Athenagoras emphasizes that Christians consider as murderers those women who take medicines to procure an abortion; he condemns the killers of children, including those still living in their mother's womb, "where they are already the object of the care of divine Providence." Tertullian did not always perhaps use the same language; he nevertheless clearly affirms the essential principle: "To prevent birth is anticipated murder; it makes little difference whether one destroys a life already born or does away with it in its nascent stage. The one who will be a man is already one."[8]
7. In the course of history, the Fathers of the Church, her Pastors and her Doctors have taught the same doctrine - the various opinions on the infusion of the spiritual soul did not introduce any doubt about the illicitness of abortion. It is true that in the Middle Ages, when the opinion was generally held that the spiritual soul was not present until after the first few weeks, a distinction was made in the evaluation of the sin and the gravity of penal sanctions. Excellent authors allowed for this first period more lenient case solutions which they rejected for following periods. But it was never denied at that time that procured abortion, even during the first days, was objectively grave fault. This condemnation was in fact unanimous. Among the many documents it is sufficient to recall certain ones. The first Council of Mainz in 847 reconsidered the penalties against abortion which had been established by preceding Councils. It decided that the most rigorous penance would be imposed "on women who procure the elimination of the fruit conceived in their womb."[9] The Decree of Gratian reported the following words of Pope Stephen V: "That person is a murderer who causes to perish by abortion what has been conceived."[10] St. Thomas, the Common Doctor of the Church, teaches that abortion is a grave sin against the natural law." At the time of the Renaissance Pope Sixtus V condemned abortion with the greatest severity.[12] A century later, Innocent XI rejected the propositions of certain lax canonists who sought to excuse an abortion procured before the moment accepted by some as the moment of the spiritual animation of the new being.[13] In our days the recent Roman Pontiffs have proclaimed the same doctrine with the greatest clarity. Pius XI explicitly answered the most serious objections.[14] Pius XII clearly excluded all direct abortion, that is, abortion which is either an end or a means.[15] John XXIII recalled the teaching of the Fathers on the sacred character of life "which from its beginning demands the action of God the Creator."[16] Most recently, the Second Vatican Council, presided over by Paul VI, has most severely condemned abortion: "Life must be safeguarded with extreme care from conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes."[17] The same Paul VI, speaking on this subject on many occasions, has not been afraid to declare that this teaching of the Church "has not changed and is unchangeable."[18]
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My impression is that the idea that human life begins from conception, as opposed to either fetal formation or quickening, is relatively recent even among Catholics.
It's important to keep one's language clear. When the RCC talks of conception, she always talks about the infusion of the human soul by God. The biological fusion of sperm and egg into a zygote is however fertilization. That it is philosophically likely that conception occurs at fertilization is not at this point in time a definite teaching of the magisterium. And indeed, earlier times put conception much after fertilization. But as the document quoted already says in a footnote:
quote:
Declaration on Procured Abortion:
19. This declaration expressly leaves aside the question of the moment when the spiritual soul is infused. There is not a unanimous tradition on this point and authors are as yet in disagreement. For some it dates from the first instant; for others it could not at least precede nidation. It is not within the competence of science to decide between these views, because the existence of an immortal soul is not a question in its field. It is a philosophical problem from which our moral affirmation remains independent for two reasons: (1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed, (2) on the other hand, it suffices that this presence of the soul be probable (and one can never prove the contrary) in order that the taking of life involve accepting the risk of killing a man, not only waiting for, but already in possession of his soul.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
The right to life is the most fundamental right of an innocent person, it is then entirely inviolable.
I don't agree that a ZEF is a 'person' for all of gestation, and therefore don't accept that it can have 'rights'. But let's allow you that. It seems to me that 'innocent' is not quite the right word for the idea you are suggesting. 'Innocent' suggests some kind of ethical evaluation. But there are surely individuals who are not blameworthy whom we may legitimately kill. Extreme thought experiment: someone has been hypnotised and, under the hypnotist's orders, is now walking down a crowded shopping street firing indiscriminately from a handgun. I take it that an armed police officer doesn't act unjustly in shooting that person dead.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I don't agree with the Vatican's position, but IIRC they do allow abortion if the life of the mother is in danger.
Not according to our resident expert. Apparently a zygote is a living breathing thinking person, and to kill that innocent person is not okay in order to save the mother, unless it happens accidentally.
Wait, what was that first part again? A Zygote is a living breathing thinking person? That can't possibly be correct. They can't possibly think that, can they? Surely they realize that is bullshit, right? They can't be that absurd, really?
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
Surely they realize that is bullshit, right?
It baffles me as well.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
If you have done nothing to me, I may not murder you, even if doing so would tremendously improve the quality of my life. The same applies to unborn life.
And if a fertilized egg did nothing to a woman's body, we wouldn't be having this argument. But going back to the OP...
Besides Amnesty, are there other organizations promoting a more acceptable list of human rights that a Roman Catholic could support in good conscience? OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Divine Outlaw Dwarf:
I take it that an armed police officer doesn't act unjustly in shooting that person dead.
If he shoots to kill in full awareness of the innocence of the hypnotized person, then the police officer indeed acts unjustly. He should instead try to disable the person, and if there is no other possibility, he can try to do so by shooting to disable. If the hypnotized person dies from these disabling shots, but that was not intended and willed (although predictably a possible outcome), then the police offer is not unjust by double effect.
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
A Zygote is a living breathing thinking person?
A zygote is a living person who neither breathes (unless you count oxygen osmosis) nor thinks, but will do both given the chance to develop normally.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
(1) supposing a belated animation, there is still nothing less than a human life, preparing for and calling for a soul in which the nature received from parents is completed,
A view which would have baffled St Thomas. A rational soul is not some kind of bolt-on extra to a possibly stand-alone human life (a Cartesian type view). The soul, in the classical tradition, is what informs matter, making a living entity to be the very complexly-organised living entity that it is. It makes no sense, on this understanding, to say that a foetus, prior to having a rational soul, is a 'human life' in the same sense as it is subsequently. We should allow analogy between 'before' and 'after', and we should affirm some continuity (in nutritive and sensate capacities, for example): but the above quoted view just doesn't sit very comfortably with a (the?) mainstream philosophical anthropology utilised in the historic Western Catholic tradition.
Unrelatedly, but to push IngoB. OK, make the hypotised person a primed suicide bomber. And accept the view commonly held by experts that the only adequate way to prevent the person attacking is through a gunshot to the head (which will kill). Do you maintain your position?
[ 14. June 2007, 23:40: Message edited by: Divine Outlaw Dwarf ]
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
As I said, Bullshit.
For a guy that usually tries so hard to be logical, that you can't see that a Zygote which can't think, and a person, that can, are two different things speaks volumes about the hideous contortions that religious belief does to "logic".
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mad Geo:
For a guy that usually tries so hard to be logical, that you can't see that a Zygote which can't think, and a person, that can, are two different things speaks volumes about the hideous contortions that religious belief does to "logic".
Although, the alternative view I was suggesting drew on St Thomas Aquinas, who developed the thought of the not unreligious Aristotle. So, perhaps those of us affected by religious delusion can be logical.
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
As has already been demonstrated by various posts, and by the Amnesty decision, there are irreconcilable differences between those who see abortion as an issue of a woman's "reproductive rights" (to do with sexual morality) and those who see it as an issue of the right to life (to do with "human rights"). Pace hatless, but it is not the Catholic Church which has made this an issue of sexual morals and rights. It does not see the issue as belonging in that category.
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Triple Tiara
Ship's Papabile
# 9556
|
Posted
At which point, Mad Geo, does a "human life" become worthy of protection?
--------------------
I'm a Roman. You may call me Caligula.
Posts: 5905 | From: London, England | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Divine Outlaw
Gin-soaked boy
# 2252
|
Posted
To pre-empt him: he might not need to be able to answer that question precisely. As long as he has a fairly good idea of what is not a person (and why), then he can draw a line arbitrarily, and erring on the side of caution. We draw arbitrary lines in legislation all the time. Would it be an utter disaster if the age of consent were 15? 17?
--------------------
insert amusing sig. here
Posts: 8705 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
