Comments for An International Double Standard at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 6 out of 6 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Tue, 18 Jun 2013 16:41:44 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/an-international-double-standard.html#comment-5421 I second what Andy said. Also, Austin Ruse, it was a low blow of you to discredit Kasha Jacqueline's work by referring to her organization as "something". You are intelligent; I am sure you realize it is an organization. You wrote: "Among the speakers is Kasha N. Jacqueline, who is founder of something called Freedom and Roam Uganda". For the record, I am anti-abortion at any moment past conception and still pro-gay marriage. - Stephen Tue, 07 Dec 2010 10:36:43 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/an-international-double-standard.html#comment-5379 There is no such thing as "just discrimination". There is never a "good reason" to persecute, deny rights, harm or otherwise degenerate the quality of life of your fellow human beings. Religion can be such an amazing force for good in the world but using it to (and make no mistake this is precisely what it is doing with articles like this) hurt others, force them to feel somehow "less than human" because they are different, and generally try to propagate hate amongst the masses dishonors the true purpose of religion in my opinion. Calling for the protection of unborn children lives while in the SAME BREATH advocating the diminishing and/or ending of gay people's lives/rights/happiness is hypocrisy of the highest order. If you truly believe in protecting lives and making the world a better place then stop playing favorites. So long as it does no harm, everyone deserves to live, everyone deserves to find their happiness regardless of their differences. As far as I know, teaching tolerance for differences among people even if you disagree/don't approve was never harmful to society and in fact makes it a better place for everyone. When religion as a whole stops telling these young gay people that they are sick and worthless and better off dead (and again make no mistake, that's exactly what you are doing) then you can advocate protecting the lives of the unborn without hypocrisy. - Nicholas Mercy Tue, 30 Nov 2010 15:36:42 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/an-international-double-standard.html#comment-5358 so you condemn kasha jacqueline for risking her life to stop the mass execution of potentially millions of gay ugandans, on the basis that you dont want gay adoption? That doesn't sound very pro-life to me. - andy Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:02:18 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/an-international-double-standard.html#comment-5347 Dear Manja, your premise is wrong ("my body is my body; my life is my life") and therefore your logic is confused. "I have problems to see a child as a human when it is not able to breathe on its own - so actually a child would not be human for me below the 7th or 8th month." So, for you, a child on a respirator (no matter how old or for what reason) is no longer human? A human embryo is human from the minute of conception - it will never be a rabbit or an elephant or a tiger. Whether the embryo or pre-born infant is able to survive on its own does not make any difference. Humans, created by God, defend and nurture the weakest, in nature it is survival of the fittest... - Anna Pihta Thu, 25 Nov 2010 20:56:10 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/an-international-double-standard.html#comment-5335 My body is my body. My life is my life. It is my decision whom I sleep with, no matter the gender. It is my decision if I wanna bear a child I conceived unwilingly by rape (since I CAN prevent a pregnancy when I have sex by choice. Condoms and stuff.). Also it is my right to abort when I learn that a pregnancy could pretty easily kill me. Call me egomaniac but not even my wish for a child could make me risk my own life - though I'd risk my life very readily FOR a already born child. It is a human right to decide freely over your own body without fearing punishment. (The problem is in the definition of a human life. Catholics see an embryo already as human and thus it is logical to condemn abortion. Since killing without a need is a sin. Biologically an embryo is recognised as a living being when it has a heart beat - and while I see the point in the Catholic argumentation (which probably any mother or mother-to-be-and-exited-about will share at least considering her own child), I am too much of a rationalist to be not on the Biology-side. And - I know now I gonna get the full load of crap - while I think the abortion should be allowed only under the 3rd-month-line (as long as it is still an embryo) I have problems to see a child as a human when it is not able to breathe on its own - so actually a child would not be human for me below the 7th or 8th month.) - Manja Wed, 24 Nov 2010 13:18:55 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2010/an-international-double-standard.html#comment-5334 its this kind of thinking that has the world in these conflicts and circumstances of violence for a reason. The fact that you condemn someone for there deepest beliefs, nay, their very nature because they are not parallel with your own seems bias at best. Wheither you can agree with abortion, i think its a right for a women to say if she wants to have a rape baby, and for differing sexuality i cant see how the love that god is suppose to spread would cause this kind of cavalier prejudice against somebody that thinks feels and speaks just like any of us. Don't be so quick to condemn, plus i can't understand the phrase " killing children in the womb", if you can agree its a fetus, a fetus in that stage of their development are not intelligent. Think of chickens and eggs, you eat their aborted young and you don't see people in an uproar over it. Don't condemn what you cannot fully say, with all necessary proof, that someone else is in the wrong for doing what they know is best. Especially if the ones themselves have faith in the same god you believe in. - Sean Wed, 24 Nov 2010 10:00:18 +0100