🚀 go-pugleaf

John,

Actually it is ignorance that causes the spread of STD's - not promiscuity!
The people who are spreading STD's are not using protection, even though 
such protection is available.
You can easilty say Ivan wants women to be whores, but I think what he is 
saying is he thinks women should be free.

He makes very good points. The Roman Catholic church has shunned women. They 
are not equals in the Church.
I don't need to point out how long the Church has been attacking and 
oppressing women.
An example, all the witch burning, well was witch burning. You don't really 
hear about warlock burning do you?
The traditional marriage the Church supported was one in which the female 
was chattel, a kind of property.
Consenting to marriage meant perpetual consent - it was just until recently 
where a husband could actually legally commit rape against his wife.
Prior to that change in law, a husband could not be charged with raping his 
wife, no matter how brutally, or how unwilling she was.
It wasn't the church that set that wrong right - they opposed it by not 
championing it.

We know why women are not allowed into the clergy. Jesus was a man, and his 
disciples were women.
A woman of that time could not have been a disciple. Do you think her 
husband would let her off to evangelize with a bunch of men?
Jesus lived in a sexist society. His disciples were composed of only men 
because of the times. Had Jesus been alive today, he'd have co-ed disciples.

I think the hardest thing to swallow about the church is they don't practice 
what their teacher taught.
When they do, they don't understand the lesson, and take it litterally when 
it is the meaning not the act that is important.

You know Jesus, who never had a girlfriend, married or had kids ( well there 
is some evidence to suggest Jesus didn't die on the cross, escaped the Roman 
empire by fleeing to India, married there and did have kids. And his blood 
line is the Holy Grail. See the word for Grail can mean challace, or blood, 
and blood like in relatives, offspring. The quest for the Holy Grail was of 
course the quest for Jesus' family.
And I would like to point out while there is very little proof for that, 
there is as about as much proof to support that as there is to support Jesus 
actually existed) never really dissed women, or subjegated them. So I have 
no idea where the church got it's misogynistic view towards women.
But I have my suspicion.

History suports the fact that the clergy has always been a safe haven for 
homosexuals. A safe haven, because out in the medevil world, a man that 
didn't seek the company of women was suspect and faced persecution. But in a 
church, being in the constant company of men, with absolutely no suspicion 
due to the lack of female company, the church has always had a much larger 
percentage of gays in it than exists in the natural population.
So with such a strong influence by numbers, from men who have no use or 
place for woemn in their lives, the church over the centuries developed a 
very satanic view of women. And treated them as such.

But frankly if you look at history, women have been treated like shit since 
men figured out that they had something to do with the miracle of birth.
As anthropologists have put forth, and with their supporting evidence, 
including archeological evidence, that before men knew they had a role in 
procreation, they assumed women were divine and thus worshiped for their 
ability to give life. But once men discovered it was their seed that began 
life, women were torn down from up high, and pushed into the gutters of 
society. And they have been there ever since the sufferage movement of the 
mid 1800's. It's only been in the last 150 years that women have gone from 
slaves to equals, and real equality is still not present.

I think women have a lot further to go. When there is a woman Pope then the 
church might start growing in the educated world once again.
But when the Church tells more than half the people in the world that they 
are not good enough to participate in the ministry of the Church and the 
word, somebody isn't listening to Jesus at all.

The fact is that men and women together have the responsibility to keep the 
species alive and perpetuating. And as long as that is being tended, woman 
are/should be free as men, and have any vocation they choose, like men, and 
excell or fail, just like men. And if the Pope was a woman, a lot more women 
would become a lot more into the church. And men would too, because women 
influence men, but if men could dig the Pope's tits and ass too - okay, well 
I guess not, since cardinals are already one step from death on the average, 
and who wants to see tits and ass that old.

I mean I was looking at the ages of the Cardinals. The youngest is 58, one 
of the very few in their late 50's. Most are in their mid 80's, a number are 
in their mid 90's. I recall Pope John Paul, you know the guy who was voted 
in Pope, and died after one month in office. I think that is the main reason 
they voted for John Paul II, he was the youngest Cardinal, and youngest Pope 
in recent times. And look he lived another 26 years, which is a nice long 
term in office, but died at about the average age of the current Cardinals.

I think if there was some real christian reason women could not be ordained 
other good christian sects would not do it.
I think if there was a good christian reason why preists can't marry, then 
other good christian sects would not allow their preists to marry.


But I love it when they interpret the word of God differently. It just goes 
to show these words can't be God's words. God can't be dumber than say 
Albert Einstien, can he? I mean more powerful, but dumber? Is that actually 
possible?

Anyway the only thing I don't agree with Ivan, totally. I think the desire 
for some men to control women is definitely behind the forces agaist 
abortion on demand. But let's use logic, how does that work for women who 
argue against abotion. Obviously it's not in their interests to advocate 
men's control over women. But there are women that desire the control of 
males - so it can't be ruled out.

I have an issue with abortion on demand. Logic and science tell me a fetus 
is human. A human is constantly evolving, by either generation or 
degeneration. A human life has a beginning and an end. Life begins at 
conception, likely prior to conception, but human life begins at conception, 
because a sperm lacks the necessay cromozones....but anyone with a 
microscope can tell you sperm is alive....until it dies, both which are 
evident under a microscope. But human life begins at conception and ends at 
death.

The only arguement that can be made are inconsequential things such as "when 
does a fetus have awareness, feel pain, become cognative, etc".
My perspective is biological. And that shapes my morality. I mean in the 
scheme of things saying a fetus is not human because it doesn't have 
awareness, is just the same as saying a child is not human because it does 
not have pubic hair. I will admit they are major differences, but as far as 
denying one their humanity, they are equally arbitrary. We all know a child 
will develop pubic hair if allowed to grow, and we also know a fetus will 
develop awareness, if allowed to grow.

So my big issue is that I view the fetus as an equal player. I think a fetus 
is human and should be entitled to human rights.
My beef is that society is denying a fetus its humanity on a purely 
arbitrary basis, a criteria as baseless as saying it is okay to terminate a 
child because it lacks pubic hair - but as soon as it has pubic hair it 
would be murder. I have seldom heard of anything more self-deceptive in my 
life.

It's not that I am against women's rights. It think a woman requires rights 
over her own body, because for eons she has not had rights over her body.
She is due and entitled and desrving to have the rights over her own body. 
Not men - not the state. I agree. I want to see a fetus' humanity recognized 
and it be granted human rights, if not legal rights.

Then I would love to see our great legal system work out how those rights 
stack up against each other, and what and when will prevail.
Then I could have a clean conscience about it. Then I could be comfortable 
that the youngest humans had some of that same equality that women are now 
enjoying. And you know if women have to get used to a different world, as 
long as it is in the true spirit of fairness and equality, women will adjust 
the same way as men are adjusting.

If the legal system determines that women's rights will prevail, I can live 
with that and be comfortable society has made the right decision.
Only the way things are now, fetus don't have rights, and without rights, 
they don't actually exist. Nobody can make legal arguments based on rights 
when there are none for one party, and strongly established ones for the 
other party. The challeneges to women's rights have come from the state and 
men, but not the human beings with the most versted in the issues - because 
they have no rights whatsoever.

So many people may not share my views, or agree with my analysis. I suppose 
that is fine.
I do see abortion as a human tragedy. Pregancy is so easily prevented. And 
that is another issue society has to deal with, because prevention is a way 
to drastically reduce the demand for abortion services. So there is this 
responsibility thing that is just not being dealt with at any level, and 
this irresponsibility fuels such high demand for abortion services. So there 
are multiple ways to drastically reduce the demand for abortion services, 
without opening up the can of worms that granting rights to fetus' would 
create in other realms besides the abortion issue.

Yet on the other hand can people really support women using abortion 
services as a substitute for birth control?
And men share equally in the responsibility, even though a woman has a 
plethora of aids, while a male's is very limited.
But a male can be insistant, and tie sex to protection and birth control 
too. We need to change attitudes and behaviors.

But look at John's approach. He condemn's the women. He chastises the 
doctors. He openly hates those supporting choice, and he always confuses 
prochoice with only one choice, not understanding the concept of choice, 
since he offers none. Marriage and abstainance is not a choice.
Either or is a choice. Pro choice people support both sides. Otherwise they 
are pro abortion - not pro choice. And John is against every form of birth 
control, except abstainance, and I guess the only form of birth control is 
the least effective one, the rythme method, or abstainance within marriage.

John wouldn't know an issue if it came up and bit him on the arsehole.

All I can say is that Pope John Paul II lasted about 312 times longer than 
Pope John Paul I.
Don't expect the next one to last anywhere near as long.
Why does it have to be Cardinals? Why can't some young Bishops be in on it 
too?
Take some Bishop in his 30's and you might get 65 years service out of the 
Pope.
Oh, right, Pope means Father, so the guy has to be old enough to be most 
people's father.
I see. That is why a woman can't be Pope, a woman can't be father.
Ah, um, er, hey tell that to all those single Mom's, who are both mother and 
father!


-- 

===============================================
...everything you say are lies based on your hate for the
Catholic Church, religion and God in general, you're just a
walking toilet of crap.

John Lauzon - Date: 2005-03-29

=======================================
"SunDance" <SunDancingGuy...@netscape.net..> wrote in message 
news:d2sdrq$1cr$1@utornnr1pp.grouptelecom.net...
> Ivan Gowch wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 08:33:08 GMT, Helper Monkey Assault
>> Squad 7 <helpermoney@deathtozombies.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 03 Apr 2005 03:31:03 -0400, SunDancer 
>>> <SunDancingGuy...@netscape.net..> wrote:
>>>> ...condoms promote promiscuity, sex outside of
>>>> marriage and the spread of STD's b/c they don't
>>>> always work or are used incorrectly.
>>
>>> For those of us who aren't retarded, would you mind
>>> explaining the correlation between condoms not being
>>> 100% effective and the promotion of promiscuity and sex
>>> outside of marriage?
>>
>> Let me help.
>
> ...you mean like, help you catch an STD.
>
>
>> You have to understand where Lauzon is coming from.
>> Lauzon has a big problem with women.  He worships the
>> Medjugorge (or however it's spelled) hallucination, and
>> idolizes the so-called "virgin" Mary, but REAL women fill
>> him with fear and loathing.
>>
>> It's clear that his antipathy towards contraception is not because it 
>> prevents the potential birth of future Catholics, but that it frees women 
>> to have all the sex
>> they want, without fear of pregnancy or STDs.
>>
>> THAT's what drives the religious wackos like Lauzon insane with fury and 
>> disgust.  Women are now free to
>> fuck, to be as promiscuous as men have always been, and
>> not get punished for it.
>
> ...you mean the spreading of STD's, aborting their children, catching 
> AIDS, and the development of new strains of STD's that our most powerful 
> antibiotics can't kill, is NOT happening?
>
>
>> The limp dicks among us can't abide that thought (that
>> they're missing out), so they don the phoney mantle of
>> morality to try to force the female sex genie back into
>> the bottle.
>>
>> Lauzon's fanatical opposition to abortion supports this
>> analysis.
>>
>> Anyone who's read his contributions to this and other
>> forums knows Lauzon is as compassionless, hate-wracked
>> and hostile a specimen as one is likely to find. The
>> notion that he's motivated by a love for fetuses is
>> plainly absurd.
>>
>> No, Lauzon's anti-abortion obsession is driven by the same fascist 
>> impulses that sparked the first moves against abortion in 19th-century 
>> North America.
>>
>> Initial opposition to the procedure had nothing whatsoever to do with 
>> "saving babies."  That's a rationalization that was invented much later. 
>> Lauzon's
>> 1800s counterparts campaigned against abortion because,
>> they said, it enabled women to have all the sex they
>> liked, without the pregnancy bugaboo.
>>
>> Women who could terminate their pregnancies, they warned,
>> had no barrier to becoming wanton, sex-enjoying hussies,
>> instead of the long-suffering, close-your-eyes-and-bear-it-'til-it's-over 
>> little madonnas that the religious wackos (and men who didn't
>> want to lose their slaves) demanded they be.
>>
>> Contraception and abortion, the two developments that
>> freed women to have all the sex their little pussies
>> desire, are therefore the targets for women-fearing,
>> sex-hating delusionaries such as Lauzon.
>>
>> Fortunately, genies are not easily forced back into bottles and, with the 
>> long-overdue death of the hyper-conservative, woman-hating jerkoff in the 
>> Vatican
>> known as John Paul, there is a window of opportunity for
>> the Catholic church to start to make amends for its
>> centuries of criminality by finally recognizing women as
>> full-fledged human beings.
>>
>> The church's war on women goes back a long way, however,
>> and the wise are well-advised not to hold their breath.
>
> ...well obviously, Ivan and wisdom are strangers. Ivan wants all women to 
> be whores, a whore is his idea of the ideal women, one who also aborts her 
> children so nothing stands in the way of sexual promiscuity. He believes 
> that the only reason AIDS, STD's and the new more powerful strains of 
> STD's exist is b/c of the Roman Catholic Churches teachings of abstinence, 
> celibacy and responsibility. He believes only condoms can stop STD's in 
> their tracks, and the RCC's teachings are the only reason for any STD's 
> that exist today, obviously, if people followed church teachings, STD's 
> would be almost non-existent, but due to the promotion of condoms and 
> other contraceptives that are NOT 100% safe, and allows for irresponsible 
> sex, allows immoral men like Ivan to use women like whores, being married 
> or unmarried makes no difference to him, all women are the same to Ivan, 
> just whores to be used for sexual gratification, to him, they are just an 
> object, a thing to be used, his above rant proves that, no matter what 
> diseases develop from it, or children that are destroyed by it, 
> promiscuity reigns above all.
>
>
>> -- Do away with contraceptives and humanity would change
>> completely to a society based on the stable nuclear
>> family. -John Lauzon (bk469@torfree.net), proving that he
>> is insane, 2000/03/12.
>
>
> -- 
> ===================================
> ($50 million?  Where the hell did you get that figure?
> An aborton costs about $600. 100,000 x $600 =
> $600,000.  Seems you failed arithmetic as well as
> logic, Lauzon.  Why am I not surprised?)
> --
> -Ivan Gowch, Date: 2004-07-10 13:06:00 PST
> ===================================
> (To destroy evil, is to invite endless apathy.)
> --
> -SilverStar
> ===================================