OMG We have a martyr

[Heraclitus]

Private pharmacies can choose to deny contraceptives for women if they want to.

America is ****ing wierd. Not that this disscusion has anything to do with it. Over here a woman can get contraceptives for free and we still have a very high rate of abortion among women in their late 20's and 30's (teen pregnancies aren't so common here). At the end of the day its just hard to think abortion is about birth control any more.


Sure there are women who are too stupid to use or insist on contraception if they don't want a child, but statistics don't really point to these women aborting much more than women who should know better than relying upon such an invasive procedure.


Edit: I was tempted to let the little fishes nibble on this, but I just want to clarify the reason I say "women" and not "people" is because only women can have abortions. Duh. Thou something equivalent to a male aborting his legal responsibilities towards a unborn child would be a good way to promote real equality between the sexes.

[Heraclitus]

rule of law

Ha ha he said rule of law. Funny stuff on poly.

[Heraclitus]

But this won't actually stop any incinerations, either severely mentally deficient or the disabled.

You have to change people, although I would favor changing the law to outlaw killing the disabled.

JM

ftfy

Lets try this again JM, if person-hood begins at conception then how is what you said different from what Johan Kraut would say in an alternative America ruled by Himmler Jr.?


Also think hard about why I choose those two groups instead of something more cliche like Jews or Communists.

[Heraclitus]

Exaclty, and the majority of pro-life people don't believe it to that extreme.

Let me fix that for you

Exaclty, and the majority of pro-life people don't think about what the **** the logical conclusion to their beliefs is.

On the other hand this is true too.

Exaclty, and the majority of pro-choice people don't think about what the **** the logical conclusion to their belief is .

[Ben Kenobi]

I think this is one of the most disgusting distortion of words and concepts that I have encountered until now.

Good. You agree with me and can start to understand where my viewpoint comes from. I have heard the term parasite be used many, many times wrt to the unborn.

When the word 'parasite' is used to describe the fetus it is in NO ONE's mind (except your's, Ben) that it is meant with any negative (and even less murderous) connotations.

This is the most bull**** argument I've ever encountered here. Of all the bull**** that's been spouted.

So it's ok for me to call a Jew a parasite, and not have him assume that it has a negative connation. Absolute unmitigated horse****.

It is usually used in medical or biologic context to describe the fact that the fetus feeds and lives at the expenses (no negative connotations here either) of the mother.

And biologically, it's used to identify a species that lives off another species without providing any contribution to the host. If you are using it in the biological sense, then an unborn child cannot be a parasite because it is of the same species as you and I.

This is why I call this biological definition horse****. We do refer to other human beings as parasites in a pejorative way all the time, and the references to the unborn are no different. They are NOT using it in a biological sense, because biology simply doesn't work that way.

To use a biological term (any term), to distort it and to put words, thoughts and intents in other's mind is absolute intellectual dishonesty at best and evil lies, manipulation - or should I say propaganda - at worst.

The only one distorting the biological term is you. You cannot have parasites of the same species, ergo, an unborn child cannot be a parasite, unless you are using it in a pejorative way.

No. Nobody in his sane mind would say that. Only the sick mind of people desperately in need to portray those who disagree with them in wicked ways.

http://www.rqhealth.ca/programs/in_hospital_care/womens_health/therapeutic.shtml

Yeah, I'm so totally making it up... Pro aborts use the term 'therapeutic abortion' constantly.

I have indeed heard some (very few) women who have that kind of language, but those are women who do not want any child at all. They either use contraceptive methods or do what it needs to be sure they won't have any.

Wrong, it's used by pro aborts all the time. I can find many, many examples of people who use the term therapeutic abortion.

And yes, some of them use such hard words as 'parasites' and 'disease' to emphasis their negative feelings about maternity. I consider that rhetorical or highly emotional speech. It only takes a fundamentalist to take those words to the letter.

And it takes a nazi to call Jews parasites. Forgive me for drawing the obvious parallel between the two philosophies.

Surely we haven't been in contact with the same persons.
Those fearing overpopulation are pro birth control (or no-children freaks), not related with pro-choice.

Umm, Margaret Sanger? Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider at least in the US, and probably worldwide.

I never, ever heard anyone advocating abortion as a solution for overpopulation.

Then you are being disingenuous.

I begin to suspect it might be voices inside your head, but not people in real life.

Really? Lets go read Margaret Sanger.

"Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents."

"The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression."

This is the founder of Planned Parenthood, and what the organisation is all about. And somehow, it's a surprise that they do abortion?

I have never, ever heard anyone using the word 'parasite' to justify an abortion

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetus-focus-fallacy.shtml

"An unwanted fetus has no ill intent of course - like a parasite, it's just doing what it naturally has to do -but the physical risks of pregnancy and its total disruption to a woman's body and life means the fetus is not harmless, and therefore not innocent. This gives the woman the right to defend herself via an abortion. "

Joyce Arthur.

This is not prolifers claiming that the pro aborts say this, the pro aborts say it willingly.

Did you read that, first hand, from pro-choice booklet, or did you read that from quote-mining pro-life propaganda taking sentences out of context, distorting them in order to justify what they imagine in their sick mind what other people think (see the above example with the parasite).

I've read this first hand. Go look at it yourself.

Ben, you are the most offensive person here.

Really? Awesome. If condemning the death of 40 million people makes me the most hated person alive, then I am glad to be hated.

As most hideous religious people in history, you claim to know better than the people themselves what they think and what their intents are. You put words and thoughts in their mouth and heads. You distort their words, taking them out of context.

I distort nothing. I sell truth. I reveal truth. Go, look yourself, and you will see that I am right.

You are very, very close to be the second person, in whole Apolyton's history to be on my ignore list.
In your case, it will be for intellectual dishonesty and unproven use ESP powers.

All I ask is for you to examine my claims. Do I misquote Ms. Sanger? Do I misquote Ms. Arthur? Or do I quote them accurately, and refute your claim?

[Ben Kenobi]

Kid:

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

Why should I care if people hate me for my principles? You might as well hate me for saying that Force is directly related to mass, and that you cannot violate conservation of energy.

[Dry]

So it's ok for me to call a Jew a parasite, and not have him assume that it has a negative connation. Absolute unmitigated horse****.

Come on, Ben, first of all it is generally not ok to lie: no human sub-group are, as a whole, parasites of humanity.
Second, yes, it is ok to use the right word, devoid of all connotation, but with a very specific meaning, in a scientific context. In fact, in science, it is better to use the very specific word.
And last time I checked biology and medicine were science.
Scientifically speaking, the fetus is a parasite, lions eat gazelles and bees commit suicide in defending their nest. To claim that the words 'parasite' 'eat' or 'suicide' have, in these scientific context, the same unspoken moral values as when used in a philosophical or religious context is nonsense.

And biologically, [...] parasite [...]
This is why I call this biological definition horse****. [...]
The only one distorting the biological term is you. [...]

I think I'll let someone more qualified than me in biology or medicine, like Dr Strangelove answer this one - if he wants to of course.

http://www.rqhealth.ca/programs/in_h...rapeutic.shtml

I haven't see in this article where this 'therapeutic abortion' was equated to a cure for a disease.

Yeah, I'm so totally making it up... Pro aborts use the term 'therapeutic abortion' constantly.

errr, ... look, I know english is not my mother tongue, but I didn't dispute the fact that the expression exists. What I disputed was that 'therapeutic abortion' meant 'curing a disease'.
the article even says : To have this type of abortion you must be very early in your pregnancy (less than 49 days), generally healthy
In other words, and according to your interpretation, it says:
To cure you from this disease, you need to be generally healthy
My english might not be perfect, but I have a problem with this sentence...

Wrong, it's used by pro aborts all the time. I can find many, many examples of people who use the term therapeutic abortion.

I do not dispute that.
Therapeutic abortion, yes the expression exists, and 'Therapeutic' has that healing concept, but it can be used in the context of a disease, a disability, a physical or mental condition.
http://patients.about.com/od/glossary/g/therapeutic.htm even give examples:
Heat may be therapeutic when applied to aching muscles.
A mother's calming, loving voice may be therapeutic to her crying baby.
I guess you do not consider a crying baby is a disease... or do you?

My understanding of 'Therapeutic' in this context is closer to 'reducing a pain or a sufferance'.

And it takes a nazi to call Jews parasites. Forgive me for drawing the obvious parallel between the two philosophies.

Ben, I can't help you there.
But sincerely, if you cannot tell the difference between the two, then, first, I am not surprised you need a moral reference to guide you, and second, in fact you scare me, because you are potentially dangerous for society. So please, keep your faith, you are less dangerous as a believer as you would be as an atheist.

[..]Margaret Sanger.

"Organized charity itself is the symptom of a malignant social disease. Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding and perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents and dependents."

"The most serious charge that can be brought against modern “benevolence” is that it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents. These are the most dangerous elements in the world community, the most devastating curse on human progress and expression"

This is the founder of Planned Parenthood, and what the organisation is all about. And somehow, it's a surprise that they do abortion?

I had to read Margaret Sanger's quote many times, because it is out of context. I mean by that: what point is she trying to make?
At first glance, the text seemed outrageous to me, close to what I expect from the far right.
But at second glance, I think I see her point. She is not after the people (defectives, delinquents, dependents), she is after the elements of society that under the pretense of benevolence (notice the quotes she uses), in fact breed, perpetuate poverty and dependence.
She seems to have the same problem we had some centuries ago with the catholic church, or that Italy has with the mafia, or that, here in francophone Belgium, I have with the socialists: while pretending to help people, they cultivate, nourish dependence, poverty and misery, precisely because it is their core-business. They call themselves the good guys, while all they do is maintaining people in a state of dependency.

Yes, they probably do abortions. Abortions that wouldn't have been needed in first place if those people were not in such uneducated, poverty state.
But what would religion (and Walloon socialists) be without the poor...

http://www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/fetus-focus-fallacy.shtml

"An unwanted fetus has no ill intent of course - like a parasite, it's just doing what it naturally has to do -but the physical risks of pregnancy and its total disruption to a woman's body and life means the fetus is not harmless, and therefore not innocent. This gives the woman the right to defend herself via an abortion. "

Joyce Arthur.
This is not prolifers claiming that the pro aborts say this, the pro aborts say it willingly.

I've read this first hand. Go look at it yourself.

Interesting, but too long to read entirely... at least not today

Really? Awesome. If condemning the death of 40 million people makes me the most hated person alive, then I am glad to be hated.

No, read again. Comparing the motivations of people trying to help, in an imperfect way, their fellow human beings out of poverty and misery to Nazis motivations makes many people boil.
Your preference for more people to suffer, just like it was the case for RCC here in Europe, makes people turn away from you, just as people have turned away from religion. Not many people really believe you, or the RCC, when you claim that you are concerned about the unborn. You show so few empathy for the livings, how can you possibly be credible when trying to defend the unborn. Only people who do not know better can possibly believe in your apparent empathy.

I distort nothing. I sell truth. I reveal truth. Go, look yourself, and you will see that I am right.

I'm afraid there is a big agreement here on Apolyton to disagree with you on that point.

All I ask is for you to examine my claims. Do I misquote Ms. Sanger? Do I misquote Ms. Arthur? Or do I quote them accurately, and refute your claim?

I've done that, except for the last article, that at first glance is also confusing. I'll try to read it more carefully tomorrow.
I think you have missed the point of Ms. Sanger. She was denouncing the hypocrisy of so-called benevolent charities who do everything they can to not solve the poverty, dependence problem. It is not their interest to solve the problem, to teach fishing, while they can forever appear to be compassionate by giving fishes.

[Ben Kenobi]

Come on, Ben, first of all it is generally not ok to lie: no human sub-group are, as a whole, parasites of humanity.

Then why is there any distinction between the use of the phrase to characterise Jews, and the unborn children? It's only appropriate when discussing different species, not people. There's a huge difference between lice and unborn children, but you seem to think they are no different.

Second, yes, it is ok to use the right word, devoid of all connotation, but with a very specific meaning, in a scientific context. In fact, in science, it is better to use the very specific word.
And last time I checked biology and medicine were science.

Biologically speaking, the parasite and host must be of different species. There are no examples within biology of a species and the young of that species being a parasite, because it is assumed that it is necessary for the propagation of said species that the young survive.

I think I'll let someone more qualified than me in biology or medicine, like Dr Strangelove answer this one - if he wants to of course.

Look, there are no species of host and parasite which are identical. Host and parasite are always of a different species. Go through all the examples of parasites.

I haven't see in this article where this 'therapeutic abortion' was equated to a cure for a disease.

You concede that the term is in widespread usage? Yes or no?

errr, ... look, I know english is not my mother tongue, but I didn't dispute the fact that the expression exists.

You did so.

Nobody in his sane mind would say that. Only the sick mind of people desperately in need to portray those who disagree with them in wicked ways.

Now, I've proven that prochoicers are rather fond of using the phrase therapeutic abortion.

Therapeutic implies the curing of the disease.

I guess you do not consider a crying baby is a disease... or do you?

I don't, and have not ever used the phrase for this reason. All I am saying is that pro abortion people use the word therapeutic. 'reducing a pain or a sufferance'. Yes, that's closer to how they mean it, but it implies that abortion relieves suffering, which it does not do.

But sincerely, if you cannot tell the difference between the two, then, first, I am not surprised you need a moral reference to guide you, and second, in fact you scare me, because you are potentially dangerous for society. So please, keep your faith, you are less dangerous as a believer as you would be as an atheist.

Why am I dangerous? All I have said is that the idea, and concept that the unborn are parasite has the exact same result as the concept that Jews are parasites. Jews were killed in the millions, and now the unborn are killed by the millions. I want that to stop, and that makes me dangerous?

it encourages the perpetuation of defectives, delinquents and dependents.

Here, I'll help you.

But at second glance, I think I see her point. She is not after the people (defectives, delinquents, dependents),

Do you approve of the fact that she regards disabled people as defectives, and that the world is better off if they are killed?

No, read again. Comparing the motivations of people trying to help, in an imperfect way, their fellow human beings out of poverty and misery to Nazis motivations makes many people boil.

Was not Hitler helping the people of Germany out of poverty and misery by stealing from the Jews and exterminating them? How is this different from Sanger, who helps Americans out of poverty and misery by killing their children?

Your preference for more people to suffer, just like it was the case for RCC here in Europe, makes people turn away from you, just as people have turned away from religion.

Ahh, and we get to the root of it. Life is suffering, dry.

You show so few empathy for the livings, how can you possibly be credible when trying to defend the unborn.

Where have I failed to show empathy for the living?

I'm afraid there is a big agreement here on Apolyton to disagree with you on that point.

And Apolyton is regarded as among the wise?

[Kidlicious]

Kid:

"You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life."

Why should I care if people hate me for my principles? You might as well hate me for saying that Force is directly related to mass, and that you cannot violate conservation of energy.

I didn't say I hate you. I said that you are perverted. I hate perversion.

[Dry]

Then why is there any distinction between the use of the phrase to characterise Jews, and the unborn children? It's only appropriate when discussing different species, not people. There's a huge difference between lice and unborn children, but you seem to think they are no different.

Right, insult me, accuse me of what YOU put in my mind, that will help your case.

Biologically speaking, the parasite and host must be of different species.

Definition (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...iclekey=4769):
Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.

There are no examples within biology of a species and the young of that species being a parasite, because it is assumed that it is necessary for the propagation of said species that the young survive.

no comment

Look, there are no species of host and parasite which are identical. Host and parasite are always of a different species. Go through all the examples of parasites.

No? parasitic twin

You concede that the term is in widespread usage? Yes or no?

You did so.

Now, I've proven that prochoicers are rather fond of using the phrase therapeutic abortion.

Therapeutic implies the curing of the disease.

no comment

I don't, and have not ever used the phrase for this reason. All I am saying is that pro abortion people use the word therapeutic. 'reducing a pain or a sufferance'. Yes, that's closer to how they mean it, but it implies that abortion relieves suffering, which it does not do.

Ohoo, hear the man of experience who knows first hand how abortion does not relieves suffering.
So, you have put words in the mouth of others, you have put thoughts in their mind, and now, you put feelings in their bodies and soul.
Impressive.

Why am I dangerous? All I have said is that the idea, and concept that the unborn are parasite has the exact same result as the concept that Jews are parasites. Jews were killed in the millions, and now the unborn are killed by the millions. I want that to stop, and that makes me dangerous?

You are dangerous because you are not able to even identify an ethical dilemma. You are dangerous because for you, people cannot be trusted on these issues, they need to be forced into one position.
You are dangerous, because having to rely on external guidance for moral decision, you are prone to be victim of propaganda. In ww2, in Europe it was people like you who collaborated with the Nazis, people who thought it was better for higher authority to tell stupid/corrupted/whatever people what was right and what was wrong.

Here, I'll help you.
Do you approve of the fact that she regards disabled people as defectives, and that the world is better off if they are killed?

No, absolutely not.
She thinks the world would be better if people would stop taking advices from people whose agenda is to have as many disabled, defective, dependent people as possible. The goal of a sane parent is to have a healthy child that will be a healthy sane adult. Deficiency is NOT a desirable trait, let's work to reduce their chance to appear.

Was not Hitler helping the people of Germany out of poverty and misery by stealing from the Jews and exterminating them? How is this different from Sanger, who helps Americans out of poverty and misery by killing their children?

No, Ben, please, get an education about Hitler and Nazism.
The stealing from them seems almost anecdotal in comparison with his true crime.
SHE IS NOT F***ING KILLING CHILDREN. She is angry at those claiming it is morally right to make more children, so they can also experience a miserable life. To desire a miserable life for your children is just sick. That is the dilemma of those women, and she thinks only the mother of the child can take the hard decision. Who are we to decide for them both?

Ahh, and we get to the root of it. Life is suffering, dry.

And that is where we disagree.
Life is Life. Life is both joy and pain.
To desire a life with more joy than pain is good.
To desire a life of pain is evil.
To desire a life of joy for your child is good.
To desire life that you expect being made of more pain than joy for your child is an ethical dilemma.

Where have I failed to show empathy for the living?

Accusing people to act and think out of selfishness or evilness while they are torn in a dilemma.
Pointing finger at a woman that is probably already in distress because she has to make the ultimate decision.
But we know all that women have always been easy targets, especially to the priest caste.

Excerpts from your article:
In the U.S., 61% of women having abortions already have at least one child. Globally, a large majority of women who have abortions are married with children. These women are concerned with being able to provide for themselves and their existing family. Having a new mouth to feed can be a great hardship that can hurt the whole family. Women who decide to abort are making a moral decision that is also practical. They are deciding on the basis of what they know is in the best interests of themselves and their families. Women love their children. If they know they won't be able to care for another child, they're not helping anyone by bringing it into difficult circumstances. Anti-choicers often label women who have abortions as "selfish." Let's never forget that women are still the primary caretakers of children in our society. Women know they're the ones who are going to have to do it. If they aren't even in a position to take care of themselves, or the children they already have, is it fair to expect them to make things even worse for everyone involved? In fact, having an abortion can be one of the most unselfish acts a woman can perform.

or this one:
"It is probably impossible for a man to respond, even imaginatively, to such a dilemma, not just because it is outside the realm of his personal experience…but because he can relate to it only by objectifying it, thereby eliminating the subjective elements of the female psyche which are at the heart of the dilemma."

So, yes, from your ivory tower, go on, tell women who already feel bad for the children they can barely feed, that they have to take care of even more, tell them these children now will have to suffer even more. Tell them that.
And in the meantime, go on playing Civ and having nobody to care for, except maybe you cat. That's no dilemma for you, right?
You feel sorry only for some unborn child, not for the brothers and sisters, that's women nonsense, right? Selfish, stupid immoral whore ...

And Apolyton is regarded as among the wise?

Ok, one point we agree on.

[Ben Kenobi]

Right, insult me, accuse me of what YOU put in my mind, that will help your case.

Goose, gander.

Definition (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/...iclekey=4769):
Parasite: An organism that lives in or on and takes its nourishment from another organism. A parasite cannot live independently.

And host/parasites are of different species from one another.

No? parasitic twin

Is the host the mother or the child?

Ohoo, hear the man of experience who knows first hand how abortion does not relieves suffering.
So, you have put words in the mouth of others, you have put thoughts in their mind, and now, you put feelings in their bodies and soul.

Given the complications associated with abortion, I think it's fair to say that it's a poor deal for the moms. And yes, I've dealt with women who have had them, and they've all said that this was the biggest lie of all.

You are dangerous, because having to rely on external guidance for moral decision, you are prone to be victim of propaganda. In ww2, in Europe it was people like you who collaborated with the Nazis, people who thought it was better for higher authority to tell stupid/corrupted/whatever people what was right and what was wrong.

Interestingly enough, the Catholics were one of the solid folks against Hitler. Socialists were for the most part fellow travellers. What you assert here has no bearing. Having an outside source as a reference for morality seems to make you more, not less resistant to propaganda. Propaganda is more effective where moral relativism is cultivated.

No, absolutely not.
She thinks the world would be better if people would stop taking advices from people whose agenda is to have as many disabled, defective, dependent people as possible. The goal of a sane parent is to have a healthy child that will be a healthy sane adult. Deficiency is NOT a desirable trait, let's work to reduce their chance to appear.

So, it's better then to abort them in the womb?

No, Ben, please, get an education about Hitler and Nazism.
The stealing from them seems almost anecdotal in comparison with his true crime.
SHE IS NOT F***ING KILLING CHILDREN. She is angry at those claiming it is morally right to make more children, so they can also experience a miserable life. To desire a miserable life for your children is just sick. That is the dilemma of those women, and she thinks only the mother of the child can take the hard decision. Who are we to decide for them both?

No one desires a miserable life for their children. That, however, doesn't justify abortion.

And that is where we disagree.
Life is Life. Life is both joy and pain.
To desire a life with more joy than pain is good.
To desire a life of pain is evil.
To desire a life of joy for your child is good.
To desire life that you expect being made of more pain than joy for your child is an ethical dilemma.

To state that a life with pain is not worth living, ignores that pain and joy are both parts of life.

Accusing people to act and think out of selfishness or evilness while they are torn in a dilemma.

Some are torn, some are selfish, for sure.

Pointing finger at a woman that is probably already in distress because she has to make the ultimate decision.

I'd like to think selfishness and convenience were not the issue, but most abortions are done for those reasons.

And in the meantime, go on playing Civ and having nobody to care for, except maybe you cat. That's no dilemma for you, right?

You honestly think I have no one to care for other than a cat?

[Dry]

Interestingly enough, the Catholics were one of the solid folks against Hitler.

BS.
Here is Belgium, and I know in France it is the same, many people associates Catholics with Nazis, because of their involvement during WW2.
From http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist...dthechurch.htm
The Key to the relations between Vichy government and the Church was Petain himself. The hero of Verdun was considered a savior by the Bishops and they had a tremendous faith in him. No Bishop ever disavowed the Marshal.
The New regime practiced a religiosity that went far beyond foxhole prayers. Under the third republic France had gone under tremendous secularism. The traditional Catholics and the small left Catholic both hated the secularism of the third Republic. Most of them favored religious support of the Petain regime for religious values. For instance, the Catholics hated the Third Republic policy of expulsion of God from public school. For most Catholics a return to traditional Catholic values would restore France to its greatness.
Ever since the time of revolution, the schooling had been taken always form the Church and had become a state monopoly. By 1940, the state schools were " godless". On December 6 1940, under the education minister Jacques Chevalier religious instructions were restored to state schools.

And on another page:http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/hist...eholocaust.htm
Only on October 1 1997, the Roman Catholic Church officially apologized to the Jews for its silence during the deporation in 1942. This official declartion was a sign of remore for the Catholic Church in France due to its largely lack of action during the deportation of the Jews. The National Front, led by Jean-Marie Le Pen, decalred the decalaration a scandal and claimed that the apology showed its disdain for historical truth.
FYI: Jean-Marie Lepen was also the guy who called the gas chambers 'a detail'.

Jacques Brel called Fleming extremists "Nazis during wartime and Catholics in between", pointing out how traditional Catholicism and Nazism share common values. Or at least how someone can have no problem shifting from one to the other, with no second thought.

Some Catholics stood indeed against Nazism, but it was certainly not the official position of the Church.

Socialists were for the most part fellow travellers. What you assert here has no bearing.

http://www.nazism.net/about/relation_to_other_concepts/

The Nazis came to power through an alliance with traditional conservative forces. Franz von Papen, a very conservative former German Chancellor and former member of the Catholic Centre Party supported Hitler for the position of Chancellor and later became an important Nazi official. The Enabling Act which gave the Nazis dictatorial powers passed only because of the support of conservative and centrist deputies in the Reichstag, over the opposition of Social Democrats and Communists.

Ben, conservatives and christians are up to the neck with the Nazis.
Have you ever asked yourself why here in Europe there is almost no more conservatives, and why people have gut dislike for them? Why some are so keen to shout 'Nazi' when hear religious, conservative speech?
If you close your eyes to reality and history, of course you will not understqnd, you will come to the conclusion we, Europeans are stupid, or crazy, or evil, and certainly you'll find us illogical; but if you do not close your eyes, and if you look honestly in history, you will understand what lessons we learned from that period of our history.

Don't be mistaken, we know, first hand, who were involved in Nazism, and we know who were the first to ally with them.
For many of us, religion lost its case, because of its involvement in both world wars.
FYI:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/28_SS

Before the outbreak of World War II, Fascism was quite popular in Belgium, including the French speaking region of Wallonia. Leon Degrelle, owner of a newspaper, and before the war known as an ardent Catholic, had founded the Rexist party in 1930.

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

Rexism was a fascist political movement in the first half of the twentieth century in Belgium.
Léon Degrelle

It was the ideology of the Rexist Party (Parti Rexiste), officially called Christus Rex, founded in 1930 by Léon Degrelle, a Walloon. The name was derived from the Roman Catholic social teachings concerning Christus Rex, and it was also the title of a conservative Catholic journal.

Ben, don't tell us BS about who were the most ardent collaborators. And why many of us associate religious conservatism with fascism and Nazism.
History, right there.

Having an outside source as a reference for morality seems to make you more, not less resistant to propaganda. Propaganda is more effective where moral relativism is cultivated.

Having an outside source for morality makes you lazy when it comes to searching what is moral and what is not. It most of all makes you dependent of that moral source.
It makes you sleepy, and like french Catholics during WW2, it make take you time (1942) before waking up and notice something went wrong.
It leaves you weaponless when unusual, unregistered situations occurs.
Propaganda will hit you more surely if it comes those who you trust as source of morality.
Someone on youtube puts it better than me:

http://www.youtube.com/user/dprjones#p/u/11/sWORquS76EI

or if you want to spend the time you may watch this long video about a more difficult, real life, ethical dilemma http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnXmDaI8IEo

The friends of truth are those searching it, not those claiming to have found it. Condorcet (1743-94).
I for one apply that to morality too.

[Ben Kenobi]

Ok, a few things here.

Le Pen is not the voice for Catholics in France. He says many things that I personally agree, (ie, that rising anti-semitism in France) is associated with rising Muslim immigration. I disagree with his economics, as I am not a socialist like Le Pen.

Here is Belgium, and I know in France it is the same, many people associates Catholics with Nazis, because of their involvement during WW2.

The Key to the relations between Vichy government and the Church was Petain himself. The hero of Verdun was considered a savior by the Bishops and they had a tremendous faith in him. No Bishop ever disavowed the Marshal.

Ok, fair enough Petain is and was highly supported by the Bishops.

Now, lets go over some facts.

Approximately 76,000 Jews were deported from France between 1942 and 1944. Most went to Auschwitz-Birkenau, where the vast majority were exterminated on arrival

76,000 Jews in occupied France.

Some 300,000 Jews were living in France when the Germans invaded the country in early summer 1940. Many were French citizens whose families had lived in France for centuries and who were fully assimilated.

This is only about one in four. So Petain and Vichy France, despite being overrun and defeated, still managed to save three quarters of their Jews. How so?

However, when deportations began in 1942, the Vichy authorities made determined efforts to protect French Jews from deportation

And that's all I have to say about this. The Catholic church was one of the foremost protectors of Jews in Europe, I guess I have to ask this. Jews in England were protected while Jews in France were subject to Vichy? Why, because France wasn't strong enough to defeat Hitler. So I have to say, while the Petain regime is vilified, who's responsible for your absolutely incompetent defense? You stopped Germany at the Marne in 1914. Why do you not hold the failure to protect Jews at the foot of Lebrun, who did nothing to stop Hitler, rather then at the foot of Petain?

I have zero bad things to be said about Belgium. You had competent defense, with zero help from France.

Some Catholics stood indeed against Nazism, but it was certainly not the official position of the Church.

Oh, bull****. The Pope sheltered millions of Jews, and kept it secret during the war, for the simple reason that to acknowledge it would put the Jews at risk. For that he's endured the calumny and slander of those who presume to understand the situation.

The Enabling Act which gave the Nazis dictatorial powers passed only because of the support of conservative and centrist deputies in the Reichstag, over the opposition of Social Democrats and Communists.

Why were they even able to pass an enabling act? Why was this even in the constitution? Because the social democrats were deliberately kept weak by Communists. The only reason it was in there is because the Communists put it there, hoping to use it themselves. Hitler beat them to the punch. You are right that the Centre voted with him, but the Social Democrats had a decade of governance to deal with the German issues after the war and after the depression. They did not, and they failed. Hence the fall of Weimar.

The enabling act was a key reason for the rise of Hitler, but when Hitler was capable of banning the SDP and the Communists, it was already too late then.

Have you ever asked yourself why here in Europe there is almost no more conservatives, and why people have gut dislike for them?

Erm, Andrea Merkel is quite popular.

Why some are so keen to shout 'Nazi' when hear religious, conservative speech?

Because they are bigots, and fail to understand why Hitler was able to take power. When you have Commies trying to overthrow your government, conservatives pushed back to keep them out. If the Commies were not a threat, then Hitler's core of support evaporates.

If you close your eyes to reality and history, of course you will not understqnd, you will come to the conclusion we, Europeans are stupid, or crazy, or evil, and certainly you'll find us illogical; but if you do not close your eyes, and if you look honestly in history, you will understand what lessons we learned from that period of our history.

I do, but I am not European. I look at it from the more neutral perspective of the Americas. I am always interested in hearing the opinions of Europeans, but you must understand that the Conservatives were opposed to revolution and opposed to Hitler. We, over here fought a war where we fought and died to free France and the low countries, and restored you as liberators from Hitler. Now, if you want to vilify the Conservatives here who fought for conscription, who insisted that we must act to liberate you, then fire away. We had our debates here too, the fellow travellors had zero interest and tried to get us out of the war with Hitler prior to his invasion of the Soviet Union. We haven't forgotten that here.

Ben, don't tell us BS about who were the most ardent collaborators. And why many of us associate religious conservatism with fascism and Nazism.

The most ardent collaborators were the socialist Third Republic who took all of 6 weeks to surrender to France. Even Poland had to be invaded by both the Soviet Union and Germany, and they held out longer. Pathetic. Petain saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of French Jews by refusing to deport them.

Having an outside source for morality makes you lazy when it comes to searching what is moral and what is not.

How then would it make me more susceptible to propaganda? It would make me more resistant, because I am not 'searching for what is moral'. Why would I need Goebbels, when I have Christ? It is those who were uncertain, those who were angry, those who were relativists who found comfort in the strength of Hitler.

It makes you sleepy, and like french Catholics during WW2, it make take you time before waking up and notice something went wrong.

Or like French socialists, it may mean bending over and calling myself Fraulein.

It leaves you weaponless when unusual, unregistered situations occurs.

And you fail to blame the Third Republic for your defeat against Hitler. Petain was not in power, he was put there, and has become a convenient scapegoat by cowards who would rather that their names vanish into the dustbin of history.

The friends of truth are those searching it, not those claiming to have found it. Condorcet (1743-94).
I for one apply that to morality too.

So there is no truth, because one is forever searching. Perhaps I will find that faith in a strong man who knows what he believes.

[DinoDoc]

Jacques Brel called Fleming extremists "Nazis during wartime and Catholics in between", pointing out how traditional Catholicism and Nazism share common values. Or at least how someone can have no problem shifting from one to the other, with no second thought.

Some Catholics stood indeed against Nazism, but it was certainly not the official position of the Church.

Is this the same Catholic Church that issued a Papal encyclical written in German instead of the usual Latin condemning the Nazi regime? Hell are we even talking about the same Pope who told Belgian pilgrims in 1938, "Mark well that in the Catholic Mass, Abraham is our Patriarch and forefather. Anti-Semitism is incompatible with the lofty thought which that fact expresses. It is a movement with which we Christians can have nothing to do. No, no, I say to you it is impossible for a Christian to take part in anti-Semitism. It is inadmissible. Through Christ and in Christ we are the spiritual progeny of Abraham. Spiritually, we [Christians] are all Semites?" Are we also talking about the same Catholic Church that suffered well documented retaliations against it from the Nazi regime?

[Wezil]

Yep, same one.