Pope Francis on Abortion. Meet the new boss....

[Goblinmonger]

Pope Francis made his toughest remarks to date on abortion when he called the practice "horrific" on Monday.

"It is horrific even to think that there are children, victims of abortion, who will never see the light of day," the pontiff said during his yearly address to diplomats accredited to the Vatican, a speech known as his "State of the World" address.

Conservatives in the Roman Catholic Church had previously accused the pope of not speaking out forcefully enough against abortion.

While showing no signs of changing the Church's position against abortion, Francis has not spoken out against it as sternly or as repeatedly as his predecessors Pope Benedict XVI and the late John Paul II since his election in March.

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2014/01/13/22288490-pope-francis-makes-toughest-remarks-yet-on-horrific-abortion?lite

[trotsky]

1. It's so nice to see this new pope take a much more progressive stance on...

oh, wait... sorry.

[warrant46]

51. That cabal of criminals will never change on this issue

But once born--- the children are on their own with hunger and homelessness.

And then, the so called Princes of the criminal enterprise move on and let everyone else try to feed clothe and comfort

[MADem]

2. I rather doubt the official stance on that subject will change any time soon, if ever.

That's how they grow their membership, through prohibiting birth control and having the faithful deliver unto them the next generation.

I wouldn't expect any changes on that score. I think it's probably more realistic to push on stuff like equality across the board--more women in the hierarchy and ending the LGBT discrimination. Even at that, he's not gonna change those precepts either, at least not immediately--they'll take him out like JP 1 if he moves too soon on those issues, and particularly if he does it before he gets rid of the old deadwood and puts his own people in charge, and his power is consolidated. I think his mind could be changed on those issues --- maybe not, but maybe so. He's certainly coming off as much less of a hardliner than he was when he was in South America.

I think that religion is what it is. It's a fool's errand to get angry at 'em. That's not to say people shouldn't keep pushing for change, but they should do it with the expectation that it's like shaking the candy machine after it rips you off--you may get that Snickers bar if you expend a little effort, but the odds are good you won't.

[rug]

3. What's the issue, to keep it legal or for him to say there's nothing wrong with it?

[Goblinmonger]

4. That, contrary to the tongue baths here on DU,

he is no different than the last Pope, and the one before that, and the one before that. He says the same things about the poor, and about women, and about abortion, and about gays. But for some reason everyone loves him because he doesn't seem like the asshole the last guy was.

For all the praise this guy is getting as a likely progressive, if a progressive politician said what he just said about abortion, that politician would be lambasted. Just wondering when the same thing will happen here on DU.

[rug]

6. Given that this is a political website, the issue is political acts to keep it legal, not doctrine.

There is no reason to expect, or to require, the RCC to declare that abortion is fine. So what, who cares?

The issue is to separate the doctrine from political efforts to impose doctrine civilly.

[Goblinmonger]

8. Oh, I'm sorry. Are we pretending

that the RCC doesn't have political power in the US? That they don't have political power in a number of other countries around the globe?

Because if we are, that's just silly. And false. But, hey, keep your head in the sand.

[rug]

9. Far be it to me to say what you're pretending.

As far as me, the fact that it has political power is precisely why it's a political issue at root, not doctrinal.

But, you can continue on with your extraneous doctrinaire attacks on religion, no matter how specious it is compared to the political issues.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. The church tries to impose doctrine in US legal matters

eg http://old.usccb.org/prolife/rigali_2-5-09.pdf

[rug]

14. Which is why it should be stopped.

That's politics.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. It's not legal everywhere. The Catholic church is a big reason why it's next to impossible

in Ireland and Poland; completely illegal in Malta; and becoming next to impossible in Spain. The Roman Catholic church stops people who aren't Catholic at all from having or carrying out abortions.

[rug]

7. To the extent that statement is true, it's a political issue not a doctrinal issue.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. Catholic doctrine is to oppose abortion everywhere, and that puts the pope at fault

for his, and his church's, influence on some countries. Some countries are strong enough to resist the RC church, but that does not absolve it of responsibility for its efforts.

[rug]

15. Actually, there is nothing in Catholic doctrine that requires a state to enforce a church's morality

Theocracy is not part of RCC social doctrine, whatever the particular issue.

Beyond that, it is a political player like any other group and can be opposed like any other group.

[Good without a god]

16. Which brings us back to the original question

Why are so many on DU wetting themselves over a "political player" who is anti-progressive on so many issues?

[rug]

17. Because he is progressive on others.

Just like Obama.

I haven't seen DUers "wetting themselves" over the Pope. Maybe you'd like to explain that phrase in a nonsexist manner.

[Good without a god]

19. Unlike Obama

He is no more progressive on those other issues than his predecessor, who progressives hated (in both cases).

And "wetting themselves" is a metaphor with no sexist implications for those who understand it. Do you need it explained to you?

[rug]

20. Yes, explain it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. From the OED entry for the verb 'wet':

5c. To void urine in (one's bed, clothes). to wet one's pants fig., to become excited or upset (as if to the extent of involuntarily voiding urine).

5d. refl. To urinate involuntarily. Also fig. (as at sense 5c above).

"1970 G. F. Newman Sir, You Bastard 258 The Sunday editors would wet themselves; they liked nothing better than a sordid purge in an institution."

Now you know what "to wet oneself" means. It's a fairly common phrase; I'm surprised you haven't come across it before.

[Brettongarcia]

22. The OED is great! But needs updates

"Wet" today also connotes sexual wetness; possibly male and female both. Or male, humorously, as female.

Beyond the OED by the way, is a French dictionary; "Robert's Dictionnaire ... Analogique...", 20 or more vols..

Newer, bigger, more modern. But not in English.

[Goblinmonger]

25. Wrong form of the word.

To wet oneself (urinate) is a verb. "I'm am wet" would be an adjective.

As a fan of Archer, I'm prone to "sploosh" rather than "wet."

[rug]

23. It can't possibly have a sexual connotation specific to women.

I'm not surprised you haven't come across it before.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. I believe you're thinking of references to 'go moist' etc.

Maybe your mind turns to sex too often?

No, it doesn't have a sexual connotation specific to women here. That's why, for instance, the 1970 use is about Sunday (newspaper) editors, who would all have been men at that time. Or when the 'Frank Spencer' character said "ooh, Betty, I think I've wet meself!" on prime time British TV, there wasn't any sexual connotation at all. Perhaps you personally use it in a sexual fashion, but we can see there is a long-established meaning of 'so excited, they urinate' which is backed up by documentary evidence. So if someone tells you it's not sexual, then have the decency to admit they were telling the truth, or at least do some research to check what they say, rather than assuming that they were lying, and not even accept evidence that they were being honest.

[Brettongarcia]

27. Lexicographers, Semanticists, agree that words, phrases, can expand and "drift" in meaning

It seems likely that "wet yourself" is now being taken in a Freudian way now and then; to refer not just to urination, but also to include sexual fluids.

Semanticists and literature professors well know that any given word can take on wide implications; out of "connotation," symbolism, and so forth. Semanticists agree that most single words and phrases have large implications and connotations; large "semantic fields." The (relatively; c. 1990) new French multi-volume dictionary "Robert's Dictionnaire Analogique" (SP?) is very, very good at looking at the broader implications of words. By analogical extension and so forth.

[Goblinmonger]

28. Do you have an example

of the phrase "wet yourself" that means sexually moist for a woman?

I searched for "'wet yourself' sexual" and the only response similar to yours is one person that has plenty of other problems (and it isn't even clear if they mean urine or lubricant).

I know that "wet" has sexual connotations. I have never seen "wet yourself" as a phrase used in that regard.

[Brettongarcia]

29. I've heard "they're wet"; "not a dry seat in the house," applied to sexual matters

Seems room for linguistic drift. And merger, with the earlier "wet yourself."

What sometimes happens in semantics, is one phrase drifts in meaning toward another that in some way resembles it. In this case, "being wet" seems to be merging with "wet yourself." (Cf. "folk etymology," etc.).

Should we allow this? This merger seems to have some sense; there are some commonalities between these allegedly "different" terms.

Then too? If someone merges the two, here or elsewhere? A lexicographer might just pick it up ... and put it into a dictionary. As an emerging usage. With an actual example in print.

In Lexicography, we have "descriptive" vs. "prescriptive" dictionary theories. In the "prescriptive," we simply ignore and regard as mistakes, whatever does not fit past dictionaries, and traditional rules. In "descriptive" linguistics though, we simply describe the way people actually use language.

And in this case? We might simply put this "mistake" into a dictionary.

[muriel_volestrangler]

30. So you're saying you haven't heard "wet yourself" (himself/herself/myself/etc.) as sexual

but you're guessing that some people might mean it that way ("seems room for linguistic drift&quot . Perhaps they might. But we have an established, documented meaning that comes from urination. rug claimed it was sexist; Good without a god said it wasn't, and we all know it wasn't (even rug, by now, if he really was that ignorant of typical usage before). rug's claim that it was sexist was a pathetic attempt to divert the conversation, and he hasn't had the decency to apologise to Good without a god for the unwarranted sexism accusation.

[Goblinmonger]

31. Yup, I've heard it that way

My point is that rug, above, indicates that saying "wet themselves" is sexist. In the example you give, it's an adjective. As it was used, it's a verb. I see no indication that there is a transition from the verb form of the word used to indicate urinating to now include sexual lubrication.

I fully understand semantics. I'm an English teacher. I just don't believe "wet yourself" is currently merging with "being wet" to be a sexual term and, even if you can give me an example, it's not widespread enough to be a sexist term. I am very much a descriptive grammarian/linguist, but I don't feel this is something actually happening.

[Brettongarcia]

32. I agree taking the phrase as a sexual reference, is problematic

In any case? Even if it was used as a sexual term, it would not necessarily refer only to females.

Though remembering the complexity of literature? In which a single word can be used in rather unique, singular way, in the context of a specific poem?

It would be hard to guarantee its meaning, one way or the other.

I rate this contest as a tie.

[rug]

34. Lol, do you also fully understand "disingenuous"?

[Warren Stupidity]

46. On the other hand, somebody has once again derailed the conversation.

[rug]

33. That must be a quaint British idiom.

Somehow, I suspect the poster who chose the phrase is not British.

My mind does not turn to sex often enough. It is though attuned to recognize sexist language. It's not decent.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Oh yes, you don't get more British than USA Today writing about American Football

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2013/11/channing-crowder-wet-himself/

or the American Heritage dictionary:

wet
v. wet or wet•ted, wet•ting, wets v. tr.
1.

To make wet; dampen: wet a sponge.
2.

To make (a bed or one's clothes) wet by urinating.
wet
v. intr.
1.

To become wet.
2.

To urinate.

Or Merriam-Webster's:

vt (bef. 12c) 1 : to make wet 2 : to urinate in or on 〈⁓ his pants〉 vi 1 : to become wet 2 : urinate

Everyone, even you, knows that the phrase literally means to urinate in your own clothing or bed. And that the figurative meaning therefore is not 'sexist'. You should apologise to Good without a god.

[rug]

36. You need another dictionary.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wet

While you're there, you can read this:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=disingenuous+assertions

[muriel_volestrangler]

37. The one use of 'wet' as a verb on the first page:

"2)Oh, crap! I just wet my bed and ruined a pair of underwear. "

And I'm not trawling through another 17 pages. We have multiple dictionary definitions that say the verb is about urinating. Good without a god said it was not sexist, but you are continuing to accuse them of making a sexist remark. It's petty, rude, dishonest, and divisive of you, and a diversion from the thread. 'Disingenous' doesn't even begin to cover your crap in this thread.

[rug]

38. Ok, keep arguing the grammar of sexism

even though the poster's comment is utterly meaningless using your definition.

Why are so many on DU urinating on themselves over a "political player" who is anti-progressive on so many issues?

[muriel_volestrangler]

39. " fig., to become excited" "editors would wet themselves; they liked nothing better..."

It's the FUCKING DICTIONARY MEANING I GAVE YOU AGES AGO. Do you need in bold and flashing too? It's you who is arguing sexism. That's what makes your argument so fundamentally dishonest. You just can't drop your insult of a DUer; you continue to try to make it look like someone else is at fault. Because you always try to blame everything on someone else.

[rug]

40. What's with caps? Are you wetting yourself?

Is that the benign meaning you're asserting?

If it is, I see no positive excitement which that post requires to make sense.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. As I said, you are dishonest, divisive, and and all-round waste of space in this thread

and you continue to show it. You really should review your life.

[rug]

42. Now who's insulting a DUer?

You should apologize.

[Goblinmonger]

43. Check out this definition from Urban Dictionary

wet yourself

Oh, hell, I'll paste it here for everyone to see easily

wet yourself
when somebody cant hold in thier (sic) pee and wets their pants, underwear,panties,or whatever you wear.

So are we to seriously believe that you went to Urban Dictionary to find a definition and you didn't look for and see this one? I believe that as much as I believe you have never heard any of the following phrases in your life:
wet my pants
wet my bed
wet myself
wet your diaper

You could have just apologized, you know.

[rug]

44. Which makes perfect sense when used in that post, doesn't it.

Why are so many on DU unable to hold in thier (sic) pee over a "political player" who is anti-progressive on so many issues?

[Goblinmonger]

45. So now I'm supposed to believe

that you have never heard of the concept of someone being so excited that pee themselves.

Rounds are over.

[rug]

47. You're not supposed to believe anything, correct?

I'd really love to see how you teach high schoolers to interpret dialogue. The key is which character says the line.

[Good without a god]

48. It's a metaphor

for getting so overly excited that you can't contain or control yourself. Not complicated and not sexist.

I can see I was right in my assessment of juvenile and divisive personalities on this board, though. You just couldn't help turning something very simple into a pissing contest, could you?

[rug]

49. Whatever you meant, you just couldn't help insulting members on this board, could you?

And speaking of juvenile, don't wet yourself.

Let's see if you make it to 100 this time.

[rug]

54. Yes, whatever you meant. I don't believe you.

I'll tell you why I don't believe you. Those words, whatever you claim you meant, were designed to insult a good many members of this board, a board you've belonged to, this time, for precisely 54 days. That is classic shit-stirring and I don't believe you for a second.

Now, as to your "spot-on" characterization:

Why are so many on DU wetting themselves over a "political player" who is anti-progressive on so many issues?

Produce a single example of a person "on DU wetting themselves" over the Pope.

Insults are the lingua franca of this group. Bullshit is not.

[Goblinmonger]

60. Since you have made it clear you don't know what the phrase means

Are you looking for examples of people metaphorically being so excited they uritnate on themselves or being metaphorically so excited they are producing lubricating mucus? Because up above you thought it meant the latter. Just seeing if you realize that was dead fucking wrong (or you being deliberatly obtuse).

[rug]

71. I know exactly what the phrase means and I know exactly what he meant.

I find your attempt to turn it into pedantry mildly interesting.

[cbayer]

55. I'm not sure how you might confuse some support for and

hopefulness about the new pope as "wetting themselves".

What I see here overall is the expression of positive feelings about some of the positions that have been taken by this pope to date, but I don't see any ecstasy or posts saying that all of his position are progressive.

What I also see are some posts that would be the opposite of "wetting themselves" where some members attack and bash him no matter what he says.

Frankly, I think the liberal/progressive approach is to be smart enough to tease out what is good from what is not, then support and criticize based on the merits of his remarks.

Which camp does your post put you in?

[cbayer]

57. What makes you think I'm not paying attention.

I'm paying a lot of attention, probably more than most as a matter of fact.

I have seen a lot of praise. It is only your opinion that it is "far beyond what is warranted". After years of the RCC becoming more corrupt, moving in the wrong direction and completely losing it's focus, I think the praise is well deserved.

It's not perfect and there are going to be areas where the pope is never going to be on the same page with liberals and progressives. But he has changed the focus and emphasis in a way that many liberals and progressives can support.

The inability to see that and to give credit where credit is due and continue to reject and criticize the areas where the positions are not progressive or liberal is narrow-minded and counter productive, imo.

It may be you that is not paying attention as he has actually done more than talk. But blinders, being what they are and all, may prevent one from seeing that when it doesn't fit your agenda.

You can not compare the pope to a member of congress. I have absolutely nothing to say about who gets to be pope, but a great deal about who gets to go to congress. Therefore, what I judge them on are going to be different.

So, there are a great many areas where I am going to vociferously disagree with the position of the pope and the vatican. But if I can find areas where we agree, I'm going to make the most of that and support him.

Who is this "us" you speak of?

[cbayer]

59. I'm going to let you go find those yourself.

Mostly because I know you will reject anything I give to you.

Again, who is this "us" you speak of?

[cbayer]

62. Do you think you even remotely speak for everyone reading this?

You don't represent progressives. You represent only you.

There are lots of progressive on this site who see things differently and are not ready to condemn something in it's entirety because there are parts that remain very bad.

What's your alternative? The RCC isn't going anywhere, so why not celebrate if you see some alignment in some areas.

You have no right to decide whether I am a progressive or not. No more right that I have to decide that you are not based on your highly prejudicial position vis a vis religion.

You speak only for you.

[cbayer]

65. Again with the "we". What's up with that?

Anyway, I'm a democrat, so I doubt I'm going to find much cause to celebrate anything much the Republicans do.

However, if they were the only option in terms of who was had the power, and they began to show signs of moving to the left, of course I would celebrate.

Luckily the US is a democracy where I have some power to simply change or remove them. Not so with the Vatican.

I have no idea what you mean by accommodating type, but it sounds like a really lame put down.

I don't speak for anyone but myself and I would encourage you to stay civil in your tone. If I reflect the things I have observed after having been on DU for a long time, I'm not speaking for anyone, just reporting my observations.

Highly unlikely that I am going to answer any of your questions (which read like demands, not questions), because you will reject any answer I give you. It's not my first rodeo.

What's the "religious side"? Are you on a team here?

I readily admit that I fear some things, but you and your questions are not among them.

[cbayer]

67. Exactly, I am not speaking for them.

I am observing, as you have, that there are a lot of progressives on this board who are voicing support for the pope. I don't say we and I don't presume to speak for anyone.

Do you disagree that there are a lot of progressives on this board that see things differently than you do when it comes to their opinion of this pope?

My type? Lol. Yes I am sure you do.

You don't give a flying fuck? Lovely. I'm not threatening you, I'm making a request that you bring it down a few notches.

Have I hit a nerve?

[hrmjustin]

68. Remind you of something?

[cbayer]

69. Oh, yes indeed.

[hrmjustin]

70. We are on it.

[hrmjustin]

10. I doubt this will change in the near future.

[LostOne4Ever]

11. Funny that the pope can say something that is not liberal

And many of poster in GD will overlook it or defend him. President Obama says anything that in any way could be taken as libertarian or conservative and we will have a mile long 200+ rec thread in GD by the same posters blasting Obama and saying hes no better than Bush and the republicans.

The solution seems obvious. Obama needs to become the next pope.

[Brettongarcia]

18. Maybe. But theologians play word games; "it's horrible to even think" lots of things

It's horrible "to think" lots of things. Doesn't say that the things we THINK are true or right, however.

Maybe our pessimistic suppositions and thoughts therefore are premature, or delusory? Look for the Pope's more definitive position in the 2014 Synod, on the Family:

http://www.ncregister.com/blog/edward-pentin/pope-francis-calls-synod-on-the-family-evangelization

Allegedly the Pope is asking people for their different opinions on family. And related topics in sexuality, same sex marriage and so forth:

http://newwaysministryblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/01/vatican-asks-bishops-to-consult-laity-on-same-sex-marriage-contraception-divorce/

My guess is that the Pope is open to a change, even in doctrine. And is inviting public feedback before writing anything more definitive than his offhand remarks to date.

By the way? If you are interested in Catholic Doctrine, I've got a 700-page white paper online, that outlines 200 Catholic arguments that would allow abortion. See my paper online at "Pro Abortion Theology" site.

[SamKnause]

26. Abortion

Pope do not have an abortion.

Problem solved.

P.S. I think your stance on contraception is horrific.

[Meshuga]

50. George says best

I agree with the George Carlin quote below and I think it also applies to the Pope and his position:

"...And speaking of my friends the Catholics, when John Cardinal O'Connor of New York and some of these other Cardinals and Bishops have experienced their first pregnancies and their first labor pains and they've raised a couple of children on minimum wage, then I'll be glad to hear what they have to say about abortion."

[madrchsod]

52. the bible says...a child is a child of god once they draw their first breath.

i wouldn't classify abortion as "horrific" but it is a practice that no woman takes lightly. i think the pope needs to address the reasons why a woman needs an abortion instead of condemning a woman`s right to have one.

[Htom Sirveaux]

63. Indeed.

They wouldn't elect anyone who was pro-choice to the papacy, after all.