No Communion for Pro-Abortion Rights Pols

[LV426]

No Communion for Pro-Abortion Rights Pols
April 23, 2004 21 minutes ago

By VICTOR L. SIMPSON, Associated Press Writer

VATICAN CITY - A top Vatican cardinal said Friday that priests must deny Communion to Catholic politicians who support abortion rights, but stopped short of saying whether it was right for John Kerry to receive Communion.

http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040423/thumb.vat10104231103 .vatican_liturgy_cra ckdown_vat101.jpg
AP Photo



Cardinal Francis Arinze spoke at a news conference to launch a new Vatican directive clamping down on liturgical abuses in Mass which bars lay people from giving sermons, non-Catholics from taking Communion and rites of other religions from being introduced in the service.


Kerry's campaign said that religion should not be an issue in U.S. politics.


Kerry spokesman David Wade would not respond directly to Arinze, but he reiterated Kerry's position on the separation of church and state that "helped make religious affiliation a nonissue in American politics."


"The decisions he will make as president will be guided by his obligation to all the people of our country and to the Constitution of the United States," Wade said in the statement. "Every American — whether they be Jewish, Catholic, Protestant or any other faith — must believe their president is representing them."


The document restated church teaching that anyone who knows he is in "grave sin" must go to confession before taking Communion.


Arinze was asked whether that meant that Kerry should not request or be given Communion because he supports a woman's right to abortion.


The Democratic presidential candidate says he personally opposes abortion, but supports the rights of others to have one. He argues that church doctrine allows Catholics the freedom of conscience to choose.


Arinze, a Nigerian whose Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments issued the document, said the church's position was clear and that U.S. bishops should decide in Kerry's particular case.


"The norm of the church is clear," he said. "The Catholic Church exists in the United States and there are bishops there. Let them interpret it."


Arinze was asked "if a politician is unambiguously pro-abortion, should a priest refuse him Communion?"


He replied: "Yes. Unless the priest has any reason — suppose the priest was surprised at the moment and he hadn't had time to think or he thought it was a total disgrace at the moment. ... "


He said, though, that based on the document, which says a person conscious of being in "grave sin" could not receive Communion without going to confession, a Catholic politician who supports abortion rights "is not fit."


"If they should not receive, then they should not be given," he said.


The 71-year-old Nigerian, who previously headed the office for relations with non-Christians, has been seen as a possible successor to John Paul, particulary if the College of Cardinals favors a prelate from the developing world.


Bishop Raymond Burke, the archbishop of St. Louis, has said he would refuse to give Kerry Communion; Kerry's own archbishop, Sean O'Malley of Boston, has endorsed that principle without naming the senator.


The Vatican directive, commissioned by Pope John Paul II, softened a stricter earlier draft that had discouraged the use of altar girls and denounced such practices as applauding and dancing during Mass.


It said, however, that "shadows are not lacking" and that the Vatican cannot remain silent about abuses that "not infrequently plague liturgical celebrations."

And it reiterated the pope's view that the "mystery of the Eucharist is too great for anyone to treat it according to his own whim."

Roman Catholics believe that they receive the body and blood of Christ when they take Communion.

The Second Vatican Council in the 1960s led to many liberalizing changes in the Mass, such as having priests face the congregation and celebrating the service in the local language rather than Latin.

The 71-page document, called an instruction, keyed on what the Vatican considers such abuses as lay people increasingly taking on the role of priests, even non-Christians "out of ignorance" coming forward to take Communion and the introduction into the Mass of books and rites of other religions.

But the document said only ordained ministers — priests and deacons — may read the Gospel and priests "should ordinarily" deliver the homily, in which biblical readings are often interpreted for worshippers. The priest may occasionally delegate the homily to a deacon, "but never to a lay person."

It said the use of altar boys was "laudable" but repeated Church policy that girls or women may also serve at the altar.

The document made no specific mention of clapping or ritual dancing during Mass, as the pope himself has witnessed during his trips to Africa and elsewhere.

[LycanSpectre]

Kerry's campaign said that religion should not be an issue in U.S. politics.

Goddamn right.

So, if I am reading this right then the church is putting pressure on the pro abortion politicians to change their minds.

Sounds like yet another example of the Church looking to control people, and politics. A case of "think how we want you to, do what we want you to, blah blah blah, and you will go to heaven."

I think that the Vatician needs to stop trying to influence politics, especailly American politics. Freedom of religion and all that jazz is hard when the Pope is trying to pressure our lawmakers.

[LV426]

I think the Pope died and Satan is using him as a mouthpiece.

[Wolffy13]

I really think a good, and respectable church would allow it's followers to formulate their own choices (I spare my reasonings) and ask their members to follow the laws of the land.

If a politician is for the right of a woman to get an abortion, then it is between that politician and his God. Church leaders aren't mommies and daddies to their members, they're leaders. Frankly, if someone doesn't want to follow, the so be it. Concentrate on guiding the ones who do. Let's not make life harder than it has to be

[Vendetta]

I think the Pope died and Satan is using him as a mouthpiece.
Well that DOES make sense. The Pope does kinda look like a muppet. I can see satan slipping his hand in there and making the Church dance! :D

[Drifter Islandhound]

Its nice to think of living by the laws of the land when most religions have their own laws which outright contrast the laws of the land. Ultimately both will never work in concert with each other and the two will always clash at one point or another.


Personally to deny communion to any believer I feel is wrong no matter their personal ideals. That's between them and the Almighty but I dont work for the vatican so its left up to them.

[Blazer]

It is the churches job to identify moral issues and try to guide their flock to make the right choices. Although government laws & biblical teachings are both trying to do the same thing (make sure society interacts well with one another), there should be a distinction between the two. So government represents the variety of the populations. Including those catholics who think that abortion is okay.

One major point that no-one seems to be considering is the women who choose to have abortions. A few of my friends have choosen to abort their baby (for some various good reasons that I won't go into), and I know the distress & pain they have when making these decissons. At this time the women need support from their church and comunity, not to suffer in silence affraid of being codemned as a sinner. What message is this new ruling sending to these women who need support?

I don't think the catholic church is evil or led by satan, but they need to move with the modern times and rather than tell people what to think they need to listen to what people are currently thinking.

[Obsidian Claws]

One major point that no-one seems to be considering is the women who choose to have abortions

Whats wrong with having the baby and then giving it up for adoption, so that it may have a chance at life? Cant be bothered? To much of an inconvenience to let the baby live, so you decide in all of your selfless wisdom to murder the unborn child instead of letting it live?

A few of my friends have choosen to abort their baby (for some various good reasons that I won't go into)

Various good reasons? Excuse me while I run to the bathroom and puke in utter disgust of the thought that there is ANY "good" reason for murdering a child who has not even had a chance at life yet. Ugggh, absolutely nauseating.

There is only one acceptable reason to abort a child, and that is if the child is threatening the mothers life (ie, growing in the fallopian tubes.)

and I know the distress & pain they have when making these decissons

Most women will go for the rest of their lives trying to justify their unjustifiable act. I hope any woman and her supporters who decides to have an abortion based on selfish reasons is eternally haunted by the memory of that child, and the irreversible decision to murder it. I hope it burns in their consciousness and torments their every waking moment until the day they die.

Abortion infuriates me. Sickening... utterly disgraceful.

[Obsidian Claws]

The Democratic presidential candidate says he personally opposes abortion, but supports the rights of others to have one

Thats no better than if he personally supported abortion.

I think that the Vatician needs to stop trying to influence politics, especailly American politics. Freedom of religion and all that jazz is hard when the Pope is trying to pressure our lawmakers.

Freedom of religion is not an issue here. Kerry can believe whatever he wants, but in the church, he will be treated according to his well known beliefs, as would any other catholic be treated. Does he think he should get special treatment just because hes a big politician?

Kerry's campaign said that religion should not be an issue in U.S. politics.

The state is not denying him communion, the church is. I think thats a pretty good example of the church and state being seperated. Its Kerry's deal that hes involved in both the church and the state, and hes the one who is making a big deal about it, atempting to make it seem like the church is trying to control the state.

(PS. Previous post is an attack on abortion, not Blazer... his/her statements just happened to fit very nicely as quotes leading into what I planed on saying.)

[Blazer]

No offence taken. You have your opinions & I have mine.

Back to the subject;
What would happen if the catholic church managed to make abortion illegal in the USA?
In the UK abortion became illegal in the 19th Century when the penalty for 'procuring a miscarriage' was life imprisonment. Women trying to escape the burden of an unwanted pregnancy were forced to use unreliable and dangerous methods, including poisonous drugs, knitting needles, soap or lead solutions inserted through syringes, and blows to the abdomen.
Many people were appalled by the number of women suffering and dying as a result of illegal abortion. Pressure for reform finally resulted in Liberal MP David Steel's Abortion Law Reform Bill, which became law on 27 October 1967 and took effect on 27 April 1968. - Click here for more. (http://www.efc.org.uk/abortion.html)

In Northern Ireland abortion is still illegal except in exceptional cases.
Since 1999 over 70 abortions have been performed in Northern Ireland. But 1,500 women travel to England each year for abortions at a minimum cost of £450. The Family Planning Association says since 1967 five women are known to have died from 'backstreet' abortions in Northern Ireland. - Click here for more. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/1386450.stm)

So banning abortions, which it looks like the church is pressurising US government to do, will most likely not help these women. Most will travel to other countries, others will take more drastic options and suffer as a result.

Wouldn't a better idea be the church concentrating on why these women are suffering unwanted pregnancies?
With support, education & counciling a lot could be done to reduce abortion. The church should be concentrating more on this & not pressurising a political view which would only make things worse.

[Wolffy13]

Whats wrong with having the baby and then giving it up for adoption, so that it may have a chance at life? Cant be bothered? To much of an inconvenience to let the baby live, so you decide in all of your selfless wisdom to murder the unborn child instead of letting it live?

I'm not saying that abortion is the answer all the time, or at all, for that matter. However, I have had the dis/pleasure of meeting one or two individuals in life who have been adopted and/or have done the foster home hop. In a nutshell, they didn't take it so well and they have some serious issues. Let's just say they were individuals whom I tried to remain in good terms with.

[Obsidian Claws]

I'm not saying that abortion is the answer all the time, or at all, for that matter. However, I have had the dis/pleasure of meeting one or two individuals in life who have been adopted and/or have done the foster home hop. In a nutshell, they didn't take it so well and they have some serious issues. Let's just say they were individuals whom I tried to remain in good terms with.

Im not sure what youre suggesting here. Is that these people would be better off dead? Because even though you insinuate that is not the case, you allude to that notion after the first sentance.

Anyway... these people have a chance to live, whereas an abortion would have voided that chance altogether.

General question to all who are pro-choice:

How would you have liked it if your mother chose your fate for you, and decided to abort you because she could not be bothered with bearing you?

Well?

[LV426]

Well let's see, I had to live with a fucked up emotionally bankrupt bitch from the bowels of hell. She didn't want me, didn't like me, and used me as a pawn against others in my family. The only reason I didn't turn out some morally bankrupt serial killer is because I had a pretty great dad, but if it came down to subjecting another living creature to that kind of hell, I go with abortion. Yes there are times when I wish my mother had aborted me, and doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Because if you can't raise a child and love a child and actually have the means to support that child then you have no business giving birth and abortion IS THE ONLY viable option.

Adoption doesn't work, not every child gets adopted and if you want proof of children that would have been better off aborted you have only to look as far as the foster care system in ANY country.

So pardon me if I support abortion, I am sick and tired of hearing and seeing kids beaten, abused, assaulted and then tossed away like a snott rag for the system to fuck up more.


And yes, sometimes these kids would be better of dead...eventually they end up that way anyway and it usually isn't painless.

[Obsidian Claws]

Im sorry to hear all that, LH, that all does suck.

But I a firm believer that all unborn children have a right to life just as much as you or I do now. Does it sometimes work out badly after the baby is born? Yes, there is no denying that. But in my view it is immoral and selfish to destroy a baby who has not even had a CHANCE at life yet. Any chance, no matter the outcome of the chance, is better than being deprived of the chance all together.

Because if you can't raise a child and love a child and actually have the means to support that child then you have no business giving birth and abortion IS THE ONLY viable option

I agree with the first part, that if some two people are not fit to be parents, then they shouldnt be having a baby. But there are more things you can do to prevent a possibly bad situation than abort the child. For one, you dont even have to have a child at all. If two parents know they cant support a child and give it a good life, which I think is present on the minds of most parents while considering or having a baby, then they shouldnt be of have been fucking each other in the first place. Do to so recklessly is just as selfish as aborting. For two, just give the baby up... I dont care how shitty the adoption system is today in America, but for some kids... it works out, and they get to have a good life. But no one, NO ONE, has the necessary capacity for judgement to decide whether a child should be born or not, as no one can know what the future will bring for this child. He or she could be one of the lucky ones.

So pardon me if I support abortion, I am sick and tired of hearing and seeing kids beaten, abused, assaulted and then tossed away like a snott rag for the system to fuck up more.

No pardon is needed, your opinions are legitimate, I simply disagree with them and believe there are other, better, options. Surely, its heartbreaking to see such things done to kids, but if the child was never born, it would never have been known if the child would turn out for better or worse. And like I was saying, no one has the necessary judgement to make that kind of decision for a child, as you never know until it happens.

Dont know how hard it would be, but with great improvement in the foster care system and better... "family planing" I guess they call it, Im sure alot more people would consider abortion as the easy way out, and a selfish, immoral decision. As everything stands now, thats how I see it. I never did, and never will support abortion.

(All statements made barring a life-threatening pregnancy)

[Wolffy13]

I apologize if I confused anyone. I can't give you a black or white opinion on abortion. I don't know when the baby officially has life, as many don't. The thing odf it is, I have met some potential psychos who are products of the adoption system. Yep, that's right, Products. How do you think you would of turned out if you never knew your true parents and knew they gave you up, maybe not even knowing the true reason as to why they gave you up. You bounce from house to house, having different "parents". One set of "parents" may be just perfect, one may have so many foster kids in attempt to save the world that they just have no time for you all, one set may be abusive physically, mentally or emotionally. These kids don't always come out being what we'd hoped for. Some of them might be downright scary.

I also read in a People magazine lately about how these foster children were being starved by their foster parents. One was 19, was found by the cops digging through the neighbor's trash for food and he was so malnourished they thought he was 10. The showed a picture of him and he looked just aweful. It was too sad.

[StrayWolfen]

Hello, I'm new here, but reading this made me really want to post. Abortion is one of those things that everyone has an opinion on. I'll just start with saying if anyone disagrees with me, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. My opinion though, is that abortion, in most cases, shouldn't happen. It has nothing to do with my religion. I just have a love of life and don't want to see it ended unnecessarily. I understand that when a woman is raped, she may want to get rid of the baby. I can't say what I'd do in the situation myself, but it's important to consider when making a decision in that case that it isn't the baby's fault. Secondly, I know one case where a woman was pregnant but had cancer. She could get radiation therapy and possibly save herself from the cancer, yet kill her unborn child, or she could try to outlast the cancer and risk killing the both of them. Cases like this I can understand going on with treatment to save the mother's life regardless of the consequences to the baby. Don't get me wrong, I'm not terribly fond of children, but I firmly believe that once conceived, they should have the opportunity to live. If you don't want the child, put it up for adoption, because there are many loving adults out there who can't have their own children. Another thing that upsets me is that feminists in rallying for abortion don't consider the ill effects on the mother. By no means should a mother who has had an abortion be ostracized further. They should have support. More women though, in my opinion, from the mothers to the unborn girls, are hurt by abortion. If people don't want to have children, I firmly believe in using birth control to try to prevent pregnancy. That's my opinion on the matter. I just find it difficult to understand the points of view held by those in favor of abortion, particularly when they claim to have women in mind, when abortion most often hurts the women involved, and certainly the unborn children.

[StrayWolfen]

I apologize if I confused anyone. I can't give you a black or white opinion on abortion. I don't know when the baby officially has life, as many don't. The thing odf it is, I have met some potential psychos who are products of the adoption system. Yep, that's right, Products. How do you think you would of turned out if you never knew your true parents and knew they gave you up, maybe not even knowing the true reason as to why they gave you up. You bounce from house to house, having different "parents". One set of "parents" may be just perfect, one may have so many foster kids in attempt to save the world that they just have no time for you all, one set may be abusive physically, mentally or emotionally. These kids don't always come out being what we'd hoped for. Some of them might be downright scary.

I also read in a People magazine lately about how these foster children were being starved by their foster parents. One was 19, was found by the cops digging through the neighbor's trash for food and he was so malnourished they thought he was 10. The showed a picture of him and he looked just aweful. It was too sad.

As far as adoption goes, well, not everyone's a saint. The best I can say for abusive situations is that the children should be removed from them. Regardless of what happens though, I think it's important to give them a chance at life. I see abortion and abuse as two evils that should be avoided at all costs. Sadly though, both happen, and regardless of my opinions, there is no easy solution to either occurence.

[Wolffy13]

No, there is no easy answer, it's one of those things. I just don't see the adoption process as a cure-all, not that any of you do either. I do agree about prevention being the key. My husband and I couldn't possibly take care of a child right now, so to avoid problems that we really don't need right now, we have preventative measures. If only others could be so bright (I'm talking about the idiots who can't keep the hormones in check, concerning the last sentence)

I also agree in that abortion is undoubtedly hard on the mother's body. I wouldn't want to put my body through that kind of stress.

[Blazer]

Here's a question for everyone out there, it concerns the person I shall call "X":


A couple with money difficulties gave birth to their second child (X). The father, who was an alcoholic, regularly abused "X" with physical beatings & verbal cruelty.

At the age of thirteen "X" started to develop a condition known as atherosclerosis - a condition of hardening of the arteries that whould eventually destory his auditory nerves leaving him deaf before he turned thirty.

"X" contracted hepititis in his early adulthood which caused innumerable health problems (such as colitis, rheumatism, repeated catarrhs, abscesses, cryopathy and ophthalmia) thoughout his life and probably contributed to his death.

"X" followed in his father's foot-steps and became reliant on alcohol. This led to mood-swings and paranoia and "X" was prone to fly into a rage for no reasons.

When "X" lost his hearing entirely this added to the mood-swings and paranoia already brought on by the alcohol addiction. He retreated into solitude.

"X" dies at the age of 57. The autopsie reports death due to liver failure. This was caused by cirrhosis of the liver brought on by over thirty years of excessive alcohol comsumtion. Although hepatitis was also thought to be a contributing factor.

Knowing all this would you abort "X" before he was born?


If you answered "Yes," then you've just deprived the world of Beethoven...

[Wraywolf]

Actually, it's pretty unfair to only show the bad things of a life for someone to judge as being a labial abortion subject. If you had given the full detail of Beethoven's life, I don't think many people would want him aborted. Then again, not everyone likes classical music.

I'm not pro-choice, but I'm not pro-life either. The thing is, with abortion, all the events that transpire are entirely because people are stupid and make mistakes that cause everyone to puff out their moral chest and declare war on the heathen evil heartless intolerant bastards on The Other Side Of The Argument.

And so, from this stupid rises more stupid. People blowing up doctors and the Church using its influence in the political system. And all because some chick needs to get rid of a sack of potential human that probably wouldn't be a very happy thing if it survived. Abortion isn't a problem, it's a blight, one that infects everyone involved, pro-choice or pro-life. No matter what side you are on, you can't but agree that the whole thing pretty much blows one way or another.

Plus, I hate babies.

[Human Hunter]

The dictator in rome is right upon this issue but does not go far enough. Abortionists should be, well ,torn limb from limb, tortured, raped and half-eaten by the light of the silver eye!
It is the way of justice you see. Women who have abortions should be tortured and raped and slain anyway, it is afterall only fitting.

[kat]

The dictator in rome is right upon this issue but does not go far enough. Abortionists should be, well ,torn limb from limb, tortured, raped and half-eaten by the light of the silver eye!
It is the way of justice you see. Women who have abortions should be tortured and raped and slain anyway, it is afterall only fitting.
Um, no. To put it simply: two wrongs don't make a right. And, really, such thinking is terribly hypocritical.

-32 points!

[LV426]

The dictator in rome is right upon this issue but does not go far enough. Abortionists should be, well ,torn limb from limb, tortured, raped and half-eaten by the light of the silver eye!
It is the way of justice you see. Women who have abortions should be tortured and raped and slain anyway, it is afterall only fitting.

Boy have you been brainwashed.

Maybe we should just kill all pregnant women then we won't have this pesky abortion problem.

[Darth Cluich]

The dictator in rome is right upon this issue but does not go far enough. Abortionists should be, well ,torn limb from limb, tortured, raped and half-eaten by the light of the silver eye!
It is the way of justice you see. Women who have abortions should be tortured and raped and slain anyway, it is afterall only fitting.

Ah, yes...rational thought. Gotta love it.

[Gilenea]

Well, while I would never have an abortion myself, I don't believe it is right for a church or a government to tell a woman what to do with her body. In my humble opinion, passing a law making abortions illegal violates both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment, which states that a person has right to privacy, including the right to do with their bodies as they please.

Besides, even if a law was passed to make abortions illegal, woman would still have them. It would be the same as prohibition in the 1920s. People still made alcohol, and many of them died from consuming shoddy attempts at moonshine. Abortion would be no different. Women would find other means to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancy, and most likely end up severly injuring or killing themselves.

I could go on and on, but I think I'm getting a little off topic. Bottom line is this: I am Pro-Choice, and I believe abortion should remain legal.

Gil

[blueeyes]

The right to privacy hasn't been touched yet, beyond the part where a woman seeking an abortion has to waltz through the anti-abortion crowds to get to the clinic; unlike the Supreme Court, I can't find the right to privacy allowing an action. I haven't heard of anybody trying to propose excessive bail or excessive fines on anybody related to abortion yet, the chief scope of the 8th amendment, and cruel and unusual punishment requires that it be in relation to a crime, not the ban itself.

The chief arguement for both sides lays in the 14th amendment, which stats that :
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Generally, the life, liberty, and property, clause is understood to be in that order for a specific reason. That is why laws limiting children's work hours were not labeled unconstitutional. Life comes before liberty or property.
From that viewpoint, the life of the person being acted upon comes before the liberty of the person acting.

But then the definition of person comes up, and when a President can argue the word 'is', we sure as hell can debate the word person. According to most Supreme Court rulings, "As to the natural persons protected by the due process clause, these include all human beings regardless of race, color, or citizenship." That's a good thing, because if the third applied, you might be able to take out your teenage son if you got bored with him.
From many viewpoints, a fetus is technically a human being. However, many viewpoints assert that it isn't a person until it's capable of sustaining life on its own or until after birth. And that's where the Supreme Court comes in.

From a pragmatic viewpoint, a ban of abortions would be difficult to keep. However, removing a few of the more objectionable types would not be horrible.

Although an abortion is a major choice, I don't think that a pregnant woman would need 8 period-free months before they make their decision. I think that many types of later term abortions are barbaric, by my standards, putting the parent at risk and often preventing a viable child from being born. Also, given the high numbers of teen abortions done to avoid being 'embarrased', requiring that the parents be aware of the abortion seems like a good choice.

Rape and medical conditions are not good reasons for a late-term abortion; even in the Bush religious days, emergency contraceptives are usually given to rape victims. And thanks to advances in medical technology, a good amount of severe medical conditions can be found in early 2nd trimester. Medical reasons make up very, very few of the late term abortions. And not a single one of the now-banned partial birth abortions were found to be due to a medical reason.

Bottom line: I am anti-choice, and I believe that late-term abortion should become illegal in all but the most exceptional events.

BTW: the Church has as much ability to meddle in Politics as it chooses. They count in the same field as any other corporation, and can say and do whatever they choose as long as it doesn't interfer with other people's basic rights, which, due to the entire seperation of church and state deal, can't include right to religion.

[Darth Cluich]

In my humble opinion, passing a law making abortions illegal violates both the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment, which states that a person has right to privacy, including the right to do with their bodies as they please.

Please show us where in the Constitution a right to privacy is mentioned. This oughta be interesting...

[Wolf-Bone]

The dictator in rome is right upon this issue but does not go far enough. Abortionists should be, well ,torn limb from limb, tortured, raped and half-eaten by the light of the silver eye!
It is the way of justice you see. Women who have abortions should be tortured and raped and slain anyway, it is afterall only fitting.

Oh boy...

I'm as divided about what this guy's going through as I am about abortion itself.

On the issue of abortion: In one way I'm for it, because:
a)It helps ease the population problem, if only marginally, and b)Reduces the number of parents who are too young to be parents, again, if only marginally.

But in another way, I'm against it because:
a)it is taking a life, and
b)there are better ways out of parenthood, such as adoption.

Then there's another side of me that tells me it's none of my fucking business, because I'm not a woman, and will always keep up my end of averting unwanted pregancy by using a condom.


On the issue of Human Hunter:

One side of me thinks he's probably just fucking with you people to get a reaction. Another side of me thinks he actually does get off on mutilation and torture. And yet another side thinks it's none of my fucking business, because since I'm not a woman I won't be the one in danger when he decides to act out his little "roman dictator" fantasies.

[forestwolf]

I don't think the babies should have to die, the mothers do not have to keep them, but they could put them up for adoption or give them to an orphanage

[Human Hunter]

So, you prefer the slaughter of babies, all pregnant women et al, to the slaughter of baby-killers? I understand this to be your collective reasoning, and that my lack of support for this state-given ideology of femmenism makes me the one brainwashed. Catttle are opiated by chewing the cud.

[DarkWolf]

Please show us where in the Constitution a right to privacy is mentioned. This oughta be interesting...
The word "privacy" isn't mentioned, it does not state a "right to privacy". But then again no where in the constitution does it state you have a "right" to eat food, get married, or have kids. The constitution isn't about YOUR rights, the contitution is about what rights the GOVERNMENT has.

However, you want protection from privacy? It's clearly in the 9th and 10th amendment of the Bill of Rights:

Amendment 9:
"The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Amendment 10:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The government has no power to tell people what to do except in areas specifically authorized in the Constitution.

That means it has no right to tell people whether or not they can engage in homosexual acts; no right to invade our privacy; no right to manage our health-care system; no right to tell us what a marriage is; no right to run our lives; no right to do anything that wasn't specifically authorized in the Constitution.

The right to privacy

The Constitution does not specifically mention a right to privacy. However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right, and as such is protected by virtue of the 9th Amendment. The right to privacy has come to the public's attention via several controversial Supreme Court rulings, including several dealing with contraception (the Griswold and Eisenstadt cases), interracial marriage (the Loving case), and abortion (the well-known Roe v. Wade case). In addition, it is said that a right to privacy is inherent in many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, such as the 3rd, the 4th's search and seizure limits, and the 5th's self- incrimination limit.

So yes, Gilenea is sort of right about the privacy. ;)

Sources : -

Quote 1: http://www.harrybrowne.org/articles/PrivacyRight.htm
Quote 2: http://www.usconstitution.n et/constnot.html#privac y
Bill of Rights: http://www.billofrightsinst itute.org/billofrights.php

[Darth Cluich]

Yes, the Constitution is about what rights the government has, but the Bill of Rights and subsequent Amendments to it list rights of the people that cannot be taken away by the government. Privacy is not one of them. For everyone's edification, I'll trace the development of this elusive "Right to Privacy."

While the word "privacy" does not occur in the text of the Constitution or its amendments, the word "private" appears in the 5th Amendment, when it guarantees that "private property" will not "be taken for public use without just compensation." The original right to privacy is found in the 4th Amendment to the Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

The original right to privacy was this constitutional prohibition of unreasonable search and seizure. The privacy afforded by the Constitution was that the government did not have the right to violate your private property without probable cause and a specific warrant. Now, if you happened to be breaking the law in the privacy of your own home, the government could do nothing about it as long as your actions remained private, because regardless of what the law dictated, without probable cause, the government could not enter your home to see if you were, in fact, breaking the law. The government was free to legislate against private actions, but could not invade your privacy to see if you were transgressing those laws.

The origins of our modern "Right to Privacy" are found in what are known as penumbras of constitutional rights or penumbral rights. A penumbra is a partial shadow between regions of complete darkness and complete illumination, like in an eclipse. In law, penumbra refers to an area in which something exists in a lesser or uncertain degree. Penumbral rights are rights that the Constitution does not specifically mention but that may be implied by the rights that are enumerated. The idea of penumbral rights is not foreign to the Constitution. The 9th Amendment assures that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Though the Supreme Court's power to determine the constitutionality of the laws of the land was never explicitly granted in the Constitution, the Court has exercised the power of judicial review ever since the extremely controversial case of Marbury v. Madison (1803). Inherent in the power of judicial review is the definition of penumbral rights. Over years of exercising this power, the Court has established various rights penumbral to explicit constitutional provisions.

In Meyer v. Nebraska (1923), the Court struck down a Nebraska law that forbade the teaching of foreign languages before the 8th grade. The Court determined that if the parents of the students commissioned an instructor to teach their children German, it was their right as parents. In the ruling, they affirmed a penumbral right "to marry, establish a home and bring up children."

Two years later, in Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925), the Court declared an Oregon law that forbade parents from sending their children to private schools unconstitutional. The Court identified a penumbral right "of parents and guardians to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control."

Then, in 1965 the coagulation of the so-called "Right to Privacy" began. The Supreme Court was asked to evaluate the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that prohibited the use of contraceptives in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). The Court ruled that the prohibition was unconstitutional because of a penumbral "right to privacy" that had been previously established in Meyer, Pierce, and other intervening cases. The penubras of the enumerated constitutional rights created a "private realm of family life which the state cannot enter" without a compelling state interest. This right to privacy, they declared, was included among the liberties guaranteed by the 14th Amendment and the Connecticut statute deprived people of that liberty without due process of law. This penumbral "right to privacy" prevented the government from interfering in the private procreative decisions of a married couple.

The next step came, when the Supreme Court decided the case of Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972). A Massachusetts law that prohibited the distribution of contraceptives to unmarried people was found unconstitutional based on the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court declared that the right to privacy in procreative decisions that Griswold established in 1965 had to be extended to unmarried people because rights belong to individuals, not to couples, and therefore unmarried people may demand equal treatment under the law.

Then, the greatest contortion of this new "Right to Privacy" took place in the form of the Roe v. Wade (1973) decision. The Court invalidated a Texas law prohibiting abortion and similar laws of other states. The Court held that the law violated the 14th Amendment in that it violated the woman's "fundamental" right to privacy as established by Griswold, Eisenstadt, and other cases.

Upon the precedents set by Griswold, Eisenstadt, and Roe, the Court struck down a New York state law prohibiting the distribution of contraceptives to people under the age of 16 in the case of Carey v. Population Services Int'l (1977).

The "Right to Privacy" sat and festered for nine years before it was given a minor setback by the Bowers v. Hardwick decision in which the anti-sodomy statues of Georgia were upheld. The Court affirmed that the private conduct at question "is not a fundamental right." They further explained that the Court was not "inclined to take a more expansive view of our authority to discover new fundamental rights embedded in the Due Process Clause. The Court is most vulnerable and comes nearest to illegitimacy when it deals with judge-made constitutional law having little or no cognizable roots in the language or design of the Constitution. . . . There should be, therefore, great resistance to expand the substantive reach of those Clauses, particularly if it requires redefining the category of rights deemed to be fundamental." The Court concluded that the law "is constantly based on notions of morality, and if all laws representing essentially moral choices are to be invalidated under the Due Process Clause, the courts will be very busy indeed." You can see why people who oppose moral legislation would seek the overruling of this case.

The Court again advanced the "Right to Privacy" in the case of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey (1992). The decision partially upheld and partially struck down a Pennsylvania law that put certain restrictions on getting an abortion. The Court asserted that "our obligation is to define the liberty of all, not to mandate our own moral code."

Referring to the decisions of past cases, the Court said, "It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter" and that "our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education."

In what Justice Scalia sarcastically calls the "sweet-mystery-of-life passage" of this decision, the Court proclaimed, "Intimate and Personal choices, central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the 14th Amendment. At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

So technically, it's not in the Constitution but is rather a development of case law. Funny, though, how it's not applied evenly...

[Were-E-Wolf]

Okay... answer this... I don't know if you are male or female, but do you best at this. Say you or your wife are in the first few months of the pregancy. You doctor comes up to you and say that there will be complications. The child will only live a few months and suffer every moment of it. There is also a possibility that you or your wife will die in giving birth. Would you rather...
1) Keep the kid and have the risk of losing your life or the life of you wifes in the prossess of giving birth. Along with it, the life of your son or daughter would be a short one where they are in a lot of pain and suffer every moment of their lives.
OR...
2) Abort it now and save everyone a lot of pain, including it.

I'm not saying it is either right or wrong, just you need it. And it will be around anyways. If it's not in clinics where it is a little more sanitary (thought they need to work on that,) it will be on the streets, in allies where people are taking rusty coat hangers and aborting that way. If anything they should not do it in the last few months when the embryo's have nerves, but before they do. That way it is fairly humane. In a way it would also cut down on kids that are put in orphanages or even abandoned in garbage bins... the unloved kids who may be treated like shit. Nothing wrong with orphanges... it's when kids get pushed aside and no one will care for them.
As for women being raped just for having an abortion in the first place... what sort of society would do that?! That's cruel and unusual. No one deserves to be raped, no matter what they have done. They think you are brainwashed because you seem like the kinda person that makes it seem as if women have no rights... I take it you are male and will he highly surprised if you are female. And what happens if the woman aborted in the first place because they were raped? Do you really want to set them though the trauma that has aready scared them for life again? You talk about being human to their unborn kids... but what about the women that suffer 9 months just to have them. Is all that really right?

--Forgive me if this is a double post... I had some posting trouble--

[LV426]

Actually Were-E there was a case of a woman that was told that she would die if she carried her child to term. She refused to have the abortion and subsequently died in the birthing of the child. The Pope decided just recently to award her sainthood for sacrificing her life and refusing to abort a fetus that caused her death. However in my eyes she commmitted suicide because she knew for a fact that she would die if she carried that child to term. I suppose though if she said she was sorry she woulf get a "get into heaven free" card from the catholic church.

[blueeyes]

This is quite interesting... http://www.google.com/search?q=woman+death +abortion&sourceid=firefox&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
Although properly done early and mid-term abortions are about as dangerous as birthing, it seems that there are some people out there doing them legally, but improperly. My favorite is the one where an abortion clinic asked that an ambulance's sirens be left off when approaching to help a women whose abortion was botched.
Just found that while checking out LH's event.

Actually, LH, it was more of a gamble than suicide; the ovarian cyst that endangered Gianna Molla's (maiden name Beretta) life was pretty likely to end up killing her even with an abortion. Ovarian cancer has a 22% 5 year survival rate for cancer as advanced as hers and with her age, median lifespan afterward being 34 months, and without treatment it's pretty much half that in both cases.
I'd just admire her for actually keeping with the protests she gave earlier on; better than someone who changes their ideals just to spare their own skin, I'd say.
Partial Source (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/5-17-2004-54234.asp)
It's up to personal interpretation if the Church is abusing her memory or if her actions were just plain stupid.

[Gilenea]

So yes, Gilenea is sort of right about the privacy. ;)

Thanks, DW! You saved me a butt load of work! :D

Gil

[Wolfguard]

I have to wonder how many of you who have commented on the religion I belong to are actually Catholic and understand what the rules are and the purpose they serve.

The purpose is the respect of human life at any stage.



She didn't want me, didn't like me, and used me as a pawn against others in my family. The only reason I didn't turn out some morally bankrupt serial killer is because I had a pretty great dad,...there are times when I wish my mother had aborted me, and doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Switch that to evil dad, good mom and you`ve got my story.The difference is I value my life too much to consider the alternative. I`ve had some shitty times in my life and there have been times of deep depression, but the fact remains that once I was created, I had a right to exist. No court had the right to say otherwise.

...if you can't raise a child and love a child and actually have the means to support that child then you have no business giving birth and abortion IS THE ONLY viable option.

That`s an excuse to relinquish the responsability of the people who created that human in the first place. In addition, there are 2 other options - "if you qualify for all the above, 1.use protection or 3.practice some self control and don`t bump uglies." The fact is people are unwilling to deny themselves any self indulgence; who wants to deny themselves sex, a.k.a the process of our method of reproduction, i.e. the way our species creates new life.

Adoption doesn't work
Funny, I just found out last month that my great grandmother on my dad`s side had been adopted. In adition, my dad`s wife was adopted. Not every story is a failure.

sometimes these kids would be better of dead...eventually they end up that way anyway and it usually isn't painless.
Then why not euthanize these kids? Whether you terminate them as an embryo or terminate them now, the effect remains the same - to end the life of an entity in the state of being human, i.e. to put an end to an individual`s existance. If you can`t respect human life in its smallest and most vulnerable form, then how can you respect it in any form?



People blowing up doctors and the Church using its influence in the political system.
The violence against clinics is bullshit. No different than terrorists (any kind), PETA or ELF in my eyes. As far as what the Church is doing, yes I believe some high-ups are using this as their "Trump card" but the Church itself is merely reinerating its doctrine, which is no secret.



Well, while I would never have an abortion myself, I don't believe it is right for a church...to tell a woman what to do with her body
That`s part of the rules of the Catholic church - to respect life at all stages. In addition, it`s not telling a woman what to do with her body, it`s saying respect the life created within your body. If it`s only about a "woman`s body" then there would be no controversy. It`s not. It`s about another body being formed within a woman`s body, i.e. a living entity in the state of being human.

The purpose of abortion remains consistant; it is to terminate a potential human being, i.e. infringe on the right of a human entity to exist.

Besides, even if a law was passed to make abortions illegal, woman would still have them. It would be the same as prohibition in the 1920s. People still made alcohol, and many of them died from consuming shoddy attempts at moonshine. Abortion would be no different. Women would find other means to rid themselves of unwanted pregnancy, and most likely end up severly injuring or killing themselves
^ By this logic, we should not have any type of laws or moral code against suicide, drugs, under age drinking, driving without a license, smoking, stealing, etc. because people will do it anyways.


From many viewpoints, a fetus is technically a human being. However, many viewpoints assert that it isn't a person until it's capable of sustaining life on its own or until after birth. And that's where the Supreme Court comes in.
Odd that science is used to back up knowledge and progress in all other areas, yet when people are faced with the fact that a human fetus is a living entity in a state of being human, the science is over looked and the status of the "human" fetus as an individual becomes nill due to it`s inability to function as an individual. Now there are many diseases which relegate humans to wheelchairs or to being bedridden. Is their status as humans questioned just because some of them cannot function on their own?

I think not.



However, Supreme Court decisions over the years have established that the right to privacy is a basic human right
Yet is denied to the most basic form of human life. Why should the life of a human embryo not be respected in some capacity?



The Pope decided just recently to award her sainthood for sacrificing her life and refusing to abort a fetus that caused her death. However in my eyes she commmitted suicide because she knew for a fact that she would die if she carried that child to term. I suppose though if she said she was sorry she woulf get a "get into heaven free" card from the catholic church.

By this logic, no fire fighter or police officer should put their life on the line for any other human being since they`d be committing suicide in your eyes.




In case anyone is wondering, I have had to deal with the abortion issue in my family. It tore us all apart because my mom`s sister did not want her granddaghter to have the 5 month old baby she carried. My aunt bullied my cousin into going to Los Angeles to terminate the baby, during the Christmas holiday no less. My grandmother was devastated, as was my then 16 year old cousin who didn`t want the abortion. The fact remains that my aunt wanted it done so she would not be inconvenienced, even though the rest of the family was willing to help take care of the boy once he was born.

I also work in the vet field and have seen the end result of abortions done to dogs and cats who would have had healthy litters. It`s a horrific sight to see dead puppy and kitten fetuses, so yeah, I refuse to assist in these "procedures" since I reguard the most innocent of life with the utmost respect.

Perhaps now you understand why I support the doctrine of the Catholic Church on this issue.

[LV426]

Unfortunately you see with tunnel vision. You see the options available but not the results of those options if taken. You say that adoption is perfectly acceptable and yet there are thousands of children, unwanted children that clog the CFS welfare and are fostered out to unfit home. I shall in point use a case that came to light of a woman who had 18 children that she had either adopted or fostered and whom she systematically abused, mistreated, and threatned with death. She locked them in cages, and made some of them even dig holes in the back yard that she told them were their own graves. They were starved, beaten, and tortured all so she could collect a check at the end of the month. Sorry that doesn't sound like the adoption system is working to me.


You speak of taking preventative measures to prevent pregnancy and that is all fine and good, people should take measures but sometimes it fails or there is an accident. And if there isn't an accident but just a careless person, do you really think that a child that is unwanted should be raised by someone who hates or resents them? Sorry that just doesn't fly. Forcing someone to have a kid when they don't want one doesn't do anything but place a child in harm's way.

If Euthanasia was legal I would be all for it. There are some people that need to be put down, unfortunately once a person is capable of living on their own outside of the womb to euthanize them is murder, even if they WANT to die. The law has taken even the right to remove our own lives from us. You would think since it is my body I can do what I want to it but apparently the government thinks differently.

In the same vein if I don't want kids as of this moment I have the option of terminating that pregnancy and not having one (minor details I take measures to prevent such a thing because I don't want a parasitical monsters sucking the life from me). But if there was an accident I like knowing that I have the option to NOT have that kid. I am not a parent, I don't want to be a parent, and I don't want some kid floating out there in the unwanted kid system wondering why I gave him/her away. It was my mess and I will pay to deal with it.

AND until the little monster is capable of sustaining it's own life, I don't see it as a child. It is a clump of cells that is capable of turning into a living creature. But if I don't want that creature, then why continue to let it grow off me? I can remove the cells and that is that.

The law concerning abortion and it's legalization was done so because it was determined that the government had no right to control the decisions of a woman and her body and force her to have or not have a child. If the government can force a woman to have a child then what is to keep them from enforcing that women not have a child. Mandatory abortions whenever the government feels like it? What it boils down to is the rights of the person who will be responsible for carrying the child to term for 9 months and then caring for it the rest of it's life.

Now Wolfguard, you actually will sit there and tell me that you refuse to abort puppies and kittens. How dare you. Really, have you been to shelter lately? How bout a No Kill shelter? Have you walked through the concrete halls and seen the animals that live in shelters and will end up dying in a cage with no one to care or love them? Dogs that have been caged so long all they do is pace back and forth and break their teeth from biting and chewing on chain link fences? The millions of pets that are abandoned, abused, and unwated and left to breed constantly in this country is absolutely sickening. You have the power to prevent one life from being so horribly abused and left to the mercies of human callousness that and you refuse to participate because a dead fetus is a sad thing? What about a dog that is starved to death, that is left out tied to a dog house with no food for months, that was beaten with sticks until it's bones broke and never saw a vet and was left to heal the wrong way. A puppy who was thrown out of a window because it peed on the floor. A cat that was tossed off a roof because the owner was mad. A horse that was left with no food or water, standing in feces up past it's hocks.

There is no human plight that can ever hurt me the way it does to see some defenseless, innocent animal being abused, tortured, or neglected just because. You walk down death row at the pound, see those faces that will never have a chance, some that maybe knew love, some that never knew love, and some that just wanted someone to love. Abortion in any form, for animals or humans is better than that. At least with animals their misery is over with the stick of a needle and they get to escape the cruelty they were shown.

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

Isn't there something in there about if your arm causes you to sin better to cut it off than burn in hell for all eternity, well how 'bout the fetus? If it will cause you to sin (by neglecting the child) then isn't it better to remove it before it's a full person?

[blueeyes]

I'm fairly certain the idea there is that you should do whatever you can to avoid sinning, even things quite painful. But the Christian bible is fairly sure that abortion is a crime. There's a good many quotes from it. Of course, the Christian bible tends to follow the Aristotilean viewpoint that a fetus doesn't have a human soul until 90 days...

Adoption has some horror stories and so does abortion. But in abortion, most the of horror stories occur to the mother, which abortion should protect. And in all the cases of abortion, there is no possiblity that the child get a good chance.
Even in the case of those poor animals mentioned, there's still a good many who get accepted. How many have to be stuck in a cage for the rest of their years before the lucky one's lives are really pointless?

LH, can you show some logic please?
If the government can force a woman to have a child then what is to keep them from enforcing that women not have a child.
So, if you can force someone to not smoke pot, you can force them to smoke pot? What about that underage drinking, or smoking cigarettes, or other drugs?
And that's some pretty ugly logic just because making abortion illegal would in fact mean that the government can't require a women to get one, as opposed to the chance that, in the future, abortions will be required if the mother's life is in danger. Is that better?

[LV426]

It's not flawed logic in the least. It's to point out that one law that seems to be a good idea can be a step in the door for other laws that aren't as nice looking and end up causing a lot more problems. When you take away someone's rights no matter how insignificant then there are others who will try to push it further.

[blueeyes]

Logical error: slippery slope without showing how one step leads to the next. I won't debate that one law can lead to another, more oppresive one, but my experience with it tends to show that they both push in the same direction. How could a law preventing, say, drug use, lead to law enforcement requiring the people to use drugs?

[LV426]

Logical error: slippery slope without showing how one step leads to the next. I won't debate that one law can lead to another, more oppresive one, but my experience with it tends to show that they both push in the same direction. How could a law preventing, say, drug use, lead to law enforcement requiring the people to use drugs?


Think of it this way. They can deny people the right to use a recreational drug, but yet they make laws that certain drugs must be used for the betterment of man or to prevent disease. In fact they already use this. Children are required by law to have vaccinations and booster shots. So are animals. If they aren't given to the child then the parent can be brought up on neglect charges, same as the animal's owner. It's a simple case of denying one drug yet enforcing another. It's not the specific drug, it's drugs in general.

[Ves]

I'm fiercely pro-choice. I always have been. However, nothing is ever black and white. To illustrate this I'll tell a little story.

Last year I was chatting to a friend of mine online, we were debating the abortion issue, she was championing pro-life, and I was pro-choice. It was an interesting debate and thankfully devoid of religious rubbish. At the end of the debate, I'd actually changed her mind and she was no longer against abortion. I patted myself on the back.
Unbeknownst to me she was pregnant and as a result of this debate, she had an abortion. The mental affect that this had on her was profound. After that she began to feel depression and maternal instinct towards her dead child. She sank into a near suicidal state. She just wasn't prepared for what happened to her. Now, a year later, she is still trying to overcome this.

There's no way to predict how any woman will react to the loss of a child (both through abortion or through miscarriage), and in some cases it can be terrible. Therefore abortion should never be forced regardless of the circumstances of the pregnancy. If a mother to be is unlikely to survive childbirth, then she should be free to make that choice, but should also be aware that she will possibly be leaving the child without a mother.
The other thing I cannot condone is the forced abortion and sterilisation of the disabled - something which has certainly been an issue in British legal circles in the past, I don't know about other countries.

As for Catholic Politicians being denied communion for supporting abortion, what a load of pony! What next? denying communion to politicians that support wars?

[Edwardo_son_of_haqim]

I like to think of the Catholic church as a club and it's members follow the rules my there own will, if you don't like the rules then leave the club, like I did.

[Wolfguard]

LycanthropicHowl...I think you`re gonna absolutly loath me after this...


Unfortunately you see with tunnel vision. You see the options available but not the results of those options if taken.
You are also viewing with tunnel vision as well since your assumption is that there is nothing but doom and gloom as the end result.

You say that adoption is perfectly acceptable and yet there are thousands of children, unwanted children that clog the CFS welfare and are fostered out to unfit home.
The blame rests on the shoulders of the adoption agency and "the parent" who made that child.

I shall in point use a case that came to light of a woman who had 18 children that she had either adopted or fostered and whom she systematically abused, mistreated,...They were starved, beaten, and tortured all so she could collect a check at the end of the month. Sorry that doesn't sound like the adoption system is working to me.
I never claimed that it worked, yet it is still a viable option. My existance is a result of that.

You speak of taking preventative measures to prevent pregnancy and that is all fine and good, people should take measures but sometimes it fails or there is an accident.And if there isn't an accident but just a careless person, do you really think that a child that is unwanted should be raised by someone who hates or resents them?
The responsability still rests on the people who are sexin` each other up. In adition, you are assuming there will be hate and resentment.

Forcing someone to have a kid when they don't want one doesn't do anything but place a child in harm's way.
The purpose of sex is to reproduce. A child is often the result of sexual intercourse. If you`re not ready for a kid, then perhaps you`re not ready for sex then, since that is part of the responsability of engaging in it.

If Euthanasia was legal I would be all for it...unfortunately once a person is capable of living on their own outside of the womb to euthanize them is murder, even if they WANT to die. The law has taken even the right to remove our own lives from us. You would think since it is my body I can do what I want to it but apparently the government thinks differently.
The purpose is so we don`t have mass suicides, i.e. a law tends to get the average person to think twice about committing a crime. Suicide is, in effect, self murder.

In the same vein if I don't want kids as of this moment I have the option of terminating that pregnancy and not having one
I.e. if you became pregnant, you`d want the responsability of your creating that human to be removed from you. The responsability remains on the shoulders of the person engaging in sexual intercourse.

I don't want a parasitical monsters sucking the life from me
^ Well this explains everything. Maybe it`s just me but I see a living entity existing in a mother`s womb, who`s a member of my species, as part of our nature as placental mammals.

if there was an accident I like knowing that I have the option to NOT have that kid...I don't want to be a parent, and I don't want some kid floating out there in the unwanted kid system wondering why I gave him/her away. It was my mess and I will pay to deal with it.
That`s not dealing with it. It`s removing the responsability of your actions off your shoulders. Terminating a human embryo is a destructive method of not having to deal with the responsability having sex and having a child.

AND until the little monster is capable of sustaining it's own life, I don't see it as a child.
You`re not even seeing it as a child afterwards since you`ve dehumanized it as a "little monster."


It is a clump of cells that is capable of turning into a living creature.
If it isn`t a living thing, then its state would remain so. If it isn`t an individual entity(or entities) at the point of conception, then it would not change. It`s past the point of "capable" once the sperm and egg successfully join and devolopment begins. Please show me something which proves otherwise and I`ll consider it.

But if I don't want that creature, then why continue to let it grow off me?
It`s not a living thing, then it`s a creature, it`s not a living thing, then it`s a creature. You acknowledge its living state at the same time you dismiss it. And it`s a human embryo, not some creature. Its state remains human no matter how much you try to dehumanize it. If it was some "creature" which was not human, then it would remain a creature and wouldn`t magically become human.

The law concerning abortion and it's legalization was done so because it was determined that the government had no right to control the decisions of a woman and her body and force her to have or not have a child.
Not the woman`s body - a separate human entity within a woman`s body. The "choice" is on the shoulders of the people who decided to have sex without being prepared for or not wanting to deal with the consequences of their actions.

If the government can force a woman to have a child then what is to keep them from enforcing that women not have a child.Mandatory abortions whenever the government feels like it?
The only place I know of where that happens is China, and it`s not even a "forced" abortion. Unless something has changed, it`s an increase in taxes if the woman refuses to abort her child. In addition, if and when governments start forcing women not to have children, we`ll be facing more troubles than this one issue.

What it boils down to is the rights of the person who will be responsible for carrying the child to term for 9 months and then caring for it the rest of it's life.
Based on the decision that person made when they chose to have sex in the first place.




Now Wolfguard, you actually will sit there and tell me that you refuse to abort puppies and kittens. How dare you.
Yes I have, I do, and will continue to do so. I know of doctors who refuse to do this as well. Do you know what lesson the owners/parents learn? They have no reason to change their ways. In fact, this option enforces their reasoning.They know they can have it done again and again, over and over. Same with humans and their "human" embryos.

Really, have you been to shelter lately?
Yes, I have.About 2 weeks ago.

How bout a No Kill shelter? Have you walked through the concrete halls and seen the animals that live in shelters and will end up dying in a cage with no one to care or love them?...The millions of pets that are abandoned, abused, and unwated and left to breed constantly in this country is absolutely sickening.
No, I`ve never been to a No-Kill shelter, but yes, I`ve had to help treat animals who`ve been rescued from them. What you say about their plight is true. Now how did they get to be in this situation to begin with...

You have the power to prevent one life from being so horribly abused and left to the mercies of human callousness that and you refuse to participate because a dead fetus is a sad thing?
So the power is mine? I "chose" to release animals into wild? I "decided" not to spay or neuter these cats and dogs? I`m the one who doesn`t consider the consequences of my actions?

Two words: Bull shit.

Again, you removed the responsability of the owner (aka the parent) and put it on my shoulders. I`m not assuming their responsability. I`m not going to have blood on my hands and have a dark cloud over my conscious just because someone else "effed" up. The reponsability remains on the people who choose not to keep their animals in and choose not to spay or neuter their cats or dogs. They are the ones who are not considering the consequences of their actions.

What about a dog that is starved to death
Responsability of the owner/parent.

that is left out tied to a dog house with no food for months
Responsability of the owner/parent.

that was beaten with sticks until it's bones broke
Responsability of the owner/parent.

and never saw a vet and was left to heal the wrong way.
Responsability of the owner/parent.

A puppy who was thrown out of a window because it peed on the floor.
Responsability of the owner/parent.

A cat that was tossed off a roof because the owner was mad.
Responsability of the owner/parent.

A horse that was left with no food or water, standing in feces up past it's hocks.
Responsability of the owner/parent.


There is no human plight that can ever hurt me the way it does to see some defenseless, innocent animal being abused, tortured, or neglected just because. You walk down death row at the pound, see those faces that will never have a chance, some that maybe knew love, some that never knew love, and some that just wanted someone to love.
And there is no greater joy than being able to show love and take care of animals who`ve been abused and neglected. I`ve had the privilege of being able to do this with 10 wolves and wolfdogs, in addition to treating domestic cats and dogs who`d been in similar conditions of neglect.

Abortion in any form, for animals or humans is better than that. At least with animals their misery is over with the stick of a needle and they get to escape the cruelty they were shown.
And the owners/parents of these animals/children learn that they can just keep doing anything they want. In other words, they never learn to take responsability for their actions.

My "tunnel vision" is that I focus on the source and cause of the problem, not the end result.

[Wolfguard]

Isn't there something in there about if your arm causes you to sin better to cut it off than burn in hell for all eternity, well how 'bout the fetus? If it will cause you to sin (by neglecting the child) then isn't it better to remove it before it's a full person?

Getting back to the religious aspect of the topic, no it isn`t because within the Catholic Church, it is considered that a human life begins at conception, so the greater "sin" is murder. Both choices are bad, so if one is forced to deal with either as an option, one must consider to not chose actions which will lead them towards that path. Actions have consequences; it`s as simple as that.

I like to think of the Catholic church as a club and it's members follow the rules my there own will, if you don't like the rules then leave the club, like I did.
^ Exactly. Fortunately, science can transcend religious beliefs...


____________________ ____________________ ___



As for Catholic Politicians being denied communion for supporting abortion, what a load of pony! What next? denying communion to politicians that support wars?
Why is it a "load?" That`s one of the rules being decreed. In addition, the Pope did not condone the war, so if they did that as well, it`d be the right of the Church to do that. Keep in mine that it is not enforced, i.e. there aren`t ushers asking if people are pro-abortion or pro-life; the Church is hoping the members will be true to themselves.


____________________ ____________________ ____


My original statement still stands: "I have to wonder how many of you who have commented on the religion I belong to are actually Catholic and understand what the rules are and the purpose they serve."

[Blazer]

It`s past the point of "capable" once the sperm and egg successfully join and devolopment begins. Please show me something which proves otherwise and I`ll consider it.

An embryo can be "absorbed" by the mother, or past out during menstruation. not entirely sure why it does this.

If you are taking the argument that a baby is created when sperm and egg combine: what do you think to IVF?
Here only a small percentage of fertilised eggs go on to produce a foetus. People still undertake IVF despite this, are they then murdering the unsuccessful eggs?

The point on pro-choice / pro-life always (to me) hinged on when the embryo became a life form. A fertilised egg is not a life form. A new born baby is. Where is the line from not alive to viable life form?

Back to the church issue. Catholics are against abortion, but also against contraception... Seems like the only way to not have kids and be Catholic is to not have sex at all. How many people are going to stick to that??

[kat]

A fertilized egg is just a cell. Millions of them die everyday in our body. After 8 weeks? It's more like a tumor than a human. Do tumors have souls?

[LV426]

It's very conveinant to cast blame on the parent/owner of the abused child or animal but the point is that the only one that really suffers in all of this is the child or animal. Yes I agree that the parents and owners should be more repsonsible but the fact is that they aren't. No one forces them to be and even the government takes very little action in enforcing parental/owner responsibility. Recently that has been changing, slowly and not fast enough and still the penalties and fines are not great enough to deter the irresponsible individual from committing the same crimes over and over.

As a result of forcing people to keep the children and animals that they don't want or don't want to take responsibility for the abuse only grows, passed on from child to child or animal to animal until eventually someone ends up dead.

Yes people should be responsible but there is no one to make someone take responsibility. There is no one to ensure that someone neuters and spays their animal there is no one to make sure that a teenager takes birth control and uses condoms. And so we are left with the current situation of thousands of unwanted children and unwanted animals that populate not only the US but the world. In some cases people are breeding faster than their environment can take and so viruses and diseases are passed on from one to another faster than the common cold. The death tolls are lower, the birth rates are higher, and the only ones who are paying for the irresponsibility are those who were conceived.

Prevention is the most responsible act, that I agree with, but there are extenuating circumstances as well as stupid people and when it happens there needs to be another option other than just contributing to the masses of abuse and neglect.

[blueeyes]

Thank you, Dictionary.com. So, a zygote is a tumor?
tumor: An abnormal growth of tissue resulting from uncontrolled, progressive multiplication of cells and serving no physiological function.

Aren't we all?

[kat]

Actually, no, that's not the definition of a tumor of which I was considering. Tumors are much more complicated than originally thought, and resemble more an organ than just a bundle of mutated cells. It's a 'smart' organ that converts cells around it into tissues it requires, such as vascular tissues. A tumor usually begins with a series of buggered stem cells, which differentiate into the cellular forms it requires. Isn't that just the same thing as a zygote? It's just a bundle of cells living off the host.

"Aren't we all?" No, because the definition is just too simple.

[blueeyes]

Really? So a tumor is a bunch of bugered stem cells that convert the things around it into what it requires to survive? Smart, even?
Well, the last part doesn't fit the average human, but I still don't see the difference.

[kat]

I intended "smart" in a similar way as how they use it in the term "smart bomb". And yes, that is one type of tumor.

[blueeyes]

And that was one type of humor. I just don't think arguing semantics or trying to point out where the blame lies is going to prove anything (unless you can show how that's better than the alternative, and waving ethics around isn't going to prove anything either).

Do you really want to end up giving the furthest right-wingers a step up on the evolutionary scale.

[Wolfguard]

Prevention is the most responsible act, that I agree with, but there are extenuating circumstances as well as stupid people and when it happens there needs to be another option other than just contributing to the masses of abuse and neglect.
^Excellent point.