For the sake of argument at least, Not_Now.Soon, yes.

<<You say you've conceded that unborn babies have the right to life.>>

I have also argued, in a previous post to you, why they don’t. I have conceded the point in order to get to what I believe is a more fundamental issue.

<<That's a worthless concession if you then take back the only means for the baby to survive.>>

Not if you can present a case as to why the woman's bodily autonomy should be violated. Perhaps then we can discuss if the unborn human child really does have equal rights? Legally, it doesn't. Most anti-abortionists, too, afford the unborn human child less rights through their acceptance of abortion in cases of rape and incest.

<<One big difference between [pregnancy and donating a kidney] is that being pregnet for 9 months is temporary …>>

Not so: http://www.self.com/story/9-ways-pregnancy-can-permanently-change-your-body

But if you don’t like the kidney analogy, then let’s use bone marrow as an analogy. Bone marrow regenerates.

<<… [pregnancy] can only occure if you have sex.>>

So can having a child that needs a bone marrow transplant. There is a reason why my analogy speaks specifically of the mother.

<<Along the same lines of a permanent effect is the death of the baby …>>

The death of a child needing a bone marrow transplant is also permanent.

<<No excuse would be made to kill the child after it was born …>>

Of course not. It has already achieved personhood and is no longer dependent on the mother’s body to survive. Comparing the killing of the unborn human child with the murder of a some kid who has already been born is silly and emotive.

<<The right to live is a greater right then all other rights that we legally support.>>

Our right to live is not greater than the right of another to bodily autonomy.

<<Next time you concede a point. Really do concede to the point.>>

I did. The problem is that the issue of bodily autonomy came into the mix and things got complicated from there.

AJ,

"<<... the mother has a duty to safeguard the foetus until it can be safely born.>>

Not if it violates her bodily autonomy. To suggest otherwise is to make women slaves to their biology."

Women are slaves to their biology, (as are all of us to some extent), the tensions associated with the monthly cycle have been used as a successful defence in the Courts.
In my book agreeing to intercourse with full consent and knowledge gives permission to the foetus to thrive as nature intended.

There could also arise the situation where women lose all rights and forced pregnancies become a matter of Government policy.

On Catholicism and sex, the whole prohibition case rests on Onan's Sin which was one of greed and not fulfilling the law, that he did this by a form of birth control was irrelevant, abstinence would have been equally unlawful.
https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/1239/what-was-onans-sin/19753

There are various types of Catholics: among them practising, lapsed and practical!!

The ideal is to prepare yourself first, living such a pure and holy life as to deserve to become parent to the world's next Saviour.

Short of this, bring a child to this world once you are certain that you can support them both economically and spiritually, so that they be brought up and educated to walk before God righteously and pursue spiritual progress.

Short of this, abstain from sex.

Short of this, use contraceptives, including permanent methods.

Short of this, kill your baby as early as possible, before they become mentally or emotionally attached to the world.

While this is far less than ideal, you can only do your child a favour by killing them early rather than to bring them into a confused situation where their education will mislead them, where they wouldn't know how to discern between good and evil and into an overcrowded world where their very life would be a burden on others.

[Ecclesiastes 4:1-3]:

Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun:

I saw the tears of the oppressed — and they have no comforter;
power was on the side of their oppressors - and they have no comforter.
And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive.
But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.

Yuyutsu

Wow! Your comment sums up exactly what I think and feel.

You only have to look at anthropological evidence of pre-civilisation societies (which we prefer to call 'primitive'), some of which still continue, to know that abortion was fully accepted and even given sacred status (i.e. secret women's business).

Their wisdom was that you couldn't keep bringing lives into being when there were not the resources or social supports to give them or the wider society a reasonable existence.

Post-civilisation societies reversed this belief system, because the more lives brought into the world, the more slave labour was available to keep the elites prosperous. Religion and control of women's sexuality became their spiritual validation.

I may have gone off on a tangent here, but the fundamental point is that life in itself is not a gift. The life that the baby has to face within a system of inequality, poverty, injustice and war is the real issue here. So too is the quality of life of those immediately affected by their birth, not just the mother.

AJ Phillips. I see your points, but I don't agree with them. As long as a woman chose to have sex (it wasn't forced on her) the result of getting pregnet should be respected. By the woman and by anyone else who is affected by it. Abortion kills. It's an active kill as opposed to a passive letting someone die. (Not that either one is a favorable option).

Because of our values differing I think we will not agree with this. You think abortion is ok in any sitution because it's a woman's right. Any confrontation on that right is a sign of oppression. Does that about sum it up? I think abortion should be reserved only for medical emergencies where the mother's life is in danger. And with a side note of when the woman had no choice but was raped. It's still killing in that instance but it's a gray area that I'm not going to argue. Like stealing is gray when a person has nothing else and is stealing food to get by. It's still wrong but it's a gray area.

Because of these differences, I don't think we're going to change eachother's perspective. You see a woman's body as trumping life. I see life as more important.if you choose to have sex you give up the right to have an abortion in my opinion.

...Yuyutsu? You're ok with the senseless killing of children too? That's what abortion is when it's allowed. Open doors to kill thousands or millions every year.

Is Mise,

It’s no wonder the Catholic Church doesn’t need thousands of denominations if they have multiple doctrines. I was always aware that Catholics were a diverse bunch (with room with even for atheist Catholics) but never realised the doctrine allowed for such diversity. I have always been fascinated by how the Mafia boss can order concrete boots for a former employee before breakfast, and still be in mass by 9:00.

--

Not_Now.Soon,

As I said to Is Mise, you can denounce abortion all you like - you can talk about abortion killing and simply state that a life is a life is a life - but at some point, you need to come up a viable solution or alternative.

<<You think abortion is ok in any sitution because it's a woman's right.>>

Not in any situation. I think the issue becomes a lot more complicated once the foetus reaches a stage where it would be viable outside the womb. However, women seeking abortions at very late stages are virtually non-existent.

<<Any confrontation on that right is a sign of oppression. Does that about sum it up?>>

It would be oppressive, yes. How would you police a ban on abortions? How would you ensure that the woman didn’t commit suicide or seek a dangerous backyard abortion, killing both herself and the foetus? Strap her to a bed and force-feed her through a drip?

When you consider the above, perhaps then you will see why bodily autonomy must necessarily prevail - whether we like that or not. You don’t have to like abortion. I don’t. But we need to be realistic, too. Our principles mean little if enforcing them would result in a decrease in wellbeing and social contentment.