It's too easy to get an abortion done. Despite all the conditions for a legal abortion these are usually undermined by the medical practitioner. Moral issues are usually not considered as the rights of the unborn are not crucial in the decision made to abort. Till the sanctity of life is considered there will continue to be a case for legalising abortion. In a materialistic society cost and need are foremost considerations over moral issues. Society needs to take responsibility for allowing behaviours that have long term consequences and cannot be devolved to the private conscience or medical practitioner. Without standards society will degrade to a state of anarchy.

I do not agree with Sukrit that abortion is a private matter and should be kept in family-clinician closets.

This is selfishness gone mad - this sinister decision taken by the individual simply to avoid the inconvenience of unwanted pregnancy is socially improper.

Abortion is a social issue that affects us all. We all pay for it economically, morally, and historically. Once a rule is set in motion it is very hard to reverse it.

Therefore it is up to the majority to decide. And according to the statistical figures supplied in the article it is obvious that 2 out of 3 are against abortion. (it all depends how the data is collected in the first place)

Legalising abortion will not make it go away without the correct moral eduction.

The Menhennitt ruling of 1969 seems to be the closest fit to the opinions of people in our nation. Why support decriminalised abortion when only 29.8% of the people consider that it should always be legal?

Ignoring the 8.8% who think it should never be allowed (not even the Catholic church takes that view, as Catholics are allowed their conscience to decide on abortion if a woman's life is in absolute peril) there are 61.4 of people who don't support the full decriminalisation of abortion, but rather its permission in certain circumstances. The Menhennitt ruling is such a framework, but it is one which is not followed. Effectively, we have abortion on demand. If a practitioner wishes to abide by the law, an individual can seek out a doctor who agrees with abortion on demand, and have it done.

Abbott has focused himself of providing support to women - his floating of an idea to start maternity payments during pregnancy was a good step - and it would be nice if he reinstated the Child Endowment that existed in our nation in the 50's and 60's to give pregnant women the knowledge that they will be supported til their child is no longer dependant. I have heard estimates that such a policy would not only raise our fertility rate to about 2, maybe up to the needed 2.1, but also would stop most middle class, convenience abortions, dropping the abortion rate by up to a third.

Abortion on demand is not supported by the Australian people. That the majority support its legalisation in certain circumstances is no justification for such an open slather. We need to enact some framework in which abortions occur - including cooling-off periods, opportunities for potential fathers to speak, fiscal support to expecting couples, and medicare subsidies counselling - to truly lower the amount of abortions.

I do not take too kindly to you saying that abortion is entirely supported by classical liberal ideals. There is a strong case against abortion under classical liberal philosophy. Yes, we believe that for most things the government should stay outside of people’s business, however murder is not one of those things. You really have to step outside the bounds of logic to proclaim a fetus is not ‘yet’ a human.

Jeshua,

I think 'easy' is a misnomer; abortion is rarely an 'easy' decision, or an 'easy' experience. If you mean there is considerable flexibility in a doctor's assessment of the risk to a woman's psychological and physical health in the continuation of an 'unwanted' pregnancy, I think you're right, and I think it's warranted, but a very complex and tricky situation.

Unfortunately What isn't considered too often are the myriad of reasons women seek abortion. Many women who decide to abort their pregnancy would object to the definition of their foetus as 'unwanted': these women would continue their pregnancies if adequate support was available, if they had more choice, rather than one 'choice'.

How do we better accommodate women seeking abortion for whom having a baby would cause considerable emotional, psychological, physical, financial or social hardship? These are the reasons most women seek abortion.

Coach,

I disagree with your comment that blames women for social impropriety. I feel it far more socially improper to focus on abortion as *the problem*, rather than *the symptom* of a number of complex problems. By demonising women who make that decision, rather than addressing the circumstances leading her to it, we condemn ourselves to a circular debate that only inflames tensions and creates more problems, rather than working to understand abortion.

I do agree that abortion affects us all: therefore it is up to all of us to understand the circumstances leading women to choose abortion, and work to create a society that reduces, rather than exacerbates, the need for abortion

Here we go again;
I absolutely support a womans right to choose.Besides, couples can no longer raise large families...the cost is prohibitive.
Tony Abbott's idea of supporting pregnant women and reintroducung an endowment scheme is a positive idea that should be progressed as a positive contribution to decreasing the incidence of abortion but Women must still have the choice to terminate a pregnancy without being demonised or having to justify their decision. They must also have the choice between surgical or medical abortion.
The Australian Medicare system must also be available for such procedures. After all,women seeking abortions and their partners also pay the Medicare levy.

If you don't want to have kids, then don't have unprotected sex. If you CHOOSE to do so, get pregnant, and then can't get access to abortion, don't complain that someone stole your choice.

I welcome the common law ruling because, as DFXK says, its reflects the views of the majority of the people of Australia.

The major elements of the human fetus develops in the first 4-6 weeks of pregnancy, and from there everything just develops in terms of size and strength. By the time most women realise they're pregnant, the fetus can have its own blood supply, its own sex, and (as from the beginning of conception), it will continue to have its own DNA.

Therefore the idea that a woman can only legally have the CHOICE to terminate her pregnancy under extreme circumstances (threat to physiological/psychological health of mother/fetus) is just, and the procedure should not be decriminalised to expand its usage and usher in even more "convenience" abortions.

Who cares what Tasmania, WA and the rest are doing?

That being said, I welcome moves by the government/community groups to support women who find themselves with unwanted pregnancies, whether by their own choice, or, much more rarely, not.

I can't see the point of a government trying to stop women from having abortions or even using RU486.

You are for life or you are not for life. Simple.

Naturally you get the pro-abortionists explaining that it's the woman's choice. The reason they post is to justify their past. I suggest to them they get councelling.

They tell you that it is not life until week blah blah blah.

I for one am ready. The usual suspects please bore me.Yabby where are you? Earth to maracas.

Maracas, it is unwise to think of things in terms of "absolute rights", as no such things exist. All rights are qualified agaisnt responsabilties, duties and the rights of others. Primarily, all rights are qualified against the continual existance of the state. There is no such thing as an "absolute right": not in life - one can be killed if endangering someone's life, not in speech - if seditious, treasonable, libellious or indecent, nor in abortion.

I have a question... if doctors in France can keep a 13 week-old unborn baby alive after a ceasarian section and have it show no medical problems dissimilar from those usually experienced by all children... why should a mother be able to terminate that life at 20 weeks, or, in Victorian, whenever she wishes (as late term abortions are all too common in the Deep South of Australia)?

The reason for the Menhennitt decision, if memory serves me correct, is that a fetus is not a "legal person"... although a corporation is... and thus can have its rights removed in a circumstance like ill-health, trauma, or other hardships. I think we should respect the deliberative process of the common law... we owe to it a system which functions far better than any "bill of rights" could, as it represents hundreds of years of compromise and balance.

NOTE: Tony Abbott proposed payments during pregnancy, I proposed a Child Endowerment - a monograph on its viability is avaliable from the Menzies Reasearch Centre. http://www.mrcltd.org.au/content.cfm?PageID=PubsMonographs . See "Family Income Versus Parenting Time".

Also, adoption should be supported, and pregnancy payments would allow women to make that choice. It must also be verbally asserted as favoured over an abortion. Adoptions have dropped over twenty-fold over the last twenty years.

I agree with DLC's comment, and Tracy's qualifications re: "unwanted pregnancies". It is a sad thing that many feminists call them "unwanted", when often they are wanted, but one feels "unable" rather than "unwanting".

Friedrich, sorry to dissapoint you, but in my case counselling on abortion would not help sorry. I've never had an abortion so your theory is wrong. As a male, I somehow doubt that I ever will :)

What we have here is once again the true believers preaching the dogma of Rome, which was most likely brainwashed into them as little Catholics. My my, even condoms are evil under that dogma.

I respect the rights and lives of people, not dividing cells. With so much poverty, hunger and misery on this planet, why don't we just focus on living, feeling, suffering beings, of whatever species, before getting carried away by religious dogma which sees potential life in every condom.

Yabby,

As part of a decision making process in the past you may need counselling. You are twisting my words, but that's ok.

Yabby you don't like the Catholic faith. Do you go to lodge meetings?

DFXK,

Your statement below resonates with me - I'd like to hear more comments from other posters please. I know people who really wanted to adopt a child and were told to look overseas as it is too complicated in oz.

>>Also, adoption should be supported, and pregnancy payments would allow women to make that choice. It must also be verbally asserted as favoured over an abortion. Adoptions have dropped over twenty-fold over the last twenty years.<<

Adoption is now a process which costs up to hundreds of thousands of dollars... mostly from Asia and Africa... and there is a booming market in surrogate pregnancies and kidnapping because of it. It is a painful and long process (I know, I have a friend currently attempting to adopt).

As an "honourable", or perhaps "heroic" option, it should be promoted, as it involves the self-sacrifice to complete the process begun by a consentual act, a woman's judgement over whether or not she feels able or willing to raise the child, and then the responsable giving of that child to a couple who feel both willing and able - and are deemed to be so by society. This, though still tough for a woman, can be a thing of deep reassurance that their child will have a chance in life.

If we were to have our adoption figures of 25/30 years back, of about 20,000 a year, then that would knock off 1/4 to 1/5 of our abortion rate, and would also reduce the use of an equally costly, time-consuming and painful process of fertilisation in vitro.

If a woman be allowed the time and money needed to be supported through such a process, and the medicare-covered counselling, and a campaign of public education be launched to encourage it, then it would be a worthwhile thing indeed.

Friederich, no I don't go to lodge meetings. Yes I dislike the Vatican, for good reasons. I was born a catholic, the nuns tried to brainwash me too, so I know a little bit about it all.

Fact is that the Vatican is a religious institution that is highly political worldwide, trying to enforce its religious agenda on others through political means. So they are open for criticism, as is any organisation so heavily involved in politics.

I don't want the pope telling me how to live, just as I don't want Osama bin Laden telling me how to live. I believe in freedom of religion, but also freedom from religion.

To use the term murder when it comes to an embryo is pure emotive
rhetoric. An embryo is an organism, not a person. Yes weeks etc
matter, even if you don't understand the concept. Let me simplify it for you with an analogy. A piece of sheet steel is not a car. It is a potential car, but to describe is as a car is nonsense. A being without a functioning brain is not a person, its an organism.

The author is quite correct. Abortion should be an issue between a woman and her doctor, certainly in the first trimester. It is not the business of govt, nor the business of the godsquad to try and make her feel guilty about her decision.

Yabby,

>>A being without a functioning brain is not a person, its an organism.<<

I don't think we can top this as the best OLO quotation for 2005.

Thanks DFXK,

Very insightful - I can also think about the "parent identity disclosure act" - or whatever what it's called - has scared a lot of potential "donnors". No one would want to live expecting a phone call: are you my real mother...?

That's true, disclosure of the identity of biological parents is a real sticking point.

From what I hear, courts worldwide are moving towards an idea that a child has a right to know their biological parents identity, mainly due to the fact that in some medical emergencies it can be necessary.

I have pondered over this, and think that perhaps it should be given as a choice to a child when they reach an age of maturity (18) to make contact with a biological parent. That would ensure that a parent will know that they will not have to deal with the child as a child, but can deal with adoption as mature (we hope) adults. Personally, I feel that the right should be afforded only to adults, not to children. Otherwise, contact could be made in times deemed to be of a medical emergency.

I don't have the answers. I fear courts are not helping.

A poor choice of words, 'honorable'? Get one thing clear DFXK, There is no shame in a woman deciding to terminate.It is not a dishonorable act but a very difficult and painful decision which is exclusively hers.Heroic ? in giving up her child for adoption ? Yes.
You take a high moral position that only a man who doesnt have to make such a decision could take.
I spent some years in crisis counselling and consistently referred women to their doctors and women's centres.
These women called up crisis counselling for the very reason that they considered themselves in a crisis situation.Every woman chose a course of action which was appropriate for her.
The decisions on abortion are not the business of Government and properly should remain private between woman and her doctor

From your post, Maracas, one would have to assume that only men oppose abortion; that only men would seek to have adoption be the normalised course of action over abortion. Of course, such an idea is preposterous. In any case, men have an equal right to a say on issues of the common good as women.

Also, from your post, one would have to assume that only people who have had no experience with the process of aborting or experience with women seeking terminations could oppose abortion. This too is a falsehood.

In fact, my experiences with others' abortions and with contact to the system which delivers them only increases my opposition to it.

Practical solutions are demanded to this problem. Hiding behind the "private between woman and her doctor" mantra hinders any societal solution to this issue of the common good. Feminists have gone up in arms every times anything has been proposed... cooling-off periods, collecting of data on abortion, baby bonus payments during pregnancy, to take examples in the last six months... and it is precisely because of their absolute faith in private, abortion on demand that they are doing all Australians, men and women, the disservice of perpetuating an unacceptable status quo.

Pro-life groups and individuals, like the Health minister, have offered to lay down arms over the question of morality and propose some practical solutions. The knee-jerk reactions of pro-abortion groups is the only barricade between some real scrutiny and support for Australian women and families.

If we could stop 10,000's of abortions by introducing proper Child Endowment payments up to the age of 16 for parents, and through reforming the tax system, surely then it is necessarily the concern of government!

DFXK,

Well written and intelligent post.Thank you.

Friedrich.

DF, the abortion rate might be unacceptable to you, the anti abortion lobby and certain politicians, that does not make it so.

The days of religious tyranny are ending. Worldwide the general trend is to accept unquestiongly a woman's right to an abortion in
the first trimester. Its her body, her right, its neither the business of the state, the common good, the godsquad, her husband or anyone else who wants to interfere in her affairs.

Its high time that that kind of right is enshrined in legislation
in Australia, in every state. I don't blame womens groups for fighting for that right, for it seems that they are under constant attack from people with a religious agenda, who would like to enforce their values on them, through legislation which suits the
religious dogma.

We want freedom of religion, but we also want freedom from religion.

DFXK
Your Religious blinkers preclude you from ever understanding the simple fact that for women, not having access to abortion as her right is not an option.
I will not be lectured on morality by religious fundamentalists whose high priests violate children.
I have never said adoption was not an option. I have agreed it is heroic,I have witnessed that never ending pain experienced by the woman who gave her child up for adoption and the exquisite joy of parent & child reunion 26 years later.
Your religious right are desperate to shore up the so called infallibility of the pope against the overwhelming challenge by people of peace, justice, truth and reason who support such ideas as Liberation Theology. Humanity will better survive without the impediment of Sectarianism

maracas,

Your post is ordinary without focus. In other words it's a maracas special.

Friedrich

Maracas, there are arguments against abortion which are not based in the religious idea that every fetus is ensouled. I fear that your paranoia of the influence of religion in our society leads to your stubborness to agree to any pragmatic efforts to alleviate our current situation, a situation which encourages a cycle of creating and destroying life on demand, rather that creating life at a time when it would not be destroyed. Many people who are not religious do not agree with abortion on demand, or abortion at all, and it is because we currently lack humility towards life that they do so. You don't need to believe unborn children are ensouled to wish to reduce abortion rates, wish to avoid abortion on demand, or wish to provide proper support to women, even at the cost of violating a non-existant right to do whatever one wishes to one's body and the things contained within it.

Though religious, and a conservative, I am not a member of the religious right. My tradition has nothing to do with their ways, mine is a Tory tradition of many hundreds of years more history and philosophy.

On an aside... how on earth can you mention Liberation Theology and peace in the same sentence, when it encourages war and unjust reaction?

DF, once we leave religion out of the picture, there might well be arguments about abortion, but I have yet to see any that stack up.

At that point we have to accept that humanity is responsible for living sustainably on this planet, its not about god's plan, for he might just not be there to fix it all, when things go wrong.

It also means we have to accept the realities of biology. As Darwin pointed out in his "Origin of Species", far more individuals of any species will be created, then can every survive.

It is religion, going back to Augustine, which has created a distorted view about sex. Nope, its not just there for procreation. Its natural, its normal, its enjoyable, its meaningful, in fact people evolved with endocrine systems loaded with hormones to make it so. The byproduct of sex is that some individuals might survive, but not all will or can, as Darwin rightly pointed out.

Humility is called for in terms of accepting the laws of nature, not in denying them and taking a completely anthropcentric worldview.

I've read some of your other posts and you give an impression of being a Catholic or certainly being tied up with the Catholic Church in various ways. What is your connection to the Catholic Church?

DFXK
I do not resile from my position and I am not prepared to be pragmatic in the issue of a womans right to have an abortion if she so chooses. As I said earlier, that is not negotiable.
I am more concerned at the carnage that is being perpetrated on innocent, living people, by so called god fearing leaders of the 'free, democratic' world than I am about unborn amoeba.
On the aside....Yes, peace and liberation theology, in the same breath.The South American people certainly stuck it up the pope when he attacked liberation theologians. I guess you have to understand that the working people of South American countries have had their share of oppression by their governments and are beginning to awaken that there is an alternative .
I had the pleasure of having lunch one day with Father Brian Gore and Abilio Araujo, a Fretilin leader back in the late 70's both catholic liberation theologians and both supporting ordinary people in their desire for peace Justice and freedom from oppression.
My eyes are not clouded by religious dogma. I don't pray to a god and I dont seek ressurection or eternal life. You are what I expect of a conservative bible basher.You and Friedrich can share the "Pie in the Sky'

maracas,

Is "ressurection" the same as "resurrection"?

Why does "religious tyranny" have anything to do with abortion?

The arguments for and against can be made secularly. Sorry to rehash a couple-month old article, but...

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=153

All of the pro-life arguments are made without reference to religion, Catholic or otherwise.

Abortion invariably boils down to religion, a bit like the ID debate.
Many anti abortion activists try to cover their religious agenda, or at least not freely admit to it, but a bit of research usually reveals the truth....

Around the world, when say the UN is trying to do something about ever rising population, or the WHO about womens health issues, the
Vatican is busily waving its flag, lobbying politicians, trying to coerce Catholics to influence Govt decisions.

Some people will even proudly announce that they are not Catholics,
next thing we find out that they are fundies of some obscure movement with a similar agenda. We usually get wiser as we get older :)

When politicians with a religious agenda want to force values on us based on that religion, yup thats religious tyranny!

Yabby,

"many anti abortion activists try to cover their religious agenda."

Please feel free to give an example.

Awating your anti Catholic diatribe.

Abortion does always boil down to religion.

However, it is the pro-abortionists who are the ones pushing their religious view.

The strictly scientific point of view is that the unborn is a distinct, individual member of the human species from conception.

Pro-abortionists argue about 'personhood' to justify abortion, but this is a subjective, meta-physical concept, i.e. religious.

Alan you miss the point completely and confuse philosophy with theology.

At the end of the day, the notion of the sanctity of life is a philosophical one, so is subjective and open to debate. People will argue about where we draw a line in the sand, in understanding the difference between a human organism and a person.

People with an open mind are therefore free to consider many sides of the debate. The rights of women, the sustainability of the planet in terms of overpopulation, etc. etc.

Only religion lays claims to objective morality, ie their interpretation of their holy book, or that their leaders are in touch with the Almighty. The Catholic Church takes if further, with their doctrine of the holy sperm etc.

As the religious can show no substantiated evidence of the literal truth of so called godly input, IMHO their doctrine is purely their subjective opinion and no more. But you won't convince the religious that, or many of them anyhow. If its in the holy book, then it must be true after all.

When I pay tax I don't get to say "here's my money but it can't be used for the hospitalisation of people who took illegal drugs, nor can it go to Australian soldiers in Iraq because I have strong personal objections."

We don't always agree with everything that our government spends our money on, so I don't see how it's "inappropriate" on the basis suggested.

Our culture believes that people shouldn't be allowed to kill each other - for many practical, ethical and religious reasons. I certainly agree as a general rule, however the state does allow people to take other human lives in certain circumstances. For example if someone was threatening to kill me and I stopped them from doing so by killing them, then that is saddening and traumatic but not illegal.

It also seems to think that I shouldn't be allowed to kill myself. To me whether I live or die is my decision. I do realise that many people want a society where they are free to try and stop me, however I don't think this is really going to make much difference for me.

For an abortion however making it illegal makes a big difference. Do we go back to dangerous backyard abortions? The pro-lifers can't retrieve my unborn child or force me to continue to carry it without infringing upon my rights over my own body. The rights of an unborn child that is still within my body do not supersede mine.

The bottom line is that at this time the child is part of me, it doesn't matter if doctors think that if they invade my body they can make it live outside of me. If I make the decision that my unborn child should not be born then that is my decision to make. It is not a decision to be made easily and I imagine it is greatly saddening and traumatic for the mother when that path is chosen but it should certainly not be illegal.

No Yabby, it is you who are missing the point.
Metaphysics is 'religious' unless you self-servingly try to define the scope of the term religion to exclude your own beliefs.

You fall into the same trap when you try to differentiate between a scientific truth of human specieshood and a metaphysical claim of personhood. The pro-abortionists are trying to push their metaphysical notions, i.e. religion, on other humans, without their choice.

The christian anti-abortion argument rests not on the metaphysical, but simply the physical truth of membership in the human race.

If you want to avoid metaphysics in arguing for abortion by arguing against the concept of the sanctity of life, you would have to argue that no human has a right to life.

Alan, looks like we can get bogged down in semantics here, but thats ok :)

My trusty old dictionary defines religion as a belief in god or gods and activities connected with that belief. Metaphysics is defined as a branch of philosophy which deals with theories about what exists and how we know it exists.

Do I believe in the sanctity of the human cell or human organism?
Absolutaly not. Every cell contains the dna to build another body.So what? Do I believe in the sanctity of a person, sure I do. That is my philosophy, which is my subjective take on morality, based on my philosophies. As an agnostic, metaphysics doesent come into it.

Likewise the Catholic Church has its philosophies, only they claim
godly input, which they cannot prove.

So I am not trying to push my "religion" onto anyone, I simply want people to have the choice about how to conduct their lives.
The anti abortion lobby wants to deny people that choice, huge difference in philosophy there....
One is for tolerance of other peoples behaviour, the other is trying to use govt legislation to force people to live their lives in a certain fashion, based on belief in the supernatural

Sorry Yabby, but your 'choice' stance is taking away the choice of those unborn humans who are killed. There is no huge difference in philosophy, just the old usage of 'personhood' to take humanity away from a group of human's who people would find it inconvenient to ascribe equality to.

It was done with slaves, and jews, and so many other humans. Now it is done with the unborn. Your 'choice' rhetoric does not really hide this fact.

Alan the real difference is that I accept the laws of nature and
you don't, but take a religious worldview.

Fact is that most women could create about 400 of those human organisms in their lifetimes and not all can survive, thats the
reality. Having a child is more about just creating it. Its about
providing resources for it for 20 years etc, its a huge responsibility. So it makes perfect sense for women to have
children when they want them and can provide for them.

The old religious notion of don't have sex if you don't want kids
is utter balderdash. Sex is enjoyable, fun and natural. Are you saying that poor people, who clearly don't have the resources to raise unlimited kids, should not have sex? Thats the Catholic view, which is plainly ridiculous, as not even their own priests can keep their pants on.

Yes it should not be a political decision, nor should capital punishment, euthanasia etc etc. Too much room for sly politicians to use such controversial issues to their own advantage, thus becoming a political decision rather than a moral one.

As for abortion, if women want to have freedom of choice over their reproductive arrangements, so be it. But if that's the case then they need to accept and apply the same control over their sexual proclivities... cases of sexual assault being the only possible exception.

I have known only two women who have had abortions and they have never gotten over the trauma of having done it. The methods involved in abortions are (to me) nothing short of horrifying and I urge all woman not to have one.

I know I am but a man but this is just my opinion.

Dear Yabby,

You sound like a like minded spirit. That is a person who has personally experienced the joys of a Catholic Childhood that explains so clearly why we feel about our freedoms as adults being curtailed on the basis of a religious belief. A belief system which at every level defies honour, integrity, leadership by example.

I believe very religious people are actually incapable of a rational debate because the brain washing that is attempted at a very early age does not allow for "thinking for one's self". It is not encouraged to put logic and common sense into an argument by virtue of the fact, they live on faith alone. Faith is a "gift" that I don't have. I can't manufacture it - it is lost forever because I actually starting thinking for myself. I don't have a need to tell everyone else that they're wrong because for some else, it may be right. But many religious faiths believe they are the one true thing missing from everyone else's life.

On a blog site choicesplease.com.au I have told why I personally agree with abortion precisely because I am the other side of the story, of a baby born unwanted and unloved because my mother could not abort me. Of the three children my mother had, she farmed all of us out to various relatives throughout our childhood. At the age of 10 I was the unlucky one to be given into the care of the Good Shepherd Nuns, and the rest is history. My blog article is named "the other face of abortion" for very good reason.

The anti abortionists walk away feeling very proud and smug with their ability to promote anti choice, but at the end of the day, no one is thinking of the child's life ongoing. Lest of all those good Christian folk who can't begin to understand that not everyone lives in a cocoon of "happy families".

Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.com

Mary Walsh,

As a (non-Catholic) Christian I can truly sympathise with your ordeal.

However life is what you decide to do with the hand you have been dealt.

Yes you cannot manufacture “faith” but you can ask for it.

You can choose to resign from your sorrows and make a 180 degree turn and find true freedom, relief, and hope in Christ (instead of finding comfort in hate).

To every “sad” story there must be a thousand happy ones.

You are alive – use this precious gift for the sake of the millions who never made it to where you are.

You assume, Coach that I would find something worthwhile in having "faith" in a system of religion. Therein lies the differences between us. I am so very thankful that I don't have "faith" in a Christian God because nothing that I've personally experienced would encourage me to want to go down that path.

As a small child, I had no choice....as a young woman I started to use the reasoning that had been stifled for so long under a very brutal regime of enforced religious beliefs. By all means if religion works for you, use it, but for myself I walk without the aid of emotional sticks, or fear of reprisals for stepping outside the square.

I am not an unhappy person by anyone's standards except that of a good Christian. I am pleased that I did not use my illness to try and bargain my wellness on the basis of some promise to an unknown God. My strength came from my own determination and my very loving supportive family. For those who prayed for me, I was grateful, in the strength that prayer gave to those, worried on my behalf, but I personally did not feel it made the difference. My doctors did it for me, not God. My faith was in the doctors and yes I am grateful to them for giving me a worthwhile life. My faith is in science.

Mary Walsh
www.yourchoiceindying.com