You have convinced me Kate. I hope Tony Abbott reads your very accurate article,

Sorry Kate, but like the position of most pro-choice people: shallow, callow and fallow. Like the pro-choice woman who told me: "I had an abortion....and it was a wonderful experience". Sorry, but the brutality and violence of abortion diminishes the spirit of those who would choose this act of cowardice.

Dear Francis,

I don't believe you. Either you are lying through your teeth, or the pro-choice woman was winding you up. In which case, good on her.

While Kate Mannix's post might be accused of having a little too much "earth-mother" hyperbole in it, I find your response, Francis, narrow and demeaning. How dare you assume that each woman who undertakes an abortion does so with little thought. Each woman who finds herself in such a situation has to deal with a huge range of consequences both before and after the termination. It is not so cut-and-dried as you seem to imply.

Too much of the debate is about power over women, too little is about common sense and support.

Poor KRS1.....afraid to accept reality. Her or his last comment,however, reveals the callousness of heart of this brutal act. Many would have said the same, i.e. "good on you", to the Nazis.

Amazing isn't it, how soon ignoramuses cite Hitler on OLO. Francis, my position isn't one of callousness. As a man, I respect the human agency of women. When it is my foetus, then i'm within my rights to demand a say in its future. When it's not, I can't. All the women I've known who've had an abortion did so with great sadness and after great soul-searching. I expect most women do. And if they don't, so what? It's their womb, and their decision. Of course, none of this changes the fact that your story about the recreational abortionee is obviously fictional- the kind of obnoxious, insulting, pathetic fiction that zealots usually compose about their opponents.

The idea that every abortion equates to a lfe lost does not add up. Women who have had an abortion are more than likely to have another child or more at a later date when they are better equipped to deal with him or her. As Kate has suggested mothers who are willing and able to care for their children make better parents and their children are the better for it. So what is preferable - having an unwanted and subsequently disadvantaged child earlier or another wanted and cherished at a later date?

I don't like abortion but can see that there is a very real need for the choice. I would like to see some encouragement from the Catholic church with regards to contraception to avoid the need in the first place. I agree with the author that the Church's position is more about power over women - a problem with religion generally - than about protecting human life.

I have read Kates article twice now. I found her reasoning strange and difficult. It appears to be either abbreviated or has serious gaps in it.

That said, I am personally convinced that

Any woman who is pregnant has the sovereign right to decide whether to continue with that pregnancy.

She may or may not feel the environment of nurturing is right, it really does not matter.

She may be sat in the lap of luxury or penniless on the streets, that does not matter either.

What does matter is, we are talking not only of a embryo / foetus we are talking about her, the mothers, own body.

Her own body, not mine or anyone elses but her body.

My body I decide how it will be deployed.

Her body, she decides how it will be deployed and if she is denied the right of choice, her existence, human value and individual rights are reduced to that of a life support system for a foetus.

Whatever decision the individual woman makes, to abort or not, is her decisions and responsibility for that decision, her burden to carry and carry alone.

To all and every Pro-Life supporter, the fact is this – it is not your body, nor your responsibility and not your circumstances to consider.
You will not bear the material or emotional burden of the decision, whatever it happens to be.
Thus, since you do not participate in the sharing the load and responsibility for that decision, you do not deserve to make the choice.

Hello? This is very simple and has been said before but, guess what? .... The baby is not your body!

We now know that the mother's immune system tries to evict the new life from the womb but, fortunately and marvellously, the new life created has an incredible way of overcoming this so that it continues to receive the support and nourishment from the mother.

If this debate is about "choice" then the only choice that counts is that of the child. The hard bit is that you must wait until some time after he or she is born for them to give an answer.

It's quite simple isn't it?

I would agree that a key component in all this is that of power. Unlike what Kate Mannix believes, the power being used and abused is that of the mother (with whatever support or lack thereof of the father or others) and the 'doctor' over the powerless little baby. He or she has managed to overcome the battle over the immunity system but has no weapons to fight the 'doctor' following the mother's instruction.

As those that do try to fight on behalf of these little people the Catholics should be commended!

Congratulations, Brougham. You have just inadvertently managed to give the 'foetus as parasite' argument in its most succinct form. I'd think about keeping quiet now, lest you convert any more waverers to the point of view you oppose.

Face Facts:

In an age of baby boomer and population problems we are wanting to kill some of the new babies coming into our society, when we need every last one of them.

Ask yourselves, how many first born children come along with parents fully prepared? some, but probably less than those that came as a surprise. Therefore go and take a pill to get rid of it? Bloody easy option, i might even slip one in my missus drink or food so she does not know. A pandoras box of possiblities.

It concerns me that Tony Abbott as a decision maker has his own past experiences, and this may cloud the issue either way.

Have you ever heard of the Garth Brooks song 'tonight i thank god, for unanwered prayers' ask them in ten tears if they should of aborted. Fear is what stops many things from happening in life, it is unfair to take the easy road out.

What about the fact that in a day, a week, a month, they cant take it back?

What about the fact that it will encourage young naive girls to have unprotected, drunk or vulnerable sex and know they have little consequences apart from a pill to take if it hits the proverbial fan?

To the detriment of society, we kill our offspring when we need them.

Selfish.

To so called pro-lifers (reality is some what diferent most of them support the death penalty).
If you don't like abortion don't have one it's as simple as that. Why are you pushing your minority views on the majority of us.

If you lot had your way we would still be using leachers.

I have tried to listen to the abortion debate dispationately, knowing that each side sees the issue with what they believe to be passisonately humane eyes.

But one thing has always worried me about the strident anti-abortionists. Their apparent inconsistency.

With this in mind I have gone to the trouble of interviewing a number of right-to-lifers on their attitudes and find that whilst they are very passionate about unborn babies, on average they are very conservative in their attitudes to such issues as the Iraq war.

Few of these folk suffer the same passion about the innocent deaths of thousands of innocent souls over there. Its not even on their radar screens.

As to what this means, I don't really know. Moral righteousness about the preservation of life seems to belong on the Right spectrum of politics when it comes to abortion and on the Left side when it comes to such issues as war and capital punishment.

Abortion is as much a political issue as it is a religious one. I would rather it just be a humanitarian one, in which case I have to morally side with womens rights.

Col and gecko,
I wholeheartedly agree with both your posts, I am a Catholic, so no surprise that I am against abortion, however I do believe in the womans right to decide, I would prefer she adopted, but once pregnant, either way would be "the hard way" for me, had I been born female. Society it seems wants the mother to keep the baby, however when and if she does she becomes "a single mother" which society seems to not want to support...

Gee the sex act is a hard act to follow, in every sense, Kate Mannix has an infamous last name in Catholic history in politics. I am a progressive Catholic who is against abortion, and also against the Iraq War, both acts take human lives, sadly once the "three wise men" or was it "the three wise monkey's" took the Iraqi descion it was destined to become a war that can't now be withdrawn from, however if society could be more supportive of single mothers individualism, and nurture them, we would find we would produce many good citizens from their ranks

There's a certain sensitivity nerve that is touched by pregnancy.

People do seem to think they have some kind of "caretaking" role over pregnant women when it comes to unborn children...

I've often seen / heard pregnant women complain about people who want to touch their pregnant bellies - one of my colleagues tried to keep her second pregnancy a secret at work as long as possible because she was sick of all the unwanted "attention", eg, touching (from men and women), preaching about how pregnant women shouldn't do this, shouldn't do that, etc etc.

Gecko's right, people do care less about killing children in wars, but I think that's because it's not the Iraqis killing their own offspring (which is how abortionists would be perceived by the anti-abortionists).

I think it's a control thing. It bugs the hell out of people that a women (as opposed to a person) is given absolute control over her body - and not only that, she is provided with a safe and lawful mechanism to ensure she maintains control of her life.

The alternative is that she not maintain control over her life, that her life becomes someone else's - her local MP? her priest? her husband? her neighbour? Some OLO posters?

gecko asks:

>>Few of these folk suffer the same passion about the innocent deaths of thousands of innocent souls over there. Its not even on their radar screens. As to what this means, I don't really know.<<

Kate Mannix supplies an answer, I think.

"the not-yet-born are primarily important as a proposition to be defended, an argument in favour of of an ethical position, a precedent to be protected."

It has a distinct ring of expediency about it.

I still marvel at the concept of the wartime chaplain. How does he rationalize the dichotomy of "thou shalt not kill" and the "God guide your trigger-finger" speech before each battle. How can the commandment relied upon for pro-life sermons be so easily set aside?

"Thou shalt not kill" is clearly not meant in an absolute sense, otherwise the Crusades would never have happened.

Are lives taken in battle somehow different? Is the eighteen-year-old blown to pieces at the Somme somehow less important than a bunch of non-sentient cells? Tell that to his mother.

I have to agree with Kate Mannix. Religion without a human face is a depressing concept.

Kate,

Spirit is a part of humane being despite of religion. Kate: …‘’ Spirit like love itself may only be given freely...” You can’t give spirit freely or forcibly. You can give your love but not a spirit itself. Unfortunately you can take it back by killing a person. You can also suppress spirit of individual by corrupting his/her character with false teaching. Advance of our civilization, cultural heritages with science, art and technology is attributed to the great spirits of individuals. Many of them were from poor and broken families. By your love you can try to shape and influence character of a child and lift his or hers spirit, but full development of a person depends mainly of ability of that person itself. We living in society which should take greater responsibility in situations describing by Kate:…” Women too financially stretched; women abused; women whose spirits are weakened by circumstances…Government should do more to prevent this situation to happen in a first place. Abortion is not a solution.

Kate:” If a woman finds herself unable to offer her potential child the gift of spirit then logically, the child will be formed in the womb with a spirit that is diminished..”

Once again: Spirit is inseparable part of human creation and can’t be offer or given. Your argument is logically invalid.

In Australia is more abortion per year than we are taking immigrants. We should try to stop this senseless killing and problem of decreasing population is resolve. We won’t be in desperate need for more immigrants from incompatible cultures.

While I agree that Kate's article doesn't quite hang together it's nevertheless very powerful.

For a person to swing from one position to the other on such an emotive issue she must have come across some very convincing arguments. On top of that, she must have been prepared to consider the merits of the evidence. I admire her for that alone.

Why are people so pro-choice about public/private schooling, yet anti-choice about disadvantaged women choosing not to have disadvantaged babies?

Congratulations Kate,I find it refreshing that a person with such religious conviction can think and reason for themselves despite the dogma of the ethicists.
I too see through the hypocricy of so called 'pro-life'exponents who
are not outraged by the senseless killing of the 'already born'in Iraq and adhere to ethical edicts against contraception even in countries ravaged by HIV AIDS.

Abortion is killing a life there is no question about that. How ever which way you think about it is killing life. Why not adopt? Why not endure the 9 months give life and bless a family who cannot conceive?

Walderman, you state "we should try to stop this senseless killing..."
No - WE should not do anything except ensure that women are given as much support and information as possible to ensure that any decision made regarding termination of a pregnancy will be in the best interest of the future of the woman and her unborn child. Not in your interest - not in my interest - and not in the interest of church or state. Sometime it may be more senseless to continue with the pregnancy.

Broughton, there is no dualism in Mother and baby - the baby cannot exist without the body of the mother.

To suggest that there should be some campaign to populate the country by stopping abortion is obscene to say the least. Why not disallow marriages between childless (but able to have children) couples. Yep give them 5 years to reproduce and lock them up if they don't! Sounds ridiculous dosn't it? Of course it does, but no more ridiculous then other people deciding that a women has to continue with a pregnancy.

"But when do you hear the pro-life activist protesting against the murder of little Iraqi children by Australian bombs? When do you see them agitating for increased resources to avoid the scandalously high mortality rates amongst Aboriginal infants?"

We have no idea what else people who are pro-life are involved in supporting/protesting. So this statement shouldn't lend any credibility to the arguement. That is unless you have some statistical data which supports your hypothesis that pro-life people don't bother to actively support human life in other areas.

By the way, I don't think that comparing abortion to genocide is particularly helpful to your arguement.

"As my first girl grows into a young woman so wonderful and surprising only God could have imagined her, I know in my heart she is as she is BECAUSE I WANTED HER SO MUCH."
AND
"Without the joyful and unequivocal commitment of his mother, a child's spirit saddens, withers and becomes poisonous to itself and to others."

I understand what you are trying to say. However it is a generalisation, and when you apply this prejudice (i.e. Loving Parents = Good Kid, Bad Parenting = Evil Kid) to everyone, it leads to a fallicious arguement based on a militant stereotype. I would ask everyone who reads this to ask themselves, has this generalisation applied 100% in your lives or others? I would think everyone would have numerous examples of friends, family members etc. who have evaded this rule.

Therefore the pattern of arguement that says: "Because Kids who grow up in bad homes have terrible lives (The Prejudice in Question), Therefore we should just abort them in the 1st place" is terrible dangerous.

As a side note, I believe that in the end, this arguement comes down to one of selfishness vs. selflessness. If a parent's 1st thought is 'Treat others as you would like to be treated', they will let the wonderful gift (or right!) of life for the child they've been entrusted with to win out over the possible inconvieniences of an unplanned pregnancy.

justin86, you might know people who have grown up in unhappy homes and turned out OK, but the overwhelming trend is that the more unwanted the child the greater the likelihood they will have behavioural, social and economic problems later in life. There's even a link between the increased availability of abortion and a decrease in crime, due to a smaller number of "unwanted" children being born. It's not why I'd advocate a woman's right to choose, but it's one perspective:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w8004

Adoption is of course one of the options a woman considers when she has an unwanted pregnancy. For many women though, the social stigma attached to adopting out overwhelms her desire not to have an abortion. A friend who carried her pregnancy to term and then adopted out the child faced such social and professional disgust that she suicided. A woman who completes her pregnancy but then adopts the child out is treated like a monster - obviously unwomanly and selfish. A woman who has a quiet abortion doesn't have to go through any of that. Perhaps people like Francis should put more effort into removing the stigma attached to giving a child up for adoption and less into branding women brutal and cowardly. After the experience of my friend, if I was ever in the same situation I know I'd rather overcome the personal lifelong grief of an abortion than the public humiliation of adopting out.

Brougham “If this debate is about "choice" then the only choice that counts is that of the child.”

WHY?

Justin86 “As a side note, I believe that in the end, this arguement comes down to one of selfishness vs. selflessness.”

Whose selfishness, the woman involved who decides to act according to her own judgement, knowledge of her motives and circumstances or your selfishness in judging her conduct without knowledge to her motives and circumstances?

Oh and discussion regarding adoption are fallacious. The issue is not just about to abort or not abort. The "real" and underlying issue is sovereignty of the individual and the right of people to make choices in respect to their own bodies.

Just a thought, Brougham, on the foetus's right to choose. Let's say we follow your reasoning, and don't act until the potential abortion is old enough to vote. We then ask what should have happened. What if he or she says "Yeah, I wish you'd aborted me"? How do you propose to do it retroactively? Foetus's right to choose, my eye. Third-rate sophistry, and fourth-rate attempts at emotional manipulation, more like.

Those supporting abortion must be very thankful that their parents didn't support it for them. Isn't that the point?

That's why - Anomie - "Retroactive abortion" is so absurd because we all have a choice now. The unborn don't

That's why - Col Rouge - this debate is about choice and we must speak up for those that can't. The unborn babies.

Every time a baby is aborted a life is taken. Dependant life, sure. New life (not 'parasitic'), yes. Inconvenient growing life, sadly seen that way.

To ignore this fact to the detriment (read killing) of the new life is, as Justin86 said, simply selfish.

Kay

I was very moved by your article.

Particularly with your view on what is actually pro-life. Are pro-lifers people who care about the well-being of actual living breathing humans? Or are they people who care only for the viability of a foetus?

The manner and behaviour of those who oppose women who choose to have an abortion; who use this personal belief when in power and who do nothing to help parents or abused children are clearly not Pro-Life – they are Pro-Foetus. It is about time they ‘fessed up and told the truth. They don’t give a rat’s about the welfare and well-being of women. They care only about control.

To any of you who refers to yourself as ‘pro-life’, I suggest you think again. Just what kind of life are you in favour of? If it is a foetus at the expense of the life and wellbeing of a woman, then please call yourself what you are: Pro-Foetus.

Broughton, you can only speak for that unborn child if it is growing inside you. Otherwise it is quite frankly none of your business. With regard to being thankful that my parents did not elect it for me – had they done so I would not be here to know, so the point is irrelevant.

Perhaps people should cast their minds back a number of years to the disasters of backyard abortions when abortion was illegal. By having informed choice and support many women in positions where having a baby is inconvenient do elect (like my daughter) to keep their babies because they do not believe abortion is for them. For others the decision for many diverse reasons is made to terminate the pregnancy. But that decision is the private business of the woman (or couple) concerned.

If you and Justin86 deem it selfish to elect to have an abortion then why not go one small (very small) step further and condemn all those who even use contraception for their killing of potential babies. The selfishness lies within you for considering that you have the selfish right to decide that the life of the unborn baby (yet to sustain life without support) overrules that of the life of the mother.

It will be interesting to see the outcome of today's "conscience" vote (since when did a politician grow a conscience, pray tell), given the fairly even quantity-balance of this thread.

This seems to be another one of those emotion-vs-logic discussions that will never end, because there is no common basis of communication.

If I say "but a foetus isn't an independent life-form, and can't think or feel", this can be used equally as a pro-life or pro-choice argument.

If I am arguing from logic, I would say "therefore it is a straightforward decision on the part of the mother", if from emotion, "therefore we should take responsibility for it".

What patently doesn't wash, though, is trying to combine logic with emotion, as brougham tries to do with "Those supporting abortion must be very thankful that their parents didn't support it for them".

As it happens, both my parents were pro-choice. But it is the concept of being thankful that puzzles me. Of course I am thankful to be alive, it is a wonderful experience. But there is no supportable alternative: I cannot be "ungrateful", or whatever the opposite of thankful may be, for not being alive. If I do not exist, I am unable to express annoyance.

Playing with other people's lives, as the pro-lifers do, by injecting the process with guilt at every opportunity, is simply unacceptable.

Despite the rantings of the apostles of the culture of death, when it all boils down abortion is surely the ULTIMATE in child abuse. It's a hateful, violent act. It's interesting to ask the culture of death mob at what stage of the baby's development they would draw the line or do they support late-term abortions: how about the day before baby is due?

Pericles-

You have these people all wrong. Your argument that if you were aborted you wouldn't exist thus would have no preferences doesn't wash with them. Why? Because they think all the little foetuses are up there in heaven crying for their mummies. Or is there a particular circle of hell reserved for the aborted? Perhaps one of the pro-foetus brigade like Francis could advise on the theological intricacies of this?

Note how the author didn't view her children as a gift from god, but instead she 'felt like god' because SHE could create life (The life that 'will be', ignoring that the fetus is already alive). She then complains that a single lecturer didn't have experience of children, so therefore ALL prolife people must just be defending a principle, not life. This is even though this is clearly not the case (e.g. Roe herself). It gets even worse when she says that prolifers (she has started to refer to them as anti-choice) think the unborn 'must have even more human rights than the already-born'.

So lets review...God complex, ignores science, bad logic, ignoring evidence AND creating a straw man of the other sides views. This was in a very cursory view of her article. I've no doubt there will be many more probems.

Slightly off the subject of abortion, it is perplexing that so many Catholics loyally adhere to their faith whilst turning a blind eye to its edicts.

Millions of Catholics the world over, perhaps the majority, openly disobey the church's teaching on contraception.

Gay Catholics resent the church's anti-gay stance, but still hang on to their faith regardless.

Thousands of empowered women, who hold positions of power in society, put up with their church's refusal to empower women in its hierarchies and find its attitude to women's roles in society outmoded and unacceptable.

Women such as Kate profess their faith whilst opposing the church's opposition to women's right to decide.

The mystifying thing is that all of these people believe in the infallibility of the Pope - or they couldn't qualify as Catholics. Therefore they are obliged to accept his edicts as coming from God.

It is a very rare thing for people to want to belong to an organisation that is contradictory to their fundamental ethical sensibilities. There are not even strong moves for reform.

One gets the impression the church can propose whatever it wants on koral issues, its adherents will just make up their own mind whilst nominally keeping their faith.

If you are going to reserve your decision as to when is a life a life then you will never have that answer and this is preciously why this debate never ends.

Our bodies contain microscopic particles that only science can confirm with the latest technologies. Each time we invent a new microscope we see another form of micrposcoic particles all known as life. It is beyond our scientific capablities to make that judgement.

Society is in the mess its in today because it lacks morality. Our civilisation has never been so degenerate. All aspects of society have become corrupt. There is distinque difference between the living morality of yesterday and today. Everyone can at least acknowlegede that phenomena?
Killing with intent is wrong. Its a universal law and if broken will be paid for if not in this life then the next 500 lives.It is serious. So please think about the consequences of your actions. Someone out there will always want to have that baby. You may feel uncomfortable from the social stigma of giving your baby away. But you have given life not death to that baby and as a result no karma is involved.
When did this degeneration of our society begin? The moment we reduced life to nothing. Not just on abortion but right across the board of civilisation. When did we stop caring? each individual has to ask themselves that question. The answer is there.I'd rather some one gave me this option of understanding before I had an abortion. Accidents do happen but that is not with intention to kill.

Although I feel I am repeating myself, the thread is once again drifting off the point. It is not a debate about the merits of abortion, seeing it is a legal act in our society. It is simply about whether the TRA is more qualified to judge a drug than minister Abbot. And plainly it is.

An interesting article nonetheless Kate. Very insightful.

Interesting Ms Banana.
More moral today than yesterday.

Was burning witches moral?
Were backyard abortions immoral? Or taking herbal medicines to bring on abortion immoral?
Was Hitler moral?
How about feeding christians to the lions?

It's immoral to impose your own values onto another person, eg, telling a woman that she cannot have control over her own body, her own life.

Today's society / Government is too prescriptive and I'm sick of it. Soon the Government will want to tell us what we can and can't do in our own homes - that's immoral!

Francis, many thanks for underlining the point I made about logic vs emotion with your little outburst:

>>Despite the rantings of the apostles of the culture of death, when it all boils down abortion is surely the ULTIMATE in child abuse. It's a hateful, violent act. It's interesting to ask the culture of death mob at what stage of the baby's development they would draw the line or do they support late-term abortions: how about the day before baby is due?<<

"Apostles of the culture of death". Hmmm, nice ring to it.

Mind you, Jana Banana comes close with:

>>Our bodies contain microscopic particles that only science can confirm with the latest technologies. Each time we invent a new microscope we see another form of micrposcoic particles all known as life. It is beyond our scientific capablities to make that judgement.<<

And these "micrposcoic particles" are what, Jana? New life forms? Name those, please, that were discovered with the most recent microscope that we "invented".

I'd steer clear of those little blue pills if I were you.

I'm still fascinated with the image of the company chaplain, sending the soldiers off with the exhortation "don't forget boys, thou shalt not kill"

I guess consistency doesn't matter when God is on your side.

"Mr President, what's your position on Roe vs Wade?"

"I'm not bothered, as long as they got safely out of New Orleans"

In Australia the mother is responsible for feeding, rearing, clothing and educating her child. If she has support from her partner - well and good. Our society provides very little support for women rearing children.

I am shocked that the senator who is most outspoken in his anti-abortion sentiments has been outed by The Australian of Saturday February 4th that showed a photo of his aprtment block which is readily identifiable as being in Fitzroy St, St Kilda. Although the article said that he is "tango loving" I am surprised that he lives in an apartment block for single adults in the gay, drug and prostitute hub of Melbourne. The senator's choice of abode smacks of hipocrisy. I would think that a person who has named a woman who had a late term abortion in Parliament would, by the age of 39, be married with a number of children.

KRS1,

You have the gall to call Francis a liar and then follow her around demeaning everything she says. Have you got anything to say or are you the bully girl/boy.

Francis,

Nice work, ignore KRS1. It (KRS1) is not worth it.

I'm pro-life but ultimately it's the woman's decision. So be it.

KRS1 I invite you to debate me on any subject.

If disregarding the value of life is a sign of society’s moral decline, then I fear that this species, as a whole has never achieved a moral society.

the wistful belief that the past was somehow 'more moral' seems to stem more from a nostalgic desire for authority rather than morality, a state of tutelage in which the authority of the church justifies what we now understand to be essentially immoral.

in a related issue, the reaction to the appointment of dr Fraser as aussie of the year and the subsequent focus on his vaccine for cervical cancer has produced some reactions from pro-life groups and politicians (notably abbot and Joyce), which I would describe as both disgusting and morally reprehensible.

Joyce’s comments that he would oppose a free vaccine as it would encourage pre-marital sex highlights a point Pericles was making (I think) that the actual moral outcome of the pro-life position is expedient to their position. If we extend Joyce’s logic what do we have? STDS are a good deterrent? Is adherence to the abstinence policy more important than a real examination of the morality of the outcome?

More importantly is the possible deterrence (im sceptical of the causality implied anyway) of a few teenagers more moral than the chance the rid every woman from this point on from the stress and stigma of hpv, not to mention a potentially deadly cancer.

Simple question people. which is the moral outcome.

Remember assumed authority does not equate morality.

Rachel
"There's even a link between the increased availability of abortion and a decrease in crime, due to a smaller number of "unwanted" children being born."

Let's apply that same rationale to another situation.

Hypothesis: 'People living in a city ghetto are more likely to commit crime than the people living in a middle class suburbian area'.

Solution - Section off the ghetto and 'abort' all the people using a painless gas. We could hence argue a reduction in crime has been achieved, giving healthy benefits to the whole society! However, as I'm sure you noticed, we forgot about the dead group of people, whose quality of life happened to be greatly reduced :).

In abortion, we violently remove the next generations right to life for reasons that (appear to) make the lives of our generation more comfortable. Let's never forgot the true price that is paid for the crime-drop (We could kill every baby that is born = Future 0% crime rate!). Personally I'd rather spend more a bit more of the budget on policing.

Col Rouge
"Whose selfishness, the woman involved who decides to act according to her own judgement, knowledge of her motives and circumstances or your selfishness in judging her conduct without knowledge to her motives and circumstances?"

Take a couple who make the judgement call that they no longer believes bringing their 1 year old into the world was right, because of the world is becoming way too dangerous with terrorism. So they painlessly kill baby. What would a court of law say? They would either be institutionalised for a non-sound state of mind, or jailed because the 'reasons' are just justifications of underlying selfish motives.

Anomie
"Let's say we follow your reasoning, and don't act until the potential abortion is old enough to vote. We then ask what should have happened. What if he or she says "Yeah, I wish you'd aborted me"? How do you propose to do it retroactively?"

Anomie, please never decide to counsel depressed teenagers. Anyway for arguments sake lets say a young person does think that.
- CONT

They can suicide if they REALLY want to die. However the reality is most people, including you and me, enjoy life. Using surrounding evidence, it is most likely the person surviving the abortion will be very grateful, rather than bitter and twisted.

Scout
"Pro-lifers people who care about the well-being of actual living breathing humans? Or are they people who care only for the viability of a foetus?"
This is casting aspersions which are utterly baseless. See my response to original article above.

Will response to other comments l8r, running outta words.

Coraliz
"Justin86 deem it selfish to elect to have an abortion then why not go one small (very small) step further and condemn all those who even use contraception for their killing of potential babies."

A sperm is a cell of the host organism, as is an egg. A zygote + is a self differentiating organism that has its own genetic code. It is its own organism, and it merely uses the mother as a source of nutrients. Not unlike a post-natal baby who requires its mother for breast milk, otherwise it will die.

Pericles

LOL! To say that pro-choice is logical and pro-life is emotional is a bit rich. What about "I had an abortion, and you have no idea what I went through". What is the 'logical' way of assessing when a foetus becomes human. I can agree with you that is it a very emotional debate though, and so it should be I suppose.

"Playing with other people's lives, as the pro-lifers do, by injecting the process with guilt at every opportunity, is simply unacceptable."
Personally, it is never my goal to make someone feel guilt. Guilt is a fruitless emotion. If you'd have an abortion, I am not here to make you feel bad about it. Honest. However I am a big believer that the past doesn't equal the future. If I can persuade someone to empathise from the young ones POV, and this stops them from proceeding with a termination, then I will feel I have had a positive impact through this debate.

So you're OK with teenage suicide, then, Justin86? It would seem all life is not sacrosanct, therefore, only foetal life. Odd. And as for the'young ones'' point of view - isn't it a bit hard to have a point of view when you don't yet have a mind?

Friedrich,

Sorry I was off raising a glass to celebrate the imminent humiliation of Tony Abbott. Yeah I guess I did get a bit carried away with Francis- I don't get to associate with people like her in my everyday life. It's kind of a novelty. As for debating you? You are pro-life but you accept that it is the women's choice? Hmmm, not really a great deal to debate there. I think we all consider ourselves 'pro-life' in the broadest sense of the word. But I take it you share Francis' rabid religious beliefs? If so, do you think God is happy with your stance of respecting the woman's choice while innocent babies are going to hell? I think not...

Faith and politics aside, the reality is that abortion hurts women. It's a lousy choice to face and one that no woman should have to face, especially in a society that has the capacity to offer more and better options. Even as I reread Kate's article, I am saddened by the reasons women choose abortion: lack of support, lack of more options, lack of resources, fear, and other equally tragic reasons. The truth is that abortion is not fundamentally about politics or religion. It is almost always a decision made by a woman who feels cornered in some way. Abortion has devastating consequences for all of us, regardless of political or religious persuasion. It is an issue of justice for both women and their unborn children, whose lives are lives indeed regardless of how small or dependent. Those who have chosen abortion know this and can perhaps speak to the other side of the issue: women and their children need and deserve better.

We should not prohibit abortion or abortion medicines. Having said that, I find it unpleasant to contemplate actual abortion and the more we can do as a community to avoid women facing that dilemma, the better. Such as promotion of contraception and family planning.

By way of background I was raised as a Catholic by an Irish mother and in my high school years attended Catholic schools. Predictably, my mother has had great difficulty reconciling my lifestyle with her personal values and faith. This, among other things, has led to our estrangement. Tragically, unconditonal love does not prevail in the minds of all mothers or if it did, my family would have such a part in my life that I would not be wandering the streets at night in revealing garments, at times surrounded in narcotic fog. There seems to be on their part a lack of recognition that I am a sentient being, and human.

Tony Abbott is a former seminarian who has been elected to public office. While I support his right to continue the practice of his faith, when in public office the people come first.

In what part of his mind did KRS1 concoct the idiocy of "a particular circle of hell reserved for the aborted"? I'm sure not even the woman who described her abortion as "a wonderful experience" (said directly to me in an Anglican Church hall after a discussion re "controversial matters".....this woman was interviewed on TV news recently) would stoop so low as to even think that aborted babies would be consigned to hell. By hell does KRS1 mean :sheol or gehenna? Most certainly in any case, aborted babies have suffered through abortion. One final question for KRS1: at what point would you prohibit abortion: the day before birth, a month before?

Francis.

Brougham “That's why - Col Rouge - this debate is about choice and we must speak up for those that can't. The unborn babies.”

This debate has always been about choice.

The choice is

does the woman who is pregnant make the choice

OR

Does your choice prevail

Now I am assuming the pregnant woman has the same cognitive and reasoning capabilities are yourself.

but I would speculate she is more familiar with her circumstance, needs and demands upon her own resources and body than you are,

So she is in an infinitely superior position to you to make any choices in regard to her pregnant condition than you. Noting, your ignorance to her circumstances, needs, demands and resources.

So if we are to talk about “selfishness”, it is “selfish” of the ignorant the demand tto make decisions over the rights of the informed.

But to comment on the unborn. The unborn exists within and is nurtured by the body of someone else. To deny the occupier of the nurturing body the right of participation in decisions which materially effect the use of her body, is to reduce her status to that of a slave for the development of the embryo / foetus. Such a proposition could only be countenanced from an offensive and immoral perspective.

So you can “speak up” all you want, but on this personal and intimate matter for which you bear no responsibility either causal, moral or material, you just do not have the right to be heard.

Francis – “apostles of the culture of death” I can almost see the foam on your lips as you salivate and drool into your bib and spittle showers some captive audience (probably just the image in the mirror).

I would support the view that in circumstances both late term abortions and PBAs are sometimes unavoidable, sometimes necessary and possibly even elective.

But Francis, regardless of all the spleen venting emotional hyperbole you engender into your post, at the end of the day, you are not the pregnant woman and so your view just does not matter

Alan Grey, I stated originally in my first post on this thread Kate Mannix's article was “strange and difficult”.

Her poor presentation offers no support for pro-life and your criticising her presentation does not either.

Justine, your analogy to a one year old child is a “Pro-Life for beginners” cheap shot and like any under-developed notion, easy to demolish.
Separation from the mother, observed throught the process of birth, distinguishes the one year old from the embryo / foetus.
Hence abortion is not murder because of the significance of “separation” or establishment of self (versus extention of another) in the individual human development cycle.

Francis
On the matter of “prohibiting abortion” at no point.
The thing I ask of you is at what point should your opinion prevail over the opinion they themselves hold and are supported in by their medical advisors?

If someone, for what I would only assume is a very good reason, decides that circumstances prevail to terminate at any time through a pregnancy, then it is their decision, not yours. No veto or embargo of action which you might suggest is justified because the views you hold just don't matter.

I assume they have good reason, because I assume they are people with cognitive skills who consider their circumstances and consequences before acting.

You might consider them with decision making capabilities inferior to your own and thus you have a need to subordinate them to your view. That is the difference. I exercise what I think is humility by not inflicting my decisions on strangers, whereas you and the “Pro-Life” crew, exercising the opposite of humility by trying your best to do the opposite.

Get some humility Francis, stop pretending you know what is right for strangers when you donot even know their names.

KRS1,

Whatsamatta you whatsamatta me.

Kate,

To be perfectly frank your article is in my opinion corny.

I used to be down on women who had abortions. However I have changed my tune. I really have no idea what a pregnant woman contemplating an abortion is feeling. Also it is not up to me to judge anyone going through this ordeal. I changed my mind basically because I don't want to be someone who puts women in shackles like Islam does.

Kate you said in three million words what you could have said in three hundred. I suggest you cut the fluff and corn and try delivering something approaching a straight forward style. No more maple syrup on top.

Francis asks- 'In what part of his mind did KRS1 concoct the idiocy of "a particular circle of hell reserved for the aborted"? I'm sure not even the woman who described her abortion as "a wonderful experience" would stoop so low as to even think that aborted babies would be consigned to hell.'

Well Francis- it's your religion, not mine. As I understand it, if a foetus has a soul, then it also has original sin, and if it dies before it gets baptised then it doesn't make it to heaven. Dante theorised that the first circle of hell (limbo) was reserved for the 'unbaptised innocent', which would include the aborted. There's certain situations where the infant could be granted grace, but as I understand it these are pretty unlikely. The church asks us to just trust God's mercy and love in the matter, but seeing as displays of god's mercy and love have been pretty few and far between lately, I wouldn't be holding my breath. Apparently you're Anglican, so I'm not sure what stance your church takes on this, but you can bet it's something that bothers Tony Abbott

Anyway, if I'm wrong on this please let me know, but understand that to me this is like debating whether or not the tooth fairy can fly.

Now, does a foetus suffer during abortion? Well depending on who you listen to, between seven and 26 weeks into pregnancy, it doesn't. Which brings me to your final question. When do I think abortions should be allowed to be performed? Well Francis, I just don't know. It's a hard old world full of shades of grey. If the mother's life is at risk, then I have to say, yes, the day before birth. If not? Well, that's a question for the woman and her doctor, and I wouldn't presume to meddle in it.

Col Rouge

"Justine, your analogy to a one year old child is a “Pro-Life for beginners” cheap shot and like any under-developed notion, easy to demolish."

Congratulations Col, you have passed Insults 101. You know, I would thought you would have the pride in yourself to present your argument with some class. I was wrong however, because you obviously need to degrade your debates to mud slinging matches in order to feel validated in the discussion, due to your lack of legitimate points.

"Separation from the mother, observed throught the process of birth, distinguishes the one year old from the embryo / foetus.
Hence abortion is not murder because of the significance of “separation” or establishment of self (versus extention of another) in the individual human development cycle."

So you are saying that an 8 1/2 month foetus in utero should possess no human rights, while the foetus born pre-mature at 5 months should possess them all?

Justin86

>>So you are saying that an 8 1/2 month foetus in utero should possess no human rights, while the foetus born pre-mature at 5 months should possess them all?<<

I'll answer this, because

1. I am woman

2. I have experienced abortion.

3. I have experienced miscarriage.

Until a baby is independent of its mother - ie born and this includes premmies it does not have autonomy.

Therefore, it may, if the circumstances warrant, be aborted.

I am aware that this is shocking to pro-foetals like yourself, however women are not and never will be mere incubators - they are, in fact, autonmous human beings, and this means they can make intelligent decisions for themselves in how they live their lives.

There is a lot of talk about women suffering after abortion - I certainly cried after mine. However, I was also relieved.

When I miscarried (twice) I grieved. I still grieve. But let me make this VERY clear I do not regret my earlier abortion. The circumstances were such that I had no alternatives and are no-one's business but my own.

I know the pro-foetals will not be able to understand what I am trying to impart. And I also know the reason, because pro-foetals do not care about living breathing humans, they only care about little cells.

So, Justin86, in the final analysis an 8 1/2 month old foetus may be aborted if the circumstances warrant it. A premmie baby on life support may have continued life support if circumstances warrant that. The people who decide are the parents and medical professionals.

Justine you are the one who brought on the insults101 with your groundless and self-righteous dissertation on the supposed selfishness of those who would choose a course contrary to one you might choose. I was merely responding at the level you placed the debate on with your fatuous example.

Regarding

“So you are saying that an 8 1/2 month foetus in utero should possess no human rights, while the foetus born pre-mature at 5 months should possess them all?”

A 5 month, premature baby, would be under 26 weeks development. Based on Dutch medical practice it would not be sustained due to the extremely high statistical probabilities of severe defects (assuming they even survived). The Dutch recognise that “life” itself is not an unconditionally worthy experience but needs some expectation to a level of “quality” (over mere existence).

As to the 8 1/2 month developed foetus, whilst the foetus is attached to the mother any rights which might be claimed for it are subordinate to the rights of the mother, regardless of the state or progress of development.

Being a father who loves his daughters I recall the debates I had with myself when they were about to be born. I always believed it was better, if a choice needed to be made, to save the mother and I believe that still, without a doubt in my mind.

As for elective abortions at 8 1/2 months. Whilst these might happen, I believe they only happen for reasons which are “good” in the mind of the mother and her medical advisors. Some might suggest “oh it was inconvenient” and other lame things to persuade us otherwise but I find it irreconcilable that someone should pursue a pregnancy through months of development, discomfort and expectation just to decide, on a whim, to end it.
Such reasoning is nonsensical. If a woman decides to abort at 8 1/2 months, it is for a reason, she does not have to explain it to me or you but reason there will be.

My feelings go out to and for you Scout

Francis, in most countries of the Western world, abortion is available without question, up to the end of the first tremester.
Fair enough. Beyond that women need a good reason, like the health
of the mother etc. A line in the sand needs to be drawn somewhere,
based on philosophical and scientific reasons, the end of the first
tremester is not a bad one.

The Catholic dogma on abortion is hardly worth the paper that its written on, for it goes back to the holy sperms of Onan etc.
If you want to argue that point, I would be happy to :)

At the end of the day, most women can produce about 400 little organisms in their lifetimes, each of which could be a cute baby.
Reality prevails, Darwin was right, you can't keep them all.

So IMHO women should have the free choice to decide which of those
1-3 organisms they want to keep, nurture and provide resources for,
for the next 20 years. Thats pretty complex, but as it requires huge input and resources. Besides its the woman's uterus, nobody elses, she should have that final decision.

If the Catholic Church is so concerned with babies, perhaps they should sell their billions of $ of assets and pomp in Rome and start feeding the millions of starving babies. Rhetoric from a few old men in Rome is not going to feed them.

Yabby,

I can't believe you are dumping on the Catholic Church. It is so unlike you. I really wish that nun hadn't spanked you. It has resulted in you spending the rest of your life being bitter. I feel sorry for you.

Well put together Kate. You must ignore Francis, she is on another ideology altogether.
I have often wondered, as a man, where Francis presumes to have the right to contribute to your appreciation of your health, self, and well being when you find yourself pregnant, intentionally or otherwise.
As you so succinctly put it, while a termination is not your first choice in many circumstances, sometimes it is what you need right now to enable the sane continuation of your life to a reasonable future.
And, to add another perspective, the positions taken on this issue are nearly always ideological. There will hardly ever be any convincing of one side by the other. While people do change sides in the face of convincing argument, it hardly ever happens in ideological arguments.

Inner-Sydney based transsexual,

I do hope this drug business is in the past. Being cast aside by your parents not only happens to people like yourself. Surely there are support groups you can contact. If you are still taking drugs and living a risky night life you know it can only end in disaster.

Back to business. Abortion is legal as far as I know and that will never change. There are more people in favour of abortions than not so why debate it?

Francis, who gave you the right to be so judgemental and harsh towards women who have elected to terminate their pregnancies? Perhaps you should consider apologising for such a bitter display, which is nothing short of psychological abuse towards such women.

Take care Scout, may your future be bright.

Excuse the unscientific language. When a woman is pregnant the foetus grows like a parasite, the hormones released can trigger unintended growths like ganglions, tumours and cancers.
If a pregnancy is not to go to term the sooner it is ended, the better it is for the mother's health.
Our standard of health care is such that surgical abortion is less of a health risk to the mother than a full term pregnancy and RU486 because it can be administered early has even less risk.
If you want to increase child production then I suggest that you should think about building a child friendly society with limits on hours of work, affordable and accessible child care, wages that permit the average household to survive on one wage, affordable housing near places of work, health cover for all children, decent education systems.

Francis, you asked

>>In what part of his mind did KRS1 concoct the idiocy of "a particular circle of hell reserved for the aborted"?<<

Under the doctrine of necessitate medii, baptism is so critical to achieving entry to heaven, that "if [baptism is] lacking (though inculpably), salvation can not be attained"

By definition then, if infants are not excused, the same must apply to a foetus. All are bound for hell.

Which creates an interesting slant on the nature of hell - and, by definition, heaven.

I suppose that if on the one hand you threaten people with eternal damnation, eternal fires and whatnot, balance demands a carrot to go alongside the stick. Ergo heaven. But while eternal torment is a simple concept to explain, especially to the weak and intimidated, I have yet to hear a convincing description of heaven.

Is it going to be full of unborn foetuses as well as the halt, lame and geriatric? What do they do all day? And if the geriatrics sit around playing harps, what do the foetuses do?

Or do they "become music" as one poster said on another thread? But if heaven is merely populated by spirits, how do we get to send corporeal beings to hell, so that they can actually feel the heat? Even the babies? Come on...

This is too important a discussion, about a human being's right to take control over the way they conduct their life, to introduce childish fantasies such as heaven and hell.

Pericles,

A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing. (I notice you have not identified where your quote comes from)....but the Catechism of the Catholic Church makes it quite clear that you're very wrong. Perhaps because this is what you want to believe. You're references re heaven and hell are really childish.

Francis, I'm always willing to learn.

The source I used was called the Catholic Encyclopaedia, but I guess it could have been some Proddy misinformation.

As far as I can tell, they relied upon John iii, quoting "Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he can not enter into the kingdom of God." which seems clear enough.

This was apparently reinforced by the Council of Trent in 1546 from which the catechism of Trent was derived...

"If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,-whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, -let him be anathema."

It's a bit obscure, but once you have crossed out all the double negatives it basically says 'don't fool yourselves, guys, kids must be baptized, or they go straight to hell'

Well, Francis, those are my sources, what are yours?

And if you believe my references to heaven and hell are childish, answer them as you would a child.

"Francis, do foetuses burn when they go to hell?"

I wish to ignore most of what has been said above by all parties, but to add this thought.

Shouldn't abortion be considered a societal sin if we as a society encourage through a permissive sexual ethic our members to engage in actions which will lead them to create new life in situations in which abortions are bound to occur?

The encourager of free love has a lot to answer for when they are the cause of most abortions.

I actually think that a whole lot of society's problems could be reduced, if we start to accept that the world has changed and act accordingly.

People today, especially through the powers of the internet, are better and better informed. The more informed they are, the more they question. They simply won't accept traditional authority anymore, unquestioningly, as they used to. Fair enough.

I really believe that the days where people can be threatened as I was a child by the nuns, of burning forever etc if I didn't behave,
are over. The old stick and carrot approaches that religion used for centuries, are ending. Anyone can Google "Inquisition" and read how say Giordano Bruno was held in a Vatican prison for years and then burnt at the stake for being a heretic. So much for the claims of the sanctity of human life. This was a thinking, feeling, human person, being burnt alive by the Church!

These days we need to educate and reason, not threaten. If I had my way, every school would forget religious instruction and introduce the basics of conflict resolution/ ethics/ morality/philosophy etc,
to get kids thinking about these things, including the roles of things like relationships, love, sex, commitment etc. in our lives.

Knowledge is power, reason is power. The days of proclaiming that sex is evil, masturbation is evil etc. simply because so called authorities claim it to be, are over for most of us but the small
% of the religiously obsessed.

Pericles,

My source is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which makes it absolutely clear that your interpretation is wrong. If you want to refer to John's Gospel Jesus was talking to an adult.....not about children. In Mark's Gospel he says that the kingdom of God belongs to children.

So true Francis, if we rate our lives according to Kate's scale of who lives and who dies...the population of the world would hang on whether our Mother's were having a good day or not.

My pregnancies were difficult from day one, my doctor's varied in their advice from one range of the spectrum to the other as a result. Since medical difficulties have been where medical learning takes place, I am thankful other mothers decided their children were worth the 'trouble' despite requiring sacrifice to ensure their safe delivery.

My children too are intelligent, loving, generous and pro-life Catholics who aren't afraid of sacrifice for me either. My husband is not Catholic but pro-life by choice...because he understands the worth of each of the children we lost as well as those we have, as each of us do.

Having worked with women since my youth, I have seen the effects of abortion on women...no 'simple surgery' causes that sort of trauma and sense of loss and guilt...abortion does. Abortion does not solve the problems those women face, they are dumped back into the same situation with the knowledge that the only 'solution' society could find for them was to kill their baby, think what that does to their 'spirit', Kate...or the 'spirit' of anyone they try to form a relationship with later.

Abortion is a selfish society's way of passing the buck and saying, "Dispose of the problem". Kate can hardly judge the reaction of the gentleman in question and conclude that he should have gushed over her photo, or whatever reaction she would have prefered. Just as she is an imperfect human, so she can hardly expect any one of us to be perfect in her eyes surely.

There was only one perfect human and they crucified him 2000 years ago, has much changed since then?

Meg1 “no 'simple surgery' causes that sort of trauma and sense of loss and guilt...abortion does. "

I doubt you would find one single pro-choice supporter to disagree with you.

The outcome of abortion, any ensuing guilt is not the point.

The point is sovereignty of the individual and the right of people with free will to exercise that will in regard to their own knowledge of their circumstances and capabilities.

Only by exercising freewill does a person grow to their own full potential.
Deny them free will, in respect to their own body, reduces their status to that of a slave to the embryo /foetus.

Slavery, just like the repressive practices of the Catholic Church, are things which I will do my utmost to overthrow and banish to the history books.

I am quite sure some women may feel guilt after an abortion. I am equally sure other women regret not aborting some offspring when they had opportunity to do so.
Either way, they have to live with the decision.

Only through being responsible and accountable for our own actions do we grow as people.

No one develops in a social system where the state or authorities determine what we can or cannot do with our own bodies.
All that does transpire from repressive social order is
1 a lot of miserable lives
2 a lot of resentment about what might have been
3 a lot of illegal abortions
4 a lot of blaming other people for the circumstances which ensue

Legal Abortion is not a “selfish” society

It is a society saying

“we respect our individual members, which society exists to support and not command, sufficiently to determine for themselves what they should do, recognising they know best their own circumstances, expectations and capabilities”.

A selfish attitude in someone and thus society, comes from those who say

“I am anti abortion and I demand you comply with my expectations and sensitivities, regardless of your own circumstances, wants and capabilities.”

And that IS the Pro-Life societal expectation, one full of the selfishness which emanates from sanctimonious self-righteousness

Well said Col Rouge.......

Col and Scout

You keep asserting that all pro-life people have these attitudes:
- "pro-foetals do not care about living breathing humans, they only care about little cells"
- "Pro-Life societal expectation, one full of the selfishness which emanates from sanctimonious self-righteousness"

It is bad debating to make a mass negative stereotype about the (minority!) group you are arguing with. You know that isn't true, we're defending the child and you're defending the mother. There really is no need to show contempt.

- (Scout) So, Justin86, in the final analysis an 8 1/2 month old foetus may be aborted if the circumstances warrant it.
- (Col) If a woman decides to abort at 8 1/2 months, it is for a reason, she does not have to explain it to me or you but reason there will be.

The question is how do I debate this? If you really believe that an 8 1/2 month child is just a bunch of cells and can be disposed of like rubbish at the garbage dump, then I don't really know what to say.

I would at least ask you to consider how arbitary your stance is, just as you say we are arbitary choosing conception as the starting point. I would suggest that science heavily would point to the latter.

Yabby
OK I've heard this Onan comment like 5 times on here. The story isn't even about holy sperm! So I am going to copy/paste it for everyone to see, so (hopefully) we don't have to hear this argument again lol.

Genesis 38:7-10 NIV
Then Judah said to Onan, "Lie with your brother's wife and fulfill your duty to her as a brother-in-law to produce offspring for your brother." But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother. What he did was wicked in the Lord's sight; so he put him to death.

As you can see, the reason God got angry with Onan was because in the times, the brother-in-law was obligated to help the wife produce offspring. Otherwise the widow was rejected, and never had the opportunity to have a child. Onan obviously thought his brothers wife was pretty alright, so he was willing to have sex with her. But as for actually having to have a kid and look after it, that was a bit inconvinient for him. So he practiced birth control in the form of withdrawal.

So the point of the story isn't that sperm are holy. The point is that he should of impregnated her, but instead he just used her for sex. Using this story to say that masturbation, withdrawal etc. are evil, or that sperm are holy, is drawing an extremely long bow.

Justin86

I really resent the use of the moniker "pro-life" . It is a clearly a form of double-speak as it only refers to presumed 'rights' of a foetus over that of an adult human being.

The simple fact is this:

Abortion is legal. Whether it is performed at 12 weeks or 34 weeks is dependent on the individual circumstances of the pregnant woman.

The best thing you can do for any woman is to support her and the difficult choices she may have to make.

Pro-life is caring for people already on this planet, such as war refugees, children in poverty, abused children, abused parents.

Pro-foetus is caring for the unborn at the expense of the living.

I can only assume that you want a return to back-yard abortions which are anti-life. Did you not watch Compass on ABC on Sunday night? If you had, you would've heard the heart rending stories of women who have suffered unnecessarily because of so called values imposed on them by a dogmatic and authoritarian regime.

I will consider your opinion seriously when you can demonstrate that you are indeed truly pro-life. While you remain pro-foetus you are treating women as incubators.

Justin86 “It is bad debating to make a mass negative stereotype….
There really is no need to show contempt.”

I note you make no such comment to Francis who used the little gems

“Despite the rantings of the apostles of the culture of death“
“Many would have said the same, i.e. "good on you", to the Nazis.”

Or your own iterations regarding mass negative stereotypes and their “selfishness”



Re “(Col) If a woman decides to abort at 8 1/2 months, it is for a reason, she does not have to explain it to me or you but reason there will be.

The question is how do I debate this? If you really believe that an 8 1/2 month child is just a bunch of cells and can be disposed of like rubbish at the garbage dump, then I don't really know what to say.

I would at least ask you to consider how arbitary your stance is, just as you say we are arbitary choosing conception as the starting point. I would suggest that science heavily would point to the latter.”

How you debate it is up to you.
I would have thought reason and respect for other people’s cognitive skill were two good attributes to embrace.

So read my posts.

I have made no comparison between an embryo / foetus and any other arrangement of cellular matter.
Likewise, I have made no comment to any issue of commencement of “life”.

I have noted “separation” is recorded as the moment of birth and such an event is significant. I have noted the scientific fact that, prior to separation, the embryo/foetus is wholly dependent upon the resources of the mothers body. I have noted the mother has priority of right to her own body relative to any right of the embryo / foetus.

So if you think you are up to debating with me, I suggest you do not start by putting words into my mouth (which you will then criticise), such tactics make, to use your words, for “bad debating”.

excellent post, Col Rouge.

For the pro-foetuses, here's a hypothetical-

You are imprisoned by a terorist. In one hand he holds a test-tube containing a microscopic, fertilised human ovum. In his other hand he holds a gun to the head of a twenty-year-old woman. He tells you one of them must die, and unless you choose, you will all die.

Which do you choose?

If you choose to allow the fertilised ovum to die (as most rational people would) then you implicitly believe that non-sentient life is of less value than sentient life. You are pro-choice. All that remains is shades of grey.

Justin, you are clearly not a Catholic, or don't know the doctrine very well. No more masturbation, its a mortal sin you know :)

Wasting those holy sperms is violating natural law, they say.

This is what the Catholics think about the holy sperms and why:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Birth_Control.asp

I repeat it for new readers, as clearly few know the actual Catholic doctrine for being so obsessed with sex, condoms, birth control,
masturbation etc.

Col, great posts by the way.

Francis, you belong to a very confusing sect.

>>My source is the Catechism of the Catholic Church which makes it absolutely clear that your interpretation [that an aborted foetus is bound for hell] is wrong.<<

According to my copy, entitled "The Second Edition English Translation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church includ[ing] the corrections promulgated by Pope John Paul II on 8 September 1997"

the relevant entry is...

"The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation..... The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude"

There are a few possibilities here. One is that your particular catechism differs in some way; or perhaps there is a more recent update; or maybe there is a contradictory clause of which I am unaware.

As far as I am aware - and once again please feel free to contradict - this particular part of the catechism has remained largely intact since the Council of Trent, from which I previously quoted.

The key issue here is, of course, original sin.

Unfortunately, my copy of the catechism is also pretty explicit on this topic.

"The Church, which has the mind of Christ, knows very well that we cannot tamper with the revelation of original sin without undermining the mystery of Christ"

Pretty tough on the unsuspecting foetus. Unborn, but full of sin. Straight to hell. Wow.

Over to you.

Pericles, the Catholic Catechism refers entirely to the born, not the aborted. There is good reason for this, since the Catholic Church, along with many of its greatest thinkers (not an oxymoron, by the way) is not entirely sure about foetal personhood. Both Aquinas and Augustine were of the opinion that 'ensoulment' took place only after a period of development. Aquinas considered this period to be the time it took for distinct organs to be visible. This could be as much as 90 days. Therefore, most, if not all, aborted foetuses would not go to hell – not yet having souls, they do not have original sin. In Evangelium Vitae, even JP II speaks only of the 'probability' of a human person being killed through abortion, while in 1987, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in "Instruction on Respect for Human Life in its Origin and on the Dignity of Procreation: Replies to Certain Questions of the Day," stated

[t]he Magisterium has not expressly committed itself to an affirmation of a philosophical nature [as to the time of ensoulment], but it constantly affirms the moral condemnation of any kind of procured abortion.

Ensoulment is held to be a direct act of God, who can, presumably, withhold or withdraw ensoulment from those foetuses who are to be aborted. Furthermore, Aquinas’s body-soul (matter-form) analysis of the human being entails that the human soul is infused only when the body generated by the parents is sufficiently organised to be disposed for it – when it has the capability of sin. By the way, until the nineteenth century, the majority view in the Catholic church, as reflected in canon law as well as theological opinion, drew a distinction between early- and late-stage abortions. An early-stage abortion was considered to be a grave sin, but not regarded as equivalent to murder. The extract from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (headed by Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope) tends to indicate this position has not been entirely abandoned.

Does this help make matters clearer to you or Francis?

Pericles,

Keep reading.

Francis

Yabby,

"Masturbation is evil". Only if you go blind.

In Australia I have the right to ignore and/or disbelieve Catholic dogma. I regard the attitude that the Pope is infallible as almost unbelievably fatuous. I don't claim to be infallible, but I have a better chance of being so than the Pope, because I haven't lived a life of closed minded brainwashing. And if the Pope [presumably every Pope] really is infallible, then what went wrong with the system when Galileo was trying to inject a bit of scientific truth into the world view of the universe?

And as for quoting the Bible, particularly early Old Testament stuff, as "proof" of anything, well save that for those who haven't bothered to think anything out for themselves. And what about the thoughts of Aquinas et al? They no more have a direct line to God than I do, they can only surmise what may or may not happen in regard to what we could call spiritual matters.

This is the kind of thing which annoys many thinking Australians:

http://www.optusnet.com.au/news/story/abc/20060214/18/domestic/1569839.inp

"Pell attacks RU486 supporters
5:06 PM February 14

The Catholic Church says any member of Parliament who supports the abortion pill RU486 in tonight's debate in the House of Representatives is against life."

No George, Australia is supposed to be a sectarian democracy and MPs should reflect the wishes of their electorates, so far as that is reasonably possible.

If the Catholic Church wants Australia to be a religious dictatorship, under the control of the Pope, then let them openly stand candidates with this platform and see how many of us would support that.

I'm sorry, Francis, condescension doesn't work, nor does avoidance. It is your religion that has been inserted into this debate, not mine, and it would be cowardly in the extreme if you choose to walk away from it.

anomie helpfully points out that "the Catholic Catechism refers entirely to the born, not the aborted", which I don't believe to be the case. My copy says categorically that "Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being."

The rules also state that unless you have been baptized, hell is where you end up. No argument there, it is in the book.

The justification for this rule is the little matter of original sin. Having lived a totally blameless few weeks attached to someone's insides, the embryo is still deemed by your wise religion to be full of sin.

Again, the rules clearly state that you can't get around this, not even on the grounds that it is a totally ludicrous concept.

Since it is not possible for an aborted foetus (or a miscarried one, for that matter) to have been baptised prior to its shuffling off this mortal coil, the little bundle of cells goes straight to hell.

The catechism dictates that a totally insensate entity must suffer the torment of the damned, because the laws of your religion deem it to be a "person".

Francis, it is your beliefs that we are talking about, and the reason we are talking about them is that you are holding them up as some form of justification for taking decisions away from intelligent, feeling adults.

If you continue to skulk in a corner and avoid the discussion, it doesn't say much for the strength of your position, does it?

Pericles.....who's being condescending? Who's adopting
an avoidance mode? Who's being cowardly? You're making a fool of yourself. It's very easy to quote parts of anything and omit the rest! For starters, in the Catechism try #1258, #1259, #1260 and #1261 (the latter will pay the lie to your ignorant assertions).
Then read Lumen Gentium 16....particularly "Those who do not know the Gospel of Christ.....and who try to do God's will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience/...those too m,ay achieve eternal salvation. Nor shall divine providence deny the assistance necessary to salvation for those who, WITHOUT ANY FAULT OF THEIRS ( e.g aborted babies.....my illustration here) have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God..... Does that sound like consigning all the unbaptised to gehenna?

You mention the rules which lead to hell.....which rules are these? What planet are you from?

Finally, in your quote re Original Sin you only gave part of that section/ Did you not have the courage to quote the lot?

Francis

While some may think that Catholics would condemn the unborn to Hell, this is not an accurate representation of Catholic belief.

In his encyclical letter Evangelium Vitae (The Gospel of Life, paragraph 99), Pope John Paul II said the following:

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child, who is now living in the Lord."

Let me repeat that final line: "...your child, who is now living in the Lord."

Between this and the recent "review" of the theological speculation about the possible existence of limbo, contemporary thought in the Church is that aborted children have been baptised "by desire" and are in Heaven.

"The wound in your heart may not yet have healed."

Clearly the old papa was not up with modern science, hearts pump
blood, emotions are centered in the limbic system. So much
for papal infallibility :)

I really think that all the contradictions here, are really
due to the wishy washy doctrine of the Church. One moment they
are threatening, next minute they are placating and giving hope.
So some contradictions in the doctrine is to be expected.

At the end of the day, what matters to the Church is bums on seats
on Sunday and in that they are clearly failing.

Just a few hundred years ago, they were burning people at the stake.
Now they claim the sanctity of a bunch of cells.

I have no problem with religion helping quell the anxieties of those who need it, to help balance brain chemistry etc. That can be understood and accepted. I really do have a problem when they try to claim the ultimate truth of all that dogma and enter the poltical
field to try to force the rest of us to live by it.

You lot expend heaps of hot air making generalisations about Catholics that only a 'brainless' Darwinian might believe. It's curious that Jesus Christ isn't believable to you, but Darwin says we look like evolving apes and Yabby starts scratching...hmmmm, that's rational.
RE: forcing anyone to follow Catholic laws...that's amazing, I was taught by Catholic Nuns too and they said I had free will...of course Yabby, there are consequences for choosing wrong over right or refusing to seek fact from fiction or doing what will harm another. As abortion kills another human, it is HARMING another - therefore wrong. Join the local footie club - surprise-there are rules there too.

RE: society's cop out-if the best any of you can offer a woman in this situation is to kill her baby then perhaps it is you who should check your motives or lack of compassion. How many of you have put your money where your mouths are? I have, long before I had children and I continue to do so, because I believe it to be right, responsible and compassionate.

RE: 'rosary on ovaries' shirt only highlights our pitiful standard of parliamentary representation. The argument isn't about ovaries-at least get the facts right - ovaries produce eggs BEFORE they are fertilised, OK?
Luckily for all of you, Catholics are kinder on sin and other sinners than some Islamics and you are unlikely to be bombed or terrorised for your infantile insults and blasphemy - enjoy it while your 'spirit' diminishes into bitter little puddles of self-centredness. Personally, I enjoy the company of people from other religions also, you should get out and meet some of them/us sometime.

Lastly, an unborn baby has a brain and nervous system Yabby, from very early in the FIRST trimester, if you are convinced yours wasn't there until you were born, I won't disagree.

While Catholics won't go out and accost you to 'join up', there's always room for more, just accept your responsibility for the free will God gave you.

God bless you all and I hope you had a wonderful CHRISTmas!

Meg1 “RE: society's cop out-if the best any of you can offer a woman in this situation is to kill her baby then perhaps it is you who should check your motives or lack of compassion. How many of you have put your money where your mouths are?”

I did put money where my mouth was.

About 35 years ago, I helped someone else, who sought an abortion, to fund it.
I acted without interest of benefit to myself (ie I was not the father) and only from a sense of love and compassion for the pregnant woman.

“Luckily for all of you, Catholics are kinder on sin and other sinners than some Islamics and you are unlikely to be bombed or terrorised for your infantile insults and blasphemy - enjoy it while your 'spirit' diminishes into bitter little puddles of self-centredness.”

I guess you are excluding the practices of Father Tomas de Torquemada from that claim to Roman Catholic tolerance?

Oh nice one with “spirit diminishing” but the bitterness (or is that frustration) on this debating board seems to be emanating from your posts, not from mine.

Finally, who is the more “self centred”?

1 the person who, for reasons they know, seeks an abortion

or

2 someone else, without knowledge to circumstances, desires, expectations or capabilities of the pregnant person and equipped only with their own emotionally subjective desires, demands that the another person is denied the right to abort?

I suggest 2 rates as the most “self centred”, intolerant and lacking in respect for other peoples rights.

Well said Credo!

No offer of money to help her KEEP the child, Col?

Sadly, one risk of abortion is that subsequent pregnancies are at higher risk of miscarriage as demonstrated.

Suggestions that an 8 1/2 month old baby should have no 'rights' begger belief. The baby is viable well before then, requiring inhumane killing methods not used on violent criminals...why should babies suffer such brutality? Birthing an 8 1/2 month old poses no further risk to the mother than aborting it-quite the reverse. Your spurious reasoning is unbelievable...you better hope your children don't want your estate enough to use the same rational when 'debating' your worth in your dotage.

I have regular contact with adoptees, adoptive and adopting parents - quoted case posted is difficult to believe. Mothers aren't tattooed on their foreheads. Perhaps you should have suggested it was her choice...or doesn't that argument apply if she chooses life?

Australia's interminable waiting list for adoptions destroys the assertion there are unwanted babies. There are lots of couples/families who would dearly love to adopt here but very few are placed for adoption.

Getting one up on Tony Abbott, George Pell and those 'Catholics' seems the only agenda here...not any rational argument or any genuine concern for women/babies.

I'm still waiting for Col Rouge to post something he doesn't contradict in the next paragraph...you don't need anyone to debate with, you lose the argument all by yourself!

Perhaps some are trying to justify past actions - male and female, but the arguments about incubators are pretty lame. If pro-lifers see women as incubators does that mean anti-lifers see women as communal sex playthings and babies as disposable. Explains the unwillingness to accept the time for decisions is long before choosing to kill or not to kill is the only so-called choice left.

The males haven't given any indication of too much respect for their women participants or friends...a lot of talk of masturbation though, so perhaps it's all theoretical argument for them anyway

Thanks for making the whole issue so much clearer, Francis.

>>You're making a fool of yourself. It's very easy to quote parts of anything and omit the rest! For starters, in the Catechism try #1258, #1259, #1260 and #1261 (the latter will pay the lie to your ignorant assertions).<<

Unfortunately, my copy didn't have a pocket guide that told me which part to believe and which to discard.

One of the charges often levelled against non-christians is that we "pick and choose" that which we believe. In fact it is the most common knee-jerk reaction of the faithful.

How, pray, does this differ from the process of selection that you have made, or the selection that I made, in arriving at a guide for catholic conduct?

It seems to me that your set of beliefs depends entirely upon i) which century you live in, ii) what views have been expressed at the most recent convocation, or in the latest papal bull, and most importantly iii) which argument is in play at the precise moment you are looking for catechismal support.

So please explain again. What did I misquote, and what exactly is its disqualification? For it would appear to me that if you are correct, and there is no such concept as original sin, and there is no necessity for baptism in order to reach heaven, there might just be some variation, or flex, if you will, on the concept of heaven and hell themselves.

Given this highly convenient flexibility, surely there is - buried somewhere in the texts - also some give-and-take on the concepts of contraception and abortion?

There there Meg, now that you got those two long rants off your chest, no doubt you feel better :) Sadly just not much substance.

Your Catholic Church accepts evolution theory Meg. So it pays not to ignore what Darwin wrote. He provided lots of substantiated evidence for his claims.

In contrast, religion is at the end of the day, no more then an idea. No substantiated evidence, just human claims. Go into a court of law and tell the judge that you know the answer, as you had a divine revelation and see how far that gets you :)

Rosaries on ovaries was a joke Meg, you clearly missed it.

Thank you so much that Catholics don't want to kill people like Muslims do, how comforting for me.

A foetus is not a baby and no, at the end of the first tremester, it does not have a human brain. Go and inform yourself.

What this debate comes down to is why a health minister who believes in the supernatural, despite a lack of substantiated evidence for its claims, can affect the lives of so many millions of women, denying them the freedom to make their own choices. Its their body, their life, their decision. They should choose which of the 400 or so organsims that they can create, they want to carry to term and raise as babies and children. People with claims of supernatural phenomena should keep out of it, unless they can provide some substantiated evidence. Any court would need more evidence, then religion can provide for its claims.

Meg its time that you learnt respect for other people and their rights to decide their lives for themselves, free of religious dogma.

You would object if the Muslims tried to force their theology onto you, so why should we not object when the Catholics try to do the same to us?

Francis, you talk about 'picking and choosing', and I will assume for the sake of argument you haven't read my last post in full (I'll assume nobody else has either – quoting doctors of the church, papal encyclicals and canon law tends to make people's eyes glaze over, but is necessary if you want to attack the Catholic stance on abortion on its own terms). If you denigrate others for picking and choosing, why don't you mention the readily-obtainable evidence that the Catholic hierarchy is undecided about foetal personhood? What, pray, do you make of the evidence that the Catholic church, when not dumbing it down into an ethics-bite the punters can understand, isn't sure foetuses are persons. Go on, read it. You know it makes sense.

As an aside, let me ask you to think about a not-entirely-hypothetical case. Imagine a contraceptive failure: the prospective parents a mother with a strong family history of major depression, and a father who has bipolar A (a strongly heritable, truly horrid mental illness). The odds of the offspring of these two inheriting bipolar are better than evens. Assume, correctly, that such an offspring wouldn't have been unwanted – we (like you couldn't have guessed), wanted, had things been different, to have a child, and deeply regret it wasn't an option. But having seen (me) and experienced (him) what our joint heritage would probably visit on any child we had, it was clear to us that it was wrong to produce a child who was literally more likely than not to suffer this horrible illness. Adoption can't fix genetics. And it's not, at least in some cases, that the kid would be an inconvenience – you wouldn't do it to anyone, let alone your own flesh and blood.

She was a girl. We would have called her Leah Kate. We agonised about it long enough to have had all the tests.

So tell me, please, why stopping her existence, before she knew about it, before she could suffer, was so wrong?

Col Rouge – you reveal hidden wonders. All praise.

I can understand the pov of those who feel abortion is a moral choice, provided that the fetus is not [yet] a person. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it.

The reason I don't agree with it is largely a practical one: if a fetus is not fully a person, then personhood is subjective and relative. Provided that this is true then how can my life, or the lives of my family and friends, have any value? If personhood is subjective, it is also fluid. So it becomes possible for me to lose my personhood and be reduced to an object, like a potato (and who cares when a potato is chipped?)

If personhood is subjective, then by what standards and what authority is it determined? Age, development, "viability"?

I believe that human life and personhood begins at conception, so I cannot conclude that abortion is ever morally licit. Granted, it is morally permissible to take the life of an aggressor in an act of self-defense, but a fetus is not an aggressor. So even in order "to save the life of the mother" abortion is an immoral choice.

That's my argument against abortion and while I believe that God is the author of life, my argument against abortion is not a religious one. Its perfectly understandable that religious people are concerned about abortion, but that doesn't mean abortion is a "religious" issue and I find some of the jabs here at Catholics and our faith to be cheap shots. The issue at hand is life & choice, not creed.

Meg1 “No offer of money to help her KEEP the child, Col?”

Remaining pregnant was an option the lady considered and rejected, therefore, helping her keep it was not an option available to me (her body, her choice).

I never suggested a 8 ½ month developed foetus had no rights.

I do believe, however, any rights a 8 ½ month foetus has are subordinate to the rights of the pregnant woman in whose body it resides.

Again another attempt by you to put words into my mouth which were never said, not a good or ethical debating tactic.

“you better hope your children don't want your estate enough to use the same rational when 'debating' your worth in your dotage”

I know it must be hard for you but try to stay away from your “lowlife scumbag troll comments” or I will be unable to resist a more appropriate response.

The “contradictions” of reason come from your side of the debate not mine.

Anomie “Col Rouge – you reveal hidden wonders. All praise.”

I acted as I believed I should. I seek no acclaim for doing what anyone else with understanding to the circumstances, opportunity and compassion would have most likely done. I recalled the event here to challenge Meg1’s sanctimonious question.


Credo “So even in order "to save the life of the mother" abortion is an immoral choice.”

But you do not have the authority to impose your choice on people who do not share your viewpoint on what is and what is not “an immoral choice”.

The debate is about who gets to make the choice, the pregnant woman or someone else. My personal stance is, regardless of my view on the merits or otherwise of an abortion in any circumstances, it is not my body, it is someone else’s body and thus someone else’s choice and not my choice.

The issue of “sovereignty” of the individual is paramount and more important than deciding to have an abortion. The issue of “individual sovereignty” is what distinguishes free men and women from being considered chattels, serfs and slaves.

Credo, a person has a functioning human brain. A dead person is no longer a person, its a corpse. A fetus is an organism, not yet a person. Tell me where the semantics of that is wrong.

I think that even you have to admit that the Catholic Church has a worldwide agenda regarding, contraception, abortion, etc. etc.
The following is a website from the Philipines, promoting more
kids, despite their overpopulation problems.

http://www.prolife.org.ph/page/contraception

It would be hard to deny that most of that is simply Catholic religious dogma being promoted, with a few groups of other hangers on.

Why won't the Catholic Church address the issue of sustainability
of the human population? Arn't you guys aware of what happened
in places like Easter Island? Don't other species have a right
to some of this planet too? Without biodiversity, there won't be a
humanity.

RE: Yabby, regarding respect and ignorance…your article is a classic example of lack of respect and unsubstantiated hot air and hyperbole.

Yabby wants, “respect for other people and their rights to decide their lives for themselves, free of religious dogma. You would object if the Muslims tried to force their theology onto you, so why should we not object when the Catholics try to do the same to us?”

Surprise, surprise Yabby, the Church doesn’t make you pay for abortions through medicare (taxes)…but you and the anti-lifers force me to do so …that obliterates your argument totally. Catholics are entitled to live their religious beliefs without discriminatory and ignorant assertions from embittered people burdened with paranoia, conscience attacks or whatever…but that would be an ideal world, wouldn’t it?

No one tells you to support the Catholic church, or any of the other religions of the world…get on with your own life you might even start to enjoy it.

As for Darwin’s ‘theory’, it is still just that…unsubstantiated fantasy and theory - I still exercise freedom of thought and choice!

And of course, Col Rouge adds his QUOTE: “lowlife scumbag troll comments” to discredit himself completely, but still no rational thoughts.

Col: “The issue of “individual sovereignty” is what distinguishes free men and women from being considered chattels, serfs and slaves.”

Individual sovereignty doesn’t allow the mutilation/killing of another…you argue the mother has the right to choose that an 8 ½ month old unborn be brutally killed despite its viability at that age…you retain no credibility whatever! You argue that killing at will is ok for any reason – until the baby is born. What about a newborn who is found to be disabled, should the mother have the right to kill it also?

Your spurious lack of reason is unbelievable and your attempt at bullying doesn’t scare me Col.

If any one thing returns women to the position of chattels, serfs or slaves…use of this drug has to come close.

With RU486, the issue of late term abortions is irrelevant. RU486 is designed to return abortions to the ‘backyard’ – at home, out of sight, out of mind - with NO medical care and the resultant risks.

This ‘morning after pill’ is designed to be taken after a night’s misadventure before pregnancy tests are possible. There are serious risks to the mother, and the child either dies, or in some cases is seriously damaged and survives despite the drug. The risk of haemorrage, infection and death of the mother – all without medical supervision, are documented.

NO woman’s life will be saved through the use of this drug. That is not its purpose. There is no argument on that score.

Meg1, I must admit that I disagree with most of what you posit in argument, however your comment "If any one thing returns women to the position of chattels, serfs or slaves…use of this drug has to come close" leaves me wondering just where you are coming from. Are you proposing that the women who elect to take this drug rather then have a surgical procedure have no minds? On the contrary I consider that to deny a woman abortion is to return her to the position of a chattel, serf or slave.

If a drug negates the need for surgery then in fact your precious taxes that you are so concerned about will be reduced. On that note please don't feel it is only you who pay tax in areas of no use to you. Those of us who have do not support any 'church' also pay taxes for those of you who do by way of all the tax free benefits and reduced utility charges given to churches.

Col Rouge, your posts on a whole continue to be a fair and equitable account of the right to choose and the reasons for such rights.

Some of the posts in reply to this article are highly insensitive to those women, who have for reasons that remain their business, have elected to terminate their pregnancy. Many such posters have been less then charitable or christian in their criticisms, whilst at the same time doing so in the name of God. Shame....but then a few minutes with a priest and all is forgiven! Nevermind about the fallout from those you have dammed and mentally tortured. The priest may well forgive you - I doubt that God will.

"With RU486, the issue of late term abortions is irrelevant. RU486 is designed to return abortions to the ‘backyard’ – at home, out of sight, out of mind - with NO medical care and the resultant risks.
This ‘morning after pill’ is designed to be taken after a night’s misadventure before pregnancy tests are possible."

Sheesh Meg, as a Catholic you clearly know nothing about contraception of abortion :)

RU 486 is not a morning after pill. The morning after pill is simply a higher dose of the normal pill. RU 486 is taken instead of surgical termination, under supervision of a doctor. At least those
poor women might not have to face the ignorant placard wavers outside the clinics anymore. RU 486 is 10 times safer then pregnancy. There ya go Meg, lots of noise from you, but clearly you are confused :)

Now to cheer you up even more! Your dna is closer to a chimp or bonobo, then a chimp or bonobo to a gorilla. Your haemoglobin is identical to theirs, in all 287 units. There is no part of the brain that you have that they don't have, its just a matter of some bits being larger. So get used to it Meg, they are long lost ancestors to all of us including you :)

Coraliz has answered the tax question very well, I don't need to add anything

Meg1 wrote “you better hope your children don't want your estate enough to use the same rational when 'debating' your worth in your dotage”

I replied “try to stay away from your “lowlife scumbag troll comments” “

you respond “to discredit himself completely, but still no rational thoughts.”

I said previous “or I will be unable to resist a more appropriate response.”

I am still resisting but you are testing that restraint.

“Individual sovereignty” acknowledges the priority of right of the first occupant of a body (the woman) over any claim which might arise from subsequent, subordinate occupants (foetus).

That is part of my reasoned argument, argue that or are you going to prattle on with more inane “still no rational thoughts.” ?

Unless someone kow-tows to your will, they will never have any credibility with you. Unless someone subjugates themselves to your dogma, you will damn them.

I can live with that. I neither need, want nor seek your approval

Thank God the inquisition is over and the authority of the papists destroyed. Such evil represented a low point in human socio-political development which should have seen the whole corrupt system broken up (Henry VIII and the Church of England was a good start but he never finished the job and the rest of Europe continued to suffer for generations).

I am happy to challenge your reasonless drivel.

I am quite content to let you make a fool of yourself with your inane declarations of your own self righteous importance.
I take delight in pointing out where you are behaving like a lowlife scumbag troll.

In short, Meg1, if I could help elevate you alot, you would still be beneath contempt.


Coraliz “fair and equitable account of the right to choose and the reasons for such rights”

Thank you, some things are too important to be left to government and that is where I see this debate as being, about individual sovereign rights versus the demands of repressive socio-political theocracies (run by a bunch of misogynist in drag).

I concur with your comments re the tax status of churches..

Coraliz, your blinkered mis-reading missed the bits you can’t answer. My comment on tax indicated we are ALL forced to support (through funding in this instance) things we don't condone.

Check the meaning of contra-ception…prevention of conception. RU486 is administered after the fact and has potential for significant risk to the mother. (Nine documented deaths in Western countries from RU486 alone).

My concern for women avoids pressuring them, at possibly the most vulnerable point in their lives, to abort - thereby compounding their problems and ignoring their need. Medical and psychological effects of abortion, surgical or otherwise are documented and long term.

I argued it is preferable to support these women, not only through the pregnancy, but also the problems they face…hardly insensitive.

Inaccuracies on statistics of death in pregnancy ignore the fact there will always be women with high-risk conditions who choose to have children – or serious illnesses that can coincidentally or otherwise present during pregnancy.

Pregnant women are sometimes killed by deranged partners, would you suggest mandatory AI and a ban on partnerships too?

Statistical deaths, risks and complications from abortion are incomplete by their very nature. You omit recorded statistics on mortality of the unborn – 100,000 Australians annually.

You presented classic examples of the use of engineered statistics.

Anyone who disagrees with you is automatically ridiculed with childish name-calling and slurs on their beliefs-very mature.

RE: confessing – I confess to God and am answerable to him. My forgiveness is dependent on my sincerity, not the frequency of my visits to the priest.

Yabby, any of those creatures would have more regard for its kind than you have shown, least of all to women. None deliberately destroy unborn of its kind, rather they are nurturers, so I guess you just haven’t evolved to their level yet.

Col as usual has a problem with the meaning of words, so he writes his own definitions. Incidentally, I don’t damn anyone, nor does God, you have free will and you choose eternal damnation or life for yourself.

I am awaiting your challenge, so far it’s been inane insults.

Yabby wrote:

Credo, a person has a functioning human brain. A dead person is no longer a person, its a corpse. A fetus is an organism, not yet a person. Tell me where the semantics of that is wrong.

Unquote:

Can I ask how you define 'person'? Is a foetus who cries for 45 minutes after being aborted - feeling pain, breathing, heart beating - as happened in a Darwin hospital - less of a person than a newborn 'baby' who cries, feels pain, but who is nurtured to maturity?

Or do you suggest that a 'person' only comes into existence when a human organism is capable of expressing an idea or concept?

Yabby, where does 'personhood' begin? Or should we just let premature babies die because they are not yet 'persons' or allow mothers to kill their newborns because they are not yet 'persons'?

Yabby, I fear that you will have to look around for a new definition, particularly as an abortion doctor has recently been charged with manslaughter in NSW because the 'not person' breathed whilst in the toilet bowl after the procedure, and a driver was found guilty of 'dangerous driving occaisioning death' when what you consider was a 'non-person' was 'killed' during a car accident.

"Can I ask how you define 'person'?"

Hamlet, I'm not the first one to think about that question, there is alot of discussion about it on the net. One cannot compare a 6 or even 12 week old fetus with a 32 week old baby and the huge difference is exactly in brain development. Its changed from a heap of dividing cells into a baby. Week 29-30 are seen as when that
has fully taken place.

Thats why my continuing point regarding abortion, much along the lines of what many European countries have implemented. ie. abortion in the first 12 weeks, up to the end of the first tremester, should be freely available. Any talk at this point of murdering babies and other emotive rhetoric is exactly that, but factually nonsense.

After that there would need to be sound reasons in place for abortions. I don't think that partial birth abortions as practised in America are acceptable.

RU 486 is best used around 6 weeks IIRC, so once again, all the emotive language from the anti abortion lobby is nonsense.

Yabby, again, one set of rules for yourself and another for us mere mortals…or evolving chimps as you prefer.

How about your views on destruction of comparatively aged chimps and other creatures of earth…are you more protective of their lives than that of the human species?

If abortion is ok, i.e., it is ok to destroy human life, who are you to decide at what stage it is ok, or not. When I put forward one viewpoint, you hurl abuse and insults, yet all should accept YOUR word on that basis alone. Only you should decide the cut off point when life is of value – isn’t that despotic, dictatorial? Isn’t that shoving your views down our throats?, “its unacceptable”…well, well!

Once respect for the value of life is lost at any stage, ALL stages of life become valued accordingly, usually beginning with the more vulnerable sectors of society…the unborn, elderly, disabled, victims of mental disorders, the list goes on…until the individual has no control over the decision to end life – instead that decision is left to society to rate and decide, sound familiar?

Incidentally, you should get hold of Time Life’s supplement on unborn life photographed within the womb - produced some 25 years ago. It will debunk your assertions about the development of life in the first trimester.

You might also read the early history of the US abortion industry as written by Bernard Nathanson, a self-proclaimed killer who gradually came to the realization that he had overseen the killing of thousands of unborn children. He came face to face with one such baby, perfectly formed and struggling for life within its tiny sac after being removed from its mother’s body. The photo is shown in the Time Life supplement mentioned above. Dr Nathanson is now an advocate for life, arguing against abortion.

You might also give due credit to pro-lifers generally. Other Christian religions follow the teachings of CHRIST and are pro-life as are many non-Christians.

Free will necessitates responsibility to educate ourselves with facts, not clichés, generalisations and hyperbole or the 'emotive' language of anti-lifers.

"If abortion is ok, i.e., it is ok to destroy human life, who are you to decide at what stage it is ok, or not"

Meg, that is not for me alone to decide, but society in general.
Your life is simple. If Cardinal Pell says its ok, then its ok by
you. I try to take a more philosophical and reasoned approach, then be dictated to by any church which it seems, might want to outbreed another church.

Its time that you asked yourself some crucial questions. How many billions of humans on this planet are sustainable? Do a few thousand remaining chimps and bonobos have a right to a bit of space too? For thats all that is left, as the human population grows and grows, destroying their habitat in the process.

You might be getting all emotional about some Time-Life pics, but reality prevails, even if we close our eyes and wish things to be different.

At the moment we watch on tv, as people stuff live poultry into bags and bury them alive around the world. Nobody says boo. These are thinking, feeling creatures! Yet you get all emotional about a bunch of dividing human cells, just because they contain human dna.
No feeling, no thinking, just dividing cells. Is it impossible for you to care about other species too?

RU486? RU486?

Our pollies in WW1 and WW11 sent our sons and daughters many of whom did not return. These pollies were mostly men and they did not give a backward glance at the thousands of our children slaughtered during these wars. The same can be said of the 5 women who lobbied to have RU486 bill heard and passed in Parliament. They have just allowed millions of potential babies to be flushed down the toilet. Is this what we the majority of women in Australia believe. That life is worthless. Send it off to be killed in war or flush it down the toilet. Will these minorities give a backward glance to all the children destroyed by this drug.

Once again the loud minority has spoken for the silent majority. How long will this continue in this country. Poiltical correctness, RU486, gay marriages when will it end. Our moral fibre is being erroded by the loud majority and many laws are being passed because we the silent majority are just that silent, for fear of looking politically incorrect or too moralistic or too religious

Hamlet “Yabby, where does 'personhood' begin?”

When “personhood begins” is an arguable point.

It is also irrelevant.

The point about abortion is, the embryo / foetus, whilst its exact position on the journey to “personhood” is not a separate “person”.

The embryo / foetus is a dependent person. It is totally and entirely dependent upon one particular person, the woman in whose body it is developing.

It might be “personhood” but it is not a "separate personhood". Separation does not occur until the moment of birth.

Why should the woman have the right to abort this possible "personhood"?
Well, it is her body at “risk” and she is not a slave to the embryo / foetus "personhood".

The woman is not a slave to the embryo / foetus, therefore the embryo / foetus should not have rights which prevail over the woman’s rights.

Any rights which any one may wish to ascribe to a embryo / foetus cannot be equal with the woman, since the woman has developed to a point of independence and is not physically dependent upon any one specific persons bodily resources to survive.

Any rights, therefore which can be ascribed to an embryo / foetus are subordinate to the sovereign rights of the woman, until the process of separation (birth) is complete and when the moment at which total dependence on one particular person is relieved.

Meg1 “Free will necessitates responsibility”
and who are you to judge when someone is not being “responsible” in the exercise of their freewill (especially as you will not even know the names of every woman who might seek abortion, let alone their reasoning)?

Such a decisions is between them and the God of their faith (not yours).

corrupt?NO!, “They have just allowed millions of potential babies to be flushed down the toilet”

So you want to force women to remain pregnant against their will? Are they cattle and fit only for breeding?

“. Is this what we the majority of women in Australia believe.” – YES

“Once again the loud minority has spoken for the silent majority.” I think you will find that there was actually a majority of the parliament of our law makers in favour of the amendment to relieve the Minister of Health form the burden to veto use of this drug.

Noting, this drug will not increase the number of abortions sought (merely provide an alternative process).

“Political correctness, RU486, gay marriages when will it end. Our moral fibre is being erroded by the loud majority”

Well you cannot have it both ways,
Look on the bright side, at least, gays will not need RU486 or surgical abortions

Well its like this the loud majority should prevail and your silent minority (you used the wrong word there (not “majority”, you cannot have two opposing “majorities”) have to accept the will of the majority.

btw, stick around, although I might seem to counter everything you say, you can be reassured, “political correctness”, the other thing you were whining about is not in my vocabulary, I like to indulge in “political incorrectness” at every opportunity.

As for the erosion of our moral fibre try allbran or metamusal, that’s packed with fibre.

Finally as for “too moralistic or too religious”

Since the lid came off the cesspool, the “religious” have been found to be far from “moral”.
In fact the preference for choir boys by many of the religious leaders from an array of denominations would suggest that “gay” is the order of the day, that is to say nothing of the plain old nasty paedophiles who would put it anywhere and who got recycled by the bishops into other unsuspecting parishes when their corrupt antics were causing too many ripples.

May God protect all the children from all who claim to be “moral and religious”.

Col

While I often find you arrogant and reactionary, and I still choke at your unprovoked insults to me when I lost my job last year, I do admire literate and succinct expression.

In fact, on the subject of abortion you have not only saved me from the necessity of responding to 'those who would control our lives', but provided a great deal of entertainment at the same time. You have people like Meg1, simply repeating themselves. So I do have to doff my cap to you on this occasion.

If I vehemently disagree with you - I will not hesitate to let you know, but in this instance you have displayed a remarkable degree of understanding (for such a rugged individualist) of the difficulties and moral anguish faced by women with an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy.

Cheers

Dianne

Yabby, you are understandably very emotional about the loss of evolving relatives here, but you neglect to accept that many species have, in the normal process of Darwin’s 'theory' of evolution…become extinct…long before man was around to blame for it all. You can’t have it both ways. If you accept that the dominant species rules and survives (i.e., anti-lifers over unborn children) then the same applies to chimps or any other species.

Incidentally, I do not support the indiscriminate killing of any species (i.e., removal of their homes – the womb qualifies here), especially when the purpose is largely driven by greed of those who will benefit financially in the short term at the long term expense of others.

Since both the mother and child will suffer in the short and long-term, while the abortionists receive lucrative fees and government payments for supposedly counseling these women before, as well as then aborting their babies – I have to question the suitability and contradiction in both these ‘services’ being controlled by those who stand to gain financially from their barbaric activities.

Are they held responsible for the burden of cost, financial and psychological, when increasingly these women are unable to conceive or carry a wanted child to term, or for the many other ‘silent’ traumas caused in the long-term?

I make up my own informed mind about this and other issues that I hold opinions on and are prepared to defend, Yabby. It’s you who won’t face the Time Life pics or anything else that presents facts that contradict your own rigid mindset. ‘Reality’ will prevail whether you face it or not.

Despite your judgmental attitude to pro-lifers, it is you who rejects any contention that others have the right to the best information and support…or to differ in their views to your own.

“Free will necessitates responsibility to educate ourselves with facts, not clichés, generalisations and hyperbole or the 'emotive' language of anti-lifers.”

Col, don’t mis-quote to suit your own contradictory ramblings-my quote is repeated above. Responsibility comes with the privilege of exercising free speech and democracy for us all.

"The point about abortion is, the embryo / foetus, whilst its exact position on the journey to “personhood” is not a separate “person”.

Col, whilst I always enjoy your posts and appreciate your ability to reason, I'll try to explain why I see things a little differently.

Your arguments go along the lines used in America, to justify partial birth abortion. AFAIK, at say 7 months pregnancy, that developing person could well live separately, if birth was induced.

Where I strongly disagree with the religious, is that they claim such a thing as objective morality, devinely revealed to them by the so called almighty. Its clearly in their interest to make these claims and thus claim power over the lives of others, but to me morality is subjective and open to reason.

For a society to function, we need some compromises on both sides.
We have the religious nuts on one side, claiming that sperms are holy, then we have those accepting partial birth abortions on the other side.

I think that the middle line accepted by most European nations is not a bad one. At 12 weeks or at the end of the first tremester, there is clearly no question of "personhood". Its a fetus, not a baby. If every woman on the planet, as part of family planning measures, had the right to contraception and abortion to this point,
life would be a breeze compared to what most of the planet's women face now. After 12 weeks, some serious reasons would be required, the health of the woman, genetic abnormalities etc.

The real problem is the fantatical view taken by the Catholic Church. Even alot of followers and priests within the Church are against their doctrine, ie virtually no contraception of any kind, no sterilisation either. At the end of the day sex is normal and natural, not evil. You are right, trying to control peoples sex lives gives them control over their believers. Thats fine for those who want to be part of the Catholic flock, but please leave the rest of us out of it.

Crikey Yabby, at it again? You suggest that the baby is a foetus in the first trimester, so not a person. The no brain and no pain bit is rattled off again. Scientific evidence will contradict you there, so I won’t labour the point as you insist on doing.

A child will go through many stages; newborn, infant, toddler, adolescence, etc. all no more or less human than the other.

It is interesting that you find the dismembering or crushing of some unborn more acceptable than others, even though you acknowledge that they can feel pain during the second and third trimester of pregnancy.

So some of us are ‘more equal than others’ in your eyes - George Orwell could have written your script.

Suffice to say that sounds a lot like the “Animal Farm” version of despotism and I’m sure it helps to be able to grey the edges and the rules on these issues until you find another excuse to widen the parameters again.

A tip – if human life is respected…so too will all life. The teachings of Christ include respect of all life – human and animal. You need to find a balance, Yabby that doesn’t involve you shifting ground every time you turn around.

Good Luck

Scout, I am sorry if what I said you might have taken as “unprovoked insult” in the past.

I hope the “entertainment value” here outweighs those past slights.

Disagree with me all you want, we live in a democracy.

History is full of small minded despots sponsored and supported by the power lobby of religious institutions, who used every tool of class, race, an overbearing social hierarchy and other divisive methods to suborn the spirit and rights of the individual.

It might be my fixation but I will endeavour to stand up against that sort of repressive evil. Abortion is a private decisions and should be respected as such. If I were female, I would do everything to ensure I had the final say in how my body would be used. It would be hypocritical of me to want differently simply because I am male.

Meg1 I did not misquote you. More blowing smoke (or blowing something), lay off the baked beans.

Yabby: PBA and late term abortions. It is irreconcilable that a woman would go through most of a pregnancy and then decide, for no good reason to abort at the later stages. I would suggest the reasons for PBA will only be for dire reasons. No reasonable woman would travel and risk 6 -7 - 8 months to bond with a developing foetus only to abort on a whim. Such a decision would only be as a response to some catastrophic disruption in the normal process of pregnancy.

How society functions does not matter. Society does not have a name. it is merely the collective noun for the individuals who do have names and who have to make individual decisions in the course of their individual daily lives including abortion decisions.

The numbers of abortions merely means a lot of women are making similar decisions. The view of pro-life and many Catholics is “one abortion” is a crisis and too many. No amount of tax-payers money will ever eliminate abortion and nor should it try. Private people making private decisions about many things is what makes “society function”

"Scientific evidence will contradict you there, so I won’t labour the point as you insist on doing."

No it won't Meg, do your homework, not just look at pictures in magazines. Do you know the first thing about development of human brains?

"The teachings of Christ include respect of all life – human and animal" Yet the teachings of the Catholic Church are in part responsible for assisting to wipe out species after species.

Sadly you don't understand the first thing about evolution theory.
Biodiversity is part of sustainability for all species. If one species multiplies and mulitiplies, wiping out others, in the end the whole thing becomes unsustainable and that species eventually crashes with a huge thud in a very short time.

Thats the sad part of today's reality. Religious dogma and total homocentric focus means we ignore our role in nature and if what we are doing is not sustainable, eventually the system crashes, everyone loses, especially humanity.

Next thing you have two religions trying to outbreed each other.
Both are at the point of having technology to wipe each other and themselves out. As more people add more pressure to the system,
somebody will be fanatical enough to push a button and cause a chain reaction. The sad thing is that evolution theory will have been shown to be correct once again, as the planet keeps spinning with insects thriving, just a shame about those mammals that once were.

Goodness Yabby, the Catholic Church is responsible for wiping out species after species...is there anything they are not responsible for in your eyes?

It is truely amazing that you can twist any subject to include blame attributable to the Catholic Church and your evolving relatives and their sexual habits. I'm pleased you and Col have got over one or two of your other sexual fantasies...it's a start.

You fellows should try for some original thought. The US abortion industry (yes there are countless billions made for the perveyors of this barbaric act-no act of compassion for women where the moneymakers are concerned, began with the heirachy of the Catholic Church being attacked by anti-lifers. Why? Because they were a minority within the Church and society and easy to isolate because they would not fight to defend themselves. Refer to Bernard Nathanson's history of the US abortion industry, after all he was the instigator of the 'policy' to make abortion legal in the USA.

So Col and Co are merely gullible parrots of the US anti-life movement spewing the well used propaganda forth across the nation as it was in the USA decades ago.

Meg1 it is said emulation is the greatest form of flattery, so suggesting I might be “gullible” comes as no surprise.
I could thank you but the other truth is a lazy mind will merely repeat the words it last heard. In your case I think your post lends more from laziness than from flattery.

Oh and I have held my views for many years, along time before the pro-choice became a significant group in USA and along time before the media of the internet and instant news gave us up to date reporting of trends around the world.

Your stupid suggestion that I am merely using the “well used propaganda” from USA is a complete crock of sh*t (but at least your posts are consistent in that manner).

I could as easily suggest everything you say is merely a fanatics panacea which you throw around as it was published by the Catholic propaganda machine (and lets face it, the Catholic Religious institutions are the “masters” in propaganda and opinion manipulation - to their own corrupt ends).

As for my “sexual fantasies” more trite impudence and suggested with the remorseless criticism of a malevolent spirit. You have no idea what I might fantasise about – not a clue, you are simply looking for metaphoric stick to beat me with (which is just another example of what Catholics call “love” - the guilt trip).

So do all you want to goad. Try whatever it takes to find something to make me feel guilty about and then use that to exercise authority over me.
If I wanted to exist under that style of repression and guilt, I would simply go the local papist cleric and go to confession.
As it is you are going to have to find a better way of getting under my skin because, when it comes to it, you are a complete amateur and no match for any pro-choicer.

You are entitled to your view. But remember, I am entitled to mine and I will exercise my entitlement vigorously and regularly

Meg1

I am really interested to know just what you think you will achieve by personal invective.

Do you think you will achieve an epiphany among the Pro-Choice mob? Along the lines of "Oh my god - she's right lets enforce all pregant women to give birth whether they want to or not."

Now we all know that's not gonna happen - ever.

Reality Time for Meg1.

Abortion is legal.

Banning abortion forces women to access medical intervention illegally and results in loss of life & injury - we know this from relatively recent history - did you watch Compass recently?

What I would like to know, Meg1 (who values all life so much) just how you would solve the dilemma of unwanted pregnancy without hurting women - BTW adoption does hurt - psychologically not just the mother but the child adopted out. I won't go into the physical problems associated with pregnancy - you're a woman you should be aware.

So what is your solution?

Ban abortion and hope it will just go away?

Or

Provide safe and legal procedures for women to make their well-informed decisions?

Which do you favour, Meg1?

Or do you have another solution which you may opine without resort to personal invective?

The Catholic Church is partly responsible Meg, for it is organisations associated with the pro life movement, which are largely Catholic and which are encouraging people to breed like
rabbits http://www.prolife.org.ph/page/contraception

To hell with sustainability, don't care about starving
children living on rubbish dumps, the answer is to make
even more and create an ever larger problem, all in the name
of religious dogma.

Your argument about America is nonsensical, for doctors would
make far more money letting a fetus come to term, then
make more money from obstetrics etc. So your money argument
is invalid.

80% of American Catholics are even against the Churches policies,
no wonder the Catholic Church has lost credibility and people
like me think that the pope should be charged with environmental
degradation.

‘What I would like to know, Meg1 (who values all life so much) just how you would solve the dilemma of unwanted pregnancy without hurting women - BTW adoption does hurt - psychologically not just the mother but the child adopted out.’

Scout, life hurts us all at times. That’s reality. I have adoptive members of my extended family who are regarded just as those biologically related i.e., much loved, treasured gifts, a cause for grateful thanks.

Your assertions that adoption is ? more hurtful is offensive to those who have adopted out, adoptees and adoptive parents. Many who later seek each other out, often with support from adoptive parents. In my experience, the overwhelming feelings are gratitude for the life that has either been given or nurtured.

Do you know anyone who wishes they didn’t make that choice, whatever the difficulties? The same cannot be said for the statistical evidence on victims of abortion.

At what point of life does a person accept responsibility for the ‘choices’ they make.

It’s no secret how babies are conceived. Human beings are not ‘rabbits’, as such we have a responsibility to respect our bodies enough to know how they work and why and to act accordingly.

Children aren’t a possession to be demanded or destroyed, they are a privilege with a duty of care and responsibility for each.

It is a nonsense to suggest there are ‘unwanted’ pregnancies when it is practically impossible to adopt within Australia because the available children are practically nil.

These aborted children are so WANTED that people are traversing the world to adopt when they can’t here.

Col, your sensitivity to the re-use of your own ‘malevolent’ diatribe is amusing. It is ok for you to use against others though. I’ve made my point! It just takes a while to sink in with you.

Your incessant fantasies about Catholics and priests are indeed YOURS and yes, they are unhealthy.

I am pleased that I am no match for your bigotry, intolerance or malevolent hostility. You may have that dubious honour with no argument from me.

Meg1 I have no fantasies about Catholic Priest. Generally their “weirdness” is enough to fly like a red flag before them to warn of the danger within.

I have commented on the evidentiary practices of the Catholic Church. Those are, when a corrupt priest manifests, instead of expelling him, the historic practice was to cover-up the crime (and paedophilia and abuse of a position of trust are crimes listed in the criminal code), move him on to a new parish and buy the victims silence by agreeing to a settlement with a non-disclosure clause. (Unfortunately that is the model of most religious organisations and hence the basis of my mistrust of all organised religion, in general).

If you like to check, that is what happened. If you need evidence I will be happy to post you any number of website locations which carry details.

I will not comment on your assessment of me, than to say, your writings here display greater competency in the area of “bigotry” than mine ever could.

But to get back to the thread

Who anointed you to tell other women, who you do not know, have never met and who do not give a damn about your personal convictions, that they must not use abortion in the circumstances of their lives (which you have no idea about) because you don’t want them to?

Especially when being a Catholic does not
1 Make you omnipotent.
2 Endow you with insight.
3 Mean you represent anyone other than yourself.

Btw I guess soon this thread will drop off the end of the page and all your posts with is. You will likely join the hoards of other anti-abortionists, who disappear as rapidly as this single thread, many Catholics and some priests among them. You will be gone but I will still be here, posting away on what interests me and waiting to slap down the next attempt in futility by some power crazed zealot driven by their own self-righteousness and ego that is intent on inflicting their closeted opinions on real people.

Meg1

You continue to patronise with statements like:

"Scout, life hurts us all at times. That’s reality." No sh*t Sherlock! Who'da thunk that.

Well, seeing as you have some understanding as to the difficulties of life, perhaps you could afford some support for women faced with an unwanted pregnancy.

I asked a couple of very clear and succinct questions which you have thus far ignored.

Given your acknowledgement of how painful life can be, I will remain optimistic and repeat my questions, now that there does appear to be a heart beating in your bony breast.

So what is your solution?

Ban abortion and hope it will just go away?

Or

Provide safe and legal procedures for women to make their well-informed decisions?

Cheers m'dear

Col, mjpb has fully answered re: Catholic priests and despite your obsession, it is essentially a red herring anyway with no relevance to this thread.

None in these posts is more successful in discrediting their own argument and contradicting it in the one sentence than you Col, as you while away your life ‘waiting to slap down the next attempt in futility by some power crazed zealot driven by their own self-righteousness and ego that is intent on inflicting their closeted opinions on real people’…how tolerant, open-minded, humble, hee, hee, hee…ok, Col…you’ve done it again! How well you describe yourself.

RE: Omnipotence - The difference between you and I on that score is that I have neither claimed, nor desire omnipotence…but I acknowledge He alone who can claim it.

Scout asks ‘perhaps you could afford some support for women faced with an unwanted pregnancy.’ Yes Scout I could and I do. It is interesting that of the support organizations to help women through difficulties in pregnancy and indeed to cope after abortions…it is the pro-life organizations who provide them, including the Churches…not the anti-lifers who claim to support women and their choices.

So much for pro-lifers fading away, yes, we fade back to doing something positive, not just making a lot of noise on numerous posts and expecting the rest of the world to pick up the lives that are destroyed afterwards from ill-informed pressure or demands made with little regard for consequence or responsibilities.

‘So what is your solution?'

Neither Scout – wishin’n’hopin won’t make abortion go away, more self-lessness and self-discipline will… If there is sufficient support and encouragement to do so – most of us manage to live our lives not only taking responsibility for our own actions, sexual included…but also helping others who for whatever reason, need additional support to do so.

That’s the society the Christian Churches aim to encompass…despite human imperfections we keep trying, despite the bigots and the bad-mouthing and the pitiful heckling from the sidelines…and we’ll be there to offer the same to each of you too, should you need it

Well Meg1 at least you have enough grip on reality to know that abortion won't go away.

But you are still in denial with regard to human nature.

You state: "most of us manage to live our lives not only taking responsibility for our own actions, sexual included"

You mean like Tony Abbott?

;-) Yes, being facetious.

Unlike you I believe women faced with unwanted pregnancies need support not judgement.

Read over all your posts Meg; all you do is judge others. I believe you are entitled not to have an abortion and to adopt out if that is what you want to do. That is your right.

You do not have the right to force women to have babies against their will. That is dogma.

Scout, Tony Abbott is an example of someone taking responsibility for his own actions…he was prepared to, very publicly - he was not the father of the young man…in case you missed that point.

Pro-lifers take responsibility for their own actions and sometimes the actions of another, they don’t ask their child to sacrifice their life instead.

RE: abortion won’t go away and being in denial about human nature…try re-reading the post…

‘Scout – wishin’n’hopin won’t make abortion go away, more self-lessness and self-discipline will… If there is sufficient support and encouragement to do so – most of us manage to live our lives not only taking responsibility for our own actions, sexual included…but also helping others who for whatever reason, need additional support to do so.’

‘Unlike you I believe women faced with unwanted pregnancies need support not judgement.’ Scout again try to read the post, not write your script regardless of its relevance…

…’Scout asks ‘perhaps you could afford some support for women faced with an unwanted pregnancy.’ YES SCOUT, I COULD AND I DO. It is interesting that of the support organizations to help women through difficulties in pregnancy and indeed to cope after abortions…it is the pro-life organizations who provide them, including the Churches…not the anti-lifers who claim to support women and their choices.”

The anti-lifers aren’t the ones setting up support networks for these women and their children, the pro-lifers are…

But BREAKING NEWS!…the money’s not lucrative enough from RU486, so the drug companies aren’t going to import it…and the significant risk associated with the drug is an issue with them too!

As for being judgmental Scout, I repeat again: “…also helping others who for whatever reason, need additional support to do so. That’s the society the Christian Churches aim to encompass…despite human imperfections we keep trying…and we’ll be there to offer the same to each of you too, should you need it.”

Who was judging Tony Abbott, Scout?

RE: Dogma – a body of doctrines authoritatively affirmed; belief.

A dictionary may help your difficulty with the meaning of words and inappropriate use of same.

Meg1, Oh dear.

“Col, mjpb has fully answered re: Catholic priests”

I have a small problem. On this thread, I see no posts by mjpb.

Talk about making things up Meg1!

How is that for blocking debate Meg1, claim someone has answered a point when they have not even made a posting on the thread.

Or maybe you saw it on another thread in another forum or maybe you just thought no one would check out your lies?

And the conduct of the Catholic church, as exercised by its priests is of significant relevance to this thread when it is the Catholic church which is behind a lot of the political lobbying to ban abortion and inflict the edicts of the Pope onto this secular society.

So Meg1, when it comes to “discrediting” ones own posts, I would suggest, making up lies about who else has actually posted is the most “discreditable” action possible.

You are quite deluded if you think you can get away with such perversions of the truth – but then again, such dishonesty is nothing compared to what the Roman Catholic Church (and most other organised religious institutions) has been doing it for centuries, in the name of its own omnipotence.

COLD COMFORT is all one as dogmatic as Meg1 can offer a pregnant woman.

I am, for one, much relieved that you were not around when I had an abortion many years ago as a result of a violent and abusive husband. I have been able to completely break my ties from this poor excuse of a man and move on with my life. I often wonder if I would even have a life if I had continued with my pregnancy. I was most certainly at risk.

Interesting how you rush to support Tony Abott - surely you must disapprove of his promiscuous ways? You have lectured the rest of us on abstinence and sexual behaviour. Could Abbott's attempt to control an abortifacient explain your extraordinary tolerance towards this man? Rhetorical question. Not looking for response.

Because, the simple fact is this. I am happy for you to believe whatever you want and, as such, you should extend the same right to me. Otherwise you are being dogmatic.

:-)

“Col, mjpb has fully answered re: Catholic priests” and your invective. Posted by mjpb, Monday, 20 February 2006 6:15:54 PM, Posted by mjpb, Tuesday, 21 February 2006 9:45:03 AM and Posted by mjpb, Wednesday, 22 February 2006 3:32:45 AM, again in further posts on: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4145
Try to stick to the truth, Col. Surely it is not too difficult for you to see the relevance between two threads on RU486 and abortion, although with the irrelevant red herrings randomly introduced about chimps, Churches and sexual fantasies, etc. perhaps it is understandable you may have lost track of the subject.

‘the most “discreditable” action possible’ is judgmental accusations and lies that you know to be untrue…you’ve fallen on your own sword, Col. Let me help you up.

To use your own phrase, ’You are quite deluded if you think you can get away with such perversions of the truth’ – can’t argue with that, pity you’ve been caught out again, huh?

Scout, you've raised your own situation. I wasn't living with that violent, abusive man, so I don't pretend to appreciate the fear for your own safety or perhaps that of your unborn child. Others too have faced that fear in many ways. My argument is that to offer only the killing of a child to any woman as the ‘solution’ to her life’s problems is a cruel and unacceptable punishment for both – and not a solution to the problems that the woman remains with.

To kill a child, also an innocent victim in the case, will simply add additional trauma to the list of problems.

The violent and abusive husband remains and you were still forced to make the decision to remain or leave him, as you chose to do. The ‘solution’ then was to leave, not the abortion. As for getting your life back, that just isn’t possible. Good and bad alike makes us as we are and life can’t go back to where hindsight has us wish to be.

Surely the ideal would have been to have another option, to leave with the assistance of financial and emotional support, without the abortion. That is the option all women ought to have, first.

Capital punishment is not even given to the perpetrators of the most heinous crimes in this country, only our unborn and we ask the mothers to be judge and jury, telling them it’s their ‘choice’ – then society wipes its collective hands and ignores the real need…it doesn’t seem so compassionate in the real light of day, does it?

Whatever Tony Abbott’s imperfections, he alone knows the truth also…I do not judge him, nor you. If the act is wrong, he knows it and will be judged by his atonement for that wrong by his Creator, not by me.

RE: Dogma – a body of doctrines authoritatively affirmed; belief.

Nobody can force you to believe Scout, knowledge opens the door to let us believe what we know to be truth…the key is to search out the knowledge until you find it. Good Luck! : )

I am not sure Scout wanted emotional and financial support to rear that baby. If I had been in her shoes I would want to be rid of the whole sorry relationship. I would be very concerned that the baby would inherit its father's less pleasant characteristics. After all how much of our personality is inherited and how much of it is nurture?

I would like women with an unwanted pregnancy that they don't want to continue - to have access to safe abortions in a medical environment without spending so much time making appointments for counselling, being counselled against abortion etc - that they are more than 12 weeks pregnant by the time the counselling requirements are completed.

If you want to increase the birth rate you need to improve young women's economic conditions so they can afford housing, child care and build stable relationships. The new IR legislation is the greatest deterent to the Australian birth rate. Its the same as in the 1930s when the Australian birth rate was also very low.

Thank you Billie for your understanding. I was in no state to become a mother, let alone endure a pregnancy after years of abuse. My then husband had forfeited any right to become a father as a result of his behaviour - I really didn't want to have his children. I was on the pill, but it failed. Being hit in the stomach and subsequently vomitting was the probable cause.

I was able to access a safe abortion (except for being heckled outside the clinic!). I have never regreted my decision. I believe I am alive today because of the the actions I took. If I had continued my pregnancy I never would've been free of my ex.

People like Meg1 would impose their principles on others rather than deal rationally with life's difficulties. To them a foetus is more important than the life of a child or the life of a woman.

Regards

Billie, you have given your views on what you would have wanted in Scout’s shoes and your version of why she should want the same…nature or nurture, etc. You weren’t in Scout’s shoes and it is presumptious of you to suggest what would be 'easier' for you should be her decision too.

Sadly this is often the case with anti-lifers…abortion is available, therefore use it and don’t bother me with your little ‘problem’…so much for a woman’s ‘choice’.
You ignore the fact that none of us are perfect in any relationship and if your criteria were universally accepted, there would be no children. Who is ‘perfect’ enough to pro-create?

In your eyes, it would be much easier if all those who were likely to need anything would simply go away and dispose of the reason for their need… your reference to babies as 'unwanted spawn' on another thread clearly indicates your lack of respect for both mothers and children and does you no credit.

The real solution - Find out how your reproductive system works and take responsibility for your own actions if you don’t want children, then there won’t be a baby to kill…better still, treat your body with the respect it deserves and practice abstinence until you are in a stable relationship.

Aim for the ideal and then accept that if you don’t reach that ideal, try to show tolerance for the rest of the imperfect human race too and help them out when they need a hand up rather than add to the pressures they may face to abort. Your suggestion re: counseling beggers belief – it takes too much time to make an appointment to counsel the woman? Are you serious? How compassionate, how willing to offer a choice, how considerate of the trauma she is facing. I guess not…

I am often amazed at the level of sophistication applied to justify the taking of life.

Kate may believe that the church cares little for children and more for the principle but I certainly don't. As Catholics we are called to believe that God gives life and we do not have the right to take it away. In my opinion Kate is giving way to modern philosophies that really only concern themselves with power and maintaining it. Kate should really be honest with herself stop calling herself a catholic.

You know when the debate raged about RU486 a number of politicians talked about the slippery slope and cited the fact that in the Netherlands people can be euthanased without their consent. I really believe we are at the bottom of the slippery slope when 10s of thousands of abortions are performed every year. I find it hard to believe the mother is at risk for all these abortions.

I sometimes think that our moral compass is heavily influence by a life that has must have maximum satisfaction and minimum suffering.

I wonder when Kate studied theology if she read about the lives of the saints such as Saint Maria Faustina Kowalska. She had a life of beauty and suffering, truly extraordinary. If we want eternal life these should be our role models.

Well put, Compassionate Catholic.

Like 'membership' of any group...rules apply...if Kate doesn't subscribe to the beliefs or rules of the Catholic Church...that is her choice, nonetheless the beliefs of the Catholic Church still remain valid.

It is difficult to accept Kate's version of events and assumptions about the clerics 'attitude' to her child versus his 'beliefs' - such vague generalisations and assumptions about any person's attitude smack of arrogance and a degree of narrow-mindedness on her part.

Perhaps on a day when Kate feels unwell or tired, she may understand that may have been a simple explanation for the cleric's so-called 'lack of enthusiasm' too.

It is interesting to read so many vitriolic anti-Catholic and anti-life posts on this and other sites, one would suppose Catholics were the only people who were pro-life.

I recently attended a function organised by a Christian Church (not Catholic)...

...listening to the statements made by these fellow Christians at a public function confirmed how strongly supportive of the pro-life position they also are.

It is interesting to read the life story of Dr Bernard Nathanson who was foremost in the US abortion industry. He stated that they deliberately attacked the hierarchy of the Catholic Church as they were easily isolated and therefore easy to target.

No difference here...

Step by step he outlined the anti-life propaganda and step by step the anti-lifers here follow blindly along the same track...

Most interestingly after coming face to face with a tiny baby fighting for life (ectopic pregnancy), Dr Bernard Nathanson began to question the validity of his argument. After careful research,he came to the realisation that, in his own words, 'I had presided over the killing of tens of thousands of innocent human beings.'

He became an outspoken pro-life advocate and exposed the brutal reality of the anti-life industry and the propaganda associated with it.

Hi Meg1,

Thanks for your kind words and support. We must continually pray for these people. They are passionate but mis-guided.

Your description of Dr Bernard Nathanson was very moving. Thanks for making a positive and thoughtful contribution to the debate.

"She had a life of beauty and suffering, truly extraordinary. If we want eternal life these should be our role models."

CC, if you think that suffering is great, thats your problem,
personally I am not into masochism :)

The reason the Catholic Church is attacked, is that they are the
only worldwide institution, fighting politically to ban abortion
and often make people suffer. If you want to suffer fine, don't
force your warped philosophies on the rest of us!

If you want fewer abortions, so follow the Dutch model. Better
sex education, free contraception etc. The figures show that it
works.

Personally, reducing suffering in the world is far more important
to me then notions of holy zygotes or embryos.

The problem with the Catholic Church is not what they believe,
but what they try to foist on others, often through political
means. Whilst they try to do that, they deservedly should be open
to attack, for flawed philosophies IMHO

Hi again Yabby, Compassionate Catholic’s right suggesting there are some whose ordinary-or-difficult-lives seem extraordinary by their attitude-and-selflessness. Rather than complain or indulge in self-pity, they look out for the other's needs, even while enduring significant pain-or-difficulty themselves.

Suffering isn't great Yabby, but nor is life possible without any suffering...the old adage, 'suffering-makes-us-better-or-bitter', sums up the difference a good-or-bad-attitude makes in how we cope with life...faith can help guide that attitude so that we don't simply inflict our self-pity on those around us. :)

It would’ve been nice if you’d managed one post without venting your spleen on the Catholic Church again...as I mentioned, the Catholic Church is NOT the 'only worldwide institution, fighting politically to ban abortion'...you’ve yet to back claims the Church ‘makes people suffer'.

I would suggest that you’ve again foisted 'your warped philosophies on the rest of us!' by arguing that the suffering of innocents, crushed-and-torn-piece-by-piece-from-their-mother's-womb-or-drowned-in-a-bucket should be condoned by the Catholic Church or any rational human being. Indeed...you are the one who accepts that OTHER humans should suffer and DIE, simply for your convenience...

'If you want fewer abortions' the BEST 'sex education'...is abstinence and then an exclusive relationship with your life partner...'The figures show that it works. '

If 'reducing suffering in the world' is important to you Yabby, then you wouldn’t be suggesting that women suffer the effects and after-effects of abortion - physical and psychological - nor would you accept the brutal suffering and death of their children.

'The problem with the Catholic Church is not what they believe'...'they deservedly should be open to attack, for flawed philosophies IMHO'

How’s that for convoluted reasoning...firstly you see no problem with the Church's beliefs… then suggest the Church should be 'open to attack' because you've changed your mind, accusing the Church of 'flawed philosophies'...

IMHO, try more-of-the-HONEST-and-less-of-the-OPINION…

Yabby, the abortion issue and the innocents involved, is a red herring to your own lifestyle issues with the teachings of the Catholic Church…it won’t justify your position, nor will it invalidate the Church's teachings and doctrines. I pray that you resolve those issues and find peace... :)

Meg, once again your philosophies are flawed, but then I did not
expect anything else :)

Trees are innocents, tomatoes are innocents, lambs and calves are
innocents. You chop up some of those innocents and eat them!

Life might not be possible without suffering, but a great deal
of suffering can be avoided, so it makes perfect sense to
minimize it and not claim it as a virtue.

Embryos and zygotes do not suffer Meg, they do not think or
feel either, as they are not children.

The Catholic Church certainly is reponsible for much suffering.
Forcing women in the third world to have children that they cannot
feed or provide for, means whole families suffer from malnutrition.

The figures show that preaching abstinence to teenagers as a solution to lowering the abortion rate, is a dismal failure.
Note the difference in abortion rates between the US bible belt,
where that method is used, and say Holland, where practical sex
education and contraception is used. The difference is astounding.

My reasoning makes perfect sense. In a tolerant world, there are all
sorts of people who believe in all sorts of gurus, spiritual leaders,
you name it, its preached by somebody. Your guru, ie the pope,
is entitled to his opinions. Its when his opinions are foisted on
the rest of us, often through devious political means, that I protest
loudly!

CC is clearly convinced that children are a gift from god. Funny
that that god does not seem to care about having created so many
deformed ones, sick ones, starving ones.

Perhaps a better guide to life would be to put down that Catechism
and have a read of Darwin's "Origin of Species", to understand the
world. As he notes, far more potential beings of any species will
be created, then can ever survive. Thats the basis of evolution
and natural selection. Its a far better guide to the world then anything that any pope has ever published.

Dear Meg1,

I did some research on Dr Bernard Nathanson. It was very interesting. Here is a guy who presided over 75,000 abortions and has now converted to Catholicism. What a turn around! Clearly he has the credentials to critically analyse the situation and his findings are profound. If I can paraphrase he states that life begins at conception and life has its origin in the divine. He also states that he manipulated the media to convince the American public that abortion was a necessary. One of these tactics was to viciously attack the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. The supporting evidence was fabricated i.e. abortion was introduced on a series of lies.

Yabby, according to Dr Bernard Nathanson, your beliefs on abortion are based on media manipulation, not the truth. You sound like a seeker of truth to me. Why limit yourself. The Church has 2000 years of history containing divinely inspired philosophical truths.

I implore you to open your mind to this. I started to explore this seriously 2-3 years ago and there is a peace and reassurance that I have experienced.

If you are going to criticize the Church, at least try to understand its position on these matters.

All the best.

Innocent – having-or-showing-the-simplicity-of-an-unworldly-person, a-young-child, a-person-without-cunning-or-deceit…NOT a fruit or vegetable, Yabby. :) (Dictionary-Definition)

Rather than claim SUFFERING as the virtue, it’s your ATTITUDE to suffering and your method of dealing with life or suffering in general that can be virtuous or otherwise, Yabby… : )

If baby is big enough to be ripped apart, Yabby, it feels every tear and jab…most convenience abortions performed in this country are well past the age-stage of development where feeling is a given.

Contrary to your obsessive accusations, the Catholic Church feeds-and-clothes numerous third world families…it’s your corporate-mates and corrupt-governments who ensure they remain poor-and-malutritioned…no-one in the Catholic Church FORCES women to become pregnant. Third-world women have many pregnancies so a small number may survive…i.e., high mortality rate due to the malnutrition you mentioned…abortion is less prevalent than affluent countries.

You’re confusing live births from country-to-country with success-or-failure of a policy of abstinence? Holland has a high Catholic population…perhaps they're practicing abstinence…there's no shortage of contraception available in the so-called ‘bible belt’…

Statistics…damned-lies-and-statistics…you can distort them to make black into white by only providing selective data…look at the whole picture Yabby.

Your world, by virtue of your bigoted attitude to Catholics, is far from tolerant…but devious, political and loud…you said it! : )

…free will means some CHOOSE to put at risk some of God’s gifts, therefore they suffer accordingly…there is food enough for all…justly distributed. Human-greed-and-selfishness-is-the-obstacle.

If you believe in Darwin’s ‘theories’, deformities and frailties should not be so confusing to you…when you match genes…sometimes the results will produce irregularities to the ‘norm’…sometimes genius or strength, sometimes a disability.

By your own definition…bonobos and chimps should get 'eaten'…that's the rule of evolution…the strong survive. There's-obviously-no-reason-to-‘protect’-the-vulnerable(chimps-and-bonobos-included)-on-this-planet-if-guided-by-‘natural-selection’…

…shot yourself in the foot again, Yabby.

Perhaps you should get out more and open the window to knowledge – Darwin is not a ‘guide to the world’…it's one man’s narrow view from the basement of life...try to climb mountains and see the view from the peak...that's God's word.

Compassionate Catholic, you've had the courage to seek truth...that is it's own reward...peace, reassurance, hope...unending love...God!

Dear CC, one Nathanson swallow does not make a summer lol. Abortion
has been around for far longer then the media ever existed!
People are not silly. They naturally enjoy sex, as they evolved
to do, but they are also aware that there are limits to how
many kids they can feed, clothe and educate. The notion that
couples should abstain from sex if they don't want any more
kids is pure Catholic codswollop and very bad philosophy.
They even ban the snip! Methinks its their way of trying
to create more little Catholics, in order to beat their
archenemy, the Muslims, in the demographics stakes.

CC, you clearly need religion to cope with life, ok thats fine,
I think there is a genetic component there, for good evolutionary
reasons. Some people need perceived certainty to achieve brain
homeostatis and thus feel better. That does not make it
all true.

Rest assured that I know a great deal about the 2000 years of
the Catholic Church, the more I learn, the more I become a critic.
I don't believe the divinely inspired stuff, I see the reality
of corruption, selling of indulgences, having heretics burnt at
the stake, manipulation of the gullible masses etc, all to the
benefit of church power. Read up on the sex lives of past popes,
they sure knew how to party :)

Ahh Meg, so you stick to chopping up innocent calves and lambs
then... same point lol.

Yup, its about attitude to suffering Meg. The best attitude is
to see that its avoided as much as possible, by both people
and other species. Unlike Opus Dei members, I have no intentions
of whipping myself and wearing spikey chains, then calling that
virtuous :)

A foetus does not feel or think Meg, it doesent have a functioning
brain. Abortion up to 12 weeks, which is the most common, does not
cause suffering. No functioning brain = no person, just clumps
of developing cells.

Few people in Holland are practising Catholics, Meg. Good
sex education and contraception is what its about.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922117.html

One Yabby’s codswallop that’s hard to swallow…doesn’t make anything either ROFL.

Methinks your imagination has run away from your reality again, Yabby… : )

Rather than believe in divine inspiration…you believe you are ‘darwinspired’…ROFL.

Now that’s credible?

Darwin has a ‘party till the last one drops’ philosophy…who are you to cast stones?

Love that BBQ steak…but I draw the line at butchering babies…you obviously can’t grasp the difference between human and animal life, not rocket-science. Lions eat other animals too…they are higher on the food chain…you don’t need darwin to work that one out…somewhat like bonobos and chimps in relation to their consuming public.

‘Yup, its about attitude to suffering Meg. The best attitude is
to see that its avoided as much as possible, by both people
and other species.’

So explain why you encourage the butchering of babies and physical and psychological pain and suffering to their mothers? Hypocrisy has to be your middle name…

Interestingly Dr Bernard Nathanson held up a foetus well below the 12 week age that you have nominated, Yabby…it was struggling for life in it’s tiny sac…very human and perfectly formed. (Ectopic pregnancy)

Your argument about brain development is nonsense…perhaps you are speaking from your own womb experiences?

Scientific evidence and anecdotal evidence supports the foetus’ reaction to stimuli at less than 12 weeks…

A human baby, is a human baby … is a human baby, at any stage or age.

If you slipped into a temporary coma during a diabetic state of hypoglycaemia…should you be ‘euthenased’? Your own assertions would kill you…hmmmm.

‘Few people in Holland are practising Catholics, Meg. Good
sex education and contraception is what its about.’

More nonsense…do you have weekly Church attendances in Holland?

Yes, the Catholic Church teaches ‘good sex education’ and the best method of ‘contraception’…natural family planning, so that BOTH partners share the responsibility and the outcomes of sex together…Catholics enjoy intimacy together, as the Creator intended.

Darwin’s private life isn’t something that bears thorough investigation however…given his theories, there are some quite revolting possibilities he’s opened up there…you and your ‘relatives’ again…

Yabby

If you haven't already heard about it, Robyn Williams has a new book out: "Unintelligent Design".

Using all the richness of the scientific and natural worlds, Robyn Williams takes on the stalking monster in a short, wicked and witty debunk of ID.

Why make the earth, the solar system, our galaxy and all the rest, he asks, when the Garden of Eden was all that was needed? And then there's lifespan. During long periods of human history, the life expectancy of men was a mere 22 years and children were lucky to toddle, let alone grow up. Why the waste?

It doesn't explain why the religious want to dump their beliefs on the rational, but I think you will enjoy it anyway - you deserve enlightened entertainment.

Yabby,

I have been a practicing catholic for more than 40 years. I have experienced some amazing things and I can tell you it has nothing to do with evolution. All I can say is you can remain angry and bitter or you can start exploring the divine. This is what makes us truly human.

On the point of abortion, am I to understand that because you believe babies in the womb don’t feel pain then it is OK to kill them?

The Catholic Church is made up of people and people make mistakes including abuse of power.

I have met people in Opus Dei over the last 5-10 years and they are some of the most genuine people I have ever met. Your explanation of them is very narrow and predictable.

You know it's very easy to go with the crowd. Over the last 200 hundred years science has tried to smother Religion and philosophy. I'm not sure why. Evolution is still a theory. The Vatican certainly has no problem with the concept of evolution or science generally.

Read about the lives of the saints. Very inspiring stuff.

Yabby if there is no Divine, what created the big bang and what is the point to anything?

Scout, I will look for that book, next time I visit an ABC bookshop.
Sounds like just up my alley. Thanks!

CC, why should I be angry or bitter? To me, I am simply better
informed and less gullible then you or Meg :) I am sure that there
are some nice people in the Catholic Church, that does not mean
that they are not deluded.

Science has explained things, which religion tried and got it all
wrong. Cholera was not caused by sin after all, people were not
possessed by devils, they suffered from epilepsy. etc. etc.
People have become less gullible, by being better educated and
informed. They least religious are biologists. They also happen
to have the best understanding of evolution theory.

Your questions call for a God of the gaps, to feel better, by
feeling certainty. Some things we don't yet know, due to lack
of evidence. Why not wait for more evidence, rather then jump
to conclusions by accepting the word of snake oil salesmen?
The point of life is what you make it to be. Like leaving it
a better place, for the next generation, or whatever.

Meg, as a housewife, you perhaps do not understand the difference
between a zygote, an embryo, a foetus and a baby. They are not one
and the same. Educate yourself please.

A piece of muscle tissue, hung on a piece of wire, struck by
lightning, will respond to stimulation. That does not make it a
thinking or feeling person, with a functioning brain.

We know all about brain development from Science. Educate yourself
please.

Yes I have Church attendances in Holland, somewhere on this computer.
I've published the URL before. The Catholic Church does not matter
in Holland.

Yabby,

You have not responded to any of my points. You should really educate yourself. Read Bernard Nathanson's book (thanks Meg). You have a very closed mind. You sound like an angry uni student. I'm not sure why. You know, a hallmark of maturity is to be open minded. There are some wonderful things about the Catholic Church and its traditions like the Marian apparitons. You make it sound like a conspiracy, which it is clearly not. An institution does not last for more than 2000 years if it does not have substance. Surely you can see that. Many scientists do!

Once again, on the point of abortion, am I to understand that because you believe babies in the womb don’t feel pain then it is OK to kill them?

Yabby, open your mind. Your external life depends on this!

Scout…if children didn’t live past toddler-stage…where did the ‘men’ come from?…your judgement is clouded by imagination.

You’ve slipped from darwin to an …actor to ‘inspire’ and ‘guide’ your way…aim higher……………….’enlightened’?..........…ROFL : ))

Robyn Williams can act, but is not expert in the sciences or life-choices…’short, wicked and witty’…that’s Robyn…come-in-spinner, how gullible?…buy his book, so now he’s a WEALTHY writer, too! Noting today’s foray into international media, drugs-and-alcohol continue to dominate his life…and likely influenced his ‘expert’ opinion.

Examine the title of the book…“Unintelligent Design”…perhaps he’s having a shot at your gullibility too, Scout?

While we’re examining the ‘rational’…buying books and blindly following disciples-of-drugs‘n’alcohol to justify your own life choices…doesn’t make them right and won’t give you peace…only one ‘book’ will.

Why would God create so much beauty, far above what’s necessary…inspiring us to aim high?…perhaps because he loves us and wants us to have it all!

Why create us at all? Why give us free will to choose to do good or mess-up? Why? His eternal, unending love…

If you examine history and science…vast numbers of those who played significantly beneficial roles in either history or science were Catholic…cures for numerous ailments, magnificent use of their talents to inspire or benefit others…curious-you-can’t-credit-those?

Perhaps believing in a higher power inspired them to realise their worth and ability…to aim for the sky rather than sink to the depths and inflict evil and harm on others. Killing others – born or unborn will be historically judged like Hitler is…or Pol Pot…

A man is no less human as a baby or a foetus.

Compassionate Catholic's right…if lack of pain sensors justifies killing…would you anaesthetise all criminals or those poor, black African children you’ve such a problem with…and then euthanize them all…you’re creating a dangerous precedence here…would Yabby and Scout be safe either?

Yabby, patronising ‘housewives’ is typically narrow-minded of you. My education and involvement in the work-force, voluntary and paid is ongoing. I however consider my role as a wife and mother as a priority, clearly incomprehensible to one in your position…

…interesting how sad-and-bitter is invariably attributed to you by other posters…

Thanks Yabby

The book will be good therapy after reading all the insults rained upon you for simply and honestly giving your POV.

Cheers

Meg1,

I’m not sure if Welsh born Australian broadcaster Robyn Williams (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robyn_Williams ) can act, but he has impeccable credentials as a science commentator. I reckon you’re confusing him with Robin Williams of Mrs Doubtfire fame.

Nanoo nanoo,

Snout (not Scout)

Snout, you are going way above Meg's head here, expecting her
to know about Aussie Science broadcasters. She's a good little
Catholic housewife, who follows what Archibishop Pell says,
she's not into science. You might get my drift :)

CC, Nathanson is yet another Catholic pseudo guru that Meg
has thrown up here. Last time it was Mother T, so we examined
that one and the sad truth came out :( I've been sparring
with Meg now for quite some time :)

So let me go back to basics with you CC. Most women could
create over 400 potential people in their lives, reality
prevails, they cannot all survive. So it really should be
up to mothers to decide, how many children they can feed, clothe
and nurture for 20 years or whatever. Forcing women to have
children that they cannot provide for, leads to much suffering
in this world.

The notion of the sanctity of life is all very nice, but lets
judge people by their actions rather then words. Lots of people
want to tell other people what to do, with the others resources,
not their own.

The Catholic Church, an extremely rich organisation, spends a
fortune on the pomp and splendor of Rome. Opus Dei alone is
said to be worth over 2.6 billion$, thats just a small
offshoot. So we see where their priorities lie. Pomp and
splendor clearly matter more to them then starving babies,
or their priorities would be different. You and Meg could
sell your computers tomorrow and send the money to Africa.
Clearly you prefer to argue with me, then save another couple.
Those are your priorities as we can evidence them here and now!

So the reality is, that the discussion of the sanctity of life
is mostly rhetoric. 30k people in India a year die of rabies,
which could easily be prevented with vaccination and a few $.
My personal belief is that lets focus our limited resources
on people, who are suffering, rather then the near unlimited
amount of potential people, that women could produce.

Yabby,

This is old tired propaganda. You are a very confused individual and you have still not answered my questions.

Do you really believe the Church lives for pomp? Oh please!

I'll let you in on a little secret. I know a Catholic healer and mystic. I won’t mention his name now but I'll ask if I can (re: privacy). He has been receiving messages and divine inspiration for 16 years and he travels the word at the invitation many parishes. He has been endorsed by his Bishop. Through him God has healed hundreds of people. His website has numerous testimonials. The doctors of the healed individuals can only use the word miracle to explain it i.e. healings like this just don't happen instantaneously.

His spiritual directors are in no doubt about his spiritual experiences and are amazed at his in-depth knowledge of Catholic orthodoxy considering he was a lapsed Catholic with very little knowledge of the faith.

I was also amazed. I didn't know or believe that this kind if thing still happens, but it does.

God bless you Yabby. I will keep you in my prayers even though I don't know you and probably never will.

Compassionate Catholic.

Yabby,

You are possibly right about Meg1, but I couldn't let her disparage one of the finest minds in the country. Perhaps that's what comes of believing there is only one book in the world worth reading.

I'll certainly be looking out for Robyn Williams' new book. I've been following his career ever since his early days with Take That ;-)

Sing when you're ahead!

CC, I thought I had in fact answered your questions, in my own
philosophical way, just not as you expected. I do admit however
that the 350 word limit often means that I have to chop my replies
in half, to meet the criteria. What specifically bugs you?

I too have friends who suffer from schizophrenia, or hearing
voices as you call it, nothing magical about that, it affects
1%-2% of the population.

The placebo effect is well known too. Nearly all scientific trials
experience it to some degree, when it comes to curing sickness.
Clearly the power of the mind is a powerful intrument, which dominates the body, specifically the immune system. So no magic
there either.

The skeptics in fact, have a 1 million $ prize on offer, for anyone
who can show substantiated evidence, of any paranormal powers.
If your friend really has them, I am sure that his favourite charity, would love the money! You and he are free to provide your
evidence to them, for 1 million $!

Nowhere did I state that the RCC lives for pomp. Simply that they
spend alot of money on pomp in Rome, which we can all observe.
They are free to prioritise their expenditure. Clearly pomp matters
more then starving babies to them, or their priorities would be
different to what they are.

No need to pray for me CC. Your god clearly does not give a
sh*t about the many starving and deformed babies that he created
as a gift to you, or so you claim. Best he focuses on their poor
lives, I am doing pretty well, thank you...

Snout, not SCout...yes, since certain people have consistent spelling errors in their posts...I considered that the comments attributed were just a few more...

As Robin Williams is regularly quite outspoken on issues outside of his acting expertise and lately on his own personal struggles…the comments were applied accordingly…

In fact, Robyn Williams of science and broadcasting notoriety has enjoyed the odd foray into the acting sphere himself…

He does not own the rights to scientific ‘expertise’ however and your adulation (humanist bent acknowledged) is unsurprising … numerous other scientific minds here and overseas are happy to acknowledge their Catholic or Christian beliefs which they do not see as contrary to scientific debate or fact. : )

For anyone who considers they have a reasonable knowledge of the facts on the abortion and anti-life debate, in particular, to have no knowledge of Dr Bernard Nathanson...the architect of the anti-life propaganda debate in the USA and one of the first US abortion industry practitioners...indicates their narrow-minded determination to simply justify their own position and actions, irrespective of all contrary facts on the issue. Since the anti-life lobby still blindly follows the same propaganda and methods…see previous anti-life posts…one would think they’d like to know a little about the architect of their methods.

Dr Nathanson realized the error of his position and became an ardent pro-life campaigner…once he could no longer ignore the scientific facts on life in the womb.

It is interesting that you chose and recognized the Bible as the ‘book’ that will offer peace. Congratulations…

However, your suggestion that I may believe ‘there is only one book worth reading’ is the sort of arrogant assumption that comes from refusing to read anything yourself that may provide you with some enlightenment on the life issues or any other that may not suit your own mindset…with Scout and Yabby you remain in like company.

Why don’t you think outside the square, open the window to your own mind and recognize that others have valid beliefs and arguments that are contrary to your own.

tbc...

(Cont...)

I have grown used to anti-lifers like Yabby and others, ‘disparaging’ any who attempt to live their lives selflessly and in the interest of those around them…like Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul 11.

‘…the sad truth came out :( I've been sparring
with Meg now for quite some time :)’

Let’s examine ‘the sad truth’ that ‘came out’ Yabby…that you are incapable of acknowledging even ONE CATHOLIC who has made any contribution to ANYTHING of worth…including Mother Teresa and that you consider that the more bile you produce, the more people will believe what you say just because you have said it…so how pitifully SAD are you? Pity you didn’t manage any truth either…we’ll leave the ‘coming out’ at that…

Contrary to your claims, Yabby…the only one you belittled and condemned by your grossly vitriolic attacks has been yourself…I guess you’ve nothing to sing about after all…

With all the prayers from pro-life Catholics…you just may reach that peaceful realization one day, who knows? : )

What you do is definitely NOT ‘sparring’ …more like warring…after all, the barriers to any real knowledge or truth entering your mind are set up like a minefield, designed to explode with meaningless, irrelevant and predictable propaganda at any time.

Again, check for yourself…every one of your posts on this subject (on any thread) has attacked the Catholic Church and Catholics generally or specifically, pro-lifers also…clearly a bitter, sad and confused individual attempting to justify actions and life-choices of his own…

Sad too that you feel threatened by a ‘housewife’ who can think for herself and back her arguments with facts...or more specifically, a woman who does so...you really are quite transparent Yabby...

Curious why you see the present politically driven, Islamic attacks on innocents and their treatment of women as not deserving of your bile, perhaps the response from that sector wouldn’t be with prayers though…

Well Yabby,

You have still not answered all my questions. This is because you can't. It is interesting that you have drifted into the "power of the mind" argument which you can’t prove just as you can't prove evolution.

Many scientists believe in the divine but you are too narrow minded and childish to even consider it. You will be the loser out of all of this. Man’s greatest sin is pride, and mate, you have buckets of it.

Do you think the Catholic Bishop I was referring to would have checked for schizophrenia? I pretty sure they do. Also I don't think the healer I was referring to is after the money. It’s a poor second after the graces he has received.

Just for completeness sake I have included the details of one of the many healings I referred to. (Yes Yabby it must be the power of the mind… I think you’re drifting into “la la” land or is this just when your own poor arguments fail you?).

1. Diseases:
Rheumatoid arthritis, hypo-thyroid, hypoglemia, osteopenia. Birth defect in leg which bent leg back. Could not stand. Used a wheelchair. Could not feed herself Could not write.

2. After healing 28/9/02:
Knees and back straight. No pain- Can now walk, stand and kneel. No hypoglycemia and no immune system problems.

3. Doctor's Testimonies

Dr # 1: 'She is no longer on thyroid medication and has no evidence of thyroid disease. She no longer has any symptoms of carpal tunnel syndrome and has no pain with walking.'

Dr # 2: 'Her once crippling condition has miraculously improved and seems non existent. The patient is no longer confined to her wheelchair and her braces she wore for support and relief. In my fifteen years of practice I have never seen such change in any patient condition- I could not even try to explain the healing that has occurred in any medical terms.'

CC,

Thanks for providing those details of a “miraculous” healing, but I doubt what you have given would satisfy the most basic scrutiny of peer review in a scientific setting.

Pain is highly subjective, and its behavioural manifestations are very individual and at least in part due to the degree to which the patient is invested in the sick role. If this person became pain free, and gave up using her wheelchair following her experience with this “healer” this is indeed a positive outcome, but this is not unusual, or objective proof of supernatural intervention.

Her list of conditions is rather vague, and it would be difficult to demonstrate objective reversal of pathology without knowing a bit more about each of them, and doing scientifically valid measures before and after. Rheumatoid arthritis typically follows a fluctuating course: a period of subjective improvement can’t be taken as evidence of “cure”. “Hypoglycaemia”, while a well recognized complication of diabetes treatment and of some other metabolic conditions, is also a perennial favorite of the alternative medicine set – often in the absence of any objective evidence about actual blood sugar – and seems to respond, like many conditions, to attention to a healthy diet and a more generally positive life outlook.

I have no trouble accepting that this person may have found a more healthy and functional way of living through her religious faith, and I hope she has been able to sustain this improvement in her health long term. But this is not the best measure of changes in objective pathology. These days medical fact is based on careful objective observation with peer review and testimonial claims are treated with suspicion for sound reasons. See http://skepdic.com/testimon.html .

Meg1,

I take your point about the “one book”: it was a cheap shot, but reflects my frustration at the tendency of followers of revealed religion to reference everything to a single collection of texts. I do indeed acknowledge that others may have valid beliefs, and I enjoy exploring the beliefs of others, but I will also defend my own.

May your God bless you.

CC, ask your doctor what the placebo effect is. He should explain
it to you. Nope your bishop would not know much about schizophrenia.
His church still has a dept for exorcising demons after all.
Now what other questions do you have?

Wow Meg, all that egg on your face about Robyn :) At least you
now know who he is. Perhaps you should tune in to the Science Show
sometime, you might learn lots and lots, certainly more then in
church.

Meg, I am amused that you should think that I feel threatened by
you, for in fact you amuse me :) But let me be frank, I am a skeptic.
I spent years on some of the skeptics lists and quite honestly,
people like you and CC would be chewed up and spat out intellectually, with your entrails tragging behind you, on those
sorts of lists :)

Years ago now, I spent years arguing with Al Queda supporters etc.
I read things like Milestones, by Sayyid Qutb, to understand the
radical sign of Islam and yes I was threatened many times, but stuff
like that does not concern me. OLO is a very tame version of some
of the international talkboards, but I like the fact that it deals
with Aussie issues. On OLO there are so many xtian taliban who attack
the muslims, there is no need for me to say anything.

OTOH few Aussies are actually aware of all the things that the
Vatican gets up to. The impression is that they are just a bunch
of harmless little old men and women, which is far from reality.

If analysed critically (as us skeptics do) then its clear that much
misery and suffering in the third world is due to the Catholic Church. Even true believers are shocked by that, many go into denial,
but many also open their eyes and think again. I'm delighted to see
that others are reading some of those urls and now quoting from
them

…And-may-He-bless-you-too-Snout.

…so you’ll understand ‘my frustration at the tendency of followers of’ humanism-darwinism-globalism-skepticism-etc… ’to reference everything to a single collection of texts’…

‘Rheumatoid arthritis typically follows a fluctuating course’

…however, effects can be measured progressively through pathology, visually, x-ray, etc…cure-would-be-measurable-at-each-point,if-progression-had-been-significant-enough…ditto-to-other-‘immune-system’-diseases.

Hypoglycaemia (and-the-presence-or-absence-of-diabetes) is measured-through-effective-pathology-testing-which-both-medical-gentlemen-would’ve-used-before-putting-their-medical-credentials-on-the-line…

‘Pain is highly subjective…manifestations are very individual…degree…the patient is invested in the sick role….person became pain free…gave up using her wheelchair…this is not unusual, or objective proof of supernatural intervention.’

Snout, I’d consider abandoning-of-a-wheelchair-and-becoming-pain-free-from-the-list-of-ailments,quite-unusual…but perhaps you’ve visited Lourdes …

Compassionate Catholic didn’t suggest any one fact was ‘the proof’…nor did she claim any medical knowledge, simply-stating-the-opinions-of-two-medical-professionals-who-have.

RE: list of ailments…you may or may not know that osteopaenia is painless in itself, but its effects are measurable and it’s not possible to ‘cure’ it overnight medically…any improvement’s a very gradual affair…also measurable. Medicating patients requires doctors to have measured the before and after of this condition also.

I feel sure neither of the two doctors mentioned would’ve risked their patient’s life by removing thyroid medication unless they were sure that the patient was cured and had done the necessary tests…pre-cure tests are a given as she wouldn’t have been on medication otherwise…

…not sure how you’d explain the ‘miraculous cure’ of a birth defect that straightened the woman’s leg…and allowed her to walk…faked too, huh?

…carpal tunnel syndrome doesn’t disappear without treatment either…at a guess I’d think that few would ‘fake’ illiteracy or inability to perform basic duties like feeding.

For someone who professes to look for the facts Snout, you are selling yourself short with that reply and your comments on this case.

I’m not aware of this case history, yet can point out the obvious easily…how much more so with the medical history?

If you were submitting the comments on a medical diagnosis as a medical student and I was evaluating…I may have suggested that you refrain from voicing your ignorance…you’d have to provide better argument to gain a passing grade.

‘I doubt what you’ve given would satisfy the most basic scrutiny of peer review in a scientific setting.’

tbc...

(Cont…)

Ditto to you, Yabby…your comments are so predictable that I could answer your post without even reading it.

While I bow to your personal knowledge and/or experience with Schizophrenia, I concur with Compassionate Catholic and suggest that both medical professionals would have done extensive tests knowing that theirs would not be the last medical examinations performed to verify the results…

RE: Robyn…check that paragraph for spelling and start wiping the egg off your own face since that’s the very reason I assumed the wrong Robyn…as it is a VERY common name and the recent outspokenness of Robin Williams led me to the reasonable conclusion.

Both yourself and Scout generally ‘reference everything to a single collection of texts’, usually heresay rather than scientific evidence…

I am curious to know whether you ‘spent years on some of the skeptics lists’ as the object of their ridicule or as their hero? You didn’t specify…

If you are an example of the ‘best’ of skepticism…lol…ROFL… : ) I’d enjoy a meeting just to see all of ‘your entrails tragging behind you’.

‘On OLO there are so many xtian taliban who attack
the muslims, there is no need for me to say anything.’

Since there are plenty of your anti-Catholic ilk on OLO also…why do you bother to say anything…especially as it is not the topic of any of the threads involved? You have again ‘voiced your ignorance’ as there are no Christians in the taliban…lots of skeptics though, I hear…of course, unlike you, I don’t believe everything I hear…

Yabby, when it comes to the Catholic Church or anything else…you appear incapable of analyzing…let alone analyzing critically…enough said and still you’re unable to offer any evidential replies.

Perhaps, in the final analysis, messing around with nature may be the biggest mistake Yabby…nature’s an exacting accountant…I wonder if there’ll be research done into why some male children no longer have the Y-chromosome, the growing fertility ‘crisis’ in the western world, or the increasingly documented ‘effeminism’ of men …could-messing-with-hormone-drugs- (the pill, etc.)-during-reproductive-years,be-responsible-for-problems-in-subsequent-generations? Perhaps-it’s-involvement-with-other-drugs? Who-knows,but-you-may-not-have-to-worry-about-future-population-increases…

Meg1,

Thanks for the posts and the courage to put your points forward. You know I thought it was a waste of time responding to yabby and the other guy but you have done it for me.

My aim was to share a positive uplifting story but it appears yabby spends a lot of time dishing up canned responses without ever digesting what has been written. You have taken the time to understand and explain it to these guys. Well done.

I don't think I have experienced this level of venom and vitriol before. It's quite disturbing especially with all these claims of saving the developing world. I think it's a bit of a smoke screen. I think the reality is we are dealing with angry young men who fuel these views with a bit of reading and then add a lot of distortion.

All I can say is, for those who have ears to hear...listen.

Compassionate Catholic

Meg1,

“If you were submitting the comments on a medical diagnosis as a medical student and I was evaluating…I may have suggested that you refrain from voicing your ignorance…you’d have to provide better argument to gain a passing grade.”

Having sat on both sides of the table in medical students’ examinations I am well aware of the type of critical thinking that is expected in medical science. I was, I thought, quite careful not to make specific comments about this lady’s clinical status, as CC’s information does not provide any accurate clinical data. I merely described in very general terms some of the common pitfalls non medical people make in interpreting testimonial stories of this type.

“…carpal tunnel syndrome doesn’t disappear without treatment either”

Actually, it quite often does. Surgical treatment is usually reserved for the most persistent cases.

“osteopaenia is painless in itself, but its effects are measurable”

Neither of the doctors appear to have made any comment on changes to this condition, let alone provided any data to support such a change.

“neither of the two doctors mentioned would’ve risked their patient’s life by removing thyroid medication unless they were sure that the patient was cured and had done the necessary tests”

You’re making some assumptions here about the cause, severity and usual course of this lady’s specific condition. People quite often go on and off thyroid hormone (sometimes against medical advice) and the course of the condition can vary significantly over time, particularly in borderline cases.

continued below

“Hypoglycaemia” meaning the common post prandial syndrome rather than the potentially life threatening complication of diabetes treatment, does not correspond to any readily available pathological test such as blood glucose monitoring. It does, however, have a strong association with somatization (the tendency to express psychological distress through bodily symptoms and illness behavior). Of course it would be purely speculative to suggest that this might have anything to do with this lady’s “miraculous” recovery. We simply do not have enough evidence to say that there has been any objective change in this lady’s physical pathology.

As I said earlier I would be quite open to the possibility that this lady’s experience has led to a positive improvement in her sense of health and well being. My clinical experience leads me to believe that such dramatic changes are not always sustained long term. I hope this lady is one of the fortunate ones.

Meg1, my medical training teaches me not to “point out the obvious easily” from a testimonial report while being unaware of the objective measurable facts of a specific case. This is not “voicing ignorance”: I can only comment about medical conditions in general terms. If such information is not useful to you, then so be it. While a skeptical, scientific mindset might be unattractive to you, it is essential to medical practice – a fact not lost on those who do, in fact, assess medical students.

Finally, I might point out that I don’t believe that “Compassionate” and “Catholic” are necessarily oxymoronic, although I have no religious beliefs myself. In my early days I worked with some splendid women who happened to be Catholic nuns, and who took a – shall we say “freethinking” – view of some of the more dogmatic pronouncements emanating from Rome and the Melbourne archdiocese

Meg, your posts simply reflect your arrogance. If you had been
half decent, you would have apologised to Scout about the Robyn
saga. She had written a message to me, you butted in, ignorantly,
calling her gullible etc. Now you claim that was all reasonable!
Reasonable perhaps for somebody who reads the gossip columns
and who knows nothing about Australian Science! I knew
immediately who Scout was referring to, not only based on
the name, but on the description. Your arrogance and
ignorance have all shown through yet once again. Now say
sorry to Scout.

I was a participant on some skeptics lists. If you want to
learn about critical thinking, compared to the gullibility
of many religious zealots, thats where you could learn something.

Hundreds of millions prayed for the last pope, the old boy still
fell off the perch in the end, so much for your power of prayer :)
But of course it makes you feel better to think it works, so thats
all that matters.

Not nearly enough of my anti Catholic ilk on OLO Meg, mainly because
few know enough about what the Vatican gets up to in the third world.
Hopefully I am busy changing that, so that more will question why
the Church can get away with causing so much misery and suffering
in the third world, yet claim to be compassionate.

The Christian Taliban are simply Christians who are as fanatical
as the Muslim Taliban. There are plenty of those around.

I agree that messing with nature can be a problem. Thing is, if
you mess with nature in some things, but not with others, if the
result is unsustainable, in the end, nature will bite you in your
proverbial arse and restore the balance. If humanity is not careful,
the planet will land up spinning with little more then cockroaches
and ants on board. Our species and that of other mammals will have
been a mere blimp in the history of planet earth. Mother nature
will have her own judgement day, it will all have been our own fault.

Thanks Yabby, yes my message was just for you. However, Meg (yet again) has condemned herself by her own words. I would appreciate an apology but won't hold my breath.

Snout, again logic and reason prevail, excellent rebuttal of CC's claim.

Regards

Dear All,

I wonder if anyone managed to see Andrew Denton interview Mike Willisee. Mike has witnessed and experienced some extraordinary things including filming stigmata. I have also heard him speak about this first hand. His life changing experience is inspiring.

What took me completely by surprise was the fact that no skeptic has come forward to test his claims. He also referred to James Randi as a phoney. Apparently Randi is the guy that has offered a million dollars to anyone who can prove the paranormal.

The point I have tried to make in previous posts is that these things should be viewed with an open mind. Being skeptical is just one approach. The benefits are enormous if you keep an open mind.

God Bless.

CC

Were you at all aware that the bones in the palms of a persons hands are too fragile to support the weight of a body on a cross? The nails have to be hammered through the wrists in order for the body to remain nailed to the wooden beams.

Which begs the question:

Why does stigmata appear on the palms and not on the wrists?

Anyway, yes I saw the interview, if what Willisee believes gives him comfort - thats fine. If what you believe gives you comfort - wonderful. But belief in a religion does not give anyone the right to dictate to women about their bodies.

So much feigned indignance...surely you're not serious...read back through your inaccuracies and nonsensical, hypocritical statements on this and other threads...yours were deliberate and vicious attacks on all things associated with the Catholic Church and all Catholics...and you've been proven wrong, time and time again...but no apology...

I gave a very reasonable explanation (the proof is in your own misspelled and inaccurate posts) - which is more than either of you have done before or since...if you were owed an apology, you'd have one...I guess that scenario doesn't apply to you though, or you'd be on bended knee apologising to Mother Teresa and the Catholic Church...and Pope John Paul 11...

...incidentally Yabby, you clearly don't understand prayer at all judging by your comment...perhaps you could research the real essence of prayer and you may understand your birth-faith a little better.

No-one is dictating what you do with YOUR body Scout...you've proved that you've made your own mind up so far...

As the unborn have a stake in the discussion...their interests should be put forward also...not just be swept aside and dismissed in the interests of convenience or to justify the actions of anyone else.

I listened last night to the father of a young woman who is expecting her first child...his grandchild...the child's father is taking up a new position and on hearing that he was to become a father suggested that he would pay for an abortion, but would not support her decision to have the child.

...so much for a woman's choice...typically, the "choice" had to be the one the anti-life partner wanted...no "choice" allowed for that mother or baby in "his" world, Scout.

//(*_*)\\ <(*~*)>

Yes I saw the Willesie story. I also heard about the guy who jumped into the lions cage in Argentina, as he heard voices from God, telling him to do it. Then the fellow who shot the female Swedish
politician, as god told him to do it.

Meg, you still owe Scout an apology. Clearly human decency and the
abilitly to admit that you are wrong sometimes, is beyond you.

'So much feigned indignance...surely you're not serious...read back through your inaccuracies and nonsensical, hypocritical statements on this and other threads...yours were deliberate and vicious attacks on all things associated with the Catholic Church and all Catholics...and you've been proven wrong, time and time again...but no apology...

I gave a very reasonable explanation (the proof is in your own misspelled and inaccurate posts) - which is more than either of you have done before or since...if you were owed an apology, you'd have one...I guess that scenario doesn't apply to you though, or you'd be on bended knee apologising to Mother Teresa and the Catholic Church...and Pope John Paul 11...'

...no Yabby, an apology is unnecessary and unjustified - there is more than one Robyn Williams in the world - my previous comments more than suffice...you and Scout need to get a life...seriously, if that is the best attempt at indignance that you petulant pair can muster...you need a hobby or something.

Perhaps Scout needs to apologise for not providing all/more of the facts to identify her subject.

Once again Meg, you have proved your ignorance and arrogance.

You clearly don't like to hear the truth about the Catholic
Church. So its try and shoot the messenger. But reality
won't go away, when you close your eyes and wish it would!

The Catholic Church used to have people like me burned at
the stake. They can't do that any more. Yipppeeeeeee :)

Yabby et al,

The point I was trying to make, which I thought was rather interesting is that, in the case of Mike Willisee's findings the skeptics are the frauds.

There has been plenty of criticism about what Mike did but not one skeptic has independently tested the results. This suggests to me that, at least some skeptics behave like zealots and refuse to open their minds to the possibility of God.

Now if you open your mind to the possibility of God then subjects like abortions can be viewed in an entirely different light. The rights of the unborn do become important.

God Bless

CC, skeptics certainly are open minded to anything. Their point
is, thousands of people every day make all sorts of weird and
wonderful claims, about all sorts of things. In Science
today, if you make a claim, its up to you to provide the
substantiated evidence. The larger the claim, the more evidence
you will need to prove your claim.

Think about it, if you look at history, there have been claims
for thousands of gods, hundreds of holy books, every day
somebody somewhere claims to be Jesus reincarnated etc.
So far nobody has come up with any substantiated evidence.
God is free to write his rules on the moon for all to see,
then we'll all take notice :)

Perhaps the laws of nature can be seen as god, not the god
that you were indoctrinated with as a child. Perhaps
you can open your mind, to beyond what your church teaches.

In fact, if we look at history, when we do ignore the laws
of nature, every time it eventually lands up at our peril.

What James Randi did was put up 1 million $ and anyone
who can prove any supernatural claim can claim the prize.
So far nobody has claimed it.

If you go back to understanding Catholic contraception
and abortion dogma, it comes down to 1 verse in the OT
about some so called holy sperms, the rest is just Catholic
philosophy, no more. So it has no more validity then any
other philosophy. Thats fine for Catholics, but don't force
it down everyone elses throats, thats the point.

Well stated, Compassionate Catholic...

Once again Yabby has proved his ignorance and arrogance...no argument to support his statements or any rational response to others arguments, just more petulant posturing.

'You clearly don't like to hear the truth about'... sceptics...Yabby... 'So its try and shoot the messenger. But reality
won't go away, when you close your eyes and wish it would!'

The KKK 'used to have' ...black African slaves in Mississippi 'burned at the stake. They can't do that any more. Yipppeeeeeee :)'

...or they murdered them in other ways...sometimes tearing them limb from limb, even crushing their skulls...sadly, Yabby you still support doing that to the unborn - black and white, today!

...I wonder if, given a decade or two, history will judge anti-lifers in the same manner and as harshly as the KKK is judged today? <(o_o)>

Few Catholics have supported 'burning at the stake' however, ALL the KKK supported burning at the stake, brutality and killing of black Americans as if they were lesser human beings...

...much as you have described black African babies on other threads...even lesser beings than bonobos and chimps, in your eyes.

ALL anti-lifers too support the brutal dismembering of the unborn as acceptable...as if the unborn are less human or less important in the scheme of things, inconvenient or disposable...their only reason for such a fate...

If you were as intelligent as you like to think you are Yabby, you'd be promoting a knowledge of your own sexuality and the maturity to take responsibility for your own actions...instead of supporting killing off the evidence as the only solution.

"The KKK 'used to have' ...black African slaves in Mississippi 'burned at the stake. They can't do that any more. Yipppeeeeeee :)"

Well Meg, in that case the KKK and Catholic Church have lots in
common! They both have history of burning people.

Wrong again Yabby...you have a serious problem with reading and comprehension...as I wrote, while few Catholics had involvement in burning anyone...ALL the KKK and ALL anti-lifers share the same abhorrent support of tearing apart and dismembering other human beings...for essentially the same perverse reasons...they regard them as lesser beings than themselves...

'Few Catholics have supported 'burning at the stake' however, ALL the KKK supported burning at the stake, brutality and killing of black Americans as if they were lesser human beings...

...much as you have described black African babies on other threads...even lesser beings than bonobos and chimps, in your eyes.

ALL anti-lifers too support the brutal dismembering of the unborn as acceptable...as if the unborn are less human or less important in the scheme of things, inconvenient or disposable...their only reason for such a fate...'

Again you confirm your incapacity for rational argument or any desire to produce facts...your only contribution to date is in dubiously attempting to justify your own actions or desires...

...because those actions or desires fall short of the teachings of the Catholic Church...you flail and abuse and unleash your wrath in the vain hope that the Church will alter its teachings to suit your own lifestyle.

...of course your own words may be the ones that come back to bite you on your proverbial, ___ Yabby...nature is indeed an exacting accountant...we are already seeing chromosomal changes in the nature of man...and there are indications that more anomalies are to follow..

Yabby,

I've got to say I am really disappointed. I thought I was having a discussion with someone who can provide intelligent comment in response to a very interesting situation that is worthy of investigation.

You know, I listen to all your comments and I do take them seriously. All I seem to get from you is pretentious and arrogant "angry young man" streams of consciousness.

You trivialised Mike Willisee's work, which I thought was pretty poor. 28 million people saw the show and that was only in the US. He applied rigourous methods, made the offer to the skeptics to challenge his work, and no one came forward.

What Mike has done is very admirable. He started out as a skeptic but genuinely wanted to pursue something of immense importance and as a result his life has been change.

Yabby, there is a lot of pain in the world and it can mostly be attributed to greed, abuse of power etc. Life is confusing and a lot it does not make sense.

I can tell you with great confidence that when someone opens their heart to God positive changes occur.

Please thinks about this.

God Bless

CC, I'm sorry you are disappointed, but not much I can do about it.
I'm really not sure what you expected skeptics to do. So many people
make religious claims etc. Skeptics lead busy lives too, they can't
just drop everything and run after every claim. If Mike is serious,
he is free to write to the Skeptics Ass, they do investigate some
things, but can only check so many.

Yes there is alot of pain in the world, thats why I am against
suffering. I think alot of it makes perfect sense, but you need
to understand nature for the answers, not religion. If you are
on the wrong track, you will stay confused.

My life is very positive CC. My heart pumps blood by the way :)

Meg, the leaders of the Church in Rome, had people burnt. The
people you look to for guidance.

You continue to confuse organisms with people. Organisms do not
suffer, people do. Learn from nature. Far more organisms will
be created of any species, then can ever survive. If you start
to focus on suffering people, rather then organsims, you'll get
somewhere.

I have no vain hope for the Catholic Church lol. What I do know
is that more and more Catholics have woken up to flawed Church
dogma and simply don't accept those bits which they know are flawed.
That includes nuns, priests and lay people. I have far more
respect for Paul Collins, then for any pope who ever lived.

No Yabby, no one I have looked to for any guidance or example in Rome has burned anyone at the stake, nor have they supported the dismembering, or brutal killing of a tiny innocent human being…or tried to kill another human to eliminate any evidence of their own actions…or someone who may cause them some inconvenience…especially not Pope Benedict or Pope John Paul 11...

...are you suggesting that a person's age has any bearing on their ability to feel pain...or that age has any bearing on the acceptability of killing another human being? If that were so, it would be preferable to kill a child rather than a 65 year old, or a 65 year old rather than an 80 year old...your confused logic is tying you in knots, Yabby...you're yabbering gibberish that even you can't decipher.

You should meet Mike Collins…now there’s a man who has earned the respect of others…including the Pope.

You are correct Meg, modern popes havent gone around killing people,
hopefully they would be locked up if they did. Things were different
when the CC had more power then now.

BTW, there is still speculation as to what happened to JP1. The
Vatican refused an autopsy, when he died under strange circumstances.
He was going to liberate the CC somewhat.

Organisms are not people Meg. A fertilised egg is not a person.
All quite simple really, if it hasn't got a functioning human
brain, its not a person.

There you go, contradicting yourself again Yabby...you oppose all things Catholic because, in your confused, conspiratorial mind-state, they are dictating world-policy on everything...they have too much influence. Now you refer to the Catholic Church's influence as: 'Things were different when the CC had more power then now.'

Which is it Yabby...?

But perhaps you should include an apology on your admission that, 'modern popes havent gone around killing people, hopefully they would be locked up if they did.'

...since your previous accusations incorrectly imposed guilt on the Church as a whole - including the present Church.

...of course, by your own admission, people who go around 'killing people' should 'be locked up'...that then includes those who would kill the unborn then? ...those who 'supported the dismembering, or brutal killing of a tiny innocent human being…or tried to kill another human to eliminate any evidence of their own actions…or someone who may cause them some inconvenience...' Hmmm...double standards sit well with you then?

RE: Pope John Paul 1 - your gibberish regarding the fantasies on that score indicate why you didn't last long with the so-called 'sceptics' - even they couldn't keep a straight face any longer with your 'theories' and 'conspiracies'...

'if it hasn't got a functioning human brain, its not a person.'

...again, you have condemned yourself by your own words...

...so, by your criteria, a person in an induced coma, under-anaesthetic, in a state-of-dementia, intellectually disabled, perhaps infants (whose age means they have limited comprehension)...good grief Yabby, you're really tying yourself up in knots now...perhaps you'd like to spell out exactly who you think should be 'allowed' to live in your brave new world...

No contradictions at all Meg, perhaps you are just slow to understand:)

The CC certainly would dicate everything, as they used to, given
half a chance. Luckily people are more informed now, a bit less
gullible too in the first world in general, although not always.
So the Vatican spin machine continues on all fronts, more successfull
in some places then others. Its a constant battle.

http://www.population-security.org/cffc-97-02.htm

The present church is based on the past church. As the hierarchy
claim to be god inspired and were god inspired, they have to justify
their past, including killing people who opposed them. Its them
preaching the Xtian story remember, them claiming to be the judges
of morality etc. Nobody knows exactly what happened with JP1.
Strange that an autopsy was refused.

No confusion at all about brains either Meg. The bit that makes
us human is a larger neocortex. If you induce a coma, its still
a human neocortex. Without a human neocortex, you are not a person.

A 12 week old organism is not a person

CC,

Skeptics have indeed been on Mike Willessee’s and Katya Rivas’ case. Here’re a couple of articles on the net, but I’m sure you could find more if you follow the links on these sites.

http://www.csicop.org/articles/19990729-signs-from-god/

http://skepdic.com/refuge/funk21.html#rivas

Meg1,

a couple of weeks back you said:

“I wonder if there’ll be research done into why some male children no longer have the Y-chromosome”. I was going to let that one through to the keeper, but you recently mentioned “chromosomal changes in man”, so now you've got me curious.

I’m no geneticist, but a person with one X sex chromosome and no Y (or matching X) is actually female, albeit one with a number of cardiovascular, endocrine, skeletal and renal problems: this is a well described genetic abnormality called Turner’s syndrome

PS: Meg1, don't look at the above sites. Mike has his name spelled in at least five different ways, and I'm not even sure myself how it appears on his birth certificate!

Snout,

You may not have watched Denton's show. Mike Willisee said not one person has come forward to independently test the results of the stigmata.

This is what I found so interesting. What a golden opportunity for a skeptic, but not one person has come forward.

My point which I will reiterate from my previous email is that the skeptics, in this instance, are acting like zealots. They are making a judgement without scientifically analysing the facts.

I have heard Mike Willisee talk about this before and, without saying I believe it, I do think it is worthy of investigation.

God Bless.

Good Catholic.- Sorry I mean 'Compassionate' Catholic

Pray Pray Pray Indeed.

We pray pray pray and 'have prayed' that the church Leaders Will listen to the words of the meaning of what you are saying.

Here are a few words from Dr Hugh RSPCA President at the time regarding churches ,leadership and compassion.

http://www.livexports.com/hughwirth.html

Soon every Australian household will receive a copy of this footage.
Has anybody contacted Animals Australia from your church to thank them and offer to help them?

If not Why Not?

I read somewhere that Senater Andrew Bartlett said to somebody[ probably one of yours]in reply to an article.
I thought his reply was a good one.

He said Well[sic] it would be impossible to inflict the same amount of cruelty and pain as the animal experience with Live Animal Exports to something that is less than a grain of rice and not yet born.

On another thread I have seen Yabby reply that we have far too many people in the world starving already. [ Too True.]
My question is to you as a good christian have you looked at the link?
Get the Church Leaders to start basic animal Welfare education in their churches and schools and lead the way to some common decency.
Isnt that their job after all?
To lead?
I will pray shall I ?

Hello,

As a very weary Catholic, I have been reading this thread with fascination. It encapsulates everything that has been making it so difficult for me to progress in the faith; namely the 'pro-life movement' which has basically taken over the Catholic faith. I joined the church to get closer to Jesus Christ and found myself surrounded by and bombarded with 'Pro-life' propaganda/brain washing endlessly. Sometimes it feels like a form of torture!

I joined for other reasons, good reasons I thought. Although not intuitively 'pro-life' I was open to persuasion. However, what I got was a kind of bullying closed mindedness which I think is very evident on this thread.

The pro-choice people seem to express themselves more rationally and thoughtfully without their main argument resting on an insult or condescending judgementalism. They make some very good and well expressed points. I would have welcomed thoughtful responses to enlighten me from the Catholics. The Catholics here ought to be happy to explain themselves to sceptics - a chance to preach the good news! Instead they act angry and rude - that's not very Christian is it?

Some Saints and Popes of the Church used to believe that ensoulment did not occur at conception. So why insult non-Catholics who believe a similar thing? Just because the latest Popes have decided great Christians of the past were wrong? They don't speak badly of Saint Augustine now though do they? So don't be so rude to the pro-Choice people here.

Dear Tired Catholic,

I understand how you feel. Being a committed Catholic is challenging. It has always been like this, as all the martyrs will attest to.

There are always attractive arguments for things that are ostensibly evil and sometimes you feel you are pushing up against it. I have found that by developing a routine of prayer, learning more about Catholic doctrine and and mixing with people on a similar journey helps.

It is important to understand the history of the pro-choice movement purely from the position that history tells us a lot about our current position.

Specifically I would like to draw your attention to Dr. Bernard Nathanson who was a key activist in the pro-choice movement. He has now turned against the pro-choice movement and has converted to catholicism. I strongly recommend you read his story at the following link - http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html

God bless