Scout, perhaps you'd like a list of the many organisations that I and many others support locally as well as overseas...you don't have to look far to find people in need.

Your judgemental assumptions typify the very accusations you make against others.

"Choice" has many faces - one of many young women I have known told of being happily married and rushing home excitedly to tell her husband news of her pregnancy. His response was, "Well you have a choice, me or 'it'. If you don't get rid of it, I'm out of here." Her response was to say she couldn't kill a part of him and their love and couldn't believe he could either. He left and never returned.

She was one of the 'lucky' ones as she had parents who supported her decision. Not surprisingly, this baby didn't fit the 'tainted' spirit gobbledegook, as one parent (his mother) welcomed and loved the little fellow and his father wanted no part of him. When I met them, he was a delightful well-loved baby and grew into a respectful, outgoing young man who gave his mother and extended family a great deal of joy. His 'spirit' matured and developed through his own efforts as all our lives can, despite the "choices" of one parent or the other.

It's clear how much "choice" this mother would have had if she didn't have the support of extended family.

“To all the TRUE pro-lifers, below is a link to the "Save the Children Fund" and a chance to put your money where your mouth is….”

LOL. Between you and me (and possibly a large number of web surfers) many pro-lifers are Catholic. I’m going to have to break some news you don’t want to hear after that public comment. Catholics just have to go to Church and participate in the second Collection to donate to such causes. Charity is considered one of the twelve fruits of the Holy Spirit and is suggested in many Biblical scriptures eg. “For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me,” (Matthew 25:35).

Yabby you have lost me. The French revolution was much later and the secular State was quite powerful by that time. I don’t doubt that secular types can be part of Churches or could have played a role in the protestant revolt but you seemed to be saying that secularists fought a war to free themselves from Catholic rule and I’ll admit I didn’t have enough hours to read everything at the URL you provided but of what I did read I didn’t see support for your original assertion there.

“400 years ago the Catholic Church was still busy burning heretics in Rome. “

Nonsense. Further, in earlier days during the middle ages when heresy was a crime that was taken pretty seriously, burning of heretics was unusual. The punishments were usually penance, fines and imprisonment. Granted however that heretics who recanted were said to be required to wear an embroided faggot on their sleeve to show what they deserved. Perhaps that is the basis for the rumours of regular roasts of heretics that were nothing like a modern roast of a person.

”As to your definition of person, please explain why a one or two celled organism should be described as a person.”

If a one or two celled organism is a living human then it is a person. Killing a human is murder.

"Nonsense."

Ok read for yourself, to see that you are deluded :)
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/john_kessler/giordano_bruno.html

"If a one or two celled organism is a living human then it is a person."

Nope, then its a human organism. A person has a functioning brain.
Do your own homework.

Fact The Church of Rome is an archaic organisation which tries to set its own authority up above a democratically elected secular government.

It is not a democratic organisation.

That the Catholic Church still believes it can drive the abortion debate and impose its will on a secular nation is misguided.

Give it a few more years and another round of scandals and the institution will be as financially bankrupt as it is morally bankrupt.

The Catholic Church has a affixation with peoples sexuality and sexual practices. This is because the Catholic Church knows what a primal driver sex is for people.
When the Church controls the driver, it controls the person. When it loses that control it hits out and stamps its feet, like a soiled child.

The real issue is abortion, who has the right to decide.

The Catholic Church, a non-democratic institution, does not have the right to decide.

The elected Government, a democratic institution, does not have particular knowledge of the every persons circumstances and thus should not decide.

The father, well he contributed something to the process, but it is not his body at risk or being used for foetal development so he should not decide, although he is likely to be a concerned party.

The pregnant woman, she knows her circumstances, capabilities, expectations and wants.
It is her body at risk and being used. She is the one who should decide. Often she will decide to have a baby. Sometimes she might have even planned to have a baby. Sometimes she will decide that for reasons of her own, the time or circumstance or whatever is not right and she will seek abortion.

The method of abortion, be it surgical or chemical is neither here nor there. What matters is it is her choice and no one else’s.

Meg1 that is the reason. You chose to have your babies. But you are not everyone and no one holds fealty to you or your anti-democratic religion.

mjpb and plenty of non-catholics make significant charitable contributions too, so what

Meg1

You missed my point, which was my intent. I knew you would react by stating how much you give to charity. And so you should, given the multitudes of poor, starving and unwanted children in this world. It is one way of making amends for imposing your beliefs on others. Another way would be to support your sisters regardless of whether they choose to abort or not.

You expend a lot of energy on promoting the rights of a foetus, yet are completely unconcerned at forcing your beliefs on to others. A woman with an unplanned or unwanted pregancy has every right to decide for herself what she wants - just as your friend chose to do what was right for herself.

As for when human life begins - it begins at birth when the child is separate from the mother. Anything else is just semantics and a tool to emotionally manipulate others.

Scout, sadly you can’t accept your accusations and presumptions being answered, if I had missed your point, I would not have answered your question.

If you were involved in pro-life organizations available to support women who are pregnant or who are suffering after an abortion, you may have met those pro-lifers, Catholic and others, who are indeed supporting these women irrespective of their position or their past history.

Your own history does not mean you have the ‘exclusive’ on the subject, nor have I, but it does not mean that I or anyone else do not empathise with, or help women caught in difficult situations.

Nor should I be excluded from the subject because I have chosen the alternative.

Your immature and incorrect assumptions of my involvement clearly show your energies may be better exercised through being involved with these same groups yourself.

The opportunity for personal growth and support are there for those receiving the support and those who are compassionate enough to offer it.

Col and Yabby again provide diatribes of mindless, feet-stamping, slanderous generalizations on the Catholic Church, pro-lifers in general and Col even exposes his inner ‘soiled child’ in the process.

Col, mjpb mentioned collections in answer to Scout’s presumptive accusation about pro-lifers. Interestingly you’re all upset when your accusations are disproved…but haven’t backed up with any support of mothers in need.

Col’s obsession with sex and the Catholic Church indicates a paranoia that generalizes one person’s behaviour with the behaviour of millions because they are members of the same group. Does it then follow that any pedophile who is anti-life automatically indicates that all anti-lifers are pedophiles.

Does it indicate that if one father pressures, threatens or harms his partner to force an abortion, that all anti-lifers are irresponsible or negligent parents.

Col is quick to point out his ‘important’ job requires police checks, but hasn’t realized that occupations as diverse as Lolly-pop persons and Ambassadors now have that requirement. I’m not sure if that is meant to indicate his assumed job superiority means he is more qualified to be right than us, ‘assumed’ underlings.