As a relative newcomer to this forum, I find it curious that those who find abortion acceptable denigrade and attack those who believe abortion NEVER helps a woman. For those who push 'choice' and autonomy in that decision, you seem to attack severely those who hold that life has an intrinsic value from conception until natural death. And as the previous person wrote, this forum has degenerated into a 'bag out the Catholics' blog.
As I said previously, the only ones who find abortion acceptable are those who are already born.
In abortion, there are two victims - one dead and one wounded. There are numerous studies that show the effects of post abortion trauma - one excellent book of women's own stories after abortion is "Giving Sorrow Words" by Melinda Tankard-Reist. Worth reading. Also "And Still They Weep..." by Dr Philip Ney (UK).
After an abortion, many women feel immediate relief - the "problem" is gone. Sadly too, usually within 6-10 weeks, so is the boyfriend. When a couple destroy that which they have created together, it is hard for them to look each other in the eye.
Should you dispute the above re post abortion trauma (and that's not even getting into the physical problems, just the emotional at the moment), please get in touch with Anne Lastman who runs "Victims of Abortion" (Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) - a couselling service for those suffering from abortion fallout. She is currently counselling 6 MEN - yes, men do suffer from post abortion trauma.
There are many many triggering events - the birth of a subsequent child, the "due date" of the original baby, when the aborted baby would have turned 1, watching grandparents with other grandbabies and not yours etc etc.
Abortion solves no problems - it just hurts and harms and creates other problems.
Te

Te,

Of course for many there is fall out from abortion; but probably there is more fall out from adoption. However, proceeding with the pregnancy is not always a choice that a woman can cope with either. I am sure that proceeding with the pregnancy and having a child is possibly the least psychologically damaging some women in the long run, depending on the circumstances. For others it is little different to menstruation. However, there is added psychological damage to women (and men) by people who consider abortion to be a crime or a killing and voice those beliefs in a manner that incurs damage. Women are often in a double bind; If the woman elects to adopt her child, frequently, later that child will believe he or she was unwanted and that also has fallout (read the literature); not to mention the later anguish that the birth mother endures because she did not raise her child. Hindsight is a wonderful thing - but people make choices based on their beliefs and circumstances at the time. They can only make informed choices, and then learn to live with their decisions. If safe RU486 seems to be a far softer option then any surgical procedure. Regardless, at the end of the day it is solely the choice of the woman who is pregnant, the responsibility of the woman in whose body the cell is housed.

As Yabby pointed out - women lose many 'potential babies' each month. Lets not lose sight of that. However, for those who believe that abortion is wrong - that is their choice and they also have the autonomy to make that choice.

Isn't it funny...you do not see anyone telling the self labelled pro-lifers not to have a baby; have an abortion! Why? because those who elect to have an abortion are not anti-life at all. They simply do not consider that a life exists at that stage. Therein lies most of the difference between the camps.

Such an emotive issue!
There is a place for everything, including RU486.
I'm not a follower of religion, but abortion dosent sit well in my opinion. Persons unable to use the drug will have surgical abortions, traumatic and unpleasant as that may be.
Perhaps genuine counselling (as opposed to a quick chat at the clinic office before handing over the cash) explaining the pro's and con's as well as the likely outcomes, immediate and long term, would be a more productive item to address.
Private companies run clinics to make money, they are not benevolent societies.
Those cranks that hang round clinics waving crosses and pictures of feotuses at distressed girls, you make me sick.

Coraliz - The heart of the baby starts beating at 18 days. A woman, once pregnant is a mother - whether the baby is born or aborted. She may try and forget but her body never does.
How many adopted people do you know? None I know wishes they had been aborted. When a child is gifted to a childless couple by parents in adoption, it is in the belief that that would provide a better life and the possibility they can meet again in the future. Impossible for an aborted child. That child is battered and broken and in a bucket ready for the bin.
Re RU-486 - firstly it is not 'safe'. Even the company that
originally manufactured misopristol, one of the two drugs used in RU-486, warned that misopristol's use in an abortion could cause "serious adverse events" including death. No reputable company will manufacture RU-486 - it is only being made in China (and no doubt you know about their one child policy - are you aware also that there is pressure on the Phillipines to introduce a 2-child policy?)

RU-486 is a combination of two drugs that induce abortion within the first seven weeks of pregnancy. The first drug, mifepristone, withers the developing fetus by cutting off vital hormones to the unborn child's nutrition supply, the placenta. The second drug - misopristol - induces uterine contractions to expel the dead fetus. However, if it is an undiagnosed ectopic pregnancy (and would usually be undiagnosed at this early stage)all the contractions in the world will not expel that little one from the fallopian tube.

RU-486 has an anti-glucocorticoid effect which allows inflammation which can in turn lead to septic shock as the bacterium Clostridium sordellii multiplies in the body and sometimes, if not diagnosed quickly enough, causes death. (See Holly Patterson's sad death http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/brentbozell/2003/10/01/168408.html).
There is no such thing as a 'safe' abortion - the only reason they are 'safer' now than before is the discovery of antibiotics and the easier access, via more modern transport, to hospitals if they were 'botched'.

Col

“Most of the horror of priestly abuse is lost in time and in cover-ups. … I think if the whole truth were revealed, the Church would never see even the most gullible of congregants ever again and that would, of course, include you, oh “most gullible”.”

Ease up on the mantra about gullible. I am not the one who seems to be a slave of media sensationalism. Although again I note that I suspect it must be wilful. The biggest cover up is by the media who represent gay priests as paedophile priests.

”… why would I wish to meet and mix with those who would rant on with their demented gibberish, condemn me for my views, excommunicate me or in years past burn me as a heretic?”

I suspect it takes a certain type of people to burn others. At one time in history heretics were fair game and that type of person could vent that type of personality on them. Now Christians in general and Catholics in particular are the target and that type of person will persecute them. It is not the Church. It is the people. It is not part of the pop culture to burn people but if it was I am sure it would be Christians who would be burnt not heretics.

Shortly after Christ the culture was in many respects similar to today. Christianity was not politically correct, moral decadence was rife and Christians’ opposition to the pop culture made them fair game. Unlike our culture it was socially acceptable to feed people to the lions. Christians found themselves in that position. Regardless of the method many early apostles were martyred as was Christ himself for a time.

You indicate that these types of things at a particular time in history were a Church thing. However I am glad that burning at the stake is not acceptable today or my view would be proved correct. Perhaps it will be a characteristic of the future. I hope not. Who in the past would have thought that it would become legal to kill children?

The death of Holly Patterson was clearly hospital mismanagement. She presented twice and was sent away.
No woman wants to have an abortion, including all the many Chinese and Indian women who queue for them - it is always a last resort.
I really do wish Ms Helen Ransom, Catholic Theology Student, the writer of this essay and of the previous one Nov 2005 on the SAME topic, would redirect her energies to re-educating MALES, who should all be thoroughly disciplined to only spill their seed where they are willing to support the consequence, as well as The Vessel, till death do them part.
Shane Warne is their hero unfortunately. bet he's Catholic too.