I was going to write a well argued reply to the pro abortionists but these pictures are worth more than 100 000 of my words.

This is the fruit of the culture of death

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosbyage/index.htm

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/photosassorted/index.htm

http://www.priestsforlife.org/resources/monica/index.htm

Meg thank you from my heart for all the wonderful work you're doing. I think Australia is extremely lucky to have you. I know you love them and hate the crime.

If its any consolation in God's beautiful wisdom He seems to be allowing the horror to extinguish itself. The tares are pulling themselves up by the roots.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FK09Aa02.html

P.s. The more I look at what we're capable of the more scared I am of myself - we can do wicked wicked things. There's so much vanity and evil in me. I want it out!

Meg, fyi some years ago I subscribed to a number of email lists published by your anti abortionists and "breed like rabbits" brigade.
Invariably they had links back to the Catholic Church and were run
by Catholics. Yup there are a few of the "Christian Taliban" fundamentalists involved, but they matter mainly in the US, not in global terms. In Australia they are still insignificant.

Even within your own Catholic Church, 80% of customers
and 50% of priests disagree with what your Pope preaches on contraception and abortion. So you and Martin are part of a radical
but noisy minority. In Australia its maybe 6-7%, thats all.

The morning after pill can also work by delaying ovulation, it can work in a number of ways. You are clearly too opinionated to even bother to read the website that I provided for you.

No evidence of a soul Meg, other then that its a human philosophical invention. The Christians simply stole the concept and claimed it
as literal truth. The largely illiterate masses of the time were
then duped and power and wealth went to those who made the claims.

Martin clearly you should be a large supporter of the morning after pill and RU 486, so that terminations happen much sooner.
I support that. My problem is when Meg gets emotional about cells which are smaller then "." Luckily nearly all terminations happen
in the first 12 weeks, which has been my philosophy all along.

If abortions were given as a human right in the first 12 weeks, rather then Catholic interference, hundreds of thousands of lives a year would be saved, just in South America. Instead women have to suffer: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3194680.stm
Shame that we can't show pictures of their dead bodies, to make you think a bit.

The Vatican should be ashamed of itself for being responsible for the deaths of so many women. In fact one of Australia's top scientists has blamed the Vatican for being responsible for more deaths in Africa then Hitler:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/parting-shot-to-pope-get-real-on-aids/2005/12/03/1133422148025.htm

Hi all

Laurie (post 12:13:22 PM 2/3/06)

My objection to RU-486 is on the basis that it is an abortifacient - a foetus killer.

It's tragic that consequential pregnancy & the welfare of the foetus are ill-considered in the totality of the processes of consenting sexual intercourse. But a likely 'minimal' catastrophe will be the eventual death of RU-486 users. When &/or if it is one of your loved ones who becomes a statistic, then your eagerness to support RU-486 may diminish.

It's also interesting to note that there are only 2 worldwide producers of RU-486 - one in China & one in France. No other large pharmaceutical manufacturers are willing to produce it. Is it possible that they're rather nervous about the probable long-term effects &/or potential future litigation? Time will tell.

Meanwhile, I hope none of the projected 10,000 potential Australian women users will die as a consequence. Certainly by using RU-486 there will be many less young children - deprived of their survival rights. May the loss of a "woman in distress" not be one of your relatives. Only then might the sadness impact you directly.
(2/3/06)

Coraliz (post 9:03:51 PM 2/3/06)

When seeking clarity of the meanings of words it is rather superfluous to describe the very word in dispute by itself. Dictionaries therefore use synonyms to create clarity of the connotation.

Murder is as you say ".. an act done with intention to kill ..". That is specifically why abortion is murder - it is premeditated.

Would you suggest that a bodyguard in a scenario of warfare doesn't have the right to protect an 'official' from assassination? Bodyguards often 'struggle' "after-the-fact" in a killing. But it is the same premise as protecting my wife & children against an armed invader. I must in such circumstances use force against force. In this case it is lethal force against potential lethal threat. The reaction time is generally less than 3-seconds. There is little time to plan - one simply reacts in accordance with training.

Abortion meanwhile is a calculated, pre-meditated killing - murder.
(3/3/06)

Cheers all

Hi all

Yabby (post 10:48:23 PM 2/3/06)

I don't resort to melodramatic language to ".. keep (myself) occupied ..". I believe in being 'open' & transparent, that way those who disagree with me can consider my logical suppositions.

Needless killing of other creatures is appalling. However, a swatted fly can't surely be proportionately valued against the life of an aborted foetus - or an Alzheimer-effected 80-year old either.

Morality is essentially objective. We choose to make it subjective, viz: murder is intrinsically abhorred. However, if one argues that another person is of lesser value, then all protection is eradicated (according to those who hold that view). That's why terrorists kill people. They justify death as collateral. Claiming a foetus to be a 'blob', then 'justifies' abortion.

That facilitates government policy which begins to value less importantly .. the weak, the less-attractive, the aged, the less-wealthy, the less-influencial, the less-vocal.

That's OK only if you aren't marginalised.
(3/3/06)

Col Rouge (post 5:49:56 AM 3/3/06)

I agree that the Catholic Church has much to answer for. Its people have been decidedly wicked & corrupt throughout its history.

But so have wiccans, Atheists etc. Sadly, the predominantly anti-Christian media tackles large organisations as "easy targets" for criticism - partly because it is more sensational, is easier to investigate, & is economically advantageous.

If Hetty JOHNSON from Bravehearts is correct - & statistics suggest she is - then we should fear more the numerically greater, 'silent' & covert broader community. We must nonetheless expose priests (or anyone else) who is corrupt.

I can, however, understand your frustration with the Catholic Church. I too have issues with some of their beliefs. Notwithstanding, the actual values aspired to in some of their dogma - if practiced by its adherents - could/would make society less self-focussed & greedy. It is covetousness which encourages conflict.

Please refer to my comments to Coraliz in the previous posting. Being "pro-life" ought to be an aspiration for all human beings if we genuinely care about our co-inhabitants. That includes famine -sticken & suppressed peoples.
(3/3/06)

Cheers all

LAB I’m not sure I follow I properly understand your position.

When you make statements about the Catholic Church you ought to balance it with Protestant errors also or fellow Christians may believe you are anti – Catholic.

Denominational arguments wouldn't help in this forum while so many, I realise now, have the strangest ideas about Christian Orthodoxy

Martin Ibn Warriq, ”we can do wicked wicked things. There's so much vanity and evil in me. I want it out!”

Have some regard for other people who might prefer you “keep it in”

As for posting sensationalist photos from a papist propaganda site, I suggest you get a grip, grow up and stop trying to assume some significance in your pointless quest for self-aggrandisement.

Yabby well said

LAB –“But so have wiccans, Atheists etc. Sadly, the predominantly anti-Christian”

All the ills and shortcomings of all the atheists, secularists, wiccans witches and hob-goblins do not excuse the Church of Rome for a moment for the the crimes they have committed in the name of God.
All you are doing is showing your ignorance if you think for one minute it does.

I do not have issues with what Roman Catholics believe, provided they do not expect to impose those beliefs on me.

I will not accept that anyone else has spiritual authority over me or has right to put themselves between me and God.

You can be as big an apologist for RCC but it will never wash the sin off the hands of the priests, bishops, Cardinals and Popes who have for centuries perverted the word of God and pursued their quest for personal wealth and glory whilst systematically abusing children and covering that abuse up under a mountain of lies.

This debate will never end. There are those who believe they have a right to inflict their religious beliefs on others and people like me who will always stand to resist such tyranny. Fortunately we live in times more enlightened than when the Papists ruled huge tracks of Europe and the poor folk of Spain, after 300 years of inquisition, were lining up to welcome Napoleon in the hope he would end the tyranny of the Roman Catholic Church.

Australia is a secular state. It will remain so and abortion will be a matter for the private choice of individual women, just like it should be.