"If they complied with Church policies they would be alive."

MJ, as a humanitarian, I find your reasoning absolutaly disgusting,
especially somebody who belongs to a religion who claims to preach love and compassion. You are implying that its ok that hundreds of thousands of women are dying, because they did not follow Catholic
dogma, despite the fact that these deaths could be prevented by modern medical means. So much for the Catholic Church being a loving and caring organisation! Thats exactly why I have not a spec of respect for that Church, even though I was born a Catholic.

Do you have any idea of the trauma that women go through, before they decide to abort? Are you so perfect that you don't make a mistake in life? Is forgiveness not what your church preaches,
yet here its just too bad if these women die by their thousands?

That is what disgusts me about religion, blind following of dogma
takes preference over any real compassion and caring for people.

The main focus of that article was not one woman, it was the fact that hundreds of thousands are dying, not the rich, but the poor.

Meg, who claims to be compassionate, shows far more concern for a dividing cell, then she does for a thinking, feeling, grown person.
Too bad if those women suffer, the Church said its ok. I find that disgusting too.

Mandela was quite correct Meg, when injustice becomes law, resistence is inevitable. The "mob rule" of the Catholic Church is slowly fading, from the days when they were all powerfull. In the first world we had to fight for our human rights and continue to do so. In the third world the Church still has more influence, although step by step it will be fought all the way, until justice for women
in the third world prevails too!

What this debate shows once again, is that for religious addicts, religious dogma is far more important then real caring for other people. Sometimes I am ashamed of my species and this is one of those times.

""If they complied with Church policies they would be alive."

"...You are implying that its ok that hundreds of thousands of women are dying..."

What!? First you blame the Church because people use contraception and get abortions when that is the opposite of the Church dogma. I argued that you can't blame Church dogma if people do the opposite of what it teaches is the correct thing to do. Now you type this. I think it is tragic that this happens and see Catholicism as the solution not the problem. How do you read in that I think it is ok? I think that Catholic dogma should be followed and the deaths prevented. Do you think I want people to be non-Catholic? Please explain your reasoning. You have lost me. Is this some type of attempt at a straw man argument?

"The main focus of that article was not one woman, it was the fact that hundreds of thousands are dying, not the rich, but the poor."

The article focussed on one example particularly to show the horror of what is happening. The overall theme of the article was the thousands dying.

"Meg, who claims to be compassionate, shows far more concern for a dividing cell, then she does for a thinking, feeling, grown person.
Too bad if those women suffer, the Church said its ok. I find that disgusting too."

Re-read her posts. She argues that not only is the killing bad but women suffer from abortions. Is this another straw man?

"The "mob rule" of the Catholic Church is slowly fading, from the days when they were all powerfull."

Some think it exerts a tyranical leadership. You think it represents mob rule. From one extreme to the other.

"What this debate shows once again, is that for religious addicts, religious dogma is far more important then real caring for other people."

Are you being deliberately obtuse? Without religious dogma and the resulting respect for human beings the world can be incredibly uncaring.

The problem with the Catholic Church is that it doesent just preach to its flock, it tries to enforce its agenda politically, resulting in the unneeded deaths of hundreds of thousands of women around the world.

If saving womens lives and lowering the abortion rate was the main issue, the examples are clear. Countries like Holland and Belgium
achieve that by good sex education, easy availability of modern contraception etc. Their abortion rate is less then a third that of many countries where abortion is illegal. Despite abortion being provided for free, their rates are some of the lowest in the world.

Desparate women do desperate things:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/03/24/mexico13072.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3028820.stm

46 million abortions are performed each year, 26 million legal,
20 million illegal. If you want to save womens lives, make them all legal. Banning abortion won't change the abortion rate, it simply means that women die for no good reason.

Most illegal abortions are performed in South America and Africa,
countries where the Catholic Church has a large influence in politics. Luckily in the first world we have told the church to shove it, third world women are not so lucky. So they keep dying.

Clearly the church and its followers care more about dogma then about people dying.

I have just been listening to Jo Wainer being interviewed on the radio. She was comparing the abortion landscape in Victoria in the 1960s with todays situation.

In 1971 there were about 90,000 abortions in a population of 12 million.
In 200? there were about 85,000 abortions in a population of 22 million.

It was estimated that 20% of maternal deaths in 1970 were from botched abortions. The Royal Womens Hospital used to have a 30 bed ward for botched abortions and 1 patient would be sent to the morgue each week. And many women simply disappeared - presumabluy dead from botched abortions.

I do not want to return to the good old days of restricted access to safe abortions, although my family was always wealthy enough to access safe abortions. The restricted access to abortion was coupled with restricted access to reproductive information which meant women were unable to pass information between the generations.

Many anti-abortion posters appear more concerned about controlling women that they are about women's and children's welfare.

Yabby,

“The problem with the Catholic Church …enforce its agenda politically, resulting in the unneeded deaths …. “

So the Catholic Church who don’t support sex outside of marriage or abortions is to blame for people getting abortions.

” Countries like Holland and Belgium achieve that by good sex education, easy availability of modern contraception etc…”

All Dutch I have known are anti-abortion so I figured there is another explanation. Stats I found (albeit old) indicated that only 22.5% are atheists and approximately 31 - 40% of the population are Catholic. Thus another more likely possibility for the low abortion rate is Christian influence.

46 million abortions are performed each year, 26 million legal,
20 million illegal… Banning abortion won't change the abortion rate...”

Then why is there 6 million less illegal than legal when illegal abortions are associated with well populated third world countries sometimes with less available contraception where you would expect a greater demand? How about teaching people to value human life and not have an abortion in the first place.

”Most illegal abortions are performed in South America and Africa, countries where the Catholic Church has a large influence in politics…”

But aren’t most Africans either Muslim or following their traditional religious beliefs? If so how does the Catholic Church have a large influence on their politics?

In South America there is clearly a higher proportion of Catholics than Africa but in the article on South America you put forward it seemed to indicate that contraception is available. I also note that the Catholic Church clearly doesn’t see eye to eye with the South American governments so I doubt that they have “a large influence on their politics”.

”Clearly the church and its followers care more about dogma then about people dying.“

The whole purpose of opposing abortions is to stop people from dying. Babies will always die if there is an abortion.

You argue that the Church is responsible based on some lateral inference that relies upon your theory about the reasons for laws in overseas countries. That isn’t exactly a compelling argument.

Bosk,
1. She won’t artificially sustain the child’s life for long…unborn’s (placenta) completely different scenario, not simply blood-supply. Will you ‘date’ another when she dies?

My objection’s relevant, not-trivial - it’s the basis for your ‘analogy’.

2. This ‘case’ is relevant only to fifth-rate-Frankenstein-movies…it’s neither medically-valid, nor conducive-to-reasonable-debate.

3. What ‘freak accident and genetic condition’ happened ‘within the past few hours’…name both the condition and accident before expecting answers… You’re straw-building again…

Your-Lie-1 I said YOU were illogical…

Your-Lie-1a I referred to ‘professors involved in Bosk’s ‘debate’’ – no claim to be involved in it.

Your Lie-1b ‘Dismissing someone's argument without giving reasons…’

Immediately contradicted by your-Lie-2 – ‘…you…gave your reasons why the analogical argument was illogical.’

…there are plenty of valid reasons given, as you admitted FINALLY in Lie 2…

Your-Lie-3 ‘…say you couldn't have given it before because of the 300 word limit.’

Mine - ‘Additionally, the professors involved in Bosk’s ‘debate’ were paid to teach…and secondly, they weren’t confined to 350 words…neither applies on these threads…’

You clearly have a problem with comprehension and-or truth, Bosk…you’re not the only poster I responded to in that post…I provided a more complete response, when my 24-hr-limit expired. Refer also to my subsequent comment.

‘I don’t disregard arguments based on the writers ‘credentials’ but on the validity or otherwise of its content.’

Your last…‘you will do anything rather than answer the question…farewell.’

You’re welcome to take your bat-and-ball-and-go-home, Bosk but you’ve again contradicted yourself…

Yours: ‘In your last post you FINALLY gave your reasons why the analogical argument was illogical.’

So I did give the reasons? Do you believe repeating a lie ad-nauseaum will convince others it’s true? Curious…

Yabby: ‘You are implying that its ok that hundreds of thousands of women are dying, because they did not follow Catholic dogma…these deaths could be prevented by modern medical means.’

YOU identified the women AREN’T following Church teaching and ARE using contraception, non-marital sex and abortion. How’s the Catholic Church responsible when-it-advises-against-all-three?

Another contradiction - the Church prevents access to the contraceptive pill…it’s clearly accessible in the case presented.

(tbc)