Yabby, look at treatment costs and deaths from AIDS and other STDs…there’s your modern plaque.

RE: scientific cures,check the faith of the scientists…most were devout Catholics. People pray for cures, if science delivers them, it’s no less a cure, nor is it unsupported by prayer.

Coraliz, take a look in any classroom and you’ll see the statistics in reality.

Interesting that you’re uncomfortable with this ‘generalization’ while avidly supporting those from anti-life zealots, despite their irrelevance and inaccuracy.

Scroll through the anti-lifer’s posts, there are sufficient statements to poll, confirming issues raised in Philo’s post…marriage statistics and ‘marriage-is-only-a-piece-of-paper’ claims by ‘feminists’ provide additional confirmation.

Scout, you’re very ‘sensitive’ to other’s responses to your abuse, a clear sign you’ve not ‘moved on’ from your abortion, even if you have from your marriage.

You could’ve severed all contact if you had adopted your babe out also. You continually raise your own situation, expect response as it’s not healthy to simply tell you what you want to hear regardless of the truth.

Regarding women who have aborted…I assume you refer to yourself as fulfilling all of those roles, loving mother, partner, etc…? Those statistics are unrepresentative of the general population.

RE: No 3, the unborn would see you as a real and specific threat, with proven cause.

RE: ‘hoisting me above all others’, I make no claim to do any more than speak the truth as I understand it and can prove it, where possible.

Yabby, I have free will and I don’t blindly follow the theories of evolution, whoever allows them. The Catholic Church has allowed that even if the theory of evolution had basis in fact, at some point of the evolutionary chain, the being was ensouled…making a very different being. I would concur with that statement but it still does not alter my skepticism on evolution.

No Yabby, I haven’t been to abortion clinics, but you’ve given me incentive to do so in order to disprove your diatribe…I’m still waiting for any indication that you want to do more than kill the babies to save your evolving rellies.

Meg1

Thought I'd just point out the bleeding obvious.

I recounted my experience because it is entirely relevant to the topic. It is a valid POV. If I was unable to discuss it - that would be evidence that I had been unable to 'move on.'

I provided Government links which support my claims that the majority of women who have abortions go on to live as good mothers, partners and make contributions to society.

You seem to think you have a monopoly on truth. What you do have a monopoly on is an overflated idea of your superiority to others. You continue to judge - yet you are no position to do so.

Again I will say - you are free to determine your fertility as you choose, it is only democratic that you acknowledge that others are free to determine what is right for them. You fail to do this.

Furthermore, you stated that you had not abused me - yet when I point out that you had, you then proceed to call me sensitive.

More twists than a cut snake, Meg1. I guess you would call black white if it suited your anti democratic purpose.

BTW I have never abused anti-abortionists, merely queried their claims that they are pro-life when the only life they are concerned with are foetuses and not concerned with living breathing beings. Having a different perspective to you does not constitute insult.

You have proven your contempt for women with the scathing commentary about my decisions with my life. If you were as helpful and had truly assisted victims of domestic violence as you claim, I would've expected more enlightened posts rather than the diatribe you inflict on those how hold a different point of view.

In short - I simply don't believe you have anyone's best interest at heart due to the nature of your posts to OLO. These posts are simply a vehicle to pursue your agenda without any consideration to the feeling of others.

Meg1,
What you see when you look in a classroom is obviously what you want to see, and is not what I see.

I am uncomfortable with any sweeping generalisation Meg1, and you have certainly made yet another one by saying "Interesting that you’re uncomfortable with this ‘generalization’ while avidly supporting those from anti-life zealots, despite their irrelevance and inaccuracy". I don't support anyone who is anti-life for starters, as I am pro-life as are many whose posts I have agreed with. You choose to call them anti-life because they support (as I do) a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy provided she is making an informed choice and feels there is no alternatives available that she can proceed with given the personal factors she is considering. That you choose to call us/them anti-life is your choice, but I do not have to agree with it or accept the label given so frequently by you. If I support someones right to be a Catholic (and I do) does that make me a Catholic? If you support my right not to be a Catholic, does that then make you not a Catholic?

If you were having a rational debate you would merely refer to other posters as 'others' not anti-lifers.

Your comment
"Scroll through the anti-lifer’s posts, there are sufficient statements to poll, confirming issues raised in Philo’s post…marriage statistics and ‘marriage-is-only-a-piece-of-paper’ claims by ‘feminists’ provide additional confirmation" is beyond what I would call logical and coherent and again does nothing to confirm Philo's grand generalisation. The posters on onlineopinion would form a biased sample in anycase :) and data would be purely anecdotal.

Philo, the reality is that women in the third world have a huge unmet need for
family planning, contraception and abortion. The Catholic Church does what it can to stop them. So they die by the hundreds of thousands each year, when they turn to illegal means in desperation. The Church clearly does not
care for the living and breathing.

Meg, one of Australia’s most eminent scientists has stated that he thinks that the Catholic Church is responsible for more deaths then Hitler, with its contraception policy.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/parting-shot-to-pope-get-real-on-aids/2005/12/03/1133422148025.html

In the real world, that is exactly what is happening. When they get rid of condoms, the aids rate rises.

Meg, hundreds of millions prayed for the last pope, the old fella still fell off the proverbial perch. So much for the power of prayer. But we are well aware of
the placebo factor and peoples selective memories.

You don’t understand evolution theory, so of course you don’t follow it.
You’ve never bothered to educate yourself on the subject. We are well aware
that the less educated people are in general, the more superstitious and religious they are. The least religious are biologists, who understand biology and evolution theory as part of that.

Yup the Church these days sticks to saving souls. Its good business for them, they never have to actually prove what they claim. If a lot of other businesses tried that, they would be locked up.

“I’ve yet to see women being ‘abused’ in front of abortion clinics…stick to the truth. They may be praying or offering brochures or help, but abuse, NO!” --- “ No Yabby, I haven't been to abortion clinics,”

Clearly these two statements of yours contradict each other Meg, but that is not unusual from you.

Sorry, have been away on holidays… aaah the beach!

So, Meg.
I accept that there is ultimately only one truth. I have never contested this. My point was that people each have a point of view of what the truth is. Let me outline a scenario, by way of example:

5 people witness a traffic accident. They are interviewed and each give 5 versions, generally the same but all quite different in detail, as to what happened. Each version will impact on what the follow-up action to be taken is in court or elsewhere. So, who is telling the truth? How does one identify what is the actual truth as opposed to what is only a persons perception?

Do you see where I am coming from? I am not trying to insult or argue with you. I am trying to ascertain your position on certain truths, so that we can have a discussion. Why do you continue to treat me as an adversary? I am not attempting to be obtuse or adversarial in any way.

Now, as you suggest the universal truth exists on this matter, can you please provide me with your perspectives on the following, with regard to the truths associated with them (including your reasons for your observations):

* The specific point at which a human being begins to exist.

* That the choice made to abort by an individual is wrong.

* That abortion is simply wrong.

And, even though the questions are slightly off topic, can you answer the following also.

* Evidence of the existence of a God.

* The correct religion to believe in.

I will respond with my reasoning also, if you are willing to discuss these issues.

Reason,
Can I attempt to answer the second section off Topic.

* Evidence of the existence of a God.
God is not a physical being in some remote section of space - God is Spirit revealed in character, attitudes, revealed wisdom, and his creative actions. These aspects are expressed in persons who seek God in this way. For instance all life has principles that are manifest for a best purpose and practise. Living within the character and boundaries of that purpose gives the greatest blessing: violation of those principles causes deterioration and destruction (eg to health and environment).

* The correct religion to believe in.
It is not a matter of following a demonination tag called a "religion". It is a matter of living conscious of the manifest character of idealism found in God (for Christians the example of Jesus Christ) and adhering to the revelation he demonstrated. It is a consciousness of the relationship we should keep with the Spirit who created it all.