Meg, I never chose to join any church, so I never had to choose to leave any either.

The Catholic Church does not choose to simply preach to its flock,
but tries where possible to influence politics, to force people
to live by its agenda, members or not. So as a highly political
organisation, its beliefs and opinions are open to scrutiny, as
are any other organisations involved in politics.

George Pell comments on Islam, fair enough. I comment on the Catholic Church, fair enough too.

The fact that Catholic policies around the world are actually causing suffering should be highlighted more often, alot of people are not aware of that. If more would protest about it loudly,
so much the better.

If the rules are wrong Meg, they need to be changed, especially if organisations try to impose rules on others, who are not even members.

Interesting that the abortion debate allows people with no concept of an individual circumstance to describe outcomes as good, not knowing the situation. In a mutually agreed childless relationship gone wrong, the responsibility of the 'other' partner ends at the wallet, and for those of us lucky enough to not have to worry about this we can sleep at night knowing we have 'done the right thing'. What prohibiting abortion does (broken record...) is force people in to this situation without any respect for their ability to acces modern technology to make a choice. It does not make people good parents or adoption donors. I don't have good parent in me, and that's life for the kid. I'm starting to get the overwhelming impression that the catholic dogma I grew up with , and rejected, has not become more enlightened, and our sole responsibility above all else is reproducing and accepting the natural order. If I get a tumor, I'll have surgery thanks. I won't feel bad about it. If human life is sacred, then life's end is sacred too and no one should avail themselves of anything that removes human material from a human, regardless of outcome. After all, that tumor is human in conception and growth. It is a living tumor with human DNA, different to that of it's host. We remove tumors based on potential outcomes, by pharmacology, radiotherapy and surgery. You can substitute RU486 and D&C in their where appropriate. As a society we don't consider a tumor sacred. We do however give people a choice as to whether that are removed or not. This is called informed consent. Many may find that concept abhorent, but it gets back to an earlier comment that you can't have it both ways.

I wish some learned jewish people would throw their hat in the ring on this one, it is my understanding thay have it right, as I'm told they see the descision to keep/abort as one regarding the least bad outcome of a bad situation. Apologies to the jewish faith if I've got it wrong.

Know enough to know I don't know,
Are you comparing tumors as equivalent to a foetus? What is the natural outcome of tumors? I thought in most all cases - Death! What is the outcome of a foetus? Rarely death to the host - and certainly the continuance of life and the gene of the parents. I suggest you ask any woman by which one she would rather to be afflicted?

Yabby, you’re a real contradiction. You’ve previously stated that you WERE Catholic…no one kicked you out…you made the choice to no longer practice the Catholic faith, as it seems has K-e-etc.

If the Catholic Church was imposing their ‘rules’ on you, you wouldn’t be living against the teachings of the church and there wouldn’t be any RU486 imported into the country or abortions performed here.

Clearly you’re being deliberately deceitful in your obsessive paranoia about the Catholic Church.

I hope you come to terms with what you really need to do to gain some peace in your life. Perhaps Know-enough-etc. can advise you on a good therapist to talk to…you might benefit. I am sorry that your life is so unhappy and troubled and that you cannot see the good in others who don’t share your views and obsessions.

Know-enough-etc, I’m not sure who I feel sorriest for, you, your unsupported partner or the awaited child. It’s practically a given that those anti-lifers who claim that it’s a ‘woman’s right to choose’ are the least likely to actually support the woman’s decision to actually make that choice...unless of course it’s to abort. The fact that both have contributed to the pregnancy seems to get quickly overlooked…the ‘me’ generation has to accept that Peter Pan really is just a fairy story and we all have to grow up and accept responsibilities for one another in our relationships.

The difference with your ‘tumour’ and the growing and developing child that your partner carries is your tumour will never have a life of it’s own, no matter how long it grows in your body…instead it’d probably kill you…of course you’d want your partner’s support if surgery was unsuccessful - I don’t know anyone who’d consider removal of a tumour ‘abhorrent’.

The developing foetus, however, will be viable and capable of living completely apart from his-her mother and father, and it’ll be capable of making his-her own decisions…and if treated well and given the opportunity, he-she may teach you a new understanding of love and commitment, adding new dimension to your lives.

tbc…

Cont…

Like any relationship, the more selfless the love, the more rich and rewarding the lives and relationships formed.

You’re both quick to dismiss the ‘children’ that might result from your sexual encounters as a ‘Catholic’ rule to be rejected at all costs…curious? Your partner K-e-etc, clearly cannot destroy a child of the ‘love’ she feels you share…what a tragedy that your love hasn’t reached that level of maturity…you’re still stuck at the ‘what-can-I-get-out-of-this-relationship’ level, rather than looking at what-you-can-contribute-to-it. Your comment regarding the ‘wallet’ isn’t one you need be proud of…after all if your partner is only there for the sex she provides, you’d be paying handsomely for that elsewhere too! Surely you don’t regard her as a possession to be ‘available-on-demand'? A baby would interrupt her accessibility, wouldn’t it? Remember that she is not 'to blame' for the failure of the contraceptives and resultant pregnancy either.

It is unfortunate that you’re merely following statistical behaviour for many men in your situation…just another sheep, not the ‘independent thinker’ you’d like to think you are.

Some men have developed their relationships past their own needs and wants alone, to where they build lifelong relationships with and for a family…I can recommend it and my own husband is an example of such a man. We want to share many more years with our own children and extended families…I’d recommend that too!

Reading Yabby’s and your own posts, you demonstrate a bitterness that could only sadden anyone close to you…that level of bitterness commonly results from extraordinary selfishness, not a generous spirit or a loving partner. I wonder how much freedom your partner’s enjoyed in your relationship? How much have you encouraged her to pursue her ‘career’ and taken a back seat to her ambitions? Judging from your desire to minimise your involvement to payment for the killing of your child, I guess not much…

Give yourself a chance to be really happy…do something selfless for your partner, you’d be amazed how rewarding it can be…even habit-forming…you’ve everything to gain!

So true Philo…well put! Here’s one woman who’d choose life not death!

How quick we are to miss a point. I'm sure I'm missing others just as well. Selfish? Sex on demand? Unsupportive? Lets look at some facts of the situation, just to put things in to a context. I have supported my wife through an eating disorder (onset before we met), subsequent depression and the myriad of other stuff that goes with the condition. There was not a large part of me thinking I could get something out of the situation, just a desire to be there for a wonderful person. Things on that front started looking up a few years ago, and am pleased to have been part of her recovery. I am the partner with the lower sex drive, and yes though you may find it strange that a male has a low sex drive, our relationship is not based on sex. She usually initiates things in that department. Unsupportive people would not have been there holding back long locks of hair during five hour bouts of morning sickness, or going to the supermarket in the middle of the night to satisfy a frequently strange craving. [I drew the line at some of the inedible stuff ;)]. I have supported her both emotionally and financially through a degree, read her essays helped with research and not complained when she job hopped for a long period of time before she clicked with an employer. She has been equally as good to me, when my company was fledgeling encouraging risks and being pleased for our rewards. She is very supportive on the kid front as well, realising that it's not ideal and having the understanding to make something work long term, whatever that is. She realises that the kid is caught in the crossfire, and knows that while it won't go without, daddy might be at work a lot. That's life, and the best of a bad situation. (cont'd)