Correction: That should read- 98% of young Australian women having abortions are having them for social and or economical reasons, not for birth defects or any other medical necessity.

Aqvarivs,
you have already been automatically excommunicated because you have said that you are not anti-abortion: http://www.catholicplanet.com/articles/article78.htm

“This sentence of latae sententiae excommunication applies to any Catholic who denies that abortion is gravely immoral, regardless of whether they keep this denial hidden or publicly reveal it.”

This is not meant as criticism; in fact, I admire people who make up their own mind rather than blindly following a (religious) herd.

However, I am somewhat confused about your stance on abortion. You said, “…what ever is developed in a lab is under the propriety of that lab, the laws and that labs moral directives”.

I agree, but why should a lab have more power over their embryo than a woman should have over her embryo?

It sounds like you're saying that when an embryo has been developed in a lab, it’s up to the lab what happens to it, but when the same embryo has been developed in a woman’s body, somehow that woman has to justify what she does with it.

I seem to have the impression that you are pro-choice, yet the woman’s free choice should be questioned and should come with conditions.
You questioned the necessity of so many abortions, which is the same as judging the woman’s decision (e.g. are her social or economic reasons justifiable?). A woman has her own reasons; she should not have to seek approval from or be judged by others.
You also have said that women can have free choice but only on the condition that fathers are allowed to totally wipe their hands of any responsibility.

Thanks, Yabby,
this article infuriates me! The opinion of the Catholic Church is that if a woman is sinful enough to commit a murder (abortion) she is sinful enough to lie about rape to obtain an abortion as well.

Fester,
You’re right- religious zealots worship human zygotes, while they are silent about severe animal cruelty such as intensive farming.

Aqvarivs,

“I'd say for every woman who agonizes and has residual guilt there is an equal number of men.”

Undoubtedly, in cases there are. I applaud, greatly, those men who take responsibility for contraception, such as having a vasectomy, which is efficient and can be reversed.

I cited to the Council of Trent (MDLXIII) to show that the Church recognised that many men (like today) did not accept responsibility.

Moving to the modern period, Pope John Paul II stated: "no personal or social circumstance can justify the use of contraceptives,” - condemning their use in Africa to prevent the spread of HIV/Aids. Throughout John Paul II's papacy his primary concern was sexual morality: contraception, abortion, divorce, homosexuality - to which he referred as the 'culture of death.' He believed that man, woman and conception was analogous to the Holy Trinity.

The current Pope Benedict XVI upholds John Paul’s position, however, has asked
a team of experts to prepare a statement on the use of condoms by married people, carrying infectious viruses such as HIV. Cardinal Carlo Maria Martin, whilst conceding this contradicts the idea that contraception is against God’s will and natural law, suggests it’s, “a lesser evil”.

Poor comfort to those in many countries where sex is a taboo subject, not discussed; and where women are typically victims ... often lacking the power to control how sex takes place - the latter situation also seen in our society.

Furthermore, the Church is notoriously long in bringing change ...

I am in my third stage of life; have lived in other countries. I am not anti any religion, but refuse to be blind to the horrors, cruelty, injustices and suffering incurred in religion’s name. And I will say so.

Aqvarivs,

I do find fault with those that claim to be, as in your case, Catholic, implying they are either a spokesperson for the religion, or by being in someway associated with a religion, their opinions are more worthy than others. Why mention your religion at all? You have deplorable tunnel vision and you don’t seem to have much compassion

"I am not anti any religion, but refuse to be blind to the horrors, cruelty, injustices and suffering incurred in religion’s name. And I will say so."

Well good on you Danielle! Some of the religious have this notion
that their chosen religion should be beyond criticism, no matter
how political they are. Sorry, politics is open slather and if
religious organisations are responsible for suffering and misery,
then I think it should be openly stated.

Aqva is a bit sensitive about his Catholic Church, having been
brought up and schooled as a Catholic. I remind him that had he
grown up in say Iraq, there is a 95% chance that he would be a devout
muslim :)

IMHO, the views of the Catholic Church are given far too much
coverage by the press in the first place. If we look at the stats,
something like 8% of Australians regularly go to church. So the
share of those going to a Catholic Church, would be maybe a quarter,
or around 2% of the population. Of those people, surveys show that
only a small % agree with their church on abortion and family
planning. What you land up with is a miniscule % of the population,
getting far too much press coverage, as in numbers they are no more
then a cult.

We openly criticise the Taliban for trying to impose their religious
values on their society. Why should we not do the same when it comes
to the Catholic Church and other extremist religious groups?

I will respect the rights of the believers to believe whatever they
want, but I certainly won't respect what they believe and I don't see
any reason why I should. For me, the Vatican is little more then
a bunch of old farts who should have retired years ago, I have no
respect for them. I have far more respect for a bloke like Paul
Collins, but I'm not sure if the church landed up kicking him out
or not, for saying what he thinks. It would not surprise me

You certainly did miss something, Yvonne - reading lessons, at the very least. Where did you get that nonsense from about Chinese soldiers and 3 old girls? It wasn't from my post.
Celivia, you're probably just acting dumb, as you usually do when you are stuck with a question you don't want to answer, and pretend not to understand the argument.
The reason I raised the hypothetical case of the 3-year-old Chinese girl was to put us both on exactly the same footing, confronting the same question of how we would respond if offered life-saving treatment derived from what each considers to be a real human being. So, how would you respond if offered life-saving treatment produced by killing what you regard as a real human being? It’s exactly the same ethical dilemma (in your terms) as the one you threw at me (in my terms).
And you’re off with the fairies again with your hypothetical arguments about what might have happened before you were conceived, and that somebody else might have been conceived in your place. That is totally irrelevant. The fact is that you were conceived. You exist today because you were conceived, and it is interesting that you acknowledge that you, as an individual, existed from the moment of conception. Thank you for admitting it. Whatever lethal action might have been taken against you from that day to the present would have had exactly the same consequence on your existence today, and would therefore have the same moral significance. The pro-life case in a nutshell. Whether you were conscious at the time, or aware of what was happening is totally irrelevant. Killing a sleeping drunk is just as much a crime as killing a vibrant healthy child. There are no degrees of life. There are no degrees of humanity.

Oh dear Peter D, if you are going to lambast the use of hypotheticals, at least have decency to not use one in the same post. And then to deny and confirm using the the chinese officials and 3 year old girl rape victim 'hypothetical' in virtually the same breath! Or was it the misreading 'officials' for 'soldiers' that you are on about? Does it make much difference? Just who is off with fairies here?

No degrees of humanity? No degrees of life? I guess you are completely against turning off life support of the brain dead under any and all circumstances then. Or totally opposed to execution as a punishment for serial killers? (Actually I am against that one, but many pro-lifers I have noticed are not). Get real, thank goodness you don't get to make the decisions out there.