Webby wrote about rojo: You don't care about that 9 year old. You are only using that as your excuse for the real agenda of allowing abortion generally. Pull the other one.

Dear Webby: You don't know what rojo cares about not. You cannot read rojo's mind. It is quite possible that one might care more about a person who is born than an embryo inside that person.

One of the signs of a rigid and bigoted mind is that a person with such a mind cannot see that a person who differs acts in good faith.

From your post I think you have a rigid and bigoted mind. Nevertheless I think you are acting in good faith. Give others the same credit.

All who oppose your ideas are not wrong. They merely differ.

My wife was asked by a Muslim to tell him what she found wrong with his religion. He was obviously ready to defend himself even though he had not been attacked. She said, "What is wrong with your religion is the same thing that is wrong with all religions. You think you have the truth."

Actually some religions accept that other people may have a different thing that they think is truth and are tolerant of that difference. Although I agree with rojo I don't think you are a bad person you merely have a different opinion. Your truth is merely opinion which you mistake for truth.

Actually David, 'tolerance' has got nothing to do with truth or virtue. Whislt different religions think they are right , they all cannot be right; either one of them is right or all of them are wrong; there is no in-between. The Catholic Church teaches this very issue as a matter of doctrine. People like you mean well David but essentially what you are inferring about religion is this: that all religions are either as good as each other and usually all religions may be as bad as one another. This thinking is wrong. It is the heresy of religious indifferentism. All our rights and natural tolerances spring from the true religion of Christ and His Catholic Church ( his Spouse as taught by St Paul and others). The 'tolerance' you speak of may have some good elements but is essentially formed in the non-religious and politically correct ( anti Catholic) 'modern' Western world. It doesn't hold water but gains its 'believers' from peer non religious group think which doesn't 'tolerate' the very heritage that is undermined and rejected by degrees through 'law reform' ( legal positivism) whereby non-religious secualr humanists get satisfaction and revenge through legal changes to suit their whims.

Dear Webby,

I think you mean well also, but I think you are terribly wrong. Your 'truth' is probably due to the fact that your parents were or are Catholic.

Your truth is merely the opinion of a powerful institution which you choose to accept. In a democratic state if the opinion of a powerful institution is that of the majority of the people it becomes law. However, that does not mean that it is true or right.

I believe that there is no divorce in Italy because Italy is democratic, and a majority of the people accept a law that does not allow for divorce. A law that does not allow for divorce promotes adultery. A law that does not allow abortion condemns nine year old girls who have been forced into sex by their stepfather and are medically judged to be physically incapable of bearing a child to have that child. In effect not having an abortion is probably condemning the girl to death.

In Saudi Arabia people have limbs hacked off and are beheaded for offenses which would not attract similar penalties in Italy.

Unfortunately it is the religious mindset in both Saudi Arabia and Italy that promotes immorality by my definition of immorality.

Islamists have a different truth from you. Some day both Islam and Catholicism will vanish, and people will find new 'truths'.

Not that this has much to do with abortion, but (surprise, surprise) the Catholic Church has been brought into the discussion again. I wish I could find the source, but I can't, so I'm afraid what follows will be on a "take it or leave it" basis without cold hard evidence.

I remember reading a justification of ecumenism from the Vatican. Essentially, it contradicted what Webby has presented here. It acknowledged (in a huge step for the Catholic Church) that there is more than one path to salvation. That is, people who do not belong to the Catholic Church are not automatically damned to hell or even to limbo. My understanding of the document was that you don't even have to profess your love for God to get there. Instead, one can achieve salvation purely by living a virtuous life. As most religions have very similar guidelines for what a "virtuous" life is, there is nothing preventing a Muslim or a Hindu or any other religious person from entering heaven. Similarly, many people with no religious connections at all, who are governed solely by their own consciences, can lead perfectly virtuous lives and reap the rewards at a later date.

While the Catholic path is seen as preferable, I think the Church has recognised that people like Gandhi and many other non-Catholics have proved their worth and the fact that they haven't "seen the light" should surely be no impediment to their eternal salvation. I would hazard a guess that "not seeing the light" (my words, not the Church's) could include seeing the teachings of the Church but not understanding them to the point of acceptance. Sounds patronising, but remember that these ideas stem from people who see understanding as acceptance.

I think the document was Lumen Gentium.

Like I said, this has nothing to do with abortion but when I see posts like Webby's I can understand why many people don't like Catholics or members of any other religion, for that matter.

Fortunately Webby, your DLP party will suffer the same fate as any other group of zealots who can't accept that theirs is just one teaching within the multitude.

They'll crash and burn... actually, that's being generous. They won't get enough traction to warrant crashing and burning, they'll just be ignored.

Simply because, people want an MP who listens. Not one who preaches and refuses to see that people may have different ideas about right and wrong, as davidf states.

You believe a fetus is a baby. Others think a fetus is a fetus and there are notable differences.

I respect pro-lifers who respect that others at least are coming from a place of compassion, even if they disagree with them.

I dislike however, religious nuts who refuse to even consider the possibility that people with different ideas about abortions, still have good intentions. Do you really think we're all about convenient murders? Do you honestly refuse to believe that some people are concerned about issues like rape as well as children (actual children as opposed to bundles of cells) being born into abject poverty? What about women with no choices about contraception? The thousands who die from illegal abortions?

But no. You won't even deign to consider that. It's not the right-to-life arguments that annoy me. It's the way that most of the fervent followers disregard the opinions of the other side.

I'm glad you told me about the DLP, so I can inform others as to the dogmatic nature of this group. Odds are however, you'll never get an MP within a stone's throw of government.

Some of these members of the god squad, seem to live in their
own little dream land, far away from any kind of reality.

I was listening to such a debate on US tv, about the present
Obama change of laws, when it comes to IVF embryos.

There are something like 600'000 eight cell embryos, frozen
in storage. One religious Congress member suggested that
they should be adopted. It turns out that something like
70 were adopted last year, so clearly Catholics are not
running to their rescue!

Reality prevails. If not used for research, those cells
will be dumped. Minus perhaps another 100 adopted ones.

Webby, would you like a few hundred thousand spare embryos
for your party members to adopt?