A Smarter Path for Pro-Lifers

Abortion should be I-L-L-I-G-A-L

Contraception

It is not wise to deny contraception to anyone. The emotional, medical and social problems of promiscuous sex is not helped by denying the use of contraceptives. There is no need to add to sexually transmitted diseases and increase the number of abortions by denying contraception.

Even within marriage there is a place for contraception. Men and women should only bring forth children to the world that they are willing and able to support emotionally and financially. Within marriage, asking couples to have sexual intercourse only to produce children is ridiculous at best. Without contraception they would bring forth children that they cannot support. Using contraceptives is a responsible act within marriage, not just outside it.

The use of contraceptives must go hand in hand with proper sex education to shift the consciousness of people in how they toilet train their sex instinct at an early stage (as it get increasingly difficult to do it after certain forms of behaviour has already taken deep roots)and values related to sexual expression. The idea is to tame the sex instinct, not to suppress it. Morality based on reason and concern for self, and the welfare of the whole society, including the weak and vulnerable, is to be the focus of sex education.

Contd...

As a Christian, the morality advocated by the religion confirms my own understanding of what would bring the greatest happiness to individuals, provide the best environment for children, create the most stable societies: early marriage, with lifelong monogamy without adultery and without divorce is the best human arrangement. We have proof that with all its limitations it served mankind for many many centuries. All the other options are attempts to get around a situation when the ideal situation is not possible, for example divorce when the marriage is destructive to one or both partners etc. Not allowing widows to remarry is unfair to the women, easy divorce breaks up families and has a detrimental effect on children and creates an imbalance that works only in favor of men in the long run...older women get left out of the companion finding game. The competition involved in finding and keeping a partner remains a constant source of stress...

GaryD

I'm sorry if I mistakenly created the impression that I was advocating promiscuity!

I am all for sex only within loving committed relationships (whether there is a paper declaring marriage or not because of the complexity of today's lifestyle). Anything less than that dishonors the highest purpose sex serves in human beings - namely physical expression of love with a companion one is committed to. It is a fact of life though that sex is being lived out in many cases as an instinct, as recreation, as a power and manipulation tool, as payment in kind for favors received... although it is meant to be an expression of physical love in a committed companionship which is the best environment for children to be born and raised in.

What solution do you see for our increasingly complex lifestyle? Finding a life partner is no longer something that happens as a matter of course as was the case in traditional societies, but something one has to compete for like a highly coveted job, and fight all of one's life to keep! Nobody cares to remain virgins until marriage which can be a long time in coming and for some marriage seems almost unattainable because the art of acquiring a mate is becoming more and more complex everyday; marriage and the commitment and responsibility it involves seems to frighten most ('when sex is free why bother' is the prevalent attitude)...

There are no simplistic solutions to our complex society and I am as confused as anybody else in figuring out the ideal solution. One thing I'm definitely against is religious hypocrisy. Talking ideals without the willingness to live them is useless. One wonders why there is such a high rate of abortions and divorce in Christian communities, among Christian believers. If Christians cannot regulate their sexual instinct based on their knowledge of what is right and wrong, how could we possibly pretend to be paragons of virtue to non-believers or believers of other religions. I had all human beings in mind when I wrote, not just Christians. My stance as a Christian is that we should practice Christianity, not just preach it AT others. The aggression that some non-Christians have expressed towards Christians is because we do not practice what we preach.

Nonsense Soja. Using others to please yourself is never a good thing and that is ultimately what promiscuity boils down too.

A different way to look at abortion. From TruthOut:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/012908R.shtml

Abortion and the Earth
By Kelpie Wilson

On this recent thirty-fifth anniversary of the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion, pro-choice activists are calling for a new approach to the issue.

The moral arguments about abortion rarely consider the physical limits of the planet, but if they did, and if abortion were put into the context of the long history of human attempts to avoid starvation by regulating population growth, we might come to a different conclusion about what "pro-life" really means.

An increased awareness of the fetus and its rights is not the only change in the moral landscape of reproduction since 1973. The other change that must be acknowledged is that we have far exceeded the capacity of the planet to sustain our numbers, and that human life and civilization are now deeply threatened by resource depletion, toxic pollution and climate catastrophe. Already, shortages of food, fuel and water are making it difficult to meet the basic needs of the 6.5 billion people on the planet and no one has any idea how we will feed the 9.1 billion people projected to be here by 2050.

(much longer article at the link...)

When women have children they do not want all of society suffers.

Ultimately, it is the woman's choice to bring a fetus to term or to abort. Huckabee wants to imprison the doctors but not the women who choose abortion. This is wrong. The doctors are only trying to provide quality medical care to women who want to abort. Making abortion illegal will not end abortion. It will drive it underground, to the back alleys where women are butchered by amateurs who have no medical training.

Many women who have an abortion already have a family. They cannot afford to care for the children they already have. They abort because they are trying to live up to their responsibilities to the children they already have.

Many women who have abortions used contraceptives and became pregnant anyway. Contraceptives are not effective 100% of the time.

When we are facing global warming and environmental catastrophe due to overpopulation, isn't it progressive to try to manage how many offspring we bring into the world? God gave us minds to make decisions in our lives. He is not going to intervene one morning and solve global warming for us. It is up to us to find a way to balance life goals, family size and family life, work, consumption, pollution, conflict, sustainable growth, etc., in order to preserve the planet for future generations and to create a methodology for responsible living.

Mindlessly following religious doctrine is not compatible with democracy based on civic service from an informed electorate. The Constitution gives rights to people. Religion always comes down to blind obedience to the leaders' interpretations of religious dogma. Religion is the opiate of the masses, used by ruthless leaders to subjugate large numbers of people who are only too willing to give up responsibility for their own lives to people who have an agenda.

WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!

Terra,

By no means did I want tio imply with my post that I condone Hitlers actions. It was just some trivia I happened to know since my grandmother had a "Mothercross" for having 7 children. Not that she believed in Hitler's propagnada machine, I think my grandparents just spend too much time in the bedroom. ;)

And of course you are right, replenishing the Army was not the only goal of producing babies, the ever important "master race" was as much a consideraton.

Ants become people when they grow up. People are stepping on ants thus murdering people and sinning big time. And then there's those really big sinners like Otto the Orkin man. Black flag is the eyewash of evil spirits?

Every particle of matter has the potential to beconme a person just like a fetus. Every time you turn on a light you electrocute billions of people. We need to amend the constitution to ban abortion, gay marriage and electricity. While we're at it why not revoke the law of gravity.

God's will be done. Make that well done and not medium or rare. Your goose is cooked.

Athena

PPFA’s own financial reports reveal profits, record profits being made.

I have no quarrel with contraception in the form of birth control pills, condoms or sex education. To venture beyond those preventive (defensive) measures is beyond my reach.

Returning to Planned Parenthoods failure to report One, that is 1 single solitary adoption referral from 264,943 abortions performed in 2005-2006. This is unacceptable by anyone’s standards and reveals just what PPFA is about. Adoption is not an option with these people. Surely we stand in agreement on this point.

Apart from all the above I wish You and your Husband the best in your adoption decision and ensuing search, we need more willing couples to commit themselves to unwanted children.

Sincerely

This is about what I've thought of the pro-life movement for awhile. Personally I'm pro-choice. However, I believe in creating educational, social, and economic practices that would lessen the need for abortions in the first place. You'd think both sides could agree on such a thing.

ANON (January 29, 2008 1:44 AM)wrote, "Good Lord who would call an embryo/fetus a parasite??? Clearly that person has to be cold-hearted or just plain uneducated stupidity."

I was referring to the following comment:

PAM wrote January 28, 2008 6:29 PM

"A woman isn't a mother until she gives birth.
Until a child is born, breathing and eating on its own, it's no more than a parasite on the one whose body it inhabits."

Thank you for providing more medical details.

For those feeling compelled to have abortions (for whatever reason) I can understand their desperate attempt to find some rationalization for it, including the one by blogger Mary above, who is of the opinion only a tax exemption would be proof that a fetus is a developing human. I have however the consolation of knowing that even Hippocrates, the father of allopathic medicine, did not approve of abortions. Abortion, remains for me the lesser of two evils. It is not right to force a woman to have a child against her will knowing that she would neglect it, nor is it advisable to let the woman have a medically unsafe abortion which would endanger the life of the mother. Somehow it is ironical that on the one hand we have abortions in the millions, and on the other hand a rise in the number of women wanting IVF because they are unable to conceive by natural means.

If pro-life politicians believe that the fetus is a human being why have they not given the fetus a tax exemption? That would certainly give proof to their words.

Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia: "Is an embryo/foetus only a "parasite" (as someone called it) on the mother??? It is a human being in development, just as an infant, which is an adult in development needs others to take care of it, and is yet not a "parasite" with no right to its life? One only has to look at the foetus in its various stages of development to know that it is an infant in the making, and not some vegetable that suddenly becomes a human infant at birth. Is is a terrible pity to consider abortion as late stage contraception!"

Good Lord who would call an embryo/fetus a parasite??? Clearly that person has to be cold-hearted or just plain uneducated stupidity.

The embryo stage is until 12 weeks gestation. Thereafter, the fetus stage begins, generally an audible heartbeat can be heard via Doppler and or ultrasound at the 12 week stage of growth, it has been noted that some doctors have heard a heartbeat at 8 weeks gestation. A viable fetus is considered at 16-20 weeks gestation.

Having said that, it means that a neonatal specialist will attempt to save a premature infant at 16-20 weeks gestation if a Mom goes into pre-term labor but generally they will not make an attempt until the fetus is at 20-week gestation. This is due to the stage of development the infant is in and they cannot breath on their own, they would need to be placed on a ventilator in order to survive. The lungs of a fetus do not fully mature until 37 weeks gestation, hence the importance of why the OB docs try to keep women from going into labor before that time.

Some states will allow abortions up to 26 weeks gestation, NY is one of them. Now I have difficulty aborting a healthy fetus at 26 weeks gestation.

I wish to add that since we live in an age when men and women do NOT enter into marriage as soon as they attain puberty as was the case until not so long ago in traditional societies, neither do we have strict rules for interaction between the sexes, it is too much to ask for celibacy until marriage (and between marriages), which happens very late for several reasons. Unless we go back to the age of early marriages once again, other options will have to be found to deal with the legitimate sexual needs of human beings. Nevertheless the sexual need should not be treated like an instinct completely beyond our control to regulate. Responsible handling of the sex instinct, use of contraceptives, along with rigorous sex education which includes the consequences of failed contraception should be mandatory. When we are sexually mature, and we rightfully boast about how highly evolved in other ways we are, responsibility towards the consequence of our sexual acts, its impact on ourselves (emotional and medical), on an innocent third party (the child that is conceived without its consent), and on the society at large should be carefully considered.

Is an embryo/foetus only a "parasite" (as someone called it) on the mother??? It is a human being in development, just as an infant, which is an adult in development needs others to take care of it, and is yet not a "parasite" with no right to its life? One only has to look at the foetus in its various stages of development to know that it is an infant in the making, and not some vegetable that suddenly becomes a human infant at birth. Is is a terrible pity to consider abortion as late stage contraception!

Oh and if you are male and don't want to pay child support you may also opt to avoid sexual intimacy until you find a woman you are willing to spend at least enough time with to raise any progeny you might produce.

Terra if I here that old canard one more time I may retch. WE are not arguing about your right to choose but your right to choose for others. You do not wish to become pregnant choose not to have sex.

Birth has always been, both legally and traditionally, accepted as the beginning of life. Do any of you count your age from the day that you were conceived? Do any of you have any idea what day that *was*?

A woman isn't a mother until she gives birth.

Until a child is born, breathing and eating on its own, it's no more than a parasite on the one whose body it inhabits.

Until someone can show me a soul, or provide convincing evidence for its existence (scripture is NOT convincing) I will not accept "ensoulment" as an argument against abortion, or anything else.

I'm not *for* abortion. I doubt that anyone is. But I'm also not for all of the neglected, abused, abandoned, and murdered children that result from forcing women to go through with pregnancies that they don't want. Is it better to eliminate an unfeeling blastocyst, or to have a despairing woman hold a pillow over a baby's face?

I'm also not for do-it-yourself abortions, or those performed by back-alley hacks that leave women maimed or dead. Like Terra, I remember the days when this happened with regularity.

I think contraception of all kinds should be available to whoever wants it. I think if pharmacists object to providing it, they should find another line of work.

I also think that abortion should remain safe and legal, and be between a woman and her doctor, and NO ONE else.

I think sex education should be mandatory in public schools. I've known of too many parents who insist that sex education for their children is their prerogative only, and then fail to provide it. This alone would go a long way toward preventing abortions.

Gaby,

I saw a documentry once created by the nazi propaganda section about Hitler's way of creating his Master Race...babies. Lots and lots of babies.

So Hitler had those women have children for the Fatherland to be cannon fodder? How did he do that? Use patriotism and patriarchy? What woman would willingly have a child to die on the battlefield? That is slavery...there does not need to be a whip used...

Blessed Be..
terra

One final comment before I retire. Does anyone know that your forum on religion at least as far as I have seen carries real memories of people I know......? Think about the Scotsman newspaper Edinburgh and the forums for reader's comments and compare.

As a life long survivor of abuses from people who misuse abuse and enslave children and adults for drugs research and sex. I would encourage adoption of children with natural or adoptive parents who abuse or neglect them or subject them knowingly to less obvious abuses like drug research or profit making medical treatments. It is easily done for example look at the misuses and abuses of African Americans in the deep south for research into the disease syphilis which could be cured but no one bothered to keep adequate records of the disease prior to the treatment of the disease with penicillin. Read into the article about who is exploitable and worth exploiting for what as an African American nurse took center stage to assure her and her paymaster's victims that all was well.

As a life long survivor of abuses from people who misuse abuse and enslave children and adults for drugs research and sex i would encourage adoption of children with natural or adoptive parents who abuse or neglect them or subject them knowingly to less obvious abuses like drug research or profit making medical treatments.

1) I'm childless myself, although not by choice. Well, unless you count choosing not to go to a fertility clinic and jump through all kinds of hoops. My husband and I are considering adoption of an older child.

2) I believe that you should teach sex education in schools. Not just abstinence, but everything. birth control, AIDS, gonorrhea (sp?), syphilis, chlamidia, the whole kit and caboodle. That sex with the right person can be beautiful and sacred. But you've got to be responsible about things. And yes, that includes what abortion is. I don't think that talking about abortion is age appropriate for middle-schoolers (like the ones in "Jesus Camp" for example). Give them all of the information that you can. Because they're gonna find it out from their friends or on the Internet.

3) I'd rather have my tax dollars going to support Planned Parenthood than lining the CEO of Halliburton's pockets.

Look, the economy is going into the toilet, we've lost almost 4,000 kids in Iraq and Afghanistan, everybody around the world hates us, global warming is making the North Pole look like a slushee, and you people are worried about ABORTION? You guys need to get your priorities straightened out.

Angela B,

You don't want people to have unwanted children yet in the next sentence you would restrict access to birth control?

I never liked abortionists but would reluctantly allow for it on health grounds for the mother's sake. some people support abortion because of selfish reasons like they are LGBT and to conceive a child by natural means would Quote "betray the lie that LGBT is often a product of self abuse and the abuse of others including children and is a conviction of the sort that is an alternative to prison and the death penalty because the pharmaceutical industries have allowed for this deception along with other influential politically and religious and financially motivated institutions for profit and damage limitations". End quote. Every one has the right to a family that is a fundamental right for all peoples deny that by any means and you are looking for trouble all over again. I know that because of the death of my mother all manner of criminals come out of the woods to exploit the weakened for profit and others for pleasures, there are very few exceptions.

I never liked abortionists but would reluctantly allow for it on health grounds for the mother's sake. some people support abortion because of selfish reasons like they are LGBT and to conceive a child by natural means would Quote "betray the lie that LGBT is often a product of self abuse and the abuse of others including children and is a conviction of the sort that is an alternative to prison and the death penalty because the pharmaceutical industries have allowed for this deception along with other influential politically and religious and financialy motivated institutions for profit and damage limitations". Unquote. Every one has the right to a family that is a fundamental right for all peoples deny that by any means and you are looking for trouble all over again. I know that because of the death of my mother all manner of criminals come out of the woods to exploit the weakened for profit and others for pleasures, there are very few exceptions.

I haven't physically adopted any of them but I have taken care of foster children temporarily for relatives. Also this is a conversation a friend and I had over the weekend and first I'd like to say that those who have bombed abortion clinics are no better than those who flew planes into the Word Trade Center. They claim that they do evil in the name of God but anyone who does evil is not of God. Also, one thing that I truly believe is if you don't want children; abstain from sex or at least, make sure that you don't have babies that you don't have any intention on having. Also, I have a teenage son in high school and most schools feel it's their right to give out condoms, give names of places where young women can have abortions which I don't believe they have a right to do; It's up to the family not the schools which is normally public schools (state and locally funded); hope I'm making a point here. Also, do you know where every tax dollar of your money goes? There's so many forums that are going on that most of us don't have a clue where our tax dollars are going. I wonder: do you have an issue with school teaching your daughters about abortion or would you rather have the opporunity to set the moral grounds for your children and not the media or the school system. I happen to believe that if you don't want children, don't get pregnant or give them up for adoption. Most people have unprotected sex (of course) and don't care because they feel, they can have an abortion whenever they feel like it. Also, some of these woman have emotional, relational and guilt issues later in life. I don't believe everything the majority of society thinks is ok is always what's necessarilyy the right thing.

If the Supreme Court had refused to hear Roe vs. Wade and instead decreed that it is unconstitutional for federal, state and local governments to legislate for -or- against abortion, leaving the decision completely up to the mother, then I believe the huge number of abortions performed in this country would be a small fraction of those performed today. The effect of Roe vs. Wade is much more than granting women this right, but also conveys that abortion is morally acceptable and that plays a big part in the 1.8 million or so abortions each year. It doesn't just say 'women have the right', but also says 'its morally acceptable'. The government at any level does not have the right to declare that abortion is morally acceptable. The right to determine whether abortion is morally acceptable must reside with the individual. In my own life, my father died after a 10 year battle with Parkinson's. Near the end decisions about 'minor surgery' such as a inserting a feeding tube were traumatic. Mom struggled, and consulted all the family about "whats the right thing to do?". I can't even imagine the nightmare of having the government involved in these decisions. Tough moral choices MUST be left to those closest to those involved. Without the court's Roe vs. Wade "stamp of approval" a women's choice would become more difficult, but it would really be her choice, and I would expect less than one tenth of the abortions that we have now. If we are going to have a Constitutional amendment, lets have one that bans courts, governments and politicians from passing laws OR EVEN TALKING ABOUT abortion!

I wonder how many would be against abortion if they had not been told to take that position at church. How many would be on the other side if that was the position of their church? How many are actually thinking and how many are parroting as they've been told to parrot?

I heard it said, "if men carried the baby abortion would be a sacrament." Men do run the churches. Is there a correlation?

If adultery is a stone-able sin then killing the product of adultery must be a sacrament. That would be according to fundamentalists and not the RCC of course. Stoning the mother kinda takes care of the fetus.

Anyone ever wonder why there was no man to be stoned with the adulteress Jesus saved from stoning? Adultery is a two people event isn't it? Maybe they intended to receive the sacrament of abortion? Stoning the one that's pregnant is abortion done the old fashioned way, no doubt.

A new source of absolute truth is desperately needed to stop the fight. There is no absolute truth so the fight shall continue. We can hang our hats on, "the devil is in the details." Order is heaven's first law while the chaos of fighting is hells most common event. May we please keep the fighting orderly?

Gaby, most anti-abortion advocates quote Psalm 139:13 "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb." Being "knit together" indicates a divine hand in creating the person, and to stop that creation before the opportunity of salvation is the sin.

And Father Reese, Governor Huckabee is probably acting on the surveys that show that over 80% of Americans call themselves Christian; he's hoping enough still have respect for the Bible to count it a source of authority. He's also trying to make a connection between respecting the worth of the living and those not yet born.

For my part, I simply wonder why a traffic death of a pregnant woman is ALWAYS reported as "a woman and her unborn child" but an abortion is usually called "removal of fetal tissue."

Angie,

Then I'm guessing that you are anti-war and anti-death-penalty as well.

How many children have YOU adopted? How much do you want your taxes raised to support all of the children that will be born if abortion is illegalized?

Oh, and 4th watch - PPFA does NOT make a profit. Many centers do not offer abortion services at all. They do, however, offer contraceptive services for women. Isn't that what you're really against - contraception?

How about thou shall not murder!

Fr. Reese is clearly correct about the advisability of basing the argument against abortion on philosophical, human rights grounds. The moral sphere naturally overlaps with the religious sphere, however, so to separate the two entirely is not plausible. The claim that "as long as there are more than a million abortions . . . the law will not change" is disingenuous at best. It is more accurate to state that as long as the law does not change, there will be more than a million abortions. Arguments that it is the "desperate situation" of the mother that is behind the decision, or that contraception needs to me made more readily available(!), simply absolve the parents of responsibility. Let's put all the cards on the table.

Gaby:

>>Hitler did not force German women to have children. What he did do was to give out the "Mothercross", 4-5 kids = bronze, 6-7 kids = silver, and 8 or more kids = gold. The goal was to have one boy per fallen soldier born so that the army cold always be replenished.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Soldiering must be some kind of abortion activity of fetuses that are somewhat beyond the third trimester. Maybe those abortion laws forbidding it after the third trimester also outlaw soldiering/war.

Replenishing the army that way kinda justifies killing civilians and especially women and boys doesn't it? Where do soldiers come from anyhow? The younger they are the easier it is to kill them. That is what God wants isn't it?

At least we can be happy that Hitler was against abortion. I think that was limited to the better class of people, righteous ones only. For all others abortion was the cure for the problem, them and there was no time limit on when it was applied.

Good article Rev. Reese
Abortion is no new problem but a primitive practice that we as a Nation continue on in.
Now that abortion is,sanitized, legalized, and subsidized,it no longer operates in the margins of society. It has become profitable for the ‘not for profit’ entity Planned Parenthood Federation of America. PPFA ends every fiscal year with tens of millions of dollars in 'excess revenue over expenses, this is better known as profit.
In its 2005-2006 annual report the PPFA performed 264,943 abortions.
Total income $902.8 million
Total profit $55.8 million
Of that $902.8 million gross income, $305.3 million came from taxpayer dollars.
The $55.8 million is drawing interest somewhere.

Planned Parenthoods literature declares they are working hard to reduce the frequency of abortion. An argument refuting their claim follows…
“The fact remains that Planned Parenthoods financial livelihood is built on abortion. Planned Parenthood, then, is just like the big tobacco companies. Does anyone really believe that tobacco companies want people to stop smoking? Does anyone really believe that Planned Parenthood wants people to stop having abortions”?

Looking at PPFA’s volume of business along with their $resources one would assume that its adoption referrals would also be quite high. In their 2005-2006 report it did not record a - single - adoption - referral. Follow the money, abortion is a lucrative business at taxpayer’s expense. This is Capitalism operating at a loss.

There is irony in the fact the U.S. subsidizes farmers to plant and harvest crops to consume, while subsidizing Planned Parenthood to cut short the most fruitful of all crops.

All of the above is just information which leaves the big question “What is the Unborn”?
If they are not human what are they, alien creatures assuming an acceptable human state?
Just who are the alien monsters in the abortion equation? Surely not us...right?

Norrie,

Thanks a bunch! Great read!

Mr. Mark, on the Jacoby thread, also gave me some background.

I'd like to point out that I am not pro-abortion, but I vew it as necessary in some cases. Outlawing it is not the answer, curtailing it should be. Such as, abortion in the third trimester should only be an option when the mother's life depends on it. Nowadays, many babies born prematurely survive when born as early as the end of the 5th or 6th months of pregnancy. In my opinion, once a fetus is viable abortion should not be allowed, except in cases of extreme hardship or life threatening conditions.

Terra,

Hitler did not force German women to have children. What he did do was to give out the "Mothercross", 4-5 kids = bronze, 6-7 kids = silver, and 8 or more kids = gold. The goal was to have one boy per fallen soldier born so that the army cold always be replenished.

The problem with the your philosophical argument is that it's not logical. You will never, ever convince me that a clump of cells the size of a pin head is completely human with all the rights of a living person. It is clearly not in any matter, shape or form, the equal of a living, breathing, human being.

If all life is sacred, we need to start treating the human persons who are alive and walking this earth with the same reverence you give to a pin head sized group of fertilized cells.

Norrie -

Excellent piece of historical research! Curious that as two of the Church's seminal (doctrinal) thinkers, both Augustine and Aquinas diverged rather dramatically from the today's absolutist condemnation of abortion under all circumstances.

It goes to show how relativistic (absolute) law can be - only in the universe of organized religion will we find such 'absolutes' - true abolutes being rare to non-existent in either nature or science (William James' example of 'one white crow disproving the rule that all crows are black' - comes to mind).

If we had to make a statistical guess, I'd bet that at least 50% of Catholic women globally follow their own conscience when it comes to either abortion or birth control issues (which the Church unfortunately doesn't support either).

The Church and it's clerics all take to the moral high ground because 1) they're not women
2) they're (supposedly) celebate 3) they're all following orders rather than making hard individual/existential decisions (an easier lot in life if you ask me).

Of course there are priests that struggle (locally) with these issues along with their parishoners, but they're not interpreting and/or reinforcing the 'universal' laws of the Church. That's left to the Church hierarchy in Rome.

Terra - I agree completely with your sentiments!

Let's not argue about who has the right to change what in the constitution. Instead, let's have a look at the assumptions of Huck's arguments.

Huck said, "But I believe it is a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God." We can argue it's more difficult to change the constitution than, "the word of the living God" but we'll be laughed at. So let's have a look at the source of, "the word of the living God" instead.

All roads lead to Rome and all arguments based upon, "the word of the living God" lead to the Bible. And, all assumptions about, "the word of the living God" hinge on the creature in the famous burning bush, the one Moses made the deal with to become president of the Israelites, (no country named Israel before 1948). Huck's making deals to become president is he? And he's taking a Que from Moses is he? That crispy critter in the fire that burns but does not consume is the key to understanding, "the word of the living God."

Therefore we need to examine the evidence. Was that God in the burning bush? If it was not God then we do not have, "the word of the living God" so we can amend the constitution to conform to, "the word of the living God." And, more important, was it Devil? Surely, no one wants to use the word of Devil to amend the constitution. Therefore this point, what being was in the burning bush is critical to the survival of our constitutional democracy. Don't you agree that Devil would destroy democracy and appoint Himself king?

If the being was God then wonderful and let's turn the country over to Him. After all, we're already "one nation under God" are we not. If the being in the burning bush was Devil what can we expect to happen if we turn the country over to Him?

Fr Reese, as a Catholic priest you must be able to fill us in, verify or deny. Are those pictures at http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul really, "authenticated by the Roman Catholic church"? If they are then why should anyone with an IQ above 10 say the being in the burning bush was God? Isn't it 99% sure that was the fallen angel Lucifer in that bush and if not Him then one of His agents, a little devil?

The question that I and many more have for you personally and the general case of the ministry is where does your loyalty lie? As good men gave their lives at places like Iwo Jima and Baghdad so our country could live don't you owe this country that much, an honest answer?

Isn't it blasphemy to say that was God in the burning bush? It violates the "image of God" prohibition in the first commandment doesn't it even if it wasn't Lucifer in there? When Americans recite the pledge and utter, "under God" are they not thinking the being in the burning bush saying it's God? If that wasn't God then are they not blaspheming? Some here say that blasphemy is the only deadly sin. Do you agree and don't you think we should correct that obvious problem rather that worry about a few "forgivable sins" like abortion, men laying with men and pedophile priests etc?

As far as civil rights and abortion...forcing a woman to carry a fetus without her free choice is slavery. It is no better then Hitler who forced German women to have children for the Fatherland.

The "pr-Choice" gang lies all they need to to get their way. Stateing that abortion causes Breast Cancer...or depression and suicide is horrible, and lies. The same as saying condoms don't work...liers and fascists.

I remember what was going on pre R v W. Women being butchered in back alley rooms with dirty tools and by uneducated money grabbers. Women being ruined for life, unable to have children when they chose to...women being found in blood soaked beds or lieing in the streets dead of blood loss. Any one that thinks that makeing abortion illegal will take care of the problem is nutz. It will only start then...all anyone has to do is go to any herbal book and go down the list of those herbs that say...not to be ingested by pregnant women. That will do it...oh the herbs might not to the trick completely, and if you don't know someone that can give you the proper advice, you can cause harm to yourself and not fully abort the fetus...and it can be very painful. I was 16 when my friend stepped in front of a train because she had just discovered she was pregnant. This being pre R v. W. suicide and clothes hangers was the best known out. Is this what those "pro life" folks want. If they do not believe in abortion..then folks do not have one.

There is no good reason for the government to ban abortions completely...and religion is not a reason. I don't give a fig what your religion says...and mostly you don't know either...this is government..not church.
Keep your roseries out of my overies.

terra

Well said Rev. Reese. "The bible says so" or "I think the bible says so" or "it's god's will" is utterly unconvincing to anyone that doesn't indulge in such beliefs.

Being Pro-life is being a good person in the Lord.

Dear Fr Reese

Although what is being discussed is a strictly US debate, I wish to throw in my personal thoughts as a Christian first and as someone who was trained as a health professional.

The area remains gray, and I am glad that I do not have to make a decision about whether to perform an abortion or not. I do not envy any medical doctor who is forced to make such a decision. In my personal opinion, a medical doctor would merely be choosing the lesser of the two evils in performing an abortion. A mother who would abort her baby anyway, should not be made to put her life at risk by not being offered medically safe abortion. However the woman should be educated fully about the moral implication of what she is doing. Since it is not possible to remove the embryo from the uterus of mother and give it independent life without the mother, the mother continues to have the power to choose what she does with the developing embryo. Since the mother has to be responsible for the welfare of the child that is growing in her womb, forcing her to have a baby she does not want does very little good to the child in her womb which is directly effected by what the mother feels. Unless there is an arrangement to have the baby adopted immediately after birth, in case the mother does not wish to raise her own child, one does the child more harm than good. It is a messy situation no matter how one looks at it.

The one thing that needs to done with the utmost intensity is public education. The would-be mother needs to know that an embryo is not a mere clot of blood to be flushed out of her body at will.

Psalm 139 talks of God knowing everything about us even before we were conceived! So the question of when the soul is implanted into the foetus seems redundant. I do however not have any qualms about believing that an embryo which is a product of in-vitro fertilisation is not capable of developing into a human outside the human body. Only an embryo that the uterus has "accepted" has any chance of becoming a human being. In that case, it is impossible to say which fertilised embryo has been endowed with a soul.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia

Gaby,

I don't have the knowledge to answer your questions myself.

However, concerning your first question, this letter appeared in the NY Times in 1990:

*************************************************

Bible and Abortion

Published: November 27, 1990
To the Editor:

Archbishop John P. Foley is incorrect, in responding to Anna Quindlen's "Nuns' Story," that "both Scripture and early Christian leaders were consistent in including abortion -- the direct taking of innocent human life in the womb -- as falling under" the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (letter, Oct. 20). There is nothing about voluntary abortion in the Hebrew Bible or the New Testament.

The sole reference to the regulation of abortion in the Old Testament is Exodus 21:22, which refers only to abortion resulting accidentally from a fight. The testimony in the New Testament is briefly summarized by the Rev. Joseph Connery, a Jesuit committed to the official Roman Catholic doctrine, in "Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective" (1977): "If anyone expects to find an explicit condemnation of abortion in the New Testament, he will be disappointed. The silence of the New Testament regarding abortion surpasses even that of the Old Testament (page 34)."

I may sympathize with and even share some of Archbishop Foley's beliefs on this issue; but if he can insist that nuns have a special obligation to adhere to the teaching of Jesus, I must insist he certainly has a special obligation to represent accurately the scriptural foundations of that teaching.

THOMAS TENTLER Professor of History University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Mich., Nov. 14, 1990

**************************************************

Concerning your second question, I found this on the internet:

**************************************************

Abortion and Catholic Thought: The Little-Told History

This is a summary of Catholics for a Free Choice publication The History of Abortion in the Catholic Church.
Reprinted in the Autumn 1996 issue of Conscience

Most people believe that the Roman Catholic church's position on abortion has remained unchanged for two thousand years. Not true. Church teaching on abortion has varied continually over the course of its history. There has been no unanimous opinion on abortion at any time. While there has been constant general agreement that abortion is almost always evil and sinful, the church has had difficulty in defining the nature of that evil. Members of the Catholic hierarchy have opposed abortion consistently as evidence of sexual sin, but they have not always seen early abortion as homicide. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the "right-to-life" argument is a relatively recent development in church teaching. The debate continues today.

Also contrary to popular belief, no pope has proclaimed the prohibition of abortion an "infallible" teaching. This fact leaves much more room for discussion on abortion than is usually thought, with opinions among theologians and the laity differing widely. In any case, Catholic theology tells individuals to follow their personal conscience in moral matters, even when their conscience is in conflict with hierarchical views.

The campaign by Pope John Paul II to make his position on abortion the defining one at the United Nations International Conference on Population and Development in 1994 was just one leg of a long journey of shifting views within the Catholic church. In the fifth century a.d., St. Augustine expressed the mainstream view that early abortion required penance only for sexual sin. Eight centuries later, St. Thomas Aquinas agreed, saying abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was "ensouled," and ensoulment, he was sure, occurred well after conception. The position that abortion is a serious sin akin to murder and is grounds for excommunication only became established 150 years ago.

A brief chronology cannot do justice to the twists and turns of theological thinking through the centuries. It can, however, put the abortion debate within the Catholic church into historical perspective and show the importance of continued debate and of open hearts and minds.

The First Six Christian Centuries
Early Christianity: Moving Away from Paganism
Pagan religions had a calm acceptance of abortion and contraception, including the use of barrier methods, coitus interruptus, and various medicines that prevented contraception or caused abortion.

Early Christian leaders, distinguishing Christianity from pagan beliefs, developed ideas about contraception and abortion, marriage and procreation, and the unity of body and soul. They taught that sex even for reproduction was bad and sex for pleasure heinous. Chastity became a virtue in its own right.

100 a.d.: The Debate Begins

One of the earliest church documents, the Didache, condemns abortion but asks two critical questions: 1) Is abortion being used to conceal the sins of fornication and adultery? and 2) Does the fetus have a rational soul from the moment of conception, or does it become an "ensouled human" at a later point? The matter of "hominization" — the point at which a developing embryo or fetus becomes a human being — would become one of the cornerstones of debate about abortion, and it remains a subject of debate even today.

St. Augustine: Early Abortion Is Not Homicide

St. Augustine (354-430) condemned abortion because it breaks the connection between sex and procreation. 1 However, in the Enchiridion, he says, "But who is not rather disposed to think that unformed fetuses perish like seeds which have not fructified" — clearly seeing hominization as beginning or occurring at some point after the fetus has begun to grow. He held that abortion was not an act of homicide. Most theologians of his era agreed with him.

In a disciplinary sense, the general agreement at this time was that abortion was a sin requiring penance if it was intended to conceal fornication and adultery.

The Middle Period: 600 -1500

circa 675: Illicit Intercourse is a Greater Sin

The Irish Canons place the penance for "destruction of the embryo of a child in the mother's womb [at] three and one half years," while the "penance of one who has intercourse with a woman, seven years on bread and water."2
circa 8th Century: Recognizing Women's Circumstances

In the Penitential Ascribed by Albers to Bede, the idea of delayed hominization is again supported, and women's circumstances acknowledged: "A mother who kills her child before the fortieth day shall do penance for one year. If it is after the child has become alive, [she shall do penance] as a murderess. But it makes a great difference whether a poor woman does it on account of the difficulty of supporting [the child] or a harlot for the sake of concealing her wickedness." 3

1140: Abortion of an Unformed Fetus Is Not Homicide

In 1140, Gratian compiled the first collection of canon law that was accepted as authoritative within the church. Gratian's code included the canon Aliquando, which concluded that "abortion was homicide only when the fetus was formed."4 If the fetus was not yet a formed human being, abortion was not homicide.

1312: "Delayed Hominization" Confirmed

The Council of Vienne, still very influential in Catholic hierarchical teaching, confirmed the conception of man put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas. While Aquinas had opposed abortion — as a form of contraception and a sin against marriage — he had maintained that the sin in abortion was not homicide unless the fetus was ensouled, and thus, a human being. Aquinas had said the fetus is first endowed with a vegetative soul, then an animal soul, and then — when its body is developed — a rational soul. This theory of "delayed hominization" is the most consistent thread throughout church history on abortion.5

Pre-Modern Period: 1500 - 175

1588: Abortion's Penalty Becomes Excommunication
Concerned about prostitution in Rome, Pope Sixtus V issued the bull Effraenatam (Without Restraint) and applied to both contraception and abortion, at any stage of pregnancy, the penalty designated for homicide: excommunication. There was no exception for therapeutic abortion.6

1591: Rules Quickly Relaxed

Only three years after Pope Sixtus V issued Effraenatam, he died. His successor, Gregory XIV, felt Sixtus's stand was too harsh and was in conflict with penitential practices and theological views on ensoulment. He issuedSedes Apostolica, which advised church officials, "where no homicide or no animated fetus is involved, not to punish more strictly than the sacred canons or civil legislation does."7 This papal pronouncement lasted until 1869.

1679: Pregnant Girls Facing Murder by Their Families

Consistently, abortion had been considered wrong if used to conceal sexual sins. Taking this idea to its extreme, Pope Innocent XI declared abortion impermissible even when a girl's parents were likely to murder her for having become pregnant.

The church was still teaching delayed hominization, sure only that hominization occurred some time before birth.

The Modern Era: 1750-Present
1869: Excommunication for All Abortions

Completely ignoring the question of hominization, Pope Pius IX wrote in Apostolicae Sedis in 1869 that excommunication is the required penalty for abortion at any stage of pregnancy.8 He said all abortion was homicide. His statement was an implicit endorsement -- the church's first -- of immediate hominization.

1917: Doctors and Nurses Targeted

The 1917Code of Canon Law, the first new edition since Gratian's code in 1140, required excommunication both for a woman who aborts and for any others, such as doctors and nurses, who take part in an abortion.9

1930: Therapeutic Abortions Condemned

In his encyclical Casti Connubii (Of Chaste Spouses), Pope Pius XI condemned abortion in general, and specifically in three instances: in the case of therapeutic abortion, which he called the killing of an innocent; in marriage to prevent offspring; and on social and eugenic grounds, as practiced by some governments.10

Pius's stance on abortion remains the hierarchical view today. The encyclical Casti Connubii did not purport to be infallible teaching, but as an address by the pope to the bishops, it carries great authority.

1965: Protection from the Moment of Conception

The Second Vatican Council, in Gaudium et Spes (section 51), declared: "Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception; abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes." Here, abortion is now condemned on the basis of protecting life, not as a concealment of sexual sin.

1974: The "Right-to-Life" Argument

In 1974, the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith issued the "Declaration on Procured Abortion," which opposes abortion on the grounds that "one can never claim freedom of opinion as a pretext for attacking the rights of others, most especially the right to life." The key to this position is that the fetus is human life from the moment of conception, if not necessarily a full human being. With this position, the church has fully changed the terms of its argument.

Today: Abortion Ban Is Absolute

The Catholic church hierarchy today does not permit abortion in any instance, not even in case of rape or as a direct way of saving the life of a pregnant woman.

Notes

1.St. Augustine, De nuptiis et concupiscentia, 1.15.17 (CSEL 42.229-230).

2.John T. McNeill and Helena M. Gamer, Medieval Handbooks of Penance (New York: Octagon Books, 1974), pp. 119-120.

3.McNeil and Gamer, p. 225.

4. John T. Noonan, ed., The Morality of Abortion: Legal and Historical Perspectives, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970), p.20.

5.Joseph F. Donceel, S.J., "Immediate Animation and Delayed Hominization," Theological Studies, vols. 1 & 2 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1970), pp. 86-88.

6.Codicis iuris fontes, ed. P. Gasparri, vol. 1 (Rome, 1927), p. 308.

7.Ibid., pp. 330-331.

8.Actae Sanctae Sedis, 5:298.

9.Codex iuris canonici, c. 2350.

10.Acta Apostolicae Sedis, 22:539-92.ernet:

**************************************************

Not unexpectedly, there are internet articles that dispute the above account.

Regards to you.

Norrie,

You are right and I agree with many things you say,

BUT,

I still want to know where in the bible it condems abortion and at what stage the fetus is considered a human.

Some thoughts on these questions:

Envisioning an abortion is repugnant and repellant to me, as is the slaughter of animals for meat.

I'm an agnostic with respect to the diety-existence question, and with Buddhist sympathies. Performing an abortion is to me the same as slaughtering a lamb or a calf or drowning unwanted kittens.

The Roman Catholic Church's hectoring crusade against abortion is also repellant and repugnant to me. It ignores all the hard choices and realities that surround this issue, and, in our pluralistic society, it ignores the fact that a majority of citizens seem to not want to prohibit abortions.

I am particularly put off by the Roman Church's position that humans are somehow superior to animals and so may deal with those "lesser creatures" as they wish.

The Buddhist view that all sentient beings are essentially equal in nature, with a common Buddhist nature at the core of their beings, seems to me to be in accord with nature and reality, and far better than the Christian dominionist view that humans are superior beings.

If the Church wants to get my support in outlawing abortion, it will first have to come out for the outlawing of animal slaughter.

But then comes the hard part: what should society actually do in relation to animal slaughter and abortion?

I concluded decades ago that attempting to outlaw abortions will inevitably increase the amount of human suffering in the universe above what would exist if abortions are permitted.

The "War on Drugs" has increased the totality of human suffering beyond what would exist if the use of drugs was decriminalized and permitted. Any real "War on Abortions" will have the same outcome.

I have no idea of how to deal with the issue of abortion in the real world. I do know that the Church's crusade against abortion is ill-conceived, not grounded in sound thinking, and that its legislative proposals, if they come to pass, will be found to be useless and cruel.

But then, cruelty has always been a major stock-in-trade of the Roman Church, hasn't it?

REMEMBER THE CATHARS AND THE JEWS AND THE FREETHINKERS: BURNT LIKE ROAST MEAT BY THE ROMAN CHURCH IN THE SERVICE OF ITS ABRAHAMIC GOD [KNOWN TO THE CATHARS AS "THE IGNORANT DEMIURGE"].

Are you kidding me? These people are against SCHIP for kids who are already born. They don't give a crap about fetuses after they come out of the breeder's... er... woman's uterus.

I still have no idea where in the bible it says abortion is a sin or where it is defined at what stage a fetus is a viable human being.

Can someone please enlighten me?

Athena,

Excellent points! You think the pro-lifers will take that route when they learn how much their pocket-books will suffer?

Look, I'm doing an impersonation of CCNL and copying-and-pasting from one of my posts in another section!

Stripped of the theological arguments, the question of a Constitutional Amendment to outlaw abortion is this:

1. Does the Federal or State government have a vested interest in making sure that every blastocyst that is conceived becomes a healthy, full-term infant?

2. If the answer is yes, the Government then has an obligation to ensure a positive outcome - a healthy, full-term infant. This means:
- mandated pre-natal care for all pregnant women, regardless of economic status;
- monitoring of women so that they do not attempt to solicit an illegal abortion or try an herbal abortifacient;
- monitoring of all pregnant women to ensure that they do not smoke, drink, have too much caffeine, and take their pre-natal vitamins;
- government investigation of any miscarriage for signs of an illegal abortion;
- prosecution of any woman suspected of receiving or soliciting an illegal abortion;
- felony prosecution of doctors performing abortions, including the death penalty where applicable;
- expanded foster care for infants that were brought to term, but later abandoned;
- expanded health care, Medicaid, and SCHIP to ensure the continued health of the former fetus;
- expanded public assistance (Welfare) for women who would have to drop out of the workforce to raise their children;
- expanded child care, so that those women wouldn't have to drop out of the workforce;
- expansion of services for profoundly mental and physically handicapped children and their caregivers;
- special dispensation for women who have ectopic pregnancies (one would hope).

Is this consistent with the "pro-life" position?