From the thread of Rev Mohler:

forgetthis:

...
When I found out I was having my son, I was completely surprised. The doctor asked the nurse if I was "happy." So when I saw her, she said, "So we're dealing with a blob." I was shocked to hear her say that. That's when I told her that I had no intention of having an abortion. Then she started to discuss the due date of the "baby." I found out after developing a relationship with her throughout the pregnancy that she was a devout woman, but I suppose that she sees many woman who decide to have abortions and feels it's just better to not refer to the baby as a baby. Still I was shocked to hear her call my son a blob.

September 29, 2008 10:58 AM

Marc Edward:

Here a few basics about the Bible ---

It consists of several Books written by different people.

In the case of the Old Testament it was written over centuries giving an insight into how the religion evolved.

The New Testament consists of four eye witness accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus Christ, and the history of early Christians in the Book of Acts and letters written by Paul, Jude and the Apostles, Peter, James and John (who also wrote the Book of Revelation).

Marc Edward:

Are you a convert to Islam or strongly influenced by it? "The Bible is unreliable because it is the copy of copies of copies" is a typical Muslim line that seeks to discredit the authenticity of Christian and Jewish Scripture.

FYI, even Mohammad himself, in his own lifetime, could not convince Christians and Jews he met that they got their own Scripture wrong you know.

Marc Edward:

My comments on the article you mentioned are posted 28 Sept 08 on the more recent thread of Prof S-A: Are Catholics Christians? (My guess is that S-A posted the essay to take a break from discussing abortion, although it would have been useful if he had answered the question posed by the moderators of the forum this week - his take on overturning Roe vs Wade.)

The Constitutional Court of Germany declared abortion unconstitutional and reaffirmed it as recently as 1995. However abortion was made legal and an non-punishable offense when certain criteria is met. That seems like a very reasonable compromise based on science and human rights.

The Constitutional Court of Germany does NOT consider abortion as the "right" and "privacy" issue of the mother; it recognizes the right of a child growing in the womb, and at the same time permits abortion under certain conditions, not as a right but as a non-punishable offense.

Roe vs Wade on the other hand treats the human being in the womb as non-existent until it is old enough to survive outside the womb. That stands in direct violation of both scientific evidence and human rights for an unborn child.

That is why Roe vs Wade needs to be overturned and the states need to work out their laws after extensive consultation with science and the public.

Folks,
In yet another overly complex post, Marc Edward writes (inter alia) in response to me:

"patricksarsfield: "when my proof showed that he had been chastised for receiving communion despite a ban on his receiving communion"

marc edward: "Which is not the same as being denied communion, SO I WAS RIGHT."

Marc thus hangs his argument on a purported distinction between Republican Giuliani's being "banned" from receiving communion and his being "denied" communion. Hmmm...talk about distinctions without difference. Marc is being very silly.

Marc, grow up and apologize for having been wrong in the first place and now going to ridiculous lengths to avoid admitting that you had been wrong. As Holy Mother Church teaches: Confession is good for the soul!!

patricksarsfield writes
"In still another overly complex"

Not sure why you keep saying overly complex. Is it you're a poor reader?

"post while trying to call me a liar for saying tht Rudy had been denied communion"

I called you a liar because you claimed I'd said things I had not said, which makes you a liar.
Regarding your thing about Rudy -
Your earlier post stated "Although I had pointed out that Rudy Giuliani had been denied Communion." I didn't call you a liar, I just said I could find no mention of Rudy being denied communion, and I suspected you are a liar(which you are).

"when my proof showed that he had been chastised for receiving communion despite a ban on his receiving communion"

Which is not the same as being denied communion, SO I WAS RIGHT.
In fact shouldn't Rudy be denied communion for his many divorces? According to your rather long winded account, Rudy was advised he ought not recieve communion, which is not the same thing as being denied communion, eh? Hence, he was not denied communion, if you wanna get technical.
- Game - set - match -

Of course you miss the overall point that the CC picks and choses which "sins" it wants to deny communion over, and their selectiveness is rather political. The fact you keep glossing over is that the church has no problems letting people recieve communion if they support unprovoked war and torturing the innocent (both Republican positions). At the same time SOME in the CC think that supporters of the current legal status of abortion in the USA ought to be denied communion.
I said that was inconsistant (you never disagreed) and it showed a political bias (and it does).

Of course if you want to argue for the rightness of unprovoked war and torturing the innocent, feel free, but I bet you keep running away from the point.
Better luck next time patricksarsfield!

Folks,
In still another overly complex post while trying to call me a liar for saying tht Rudy had been denied communion when my proof showed that he had been chastised for receiving communion despite a ban on his receiving communion, Marc Edward writes:

"Oh, you also claimed Rudy Giulini had been denied communion over his stance on abortion, but I've been unable to find a single instance where this has occured. You have also failed to back up your assertion - you seem to have run away from that argument."

This is from the NY Times account ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/29/nyregion/29communion.html?_r=1&ref=nyregion&oref=slogin ) of Cardinal Egan's Press Release on why he was chastising Giuliani for receiving Communion at the April 19 Papal Mass:
"Cardinal Egan, head of the Archdiocese of New York, said in a statement that he and Mr. Giuliani had reached “an understanding” when he became archbishop in 2000 that Mr. Giuliani “was not to receive the eucharist because of his well-known support of abortion.”

“I deeply regret that Mr. Giuliani received the eucharist during the papal visit here in New York,” the cardinal said.

He said he would like to meet with Mr. Giuliani “to insist that he abide by our understanding” about not receiving communion."

Marc may have trouble following the foregoing because he is trying to hold onto an insubstantial distinction that he is using to avoid the truth. However, my contention that Giuliani has been denied communion by Cardinal Egan is clearly borne out by this news story.

In effect, Cardinal Egan told Giuliani: do not even present yourself for Communion because you are being denied commmunion unless and until you change your position on abortion. Marc can try to hold onto the fact that Giuliani was able to sneak a communion by going up to a priest who was unaware of the ban, but Egan publicly chastised him because Giuliani knew he had been denied communion permanently.

Anonymous writes
"Laws are man-made. Human beings are not infallible, so there is nothing wrong in admitting that a certain law which seemed right at the time it was made is no longer server the purpose of higher good for all"

Agreed.

"Only religious Scripture does not change, however interpretations of Scripture has changed with time as new knowledge has been assimilated and human consciousness has evolved as a result."

Actually hasn't scripture "changed", else why would there be more than one bible? Isn't it true that the basis of much of the NT are copies of copies of copies of copies of scraps of paper, and it's near impossible to tell what was originally for the NT and what was changed over the centuries by the copiers?

You went on to make good points, and I only sniooed them to save space and because I mostly agree.
However a piece at the WaPo caught my eye this morning. It brought to mind my frequent question "How do we provide legal protections from the moment of conception"
I'll conclude with part of the article and garner your opinions later - have a good Sunday!

In the 1980s, when abortion was severely limited in then-West Germany, border guards sometimes required German women returning from foreign trips to undergo vaginal examinations to make sure that they hadn't illegally terminated a pregnancy while they were abroad. According to news stories and other accounts, the guards would stop young women and ask them about drugs, then look for evidence of abortion, such as sanitary pads or nightgowns, in their cars, and eventually force them to undergo a medical examination -- as West German law empowered them to do.

Sounds like a nightmare of a police state, doesn't it? Like something that could never happen in this day and age -- and certainly not in the United States? But depending upon the outcome of this presidential election, it could happen here.
Republican presidential candidate John McCain opposes abortion, believing that life begins at conception. Imagine that he's elected to the White House and, not long after, one of the aging Supreme Court justices dies or resigns. President McCain appoints a suitably conservative replacement, and a complaisant or cowed Senate confirms the nomination. Then, an ambitious district attorney in Alabama, Delaware or any one of more than a dozen other states with old abortion laws still on the books or a new, untested abortion restriction prosecutes a local clinic for performing the procedure. (Legal scholars pretty much agree that laws from before Roe v. Wade can be revived.) The clinic goes to federal court; after appeals, the case goes to the Supreme Court, which votes 5-4 to overturn Roe. And we're back to the '60s .

Well, that wouldn't be so bad, you may think. Some states (or even cities and counties) will offer abortion, and others won't. Women will just have to go to New York or someplace else if they want or need to end a pregnancy. A lot of states had pretty liberal laws in 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade. Even Georgia, one of the two states involved in that case, allowed some abortions for the health of the mother.

But it's not 1972. The climate then was one of growing sympathy for women seeking abortion, triggered in part by stories of those who sought one after realizing that their children would be deformed by the anti-morning-sickness drug thalidomide. Social liberalism was rising; religions weren't much engaged in politics. Today, the politics of abortion have changed. In addition to old laws that would spring back up should Roe be reversed, the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute lists four states -- Louisiana, Missisippi, North and South Dakota -- as having trigger laws explicitly aimed at making abortion criminal upon Roe' s demise, and seven others that have committed to acting to the extent that the court may allow.

The trigger laws are much harsher than the pre- Roe laws; Louisiana's, for instance, would allow abortion only in case of a threat to the mother's life or to a life-sustaining organ. In 1972, roughly 40 percent of the women who got abortions in the United States did so outside their state of residence. There are now more than a million abortions a year. Can you imagine how many women will travel elsewhere if their home states prohibit abortion unless the mother's life is at risk?

The difference today is that some states with criminal abortion laws will almost certainly also forbid their residents to cross state lines to obtain an abortion. Missouri already allows civil litigation against anyone who helps a minor cross state lines to get an abortion without parental consent. Congress was well along to passing a law making it criminal to take a minor from a state requiring parental consent when the Democrats won in 2006 and stopped it.

Is it possible, you ask, that in a post- Roe world, states would be able to pass valid laws stopping women from leaving to obtain an abortion? It seems un-American. But a lot of law professors have looked at this question, and although they're still debating it, many of the best in the business believe that this is something states probably can do. "To speak of the fetus' " home state, and make the home it shares with the mother "a basis" for controlling a woman's ability to get an abortion might "make sense," Columbia law professor Gerald Neuman wrote in 1993 when abortion rights were last in peril.

patricksarsfield writes

"In another overly complex post"

You'd be more honest (I know, it's hard for you to be honest) you'd say "above my head" rather than "overly complex"

"Marc Edwards tries to reshape his original (and factually incorrect) contention that the Catholic Church does not go after Republicans who are anti-abortion"

Now you're lying about what I said. At least it's clear you're a liar. I said that the CC was being selective in picking out which positions would merit denial of communion, and that selectiveness seemed to be based on political party affiliation.

Oh, you also claimed Rudy Giulini had been denied communion over his stance on abortion, but I've been unable to find a single instance where this has occured. You have also failed to back up your assertion - you seem to have run away from that argument.

"IOW, the Catholic Church in the course of its worship service is not allowed, in ME's view, to deny Communion to politicians who are pro-abortion"

Again, you're lying or you are unable to comprehend simple English. I never said anything of the kind. I did say that denial of communion over supporting legal abortion while no denial of communion for supporters of unprovoked was and torture was so inconsistant that it looked fishy, as if the CC was picking on one party and not the other. Given the church's centuries long history in messing about in the politics of other countries, I think my suspicion has merit.

"And the silliness about the discussion being above my head shows how defensive ME is becoming"

Clearly the argument is way over your head, or you're a liar.
Which is it?

The religious groups which oppose abortion based on their understanding of sanctity of human life:

Orthodox Jews
Roman Catholics
Orthodox Christians
Conservative Evangelicals

A must-read statistics on abortions:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/abreasons.html

Statistical information on abortion in the US provided in the next thread by Prof S-A titled: Are Catholics Christians?

In any discussion with regard to abortion, it is vital to keep the ensoulment debate out of the picture.

Abortion has nothing to do with killing the soul for the soul is a spirit and is immortal.

People get sent to prison for infanticide and homicide not because they have killed a soul, but because they have killed a physical body. So much for the relevance about beliefs regarding the soul in killing a body.

CCNL is strongly anti-abortion.

His determination and persistence in countering arguments supporting a pro-abortion position is extremely valuable. Luckily he does not post lists but responds specifically to the comments.

Great work! Keep it up!

Marc Edward:

Laws are man-made. Human beings are not infallible, so there is nothing wrong in admitting that a certain law which seemed right at the time it was made is no longer server the purpose of higher good for all. And then change it to suit the welfare of more persons.

Such amendments have happened in the history of nations all the time. So overturning Roe vs Wade and starting full scale discussions on the issue of abortion should not be considered something unusual in the practice of law.

Only religious Scripture does not change, however interpretations of Scripture has changed with time as new knowledge has been assimilated and human consciousness has evolved as a result.

In a democracy, even the Constitution can be rewritten, (even if it was once written by a few fathers of the nation) if there is a two third majority. This is both a dangerous and a good thing. Bad laws stemming from the Constitution can be abolished, like slavery and lack of right for the women to vote; but it can also be bad for countries where a religious majority with fascist views can implement their dangerous ideals as law.

Think of Sharia Law becoming the Constitution or a Hindu fascist, caste riddled and caste discriminating form of government.

Roe vs Wade was made by a few. It can be challenged in a democracy based on the merit of science and humanitarian values.

Since there is absolutely no scientific doubt that the life of every human being begins as a single celled zygote (commonly known as fertilized ovum) which proceeds to grow in the uterus of its mother, such knowledge should be employed in revisiting Roe vs Wade.

Folks,
In another overly complex post, Marc Edwards tries to reshape his original (and factually incorrect) contention that the Catholic Church does not go after Republicans who are anti-abortion in the same way it goes after Democrats who are anti-abortion into this different point:

"Wrong again. I said that the CC is using denial of communion selectively, and it is. As most Republicans profess to be pro-life (even though they are lying when they say so) most Republicans need not worry about being denied communion. However most Democrats are pro-legal-abortion, even if they don't support abortion, never had an abortion, and never paid for an abortion the folks in Rome want to deny them communion.
Sorry if this discussion is a bit over your head."

IOW, the Catholic Church in the course of its worship service is not allowed, in ME's view, to deny Communion to politicians who are pro-abortion even if it applies that rule to Republicans who take the position as well as to Democrats, as I have proven it does. Thus, ME would gut the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

And the silliness about the discussion being above my head shows how defensive ME is becoming.

patricksarsfield writes
"Folks,"

What you think you have an audience? Yer not Rush Limbaugh.

"In a remarkably complex response, Marc Edwards tries to defend his original point that the Catholic Church denies communion to abortion supporters in the Democrat Party but not to Republicans"

Wrong again. I said that the CC is using denial of communion selectively, and it is. As most Republicans profess to be pro-life (even though they are lying when they say so) most Republicans need not worry about being denied communion. However most Democrats are pro-legal-abortion, even if they don't support abortion, never had an abortion, and never paid for an abortion the folks in Rome want to deny them communion.
Sorry if this discussion is a bit over your head.

"who "abdocate (sic) public policies that are against Christ's teachings." Although I had pointed out that Rudy Giuliani had been denied Communion for "abdocating" (to use Marc's neologism) abortion"

And being divorced so many times.

"Marc responds:

"the CC seems interested in making a big public display about denying communion to Democrats who support the current law of the land, whild ignoring Republican candidates who support torture and the mass murder of civilians. Oddly the CC seems to have condemned Giulini for receiving communion (he's divorced) while not being bothered by his support of torture and mass murder. The CC is taking sides based on political party, period."

WRONG again. Rudy is a Republican"

Wow, you think you are the only person who know's Rudy is a Republican! LOL! He ran in the Republican primary for President! You have a rather inflated view of yourself - keep in mind, Pride is a sin!

"Rudy was denied Communion for his abortion position."

When has Rudy ever been denied communion? I thought he was in trouble for taking communion. A quick google search doesn't show a single example of Rudy being denied communion.

"SO, Marc is wrong to say that the Church's position denying Communion to abortion supporting politicians is dictated by party."

Actually you are wrong, as is the CC. I said the CC is being selective, picking up on ONE issue (abortion) while ignoring others (torture, war). The CC is like that. In Latin America the CC ignores the widespread adultry by Latino men while being very pleased they have denied women legal birth control, abortion and sex education. Same was in the USA the CC is big on denying communion over abortion while ignoring the equal (or greater) evil of state sanctioned torture of innocent people and unprovoked war.
Again, sorry this subject is so far over your head.

I'll say again (as this subject came up in conversation with Paul) my objection isn't to the denial of communion but that the CC is being selective in a way that is clearly political.
Better luck next time!

Anonymous writes
"Marc Edward:How could the government give legal protection from the moment of conception?
_____________________________________

Defining abortion as the "right" of a woman is wrong because it stands in violation of a Constitution that claims to protect the right to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its people."

Actually that's in the Declaration of Independence, which is not in any way part of US law.

"It is merely a legal loophole to claim that a child growing in its mother's womb has no right to its life because it is not registered as a person on a government form."

That's an interesting point, but I still don't see how any government can give legal protection from the moment of conception.

"Roe vs Wade permits abortions in ALL trimesters as a right. That sends out the wrong signal to women."

What do you base that on? As I understand it Roe allows for increasing restrictions on Abortion the further along a pregnancy is. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (otherwise I can't learn anything, no?) but a citation would be better than just your 'word'.

I snipped the rest of your post to save space, and because I mostly agreed with it.

Folks,
Karen writes:
"KAREN:
Susan Jacoby calls pro-life beliefs-

"the heartless religious fanaticism of right-wing Republicans"

But the fetal heart begins beating as early as the 5th week after the LMP and the vast vast majority of abortions occur after the fetus has a beating heart. So it is easy to ascertain which belief is heartless."

I agree totally. Liberals like Jacoby want to cast their position as the more sensitive, humane one, so they use certain code words. Yet the code words mask reality. The abortion reality is that mothers want to kill their children by hiring trained baby-killers to do it, and a bare majority of the Supreme Court decided to allow them to do it.

KAREN:
Susan Jacoby calls pro-life beliefs-

"the heartless religious fanaticism of right-wing Republicans"

But the fetal heart begins beating as early as the 5th week after the LMP and the vast vast majority of abortions occur after the fetus has a beating heart. So it is easy to ascertain which belief is heartless.

September 24, 2008 5:33 PM

__________________________________________

The cardiovascular system (heart and blood supply)is the first major system to function in the embryo.

The fetal heart begins to beat at 22 to 23 days after fertilization.

Blood flow begins during the fourth wek and can be visualized by Doppler ultrasonography."

-----Moore & Persaud (The Developing Human)

Parents who abuse children are always claiming their right to "privacy." So that line of argument is not new when it is applied to killing the growing child in the womb.

Unless it can be proved empirically that a pregnant woman is NOT carrying a living, growing child in her womb, the claim to "privacy" is redundant. Unfortunately medical science is too far advanced to back the claim of privacy about the fate of a living, growing child, if it means that the child stands to lose its life.

Marc Edward:

How could the government give legal protection from the moment of conception?

September 26, 2008 7:47 AM

_____________________________________

Defining abortion as the "right" of a woman is wrong because it stands in violation of a Constitution that claims to protect the right to LIFE, liberty and pursuit of happiness of its people. It is merely a legal loophole to claim that a child growing in its mother's womb has no right to its life because it is not registered as a person on a government form.

Roe vs Wade permits abortions in ALL trimesters as a right. That sends out the wrong signal to women.

While it is necessary to keep abortion legal to prevent loss of life to women due to botched abortions by quacks, offering abortion as the right of a woman in all trimesters without acknowledging that it involves taking the life of a completely innocent, voiceless, defenseless human being in its mother's womb is WRONG.

If Roe vs Wade is overturned and legal rights are returned to the states, they could implement measures to curtail the free federal pass now available.

Putting some restrictions on the availability of abortions does serve as a brake, just like speed limits. Gradually, women, and hopefully men, will begin to think differently about the issue of abortion (read: become more conscious of the fact that there is the life of a third innocent party involved in the "private" act of abortion).

Thirty five years of an abortion culture is ingrained in the minds of most adults today. It will take a while to begin to think differently. Hopefully a new value system can be instilled in the minds of the young who are not yet hardened in their attitudes.

Ongoing education about human embryology in the context of comprehensive sex education is sure to have some real impact on the minds of the young.

The young of any country it its hope for a new future. Hence the importance of not killing them while they are in the womb, and about educating those that are born not to kill those in the womb.

Marc Edward:

Anonymous writes

"Here some methods adopted by countries to decrease abortions:
1. Long waiting periods after the woman has decided on abortion and has been provided with detailed information about abortion and non-abortion options. The waiting period varies from three days to one week.
2. Attestations by two medical doctors before abortion is actually performed."

So instead of improving conditions for women with unwanted pregnancies, your solution is big government forcing medical facilities put more burdens on the women, treating them like dimwitted children.

__________________________________________

1. There was no mention of NOT improving conditions for women with unwanted pregnancies. The suggestions were listed merely as SOME WAYS (among many) to reduce abortion.

2. Non-US women are not dimwits and non-US governments are not run by dimwits. Suggestions were being made about practices in other countries which have lowered their abortion rates using some of these methods.

3. A government that takes care of its people, especially the disadvantaged and vulnerable, is a good government. The most powerful country on earth a big hearted government? Why not?

ARGHH!:
So the original Hippocratic oath forbids abortion... But guess what? It also forbids doctors using knives (because surgeons weren't doctors) and enjoins them to provide financial support to their med school professors.

September 26, 2008 4:09 AM

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

The Hippocratic Oath (The Original Version)

I swear by Apollo the healer, by Aesculapius, by Health and all the powers of healing, and call to witness all the gods and goddesses that I may keep this Oath and Promise to the best of my ability and judgement.

I will pay the same respect to my master in the Science as to my parents and share my life with him and pay all my debts to him. I will regard his sons as my brothers and teach them the Science, if they desire to learn it, without fee or contract. I will hand on precepts, lectures and all other learning to my sons, to those of my master and to those pupils duly apprenticed and sworn, and to none other.*

I will use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgement; I will abstain from harming or wronging any man by it.

I will not give a fatal draught to anyone if I am asked, nor will I suggest any such thing.

NEITHER WILL I GIVE A WOMAN MEANS TO PROCURE ABORTION.**

I will be chaste and religious in my life and in my practice.

I will not cut, even for the stone, but I WILL LEAVE SUCH PROCEDURES TO THE PRACTITIONERS OF THAT CRAFT.***

Whenever I go into a house, I will go to help the sick and never with the intention of doing harm or injury. I will not abuse my position to indulge in sexual contacts with the bodies of women or of men, whether they be freemen or slaves.

Whatever I see or hear, professionally or privately, which ought not to be divulged, I will keep secret and tell no one.

If, therefore, I observe this Oath and do not violate it, may I prosper both in my life and in my profession, earning good repute among all men for my time. If I transgress and forswear this oath, may my lot be otherwise.

Translated by J Chadwick and WN Mann, 1950.

_______________________________________

*Medical schools did not exist in those days and the practice of medicine was a family profession as all other professions and businesses and crafts.

Now, medical students pay fees to the educational institutions which in turn pay the teachers of medicine.

So today students do pay for their knowledge (the highest amount of money in comparison to other branches of education) and teachers do get paid highly.

____________________________________

**Not only was a physician not supposed to use a vacuum cleaner to suck out a living child in the womb, but a physician was not even allowed to provide an abortion pill (known as pessary in other translations of the Oath).

The science of human embryology is so advanced today that no abortionist could ever tell a woman that human life does NOT begin at fertilization.
___________________________________________

***The science of surgery was primitive in those days and the instruments available quite crude, hence it was left to barbers to function like surgeons, hence physicians were expected to let barbers do their thing.

In India, Brahmins were the ones who practiced Ayurvedic medicine as a family profession - the ancient practice of priest-healer. In one part of India, the Ayurvedic physicians who used surgical methods in their treatments, ended up in a lower rung of their Brahmin subcaste for that reason.

Today surgery is an advanced medical specialty. Physicians let surgeons practice surgery.

_________________________________________

Info from BBC:

Anthropologist Margaret Mead wrote:

For the first time in our tradition there was a complete separation between killing and curing. Throughout the primitive world, the doctor and the sorcerer tended to be the same person. He with the power to kill had power to cure, including specially the undoing of his own killing activities. He who had the power to cure would necessarily also be able to kill...With the Greeks the distinction was made clear. One profession, the followers of Asclepius, were to be dedicated completely to life under all circumstances, regardless of rank, age or intellect - the life of a slave, the life of the Emperor, the life of a foreign man, the life of a defective child...

G E R Lloyd said of Hippocratic medicine: 'In the Western world, the name Hippocrates has always stood for an ideal.' And this is what the oath is all about - an ideal gold ethics standard representing a clear dividing line separating healers and killers, a commitment that physicians make to protect life, and never to take life away deliberately. In a world where society is always attempting to put the blame on physicians when things go wrong, this oath, when upheld, would protect not only physicians and their patients, but also their families and the society as a whole.

Modern versions of the Hippocratic Oath

Many people argue that the original Hippocratic Oath is invalid in a society that has seen drastic socio-economic, political and moral changes in society since the time of Hippocrates. This has led to the modification of the oath to something better suited for our times. Four of the most widely used versions are the Declaration of Geneva, the Prayer of Maimonides, the Oath of Lasagna3, and the Reinstatement of Hippocratic Oath. Although they differ in wording and content, the main tenets are the same - treat patients to the best of one's abilities, never cause intentional harm, and maintain patient confidentiality - although none of them call upon various deities to punish the physician if he transgresses from the oath, save for the Reinstatement!

...

Reinstatement of Hippocratic Oath

The Reinstatement of Hippocratic Oath was introduced in June 1995 by The Value of Life Committee, Inc. Dr Joseph R Stanton, a member of the committee said of the oath:

It is the hope of the signers and endorsers of this 1995 Restatement that upcoming generations of young physicians in increasing numbers will embrace the Oath's principles in their personal and professional lives. In taking this pledge, they will stand shoulder to shoulder with the giants who have pledged it in the past and contributed so profoundly to advances in the art and science of medicine while leading exemplary and principled lives.

Although it is similar to the Prayer of Maimodines in that God is witness to the oath, the contents are very much the same as the original Hippocratic Oath - including the vow that should the physician transgress from the oath, then he will readily be punished for it.

...

It is understandable that some radicals may demand the removal of the Hippocratic Oath at graduation with the argument that it is too antiquated to be of use.

*However, even in this modern age of technological and medical enlightenment, a gold standard in moral and medical ethics - no matter how utopian it sounds - is still needed not only to set an example to those who are inheriting the medical business, but also to protect those at the receiving end of the medical practice.*

Modification of the original oath is unavoidable - Hippocrates, being a man who was meticulous in his scientific methods and keen in his observations of the world with regard to man and disease, would surely have approved of the changes for the sake of keeping up with the developments of the world - but as long as our physicians and practitioners hold true to the basic tenets of the Hippocratic Oath, then it would continue to serve mankind for long after the name of its writer has been forgotten.

Source

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1103798

Folks,
In a remarkably complex response, Marc Edwards tries to defend his original point that the Catholic Church denies communion to abortion supporters in the Democrat Party but not to Republicans who "abdocate (sic) public policies that are against Christ's teachings." Although I had pointed out that Rudy Giuliani had been denied Communion for "abdocating" (to use Marc's neologism) abortion, Marc responds:

"the CC seems interested in making a big public display about denying communion to Democrats who support the current law of the land, whild ignoring Republican candidates who support torture and the mass murder of civilians. Oddly the CC seems to have condemned Giulini for receiving communion (he's divorced) while not being bothered by his support of torture and mass murder. The CC is taking sides based on political party, period."

WRONG again. Rudy is a Republican. Rudy was denied Communion for his abortion position. SO, Marc is wrong to say that the Church's position denying Communion to abortion supporting politicians is dictated by party. To the contrary, the Church's clarion position on Abortion is dictated by its clear sinfulness, whether it be the "law of the land" or not, as Bishop Martino of Scranton said in his Pastoral Letter for Respect Life Sunday just released (see complete text at Whispers in the Loggia).

patricksarsfield writes
"Displaying ignorance of Catholic current events, Marc Edwards writes in response to me"

You need to work on your flames. Namecalling not only undercuts your arguments, but it's rather un-Christian.

"patricksarsfield writes: "It is not the Catholic Church that "meddles in politics" in the US"

Marc: "The only way to describe publicly denying Democratic politicians communion is "meddling in politics". Plenty of Republican politicians abdocate public policies that are against Christ's teachings and the teachings of the CC, but the meddlers in Rome want to help Republicans, so they ignore it."

The good news is that Marc hhas recognized that Abortion is against Christ's teachings."

I never said abortion was consistant with Christ's teachings. I see you are one of those dishonest people who argues against what you wish I had said rather than what I really said.
Rather pathetic on your part.

"Still: Marc is showing himself ignorant of the Church's disciplinary teachings. If Marc had more than a passing acquaintance with current Catholic events, he would know that Republican Rudy Giuliani was publicly chastised by the Cardinal Archbishop of New York for his receipt of communion on April 19, 2008 during the Papal Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral."

Wrong again.
Torture is inconsistant with Christ's teachings.
Unprovoked war is inconsistant with Christ's teachings.
Murdering between 100,000 and 1,000,000 innocent civilians is not consistant with Christ's teachings.
However the CC seems interested in making a big public display about denying communion to Democrats who support the current law of the land, whild ignoring Republican candidates who support torture and the mass murder of civilians. Oddly the CC seems to have condemned Giulini for receiving communion (he's divorced) while not being bothered by his support of torture and mass murder.
The CC is taking sides based on political party, period.
As it has for centuries, the CC is trying to gain political power. Feel free to close your eyes to it. Your dishonesty and ignorance aren't my problem.
Better luck next time baby!

Folks,
Displaying ignorance of Catholic current events, Marc Edwards writes in response to me:

"patricksarsfield writes: "It is not the Catholic Church that "meddles in politics" in the US"

Marc: "The only way to describe publicly denying Democratic politicians communion is "meddling in politics". Plenty of Republican politicians abdocate public policies that are against Christ's teachings and the teachings of the CC, but the meddlers in Rome want to help Republicans, so they ignore it."

The good news is that Marc hhas recognized that Abortion is against Christ's teachings. Progress!

Still: Marc is showing himself ignorant of the Church's disciplinary teachings. If Marc had more than a passing acquaintance with current Catholic events, he would know that Republican Rudy Giuliani was publicly chastised by the Cardinal Archbishop of New York for his receipt of communion on April 19, 2008 during the Papal Mass at St. Patrick's Cathedral. As Cardinal Egan's spokesperson indicated at the time, the Ex-Mayor (and Republican Presidential Candidate) knew that his position on Abortion had led to the Cardinal's longtime prohibition against Rudy's receiving Communion. Because he had nevertheless received during that Mass (from another priest and outside the Cardinal's presence), Cardinal Egan had to rebuke him publicly.

So, the charge of partisanship falls of its own weight. What we are left with is the Catholic Church properly administering its own sacraments. Moral: if politicians want to get on line in Catholic churches for Communion, they need to recognize that it is they and not the Church who would be meddling if they are unwilling to live with the Church's rules on receipt of Communion. To quote a particularly apropos aphorism: "When in Rome...."

patricksarsfield writes
"It is not the Catholic Church that "meddles in politics" in the US"

The only way to describe publicly denying Democratic politicians communion is "meddling in politics". Plenty of Republican politicians abdocate public policies that are against Christ's teachings and the teachings of the CC, but the meddlers in Rome want to help Republicans, so they ignore it.
This is no surprise - the CC has meddled in politics for most of it's existance, and will always do so. Sadly most of that meddling was to the detriment of the people.
Better luck next time!

Paul C:
You write:

"However, I will also say that turning the whole thing into a diatribe against Protestant divorce was unnessary. Fight hatred with love. Defend but don't attack."

It wasn't a diatribe. Nothing proves the falsity of Protestantism (and its unrelenting attacks on Catholicism) better than Protestantism's clearly unchristian position on Divorce-Remarriage. So, since we were talking about marital issues, I thought it highly relevant.

As to your admonishment that we should be defending but not attacking, that may have a place with a somewhat irenic protestant. I do not think, though, that it is a very wise approach when one is dealing with a virulent anti-Catholic like katem. Bigots like her attack us for anything and everything, usually without independent thought and without realizing the inconsistencies in their own supposedly "christian" positions. They need to be reminded of what real Christianity is all about.

In katem's case, I found the fact that the "Catholic neighbour" never even mentioned Divorce-Remarriage to be just more proof of how much more Christian the Catholic position on family life is. So I used it as an object lesson to get Ms. katem to think about the Gospel rather than reflexively hate the only Church Christ ever founded.

patricksarsfield:

I agree that it was wrong for kateM1 to assume that big Catholic families were a problem or that Catholic mothers would be happy with their husband's infidelity. My experience is completely different. I am one of 6 in my family and we've retain very close ties, despite living very far apart. My parents are very happily married after 50 years. My grandfather was actually the youngest of 23. Far from being burdened by a large family, he found it a great blessing.

However, I will also say that turning the whole thing into a diatribe against Protestant divorce was unnessary. Fight hatred with love. Defend but don't attack.

Folks,
Dennis Arvay writes this bit of dishonest bluster:

"If the catholic Church continues to meddle in politics, its tax exempt status should be revoked. "

It is not the Catholic Church that "meddles in politics" in the US. The worst offenders are the Black Protestant churches which routinely give their pulpits over to Democrat politicians or to ministers endorsing Democrat politicians. Many protestant churches are little better, as people like Pat Robinson have routinely proven. Indeed, Rick Warren of (the Protestant, non-denominational) Saddleback Church recently sponsored a widely broadcast political forum that was far more a meddling in politics than anything the Catholic Church has done.

By contrast, the Catholic Church stays well within its religious mission of proclaiming all Christ has commanded and of performing the Mass that Christ commanded be done in remembrance of Him. Who's really at fault in the Communion denial question? Clearly, it is the "Catholic" politicians who complain about being denied Communion. If "Catholic" politicians who support abortion do not want to be denied Communion during a Catholic Mass, all they need to do is not get in line.

Folks,
Another lurid anti-Catholic post. This one from Frank. Paul C is already addressing one of Frank's objectionable statements. I will address this other point:

" the privileged elite attend prayer in opulent churches of which even the cost of the lectern alone would feed or educate thousands."

The Catholic Church has built up its store of church decorations over the course of 2000 years because it is not an agglomeration of fly-by-night entrepreneurial "churches" the way most Protestant sects are. Most Catholic cathedrals in Europe have had hundreds of years to build up their interior decor. Majorca Cathedral, built in the 13th Century, for example, has a lovely altar piece built by Antonio Gaudi in the Early 20th Century. Reims Cathedral which was hyundreds of years old when Joan of Arc went there in 1431 commissioned astained glass window from Marc Chagall in the 1940s.

Even in the Eastern US (and in places of Early Catholic settlement, such as Santa Fe or Saint Augustine, FL), the cathedrals were built more than a century ago. For example, both St. Patrick's in New York and Saint Francis in Santa Fe were built in the Mid-19th Century. Moral: it is relatively easy and inexpensive to decorate a church well a little at a time.

Yet, even though Catholic churches are far more decorated than Protestant churches, the fact remains that Catholics do NOT need to contribute as much to their churches as Protestants do. Surveys show that American Catholics give only about 1.5% of their income to the Catholic Church while Protestants contribute @2.5%.

Why the difference? Why must protestant ministers extort so much more from their congregations? Because most protestant ministers are in it for themselves and their families alone. Simply put, protestant "churches" are not the result of hundreds of years of evangelization, planting of the church and the life and death cycles of generations of the faithful, as Catholic dioceses are. Rather, protestant churches are usually the entrepreneurial creation of the minister who currently holds down the pulpit at a particular address. Oftentimes, if the "pastor" cannot leave the pulpit to someone in his own family, the church blows away upon his/her death. IOW, the "church" is not a long-term place of worship for generations of christians, but the place a particular ministerial entrepreneur sells his/her peculiar version of salvation.

So the Protestant minister has little incentive to decorate the church (except, perhaps, to the extent it results in enlarged contributions). In truth, given a choice between decorating the sanctuary or the rectory, both the minister and his/her spouse (or other type of partner) is more likely to spend the decorating budget on the private residence rather than the "public" worship space. That not only can be enjoyed after hours, but it can also be passed onto the kids whether they go into the "family business" or not.

paul c writes
"Abortion on demand is part of the Democratic platform. Those that vote for Democrats that support that platform know what they are getting."

Actually I think the platform language reflects Clinton's and Obama's "keep abortion safe, legal and rare", not "we support abortion on demand". Moreover abortions dropped every year of the Clinton presidency, unlike the previous administrations of Bush41 and Reagan.

"I don't remember George W. Bush running on a platform that included "torture and countless murders of Iraqi and Afghani civilians." "

Funny how actions and talk differ, no? Just like the Republicans calling legal abortion a holocause and doing nothing about it. Heck I'm old enough to remember their call for a "Human Life Amendment" to the constitution, redefining life as beginning at conception - but again, that was all talk, no action.
The fact is that by 2004 the country knew the President supported torture, which is against US Law, the Constitution and international law. By the 2004 elections we had killed countless Iraqi and Afghani civilians, so it's not like in 2004 people didn't know what they were voting for. Sadly many thought gay marraige was worse than the government torturing innocent people.

"By the way, are you claiming that members of the US military are carrying out torture and murder? I would take exception to that characterization"

I think any time we use "drones" to take out "terrorists" and in the process kill 90+ innocent people, I call that murder. I blame the politicians (on both sides) that put our soldiers in these terrible positions.
As for torture, we already know that has been carried out by CIA people and US Soldiers. Being ordered to torture is no excuse. Every person involved with government sanctioned torture, from top to bottem, needs to spend some serious time in jail. It's the fact that our government tortures and that same torture has widespread support from the American people that causes me to look at other countries to raise my kids in. If President Obama lets the torture matter drop without any investigation/trials/jailtime, it will only be a matter of time before some other President decides that it's OK to torture American citizens on suspicion.

Is that the kind of America you'd raise your kids to love?

PS agreed that there are posters that hate the CC and I don't appreciate their bigoted comments. I have problems with the CC, but it's the men running it, not the idea or the basic institution.

Folks,
In a truly lurid submission, another anti-Catholic ("katem"--probably English from her orthography) writes this bit of fluff:

"When I was about ten, I overheard a conversation my mother had over coffee with a neighbour. The neighbour was Roman Catholic, and had about 7 kids aged 9 to 2. She was telling my mom that she thought her husband was having an affair. My mother was saddened and concilitory, but she didn't need to be. The woman was thankful, she said at least now she would have a break from having another baby, and hoped the affair lasted awhile.
Birth control by infidelity; yeah, that's really good for a marriage and family life. I have heard a RC angrily say 'the church killed my grandmother'(she had died giving birth to her 17 child at age 38). Actually, I've heard alot more than one person say that kind of thing. I've also heard lots of people from BIG families say they felt like they were part of a herd, not a family, no individual time with parents, no privacy, no pocessions really yours, no room to be different."

Of course, if the neighbor had been a Protestant, she could have used the suspicion of adultery as a ground for divorce/remarriage. In fact, most Protestants don't even need adultery as a ground for Divorce/Remarriage in their religions.

Despite Christ's very clear prohibition on Divorce/Remarriage, most protestants feel no religious compunction at all about shucking their life-long commitments on a whim. So, if he Catholic woman was happy for some natural family planning because her huysband was not interested in sex, at least she was staying married and thereby staying true to the God her protestant "neighbours" have wholesale abandoned on matters of family.

Frank:
Your recent post is very inflammatory and very anti-Catholic. You call the Catholic faith " the most repressive, morally bankrupt, elitist, and otherwise profoundly perverse cult". You then claim it was responsible for " Centuries of violence, hatred, exclusionism, racism, and immoral, inhuman practices." You then say,"I am not a hater of catholics" I would think that any unbiased observer would state that this statement is inconsistent with the rest of your post.

Frankly, I don't know what has tainted your views of Catholicism but your view is not the Catholicism that I know. How can you call the Church of Mother Teresa, who ministered to the poorest of the poor world wide, elitist and exclusionary? The Catholic church is truly universal, with churches in every country ministering to people of every race. How is it racist? It has consistently decried violence of any sort: against the war in Iraq, against abortion, against capital punishment. How then is it violent? It preaches that all you need to do is to Love God and Love others, where is the hate in that? What inhuman practices do you think it propagates?

Maybe you need to learn a little more about Catholics and Catholicism. I can point you in the right direction if you are interested

Marc Edward:

Abortion on demand is part of the Democratic platform. Those that vote for Democrats that support that platform know what they are getting.

I don't remember George W. Bush running on a platform that included "torture and countless murders of Iraqi and Afghani civilians." By the way, are you claiming that members of the US military are carrying out torture and murder? I would take exception to that characterization.

Dwight writes
"a women carries the burden of murder of her aborted child...
a doctor carries the burden of genocide muder of the children he performed an abortion on...
anyone who supports those who make abortion available carries the burden of genocide murder for every abortion that has so far taken place..."

So by your logic every person who voted for President Bush carries the burden and guilt of torture and countless murders of Iraqi and Afghani civilians.

Such needless diatribe and pretend humanism -- such lack of basic human knowledge or empathy of what really goes on in the impoverished ghettos that make up most of this world -- the privileged elite attend prayer in opulent churches of which even the cost of the lectern alone would feed or educate thousands.

I find it so sad -- and disheartening to say the least, that so many otherwise intelligent, sensitive people lend themselves and their credibility to the most repressive, morally bankrupt, elitist, and otherwise profoundly perverse cult that calls itself 'the catholic religion'.

Centuries of violence, hatred, exclusionism, racism, and immoral, inhuman practices are still to be found in this 21st century, all under the name of God's supposed 'messenger on Earth' -- the anti-humanist, anti-life religion and it's 'Untouchable' -- the Pope.

I am not a hater of catholics or religious people of any type or creed. I am merely the face of those that do not fit into your version of reality.

Help us all?

a women carries the burden of murder of her aborted child...
a doctor carries the burden of genocide muder of the children he performed an abortion on...
anyone who supports those who make abortion available carries the burden of genocide murder for every abortion that has so far taken place...

When I was about ten, I overheard a conversation my mother had over coffee with a neighbour. The neighbour was Roman Catholic, and had about 7 kids aged 9 to 2. She was telling my mom that she thought her husband was having an affair. My mother was saddened and concilitory, but she didn't need to be. The woman was thankful, she said at least now she would have a break from having another baby, and hoped the affair lasted awhile.
Birth control by infidelity; yeah, that's really good for a marriage and family life. I have heard a RC angrily say 'the church killed my grandmother'(she had died giving birth to her 17 child at age 38). Actually, I've heard alot more than one person say that kind of thing. I've also heard lots of people from BIG families say they felt like they were part of a herd, not a family, no individual time with parents, no privacy, no pocessions really yours, no room to be different.

Denis Arvay says: "If the catholic Church continues to meddle in politics, its tax exempt status should be revoked. That goes for all religions, including Jewish religious institutions that meddle in foreign policy by pushing political support for Israel.

If "God" wills the things these people say, let him intervene directly and send them the money they need to continue meddling."

I could write that first paragraph thus: "If the federal government continues to meddle in moral issues that are the purview of religion, it should be strongly repudiated for violating the first amendment of the Constitution."

As for Denis's last statement, I'd be very careful what I pray for. As St. Paul says, "God is not mocked."

Anonymous writes
"Here some methods adopted by countries to decrease abortions:
1. Long waiting periods after the woman has decided on abortion and has been provided with detailed information about abortion and non-abortion options. The waiting period varies from three days to one week.
2. Attestations by two medical doctors before abortion is actually performed."

So instead of improving conditions for women with unwanted pregnancies, your solution is big government forcing medical facilities put more burdens on the women, treating them like dimwitted children.

"President Bush, Senator McCain and Governor Palin should take the opportunity, while there is still time, to organize such public forums as part of their anti-abortion stand"

As if Bush, Mccain and Palin really give a crap about abortion. They just want your votes.

"What is being discussed is the "right" to abort healthy babies in healthy women. Such abortions constitute 95% of all abortions-on-demand."

How are such statistics up to date and reliable since the current administration stopped tracking abortion numbers in 2001?

BTW, Anonymous, how many kids you have?
If life gets legal protections from the moment of conception, how many kinds of birth control does that outlaw?
How could the government give legal protection from the moment of conception?

If the catholic Church continues to meddle in politics, its tax exempt status should be revoked. That goes for all religions, including Jewish religious institutions that meddle in foreign policy by pushing political support for Israel.

If "God" wills the things these people say, let him intervene directly and send them the money they need to continue meddling.

So the original Hippocratic oath forbids abortion... But guess what? It also forbids doctors using knives (because surgeons weren't doctors) and enjoins them to provide financial support to their med school professors.

The issue of abortion has also been discussed at length on the previous threads of

this panelist, Prof Stevens-Arroyo

Father Reese SJ

Professor John Mark Reynolds

Chuck Colson

Susan Jacoby

Here some methods adopted by countries to decrease abortions:

1. Long waiting periods after the woman has decided on abortion and has been provided with detailed information about abortion and non-abortion options. The waiting period varies from three days to one week.

2. Attestations by two medical doctors before abortion is actually performed.

3. The obligation on medical doctors giving attestations to give accurate medical information about the development of the fetus at the time abortion is to be performed.

4. The option to view the child in the womb with an ultrasound.

5. Psychological counseling that is not directive, and is *not* sponsored by abortion clinics which have an ulterior motive to encourage abortion. Abortion clinics tend to offer counseling that favors abortion and seeks to minimize the guilt and trauma associated with abortions and in some cases even deny guilt as a reality, explaining it away as merely "hormones playing up".

It is not hard for anyone who is not called upon to perform abortions to make politically correct and socially popular statements in favor of abortion.

Btw, Dr Deepak Chopra trained as a medical doctor in India. The Hippocratic Oath continued to be printed in the booklet on professional conduct and medical ethics issued by medical councils, to medical doctors along with their medical registration, LONG AFTER he trained to be a medical doctor.

Abortion is legal in India, but only a minority of medical doctors choose to become Obstetrician-Gynecologists. Among them only a few work in government hospitals where performing abortions becomes part of their routine. Even there doctors are allowed to refuse to perform abortions. In non-governmental settings there is no pressure to perform abortions anyway.

Dr Chopra is right: many doctors tend to view abortion as one more procedure, and think in terms of the money that can be earned by performing them. It is lucrative to perform abortions and many medical doctors have no qualms about earning money that way, even though they remember the human embryology they studied well enough and their knowledge of the child growing in the womb should serve as a deterrent.

What a patently dishonest column -- intellectually and factually.

But that is par for the course for the Post on most things concerning the Catholic Faith and Church.

Btw, Dr Deepak Chopra was trained as a medical doctor in India. The Hippocratic Oath was printed in the booklet issued by medical councils LONG AFTER he trained to be a medical doctor.

Dr Deepak Chopra:

In the end, I find myself trapped by moral absolutists who have distorted a sensitive issue. As a matter of principle, I side with the pro-choice side, as most physicians do unless their view is colored by religion. I'd rather live in a country where things are allowed unless expressly forbidden, not one where things are forbidden unless somebody expressly allows them. But that doesn't mean I'm putting on a white hat. There are no white hats in this issue.

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

Indian medical doctors used to have the Hippocratic Oath printed in their copy of the booklet on professional conduct and medical ethics handed to them along with their medical registration at the medical council.

Hippocrates, the Greek pagan, the founder of Western medicine, did not view inducing abortion as a gray issue. He expressly forbade doctors from participating in abortion.

Abortion was made legal in India, yet there was a provision made for medical doctors working in government hospitals to refuse to perform abortions, if they chose. Even today there are many doctors who would not want to perform abortions and therefore a conscience clause exists in most countries where abortion is legal. The conscience clause also serves as a small deterrent to abortions. Abortionists aren't exactly looked upon with great professional awe.

Human embryology is not religion. It is hard core medical science, so one does not need a religious conviction to be against abortion. There are atheists who are against abortion.

Here is an interpretation of the current status
of pregnancy termination in the U.S.

Abortion is available 'on demand' during the first trimester of a pregnancy.
Once a fetus becomes 'viable' (able to live outside of the womb) then that child (developing fetus) instantly receives constitutional rights that are equal to its mother's rights.

The 'cut-off' point is 'viability'.

There is a problematic 'flip-side' to the entire abortion issue. The 'problem' is having the law intrude into a situation which is, for the most part, a matter of joy (having a child) for most citizens. Why have this 'joyful experience' become a government mandate?

Especially from a religious group which, historically, has dealt with women as though they are 'property'.

So, presently there is an excellent compromise under the law. Abortion on-demand during the first trimester of a pregnancy, and once the fetus is 'viable' then that child's constitutional rights become a reality.

In the U.S. we do not 'legislate' religion. Especially for a religious group that is 'crucified' upon its own powerfully negative 'judgments'.

Politics is all about 'compromise' among the many people of many religions.
God gives us 'free-will', so does the State. The rest (how we use our free-will) is entirely up to God whose love is equally distributed to all.

Religion should maintain rules for its members
and stay out of politics. We have already tried (history) 'government' by religion and would up with 'Inquisitions' and mass-murder on a global scale.

.

Since Roe vs Wade seems to have become more sacred to pro-abortionists than any verse in Scripture, it is vital to inform them that the woman named in Roe vs Wade carried her baby to term, felt used by lawyers fighting for abortion as a right, and adopted an anti-abortion stand for herself.

So much about the sacredness of Roe vs Wade.

President Bush, Senator McCain and Governor Palin should take the opportunity, while there is still time, to organize such public forums as part of their anti-abortion stand, and thus leave an important legacy.

A comprehensive sex education should include important information about human embryology, so that every young woman knows that all human life begins as a fertilized ovum and no young woman is made to believe she is aborting a clump of cells (the deceptive tactic employed by pro-abortionists). She would know exactly what the fertilized ovum would look like in the week she chooses to abort it.

Have a public discussion - many, many public discussions.

Let those specialized in human embryology, Fetology and neonatal pediatrics present their scientific knowledge about the growing child in the womb and the newborns (neonates) to the public.

Thus far those who have presented the case to the public have been pro-abortionists - from social and legal perspectives.

Again: Let the scientific community which has to do with the child growing in the womb, and the newborns, present their knowledge to the public, since Roe vs Wade is 35 years old.

Len Charlap:

"A woman suspects pregnancy only about fourteen days after fertilization, when she misses her period. By then the fertilized egg has already implanted in her womb for at least eight days (implantation begins on day six and is complete on day seven after fertilization). "

What is this relevant to? Does this mean you don't believe life begins at conception, but only when the woman misses her period?

Sure all things die, but to kill millions right after they begin their lives seems a bit much.

September 25, 2008 11:58 PM

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

Read a textbook of human embryology.

A woman suspects a pregnancy only after the fertilized ovum has implanted and has been growing in her uterus for nearly eight days.

The emphasis was on when a woman suspects pregnancy, not about the fertilized ovum which marks the beginning of all human life.

IVF fertilized ova do not survive outside the womb by natural means, neither can it grow to a human being outside the womb.

Abortion is about destroying a life growing within the womb, long past the stage of an IVF fertilized ovum.

"I missed the chapter in the Bible that says to be a Christian you should pick and choose only what is convenient and toss the rest of the book."

How about these parts:

Woman with “familiar spirits” must be stoned to death. Leviticus 20:27

“Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.” Exodus 22:18

Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish:

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

Ignorance is bliss. Christians should not practice free inquiry nor socialize with non Christians:

Don’t associate with non-Christians. Don’t receive them into your house or even exchange greeting with them. 2 John 1:10

Shun those who disagree with your religious views. Romans 16:17

Paul, knowing that their faith would crumble if subjected to free and critical inquiry, tells his followers to avoid philosophy. Colossians 2:8

Judge other religions for not following Christ:

Whoever denies “that Jesus is the Christ” is a liar and an anti-Christ. 1 John 2:22

Christians are “of God;” everyone else is wicked. 1 John 5:19

The non-Christian is “a deceiver and an anti-Christ” 2 John 1:7

Anyone who doesn’t share Paul’s beliefs has “an evil heart.” Hebrews 3:12

False Jews are members of “the synagogue of Satan.” Revelations 2:9, 3:9

Everyone will have to worship Jesus -- whether they want to or not. Philippians 2:10

A Christian can not be accused of any wrongdoing. Romans 8:33

"If you intend to kill or murder something or someone and follow through, it is murder."

Does this apply to chickens, mice and house flies?

The answer is simple really - Intent - If you intend to kill or murder something or someone and follow through, it is murder.

No real way around the commandment - Thou shall not Murder.

I missed the chapter in the Bible that says to be a Christian you should pick and choose only what is convenient and toss the rest of the book.

"A woman suspects pregnancy only about fourteen days after fertilization, when she misses her period. By then the fertilized egg has already implanted in her womb for at least eight days (implantation begins on day six and is complete on day seven after fertilization). "

What is this relevant to? Does this mean you don't believe life begins at conception, but only when the woman misses her period?

Sure all things die, but to kill millions right after they begin their lives seems a bit much.

AGENTG:

Human embryology is hard core medical science. No guess work, faith, or philosophy necessary to answer the questions.

Read a textbook of human embryology.

Or choose to remain wilfuly ignorant.

Anonymous Too:

I have thought a lot about this issue, and simply have a hard time agreeing that a single ovum, fertilized by sperm ALWAYS trumps the health, wishes, or yes, convenience of a woman.

The Bush Administration is now trying to expand the definition of abortion to include birth control pills, and the morning after pill.

First of all, I do not equate a fertilized egg with a human. Lots of fertilized eggs are aborted spontaneously (miscarried), so many that many women don't realize that they were even pregnant.

In any case, how is it possible to equate a fertilized egg even to an 8 month fetus? An egg and sperm together may have DNA, but they do not yet have a spinal column, a brain, or a beating heart. They are a possibility, not a guarantee.

I think the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution need to be re-read: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness applies to citizens, not future beings. At the time they were adopted, these important documents did not even include women or people of color, just land-owning men.

Having been raised Catholic, I've been on both sides of this issue. Mainly, I swallowed the pro-life position in its entirety because I was forced to do so. There was no discussion of the value of women. I learned only that a possible person was important than I, that if it came down to a fetus or embryo or me, that the Church said the potential life trumped the actual mother.

It is why I would have my sister as my healthcare proxy instead of my husband. He still maintains this belief and would let ME die instead of a fetus.

Most people probably don't realize that many ob/gyns used to perform "Catholic birth control" on Catholic women by simply dictating that they should have hysterectomies. They saw the cruelty of extremely large families and would tell a woman it was now time to take out her uterus, knowing that the woman would not voluntarily stop having babies. (This is some years ago, and my mother's generation all had them).

It's really a shame that no one is talking about the real lives of women and how fertility is not always a gift. Sometimes it is a curse, too. It's easy to continue arguing and spewing venom on this topic, but you have to ask the question, what drives so many women to have abortions? I don't buy it that they're all evil or just doing it for the sake of convenience.

September 25, 2008 11:49 PM

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

Read a textbook of human embryology. That should save a lot of thinking time.

There is no moral or legal precedent in historical or religious teachings for recognizing an unborn fetus as an individual human being. The only arguments for criminalizing abortion are religious and faith based, which cannot serve as a legal basis in our democratic system. It is simply a misstatement of fact to call abortion murder, because the fetus does not exist as an individual with legal rights, regardless of what story one chooses to believe.

Even if you believe abortion is wrong and a sin, there is still no rational argument to criminalize it. Besides the practical difficulties in establishing penalties, it is ludicrous and against empirical evidence to assert that criminalization of abortion reduces abortions. It simply makes them illegal and more risky. No law will reduce abortion -- that is a severe distortion of fact.

Finally, if you sincerely want to reduce abortion, you will spend your energy in promoting contraception and sex education, and helping women find practical solutions to their problems, without being judgmental. Fighting for criminalization is a neurotic ambition that wishes to assert one's own religious beliefs on others, regardless of the outcome. That is decidedly as un-Christian as you can get.

Applying scientific reasoning, the argument gets even more complex. Even if we assume in arguendo that life begins at conception, when does conception actually occur? When sperm meets ovum? When the fertilized cell embeds itself in the uteral wall? Or some other time? It is not at all scientifically clear when conception occurs, and a large percentage of fertilized cells are naturally rejected. If God rejects 25% of fertilized cells as natural abortions, then how can abortion be immoral? In actuality, all cells represent life, such that there is life before, during and after conception.

If you want to talk about life, there are more cells in our bodies with foreign DNA than our own DNA -- that is we are comprised overwhelmingly of bacteria, without which we would die. Thus it makes more rational sense to criminalize the killing of bacteria than to criminalize abortion.

Len Charlap:

2. The people involved in in vitro fertilization are mass murderers on a vast scale. Do you know anyone who has a wonderful child because of this procedure? What would you do to them?
3. Every day millions of fertilized eggs die because they fail to implant. You must believe that this is a massacre on a scale beyond anything man has ever done. If your God sees fit to slaughter so many people evey day, I, for one, want to have nothing to do with such an entity, and I pity those who worship such a monster.

September 25, 2008 11:02 PM

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

A woman suspects pregnancy only about fourteen days after fertilization, when she misses her period. By then the fertilized egg has already implanted in her womb for at least eight days (implantation begins on day six and is complete on day seven after fertilization).

An IVF fertilized ovum that has not been implanted into the womb is INcapable of growing into a child outside the womb. Scientists have not been able to manipulate that part of nature just yet.

Every living thing, human being and animal, that was ever born has DIED and will die.

I for one do not want to see human beings and animals around that are thousands of years old.

Only He who can create life has the right to determine its time of death. Human beings do have the capacity to create life just yet. Reproduce? Yes. Create a life? NO.

Hence the humbler among us would not want to play God and take innocent lives or condone those who do.

I have thought a lot about this issue, and simply have a hard time agreeing that a single ovum, fertilized by sperm ALWAYS trumps the health, wishes, or yes, convenience of a woman.

The Bush Administration is now trying to expand the definition of abortion to include birth control pills, and the morning after pill.

First of all, I do not equate a fertilized egg with a human. Lots of fertilized eggs are aborted spontaneously (miscarried), so many that many women don't realize that they were even pregnant.

In any case, how is it possible to equate a fertilized egg even to an 8 month fetus? An egg and sperm together may have DNA, but they do not yet have a spinal column, a brain, or a beating heart. They are a possibility, not a guarantee.

I think the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution need to be re-read: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness applies to citizens, not future beings. At the time they were adopted, these important documents did not even include women or people of color, just land-owning men.

Having been raised Catholic, I've been on both sides of this issue. Mainly, I swallowed the pro-life position in its entirety because I was forced to do so. There was no discussion of the value of women. I learned only that a possible person was important than I, that if it came down to a fetus or embryo or me, that the Church said the potential life trumped the actual mother.

It is why I would have my sister as my healthcare proxy instead of my husband. He still maintains this belief and would let ME die instead of a fetus.

Most people probably don't realize that many ob/gyns used to perform "Catholic birth control" on Catholic women by simply dictating that they should have hysterectomies. They saw the cruelty of extremely large families and would tell a woman it was now time to take out her uterus, knowing that the woman would not voluntarily stop having babies. (This is some years ago, and my mother's generation all had them).

It's really a shame that no one is talking about the real lives of women and how fertility is not always a gift. Sometimes it is a curse, too. It's easy to continue arguing and spewing venom on this topic, but you have to ask the question, what drives so many women to have abortions? I don't buy it that they're all evil or just doing it for the sake of convenience.

Len Charlap:

Let's examine this notion that "life begins at conception," that what is produced when a sperm fertilizes an egg is a person.

1. Every doctor who has performed an abortion is a murderer. Every woman who has had an abortion is an accessory. They all must be prosecuted and jailed for long periods or executed. Think about what that would mean--millions thrown in jail or killed. Is this what your religion, your morality calls for?
2. The people involved in in vitro fertilization are mass murderers on a vast scale. Do you know anyone who has a wonderful child because of this procedure? What would you do to them?
3. Every day millions of fertilized eggs die because they fail to implant. You must believe that this is a massacre on a scale beyond anything man has ever done. If your God sees fit to slaughter so many people evey day, I, for one, want to have nothing to do with such an entity, and I pity those who worship such a monster.

September 25, 2008 11:02 PM

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

There was a time when abortion was a crime and medical doctors who performed them were thrown into jail.

Only since abortion has been made legal are medical doctors allowed to perform abortions on demand.

If a woman has a socio-economic problem the person to contact is a social worker. If the woman has an emotional problem, the person to contact is a counselor, clinical psychologist or psychiatrist. The obstetrician is trained to treat medical problems related to pregnancy, not to kill a healthy fetus.

The law was passed to give them protection when they performed abortions outside the bounds of medical ethics. Hence they are known as "abortionists." Abortionists belong to a special group. Abortion clinics are not exactly medical centers. They should be rightly termed "Houses of Human Butchery."

It is hypocrisy at its best..You so call christians do not give a hoot for the people who were put to death by our laws. Yet you stand judge and jury over a women's right to her own body...If you really cared, there would be no children left to be raised by government institutions. There would be no old people left to die while laying in a nasty diaper....The only life you care about is your own selfish self...If you really cared, no child would go hungry or be with out shelter and love...For in the real world which most of you seem not to live in, these are the little nasty facts...Abortion is an necessary evil, until we help these women with children, achieve a way and means of living a better life....Which we do not! and sex education with the use of free preventives are available to all...Then abortion is necessary... My body my life, my decision, stay out of it!

Note an Obstetrician who treats medical conditions related to pregnancies and an Abortionist who aborts healthy babies in healthy women are really about two different things - one operating within the bounds of medical ethics and doing his duty, and the other needing special protection by law because there is no provision in medical ethics to abort healthy fetuses in healthy women. Inconvenience and socio-economic factors don't count as medical justification to take an innocent life in the womb, for every medical doctor has read human embryology and knows with certainty that an embryo/fetus is a human being growing in the womb and is no different from a human being that continues to grow outside the womb after birth.

All the sanctimonious, holier-than-thou troglodytes in here should answer one question for me.

If it was not possible to rely on PRIESTS to exercise restraint, self-control and just say no to sexual attacks on boys, how can you expect us mere mortals to rise above our "base" desires?

Evangelicals, and Catholics are in that group, want kids to say no, refuse abortions, not get birth control ... and just suck it up.

don't do the crime if you can't do the time ...

In Africa the Catholic church opposes condom use, which means if you do the dirty you deserve AIDS and/or babies.

but protect the priests, and send them to another church where they can continue to molest.

Give me a frakin' break ... please.

"The conspiratorial minds that promote such opinions are paranoid about anyone who doesn't live and breathe in their world of bumper-sticker theology and politics."

......... a wise man once said that we should not attempt to take someone's religion away from them, unless we can offer them something better. Cynical, snide phrases like these do not offer anyone faith in this writer's words. Anthony Stevens-Arroyo writes that we should be able to separate our politics from our theology .. in other words, we can leave God out of things when it is not convenient. Is this a subtle endorsement of the very-pro-abortion Obama? I think that Catholics like Stevens-Arroyo, Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi and Biden ... should change their religions rather than ignorantly professing to be something they are not!!

The fight to ban abortion needs to continue into eternity. Without it how would evangelicals be able to tell they were Christians. It's their one note song of faith.

I am so sick of hearing people talk about killing innocent human life and how immoral it is in the abortion debate. We kill and are killing innocent human beings all over this planet be it collatoral damage in war or by indifference to the suffering and death by starvation in poor countries. Some are very accepting of the idea that children in this country can be born to women that have no way to feed, clothe and educate these children and have no way to show them that they are nothing but marginalized by the country they live in. Then by chance they make bad decisions, commit a capital crime and these same people are quite happy to send them to a death sentence. It's like saying that I will force you to be born, I disrespect your humanity and when you screw up I am happy to lethally inject you. Give me a break, you people are hypocrites.

Let's examine this notion that "life begins at conception," that what is produced when a sperm fertilizes an egg is a person.

1. Every doctor who has performed an abortion is a murderer. Every woman who has had an abortion is an accessory. They all must be prosecuted and jailed for long periods or executed. Think about what that would mean--millions thrown in jail or killed. Is this what your religion, your morality calls for?
2. The people involved in in vitro fertilization are mass murderers on a vast scale. Do you know anyone who has a wonderful child because of this procedure? What would you do to them?
3. Every day millions of fertilized eggs die because they fail to implant. You must believe that this is a massacre on a scale beyond anything man has ever done. If your God sees fit to slaughter so many people evey day, I, for one, want to have nothing to do with such an entity, and I pity those who worship such a monster.

MARY:

What is being discussed is the "right" to abort healthy babies in healthy women. Such abortions constitute 95% of all abortions-on-demand.

If convenience alone is reason enough to take an innocent life, it could be extended in all sorts of sinister ways beyond our imagination. It may not be long before the children of the abortion culture demand their right to do away with "inconvenient" parents, because of illness, disability, senility etc. And who could deny them that right? And their reasoning would make more sense too, after all aged parents are no longer useful to society and only a burden to their carers and children. All the reasons now used by mothers and fathers to abort innocent children in the womb could be employed with much more convincing argument in favor of doing away with the aged/ill who have become "inconvenient."

The instances you mention are within medical ethics and obstetricians would be operating within their professional rights to perform abortions without needing extra protection by law.

The right to kill a healthy fetus in a healthy woman is what Roe vs Wade is all about. A whole different way of viewing developing human being in the womb has developed as a result, an abortion culture that is completely out of step with hard core medical science.

So don't distract from the REAL issue.

Jeff Taylor:

What does the Constitution say about this matter?

September 25, 2008 11:13 AM

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

Nothing.

If "right to privacy" is interpreted as the right to abort a child in the womb, then murderers of all stripes could demand that kind of "privacy" for their choice to murder.

"Right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" should be understood as including a child its mother's womb, don't you think? As you can see, first comes the right to LIFE, for there can be no liberty and pursuit of happiness without life.

NO! the Constitution does NOT say that a mother's right to convenience overrides the child's right to its LIFE.

During my pregnancies, I was closely monitored because of a heart condition that could have gone bad under the physical stress of the pregnancies. Luckily, everything went okay. I really wanted those babies, and I probably would have tried to make it through to delivery even if problems had developed, but why shouldn't that decision be mine, rather than some politician's? How can you say that there should be no exception for the health of the mother, and that abortion should be allowed only if the alternative is certain death? What if the alternative is needing a heart transplant? Or being paraplegic, without bowel and bladder control? There are lots of health consequences of pregnancies that aren't fatal, but are devastating enough that reasonable women might choose abortion.

My sister-in-law was found to be carrying a fetus with a 100% fatal genetic defect but which might have "survived" for a day or two after birth. Like many such pregnancies, this one ended in a miscarriage. She was spared having to decide between having an abortion and being condemned by her Catholic relatives and carrying a pregnancy that would have been increasingly risky to her own health. Whose choice should it be whether to carry a doomed pregnancy through to delivery and watch a severely deformed baby die? I've read the stories from women who did it and found it to be life-affirming and spiritual, and I respect that. I'd like some respect for my own belief that it would be a reckless risk with no upside at all.

Who is the author of this forum and why has he been given a forum provided by a major media organization through which to provide his opinions? Is he qualified to speak for any person other than himself?

When guns are outlawed, only criminals will have guns.
When abortion is outlawed, only "criminals" will have abortions. And a certain number of women will have them. Who am I to say they shouldn't?

Len Charpal said: :choice. Who better to make this choice than the woman in consultation with her physician and her family. The anti choice group simply wants to control our lives so as to make us live according to their medieval religious beliefs."

Actually, the Supreme Court ruled in 1989 that a woman does not even have to tell her own husband that she is aborting their common child. So much for "consultation with her family!" Also, beliefs that were prevalent as late as 1972, and are still held by a lot of people including,. for instance the Dalai Lama, cannot really be called Medieval.

I urge people to see the following analogy. We do not think that man can be allowed to judge for himself if he is sober enough to drive. There has to be an objective test - how much alcohol there is in his blood, and not whether HE thinks he is sober.

The same for a woman claiming that she has an emergency and needs an abortion. Fine, if she has an emergency and an abortion is the only way to save herself, then let her get an abortion.

But just like the case of driving, it has to be an objective determination by an INDEPENDENT agency whether she really has an emergency or is merely seeking an abortion of convenience.

Billie Jean King had an abortion in order to do well in a tennis match. Maybe for her it WAS an emergency. But the determination of whether that was actually an emergency justifying killing a foetus (aka child) has to be made by others and not by King.

Abortion may sometimes be a necessity. But to say, "A woman and her physician alone can decide" is the same as abortion on demand, since she is the one who chooses the physician and anyway he is paid by her. Abortion by necessity, Yes. Abortion on demand, NO!

when a person supports the right to abortion but wishes also to reduce the number of abortions explained:

they simply want the right to an abortion to be preserved but reduce the number of pregnancies that would cause the woman to choose an abortion ie. making safe and reliable birth control readily available, preventing the abuse of young women by men who impregnate them and take no responsiblity for the child they helped create, providing effective mental health services for young people who are acting out sexually due to dysfunctional families and situations, in short by adddressing the ills of society with education and concern for the young person who is at risk for the unwanted pregnancy rather than wait until they are pregnant and at risk of bringing another unwanted/unplanned/unprotected child into this society that does not take care of the children we have now.

"Will someone who is pro-abortion but wants to reduce the number of abortions please give their reasoning?"

I am pro choice, pro life and anti abortion. Those on the other side are anti choice, pro death and pro abortion.

I am in favor of life. I do not believe women should die in back alley abortions or, that a woman should die because the head of her fetus is too large to fit the birth canal. Study after study has shown that making abortion illegal does not lower the frequency of abortions. It merely increases the death rate of abortions.

I am against abortion. I think we should have the minimum number of abortions. I agree with Planned Parenthood that parenthood should be planned. Those in the anti choice camp are opposed to those measures which have been shown to reduce abortions, sex educations, condums and birth control. The state with the lowest abortion rate is Massachusetts. The countries with the lowest abortion rate have legal abortion.

Whether to have an abortion is a terrible choice. Who better to make this choice than the woman in consultation with her physician and her family. The anti choice group simply wants to control our lives so as to make us live according to their medieval religious beliefs.

Why are men who are not allowed to marry or have sexual relations so OBSESSED with what's going on in women's wombs? I find that very curious. As far as I'm concerned, that topic is for me, my doctor and my husband.

Mr. Arroyo. There is a VERY simple answer why thoughtful and practicing Catholics cannot and will not budge on the abortion issue.

When something other than a human being comes out of woman, after conception, such as a brick, plant or dog, then we can consider that what is destroyed through abortion, is not the MURDER of a human life. Like the Nazis killing of innocent humans during WWII, you don't sort of kill a human. The human is dead or alive.

If a child is conceived, even due to rape or incest, that new child has the human right to be protected from being killed. While it is a very tragic and diffcult time for the mother, it is better than the child being killed.

It seems that it "nice" if we can just "all get along" and rationalize that in the case of rape or incest, that maybe just killing a child in these circumstances is not as harmful to the unborn child. Duh!

Rick writes "Abortion is not a 'belief', it is a fact. It is the killing of innocent life. You don't need to be a 'believer' to know that an unborn baby is real and alive."

How exactly would the government give legal rights from the moment of conception?

"I have always wondered about the reasoning behind protecting the right to abortion but wanting to reduce the number of abortions. This is self contradictory"

Not at all. Legal abortion is a mostly a neccessary evil, because illegal abortion is worse. Our side has taken the concerns of pro-life folks seriously (something your side might try sometime) and are seeking compromise.

Mr. Arroyo,

You don't specify what exactly these supposedly good laws that the evil Bishops oppose are. How are we supposed to judge this when you don't give us the specifics of what you're talking about?

You start off by talking about "laws to reduce the number of abortions." What laws would these be?

Then you bring in the subject of abortion being allowed for the "health of the mother." I'm still not sure how the first topic - laws to reduce abortion - relates to the second. Usually when an author hides a key fact it's because it's to his advantage to do so. Again, what proposed laws are you talking about?

And yes, I have to agree with Rick Santorum that in practice, conditions involving the "health of the mother" in this society will get distorted into abortion on demand. We'll have psychologists writing a letter to say that the mother will get depressed if she doesn't have an abortion. We'll get doctors claiming that back pains during pregnancy will justify an abortion.

I'd take you talk more seriously if you had told us what you were talking about exactly.

Mikel4 writes
"Hi Marc
No, from the beginning, laws were the moral norms of a society, i.e., the ten commandments."

I don't agree that laws reflect societal norms. I think that good laws are what a society needs to function - hence laws against murder, theft, etc. The 10 commandments of course have nothing to do with laws in Western countries. We don't have laws that forbid coveting or taking the lords name, etc.

"Laws also can be the regulations by which a society functions. Social groups get tgether and pass laws, i.e., don't steal, don't murder, that serve both means. Laws though are the morals of a society as determined by that society."

We do have 'morals laws' and generally they are all bad. Look at prohibition, look at our drug laws, look at the old 'blue laws' - all crappy laws that serve no good purpose.

"The majority imposes those morals on the minority."

Not sure if you mean that as a good thing of a bad thing.

"Such is the current state of affairs in our country with the 1973 Supreme Court decision that said our constitution doesn't allow the then majority to have a say on this moral question."

Because it's a right in the constitution.

"I, as many others before me, beg to disagree. Our constitution will lose everytime if I have to choose between it and God."

You know, God doesn't believe in the 'freedom of expression' or 'freedom of religion'(check your 10 commandments if you doubt). You going to start punishing people for using the lords name or worshiping graven images? Or are you selective about which of God's laws he actually means as laws and which laws he was kidding about?

"As a Catholic, I will seek to change this immoral ruling and the laws of this country to reflect this Catholic view."

My morals/ethics are certainly informed by Jesus's teachings and by Catholic teachings, so I appreciate where you are coming from. However you are being selective, no? Catholic teaching forbids birth control - you going to outlaw that too? Even if means more abortions?

"As to your second point, I am not sure what your reference is."

My point is that the Catholic Church is playing politics when it goes after pro-choice candidates (mostly Democratic) and ignores Republicans who support the current war (hundreds of thousands of civilians killed, millions displaced), support the death penalty, and ignore the churches teachings on poverty. If the CC would do their "denial of communion" game to people equally, I could respect it. However the CC is aiming at one political party, and I think it has motives other than preserving 'life'. I think the CC is up to it's centuries old game of garnering political power.

"There is a "Just War" doctrine within the Catholic Church. If you are referring to the current Iraq war, the Catholic Church leadership has condemned it, however, there is strong debate among Catholic theologians as to whether the believed justification for the war fell under the "Just War" doctrine."

Pre-emptive war is not only unjust, but hitorically it's bad policy. Germany feared Russian power and sought WW1 - look how THAT turned out. Japan feared a conflict with the US so they attacked the US.
However, as there was no need to invade Iraq (we had inspectors on the ground and the country surrounded and contained) the invasion was clearly unjust.

I have always wondered about the reasoning behind protecting the right to abortion but wanting to reduce the number of abortions. This is self contradictory. What other 'right' do we treat like this? I think everyone should have a job but want to reduce the number of jobholders. I want everyone to own a house but I want to reduce the number of homeowners. I want everyone to have the right to speak but I want to reduce the number of people who are allowed to speak.

Will someone who is pro-abortion but wants to reduce the number of abortions please give their reasoning?

Nelson:

...
In no way is this a dilemma for me, I, a faithful Catholic, do believe that we do not have the right to force others to live up to our belief system, and without shame do not support the "pro-life" movement in any way shape or form.

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

Abortion is not a 'belief', it is a fact. It is the killing of innocent life. You don't need to be a 'believer' to know that an unborn baby is real and alive. By your reasoning, let's do away with laws against stealing, perjury, robbery, etc - all based on Judeo-Christian tradition. As a "faithful Catholic", what do you support?

I have to admit that I have been disappointed at the Church's political manipulation on the issue of protecting life. The priest appointed by the Bishop for Western NC to head the Cathedral parish in Charlotte recently told church members that the Church does not believe that support or imposition of the death penalty is contrary to church teaching. However, to support a candidate that does not oppose all abortions (with no exceptions) would cause one's soul to be eternally damned.

As a lawyer,who has handled capital cases, I find the approach of only protecting life until birth contrary to the teachings of Jesus. I also find the approach of using threats and of not allowing church members to vote their own conscience on issues of life troubling, especially at churches that maintain a not for profit status with the IRS.

While I appreciate the considered approach being taken here with respect to abortion and legislation, I dream of a day when people apply the same passion towards issues of economy and environment. Millions and millions of people will suffer because of the breakdown of our financial institutions, millions suffer each year without access to health care, millions have lost their homes, livelihoods, and communities due to environmental catastrophe. Increasingly I don't care if abortion is legal or not- people are going to keep having them either way- but the fundamental systems that keep our society and world functioning need serious attention and serious help. The abortion debate is a distraction that is causing tremendous suffering in the world. And that also is a moral issue worth considering.

Hi Marc
No, from the beginning, laws were the moral norms of a society, i.e., the ten commandments. Laws also can be the regulations by which a society functions. Social groups get tgether and pass laws, i.e., don't steal, don't murder, that serve both means. Laws though are the morals of a society as determined by that society. The majority imposes those morals on the minority.

Such is the current state of affairs in our country with the 1973 Supreme Court decision that said our constitution doesn't allow the then majority to have a say on this moral question. I, as many others before me, beg to disagree. Our constitution will lose everytime if I have to choose between it and God. As a Catholic, I will seek to change this immoral ruling and the laws of this country to reflect this Catholic view.

As to your second point, I am not sure what your reference is. There is a "Just War" doctrine within the Catholic Church. If you are referring to the current Iraq war, the Catholic Church leadership has condemned it, however, there is strong debate among Catholic theologians as to whether the believed justification for the war fell under the "Just War" doctrine.

Marc Edward:
I certainly agree with you that in the ancient past, the Church took on too much temporal power. However, I believe that the Church has truly recognized that as a mistake and tried to take a neutral role in government/ political activity except in areas where its rights or that of the faithful would be compromised. One example like that was when Pope John Paul II supported Solidarity against the Communist regime which was suppressing human rights, a position that hastened the fall of Communism in the Soviet block.

I think that your interpretation of the denial of communion to supporters of Abortion is wrong, however. I don't believe it is being done to further the goals of the Republicans against the Democrats, but instead is being done for purely pastoral reasons. In other words, the reason it is (was) being done was to make clear its position on Abortion, which was being compromised by politicians claiming to Simultaneously be Catholic and also pro-Abortion. This was done to politicians in both parties (including Rudy Guliani) but of course, since the pro-abortion stance is held mostly by Democrats, they were effected more often. For what its worth, I think that the US bishops have been focused more on first personal and then public correction (for examples, Nancy Pelosi and Joe Biden) as a pastoral tool rather than denying communion in this election cycle.

The church, by the way, sees the moral implications of abortion, the death penalty and the war differently. Abortion is the killing of an innocent, which is always wrong.

This is the official church position on the death penalty: (from the catechism #2267): Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor. If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically non-existent."

As for war, it is also to be avoided if possible, unless it is needed to protect the innocent. This is of course the rationale put forward by GW Bush, when he claimed that IRAQ has weapons of mass destruction trained on innocent people in the US. So the question of whether the war was inherently unjust rests on the question of whether IRAQ was a legitimate threat to the US.

Mikel4 writes
"forcing people to live by ideals and morals that may not be their own is what we call "laws"."

Aren't laws just rules to a society can function? Seems to me that laws that "force people to live by our religion" are what you get in a theocracy, not a modern republic.

"When the majority come together in our congress and agree that is illegal and vote it in to effect, it is then illegal."

OK, the majority is pro-choice - does that mean pro-life people should just shut up?

"When those laws clash with God's law, as practicing Catholics, we are obligated to dissent and seek to change those laws."

Yeah, but the CC is very selective about which of "God's Laws" they raise a fuss about, aren't they? The want to deny communion to people who support the current law regarding legal abortion, but are nearly silent on people who promote war.
What was it Jesus said about hypocrites?

Folks,
Ben offers this sophistry:

"If the Catholic moral system is superior, they should show it by leading with their example rather than persecuting the alternatives. I'm sure hell is big enough for all of us."

The same could be said about people who wish to promote racial or religious tolerance or those who want laws against child labor. In fact, laws often promote particular moral viewpoints. Consider, for example, the recent disagreement between Protestant pastor Tony Alamo, who argues for the onset of puberty being the age of consent for sex, and more "old-fashioned" types who argue that only a hard-and-fast age can protect the children. Alamo might even argue that the teen age targets could always voice their objections; that is, of course, something the fetuses to be butchered cannot do.

Hey Nelson,
forcing people to live by ideals and morals that may not be their own is what we call "laws". When the majority come together in our congress and agree that is illegal and vote it in to effect, it is then illegal. When those laws clash with God's law, as practicing Catholics, we are obligated to dissent and seek to change those laws.

We have here what is commonly termed, being on the horns of a dilemma. What are the choices that a faithful Roman Catholic has and how to implement these choices in the face of eternity.
Mr. Stevens-Arroyo, rightly points out that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, do not want to budge on the ideal of "no abortions," yet this causes the faithful consternation, due to the fact that there are not enough votes to overcome the Roe v. Wade test of the Supreme Court.
In no way is this a dilemma for me, I, a faithful Catholic, do believe that we do not have the right to force others to live up to our belief system, and without shame do not support the "pro-life" movement in any way shape or form.
It is a sad thing that a small majority of people wish to force the majority of this country to live be morals and ideals that are not theirs and that have no other basis in fact than the belief that "life begins at conception." Should someone prove scientifically that it does, than I would change my thinking, but as of yet not one shred of evidence appears to complete the logic of those who would deny the rights of women to control their own bodies.
We do not live in the dark ages any more and I personally do no wish to return to those times. So I will stand for the rights of those who wish freedom and plurality to reign, will stand for a principle that exalts the rights of women without regard to the wants of a minority, a minority that would restrict the rights of the majority.

Hey Paul C!
You write
"Marc Edward: the Catholic church is not interested in political power. In fact, its clergy are prohibited from seeking political office."

I have to disagree. For one thing the CC has been interested in political power for most of it's existance. It would be little trouble for me to give you numerous examples from history, but I will confine myself to pointing out how in the 19th century the CC was very much opposed to the spread of democracy in Europe, prefering monarchy. I say they are interested in political power today because in the recent elections where they were talking about denying communion to Democratic political candidates. I highly resent the church injecting itself into our elections, so while it is their right, I'll certainly point it out.

"It's only role is to save souls. The church takes no position in party politics and instead takes positions on issues. It believes that abortion is wrong and should be illegal. In this particular case, it is more alligned with the Republicans than the Democrats. "

Except that the Republicans have refused to do anything to end legal abortion for decades. I'd be less annoyed if they'd pull the 'denial of communion' in a fair manner - deny communion to Republican candidates who support the death penalty and the war, deny communion to Democratic candidates who support legal abortion. However the CC is picking and choosing based on political party, and they do it because they want a reward.

"I do agree with you that Professor Stevens- Arroyo is completely fixated on this issue."

I think he likes the heat it generates, makes him feel important to have 400 post long thread after one of his articles. C'mon - I want to see his 'stand' on masturbation or meatless Fridays!

I disagree that he's out to help Democrats so much as he makes the point I have made - outside of abortion (which Republicans refuse to act on) the Democratic policies are more in line with church policies.
Have a good day - assuming you didn't have all your money in AIG

If it's true that the Catholic Bishops are opposed to abortions even if the health of the mother is endangered, then that just confirms what I've been saying for a long time: The Church sees women not as full human beings but as incubators.

It also confirms my other long-standing belief that religion is crap.

Mariano Patalinjug: Truth is timeless. What is cruel about the Catholic church's position that a mother should not kill her unborn child? Yes, some Catholic women get abortions. Those are the ones that value their convenience over the lives of their children and the state of their own souls.

Ben: I submit that your thought experiment is invalid. Stopping abortion isn't an act to show your fidelity to God like circumcission or not drinking wine. Abortion isn't even a religious issue. Abortion is about protecting the lives and rights of the innocent (in this case the unborn). A better thought experiment would be should slavery be legal (like the unborn, slaves have no rights) or whether euthanasia should be legal. (Afterall, people with demenTia can also be inconvenient...)

Marc Edward: the Catholic church is not interested in political power. In fact, its clergy are prohibited from seeking political office. It's only role is to save souls. The church takes no position in party politics and instead takes positions on issues. It believes that abortion is wrong and should be illegal. In this particular case, it is more alligned with the Republicans than the Democrats.

I do agree with you that Professor Stevens- Arroyo is completely fixated on this issue. His first allegiance is clearly to the Democratic party so he is spending all his energy trying to mitigate the problems Catholics have with the Democratic position on Abortion, either by attacking the Catholic heirarchy directly or by trying to make the Democratic position on abortion more palatable to Catholics

What does the Constitution say about this matter?

Vote for life, vote for choice, say, yes, to the right of women to choose.

Amen.

Mr. Arroyo,
you again distort your faith for political expedience. When there is a conflict between the law of God and the laws of Man, God wins. It is that simple. To take an innocent life, under the guise of the "mental health" of the mother is an excuse for murder. Remember Mr. Arroyo, we are here for God's purposes, not our own. We should shape our laws for God's purposes, nor our purposes. God bless.

Oh for God's sake - abortion again?
This is like getting meatloaf 5 days a week!
I don't have time for argument, as my in-laws and my aging mother need help today, however....

1) I really hate the argument that "health of the mother is too big a loophole". That argument relies on the assumption that women are either too stupid to make decisions about their pregnancies, or that a woman could carry a child for 8 months and would suddenly for no good reason abort that child. Both views treat women as less than human.
2) Too many pro-life folks are moral absolutists. In thriving for the perfect, they ignore the good. In striving to end all abortions, they fail to lower the numbers of abortions. They would rather have one million + abortions/year forever than lower that number. It's a position that is inconsistant, and exposes the fact that many pro-lifers care more for their argument than for innocent lives.
3) Seems to me the bishops aren't all the principled at all. The church has through out history striven for political power. Seems that a portion of the church has alligned itself with the Republican party, and they are using abortion to help Republicans. hoping for some pay off down the road. Excuse me if I don't take these men seriously, considering how many of them were involved in protecting child rapists.

Mr Arroyo, can you, for just 4 weeks, talk about anything besides abortion? if you really want a hot topic, what about masturbation or circumcision? Abortion threads are way too long and 2/3 of the posts are redundent.

Have a nice day all, enjoy our economy while it lasts!

A thought experiment:

How would Christians feel if all predominantly Muslim countries and Israel made male (and female, where applicable) circumcision compulsory?
Would it not be holding private people to standards of morality that would be inconsistent with, or at least superfluous to, their own conception of morality? Would it not be unjust to force others to conform to their own belief system?

The question isn't how the Catholic church should best achieve a ban on abortions. Rather, how are they justified in imposing their beliefs and the attendant consequences on others? Catholics are free to believe privately that abortion is an immoral or indecent act, just as Muslims are free to believe that consuming sacramental wine is a sin, or Buddhists to believe that killing animals is sinful.

If the Catholic moral system is superior, they should show it by leading with their example rather than persecuting the alternatives. I'm sure hell is big enough for all of us.

Yonkers, New York
25 September 2008

It is pure folly to expect the Catholic Church to change its medieval, anachronistic and cruel stand on abortion.

But that really should not matter at all because a great percentage of today's Catholics are well-informed and well-educated. Many of them have no problem with gettkng an abortion, which is fundamentally a private matter.

Thus an incalculable number of Catholic women now routinely decide to get an abortion knowing that getting it does not result in consequences that will ruin their lives. They have no problem being threatened with "excommunication."

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Taking the impatient road, Paul C...and since there has been some unintelligible nonsense put up here, I'll grace this blog again with my post:

Bridget:

It is astounding that you can't tell the difference between abortion and war. Abortion is simply the butchering of an innocent life. The war you like to call "illegal" received a majority vote in the Congress and if it was such a disaster and so manifestly illegal, why was Bush re-elected in Nov '04? Further, the troops are an all-volunteer force. Virtually all of the those involved in the fighting today have either enlisted or re-enlisted since the the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq commenced (so they knew what they were getting into).

To compare the valiant brave death of a U.S. soldier of an all-volunteer force fighting in a war on behalf of his country in accord with the wishes of elected officials and his Commander-in-Chief...to suctioning the brains out of fetus (a baby, a person) or dismembering it,...is, well, it simply shows liberals for what they are: selfish, Godless, hypocritical, moronic asinine fools.

(One could also surmise that since you view the war as "illegal" then the death of our troops is "justified"--further weakening any comparison with the death of totally innocent unborn baby. Really....your argument is truly idiotic).

But hey, you go girl! Yea Obama! Yea abortion!

Never rufuse an option when you can get it.
http://www.adopting.org/
Cut your losses short.
Let your love run on, the beach.
Watch for beached whales.
Life's a beach.
GO Parenting
I know, I'm sounding like a parrot head. I blew out my flip flop.

Dear Anthony, I think you should consider what is possible to actually reduce abortions. Now, the Republicans have owned the pro-life movement for many years and not only have they not reversed the law, they have now created a situation in which so many mothers and children will suffer it is almost incomprehensible. So, if, in fact, supporting pro-life candidates does not cause a reduction in abortions, what IS a Catholic to do? My suggestion is to work on a third front - that is to CHOOSE LIFE. There are Choose Life groups - but the idea is to make this country such that children know a variety of ways to avoid becoming pregnant and, if pregnant, they know all of the options - and there are better ones than they have today - so that their inclination is to choose life. It is the only Catholic/Christian/Ethical solution to this. Jesus didn't make a law that we have faith - but he called us to him and it is our choice whether to follow or not. If Jesus asks us to choose him, why can't we work together to make life the obvious choice for people who would otherwise see this as no choice at all. We cannot beat people into faith and you cannot legislate women to have babies.

I know you are trying to work this through. I suggest you go back to when you were a kid - before you hated this group or that group. Pretend your sister is pregnant and imagine a world in which all of her choose life options are available. Isn't that the world you would also choose?

Love, Mom

Vote: "COLD TURKEY" for All Robber Barons NGO Financial Institutions!

VOTE: Abolish the [NGO] FED-Reserve!:

Abolish the FED-Reserve!

Remember: Haste MaKES WASE! Do not Let the Satans [ Lame Duck Prez Bush & Co.] Push Ye to decide Now!

Vote: "COLD TURKEY" for NGO Financial Institutions! Abolish the FED-Reserve!

Vote: "COLD TURKEY" for NGO Financial Institutions!

Not Tax-Payers Money! Tell Them, "The Survival of the Fittest Applies Too!"

REMEMBER Ye History, Ye Jury & Everybody’s Biz:

The FEDERAL RESERVE (a Robber Baron Bank SYSTEM, not Secular!), was Created on HASTE on Christmas-Eve 1913! The Federal Reserve is Contrary to the U.S. Constitution that Lets CONGRESS, not Federal Reserve’ to Create Money! Please see Quasi Fed Reserve Robber Baron's SYSTEM with Parachutes here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Reserve

Hark Democrat Party, Do not Make Haste; else waist!

Do Not Go For That 'REPUBliCAN" ROBBER-BARON & CAPTAINS of INDUSTRY" Con Job & Satanic trick , word NOW! NOW NOW!NOW!

No No No It Could Wait!!!!!!!!!! DO-NOT RUSH!

IT's Not an E-M=E=R=G=E-N-C-Y!!!!

IT's Not an E-M=E=R=G=E-N-C-Y!!!!

IT's Not an E-M=E=R=G=E-N-C-Y!!!!

VOTE: NO NO NO Bail-Out NOW! It Could Wait January 2009, not 2008!

VOTE: NO NO NO Bail-Out NOW! It Could Wait January 2009, not 2008!

VOTE: NO NO NO Bail-Out NOW! It Could Waite January 2009, not 2008!

---

The Federal so called CREDIt-System' Exageraters, is a FEDERAL RESERVER (tantamount to an ERON trick via the Chairman ben Bernanki (Bush Evangelical Fronts) & the U.S. Treasury Polson [Bush Evangelical Fronts!)

ScHAME McCain! ScSHAME Trying To Get-out of thgis F R i D A Y's Debate, via Rush to Bail-out his "FRIENDS"! (not Our Friends!)!!!!! Tryin to Get Out of a one to one genuine (religio Free) Debate!!!

WAiT for The Bail, if any, AFTER the E L E C T i O N!

Where Are Ye EVANGELiCALS?? Rick Warren, Robertson, Hagee, Huckabees et al???? We Are Waiting. STOP HiDiNg Evangelicals etc.!

W A R N I N G: Do Not Fall fot the "TELL A BiG LIE" TRick [a Political Strategy!]

Thank-A-ScHame!

Beware of men in skirts!

Robert B:
Not exactly taking the high road, are you? I think you will find it easier to convince people of the validity of your argument if you don't insult them. Otherwise, all they remember is the insult and not the wisdom of your words.

Bridget:

It is astounding that you can't tell the difference between abortion and war. Abortion is simply the butchering of an innocent life. The war you like to call "illegal" received a majority vote in the Congress and if it was such a disaster and so manifestly illegal, why was Bush re-elected in Nov '04? Further, the troops are an all-volunteer force. Virtually all of the those involved in the fighting today have either enlisted or re-enlisted since the the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq commenced (so they knew what they were getting into).

To compare the valiant brave death of a U.S. soldier of an all-volunteer force fighting in a war on behalf of his country in accord with the wishes of elected officials and his Commander-in-Chief...to suctioning the brains out of fetus (a baby, a person) or dismembering it,...is, well, it simply shows liberals for what they are: selfish, Godless, hypocritical, moronic asinine fools.

(One could also surmise that since you view the war as "illegal" then the death of our troops is "justified"--further weakening any comparison with the death of totally innocent unborn baby. Really....your argument is truly idiotic).

But hey, you go girl! Yea Obama! Yea abortion!

To Republikan:

I'm an Irish-Catholic voter who watched the video you provided a link to. Towards the end, it say "the values this country was founded on" and then uses the 3 words "Life, Faith, Family" Where are these three words in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution? You got Life right, but it's Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. I've always been very conflicted with the issue of abortion. I've been hard core Pro-life, I've been pro-choice. I've never felt comfortable with either movement, because I hate abortion, but not the women who choose abortion. In essence, I hate the sin, not the sinner. Jesus taught me that. But what I've always found hypocritical about the pro-life movement is that the movement will march in the street to end abortion, but do nothing to prevent or stop an illegal war (including voting out the moron (President Bush) and the war profiteer (Cheney)), that has taken the lives and limbs of countless men, women and children. You're right, LIFE is an important issue, and I'm going to vote for the candidate who has followed the Church's teaching on illegal war from the beginning - Obama!

I am amending my prior post by changing the word "frauds" to "activities" in the 2d paragraph below:

"Folks,
Athena suggests single issue Anti-Abortion voters ought to reconsider voting Republican because of what is going on in the Economy. She then falsely states that Democrats like "Barney Frank, and (yes) Barack Obama were sounding the alarms about the sub-prime mortgage crisis as far back as 2003...."

In truth, though, it was the Democrats who staffed Fannie and Freddie Mac with such looters as Fannie Mae's former CEO Jim Johnson, his successor Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines and Raines's General Counsel, Jamie Gorelick. Johnson is a long-time Democrat operative for Walter Mondale, John Kerry and (yes) Barack Obama, who was forced to resign his position as Obama's VP vetter when his activities at Fannie Mae began to be questioned in June 2008. Raines has been Clinton's Director of Management and Budget and a key Economics Advisor for Obama; he managed to make $93 Million in his 6 years at Fannie Mae. Gorelick was a Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration who managed to earn $26 Million in her five years with Fannie Mae. Raines and Gorelick are under suspicion for the manipulation of Fannie Mae's "earnings per share" reports that enabled them to earn those outlandish salaries.

A 2005 Report by the Government watchdog agency for Fannie Mae found that the eps figures were purposely manipulated to provide the necessary basis for the awarding of huge bonuses to Raines, Gorelick and the Executive Team at Fannie. The Bush Administration's reaction to the report was to attempt to gain new oversight powers from the Congress, and John McCain was the proponent of new legislation to get that done but the Democrats in Congree protected their own by blocking any increased regulation until now. Only now that the Fannie Mae house of cards has collapsed are the Democrats scurrying around to tell lies about their unholy alliance with Fannie Mae and Freddie.

So, the Economy is just one more reason for staying away from the toxic Democrats.
"

Folks,
Athena suggests single issue Anti-Abortion voters ought to reconsider voting Republican because of what is going on in the Economy. She then falsely states that Democrats like "Barney Frank, and (yes) Barack Obama were sounding the alarms about the sub-prime mortgage crisis as far back as 2003...."

In truth, though, it was the Democrats who staffed Fannie and Freddie Mac with such looters as Fannie Mae's former CEO Jim Johnson, his successor Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines and Raines's General Counsel, Jamie Gorelick. Johnson is a long-time Democrat operative for Walter Mondale, John Kerry and (yes) Barack Obama, who was forced to resign his position as Obama's VP vetter when his frauds at Fannie Mae began to be questioned in June 2008. Raines has been Clinton's Director of Management and Budget and a key Economics Advisor for Obama; he managed to make $93 Million in his 6 years at Fannie Mae. Gorelick was a Deputy Attorney General in the Clinton Administration who managed to earn $26 Million in her five years with Fannie Mae. Raines and Gorelick are under suspicion for the manipulation of Fannie Mae's "earnings per share" reports that enabled them to earn those outlandish salaries.

A 2005 Report by the Government watchdog agency for Fannie Mae found that the eps figures were purposely manipulated to provide the necessary basis for the awarding of huge bonuses to Raines, Gorelick and the Executive Team at Fannie. The Bush Administration's reaction to the report was to attempt to gain new oversight powers from the Congress, and John McCain was the proponent of new legislation to get that done but the Democrats in Congree protected their own by blocking any increased regulation until now. Only now that the Fannie Mae house of cards has collapsed are the Democrats scurrying around to tell lies about their unholy alliance with Fannie Mae and Freddie.

So, the Economy is just one more reason for staying away from the toxic Democrats.

Including a conscience clause for physicians is vitally important in any law related to abortion to protect the conscience of medical doctors who enter the profession to save lives and not to take them. A conscience clause has the added side effect of reducing abortions.

INCLUDING A CONSCIENCE CLAUSE FOR PHYSICIANS IS VITALLY IMPORTANT IN ANY LAW RELATED TO ABORTION TO PROTECT THE CONSCIENCE OF MEDICAL DOCTORS WHO ENTER THE PROFESSION TO SAVE LIVES AND NOT TO TAKE THEM AND ALSO TO REDUCE ABORTIONS.

Only one percent of abortions is due to rape/incest, four percent due to considerations of maternal health/life and fetal abnormalities.

NINETY FIVE percent of abortions are abortions of convenience/for socio-economic reasons.

Conclusion: Only five percent of abortions can be referred to as termination of pregnancy within the confines of medical ethics. Ninety five percent of abortions are outside the reach of medical ethics - healthy women carrying healthy babies - and are thus only ABORTIONS PERMITTED BY LAW.

The cries of millions of completely innocent, voiceless, defenseless lives that were sacrificed in the most sacred place for human life on earth, the womb, rises up to God.

The counter-revolution to dismantle the abortion culture has begun.

The abortion culture will crumble like Communism once did - with persistent, determined effort.

Read the hard core medical science to inform your battle: 'The Developing Human' by Moore and Persaud.

THE FOOLPROOF BAILOUT

Unless the HOLES in the financial system are properly plugged up, this 700 billion dollar bailout will just GO TO WASTE. The reason why we are in this FINANCIAL MESS is because all those holes came into play at full throttle. Some people simply abused the weakness of the dollar for their benefit. Upon seeing the weakness of the dollar, they played up the price of oil. They can do it because as we have seen last Monday, there is no regulation that can stop them from doing so. With very high oil prices, the companies become vulnerable and weak. Here comes the SHORT SELLERS taking advantage of that weakness and betted that the stock prices of these companies would fail. As a result of stocks plunging, many companies struggled and many could have borrowed money from banks and in the process raised the interest rates. Also, profits from short selling contribute to excess liquidity and to offset this liquidity, interest rates are raised. As interest rates climbed, so does the mortgage interest rates. Many homeowners defaulted which put banks on a tough situation. Again the SHORT SELLERS saw the opportunity to profit so they came BETTING AGAINST the banks until we see all these big banks failed.

Now, we can see that there are THREE BIG SUCKING HOLES that came into play that put us into this mess. The FIRST are the SPECULATORS who played up THE PRICE OF OIL. The SECOND are SHORT SELLERS which pulled down the stock market. The resulting HOLE (third hole) which these two sucking holes created are the FORECLOSED houses which continue to burden the financial system.

The SOLUTION to this mess is simply to PLUG UP these THREE HOLES. First is to create an OIL PRICE STABILIZATION LAW which I explained in my earlier posts. Second is to PERMANENTLY BAN SHORT SELLERS. Thirdly, if they want a bailout, it should be used to relieve the homeowners by lowering their mortgage interest payments and return the foreclosed houses to its previous owners under a restructured payment scheme that's affordable. The third solution will release the banks from bad debt and can therefore continue and start clean anew.

The hedgefunds which will be affected by the ban on short selling can look for MORE PRODUCTIVE investments like the manufacturing sectors and new technologies sectors. This shift of investment would lower interest rates because manufacturers would not be crowding in the banks for loans. This will also make our manufacturing sectors competitive. As a result more jobs will be created.

This is WIN-ALL SCENARIO and to achieve this, THESE THREE HOLES MUST BE ATTENDED TO, otherwise, NO BAILOUT WILL SUCCEED.

GOD BLESS AMERICA.

All of you single-issue voters who always vote for Republicans... take a good look at what's going on with the economy. The Republicans that promised to overturn Roe v. Wade reneged on their promise and looted the Treasury in the meantime. People like Eliot Spitzer, Barney Frank, and (yes) Barack Obama were sounding the alarms about the sub-prime mortgage crisis as far back as 2003. But they're not good, moral, pro-life people, so you won't vote for them.

Folks,
Stevens Arroyo criticizes the bishops for not accepting the sop offered by the pro-abortionists: laws that facially prohibit abortions but allow them when the health of the mother is the justification for the abortion. Stevens Arroyo notes that that exception has been required by Supreme Court jurisprudence, and he is right.

The difficulty with accepting that judge-crafted exception, though, is that it is wide and amorphous enough to run a Mack truck (and certainly the abortionist's forceps) through. "Health" can be interpreted to include situations where the woman will feel bad mentally if she is required to carry her baby to term. That can cover just about any situation, as the pro-abortion judges realized when they fashioned the exception.

So what is really going on? Stevens Arroyo knows that such "health exception" laws are just the proverbial "sleeves out of the vest" offered up by pro-abortion politicians to shut up the Catholic Bishops' principled opposition. But as a man who is more a true liberal than a Catholic, he wants the bishops to shut up and accept the "vest sleeves" as though they were something more material. IOW, Stevens Arroyo is as cynical as the judges of the Roe v Wade majority.

Well Mr. Arroyo.

I think the Catholic vote is about to count in ways you did not imagine. And not in your favor.

http://www.catholicvote.com/Default.aspx

Mr. Arroyo,

In your article you said: "It is hard to reconcile these two different approaches, one demanding compromise and the other forbidding exceptions. The juxtaposition of these two sets of instructions in the same document leads me to suspect that the bishops' statement was put together by a committee. While it is comforting to know that among the bishops there are differences of opinion about how best to achieve the goals of Catholic moral teachings, we are left with the question: "How do we lay Catholics know which course of action is called for?" It all comes down to defining which situation calls for "the art of the possible." By definition, that is the stuff of politics and not of theology."

-------------------------------

What is the stuff of theology? What is the stuff of politics? How are they suppose to be separated in an individuals heart, especially that of a Christian?

The word "compromise" is what I call the language of the devil. Merriam Webster's definition says: 1 a: settlement of differences by arbitration or by consent reached by mutual concessions b: something intermediate between or blending qualities of two different thing 2: a concession to something derogatory or prejudicial.

You point out that the Bishops statement was put together by a committee? Then please tell me how many committees have put out statements for Senator Barack Obama? Who were the team of people who worked together to form the language of the DNC platform and the carefully scripted wording which was changed around about abortion? It was written in a way, was it not, to please pro-life Democrats, while at the same time in the wording you made sure you did not enrage the Women's movement, NARAL and Planned Parenthood? Barack Obama has 300 foreign policy advisers; Does he listen to each one of them everyday? To be honest, all of this is a distraction, wouldn't you agree?

So many Christian who struggle with trying to make something that is wrong, a right, is a contradiction on many levels. How are Democrats going to reduce abortions? Where is the language of self-control, abstinence, and just saying no? The Democrats talk about controlling abortions, but they are not specific about how they are going to do it? They can continue to use fluffy rhetoric that appeases the concerns of people who are pro-life, but most Democrats "do not" seem to have a concrete, credible, sound statement which clearly says, what they are going to do? Offer condoms, birth control or green light avenues to have safe sex?

The Democrats want to have it both ways, demean purity, be pro-choice in order to go after the "liberal women's movement" and yet they have started to talk about Faith. So what you have is a collision of your policies and faith - which do not seem to come together but are two conflicting view points. Having it both ways is not working for the Democrats very well this year and it is increasingly becoming evident with the way I see so many Christians on the left trying to come up with statements to defend abortion by making it about the mother, instead of the innocent life.

There is the "Kennedy Catholic" effect; These Catholics are the ones who go to church's that are okay with abortion, divorce, and gay marriage. As I have said before - these values in Christians don't seem compatible. But there are many Catholics who are not like the Catholics who will vote for Obama. Their issues are of greater substance which speak for the unborn, the sanctity of marriage and traditional family values. What about the gift of life? Taken for granted and denied as a life until it is born, not in the womb. God knew us in our mother's womb, He said that to be true in Jeremiah. But why is this not important to Obama? After all, to some of us it is still considered taking a life. To the Democrats the American Eagle has more rights than the unborn. Another dichotomy of the Democratic belief system.

You cannot have it both ways and this struggle for you will not go away until you get to the heart of the matter; and it begins with personal responsibility and teaching women about self control. Offering all kinds of ways to prevent a pregnancy has not worked yet. Teenagers are having sex even younger, and with multiple partners.
The argument that women who get pregnant have a myriad of reasons why they should not be forced to have carry a pregnancy is antiquated. The back room abortions with "quack doctors" and coat hangers is a scare tactic used by liberals to scare lower income women into voting for Democrats. Where is the argument that these women could have, and should have, shown more personal restraint before they decided to have sex in the first place? This point goes ignored by the "liberal women's movement." The argument is never made that "thinking" before doing something could be a stronger case for strengthening one's personal integrity. We could teach women to have a strong self esteem, and a will to say no. Women can prove that we alone posses the power to walk away even if the temptation to give in, is confronting us.

We all need to remember Obama's words in March of 2008 while he was in Johnstown, Pennsylvania and a woman at a town hall meeting asked him to "stop these abortions." The exchange appeared to be prompted by Obama’s earlier comments that he does not favor abstinence-only education, but rather comprehensive sexual education that includes information on abstinence and birth control. He said: “Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby. I don’t want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn’t make sense to not give them information.”

As a woman, who was Catholic for 35 years, I am so proud of the stand that many Priests and Bishops are taking on the abortion issue this year. The Church's voices are strong and they are not being silent. I truly believe that the Catholic Church has regained their voice. They are on target, and they are right, and many of us who are pro-life, appreciate the stand the Church is so BOLDLY taking!

I am certainly thankful that Mary, the Mother of Jesus never contemplated getting rid of the Son of God. Certainly this would be the strongest argument about when life begins, above all others. The fact that God planted the seed in Mary in order for Christ to be born, is evidence enough for me that all LIFE begins at the moment of conception. If God had chosen to, since He is GOD, He could have simply just come to earth on His Own - correct? Perhaps the way HIS life began is all the proof we need to end the argument on - "the moment of conception."

Prof. S-A:
You've covered this tired topic several times in the last month or so. It is very clear that the Catholic Church is united in the statement that abortion is a great evil, not because of religious reasons but because killing is amoral. To imply that some bishops do not want to curtail abortion is mistating the truth. All of them want to curtail abortion. What they don't want to do is lock themselves into a situation where they are sacrificing some to save others. Idealistically, they want to save them all.

Beyond that, the Catholic Church has not and will not choose sides in the election. There are of course, other issues to consider when voting. Its up to each individual to sort through this all and decide how much weight the abortion issue should be given in deciding who represents us.

"Why Do Bishops Oppose Laws Reducing Abortion?"

Really Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo?

You are Catholic?

How can you ask this question?

You desire to enact laws that offer compromise on murder?

If your parent should age and become bedbound and no longer able to care for themselves- should there be freedom of choice to terminate their life because to care for them is a physical and economic burden to you?

Shame on you.

They do. The real question is why columnists like you are bashing them when you should be supporting the bishops for opposing bills like the so-called Freedom of Choice Act. That's the bill Obama says he will sign as his first act as president.

It would make unlimited abortions throughout pregnancy the national law.

But, the measure would go further and undo the abortion limits put in place in all 50 states since Roe v. Wade that have helped reduce abortions to record lows. It would invalidate laws ranging from bans on partial-birth abortions to implementing parental involvement for teenagers to prohibiting taxpayer funding of abortions.

For more, see http://www.lifenews.com/nat4350.html