Hugo

I'm not a Catholic. I simply do not bear a grudge against them for things they have not done! What we are discussing here is not spirituality but history, and Farrius simply has it all wrong.

"the words of the Bible should not be taken as the final revelation of God." -- Ted Hoare, from Quaker.org The Bible was written by men under divine influence, but nonetheless, mere men. Why, because it disproves your ignorant prejudices about Catholicism? The term "Catholic" as we understand it was in wide use by the 2nd Century, which is exactly the time period we are discussing. "Catholic" merely means "orthodox." When did Constantine ever do this? Constantine was a convert, not a priest. Give an example. Farrius, until I corrected you: 1) You had never heard of the Council of Trent 2) You did not know what "catholic" meant 3) You did not know at what date the Catholic Church originated 4) You believed that the Emperor Constantine had power over the Church 5) You asserted that the Catholic Church had "always been about power" 6) You believed that the Papacy re-wrote the Bible (still waiting for some examples of this, the site you gave has none) Now, until you can even get the basic facts and terminology straight I would be careful before levelling accusations of ignorance, if I were you. Please, go read some books on Christian history and get back to us when you have a rough outline of events.

Consider the following: 1) Abortion ensures that, worldwide, 23 million women annually are denied the right to make decisions about their bodies 2) Nobody has complete freedom to do as they will with their bodies. You can't expose yourself, urinate or masturbate in public. You can't legally prostitute yourself or abuse controlled substances. Do you also oppose all laws that prohibit these actions? 3) If the unborn is a unique, human individual (as science unanimously affirms that it is) it does not comprise part of her mother's body anyway. Do you have valid responses to any of these points? I don't think you do, because you keep blindly repeating pro-abort mantras even though I have repeatedly proven them false to you. But by all means, if I have made a mistake and you have given this issue more than the most cursory of examinations, post your rebuttal.

At one point the Church was as interested in secular power as it was in the spiritual. This reached a peak under Innocent III. However, what you must bear in mind is, firstly, that the established power structure in Europe was a system of hereditary autocracies. It was not like the Church was trampling social progress and democracy - there was no social progress and democracy to be trampled. Secondly, realise that in a society where your opportunites hinged entirely on your birth, the Church offered an opportunity for men with intelligence and skill to rise to the top regardless of their bloodline. Furthermore, note that the Pope convened the Council of Trent to address the problems you are talking about in 1545. So, when you say "Catholicism has always been about power" you are either making a deliberately erroneous sweeping statement or you know very little about Christian history. Which is it? Do you believe that the Bible was direct from the mouth of God and cannot be altered? Christians don't agree with you. The Bible is a collection of texts and those that were to be included in the New Testament were not settled on until around 250 AD. If "changing the Bible" (and I have yet to see an example from you of a Pope who has done this, I should add) is wrong I find it odd that you would pick upon the Catholic Church and not upon the religious leaders who followed Paul and, in essence, defined the key Christian scriptures by themselves. And that effectively sums up your position: blind Catholic-bashing without much understanding of history. All denominations and methods of worship are paths to God. Which path to tread is up to the individual.

Jesus picked the disciples to follow in his footsteps. Do you find it incomprehensible that these disciples, too, would have picked successors? Given that, why do you feel that the Bible forbids a successor to Peter? The site either deliberately or accidentally misses the purpose of Catholicism and organised religion in general. I shall illustrate. This, they say, is why Mass, Pilgrimage etc. are wrong and unnecessary. However, they miss two points: 1) that these things may well help you believe and 2) there is more to spiritual comfort than merely salvation, as there is more to human existence than bodily functions. And it goes on, with linguistic games, misinterpretations and misunderstanding of the concepts behind Catholicism. What basically happened, Farrius, is that you came upon this website, read it and thought "cool" without bothering to cross-reference or question what you were reading. In future, try to read critically. What is certain is that the path to salvation does not lie with Catholic-bashing, and I do not see why people such as yourself have such a huge issue with the Catholic Church and the "pursuit of worldly power", when you do not have any problem with Planned Parenthood encouraging kids to keep secrets from their parents and deliberately withholding information about the medical consequences of abortion so that they can sell more abortions and make more money, for example.

Why can we deduce that? Because one has to pay for elective cosmetic surgery, do you think that there is a serious danger that burn victims will be left hideously scarred because the surgical techniques that would help them are "cosmetic"? Rubbish. I agree. That's why contraception is legal and made as widely available as humanly possible. Once you are pregnant, the choice has already been made. You are misunderstanding what Krusty and myself are saying. We do not want to outlaw abortion to save money. We want to outlaw abortion because it is wrong and we feel that the giving or withholding of money can be used to further that cause. RB, I genuinely do not wish to be insulting but your use of language is greatly obscuring the underlying points you are trying to make, at least to me. This is why I have not really replied to your latest post, and for that I apologise.

You will find that most Protestant denominations have their own hierarchy, for instance, the Anglican church replaces the Pope with the Archbishop of Canterbury. In that regard, they are basically the same as the Catholic Church. The real difference between Orthodox churches such as the Catholic and Protestant churches is that Orthodoxy emphasises rightness in worship, whereas Protestantism tends to play more towards rightness of thought. This is to a varying degree, of course, while the High Church of England is pretty much Catholicism with a different name, Puritanism is anything but. The Pope is the successor of Peter. Give examples. The fact is that the Bible needs no changes, it is highly ambiguous anyway. The reason for this is that the Bible is not an historical or a scientific document as many atheists suppose it should be, it is a spiritual document, intended to assist in man's relationship with the divine rather than to give concrete answers to any specific questions.

Not to split hairs, but Hitler declared war upon the USA in a Reichstag session on December 11th, 1941. He and his advisors were quite anxious to get their declaration in before the USA declared war upon Germany, but they need not have worried. Although Congress briefly considered declaring war on Germany and Italy first, they decided to wait as they knew from radio intercepts that Hitler had a deal to declare war with the USA after the Japanese attack, and they knew that the Axis would save them the trouble of being the "aggressor".

According to the RCMP, police strength in Canada (181 officers per 100,000 population) is lower than both the United States (250) and England and Wales (240). I would like to see more police funding and more cops! That might lower the crime rate, rather than wasting over $1bn on a stupid gun registry. For comparison, the total police expenditures (regional and RCMP) for 2001-2002 in the entire country were $6.8bn - the money wasted on that registry could really have made a difference, but it was pissed away instead.

Also worth noting that, as of February 15th, of all the anti-war protests thus far only one was not organised by the World Worker's Party, a Marxist-Leninist group that has, amongst other things, publicly applauded the North Korean regime. The one that was not, was organised by United for Peace and Justice, a group that openly supports Fidel Castro's unlovely dictatorship. See here for more information.

I'm sure that adoptive parents would be happy to pay the biological mother that sum. After all, many of them spend a lot more adopting children from former Eastern Bloc countries and the Third World, such is the shortage of newborn babies compared to the lists of would-be parents waiting to adopt them. The fees to adopt any child are at that kind of level anyway and it does not seem to deter anybody from adopting, as I said, despite the fact that it costs thousands to actually get the child (before you've even started raising her) there are still 1.5m couples waiting to adopt in the US alone. Even if a part of that $10k has to come from public funds, firstly, it's a good price to save a child's life, and secondly, it can be argued that it is definitely in the interests of the general public to have our children raised in happy and well-adjusted households with financial security rather than by single, teen mothers with all the problems that entails. Of course, better that latter than death, but better the former than the latter, I'm sure you'll agree. The only pitfall I see is that some unscrupulous women might just birth child after child from a variety of men so that they can collect their $10,000 cheques. I don't believe this would be a widespread problem, but nevertheless it would probably happen. There are women who abuse the welfare system in much the same way. The other thing I would like to see done is a withdrawal of public funding for abortion. At the moment, abortion is done at tax-payer's expense. I see no reason for this, after all, the mother's indiscretion was not the fault of the tax-paying public! Ironically, a lot of these mothers (and fathers) pursuing abortion care more about money than about the lives of children, so perhaps we can exploit that in order to save lives. After all, if mothers knew that their abortion could cost them a few thousands from their own pockets, they might be more careful. For that matter, the bill is likely to end up in the laps of the parents of a teen mother, and they might take more interest in their daughter's sexual activity if they knew that it might end up costing them thousands. This is undoubtedly better than the laissez-faire attitude promoted today. I definitely don't believe that anyone has the right for state-funded abortion, any more than anyone has the right to state-funded cigarettes or gasoline. At least a case can be made that the state should provide the basics of life, but are abortions necessary to live?

Krusty, What is your point with all this - that you think abortion is wrong, but kids are never going to believe it or care, so never mind trying to tell them? Great attitude. Should we take the same approach with hard drugs? What about oral sex in classrooms and drunk driving? What about gang warfare and the murders and the prostitution and drug rackets that go with it? Perhaps we should agree that kids will be kids, and they seem to want to do these things nowadays, and as they won't listen to us fuddy-duddy adults, why bother trying to straighten them out? After all, a mere 46 million lives lost each year is trifling (that's the entire bodycount of World War II, by the way - every year). I just find it hard to understand your attitude. You believe it's wrong, but you refuse to take action or even acknowledge that action should be taken because you are afraid that your message might fall upon deaf ears.

Firstly, you seem to be buying into the pro-abort idea that kids are nothing but a burden and a nuisance. You seem to believe that a life is empty and void of meaningful existence if it does not contain "parties on a friday night". Secondly, the fact is that there are many groups out there designed to help young mothers. Fathers are held accountable, their wages are garnished for child support. This can be ordered by a court if necessary. Thirdly, and this is something that people do not want to face up to, actions have consequences! The simple thing is that if you are not in a good situation in your life to be having a child, or you are with somebody you don't want to have a child with, perhaps you should not be sleeping with them or at least take your contraception a little more seriously. You can't claim "no fair!" if you blow your head off playing Russian Roulette. Actions have consequences, and if you wouldn't like those consequences, think twice before performing the act. No, you don't understand. Those 1.5m people are on the waiting lists for adoption. They have already been screened, vetted, interviewed and proven their financial means. But even if that figure were 1/5 of what it is, there would still be enough adoptive parents to take in unwanted children that would have been aborted. Abolitionists were once told much the same thing - that ending slavery was not possible, that negroes were not able to function independently, that the economy would collapse - and luckily, that was all proven wrong.

The fetus is not a part of the mother. She is universally recognised by science as a unique human being. Therefore, why should the mother have the right to kill her unborn any more than she has the right to kill anyone else? This is even more ridiculous when you consider that in more than 99% of abortion cases, the woman herself consented to the act that made her pregnant. How can you argue that she was denied choice? She was not. She chose to have sex, sex makes babies, and with freedom of choice comes responsibility for the consequences of those choices. The viewpoint you espouse is an extremely selfish and horrible wish to avoid being held accountable for your actions even to the extent that it will cost another innocent human being her life.

I've already disclosed my sources. A minute spent on Google will give you the websites.

I've already answered that. None of those are newborns, so the legality or illegality of abortion will have absolutely no impact on those children, except, of course, in the very roundabout way that a society that actually values the lives of children may become more conscientious about those not well cared for.

The families who wish to adopt. Do you actually know anything about the adoption process, Farrius?

Such as what? You mentioned reforming the adoption process, however, I don't think that is even necessary. 118,000 adoptions take place each year, according to the American Association of Open Adoption Agencies. The President of the National Committee for Adoption claims that "if abortion were totally outlawed, we guess the numbers to be 68,400 more white infants and 3,960 non-white infants needing adoptive homes." That's 72,360 additional babies - but those same agencies have 1,500,000 American couples on their lists, waiting to adopt children. So, explain to me why the adoption process is holding back the abolition of abortion, Lost. If you need more homes for unwanted children, I can find you one and a half million homes right now.

Firstly, one does not have to propose a solution in order to speak out against a crime. Plenty of abolitionists did not take slaves into their homes, but spoke out against slavery anyway. Did that make their position wrong? Many Germans objected to the Holocaust, but unlike, say, Oskar Schindler were not able to help in a practical way. Did that make them wrong, or their position untenable? No. Secondly, I invite you to pick up your phone book and look in the yellow pages under "pregnancy counselling." Guaranteed, you will find at least one non-profit counselling and aid centre. These are run by volunteers, and give counselling as well as practical aid. They can give you things you need for a baby, find you a place to live, help you find adoptive parents and so on. I can see five in my phone book and I don't live in a very big town. Certainly, in any group there are hypocrites, but to say that pro-lifers are all after "huge amounts of money and power" is libellous and false. I myself have volunteered my time, money and material goods to try and help women in 'crisis pregnancy' situations and I don't seem to be any richer or more powerful for it. While some pro-lifers try to help in this regard (many actually do adopt children, including handicapped ones, or provide other aid), I'm not sure where the pro-choicers are. Planned Parenthood won't be bothered with you after your cheque clears, no matter how traumatised you are. In fact, I've read of several cases where women in severe pain and heavy bleeding have been kicked out to make room, or because the doctor who performed the abortion was then playing golf and didn't fancy stopping. Not only do abortion clinics not follow up after the procedure, sometimes they don't even finish the procedure properly.

This was Morgan's original point, which I backed up. Neither he nor I said that pro-life groups are not profit-making, we just said that it is foolish to imagine that pro-choice groups are purely motivated by the liberation of women and the greater good of humanity whilst pro-life groups are evil and just want to boss people around.

Morgan, It is a good point you raise. It should be noted that Planned Parenthood is a profit-making organisation and thus has a vested interest in ensuring that as many women as possible have abortions. Each abortion done is money in their pockets. Women still die from abortions. Although the image of the coat-hanger, back-alley abortion has been succesfully used by pro-abort groups, 90% of illegal abortions were done by licensed physicians in good standing in their offices (source: Planned Parenthood, 1960). This has not changed that much, and neither has the death rate. Furthermore, since abortion clinics are profit-making enterprises with customers to satisfy and an image to uphold, many deaths and serious injuries from botched abortions are not disclosed. In 1978 the Chicago Sun-Times investigated abortion clinics in the Chicago area and found that in Chicago alone, 12 women had died during an illegal abortion, but their deaths had not been correctly reported to the authorities. The official statistics for that year stated that 21 women died in abortions in the entire country so it's hard to imagine that cover-ups of this magnitude are not going on everywhere, particularly as the number of abortions carried out each year continues to climb. Dr. Dennis Cavanaugh states in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology that "there has been no major impact on the number of women dying from abortion in the US." Having one abortion doubles your chances of having an ectopic pregnancy. Having two or more quadruples it (American Journal of Public Health). Ectopic pregnancies are responsible for 12% of all pregnancy-related deaths. 30% of women who undergo abortion will suffer pelvic inflammatory disease (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology). This causes miscarriage in subsequent pregnancies, secondary infertility, dispareunia, and chronic pelvic pain. Women who have first-trimester abortions double their chances of developing breast cancer (British Journal: Cancer). Tubal infertility is 30% more common amongst women who have had abortions (Madore, Effects of induced abortion) Abortion multiplies your risk of placenta previa by 7 to 15 times. This complication will necessitate an emergency c-section and is life-threatening for mother and child alike (American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology). 45% of women who have abortions will develop suicidal tendencies resulting from feelings about the procedure (Women's World). The American Psychiatric Association recognises that abortion can produce post-traumatic stress disorder. 86% of abortions are performed in profit-making clinics. These clinics are not regulated, and do not have to perform pathologic exams before surgery (as all hospitals do), nor are they obliged to fully disclose details of the procedure in consent forms, as hospitals are. Abortionists deliberately lie to women and conceal these truths from them in order to get more money from them. Not even tobacco companies are allowed to get away with this.

I have two responses to this. Firstly, once an issue becomes personal to you, all objectivity is lost. If your child was snatched off the street, raped, tortured and murdered, you would want the perpetrator to be tortured to death. No method of execution would be too terrible for that criminal, however, as a society we can't go back to the days when state-sanctioned torture and gruesome executions were the norm. Secondly, I have walked a thousand miles in those shoes. I'm still walking in them now. The American Declaration of Independence lists the basic and inalienable human rights as "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights lists the first three rights as "life, liberty and security of person". Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms lists the first three legal rights as "life, liberty and security of the person." This means that of all human rights, the right to life is the most important. This is because without the right to life, all other rights are forfeit. A dead person is deprived of all rights and choices. The right of the unborn child to live overrides the right of the mother to "autonomy". Furthermore, in 99% (almost certainly more) of abortion cases, the fact is that the woman herself consented to the act that made her pregnant in the first place. I do not see how it can be argued that, if she is not allowed an abortion, the state has violated her right to "autonomy", any more than it can be alleged that the state has denied the right of life to a successful suicide victim. The individual has the power to override or waive their own rights. Considering that 23 million women a year die from abortions I find that quite funny. Since when has the right to kill another innocent human being ever been part of the freedoms you cite?

I don't understand what you are saying. Can you re-phrase that? Then, once again, I say you must err on the side of life. As I said, if you are driving late at night and see a shape that looks like it might be a child, you brake rather than bet it's a shadow and step on the gas. If you see a person lying motionless half-out of a river you don't assume they are dead and walk on, you assume they are alive and hurry to help them. If you are not sure whether a human being is alive or not, the humane thing to do is to refrain from doing anything that would kill her were she alive, surely? By the way, although personhood is a legal term and has previously not applied to blacks and women, as it now does not apply to the unborn, the scientific community is unanimous in stating that the unborn child is actually a unique human being. On the contrary, I believe that no serious effort to eliminate or even counter those problems will be made as long as we have the band-aid "solution" of abortion.

Blackdog, Your claims are as outrageous as they are ridiculous. If you're going to claim that "people in North America work harder, longer and for less than ever before" I want to see some evidence of that. Post figures (with sources) for average work week length, real income, disposable income, availability of consumer goods, cyclical/seasonal unemployment, average private debt and assets, and prevalence of hard manual labour and demonstrate that these are worse now than at any point in history.

Unfortunately, an unborn child is not part of a woman's body. If it were, then for 9 months a mother-to-be would have two DNA codes, often two blood groups, and in 50% of cases, be a hermaphrodite. To state that the fetus is part of her mother is a biological impossibility. A woman being free to kill her child is not a right she should have because it infringes on the rights of others. Don't forget, 50% of aborted children are themselves women, and that's just in North America. Worldwide, abortion kills more females than males.