Pro Life Dogma Reveals Its Immorality

WIP · March 11, 2009

If the embryos are human shouldn't "human rights" apply at any stage of development?

NO it doesn't!

We've already covered the problem that this is contingent life as long as it is physically dependent on someone else for survival, so it cannot be given the same right to life as a person who is independent and able to function without depending on another person to stay alive.

Another issue is whether the new life is at a stage where it has its own interests. Modern ethicists try to decide a lot of ethical issues like when to pull the plug on brain-damaged patients by trying to determine if the person has any interests (some level of consciousness or awareness of self and a desire to continue living); if a person has lost all higher brain activity such as destruction of the cerebral cortex, as happened to Terry Schiavo, then they have no conscious capacity to have any interests.

In the Schiavo case, there was still lower level brain activity in the brain stem to carry out breathing and metabolic functions; in the case of an embryo, you haven't even reached that stage yet! There is no brain, therefore there are no human interests yet, and this new life is not at a stage where it should be considered equal to life outside the womb.

Oleg Bach · March 11, 2009

If the embryos are human shouldn't "human rights" apply at any stage of development?

That is so hateful and spiteful...so base and horrifically selfish. Of course a human being has the right to human rights - whether it is a 100 year old woman withering in a hospital bed or a struggling young human in the womb - they have the right to a natural un-interfered with death - and birth - damn it! Our society punishes for the desecration of a human corpse but does not protect a living person in different stages of live long development? A dead body has more rights than an embryo? A dog has more human rights than a beggar? What's with you people? We are all in different levels of developement - but we say we can kill those not yet exposed to the white light of day because they are "unaware" - a ten year old child is unaware of most things - do we execute him or her ---------------and person in advanced old age is unaware of a lot of things - and some people are just not as smart as others - should we get rid of them in mid life? Those that advocate abortion or the quiet and tacit morphine killing of the old are the most unaware of how the devine universe opeates - they should be the ones to leave - they are the dumbest - but personally - I have mercy for stupid people...and grace means undeserved mercy - society is no longer graceful - the are decadent - which means de-cadence - or marching or dancing out of time - very ungraceful.

WIP · March 11, 2009

You don't understand. I'm not going to waste your time and mine by entering into a debate to which there will be no end.

Funny! The prospect that there may be issues that cannot be fully resolved doesn't bother me. Why should there be final answers like we're playing that stupid "Who wants to be a Millionaire" game? Knowledge increases year by year, and new knowledge should be incorporated into existing philosophical viewpoints.

And I am not under the false assumption that it is possible for one side to convince the other(as if) where abortion or religion is involved. But by all means, swing away.

What about the people in the middle.....who may be unsure of where they stand on these sorts of issues. I hope that most of them will base their judgements on evidence and rational enquiry rather than faith and emotion. Speaking of which, what are you basing your views on? And if you find it so unworthy of discussion, why are you commenting to begin with? It seems to me that since you don't like my criticizing religion and yet offer no counter-arguments, that you are against all criticism of religion -- something like these Muslims on the U.N. Human Rights Council, who are trying to draft an amendment that will outlaw condemnation of religion. It reveals how weakly supported religion is when it has to be protected from debate.

I merely made the observation that you seem to have a Catholic/Christian chip on your shoulder, which seems to have upset you.

And I believe my chip is justified and I am willing to answer challenges on that point.

Oleg Bach · March 11, 2009

This debate is not never ending - you either choose life or death. Our western culture was based on "life and life more abundantly...culling humans like animals is not a civilized option...as for the Catholic church and gleefully pointing a finger at her and calling it hypocrite, very well..and now that we know they are better move on - IF the Universal Christian Church is to stand she had better decide what side she is on...life or death...Their abuse and use of the poor while they hord material wealth is a conviction...because the hording of materal wealth is the hording of food and hunger in time produces death - You can not with one hand insist that a person be born and then refuse to feed them.

sharkman · March 11, 2009

Blacks and women never had rights at one point either. A fetus is human by the way.

Good point about blacks and women.

Edited March 11, 2009 by sharkman

Oleg Bach · March 11, 2009

Blacks and woman still have no rights - neither do you and neither does the fetus. Those that imagine themselves with rights and freedoms are the easiest to control...You are not free. If they give you the right to abort, what freedom is that - to have one less child? If they give a woman the right not to be finacially and emotionally dependant on her husband - what freedom is that? To work untill you are dead as a divorced woman who no one wants once she has aged? Blacks - great rights - to live at Jane and Finch and pop each other and live in orgainized and subsidized poverty - where is the reality here? No one is free...try to be non-compliant for a week or so - you will find yourself with no income....then if you are a good little boy you will get some gruel.

Molly · March 12, 2009

"A fetus is human, by the way."

So is my severed arm, but it would be rediculous to confer rights to it.

There's a difference between being 'human' and being 'a human'.

Oleg Bach · March 12, 2009

"A fetus is human, by the way."
So is my severed arm, but it would be rediculous to confer rights to it.

There's a difference between being 'human' and being 'a human'.

The tip of my finger is human also - it certainly is not a dogs toe - nor is it a cluster of bio cells..it is a finger tip..fully formed. The difference between "being "human" and being "human"..is that there is no difference. Just like those that would kill you and say - I did not kill him - I changed him...no - life is life and death is death and those that try to mix it up should get off of my planet! :lol: Eventually we will have to re-embrace reality in order to survive as a viable and happy life form - look at the economic problems ----from those that insist that a fetus is not real but fiat digital money IS real - apparently it is not..but a fetus IS!

guyser · March 12, 2009

"A fetus is human, by the way."
So is my severed arm,

No it isnt. Certainly not in law.

kimmy · March 12, 2009

I am being critical of exactly one person for their views on christianity, that hardly constitutes defense of the RC church, I don't know how you can come to that conclusion.

Then why do you keep insisting that the press coverage of this incident is a "kneejerk", shark feeding frenzy, etc?

You didn't answer the question of whether you're saying that people are unjustified in talking about this.

I've looked in vain to find any Catholic websites willing to try to explain their side of the story. Lots of articles about stem cell research, but not a single mention of this. (if you can direct me to one, I'd be grateful.) Doesn't that kind of suggest that if there's a Catholic side to this story, they're not particularly proud of it?

Other than that, I've tried to see the whole picture, not just the knee jerk one presented by various media outlets which swarm the story like sharks with blood in the water. I look for an objective relating of the facts, which is impossible for some to see when the words abortion, rape and the RCC are all in the same story.

Do you have reason to believe that the facts are not being reported objectively?

It certainly doesn't seem like that's the case. The facts of the case appear to be universally agreed upon. They even went to the Vatican and asked "is this for real?" and an Archbishop confirmed "yep, this is for real."

The child-rapist wasn't excommunicated, so I started wondering what circumstances does the church normally excommunicate people under? If child raping doesn't get you excommunicated, what about killing people?

This is the list of people excommunicated by special decree in the 21st century, and it's a pretty short list:

* Eduardo Aguirre, Guatemalan Catholic priest, now bishop of the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church[1]
* Call to Action group members in Nebraska were excommunicated by Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz, Vatican later confirmed their excommunication.[2]

* Emmanual Milingo, former archbishop of Lusaka, for consecrating four married priests as bishops. Also excommunicated were those receiving consecration.[3]

* Rev. Dale Fushek and Rev. Mark Dippre. Former Priests were issued a Decree of Excommunication by Bishop Thomas J. Olmstead for operating "an opposing ecclesial community" in direct disobedience to orders to refrain from public ministry.[4]

* Mother of a nine-year old Brazilian rape victim, for obtaining an abortion for her daughter. Also the doctors performing the abortion. [5] Neither rapist (girls stepfather suspected by police of abusing her since she was 6) nor the girl herself was excommunicated.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peopl...Catholic_Church

So... a priest who left the church, a group advocating for reforms in the church, some priests who challenged church dogma, and this mother and doctor. So then I thought well, maybe murder falls under some heading where you're automatically excommunicated, so I looked that up too...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae

...and it doesn't appear so. If I'm reading this right, a Catholic could go out and murder dozens of people and not be excommunicated, unless he paused during his rampage to perform an abortion or ate some communion wafers without his priest present.

I've read a lot about this Jesus fellow, I even read his book once upon a time. I can't imagine that if he were here to give his opinion on this, that the outcome he would want would be for this girl to die while attempting a pregnancy that had no hope of success.

-k

WIP · March 12, 2009

Then why do you keep insisting that the press coverage of this incident is a "kneejerk", shark feeding frenzy, etc?

It's another empty, blame-shifting charge of victimizers claiming to be victims! The actual truth is that this incident has received scant coverage in the mainstream media. The press reports as little as possible on scandals involving churches and religious leaders. A few days ago, I was listening to an interview of William Lobdell, the former religion reporter for the L.A. Times -- he had to cover a number of priest sex scandals that went to court, and noted that the actual trial details were much worse than what he was allowed to report in the newspaper. Several times his editor told him he had to make word changes and omissions. They even forced him to use the term "sexual abuse" to describe all events including rape and aggravated assault with foreign objects. One of the cases he reported on involved a priest who was sexually assaulting girls with objects taken from the altar. Even though the events are described in the court transcripts, the Times refused to publish the story.

The truth is that rather than persecuting the Catholic Church, most of the media was afraid to report the extent and gravity of the crimes committed, including things that should have been crimes, such as Church-appointed lawyers harassing victim's families and impugning the character and credibility of people who came forward to charge priests with sex crimes. A pox on all of their houses!

myata · March 12, 2009

This is the list of people excommunicated by special decree in the 21st century, and it's a pretty short list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peopl...Catholic_Church

So... a priest who left the church, a group advocating for reforms in the church, some priests who challenged church dogma, and this mother and doctor. So then I thought well, maybe murder falls under some heading where you're automatically excommunicated, so I looked that up too...

Just illustrates how wholly, utterly, and in most likelihood, irrepairably, this Church is out of touch with reality in this 21 century. Thanks for the info.

cybercoma · March 13, 2009

Yeah. Shouldn't "human rights" be for everyone.

Everyone that has been born? Or do you propose the unborn have rights as well? What if the unborn's rights infringe upon the rights of the mother, namely the right to life? Is it not the case that everyone's rights are subject to those rights not infringing upon the rights of others? Help me understand your point better.

sharkman · March 13, 2009

Not to throw a stick in the works or anything, but an unborn has rights if the pregnant mother is murdered for instance, was planning on keeping the baby and the baby dies too. Then it's murder times 2. But if the mother wasn't planning on keeping but hadn't gotten around to an abortion yet and is killed, that would just be the one murder.

I suspect there would be cases where the mother's intention to keep the baby was not known since the pregnancy was very early. In this case if the mother if was murdered, the accused could successfully argue the mother wasn't going to keep so no murder occurred to the tissue blob inside. The hapless fetus would have no recourse in this matter and no voice, legally speaking.

So what if the mother wanted to keep, but was undecided due to financial reasons, babies being real expensive and all, and was killed. Would any fetus rights exist in this case? I must admit I'm a little unsure on this one.

Edit: I thought of another one. What if a couple agree to pay a woman to have a baby for them since they can't. They sign a legal contract for $30,000. At week 25 the woman decides to abort, it's just not working out for her and it's a tough pregnancy. Would the fetus have any rights here, or would it just be a woman's right to choose, and then change her mind.

Edited March 13, 2009 by sharkman

Oleg Bach · March 13, 2009

If we say a populace of hyenas running about prematurely dropping their young on the ground and eathing them, we would think the creatures have gone insane! Natural abortion does take place - if there is a famine or drought and it is perlonged - creatures will consume product of their own body to keep that body alive till better days come and then start breeding again - This is a type of auto cannibalism..During starvation the body first eats the fat - then when the fat is gone it eats the muscle...just to hold on for another day in hope of survival. This takes place within the individual and collective animal body.

What I just mentioned is the only type of abortion that is justified - We do not have that sort of situation on earth at present where we must abort and consume our offspring to survive..It is far from that...so why do we abort if it is NOT an emergency?

When my mother migrated to England at the end of the great war - she worked and assisted the locals in the care of their children and property. When her employers heard that she was going to give birth they were very preturbed. They were pissed off because now their immigrant slave would have to care for a child and could no longer serve them in full - that she was about to embark on her own life with her own family.

This is the real purpose of enforced and the real reason for propogating the use of abortion - It is because those that expect to have slaves are not happy with just males ones - they want to double their wealth and gain servitudel over the female. "What about your career, your future?" The abortion councilor would parrot to the young girl or woman - what they were inadvertantly doing was saying " There a people who run the system who do not want you to breed - they want you to work...and not have a full and satisfying life that real family provides - so they say - we give you the CHOICE...To be free of children and work for us - or to have children and we as a system are going to make it real rough for you.

guyser · March 13, 2009

If we say a populace of hyenas running about prematurely dropping their young on the ground and eathing them, we would think the creatures have gone insane!

No wew wouldnt. It happens in nature all the time.

During starvation the body first eats the fat - then when the fat is gone it eats the muscle

Nope, the opposite. Body eats the muscle first.

myata · March 13, 2009

So what if the mother wanted to keep, but was undecided due to financial reasons, babies being real expensive and all, and was killed. Would any fetus rights exist in this case? I must admit I'm a little unsure on this one.

I can help you with that one. Or rather, the nature did. Can your severed finger survive on its own, in isolation from your body? Can aborted human fetus? There you go.

So may be rather than worry about all the potential life that can be gotten from spoiled condoms, sheets, or even, in some near future, presumed to be dead cut fingernails, this huge instition could take a look around and perceive all the problems that actual, already in existence, life has on this planet? Just curious.

guyser · March 13, 2009

Not to throw a stick in the works or anything, but an unborn has rights if the pregnant mother is murdered for instance, was planning on keeping the baby and the baby dies too. Then it's murder times 2. But if the mother wasn't planning on keeping but hadn't gotten around to an abortion yet and is killed, that would just be the one murder.

In what country?

If Canada, did something pass in the HoC recently?

WIP · March 13, 2009

Not to throw a stick in the works or anything, but an unborn has rights if the pregnant mother is murdered for instance, was planning on keeping the baby and the baby dies too. Then it's murder times 2. But if the mother wasn't planning on keeping but hadn't gotten around to an abortion yet and is killed, that would just be the one murder.
I suspect there would be cases where the mother's intention to keep the baby was not known since the pregnancy was very early. In this case if the mother if was murdered, the accused could successfully argue the mother wasn't going to keep so no murder occurred to the tissue blob inside. The hapless fetus would have no recourse in this matter and no voice, legally speaking.

Since you haven't been paying attention, the issue at hand is whether an embryo or fetus should be considered an individual human life, or contingent life, since its growth and development depends on the health and the desires of the mother. And since the growing fetus is obviously contingent life, its value SHOULD depend on the desires of the pregnant woman, at least before the stage when that fetus has developed sufficiently to survive outside the womb -- and that's why there is a broad consensus of opinion to treat a third trimester fetus differently than an embryo or fetus at earlier stages of development.

Now, by the very fact that the murdered woman was pregnant, there is an implicit assumption that she desired to carry her pregnancy to term and have a baby, so that should be considered a double murder. Now, someone who knows the law will have to help me here, but I believe that if a man assaults a pregnant woman and causes her to have a miscarriage, a conviction of murder or infanticide would not carry as high a penalty as killing an actual adult or child. And it's interesting that even the writers of the Old Testament - Mosaic Law did not seem to consider the death of a fetus to be a grave enough offense to warrant a murder conviction -- otherwise the offender would have been stoned to death if it was considered murdering a child. Instead, the offender has to pay a fine to the woman's husband:

EXODUS 21:22 If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.

And that's just before the verses about "eye for an eye" "tooth for a tooth" justice by retribution.

So what if the mother wanted to keep, but was undecided due to financial reasons, babies being real expensive and all, and was killed. Would any fetus rights exist in this case? I must admit I'm a little unsure on this one.

You'll have to explain how others are aware that she was undecided because of financial reasons; the only tangible evidence we have is the fact that she was pregnant at the time she was murdered, and we have to assume that she was intending to have a baby -- therefore the murderer is also guilty of causing the death of the fetus. This is no longer an issue for her, but it's easy to see how her parents have been robbed of a daughter and an anticipated grandchild because of the killer.

Edit: I thought of another one. What if a couple agree to pay a woman to have a baby for them since they can't. They sign a legal contract for $30,000. At week 25 the woman decides to abort, it's just not working out for her and it's a tough pregnancy. Would the fetus have any rights here, or would it just be a woman's right to choose, and then change her mind.

Explain exactly what you mean by "tough," since your pro life propaganda info sites never honestly inform the reader how difficult it is for women to access late term abortions. If by "tough" you mean her life is at risk, then that simple fact overrides her contractual obligations and her right to life takes precedence over that of the fetus also.

Oleg Bach · March 13, 2009

Exodus - That quote is galant and protective of woman and child but it would not work in todays world - the father (protector and patrol) If he even attempted to block an abortion that his wife was about to have - who may be mentally ill at the time because of certain bio-stresses...and economically inflicted stresses. You might just find your home invaded by a couple of big plain clothes detectives that are doing a favour for the doctor you threatened to sue...worse - if you get emotional about protecting your wife and unborn child - you could have the swat team around your house to enforce the "freedom of choice" and "womans rights" - which really do not exist. :lol:

Melanie_ · March 13, 2009

They have always had rights under God's law. Just not under human civil law. It is a human fetus. Not a full human yet. So maybe we can grant it partial rights until it is born. THEN it will get full rights.
If God's rights supersedes all others, then we should always go with the church's laws, not civil law.

Grey areas are here for sure. I am willing to meet you in the middle, if you are willing to make some compromises so all will be happy. Until that time, this debate can rage on for the rest of humanity's existence.

Who said god's laws supersede anything? Some people might want to have their imaginary friend guide their lives, but they shouldn't expect the rest of us to play by those rules. I"ll take civil law, thank you.

Oleg Bach · March 13, 2009

Who said god's laws supersede anything? Some people might want to have their imaginary friend guide their lives, but they shouldn't expect the rest of us to play by those rules. I"ll take civil law, thank you.

Pre-amble to our bill of rights "The supremacey of God and the rule of law there under" - That is the SPIRIT of our bill of rights. Civil law is not always as civil as you expect. It is not a question of believing in devine right or order - or God - what takes place say in a group of poiticals or legalists is an equalizing process - to create a fair playing field for all - To put "God" as the final authority - forces the participants to go into a higher state of mindedness...If that provision was not their - human nature dictates that one individual or a faction will attempt to play God and take authority from the rest. If you think that those that beleive in a devine consciousness and ultimate natural and super-natural authority and natural law --- have an "imaginary friend" Then you are stating that YOU with that bit of grey jello in your scull who sits on this speck of dust called earth - is aware and the endless universe is dumber than a pile of rocks is delluded and arrogant - and you have poor judgement that is born out of spite and arrogance.

WIP · March 13, 2009

Exodus - That quote is galant and protective of woman and child but it would not work in todays world

Honestly, I don't see anything gallant in that quote, or any other verse of Old Testament law for that matter, but it does deflate this notion that pro life Christian sites keep throwing up that the Bible teaches that life begins at conception.....maybe it does in some books, but other books provide contradictory claims just like Exodus 21. The ruling here was that the offender was fined...but who does he pay the fine to? Not the woman that he injured, but instead her husband. An unsentimental reading of the books of law reveal that they considered women to be of little value aside from being needed for breeding purposes. There are no expressed legal rights for women; there is no sanctity of marriage, and instead marriage is a purchase agreement where a father sells his daughter to the man who becomes her husband, and then assumes all rights over her. If he is wealthy enough, he is free to buy as many women as he can afford! Again, the reason I found the verse useful, is because it clearly demonstrates that the writer did not view the fetus as equal to actual life after birth, since causing death would have then resulted in being stoned to death, rather than paying a fine.

- the father (protector and patrol) If he even attempted to block an abortion that his wife was about to have - who may be mentally ill at the time because of certain bio-stresses...and economically inflicted stresses.

In that case, the father should be shot for trying to force a mentally ill woman to have the baby!

You might just find your home invaded by a couple of big plain clothes detectives that are doing a favour for the doctor you threatened to sue...worse - if you get emotional about protecting your wife and unborn child - you could have the swat team around your house to enforce the "freedom of choice" and "womans rights" - which really do not exist.

Fortunately for the rest of us who want a better world, women's rights do exist, and we are no longer living in Old Testament days.....or modern days if you consider the Muslims countries that are running their societies with a clone of the misogynistic Mosaic Law.

Oleg Bach · March 13, 2009

Honestly, I don't see anything gallant in that quote, or any other verse of Old Testament law for that matter, but it does deflate this notion that pro life Christian sites keep throwing up that the Bible teaches that life begins at conception.....maybe it does in some books, but other books provide contradictory claims just like Exodus 21. The ruling here was that the offender was fined...but who does he pay the fine to? Not the woman that he injured, but instead her husband. An unsentimental reading of the books of law reveal that they considered women to be of little value aside from being needed for breeding purposes. There are no expressed legal rights for women; there is no sanctity of marriage, and instead marriage is a purchase agreement where a father sells his daughter to the man who becomes her husband, and then assumes all rights over her. If he is wealthy enough, he is free to buy as many women as he can afford! Again, the reason I found the verse useful, is because it clearly demonstrates that the writer did not view the fetus as equal to actual life after birth, since causing death would have then resulted in being stoned to death, rather than paying a fine.
In that case, the father should be shot for trying to force a mentally ill woman to have the baby!

Fortunately for the rest of us who want a better world, women's rights do exist, and we are no longer living in Old Testament days.....or modern days if you consider the Muslims countries that are running their societies with a clone of the misogynistic Mosaic Law.

These detectives that I mentioned - this happened about twenty years ago - they kept pointing to the woman and saying that she has rights - that's a given. But it was hypocritical - once she left the room she was non existant and they did not even notice her absense..This particular incident clearified itself in time - it took 20 years for the truth to be revealed - the woman - was having the abortion not because of some free choice or to ensure her rights over her physical being - but to protect the fraudulent behaviour that was ingrained in this person - the child was not mine and to have one born that was black haired when I was blonde would have shown this person to be a liar - so womans rights were protecting not a good person but an abuser of myself and my other children.

Perhaps I was not describing the situation properly (mentally ill). It would better be described as paniced and worried sick about being discorvered to be dishonourble.

I come from a family where the woman all demanded their rights and always had them - my mother was a feminist of the highest kind. She was a performer - a good socialite - and a buisness woman of great finacial independance - and that was prior to feminization of the male - and the popular feminist movement - she did not blame men for anything..she took responsiblity for her self.

A firm believe in human rights - I see the contradiction in the modern movement regarding woman and also I have no respect for ancient writings where woman are oppressed and abused.. Most of Christs followers were females and they were in authority...going back to the OT - When you see this supposed heroic KING David arrange for the murder of Bathsheebas husband so he could have her--- was loathsome - and I am sure that she resented this bastard and undermined him for the duration of his life...This was the abuse of a woman by taking from her what was her free choice of husband and mate - YET they worship King David as some sort of great person...I agree with you - but - abortion is a very complex problem - and the reasons woman use this method of disposing of offspring will never fully be known --- because of secrecy and the want to have power over the males - as far as I am concerned - I was abuse - and used and lied to - 25 years of my life taken from my by a female who abused her breeding abiltity to control...this was not a relationship entered into in good faith or honesty..it started badly and ended badly ---yet the sytem granted her full support and abuse me ...bitter ?? Naw - the children are still a blessing and I hope she perishes...This female is and was as abusive as a male - and I feel like the used and abused woman.. :rolleyes:

WIP · March 13, 2009

These detectives that I mentioned - this happened about twenty years ago - they kept pointing to the woman and saying that she has rights - that's a given. But it was hypocritical - once she left the room she was non existant and they did not even notice her absense..This particular incident clearified itself in time - it took 20 years for the truth to be revealed - the woman - was having the abortion not because of some free choice or to ensure her rights over her physical being - but to protect the fraudulent behaviour that was ingrained in this person - the child was not mine and to have one born that was black haired when I was blonde would have shown this person to be a liar - so womans rights were protecting not a good person but an abuser of myself and my other children.
Perhaps I was not describing the situation properly (mentally ill). It would better be described as paniced and worried sick about being discorvered to be dishonourble.

Okay, I'm a little confused here! If she had an abortion, how do you know the hair colour of the child? Nevertheless, assuming that she had an abortion, that would be her choice to make, not yours, since the developing fetus is inside her body, not yours. I don't know what stage she had the abortion, but as a general rule, the new life that you helped make, is dependent on her body, not yours, so her rights should take precedence over whatever rights you feel you had as an expectant father to be.

A firm believe in human rights - I see the contradiction in the modern movement regarding woman and also I have no respect for ancient writings where woman are oppressed and abused.. Most of Christs followers were females and they were in authority

You'll run into a lot of opposition from Catholic theologians and other conservative Christians over that point, but yes there are many Christian scholars who studied that early period of Christianity, and as best they can determine, the early churches gave women a much higher position than they would receive in the later Catholic and Orthodox churches. Some later biblical manuscripts even had references to female church officials removed or changed their names to make it appear that the references were to men, since the later church did not want women to have any leadership roles.

but - abortion is a very complex problem - and the reasons woman use this method of disposing of offspring will never fully be known

What's there to know, except that those of us who can't have babies should not be telling the ones who can what conditions they are allowed to terminate the pregnancy.

--- because of secrecy and the want to have power over the males

Like it or lump it, men do not have the power to bring new life into the world, so we are never going to be equal to women on this issue, and we can either accept that fact, or we can do what men have tried to do throughout history: control all aspects of a woman's fertility and force her to have as many babies as the man wants. A lot of guys want to turn back the clock so we can still live in that world; I'd rather move on, because if the women are happier, then life is better for us as well. I never fail to be amazed at how many misogynistic woman-hating types who want to domineer the women in their lives are always complaining about women making their lives miserable! Who likes being a prisoner?

- as far as I am concerned - I was abuse - and used and lied to - 25 years of my life taken from my by a female who abused her breeding abiltity to control...this was not a relationship entered into in good faith or honesty..it started badly and ended badly ---yet the sytem granted her full support and abuse me ...bitter ?? Naw - the children are still a blessing and I hope she perishes...This female is and was as abusive as a male - and I feel like the used and abused woman..

I don't know the actual events of your unfortunate bad marriage, and I've only been married once and have never had to go through divorce, custody battles and all those other headaches, so I might not be able to fully relate to all of the divorced dads out there. I do know that for every horror story I hear from the guy paying alimony and child support, I hear at least as many stories from women who were beaten, abused and cheated on by their ex-husbands; so I can't accept a general scenario that women and specifically the feminist movement is to blame for societies' ills today -- things actually seemed to be worse back in the good old days when the women had to put up and shut up about abuse and the philandering of their husbands who went out drinking on the weekend and left them at home with the kids.