The Catholic Church's bold new recruiting drive - Macleans.ca
 

The Catholic Church’s bold new recruiting drive


 

Say, there, Cardinal Marc Ouellet, what do you think about abortion in the case of rape? You know, rape: just about the most vile thing you could possibly do to another human being. Even the most ardent pro-life/anti-choice/whatever types usually agree on this: being forced to bear a child conceived through rape is probably the second most vile thing you could possibly do to another human being. So, slam dunk, right?

Er, no:

“I totally understand that a raped woman lives a trauma and that she must be helped. But the being in her belly must be kept in mind when she receives this help. She is not responsible for what happened to her. [Ed’s note: God forbid!] The perpetrator is responsible. But there is already one victim. Does there need to be another one?”

And, later:

“Taking a life from someone is always a moral crime.”

So, a rape victim who gets an abortion is actually worse off, morally speaking, than her aggressor–who, while responsible for a nasty deed, certainly didn’t take a life. How refreshing! (Oh, and he also took on the evils of photography. No kidding. UPDATE: actually, he was kidding. Well, he wasn’t; the site linked here was. I missed the satire, moron English heathen that I am.)

The French media has been all over this for the last few days, culminating today in a page one Journal de Montréal poll saying 94 percent of Quebecers disagree with this country’s biggest Catholic cheese. This is no surprise: out of all the provinces, Quebec has the largest drop in church attendance–13 percentage point drop between 1989 and 2001, according to Statistics Canada. I have to admit: for years I thought French Quebecers, particularly those born to baby boomer parents, shunned the church either out of lethargy or a sense of duty to the older generation. Happily, Ouellet’s frankly medieval sortie proves me wrong.


 
Filed under:

The Catholic Church’s bold new recruiting drive

  1. The line that got to ME was:

    'But there is already one victim. Does there need to be another one?”'

    Why no, Cardinal. Let's victimize the woman twice, and for the rest of her life by mentally reliving the same violent scenes everytime she looks at the child.

    • No one should be held responsible for the sins of their father. Being murdered because of what your father did seems pretty drastic to me.

      • Having a church tell you to suffer all your life because you were a victim of rape seems pretty drastic to me.

        • There is always adoption.

          Offering up a child in blood sacrifice doesn't erase the fact that the rape happpened.

          • Hey, if you don't like abortion…don't have one. Simple as that.

            Meanwhile, you might consider the principle involved instead of dragging in medieval nonsense.

            Never let the govt or the church control your body.

            If they can force you NOT to get an abortion, they can also force you INTO one. China's one-child policy being a prime example.

            And if they can legally require you to have a forced pregnancy….they can legally require you to have ten of them.

            Low population? Make it law that everyone has to have ten kids, and no abortions.

            No…the choice must always remain yours. It's your body…it doesn't belong to either the church or the govt.

          • "No…the choice must always remain yours."

            Does the child have a choice not to be aborted?

            And The Chhurch can't force people into anything because it is not the State and does not create law. Only the State can coerce people, not independent orgs.

          • End the pretense that we are talking about a 'child'.

            It's smaller than this>>>>> .

            And the whole concern here is that 'church law' will become 'state law'.

          • First off, even if it is microscopic it is still the beginning of a human organism. That's settled science for quite awhile now.

            Secondly, the fetus is not that small at the time of surgical abortion. The ignorance of the pro-choice movement on basic prenatal biology is frankly embarrassing.

          • Like I said, if you don't want an abortion, don't have one.

            Your ignorance of any kind of biology is appalling. So is your knowledge of pro-choice.

          • I think most people would have 'respect' for the pro-'choice' movement if they called it for what it was 'pro-abortion' 'pro-dearth.'
            Even Camille Paglia, an ardent pro-abortionist admits it is the snuffing out of a life.

          • Most people ARE pro-choice.

            You however are pro-forced-pregnancy.

            Your problem.

            And kindly don't cite idiots as your 'authority'.

          • Thanks for the stats that 'most' people are pro-abortion.
            Yes pro-lifers are 'pro-forced pregnancy' yeah that's it, we want everyone pregnant.
            What does that even mean? It's hysterical.
            And suddenly by your estimation, Paglia is a 'idiot' because she calls abortion for what it is – killing. Wow.

          • Actually the sperm is the beginning of the human organism, as is the egg. If they go unfertilized you are a murderer.

          • That's like saying if I don't like the act of murder, then I shouldn't murder. Simple as that. The dead cry out, and I simply can't ignore it. An injustice is being done.

            Also, saying that the government can force you to have an abortion if they can also put regulations in place to prevent abortion, is pretty much like saying that the government can force you to be killed if there are regulations in place to prevent you from being killed.

          • Then don't do so. Your choice. Not the states and not the churches.

            And don't mangle logic either. Keep the pretzels to yourself.

          • The Church is merely trying to teach what is moral.

            Also if I have twisted logic, show me the fallacy.

          • Your morality maybe. Not mine. Church morality definitely.

            But then we all know what church morality is like, don't we?

            The vatican is NAMBLA Central.

          • Emily TedTylerEzro makes some great points for you to counter with 'Nambla' is so utterly childish. It reduces your argument to mere name calling.

          • Keep your rosaries off my ovaries.

          • Again, such brilliance and eloquence from a member of the pro-death squad.

          • If you choose to act like a Stepford wife, that's your problem.

            However, neither you nor your 'church' are allowed to force your 'morality' on me.

            Clear?

          • Then use contraception Emily…. It's on every street corner.
            But don't snuff out an 'inconvenience.'
            BTW after seeing your lucid and brilliant comments, for the sake of us all, please don't ever have a child.

          • Church bans contraception too.

            Do you have ANY idea what you're talking about?

          • Emily, Emily, Emily. Many non-Catholics are pro-life which flies in the face of your contraception comments.

          • I will say though that counting on contraceptives to keep you from becoming pregnant is foolish at best. You can perhaps use contraceptives to space out your children, but counting on them not to fail is foolish.

            Of course, I'm having no problems spacing out my children myself. I just use the same techniques people use to conceive to not conceive.

          • You must be in advertising Emily. This is truly so witty.

          • Education actually. Something you could use.

          • "The vast majority of sexual abuse occurs in the family, generally by step-brothers and boyfriends of mothers.

            The next highest amount comes from teachers. These two institutions and people account for more than 75% of all charges, compared to less than 2% for the church." Michael Coren, The Sun, April 17 2010

            You are in education, Emily? I see you cracking wise about NAMBLA up there but I wonder why you think it applies to priests and not teachers because educators are responsible for more molestation than priests are.

          • The church, like any large organization, is bound to have some bad apples…and the RC church is no worse in that respect than any other church.

            However, the RC church covered it up, moved the priests, kept it going on all this time. Their comments indicate they still don't see a problem with any of it.

            They have far more problems because of their blindness and cover-up than teachers do.

            And I am not a teacher.

          • Well, the Church is hardly a monolith on the subject, and yes that is largely the biggest problem. Well, that and the church is overburdened with social scientists, psychologists, and cultural anthropologists and underrepresented in various other skills, sciences and backgrounds.

            But there are places where the church has a better record (even within countries) than other places. It also isn't the case that the sex scandals arose because the people weren't progressive enough. Some of the worst coverups, shifting responsibility, and undue "forgiveness" came from the most progressive factions. They placed a lot of undue trust in psychologists too.

            In fact, while more conservative prelates weren't left unscathed, there certainly has been more conservative prelates left unscathed than progressive ones. If anything, this scandal has made conservatism within the Church much stronger.

          • hahaha. Education.
            I would have guessed. Please tell me you are a teacher, so I can laugh some more.

          • Well, not only did you not show me the fallacy I made, but you resort to one. Ad Hominem.

          • Your fallacy was blazingly obvious.

            'The Church is merely trying to teach what is moral'

            Church morality, no one elses.

          • That's not a logical fallacy.

            How are you going through a masters in Education without learning basic terminology for logic?

          • Don't worry Emily, the RC church is due for a change in what it considers to be moral. Yousee, now that girls have been altar girls for a few decades, they are likely to come forward with more stories of sexual abuse by priests. As the proportion of sexually abused children tilts more towards girls, the RC church may just figure out that contraception and even abortion are good things.

          • Being an altar boy basically means that you assist on the altar during mass. It wasn't like there was all that much more access to boys rather than girls.

            That's why you see the vast majority of cases were inappropriate fondling over the clothes, and the vast majority of those cases were with post-pubescent males.

            Now, if you are a priest and you wanted to get boys alone to pull down their pants, you had to work for it. Offering to babysit, taking boys on camping or field trips, becoming a gym teacher or coach, becoming a close friend of the family, getting assigned to a residential or boarding school… that kind of thing.

            Now if it was simply a matter of access, the rate of girls vs. boys sexually molested would be a lot closer than it is. The fact that 80% of the cases (according to the John Jay Report) involve post-pubescent boys points to only one conclusion. Sexual preferences, and the fact that people who had the same sexual preferences covering up for each other played a role in this. This mixed nicely with fear of scandal and a desire to "rehabilitate" serial offenders.

          • I find it incredible when pro-abortionists are inundated with logic and truth about abortion they panic and throw in sex abuse.
            Hey Holly, let's throw in the Crusades, the Church's wealth, and no women priests as well. ha ha ha. I would like to thank you and Emily for the laughter. You're both hilarious.
            But let's attempt to stay on topic, shall we, and the topic is abortion.

          • If a woman has been told by a doctor that for health reasons she wouldn't be able to live through a pregnancy – she should die?

            I know if a situation where that happened – because of her health issue she died, the baby died and a father was left with 5 little ones to bring up on his own.

            How can you validate 2 deaths and 5 kids without a mother.

            You see, her priest told her she had to go through with the pregnancy.

          • Tragic story but I also know of many stories where the doctors were wrong about the prognosis of imminent death of the baby and mother and, they were wrong, they survived.

          • Wrong or not, a doctor is a trusted medical professional whose job it is to give you a fair and unbiased prognosis on the odds of your survival and then it is up to you to make that decision. Knowing the odds are stacked against you to the highest degree (less than a 5% chance of survival), should you still go through with the pregnancy? OntarioTown makes an amazing argument here and yet Veronkia you were very quick to dismiss it or should I say evade it? Which is it? I'd like to hear a REAL answer from you on this.

          • How did I evade the point? Why don't you Re READ what I wrote please and thank you.

          • "If you don't like abortion…don't have one."
            What a brilliant argument, akin to "If you don't want to get killed by a drunk driver, don't drive."

          • Hey, if you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay.

            Keep it in church Veronika.

          • I am utterly amused at how impressive your comments are.
            There is no point in debating with rubes.

            I thank Ted for his eloquence. You Emily, need to read more. Much more.

          • My life, my choice.

            Not yours, and not the churches.

            But you've long since lost even the thread of the argument.

          • If you just kept it to your own life, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

            Let's say that we invent the technology for artificial wombs in the future. A very complicated thing to do, but let's dream. Would you be against instituting a procedure to transplant a fetus from a mother who doesn't want to carry the child to term, and then making abortion illegal?

          • When the church makes pronouncements about MY body, I have to right to my own pronouncements about the church. I didn't start the pronouncing.

            Artifical life has just been created in a lab.

            The church would be happy to ban that too.

          • Given that it is perfectly fine with adult stem cell research and genetic modification, I would be fairly surprised if they were against synthetic life.

            Though you can be the first one to say "I told you so" if you are correct as long as you extend me the same courtesy if I am correct.

            Also, the Church is concerned with both human beings during a pregnancy. It isn't simply a matter of YOUR body. There is another body to consider as well. If you deny that a fetus is the body of a human, you are simply being unscientific.

          • It is evil for any man to rape a woman. It is evil for any man or woman to rape her a second time by invading her body to force her to carry a fetus she hates for most of a year. It is blasphemous for them to claim that God told them to do this.

            A fetus is only a potential human being, it is not a human being; even some of your Popes have said it was not. And many fetuses are aborted naturally after conception; so do you blame God for those?

            Remember that Mary was given a choice.

          • Yes it is evil to rape a woman.

            Why is it assumed that the fetus is solely the property of the man, as if a woman is a potted plant? The child is of her blood, just as it is of her attacker's. Perhaps we shouldn't teach people to hate the innocent, as if they are somehow to blame, or an alien invader.

            Thirdly, of course the fetus is a human being from conception. It doesn't gestate for awhile as a water buffalo and then genetically mutate into a human being.

            Fourth, Mary was given a choice, but it was pre-conception as it were (though conception isn't really the correct word to describe the word become flesh). She didn't bear Christ for awhile and then rip him to pieces and suck him down a vacuum tube.

          • The right to choose implies that the equation involves one person. It doesn't. A baby is a separate being, accepted by science as being unique at conception. It has its own distinct DNA, its own genomic character. At 12 weeks, an unborn baby is complete. It matures but nothing new develops. A toddler is different from an unborn child only to the extent a teenager is different from a seven-year-old. In other words, it is always a person. With inalienable rights and privileges.

          • The fact that nothing new develops after 12 weeks is untrue. The brain for instance develops a lot more differentiation, structure and function.

            But it is of course irrelevant. Either the human being is alive or it isn't. We don't consider someone unworthy of life if they become mentally disabled, or loses other organs or their function.

          • hahhaa classic "Mary was given a choice."
            Thanks Holly.
            And that's when the 'pro-choice' movement started right?
            Please tell me you're not a religion teacher.

          • No problem with this, so long as the choice remains that the kid isn't the mother's responsibility… but then again are you saying you'd be willing to put your tax dollars into something that'd probably be a multi-billion dollar cost just so that the end result (kid) ends up in a foster home or worse? Me thinks not!

          • Ya, supporting rape, repeated beatings and rapes – what a brillian argument.

          • Who did that now?

    • Emily, if seeing the child will cause trauma to this woman, she can adopt this life within her.

  2. Maybe this will sound familiar:

    "Stop the presses! Cardinal Marc Ouellet, the primate of the Roman Catholic Church in Canada, has created shock waves across Canada by … reiterating conventional Church doctrine on the subject of abortion."
    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id

  3. "… being forced to bear a child conceived through rape is probably the second most vile thing you could possibly do to another human being."

    Murder is the most vile thing you could possibly do to another human being. It's not ok to murder baby because of what father did to mother. And while I agree rape is appalling, murder is worse. Two wrongs don't make a right and all that.

    • #1 – Abortion does not involve babies. Where do you get this idea? It's called an embryo. There are stages in human development and if you are choosing to arbitrarily call a 10 week old mass of cells a "baby", why not call it a "teenager" or an "adult". Oh right… babies are sooooo cuuute.

      #2 – "And while I agree rape is appalling, murder is worse." … no comment.

      • Where do you get this idea?> My high school biology text book.
        The religion of radical feminism given to us by the god of the sexual revolution gave us the religious belief that an unborn human being is just a mass of cells.

      • Wow. So I guess the embryo turns into a goat at 5 months then?
        An embryo is a separate being, accepted by science as being unique at conception. It has its own distinct DNA, its own genomic character.
        At 12 weeks, an unborn baby is complete.
        It matures but nothing new develops. A toddler is different from an unborn child only to the extent a teenager is different from a seven-year-old. In other words, it is always a person. With inalienable rights and privileges.

  4. I am Catholic and I agree with the traditional Catholic teaching on abortion.

    Could I understand an abortion after a rape? Yes I could.

    Could I forgive an abortion after a rape? Yes I could.

    Could I live with a law that allowed an abortion after a rape? Yes I could.

    Could I condone it? No I could not.

    • Fortunately, these things are irrelevant to the choice each woman will make for herself on the matter.

    • The you sir are not Catholic and DO NOT support the traditional teachings on abortion.

  5. I tend to disapprove of ideologies which legitimize rape and sociopathy generally as valid strategies for sexual reproduction.

  6. I am perplexed at the outrage here. What is new? The church opposes abortion? And this is news to Quebecers? I am pro-choice, but if one understands the pro-life argument that abortion is murder then it makes no difference to that baby how it was conceived, how evil its father was or how horrible its mother's experience. So how could a pro-lifer argue otherwise? Can you see someone say, "We are against abortion because we are protecting human beings who can't speak for themselves from being murdered. Unless their mother was raped, then their murder is excusable."
    Come on guys, at least be honest enough to understand where other POVs lie.
    Frankly, a pro-life argument that held that abortion was OK in rape cases would be the bizarre argument to me. Because if abortion is murder, it is ALWAYS murder. If it isn't, then it never is.

    • Exactly. There are people who say "it's just a piece of tissue" who support abortion: their position is consistent, if biologically ignorant. There are other people who say "she's a child, but it's ok to kill her": their position is honest, if callous. There are yet others who say "we can't tell what it is, so we're willing to let each person decide": their position is very shallow.

      But it's the people who say "I oppose abortion except in cases of rape or incest" who really, really, just don't get it.

      • You seem to accept that "it's just a piece of tissue" and "it's a human life" are both valid viewpoints. So why do you say it's shallow to allow each person to choose for themselves? That's like someone accepting that both atheism and catholicism are valid viewpoints, but saying that it's shallow to allow people to choose because they are mutually exclusive.

        Also, let's not pretend that biology has anything to do with this debate. Biology could settle a question like "at what point does a fetus' heart start beating?", but it can't settle a question like "at what point does human life begin?". That will always always be a matter of debate.

        • Sure it can. Human life begins at conception. If left alone in the uterus it will develop and eventually be born, through the process of cell division and growth, taking in nutrients and excreting waste, and respiration. Soon after there is movement and sentience.

          Now there is a debate about when human rights begin, but as for when human life begins it is pretty much established. I mean, there isn't anybody who believes that infants are in-formed from protoplasmic goo in the second trimester by means of "quickening", and it is pretty easy to disprove through science for anyone who might be under that impression.

          • "Human life begins at conception"? No it doesn't.

          • Well, I can't argue against an argument that is purely faith-based and denies science.

          • Which is why you keep using such an argument.

          • Thanks Dr. What a well-thought out argument.

    • Exactly. I don't understand the controversy, this is the only intellectually consistent pro-life position.

      I think we rarely hear such frank talk because political tactics require pro-lifers to downplay the implications of their desired outcome. Similarly, if the rape victim mentioned above happened to be 11 years old and the rapist were her father, the only real pro-life position is still to force the child to bear the fetus to term.

      • And since she is a small 11 year old and carrying a pregnancy to term will kill her, then the "pro-life" position is to let her die. If people save her life by giving her an abortion, they will be excommunicated, but the scum who raped her will not be excommunicated.

        • Abortion is acceptable in cases where the mother's life is threatened. I will say that the abortion will be done as a last resort rather than a preventative measure though.

          • So? Then it is not murder? Is it justifiable homicide? You are "pro-death" under certain circumstances?

            It really is amazing how people twist themselves into pretzels on this issue.

          • I will say that it is best to save as many lives as possible.

          • As I said pretzels. You can't even answer the questions?

            How about this then? The woman is so traumatized by the rape, that the possibility of continuing the pregnancy leads her to consideration of, or attempting suicide. Does this qualify as her life being threatened? Would you propose that she be incarcerated and physically restrained until a child was born?

            Where do you want to draw the line?

          • I love it when the pro-death squads use this argument. I just love it.
            It is as if every one of the thousands of babies killed by abortion are conceived by rape.
            Suddenly it's all about rape.
            Funny how they never recognize that abortion is used as contraception in this great land of ours.

          • Veronika,

            You don't know me and have no right to label me. I am neither "pro-death" nor a member of any squad.

            I am merely pointing out that on the one hand TedTylerZero says abortion is murder, but on the other hand it is sometimes acceptable. That seems to be inconsistent with what he argues. I don't see how he can morally argue the difference. I'm just wondering how far his rationalization goes.

            If you must classify me, and it is necessary to state my beliefs then:

            I think abortion is a sad and tragic outcome of some misfortune. I wish that abortion was never a necessary option. I hope that the woman, the doctor, and (except in the case of rape) the man involved in the pregancy received some counseling before the abortion occurs. However, at the end of the day, I respect the right of the woman to make the decision. It is none of the Church's business; it is none of the State's business. They should not be involved at all.

            It is certainly not the business of zealot's such as yourself who insist on slandering people with outrageous comments.

          • Sometimes, murder is acceptable.

            The standards though are very, very high for me. I would allow abortion in the same way I would allow capital punishment. If Canada had restrictions on abortion the way that it has restrictions on capital punishment, I'd be happy.

          • I think that's not quite right, friend. For example, with an ectopic pregnancy (one of the few cases where pregnancy actually does threaten the mother's life) I think it's acceptable to save the mother's life by removing the fallopian tube containing the child (thus saving the mother's life), but every effort has to be made to save the child as well. So it's not an abortion per se, since in an abortion the goal is to terminate the child.

            Principle of Double Effect applies here, if you're familiar with that.

            "Murder" in the context that I and (I think) you view it (i.e. the Catholic one) means the deliberate killing of an innocent person. It's intrinsically wrong and therefore never acceptable, regardless of circumstances. What is sometimes acceptable is to do something good that necessarily results in the death of an innocent person, but the goal cannot be their death, nor can their death be a means to achieving the goal.

            Anyway, these are pretty fine points. The vast majority of abortions in North America have absolutely nothing to do with saving the life of anyone, nor with rape, but rather are a matter of convenience.

          • I understand the doctrine of double effect, and agree with it, but it is a very fine moral point that I figured would fly right over the heads of those I was debating with.

            In the end, the result is the same, the unborn child is dead and the unborn child's death allowed for the mother to survive.

            I will affirm that it is not moral to end a pregnancy due to what "might" happen (ie. abortion as preventative treatment). I will however, never be angry when someone makes the argument that abortion is necessary in those situations, even if I don't agree.

            I will however, become extremely angry if someone uses the tragic situation as a means to justify abortions on demand in all cases.

          • Right. I understand where you were coming from, and of course it makes no difference to most of these folks whether abortion is allowed in cases where the mother's life is at stake: the diehards want abortion available as a backup for failed/unused contraception as it is primarily employed in Canada today.

            I will quibble with one point re our Double Effect case: this statement "the unborn child is dead and the unborn child's death allowed for the mother to survive," is not quite right. If it were true that one had to kill the child to save the mother, then that would make it wrong…PDE rules out using the end to justify the evil as a means. Rather, I think you want to say that the removal of the sick organ (i.e. the fallopian tube with child caught inside) saves the mother, and the child's death afterward is a tragic consequence (which all steps must be taken to avert if possible).

          • I'll agree with that, though Double Effect becomes even more complicated in certain pregnancies, where it is necessary to remove the fetus though not any other organs, to save the life of the mother. In those situations I think the doctrine of Double Effect still applies, because it isn't as if the abortion is a desired outcome or the purpose of the procedure.

            Regardless, I think a woman who takes any risk to see her child born (even conventional uncomplicated pregnancies) is undertaking an act of virtue, and those who face serious risks are heroically virtuous. I also imagine that if the only abortions that were undertaken were for medical reasons, you and I would also have very little to say about the subject.

          • Yes, I agree. The bottom line is that it is never ok to kill one innocent person to save another, but it is sometimes ok to save one person even though this means the other must be left to die, particularly when the alternative is to leave both to die.

          • But you are not giving any woman a chance to undertake an act of virtue, since you want to force her to risk her life.

          • You are right EB, I don't know you. Thankfully.
            Just as you and others of your ilk cannot label pro-lifers under vile categories and titles.
            It goes both ways, doesn't it? I guess not in your world
            As for your arguments about the 'Church's or State's' business, good luck finding your utopialand where institutions do not have laws to protect it's citizens, particularly its most vulnerable. When you find that land, please let us know.

          • Veronika,

            Really, must you try to categorize me now as part of some ilk, and claiming something that is not true? Must you slander me, because I disagree with you?

            I do not label pro-lifers under vile categories and titles. You are a zealot for your cause; there is nothing wrong with that, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't deny it. You want to impose your beliefs on others. I don't slander other people because I disagree with them, and I respect your right to your opinion; I just happen to think it is wrong.

            I am not arguing about the Church or State's business. I am stating my opinion. You are, clearly, free to disagree. I also have no expectation that there won't always be a group of people who believe that the Church/State should interfere.

            Thankfully, I don't know you. You appear to be extremely narrow-minded, and about as sour as anyone can be. My comments are civil; what are yours?

          • You are right EB, I don't know you.
            Just as you and others of your ilk cannot label pro-lifers under vile categories and titles.
            It goes both ways, doesn't it?
            I guess not in your world
            As for your arguments about the 'Church's or State's' business, good luck finding your utopialand where institutions do not have laws to protect it's citizens, particularly its most vulnerable. When you find that land, please let us know.

        • Thank you for finding the 'poster-child' argument as to why every single one of the millions of abortions world-wide should be accepted — because rape is always the reason why a woman conceived.
          Abortion is clearly never used to rid of an inconvenience, a girl instead of a boy, Downs kids, handicapped kids…..etc
          Holly, grow up.

  7. Yes, it is very odd that when one accepts the science that life begins at conception, and one accepts the moral premise that human life is sacred, that it is wrong to take a life.

    And you know what else is one of the most horrendous things you can do to a human being? Beating them until they are permanently mentally and/or physically disabled, so that person is in constant pain for the rest of their life. Guess what else the Church teaches? That it is wrong to execute the aggressor in retributive vengeance, even if that action would lead to psychological satisfaction. Even if that means you would have to know that person exists out there somewhere, and perhaps see an image of him. Is that medieval too?

    Hey, if we're shouting out slurs about being less "sociologically developed", how about all you progressives drop the 18th-19th century zeitgeist theory that has no bearing on history. You know, the same theory of human development that leads you to brand ideas as "medieval" to somehow suggest that they are inferior.

    • I have to agree with you on the misuse of the medieval brand. That irks me, too.

    • You keep claiming that science backs up your position, which it does not. Do you accept the science that says humans are causing global warming?

      If not why not?

      • I accept the premise that an increased amount of carbon in the atmosphere has been linked in the past with periods of Global Warming, yes.

        Plus, I would like to hear how science doesn't back up my position on abortion. Seems to me that the science is clear, the only thing that is murky is whether or not human beings have a right to their own lives.

        Of course, if someone does eventually convince me that human beings aren't entitled to their own lives, I don't know what kind of monster I'd become.

        • Does one being entitled to their own life include one being entitled to control over their own body?

          You cannot make one entitlement exclusive of the other as the former requires denying the entitlement of the latter when forbidding abortion.

          • There are plenty cases under the law in which you are not allowed control over your own body. You aren't allowed to ingest poison or stab yourself in the face for example. You aren't allowed to strike or kill others, which is also something where "control over your own body" is restricted. Just because someone is inside your body rather than outside your body, doesn't mean it is moral to be an aggressor towards them.

        • I am entitled to my own life and to sovereignty over my own body. Ted, if you have the right to force me to continue a pregnancy against my will, then I have the right to castrate you against your will. If you want to protect your own rights, you have to protect mine too.

  8. Thanks for the links, Martin. In particular, I found the Cardinal's views on photography illuminating. If I got the translation anywhere near correct, I believe he is saying that photography has the capacity to capture one's soul. And with the soul held captive in a plastic and metal box, its corporeal envelope is void and – and this is where my high school french fails me – has no more regard for any particular thing than it would sewage in the street. ( Is that close?)

    Anyway, thinking like that does not inspire my faith in the man's intellectual capacity, if I understand the gist of what he is saying.

    • See the update. It is just more "satire" in which progressives claim that people have more primitive mindsets because they don't believe the same things they do.

      The best irony of course, is that this derives from a two-centuries old discredited theory of history. So if you like your satire a little meta, the "evils of photography" satire has a layer of unintentional irony underneath. The fact that neither Martin Panquin or yourself recognized it, puts another layer of unintentional satire on top.

      • Well, gosh, Ezro, slap me silly. I really did try to qualify my reply as much as possible. French, unfortunately, is not a strength of mine, so I failed to read the satire into it. Just getting it close to a literal meaning of what was written was tough. But you go ahead and preach about how smug and superior "progressives" are and don't trip on the irony on the way out.

        • Eh, saying that progressives don't believe in zeitgeist theory is like saying Catholics don't believe in Jesus. It is pretty much the entire point of progressive ideology.

          Of course, it is completely historically invalid, but that's not going to change the ideology anytime soon. Hence the satirical article, and hence you and Mr. Patriquin taking it seriously.

          • I actually had to dig past the first definitions of zeitgeist to find anything that helped me figure out what you were talking about. Extending that new understanding (for me) of zeitgeist, and the new perspective that gave me on what you meant by progressive, I finally decoded what you were saying.

            In my studies, I have never focused on the history of philosophy or even on philosophy in general. However, if I am capable of making an objective statement about myself, I believe I am generally better read than the average person. Not a high bar, I know, but I think I can at least claim that.

            I can honestly say that this concept of history and progressivism is new to me, in terms of labels to phenomenons. I have been generally aware of the elements contained therein, but not in those terms.

            I feel quite comfortable in saying that if you were to interview the average person on the street who would agree that they had progressive social views, you would discover that they would laugh at the worldview you ascribe to them. Total disconnect between label and condition. It would be like assuming Christians live according to the Bible.

          • Oh, ideas about zeitgeist are internalized rather than recognized, but it is still there.

            Progressives consider themselves the cusp of human moral, intellectual, and cultural achievement. As a corollary they consider anyone who disagrees with them to be morally, intellectually or culturally inferior. It was true in the days of residential schools, and it is true today, though at that time progressive ideas were about the "white man's burden" bringing the rest of the backwards world towards modern western ideas. A key part of that ideology was that anyone who wasn't them was in a stage of "more primitive" social development.

            Hence the satirical article about the Cardinal worried about having his soul taken away. It is the same thing as making fun of natives and their "primitive mindset". The fact that you and Mr. Patriquin would confuse this as being real just shows that this ideology is still present.

          • If you say so.

  9. I will say one thing though about the so-called recruiting drive. Those that remain with the Church will be there because they want to learn from the Church and be a counter-culture movement. Those priests and bishops who are true witnesses to what the Church has believed for centuries will always find people who are willing to listen and to follow.

    Those post-modernists who are atheists, agnostics, who are "spiritual but not religious", or believe that religious experience is not something that can be taught, or that logical deduction and induction is impossible to combine with religious thinking… well they will never join the Church. So your advice that the Church should adopt left-wing ideology like yours to attract membership is foolish at best.

    The ethnic ties to the Church are broken, and people do not join the Church anymore simply because their parents did. Oddly enough, people join the Catholic Church these days because they desire to be Catholic, and because they see the theological and philosophy history of the Church as something they can learn from, not something they have to reject and move away from.

  10. I'm always appalled at people who rely on visceral arguments regarding abortion. No one is "murdering children" for pete's sake.

    Is a fertilized ovum a "child"? How about a 16 cell zygote? How about the group of cells called a blastocyst? I know it must be the embryo that has no nervous system, brain waves or differentiated anatomy.

    90% of abortions are before 12 weeks, ie in the states noted above. The remainder are generally sad and medically neccesary situations in which the mother wanted a baby.

    Nor is the argument concerning "life" particularly convincing given that the component parts are alive to begin with. By that logic, masturbating or having sex with a woman on the pill is murder too. Or taking antibiotics for that matter.

    No life has been created on this planet for billions of years. It merely changes form. If you want to hold spiritual views concerning the human aspects of this ecosystem, go for it, but let's dispense with the notion that people are "murdering children" when they get an abortion shall we?

    No? Oh well.

    • Have you ever used contraception, Phil King? If you have than you know exactly when life begins.

      It is not difficult to understand why some of us think abortion is murder, baby is alive when murderous mother enters abortion clinic, baby is dead when mother leaves.

      If child has not been murdered, what happened in the clinic?

      • You've confused a biological process with its result. Once uses contraception to prevent the start of that process.

        As I said, I understand that people may have spiritual views that predispose them to believing something more is going on, but we don't base laws on personal beliefs.

        What happened in the clinic? A biological process was halted before it reached its natural conclusion.

        Everyone recognizes the potential for this process to result in a child, and many envision the future child when they become pregnant, but this is not to be confused with the reality of that moment.

        • Sure, and nobody confuses an infant for a fully grown adult.

          It doesn't mean it isn't the same living organism.

    • Okay Phil, here is what you need to convince me that abortion isn't murder.

      1) Prove that a fertilized egg isn't the beginning of a human organism, or is of some other species other than human (such as a bacteria) before the child is born.

      2) That human life is not worthy of protection simply for its own sake.

      If you can do either, then you can end the abortion debate in your favour forever. Oh I have to warn you though, you might be jettisoning quite a bit of your own protections if you argue against point #2.

      • I must conclude therefore that you believe masturbation or sex with a woman who cannot conceive to be murder as well, as per #2. The little swimmers are certainly alive, and certainly human in origin.

        As for #1, you admit it is the beginning of a process that results in a human being 71% of the time, accounting for miscarriage. You cannot however call it a child can you?

        So I doubt I can convince you of anything, since your interest is apparently "life" and not a human being.

        • Given that we certainly do express sorrow during a miscarriage and console the mother and father on "losing the baby" or "losing their child", then certainly we have no problem calling it a child.

          As for the little swimmers, I must have missed the part where they are capable of independant cellular division, taking in nutrients and excreting waste, growing to maturity, and all the other hallmarks of an organism that a fetus has but a sperm doesn't.

          Brush up on your biology.

          • If a fertilized egg is truly capable of all that independantly, then it doesn't need the mother right?

            So take it out and let it be independant. If it lives, it was God's will. If it doesn't, well.. same thing.

          • Sure, we'll also expose newborns, because they aren't very independent either.

            You don't really believe what you're spouting. So why say it?

          • Funny thing… parents of newborns generally choose to support them — and those that don't have adoptions.

            If you want to set up some sort of adoption clinic/regiment for fertilized eggs and zygotes.. you go ahead. Until then, even if we accept your definition of human, you're saying it's acceptable to force a person to donate their organs, blood, time, energy, and resources to keep another human being alive — even if it's against their will. I disagree.

          • Newborns are dumped despite adoption agencies. Strangled or smothered too. Neglected certainly. We still make those things illegal, and people generally aren't destroyed by the effort it takes to keep their newborns alive.

            You know what a funny thing is? There are adoption agencies for fertilized eggs, zygotes and fetuses. My aunt-in-law used one because she waited to long to have kids and her eggs dried up. Oddly enough the Church does not disapprove of them, though they do disapprove of the IVF treatments that create the excess human life as a commodity good, and then leave them in a frozen limbo.

            You know another funny thing? One of the biggest successes the pro-life movement has had is in ultra-sound machines. It seems that most women at risk for choosing an abortion reconsider when they see their fetus in an ultrasound. In other words, they generally choose to support them. Isn't that odd?

          • So you ARE saying it's acceptable to force a person to donate their organs etc to keep another person alive then? I note you didn't address that point.

          • I'm saying we already force people to donate their time, energy and life to keep other people alive. Yeah, sometimes it will lead to the temporary inconvenience of a woman to carry a child to term, a temporary condition (though with aftereffects) that will save a life. I do after all, believe that saving human lives is worth some loss of absolute autonomy.

            I would even take this another step. If I see you being beaten to death or brutally injured, I think it should be illegal for me not to intervene in order to try and give you some assistance, even if it might lead to some negative consequences for myself (including threats to my life or bodily harm).

            But the Cardinal wasn't even talking about law was he? He was talking about whether it was ever a moral option to end a pregnancy prematurely. I certainly believe that the choice to save a human life should be regarded as a morally superior choice than doing nothing or ending that life. If you think that the woman who chooses an abortion is morally equivalent to a woman who chooses to spare her unborn offspring… well I guess I we are just going to have to disagree.

          • It seems that most women at risk for choosing an abortion reconsider when they see their fetus in an ultrasound.

            I'm assuming that that info is the result of a study of some sort; do you have a particular study in mind, and a link, perhaps? Thanks in advance.

          • Not a study. A result of data collected from pregnancy crisis/care centers, when they asked their clients if they were considering an abortion. To those that said yes, they had an overwhelmingly higher success rate in reconsidering abortion if they were shown an ultrasound of their unborn.

            Skewed perhaps by the fact that perhaps women who go for the free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds in a care center aren't as hardened or serious about it than they might be in other places.

            Great place to find resources and support if you choose to keep the child though.

          • So what you're essentially saying is that places which have an avowed interest in preventing abortion have shown greater success when they couple photographs with guilt and shaming techniques. Nice to know.

          • *shrugs* Well there is only one way to get an objective way to study whether or not ultrasounds encourage women to keep their unborn in all cases would be to simply pass a law that forces abortion providers and OBGYN's to do an ultrasound and provide information about government support.

            After all, the pro-choice side has avowed interest in promoting abortion, because they believe that unplanned pregnancies "ruin" lives.

          • How is showing the truth guilt and shame THwim?
            Are they flogging these people? Using 'guilt' language.
            I suppose the Pro-abortionists think 'telling and showing the truth' should be banned?

            No wait, it is, on my Canadian university campuses when it comes to pro-lfe groups.

        • Phil, explain to be how masturbation is abortion. You seem to have forgotten the whole fertilization process.
          I think you need to revisit biology 101.
          A baby is a separate being, accepted by science as being unique at conception. It has its own distinct DNA, its own genomic character. At 12 weeks, an unborn baby is complete. It matures but nothing new develops. A toddler is different from an unborn child only to the extent a teenager is different from a seven-year-old. In other words, it is always a person. With inalienable rights and privileges.

          • Do you believe in evolution? If you do, then you know there's no such things as inalienable rights and privileges.

            The logic is simple: If rights are inalienable, your parents must have had the same rights as you. As did their parents, and so on.
            If evolution is valid, then sooner or later everything had the same single-celled organisms as parents.
            Therefore, everything has the same inalienable rights as you. Thus, if everything has the same "right to life" you starve.

            Of course, if you don't believe in evolution, then you've already admitted you're not actually interested in science (which includes biology) anyway, and your argument is simply a subjective moral rant, not a logical argument.

          • Umm… believing in evolution does not preclude the idea of inalienable rights.

            You can simply mean that human beings have inalienable rights due to divine or natural law, or simply because it is a good idea to acknowledge human rights that are beyond the power of the state to undo.

            Despite evolutionary theory, we still have separate species in the world, of which Homo Sapiens are distinct from their relatives.

          • Show me the branch point.. show me the human whose parents did not have the same rights as their offspring.

          • Thwim, inalienable rights aren't there because we've always obeyed them. Perhaps we never even always had them.

            But certainly you can see the value of having declared inalienable rights beyond the power of the state or society to change. That was my point.

          • Think really hard on that statement "declared inalienable rights" and then think about how society has changed in its various forms.

            And no, actually, I think rights stem from society, so saying that society can't change them is meaningless.

          • Well, I guess there is no point in constitutions or the worldwide declaration of human rights then, given that those documents stem from notions of natural law.

            No point in prosecuting "crimes against humanity" either. As long as their society approves it, and takes rights away from some, we should just largely accept it.

          • Hello.. did you not read? Rights stem from society. There is of course a point to constitutions.. this is the society saying what it believes the rights are.

            I was pointing out to Veronika up there that to suggest something has inalienable rights.. ergo,rights that apply at the formation of existance.. is garbage. Rights are based in and from society, we make'em. We change'em. It used to be a right to own slaves — has been through much of history, in fact. Suggesting that a parasite has rights over its host — even if that parasite will eventually self-differentiate into something that we acknowledge as having rights will always be considered correct is obviously incorrect, as always is a long time, and we can see how that notion of a "right" is already beginning to change.

          • Yes, laws and regimes have the power to trample all over inalienable rights. Nobody is disputing that.

            It doesn't mean it isn't a good idea to acknowledge that are rights that should be beyond the power of the state to trample.

          • Well your 'argument' just gained more weight when you referred to a child as a parasite.
            Remarkable.

      • Well, this is quite easy!

        1) Til it is born, it is unclear just where that is heading. It may become a living human being or, it may not. If it is born (into life, as they say), then it will be counted amongst the living.

        2) If you believe life is worthy of protection simply for its own sake, then never shall you find moral justification for war. You are bound to defend the Iraqi children, the Palestinians, the Afghani, the Germans of the 30s and 40s, and so on…
        Any argument to the contrary betrays your notion of the innocent.

        • 1) The fetus grows through cell division, takes in nutrients and exudes waste, breathes, and moves. The fetus does not become alive when it passes the vaginal walls.

          2) Now you are on the trolly. The only just war is one undertaken to save your life or lives of others against an aggressor. Hence the Church's opposition to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

          • My understanding was that Afghanistan meets the criteria for a just war, while Iraq does not. Also, it's not up to the Church to decide whether particular wars are just. The Vatican might present an opinion or advice on the matter, but they have no authority to decide this question and Catholics are under no obligation to agree with the Vatican on it.

            Of course, whether or not a war is just has absolutely nothing to do with the question of whether it is ok to deliberately kill children as part of the war effort: the answer to that question is always "no"… an uncompromising Catholic moral principle of which Habitant seems entirely unaware.

          • I would disagree on whether Afghanistan is a just war. While an aggressive attack came from the regime in Afghanistan, it was never a serious threat to our security and society. In fact, the whole war on terror was a monumental over-reaction to something that could have been solved by better airport security guidelines. I suppose that the monitoring of people's movements badly needed an update as well, given our global society.

            However, my protest to the war in Afghanistan is very anemic and weak, given that the alternative is to condemn the people of Afghanistan to decades (if not centuries) of brutal human rights abuses. I will most assuredly will admit my hypocrisy on that. However, I am also unsure as to whether a more gradual cultural engagement might have been just as effective as war, and would have spilled less blood in the end. It would require quite a bit of foolish optimism in human nature.

          • "Just war" has a very precise meaning in Catholic terms. It does not require that an attack be a "serious threat to our security and society". It just has to be an attack that produces (or is expected to produce) lasting, grave, and certain damage which is greater than the disorder caused by fighting back. I think one can make this argument from casualties alone in terms of 911 and similar attempts, let alone liberty and security.

          • See, I think a lot of the problems of a terror attack as a threat to our liberty and security was the result of us crapping our pants. Both secularists and the religious were talking as if it was the end of civilization, when it simply was an unexpectedly successful terrorist attack.

            Now would refusing to respond the aggression provoked continued and escalating terror plots? Perhaps. However, I think our vociferous response also contributed to the glamorization of terrorism, and encouraged people who want to use violence to make a statement. In other words we showed just how easy it was to intimidate us. A more moderate response to our security concerns and foreign policy would have been better.

          • Fair enough, but your'e arguing strategy, not ethics. Ethically I think it's pretty clear that the Afghan conflict met the four specific criteria for a just war while the Iraqi conflict did not.

          • See, I don't think it was necessarily true. I'm not convinced that the war in Afghanistan solved our lasting damage, I'm not convinced that the damage was all that grave to justify full modern warfare (though I appreciate that thousands of people died), nor am I convinced that the disorder was greater than the disorder caused by fighting.

            I mean we lost thousands, but the war has killed tens of thousands of Afghanistan civilians. That's a lot of disorder, as well as grave and lasting damage.

            Now I understand that this doesn't mean you have to let others walk all over you if you happen to be a minority, but I certainly think it would have been more ethical to restrain our strength. I think our motivations were based too much on vengeance.

          • Perhaps we'd best leave this for another thread since it's pretty far afield from the subject of Patriquin's misguided sally. It would be a very interesting discussion to pursue with you at length (ideally in a pub, with plenty of Guinness on the table) some day.

          • In modern warfare, when bombs are dropped en masse (think shock and awe, or carpet bombing), one cannot claim that the death of children is not deliberate, it's a given, an inevitability that gets tossed aside as irrelevant.

            Calling it anything but is, in effect, a compromise.

  11. As far as I'm concerned, to be anti-abortionist is to put but one single aspect of a women's existence to the fore and under the control of the hierarchy, ie it suggests that the most important role for a women is to be a mother, like it or not.

    So it is not a women's intellect or other contributions to society that matter to anti-abortionists. Apparently, women must either be completely and utterly chaste, or that they must live at the whim of biology and be mothers.

    No society that is serious about equality can forward that position without being in contradiction with itself.

    Women must be able to choose whether they are mothers, and must be able to express their sexuality without society trying to control them.

    Since no such control exists for men, it is a clear equality issue.

    I can sympathize with people who believe there is a spiritual dimension to this, but we cannot use personal spiritual beliefs to guide law when it is so completely subjective.

    And that really is the only argument I see coming from the anti-abortionists, because there is ZERO medical basis for it.

    • Sure there is a control for men. We do have laws against rape and laws against abandoning your children. If that isn't enforced stringently enough, or the penalties aren't severe enough, we should work on that.

      As for abortion, I pretty much see it as analogous to castration or infanticide. The very idea that killing your own heirs out of desperation or convenience is somehow a demonstration of power is absurd. It is a demonstration that you are slave that doesn't have the power to keep your own blood kin alive.

      Also, what spiritual dimension? The beginning of human life at conception is simply a fact of science.

      • Good points TTE. People also forget that plenty of atheists are pro-life. What is utterly bizarre about the 'pro-choice' side is they are now so incensed with selective sex abortion. The killing of baby girls.
        Why would they raise a fuss? If 'it' is not a life, why care if it is snuffed out?

        • Because pro-choice is not pro-abortion.

      • A slave to what? Your own will? Oddest definition of slave I've ever seen.

        I take it then you feel that women who have too much cinnamon or cardamon during their early term pregnancy should be prosecuted for murder then?

        • A slave to plutocrats and elites who insist that women have to essentially castrate themselves in order to enjoy the same political, business and social success that men do. A slave to progressives who call women who choose to carry out a disadvantageous pregnancy stupid morons for refusing to have an abortion, shaming them into having an abortion, instead of offering assistance. A slave to lingering social mores which do not allow for forgiveness and compassion around matters of sexuality, and recognizing that while their child/sister/mother has made a mistake, the ties of blood bind you to the newborn child as well.

          Instead you kill your own blood kin… for what? What kind of man and woman are you if you have to kill your own heirs? If you can't make ends meet to look after the child, serious social change has to happen because we are no longer sovereign citizens. I can tell you this much, if I had to choose between having an abortion or suffering social persecution or financial ruin… I'd think it was time for a revolution.

          As for accidents leadings to miscarriages… well intent matters under the law doesn't it? There is such a thing as accidental death.

          • Go back to the raped eleve year old who will die if she does not have an abortion. You say it's better to let her die in agony than to abort the fetus which is killing her?

          • Again, an abortion is acceptable when the Mother's life is in danger.

          • So you agree that Canada should fund safe, legal abortions in Africa, since in many cases it is necessary to save the mother's life.

          • Ted, you are as innocent as the unborn (and as aware as one too)…

            When a woman is raped, at that moment and, forever more, her life is in danger. The psychological and physiological impact/wounds will remain with her till the day she dies. At any point in her life, these wounds can develop into full blown diseases (to name a few, substance abuse, self-mutilation, severe depression and other psychological diseases). These diseases and others can literally kill her. This is an indisputable fact.

          • Perhaps, but killing the unborn doesn't help with that any more than executing the aggressor does.

      • Nonsense, no one is forcing men to do anything, in fact the impetus is the exact opposite. You're talking about preventing yet another series of actions that men are forcing on women or children, ie rape and abandonment. Your argument actually supports the underlying principle of pro-choice: that women should decide what goes on with their bodies.

        Castration falls under the same principle: forcing actions on others.

        As far as "facts", while conception is the beginning of a process that sometimes ends in the birth of a baby, concluding that one can ignore the 9 month process and simply call a fertilized ovum a "child" leaves out the oh so important process of actually creating one, ie it isn't a child yet is it?

        • Whether you use the term offspring, fetus, unborn, or whatever, the fact remains that it is a living human organism.

    • Wholeheartedly agree.

  12. Unmarried women in America are nine times more likely to get raped than married women. This might be explained in part by unmarried women being younger, except that divorced women are four times as likely to get raped, and they are older than the population at large. I'm just throwing that out there.

    Some of the comments that female politicians have made in response to the Cardinal are insolent, you don't tell a Cardinal that his comments are "unacceptable", not when he is head of a church which 80% of Quebeckers self-identify as members of. He is merely communicating the church's views, which are far more respectful toward women than many other religions one could and should name. Catholics, like Buddhists and many other religion, believe that life believes at conception and this is hardly a hateful or controversial position.

    I and the vast majority of Canadians are not in favour of making abortion illegal but find myself constantly disgusted with the pro-abortion movement and compelled to take the other side. Look at the poll numbers since Ignatieff went on his abortion jag: the Liberals are rapidly losing support because their obsession with abortion is grossing people out.

    • No man has the right to tell any woman that he can order her what to do with her body. Not even a Cardinal.

      • Spoken like a true militant feminist. Well then when you do become pregnant smoke and drink until your hearts content because it is after all YOUR BODY!!! woo hoo.
        How very brave and courageous of you to kill something weaker than you!

        • Veronika, those are some tough words you have for our military.

          ''How very brave and courageous of you to kill something weaker than you! ''

          Do you have the courage to tell that to our soldiers' faces (or do you pretend to be fully supportive of their military campaigns)?

          • Habitant you need to re-read.
            I was referring to militant feminists who wish to snuff out the unborn.
            Please reread! Thank you.

          • Ah, I see… So there are some who callously lack bravery and courage when killing ''something''* weaker than themselves (militant feminists who wish to snuff…) and, there are others (who kill someone weaker than themselves) who do so in bravery and courage? Is that it?

            * the quoted ''something'' is the very word you used to describe the fertilized egg inside the womb. I went with ''someone'' to describe the person who would be killed (by the stronger).

          • "Veronikia" who pretends to be a woman thinks only militant feminists think women should have control over their own bodies.

            "Veronkia" sounds like a rightwing fundamentalist male sexist to me.

    • 80% of Quebeckers self-identify as members of the Catholic church and 94 percent disagree with Ouellet. That says that a very large majority of Catholic Quebeckers find Ouellet's comments unacceptable. In fact his comments made a big enough wave that the Archdiocese of Québec has written "clarifications" on what Ouellet really meant (http://eglisecatholiquedequebec.org/babillard/documents/nouvelle_clarifications.html).

      • The Sikhs, Buddhists, Muslims, Protestants, and Jews all have similar views, and yet we see the same old anti-Christian hateboxes singling out Catholics and only Catholics for their anti-abortion views. Another day, another anti-Christian story whipped up by the anti-Christian media and another pavlovian response by the same old anti-Christian hateboxes. One needn't be an actual Christian or anti-abortionist to find that unfortunate.

        Every single one of the tens of thousands of immigrants that arrive in Quebec every year comes from a country and culture less favourable to abortion than Quebec. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine a more fanatically pro-abortion people than the Quebeckers. It is quite simply bigoted and anti-immigrant to take a hardline stance on abortion, there's no escaping that.

        I am also not at all cool with the language being used, ie "unacceptable". Disagree if you wish, but this is supposed to be a free country and politicians nor anybody else should be using that language, which suggests consequences. There is a growing tendency of abortion militants to oppose some fundamental Charter protected rights such as freedom of belief, expression, and association, which seriously undermines the alleged righteousness of their cause. Stephen Harper's Conservatives have skyrocketed in popularity ever since abortion militants began making noise about abortion, just to give you an idea how unpopular abortion militants are at the moment.

        • Whoa! Seriously? How does believing women should have a right to abortion make someone anti-immigrant? What kind of logic did you use to come to the conclusion Quebeckers are pro-right to abortion because they are anti-immigrant? Especially when Quebeckers in general aren't even any more anti-immigrant then the rest of Canada. What does that even have to do with my comment? The story is about a Catholic Cardinal, of course my comment is going to be about the Archdiocese of Québec.

          As for the use of "unacceptable", I was simply using the same word you used in your comment, I just didn't put mine in quotation marks, an honest oversight. Lets change my sentence to "That says that a very large majority of Catholic Quebeckers find Ouellet's comments 'unacceptable'." Is that more acceptable?

      • The Cardinal isn't repudiating or recanting anything that he said.

        • No but the fact that they felt is was necessary to write "clarifications" shows what kind of political and media storm his comments generated.

          • I'll agree with that. But that would be the case with any over-reaction, no?

  13. "Even the most ardent pro-life/anti-choice/whatever types usually agree on this: being forced to bear a child conceived through rape is probably the second most vile thing you could possibly do to another human being. So, slam dunk, right?"

    Is it really this hard to understand? People who oppose abortion generally do so on the basis that the unborn is a child. Without that premise, it makes little sense to oppose abortion in general, whether the reason for it is rape or whim or anything in between. If the unborn isn't a child then abortion really is no one's business but the person whose body it is a part of.

    But if the unborn is a child, as abortion opponents generally hold, then it makes no sense at all to say that it's ok to kill that child when they were conceived in rape.

    Come on Patriquin. You're smarter than this.

    • If the unborn is indeed a child, then it cannot be recognized as such simply for the criminal prosecution of its demise.
      If the thing is a child, parents ought to qualify for tax credits, benefits, the moment that ''life'' is confirmed (by a doc). Child support payments ought to be retroactive to the point of conception. In business, where payment is determined according to head count (and where no child exemptions apply), mother and child must pay, no deal (this will please the airlines)!

      The ramifications of recognizing that a fertilized egg is child are endless… Absurd, you might think?

      • Not at all. Sounds good in fact, given that expenses start at the moment of conception too.

      • Not absurd at all, the tax credit idea.

        Regarding the head count argument, your suggestion is absurd, since an obese person is no different from a pregnant person from a business perspective.

        • Plus, children under two are generally free on airlines, since they generally don't require their own seat.

          • Just out of curiosity Ted, several times you have spoken about the importance of human life, and that human life is worthy of protection simply for its own sake…

            Assuming you are consistent, does your support for Taliban children extend to material support? Are you actively involved in denouncing and condemning the United States of America and its soldiers' acts of murder in Iraq (those Iraqi children have nothing to do with the ''situation'')? To what extent do you advocate denying Israel any funding until they cease killing Palestinian children?

            What a noble thing it is to stand up for the innocent children, to see that not a single one dies at the hands (or shells) of another… Let's see some consistence here.

          • Again, you do realize the Church's position on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq correct?

            Jeeze, why are lefties so damn parochial. It isn't like Catholics are hard to find in Canada.

        • I was excepting someone to cherry pick! What a shallow view on life to put it on the same level as a layer of fat.

          If you acknowledge the fertilized egg to be a person, the business perspective is a drawback… Already, airlines are dipping their toes in the lucrative obese market. This unborn is a person thing, this will unleash phenomenal potential for profit. If I was in the smörgåsbord business, and the unborn were considered persons, there's no way I'd put up with charging for one when clearly there are two involved.

          Another thing to consider… Welfare costs will soar, that's for sure (it happens when you increase dependents).

          • Businesses cannot charge whatever suits them. There's a lot of things involved – supply/demand, competition, elasticity of demand, and so on. There's a reason seniors often pay less for services. Do you seriously believe that the same businesses that charge less for seniors will charge more for pregnant ladies? Give your head a shake.

          • You have a severe misunderstanding of business and business practices. W are in 2010, the Age of Deregulation (or perhaps the tail end of that age) in a firmly capitalist country… For the most part, businesses can indeed charge whatever suits them.

            McDonald's does not sell discount coffee to seniors because of legislation or kindness. If you are too thick to figure that out, it's on you!

            I thought of another lucrative market concerning the ''unborn'' people… Life Insurance! Hot dang there's money to be made! With the current rate of miscarriage and such, I suspect premiums (for the little ones) will be very expensive. But if things don't work out, think of the piece of mind knowing that their close ones will be taken care of.

          • "McDonald's does not sell discount coffee to seniors because of legislation or kindness"

            So you seem to be proving my point, without realizing it.

          • What? That business will act according to their financial interests? McDonald's sell discount coffee to seniors in order to sell coffee (and other goods) to seniors, where ordinarily, they might not have easy access to that market segment.

            BTW, earlier you asked if I seriously believed that the same businesses that charge less for seniors will charge more for pregnant ladies… If we have legislation proving that the unborn is a person, she (the pregnant woman) is no longer on par with the senior, she is, in effect, two people. What financial interest do businesses (that see fit) have in seeing it any other way, particularly if the Government and Society insists on it?

          • Oh no! Major corporations will annoy their customers by charging them for another head for the little extra food that pregnant women need (which still wouldn't be as much as her husband eats).

            You've gotta be pulling our chain here. There is no way that you think this is a serious argument. It reads like an article out of the "The Onion".

          • Pulling your chain? Not at all!

            In fact, it isn't my argument, it is your argument applied to Society. As i stated earlier, you cannot insist on the unborn as people simply for the criminal prosecution of its ''murder''. If it is a person under the law, it is such under all laws.

            Major corporations already annoy their customers by charging them double for the little extra fat they carry beyond the armrests (granted, a phenomenon in decline), why would they hesitate in charging twice when the law sees two people? What right do we have in preventing this if we would prosecute the murder of such a person?

            As I previously said, I suspect the insurance industry would love this opportunity. Especially the American health care industry… And don't think for a second this is beneath them!

          • Well, the insurance industry already charges more when a new child comes along, regardless of whether it is acknowledged as something with rights. Google "maternity insurance".

            The government also provides some benefits while you are pregnant as well, despite it not being recognized as a person.

          • Any airline, train, restaurant or other company that charges more for pregnant ladies will go out of business in no time as they lose all their customers. It's very simple. As word gets around that pregnant ladies are penalized, they will go bankrupt. It's not a matter of rights – businesses can charge whatever they want. That does not mean people will pay. It's a matter of business. It's a matter of basic economics.

            Airlines can charge a million dollars for airline tickets if they want. Nobody will buy them, but they can charge whatever they want. They can charge you extra for wearing red. They can charge you extra for the shoes you wear. Of course, any company that does this will end up losing customers.

            The reason seniors are charged less is to win their business. Do you really think pregnant ladies will actually stand to pay more? No way in heck. They'll take their business elsewhere.

            You don't seem to grasp the basics of business 101. TedTylerEzro is right, your arguments seem like an article from the Onion.

          • I adore your sweet and innocent views of the corporate capitalist/economics world. It's adorable, so full of hope!!!

            In your ''airline charging a million'' example, there lacks relevance. It is not a case of charging someone an insane amount for a ticket, it is a case of charging a fare for one person and another for a second person. As i said, if you make the fertilized egg out to be a person, it cannot only be so for the purpose of prosecuting its murder. This is your world, not mine. In my world, a pregnant woman is not two people, she remains one (but I'm extra nice to her, give my seat on the bus, etc…). If a woman chooses to no longer be pregnant, no one has the right to usurp that choice.

          • Nice try to weasel out of your ridiculous argument. Didn't work.

          • Again, your argument regarding the airlines is without merit, because children under two (who don't require their own seat) fly for free.

            But yeah, businesses will do their best to make money when practical. I just don't see any case in which it would be practical for a company to charge more than they do already around issues of pregnancy, just because the law recognized the unborn as persons.

          • What part of your own concepts do you not understand? You insistence that an embryo is a person makes a pregnant woman not simply ''pregnant'' – you insist that she is no longer a single person, she is of a pair.

    • Apparently he's not smarter than that. It's one thing to disagree with a position. It's another to completely fail to understand the opposing side, or to at least try to understand.

      Here's another way of looking at it. Suppose a child conceived by rape is brought to term. As that child grows up, can you imagine his feelings if someone told him that, unlike most kids, he was lucky to be alive because many people think he was a legitimate target for abortion.

      • Here's another way of looking at it. Suppose a child conceived in a country under military attack. As that child grows up, can you imagine his feelings if someone told him that, unlike most kids, he was lucky to be alive because many people think he was a legitimate target for a bombing.

        i suspect I know what feelings that child (now adult) is feeling…

        The pro-life movement is duty bound to stand up and defend the children against bombing campaigns, to denounce the military as murderers (regardless of the context). And those so inclined to provide justification of attacks on abortionists are as morally bound to provide the same justification for attacks on military recruiting centres (and other military installments).

        • You do know what the Church's position on the Iraq war is?

          • I don't think you want to be going down the road of exploring the Church's position on wars. It's a 2000 year old road loaded with dead carcasses, potholes and a bunch of wheels in the ditch.

            But on a related note…

            Ted, what is your position on our Canadian Military killing 2 children in Kandahar Province on July 27th, 2008? Murderers? Deserving of everlasting life in hell? Not very long ago, two women and a girl were shot dead by our Canadian Military? Throw away the key?

            Ted, once you show a little more zeal for the protection of the born, I'll start considering your earnest intentions in regards to the unborn.

          • Habitant why do you question Ted's 'zeal for the born?'
            What has he said to make him sound like he 'hates the already living?'
            Just because he and others defend life in the womb how does that mean they hate those already born?

            As for your silly comment on the 'Church's position on wars' … hmm, wonder what you will cite here, the Crusades? Please spare me that flimsy argument.
            The Crusades were not known as such until long after they had stopped and that they were merely a direct response to Islam's invasion of the Christian heartlands of North Africa and the Middle East or Levant countries.

          • Wow, I dig the revisions!

            The truth is, I had no intention of mentioning The Crusades… As I had said, its a 2000 yr old story, I can pick any random 10 year segment (of that 2000 yr old history). If you want some sort of elaboration, let me know, I will present you with some Latin American history (1900-2000). Go ahead, pick a Latin American country of your choice (that, of course, have Catholic influence) and I'll give it a go!

            But since you brought it up!!!

            You said ''The Crusades were not known as such until long after they had stopped''

            Were not known as what by who???? I reckon the first village that was pillaged knew something wasn't right. I'm not sure what they were calling it but they weren't calling it a Christian World Tour.

            ''they were merely a direct response to Islam's invasion of the Christian heartlands of North Africa and the Middle East''.

            Islam's invasion of the Middle East eh? It could get sillier, you could be calling the native migration in the Americas an ''invasion''!!!

            Seriously!

          • Well, before the Muslims invaded it was Christian Byzantium. After the Muslims reconquered, the Latin Christian kingdoms in the Levant were roughly as old as the United States is now. So it isn't like the Muslims had a claim on that territory since the beginning of time, and were pacifists.

            But really Habitant, nobody comes away clean if you examine any 10 year period of history. I can find something shameful that the Canadian government has done (that led to unjustified death) in every decade of its existence too. Should I reject Canada?

          • It isn't like the Christians had a claim on those territories whence conquering (ultimately, with murder and evil) them before the Muslims embarked on their own show.

            Should you reject a woman's choice in determining what can and can't occur within the confines of her own body?

          • Well actually, Christians just took over Roman territories, rather than conquering them. My point is that the Crusades were not holy zealots going to attack people that were minding their own business. They came at the behest of the Byzantine emperor, and they did help keep the Muslims at bay for a couple centuries. (Though the Byzantines shouldn't have blinded the future Doge of Venice while he was a diplomat there… that was a very bad move). Nor was it the case that pushing the Christians out of the Holy Land was something restoring things to right, because there had been generations of Latin Christians in that territory.

            The Crusades were more complex than you are trying to present it. That's what happens though when you try to use history to push an agenda.

          • I didn't try to present The Crusades at all, it was Veronika's rather silly comments (to which, you must certainly see as silly) regarding it that prompted my own comments.

            I can appreciate your historic explanations (I majored in History, I won't dare paint that picture or any other one as anything but gray). However, my original point on the matter remains valid – to the villagers on the wrong end of the pillage, to the children being slaughtered, this was not a rightful restoration of Christian Byzantium, this was (and still is) murder.

            To you, abortion may very well equate to murder. To the one seeking it, not necessarily.

          • No, you brought up the Crusades Habitant, and you portrayed the history of the Church as 2000 years of scattered carcasses. You completely threw out your objectivity in discussing the historical record, and embarrassed yourself. In short, you shamed your training to try to score points in a worthless online debate. Your admission that you majored in History angers me.

            As for whether someone equate the ending of human life with murder, who cares whether they subjectively accept the reality of their actions? With apologies to my Buddhist friends, life and reality are not illusions.

          • The original source which brought the discussion to The Crusades was my linking the pro-life movement to the defense of children against bombing campaigns. You responded by picking a battle, Iraq. I replied that I needn't be specific. I stated that throughout 2000 years, Christianity's road is scattered with carcasses (which is undeniable) but, again, I saw no need to mention The Crusades (too cliché for me). It is then Veronika who got a bit silly with The Crusades, to which I replied that there is no need to zone in on The Crusades (but responded to her silliness). And, well, you got all instructional about The Crusades (and insisted that I ‘'presented'' The Crusades)… I responded (and insisted) that I hadn't ‘'presented'' The Crusades, reiterated what exactly I was responding to in regards to The Crusades (re. Veronika's silliness)… And now, you are all upset, angered, accusing me of embarrassment and a shame to my training, that I presented The Crusades…

            Cue a Terry Gilliam foot drop animation!

            (if you are offended by the statement of Christianity's road as one of scattered carcasses, I am sorry history offends you. Christianity, like most other civilizations/cultures/societies has as many dark eras as bright ones. I would accuse you of far worst if you were to deny any of that.)

          • There is an objective way to present the tragedies of history, and you know should know how. Either the fault is with your post-secondary school, or with you. Probably a bit of both.

          • At no point was I ever ''presenting'' the tragedies of history – I merely made a reference to their existence. That simple reference has had you on auto-apologist ever since and, it has now lead you to degenerate into mudslinging. You are inching closer to becoming an embarrassment to your faith.

          • My position on the Canadian military killing of civilians? Why murder of course. Even as collateral damage.

            As for the Church's record on war, I'll put it against staunch secularists any day of the week.

          • Yes, yes… You could even claim that the Church has nothing on Pol Pot as if Pol Pot was synonymous with secularism or any of it's valuable attributes (as opposed to some of its worthless attributes).

            But that shouldn't come anywhere close to an exercise of pride for any morally sound Catholic.

          • No, but one shouldn't assume that the Church is all about negative actions in its history likewise right?

          • It would be illogical to take that position (that it is all about neg. actions).

            However, the woman deserves no less moral or practical justification for her choices, choices that have far less impact on others than the impact of actions of the Church.

          • Of course it has an impact on others. The unborn. To the tune of 90,000 – 100,000 lives a year.

            By some estimates that's more than all of the people sentenced to death by clerical courts in the entire history of the Church.

          • Haha, of course.. the unborn! I meant it in regards to the born, not the unborn.

            That stat you just brought up, that can't be proven. You don't know how many of those would have resulted in live births, you do not know if the mother would survive the pregnancy or the ordeal (which would in effect cause two murders, as per your definition).

            Furthermore, some of those numbers would include people born into intense lifelong suffering, even a death sentence on themselves. I'm reminded of a powerful documentary on black tar heroin where one addict spoke of his life, born to a raped lesbian woman who could not get an abortion, born as an addict, died as an addict (and brought about the death of others). To both, mother and son, life was a death sentence made worst by each other.

            (I blew a lot of money on history but I work with addicts, I am very much aware of the horrendous trauma life has dealt many)

          • Yes, some of those lives would have been tragic.

            Better tragedy than death though. Especially if someone else is doing the deciding.

          • Better for who? You? Your conscience?

            And who the hell are you to make that determination?

            Actually, your comments would be unsurprising if they came from the same dogma as Ratzinger to the Portuguese infirm:

            ''suffering which is lived with Jesus assists in the salvation of your brethren''

            What a patronizing, ludicrous and absurd thing to tell the infirm. Take comfort in your struggles, your pain, as they are helpful to others…

        • I'm sorry where did you suddenly read 'all pro-lifers were pro-Iraq war?
          The National Enquirer? The Toronto Star?

          • I'm not sure if its simply a typing error but, it would seem you were inclined to quote something there.

            Who said all pro-lifers were pro-Iraq war, I certainly didn't (nor have I read such).

            I haven't read the National Enquirer much, I have always assumed them to cover UFO and Elvis sightings. Had I known they tackled such serious issues as the Iraq war and abortion, I would've gave it more consideration.

          • Yes you did. You equated babies as legitimate targets for abortion (due to rape) with children as legitimate targets for bombing (due to living in a war zone).

            And then you said "The pro-life movement is duty bound to stand up and defend the children against bombing campaigns".

            So you are saying that as long as there are innocent child victims of war, abortions should be permitted. Not only are you saying two wrongs make a right, which is ridiculous, you are also directly implying that the people supporting the war are the same people aborting babies, which is completely ridiculous as well. And finally, you are trying to equate two completely different moral issues. What don't you bring up euthanasia and capital punishment while you're at it? Just for fun.

          • To be fair, there are common links in the ideologies that justify aggressive war, capital punishment, euthanasia, and abortion.

    • And I think most people grasp that it is wrong to force women to carry a fetus created from rape to term, which is a starting point for the unravelling of the antiabortionist position.

    • As you, Gaunilon, I find it challenging to understand much of the debate around abortion. This blog entry by Patriquin goes down the same confused road of portraying the abortion debate as one of circumstance – abortion is OK in the case of rape, or when the mother's life is at risk or whatever.

      In fact the debate is really a difficult disagreement about timing: what point in the journey from egg & sperm to birth marks the beginning of a human life, life that everyone agrees must be protected from harm.

      A significant number of people will say that the moment of conception marks that point, while quite a few others can't be as definitive, but nevertheless have decided that the point in time is somewhere in the second trimester of a pregnancy.

      It would be helpful if the debate could stay away from red herrings such as this blog entry. That won't end the debate, but at least we will be arguing about the right issue.

      • A significant number also feel when it's out of the womb and breathing is when it attains full personhood.

        And the law agrees.

        • So if a child survives an abortion and breathes, it should get access to medical care so that it can continue to live correct?

          • Since most abortions take place long before a fetus is viable, this is and unlikely event.

          • Holly you need to read some more as you are misguided about 'most abortion take place long before a fetus is viable….'

            Why here is one example in Italy..
            "Baby boy survives for nearly two days after abortion"
            The 22-week infant later died in intensive care at a hospital in the mother's home town of Rossano in southern Italy. The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled.However the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabria hospital, and was left by doctors to die. He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had
            gone to pray beside his body. He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing. The priest raised the alarm and doctors immediately arranged for the infant to be taken to a specialist neonatal unit at a neighbouring hospital where he died on Monday morning.Italian police are investigating the case for "homicide" because infanticide is illegal in Italy.
            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/

            In that same article this is listed: "In 2005 a baby boy in Manchester was born alive at 24 weeks after surviving three attempts to abort him. He is now a five-year-old schoolboy."

          • Anecdotal evidence. In Canada 90% of abortions take place in the first 12 weeks, over 9% between 12 and 20% and 0.4% after 20 weeks

            "…A very small number of abortions occur after 20 weeks of gestation primarily because the fetus is
            gravely or fatally impaired, or the woman's life or physical health is at risk, or both (Statistics
            Canada, 2003…"
            http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-ter

          • That should be "over 9% between 12 and 20 weeks".

            And in Canada, they don't usually toss aborted fetuses into the river.

        • So we can do what we wish to it before it 'comes out'?
          Incredible logic.

          So here is one, why then are there cases in the US and UK were babies who survived abortions were left to die?
          They 'came out' of the womb and even then, did not attain personhood.
          Should the doctors and nurses be prosecuted?

        • A significant number…

          I would be interested to see some numbers. I'll agree that the number of people who hold that belief (in the context of abortions) is significant in the sense that it isn't an insignificant number, but I would be surprised if the number was more than 5%, and certainly not as large as the significant number that I mentioned – those who hold that life begins at conception.

          Wrt the law, I'm fairly sure that you will agree that the law has that point of view more by a matter of circumstance rather than as a matter of an explicit decision to create an abortion law. The current legal position probably does not represent the current concencus view, accepting that the politics of the issue prevent enacting a law that would explicity represent that concencus.

          • It would be wonderful to 'see some numbers,' of how many babies are aborted and survive, wouldn't it..
            How how many abortion clinics and hospitals will admit to this? It's infanticide and it's against the law.
            Not everyone is Jill Stanek, the former American nurse who found a baby that survived a botched abortion in a hospital closet before it died. But she was not allowed to save the child's life.
            This is where the pro-abortion side completely loses fuel in their already empty arguments.

  14. The Church is actually a lot better off when it stands contra-culture rather than being the "in" thing. Lose the chrome, keep the steel. Always better that way.

    • I agree. However vehemently I disagree with Catholic Church doctrine (and I was raised Catholic), I respect the fact that it doesn't compromise its principles for any reason.

      It's refreshing, and rare, in today's culture.

    • Plus, there is the old Benedictine saying for when a monastic community has become sick or lost its vocation.

      "First you must cut the dead vines to get new growth".

      I think it could easily apply to the Church as a whole.

      • Really, someone finds that offensive?

    • Amen. And that is why the RCC is loathed by many in today's world. Stand for something and they hate you.

  15. I actually lost interest when I got to the part where the Cardinal talks about a woman with a child "in her belly". I'm not sure what I'd normally think of that line, but this being a line from a Catholic Cardinal, I'm going to take it as an indication that he's never been told where babies come from.

    The arguments surrounding whether or not a fertilized egg is a "person" or "child" (and at what point a line, if there is any, between "collection of cells" and "child" is crossed) is indeed a very complex one.

    But that thing moving in that woman's belly is a burrito Your Eminence.

    • Belly may refer to:

      * (slang/colloquial) The abdomen, the part of the body between the pelvis and the thorax or, similarly, to the stomach.

      Therefore it is not synonymous with stomach, and can be referred to as the uterus if you are being informal. It does not indicate biological ignorance.

  16. aqnother good reason to ban religion

  17. The simple fact that this debate still rages, is proof to me that the issue is not cut and dry.

    Therefore, no cut and dry answers.

    Personally I frown on late term "choice" abortions, not because I believe the fetus to be a human being with unalienable rights, but merely because I have respect for the potential it represents, and figure by that point a woman has had time to consider her options and decide.

    I am not prepared however to make other people abide by my beliefs, because they ARE beliefs and not facts.

    A potential human life raises emotions in those who want to see it transform into a child. My wife and I have certainly been excited every time we conceived, but having suffered through a miscarriage we've come to understand that there is a difference between the process and the result.

    Our faith is such however, that we believe the spirit of our child merely waited for the next opportunity to embody itself and join our family.

    Continued…

  18. Continued…

    Being a parent is more than pregnancy or birth; much much more.

    It represents a permanent life altering change to one's entire world view, and presents a series of responsibilities and decisions that impact everything you do from that point forward.

    It is not something that should be forced on those who are neither prepared for it, nor desire it.

    The drive should be toward respecting the innate and amazing potential that procreation represents, rather than some strange mechanical argument of enforced pregnancy.

    This is the aspect that anti-abortionists seem completely oblivious too in my opinion, and one that speak less to faith and more to societal control issues.

    • I am sorry for your loss. Hopefully you allowed yourself to grieve, even if you do not recognize your unborn as a child.

      • Thanks Ted. I appreciate the sentiment and hope I haven't offended you too much. This topic is naturally quite emotional, as our bodies were all formed in this manner, and it does represent a "god-given" potential that deserves proper respect.

        I just want to be clear that I respect your intent, even if we don't agree on what "man's laws" should be.

        Personally I believe we are spirit inhabiting form, like the analogy of god breathing life into clay and making Adam, and in some ways even how Jesus embodied the spirit of Christ. As such, I believe the spirit to be primary, and that it can embody whatever form is available to it at the right time and place, and is itself an immortal part of god with no need to fear death.

        I guess it's this view that drives my perspective most of all, and why I give second consideration to the physical aspects of process.

        • I'm a material monist myself, just like most good Catholics. The animating principle of the body (or soul if you will) is synonymous with that of life.

          It is why bodily resurrection is our greatest hope, because without the body the human being is not complete, whole, or alive.

        • You cannot bring a body into existence without a soul, and vice versa. It's philosophically impossible. Matter and form must be a composite. This is Aristotle speaking… he most certainly was not Catholic, but I would be willing to bet he'd be pro-life. Soul by definition is life giving principle of a body with POTENTIAL for life. You yourself have admitted that "fetus" has potential for life, ie according to aristotle and the Church it must also have a soul.

          I'm very sorry for the loss of your child, you should name the child, and pray for him or her.
          God Bless.

  19. Yes, Mr. Patriquin, it's not the baby's fault that rape was involved, and rape nevertheless consists of a tiny percentage of abortion cases. But you go on bashing the Catholic Church, ya hear? I'm sure it's very fashionable and brave for you.

    • Oh, and btw, Church membership is still strong for churches that uphold traditional values, bad for those who succumb to trendy types such as yourself.

      • That is true. Being progressive is poison for inspiring devotion to the faith, not because progressive positions couldn't be adopted by an institution, but because current fads in spirituality lean towards the notion that faith and reason are incompatible. To a progressive, spirituality can't be taught or thought logically about, only discovered through what confirms their own pleasurable feelings during their spiritual practice. Hence transcendental meditation gurus, Ekhart Tolle, agnosticism and being "spiritual but not religious".

        If you believe that, you don't need an institutional church with a catechism and canon law. You don't need a community of believers either.

  20. I am so utterly sickened by these pro-lifers and their disdain and contempt for our military. How dare they tarnish their good names, referring to them as cold-blooded killers, disrespectful of the sacredness of life, etc…

    It is just disgusting… And to think what the families of the fallen must go through knowing that such a significant portion of the population see their sons and daughters as murderers in hell.

    (the children of Afghanistan, Iraq and so on, are no less innocent than the unborn and, ought not be punished for the sins of their fathers)

    • Yep, and people who were pro-life were against the war as a solution to the problem in Afghanistan.

      You should step out the bubble you are living and get to know a wider group of people.

      • So, let me get this right…

        The people who were out marching on the Hill last week are the same people who would call our soldiers murderers?
        The Evangelicals of the West (aka. Harper's base) are the same who are unsupportive of our military campaigns?

        Forget Afghanistan. Loads of little German children died quite innocently in bombing raids over their houses back in the 40s… At the hands of cold-blooded killers? Do these pro-lifers you speak of (outside my bubble) view our vets as evil doers?

        • There are some who were enthralled by the vision of bringing peace through war, it is true. But there are many others in the pro-life movement who weren't, including the Church. The advantage of having someone who has authority to speak on matters of faith and morals is that they can remind people of the underlying principles of the faith.

          As for the bombing of civilian targets, one can accept the fact that the Nazi war machine needed to be stopped, while still being critical of the bombing of civilian targets. The carpet bombing of German cities in retaliation for their bombing of civilian targets, or the dropping of the bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima, might be considered war crimes today.

          • Ted, I agree with you, there exists Catholics, Christians, Buddhists, Muslims, etc…, who vehemently oppose war in all forms, stand up against it, defend the attacked innocent passionately and some, even at the risk of death. I have admiration for this and in no way can I call them hypocrites. However, you and I can both agree that these people are a very small minority (in both camps, pro-life and choice).

            The point of accepting that Nazi war machine needed to be stopped is a justification born out of practicality (the fact is, we could have simply accepted the new world order Hitler would have wanted implemented and, accept the innate suffering it would carry but it was a bit too much for us to stomach). It is not fundamentally different in philosophy than the practical justification one might have in seeking an abortion. Except, to her, you would say ''tough luck'', the genesis has already occurred, we must see it through.

            The carpet bombing (and dropping of WMDs) of old may indeed be considered war crimes of today but, we don't consider the carpet bombings (and dropping of WMDs) of today war crimes… Or, at least, not worthy of prosecution.

          • Hypocrisy isn't the greatest sin you know. In fact it is unavoidable if your ideals are ambitious enough, being foolish and inadequate creatures that we are.

            As well, being a semi-pacifist means a lot of tough luck as well. To be against the war in Afghanistan is to consign people to being executed in soccer stadiums. Consigning girls to go without an education. Consigning people to purges and public stonings. There is a lot of "tough luck" in pacifism.

        • Habitant, there is something as a 'just war' or one of self defence.
          If you ever read Scripture and there is war in Scripture, particularly the Old Testament, in some cases it is called for and justified.
          No one is calling CDN soldiers 'murderers.'
          Except of course, the holy Left, who believes all killing is bad, unless of course it is inflicted on an unborn child, then it is apparently ok.
          I find that terribly ironic, the holy Left is against all war, except the one inflicted on the child in the womb.
          Incredible.

          • Nevermind Scriptural (particularly Old Testament) reference and justification for war. There is also justification for condemning the lobster eaters in there… Use your logic instead.

            So, you have made allowances for the murder of some innocent children and make none for others. Please, elaborate on this so i understand where your god would appreciate the bombing of a house full of children who are absolutely not involved in a war.

  21. I am not sure that this website moderator will publish my post or not but still I think as a human being to give my personal opinio)i think I have this right to give my personal opinion.However its clear that in reality RCC treats women as cum dump.Why even taking birth control pill is sin? when her husband's seed insert in to her vagina then it is never a baby, so still why Church does not permit birth control? I don't know about any pill that can prevent pregnancy after intercourse. but if such pill exist then I still think that RCC will not permit the victims to take the pill! correct me anyone if my thoughts are wrong.So if a woman will gang raped again and again then still abortion is not allowed by RCC? if yes then is it not clear that RCC really treat women as cum dump? Like in cum facial porno movies men's seeds treated as holy thing?So Does RCC really thing men's seed such holy thing like gangbang porno movie? If my remarks are bad and wrong then just tell if a girl is gang raped, why she is still not allowed to abortion or make this abusive mens seed disable? So what is the fate of a woman? assume that she has husbands and kids. living a nice family life and suddenly some perverts rapes her or as worse gangraped her,then? as a girl is she bound to make this seed as a shape of human baby in her womb?and then later give birth to it?So isn't not clear that women are always treated as cum dump in Roman catholicism?Can any one answer me? Don't think me such ptrotestant who consider RCC as whore of babylone, because I am not one of them. And dont think me pervert muslims who always try to prove that they are the sign of female freedom( what a Joke). I am not also a hindu who loved to burn a woman with her dead husband. I just can say I am a human being and I am proud of it. I have no religion because religions are nothing but perversion or mental disorder. And if really RCC treat women as cum dump( its proven by theirs laws already) so its the worst lwas for women after the honor killing in some muslim countries.And catholics should not be happy with their nasty inhumane female abusive culture.