I see it as a matter of numbers. Making it illegal will still save more lives then making it legal. Will some women die with there babies? I’m sure they will, and I don’t wish that upon anybody but I think with it being illegal and with all the complications of it not being born in a hospital; it should be a large enough deterrent. It’s hard for me to believe that leaving it illegal will save more lives.

I don’t see this as a matter of numbers at all. I see this as a matter of right and wrong. I can’t even fathom the word “abortion” coming out of God’s mouth. I believe life must be protected from the moment of conception. I agree with Weather, neither is right. I don’t see God choosing a lesser evil over a greater one, do you? If God was asked this question, I see Him shaking His head in extreme dissapointment (with all due respect to the topic to create discussion).

Abortion is wrong, morally. The only exception I have ever considered is if the mother will die if the baby is not killed; but not one single case of the life of the mother (I mean the physical well being, not the financial or social aspects of her life) being in danger has ever been presented by the pro-baby-killing side. So baby-killing doesn’t get my support.

Geting to your actual question…. by the logic you posed, the govt should also be supplying facilities and equipment for drug users to safely injest thier posion (oh, wait, California is already got that one covered). I don’t think the ‘degrees of wrong’ apply here. Murder is murder, and murder being defines as the willful and wrongful termination of a life, there is no wiggle room here. “Thou Shall Not Kill”, kill is a bad translation, murder is more accurate. Its just as wrong to kill a baby as it is to shoot a chickadee with a bb gun.

Can or should we persue legislation to make baby-killing illegal? Maybe. Am I giving implicit consent by not actively seeking that action? I don’t think so, there are myriad immoral and unethical happenings within this country that I don’t actively go after, but that doens’t mean I support them. So my lack of active action shouldn’t imply quiet support. If given the opportunity to vote on the legislation, or was asked my opinion, then of course I would voice my anti-baby-killing thoughts.

This could get get long, but I leave it with one final thought. What I would like to see is state Attorney’s General actively prosecuting baby-killing facility workers for failure to report statutory rape. All medical personnel (and a host of other professions, teachers included) are federal mandated reporters- they are required by law to report suspected or known cases of child abuse. A pregnant 14 yr old oughta be a clear sign some illegal (and immoral for that matter) action has taken place. I would also like to see a more consoldiated effort among US Catholic leaders, Bishops in particular, to enforce the laws of God upon our elected officials who claim to be Catholic yet support activities at cross with God. You vote for giving money to organizations that support baby-killing, you get a nice counseling session from the Bishop where excommunication is part of the conversation.

Ok, maybe one more: Sex is supposed to be confined within Marriage, for the primary purpose of having children. Murder is expressly forbidden by God. Women and girls who use abortion clinics, anyone who supports the clinics or supports the “right” to kill babies act against God’s word.

IMHO

Victor, try giving my response another read and you’ll find my answer. As for Weather’s last post, thank you and Amen my brotha!

We are having a discussion Bernardine, there is no need to get upset.

Either way, peace be with you.

Catholic bishops instruct voters By RACHEL ZOLL, AP Religion Writer
Wed Nov 14, 10:54 AM ET

Roman Catholics voting in the 2008 elections must heed church teaching when deciding which candidates and policies to support, U.S. bishops said Wednesday.

And while the church recognizes the importance of a wide range of issues from war to immigration to poverty fighting abortion should be a priority, the bishops said.

[b:3h5isaks]The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many,” the bishops said[/b:3h5isaks]
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops overwhelmingly adopted the statement, “Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship,” as they ended the public sessions of their fall meeting.

The document does not recommend specific laws or candidates, and it emphasizes that “principled debate” is needed to decide which policies best promote the common good.

But “that does not make (moral issues) optional concerns or permit Catholics to dismiss or ignore church teaching,” the bishops said.

American bishops have been releasing similar recommendations for Catholics before every presidential election since 1976. However, in recent years, some independent Catholics groups have been distributing their own voter booklets.

Among them are Priests for Life and California-based Catholic Answers, which distributed material on five “nonnegotiable” issues: abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning and same-sex marriage. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, which formed last year, issued a guide emphasizing church teachings on war, poverty and social justice.

But the bishops urged Catholics to only use voter resources approved by the church.

The document makes clear the broad concerns in Catholic teaching that make it difficult for parishioners to feel fully comfortable with either the Democrats or Republicans.

The bishops say helping the poor should be a top priority in government, providing health care, taking in refugees and protecting the rights of workers, and the bishops highlight the need for environmental protection.

However, they also oppose same-sex marriage, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research, in addition to their staunch anti-abortion position.

The prelates say torture is “always wrong” and they express “serious moral concerns” about “preventive use of military force.” But at the last minute Wednesday, they added a sentence acknowledging “the continuing threat of fanatical extremism and global terror.”

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071114/ap_ … UgH75H2ocA

Abortion is just wrong. Always and in every case. People try to make lots of rationalizations about it, but abortion is wrong.

Though folks often THINK that an abortion may be “the answer”, it never is.

In almost 20 years of priestly ministry, I have never once heard a woman tell me that in hindsight she was sure that having had an abortion was the right decision. Rather, what I hear over and over is a lifetime of regret and remorse.

In professional life we do not do anybody any favor by agreeing to something that we know to be wrong — even if the professional consequences for us are not good.

Jesus’ message is about the marginalized and the weak. He comes to bring them hope and life, and He invites us to be their advocates. Our call, as Christians, is to protect and to stand up for those who have nobody else to speak for them. And so we are on the side of the weakest in society: the homeless, the hungry, those whose lives are torn apart by war and natural disaster, those who are oppressed by racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia. And who is more marginalized than an unborn child? Who is weaker than a child in her/his mother’s womb? Who is more voiceless than the baby ‘in utero’?

Surely, as a social worker you must abide by the profession’s code of ethics — as long as that code does not violate the most basic tenets of what Jesus calls us, as Christians, to do. In SO many ways being a social worker is going about Jesus’ business — helping families, the poor, the oppressed. And you should be proud of be part of that profession! But you would do nobody any favor by giving up your most fundamental sense of right just to be thought well of in your chosen profession.

In a scenario such as you present, I should think that a good social worker would present her convictions to the client in a respectful way; she should also be willing to share the concern with her supervisor and make provisions for another professional to take over the case if the supervisor felt that was the appropriate course of action.

But aiding a person — even in an implicit way — to have an abortion would not advance the well-being of the client.
http://www.catholicqanda.org/FAQ_Librar … ibrary.asp