“Bridgette, I applaud your ability to form an eloquent argument; however, it is a non sequitur. What tells you that a woman has a right to decide whether a child should be born or not? Does she possess the wisdom to look into the future life of that child and assess the totality of the joy, love, productivity, accomplishments, and aggregate value of that life to the community and world? Additionally, your point about the Catholic Church “interfering” with secular law is irrational. Kennedy claims to be Catholic, and Bishop Tobin reminded him of what that really means. That’s all. By the way, you need to look into history a bit more. Western civilization and much of its social foundational systems, including our hospitals, universities, architecture, contribution to the arts; things that we take for granted, simply would not exist if it were not for the Catholic church and its contribution to western society in the past two thousand years. That is an historical fact, however much you would like it not to be so.”

As a matter of record, I am an historian with a far deeper grasp of the history of the Catholic Church than just that they had pretty architecture. That history is of both the good and the bad of the Catholic Church without turning a blind eye to events such as the massacre of the Cathars, and the support of the destruction of the native tribes in Latin America.

“Explain this to me: why do we value a sea turtle egg more than a human fetus? If you can provide a logical, socratic and sound answer to that question. I will change my views on the value and sanctity of human life at conception.

Finally, I can prove through reason and logic alone why “the right to choose” is simply wrong. I can do this in three sentences. I challenge you to counter my position in as many sentences as you like.

1. The liberal view holds that a woman should have the “right to choose.” We know that it requires a man and a woman to conceive a child. Yet the man has no say. I find this interesting. However, putting that issue aside for the sake of this discussion, the liberal position believes that the woman has the right to choose the greater good for herself and the unborn child in her womb.

2. So, now the woman must assess the greater good. How does she do that? She is not deciding for just herself, she is deciding for her child as well and for society at large. The fetus is a human being, but that is really not the point here. For whether you accept that a fetus is a human being or not, you cannot deny that it is a life that will grow into a human baby. So by terminating it, you terminate that progression and the living life.

3. So back to the question at hand: how can a singular person, even a mother, look into the future potential for an unborn child and consider all the good that that life may bring to the world. The love he or she deserves to have a chance to have, just like the mother enjoyed; the productivity, the right to live at all. How can a woman make that decision? How can she choose the greater good when she cannot know the answers to that all important question? it is pure arrogance to think she can. Hear endeth the lesson.”

If Mr. Lepanto had actually read what I wrote instead of bypassing it to focus upon a comment exchange, he would know that I am supporting legalized abortion for reasons other than what he wishes to portray. I do not see it in the stark terms he does, and feel that it is important to fix what is wrong in society. I see abortion rates as a symptom of deeper problems and not the problem itself.

I deleted your previous posts because I do not wish to get into this debate today, and will not have time over the next several days by which to have this debate. It was painfully obvious from what you wrote that my article was something you bypassed in order to jump in on the comments. It was also clear that, unless I take up YOUR position on this issue, that this was going to be another useless “debate” on abortion. You have no interest in hearing that your own positions have problems.

Please, do not bother replying to what I write in this comment. I have no time to debate you today, and I can tell already what kind of debate it would be, so it is pointless.

Lepanto, this is a private site, and I have every right to determine what can and cannot be posted. I also have the right to put it this way- you want to debate me and I do not have time right now to debate you. If this angers you, sir, fine, but continue to comment upon that and I will remove your posting privileges.

I would also like to point out that, despite our readership, our commenting public tends to be very small, and mostly limited to me, Lepanto.

You can run from truth, but you cannot hide. I imagine you will not post this comment either.

This is a private site, and I have every right to pull what you post. Newspapers do that all the time. As for the debate, I might point out that yesterday I had a very nice conversation with Father Clifford Stanley. It was both informative and interesting.

I have defended my positions, I might add. You have ignored them. While there may be far more for me to learn from a discussion with Father Stanley, I do not feel that a discussion with you will result in anything more to be gained as I do not see common ground with you.

Incidentally, sir, censorship applies only to governments, it does not apply to private organizations. The CBC is not required to post everything that is submitted to them, and is often forced to remove what is not acceptable. I do not do so lightly, I should point out.

As for what I have learned about you, it is why I am ending this conversation. I have learned enough to know that further talks with you are futile. You want me to take up your position and nothing more. Trying to cry about censorship again will result in me ensuring you never get your voice heard here again. Unless there is room for you to accept alternatives to your dogmatic beliefs, then there is nothing to debate.

I find it very interesting how when you decide to not debate any further (presumably because you are loosing) that my postings are than blocked. Frankly this sticks of cencorship! If someone were to do this to you, undoubtedly you would be very upset and complaining about your rites being violated. But obviously you have no problem with doing this to those with whom you disagree. But I am not surprised. I have seem many so called “liberal” web sites that do the same thing. Freedom of Speach, but only if I say what you want others to hear.

Just what did I reveal to you? That I care deeply about all human life. That I have the courage to face the pain that is so very real in this world, and not be a coward and try to hide from it, or a fool who pretends that it is not there.

Twice now you have left our discussions. What am I to make of that? Perhaps that you are unable to defend your position, even when the debate is confined to your narrow terms and conditions? Perhaps you have a tough time admitting defeat.

I suppose that I should take your unwillingness to continue the abortion debate as in indication that you have admitted defeat. I am now even more confident of the correctness of my position and shall now take it to other places.

One final word. “You should put up with little children, for these are of the Kingdom of Heaven”.

My instincts were right about you. Thank you for proving me correct. You finally revealed what I needed to know about you.

The thing is, I am walking away from this discussion now. I will not say what is on my mind, nor am I going to respond to anything else you write. I long ago set boundaries for myself when it came to discussions like this one. It has come to that point where I either walk away or break my word to myself.

There are many things left I could say to you, but they will go unsaid. Good bye AMP. All that would be left now is a circular argument that would get us nowhere as each of us tried to out do each others pain. I hold much of my own pain in reserve. I do not discuss it except with those I trust. You are not among those.

You list some horrific scenarios, and assume that I have never been in any of them. That is a rather big assumption. For the record my wife and I lost our first child in what the doctor called a “missed miss-carriage”. My wife had to have the dead fetus removed from her womb. When our first daughter was 2 years old she was diagnosed with aplastic anemia, and we were told that with everything that science could do that there was still a one in five chance that she would die. Friends of ours lost their first child due to a diaphramic hernia. The child was born and lived only a week while being hooked up to machines. It within minutes of being unhooked. I think it’s safe to say that I’ve seen some pain.

Your accusation that I am spouting dogma is inaccurate, as my previous post made no mention at all of religion. If you want to have a debate about abortion with religion left out, than bring it on.

In our society we value every human life so much that in Canada (and most of the States) the death penalty has been abolished.

The law as it is currently worded has life not legally beginning until the birthing. But what if the law is wrong. What if life begins sooner. There are many other possible times, such as conception, the first heart beat, the first drop of the fetus’ own blood, the first occurance of brain activity. If any of these moments in time are truly when life begins than abortion at or after such point in time is murder.

The fetus does not have the same dna as either of its parents (nor anyone else except for an identical twin). It is the only thing within a woman’s body that has the potential to be seperated from the mother’s body and continue to live.

Need I go on?

You would allow taxpayer paid, on demand abortion for all women. Why? Because of the examples that you list. Examples that happen infrequently. Even with the pain and suffering that is experienced by BOTH parents (and I seen my share) in such instances as child mortality, that simply does not compare to taking away someone’s entire life.

Please have an actual discussion. No one is saying that the Bishops cannot vote their conscience or tell their congregations what is and is not moral. What we are saying is that they should stop trying to blackmail politicians into doing their bidding.

Thank you for the compliment. While I do not condemn a person’s religion, i do feel that it should be kept out of the secular realm. I feel that we should also solve the problems that are causing issues rather than acting as if they are not the problem.

What about the suffering of an infant who is born with their brain outside their body? What about the suffering of an infant with the rest of their internal organs hanging out? There are hundreds, if not thousands, of birth defects which result in infants being unable to live beyond a day or a week. Often times, abortions are performed to spare the mental health of the mother.

To be honest, AMP, you have never been in this situation. You have never- and will never- be in a situation where you have to make this choice and you lack the empathy to understand what it is that another feels. You spout dogma rather than thought when it comes to this. All but the most sociopathic of women will simply abort a feotus without thought, care, or pain. Often times they do it because they feel that any other solution will result in greater suffering. It is that suffering that you and those like you ignore. It is the mothers who give birth to children who, if they survive a day, live their short lives as little more than a lump of cells. It is mothers looking at the life they have and the world around them and feel that any child brought into that life’s circumstance will know nothing but suffering, pain, drugs, violence, and death at an early age. It is often a selfless act rather than a selfish act. It is often done by women who know that they are doing something painful, but they know, once they make that decision, that it is to save that potential child a life of suffering.

If we alleviate that suffering. If we mitigate or even remove the social ills that make abortion an option, then we can make it so that women will not feel the need to have an abortion.

Stop the suffering as a whole.

As a male, AMP, or at least I presume you are, you will never be in this situation. Having help and having a safety net often means a woman will not have an abortion. It is time that we start building that safety net and helping to make abortion something that only happens in absolute medical emergencies.

For once, learn to understand what it is like to be someone else for a while.

You comment about “no right to stop everyone else from making their own decision” leaves me wondering who is to speak for the baby that is going to die as a result of the abortion. Considering that the woman is going to experience something natural that will effect her physically for less than one year, compared to the baby’s entire life and existance being wiped out, results in only one conclusion. That abortion is the ultimate in selfishness. How anyone can justify killing babies for any reason is beyond me.

This post was mentioned on Twitter by lostiny: Matthews Interview of Bishop Tobin Exposes Need To Keep Religion Out of Politics – Lez Get Real http://bit.ly/8M0fjc…