Religion is something created by man, not god, and everything a respective religion believes in is purely speculative. The Christian Bible? Written by men who did not live within decades of Jesus’ lifetime, so it’s 50/50 at best whether it even resembles what god’s teachings would look like. “The Faith and Moral Teachings of Jesus Christ” by Thomas Jefferson is probably better moral guide than “The King James Bible.”

I read somewhere a pro-lifer say this, “Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God.” Really? Maybe according to that person, but that person has no idea what God’s Law is. Secondly, we live in a country that has a separation of church and state, so religion has no place in the discussion.

As far as Tiller is concerned, he was doing nothing according to United States law, which is the only law that matters. I saw a woman on TV recently discuss her experience at his clinic in Kansas, and the manner in which the abortion was carried out was horrendous. But apparently it fit within the parameters of U.S. law, so instead of protesting at Tiller’s clinic every day, perhaps the protests are better served with lawmakers than Tiller.

I think everyone will agree that nobody is pro-abortion. The strongest argument for having a pro-choice stance (in my opinion) is if you believe there is a single circumstance that exists where going through with the pregnancy is NOT best for all involved, then being pro-choice is the way to go. It should be the very last option a pregnant woman turns to, but it should be an option. If it were illegal, pregnant women would still seek out an abortion and it wouldn’t be a proper legal procedure carried out at the hands of a certified doctor or in the appropriate environment – rather it would be in some dodgy underground clinic where the women and child are both less safe.

Is abortion immoral? It can be, sure. When a mother terminates her pregnancy because she doesn’t feel like dealing with the responsibility of raising a kid…that’s wrong. But when a rape victim aborts her attackers unborn child, nobody can tell that rape victim she is immoral for doing so. Some people shouldn’t be allowed to have kids because they are unfit to raise them. In those cases, forcing a child to grow up in an abusive environment for 18 years that leads to a further tormented life is equally immoral as abortion. Ultimately, the intentions behind a parent’s decision makes it right or wrong (in my mind anyways).

So, yes, I believe abortion should be an available option, but the last one used. Also, further restrictions should be placed on the parameters in which abortion is acceptable.

In the Tiller murder, the shooter was simply doing god’s work by killing an “evil mass-murderer.” When will people get it through their heads that it’s not up to any of us to carry out whatever we believe justice to be? Because more often than not, these kind of people do not act for the betterment of humanity – but only to justify their misplaced sense of self-righteousness. And that is evil. That is immoral.

My blog, THE TDG REPORT, link: http://thetdgreport.blogspot.com/

And here’s the kicker, we are pretty liberal pro-choice people, or so I thought. That is, we were until a freaking right-wing terrorist shot a man in a church. Now it seems we are reevaluating our beliefs about abortion. Why is it that we are responding to an act of domestic terrorism this way? Because the abortion conversation in this country is profoundly messed up.

Yes, it’s exactly like that. Which is why I think it should be rather obvious that I’m being facetious. And why I think Catholics don’t actually believe this is how the universe works. If they did, they actually would seek out martyrdom for themselves and others. But they don’t.

Now, some muslims actually do believe this sort of thing, and seek out martyrdom. Suicide bombers and the like. For Catholics, this seems like just a very symbolic political way of “supporting the innocent victims of abortion”. But the logic of it makes no sense.

Katherine, thanks for the clarification.

Here is the official report:

The idea of limbo, which the church has used for many centuries to designate the destiny of infants who die without baptism, has no clear foundation in revelation even though it has long been used in traditional theological teaching. Moreover, the notion that infants who die without baptism are deprived of the beatific vision, which has for so long been regarded as the common doctrine of the church, gives rise to numerous pastoral problems, so much so that many pastors of souls have asked for a deeper reflection on the ways of salvation….

…So, while knowing that the normal way to achieve salvation in Christ is by baptism in re, the church hopes that there may be other ways to achieve the same end. Because by his incarnation the Son of God “in a certain way united himself” with every human being and because Christ died for all and all are in fact “called to one and the same destiny, which is divine,” the church believes that “the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partners, in a way known to God, in the paschal mystery” (Gaudium et Spes, 22).9

etc. etc. (lots more)