Maybe the right to lifers and all the other hard core antis should just start an organization that guarantees an adoption placement for each and every child that may be born;
upon notification of a client you and your group would begin to feed cloth and maintain to the childs birth .
Then adopt said child out or take em into the organization.
But there will still be a problem with many other types of necessary abortions,I for one remember girl dissappearing from our school here in Juneau 60,s and they were from and for abortions,some bled to death and others were chastised from family and their church organizations.
Not to turn the other cheek to me!
Then there are the families who are very abusive (sexually)and do nothing about this behavior,bam girl gets pregnat and then what?
No where for her to go except?

It seems that one of best ways to prevent unwanted pregnancies and abortions is to promote women's rights, family planning and birth control, not just in the US, but around the world as the human population goes over 7 billion people

From what I have read, it appears that even 90% of Catholic women have or are using some kind of birth control. Even Bill Gates' wife Melinda, a devout Catholic, is making large contributions to family planning around the world.

^^^.

I apologize for not being able to understand your comment. I guess I am just a slow learner. It seems your point is that "life is cheap... We Americans do not need to make it cheaper."
Is that correct? How is that related to the bishop's article?

Could you please somehow connect your comments that "I got your back bishop like a suicide pawn on the board" and your post on life is cheap?

Many years ago, among a group of us discussing the "Great Books" of the Western World, was a brilliant man. He made a living by playing live music on the radio (when people actually made live radio broadcasts) under the name of "Axel Umptagordon and His Accordian." One of his favorite comments was "Please explain that in terms an old accordian player can understand." I had to learn to make simple explanations that others like me could understand.
And so, please explain your position in ways that we slow learners can understand - in simple, logical fashion, and perhaps we may agree or disagree once we understand. Thank you.

There seem to be some variances or contradictions in Catholic theology.
First, there is a question, supported by biologists, when does "human life begin?" That is when does an embryo become a human being? Does it occur the instant the human egg and sperm come in contact? That instant is potentially the start of a human life, but in old Aristotelian philosophy and logic, it is only a potential and may not be "actual." What that means simply is that the potential, the possibility of a future human life is there. Human life cannot begin without a start.But before a human child is brought into the world, there are nine months of pregnancy, when DNA and genetic factors all have to come together and just the right time, or the potential human being will end up as a "miscarriage" and die. In some cases, the subsequent fetus may develop severe genetic handicaps.
In Aristotelian philosophy, upon which much of Catholic theology is built, there is a time when the "matter" ( the biology, the body) can or cannot support the "form" (the soul or human spirit). At the end of life, when a human's body, the"matter" cannot support the "form" or what some call the "soul," the body is able to function, but no longer support itself and is kept "living" only through artificial means. There is a question then, at the beginning of life. When does the combination of the human sperm and egg become a "human being"? Is it immediate, or only some weeks or months later? What does this mean in practical, everyday life? It means when is the termination of a pregnancy, the "killing of a human person"? If it occurs during pregnancy due to genetic problems and there is a "miscarriage" does that make "God" an abortionist? Or does the "morning after pill" which does not terminate a new embryo, but simply does not allow it to anchor in the womb, make it an abortion?
As I recall, at the end of life, when a person or their body is simply kept on functioning through artificial means, medical personnel can "pull the plug" and let what remains of that human body or person to die. Is that still part of Catholic moral theology?

Secondly, recently there was a case in Ireland, which does not allow any type of termination of life. A woman had a "ectopic" pregnancy, which means the embryo began to grow outside the womb of the woman. In more than 90%+ of cases where the embryo anchors in the fallopian tubes outside the womb, both the embryo and the mother will die. This is apparently what happened in the case in Ireland - both the mother and embryo died.
As I recall Catholic medical ethics, when one has to make the choice of keeping one or another human alive, and one or both may possibly die, then a choice must be made to save one life or the other. That choice must be up to the woman carrying the child, if married her husband and family and the medical doctor - which life to preserve.

Thirdly, there is a question concerning the manner in which a woman becomes pregnant and carries a child in her womb. There is great difference between a married couple, or partners in life bringing into the world a new child, and a child conceived through rape, or incest or some violation of a woman's right.

Fourthly, many "pro-life" people focus on the termination of a fetus' life in the final months of pregnancy, when that fetus could possibly survive outside of the mother's womb. But all terminations of pregnancies are not in the final month, but may occur in the very early stages before what some consider a "human life" or a "human person" to be present, only the potential for a possible future human if all the genetic factors come together.

I personally am a believer in a "right to life" but that doesn't mean just keeping an embryo or fetus alive until it is born and brought into this world.
I think that a child should be "wanted" and not the product of rape, violence, some male deciding he wants an heir, or some illegal activity. A child has a right to nutrition, health care, education, security after it is born. If in its development there have been genetic problems and it is born with "handicaps" as a human it has the right to have all the care and help it can have from its family and society.

Finally, unwanted pregnancies, those brought about through ignorance, rape, violence or male domination of women, can be greatly reduced if around the world we promote family planning, birth control and other means to limit population.

That is my opinion and reasoning and I know that you and others may disagree. And so I hope you respond with a reasoned, factual explanation.

I thought your comment was rather simplistic. Of course that's just my opinion.
I have no idea what Norma McCorvey think or say after forty years. I guess I missed your point.
You may or may not be a male, because you simply use the identification "Rough Cut" I and others have no knowledge of your gender.
What I do know is that among our biological species, as with many other species, males impregnate females, and then females may carry the ensuing embryo to birth. Among males and females who have formed their lives together, this is a great way to bring new members into life.
But as a male, if I were to impregnate a woman, I could simply walk away and say "from now on, its all up to her." When in fact, her pregnancy was caused by me. That's sort of biologically unfair, but that's the way sexual reproduction works.
There is a huge question biologically, morally, philosophically and theologically about when the union of human male sperm and the female egg becomes a "human person." There is a further question and debate over the rights of women. If they are duped or ignorant and have some incestuous sexual encounter must they carry the fetus to birth? What if they are violently impregnated or raped? Have they no right to decide what happens after they have been violated?
Women should have all the rights that males have. They have a right to say what happens within their bodies, perhaps until a time when there is a viable "human being" sharing their lives, but even then they should have a voice in their shared lives.
To simply say "How about a statement from Norma McCorvey?" seems to me to be a rather simplistic male statement. But of course, as "Rough Cut" I have no idea if you are male, female or some alien from outer space, or an orangutang who has learned how to type on a computer, so I personally with just toss your comment into the trash.

"I claim the absolute right to be interested in the condition of the human fetus because...well, I used to be one myself." Hitchens penned a Vanity Fair article, titled Fetal Distraction, on the 30th anniversary of Roe v. Wade. I recommend it.

When reading this opinion about the 40th anniversary, I noticed two inescapable facts that were omitted. Can you guess why? They are:

1. About a thousand years ago, this guy named Aquinas taught the concept of fetal ensoulment and it remains a bedrock principle for The Firm. Ironically, Aquinas is called a Doctor.

2. The Firm claims that procuring an abortion can make the after-life unpleasant for the individual and anyone else complicit in the act.

I think these two points keeps The Firm hamstrung when trying to voice a meaningful public opinion in the 21st century, particularly in economically advanced countries. They know there is no evidence for these points, so they keep quiet. I don't know about anyone else, but when alarms are sounded about a "holocaust" and bedrock principles are not used as support for the claim, I don't smell frankincense, I smell shenanigans.

Lately, The Firm & other franchises, attempts to utilize science to support their claims. Apparently their mistake with Galileo taught them nothing. Starting with a conclusion (the moment of conception fallacy) and then piece-mealing only the evidence you like to support your claim is not science. It's bias.

The late Bishop Kenny told me once that it wasn't a coincidence that he was relegated to the smallest diocese in the nation. He specifically told me he viewed this as a pejorative action from Rome. Bishop Kenny's ecclesiastical career was over.

Why do I think Bishop Burns' career-ladder climb is only just beginning?

Mike

Centuries ago, in the 13th century, Europeans obtained from the Muslims, the writings of Aristotle... a biologist, philosopher, logician, and fantastic thinker who died about 300 years before Jesus.
Those writings became the philosophical basis for the thinking and writing of Thomas Aquinas, who apparently a great mind, with a fantastic memory of all he had read, and a great logician. The "Western World," apparently had little knowledge of the thoughts of a man in India called Siddhartha. He seems to have had thoughts and ideas that might be applicable and worthwhile considering today... like our wants and desires will always exceed our abilities and so we will be unhappy until we learn to limit our desires.

But times have changed. Knowledge has expanded exponentially, we now live in a world of knowledge and understanding that folks centuries ago never had.
I am not a "conservative." I think that in many cases the "wisdom of the elders," is simply an expression of the ignorance of our ancestors. To try and conserve and preserve the lack of information and knowledge and say that their insights and understandings are great "wisdom" seems to me to be rather ridiculous.
We still, in our languages, talk about "sunrise and sunset" but know that in our solar system, the earth is simply revolving and not "rising or setting." We talk about the "heavens" when now we we know from science that can be tested and verified, that the universe is billions of light years in size, with billions of galaxies. Our solar system is just a small part of the Milky Way galaxy, which is but one among billions of galaxies. Yet people talk about angels and saints, and a savior someday descending from the "heavens."

This is today, not five hundred or a thousand years in the past with people with a limited knowledge.
For thousands of years of human existence and change ( known as evolution) groups of hunters and fisher people, tribes, nations and even empires, wanted as many members as possible to join them. Today we know that the world population is reaching a turning point where we, as a biological species, rabid consumers of ancient and current resources, have to limit the reproduction of our species if we hope to survive.
Aristotle, Plato, Aquinas and many others were the great minds and thinkers of their times - but their times are past.
There are those want to perpetuate, continue, preserve and conserve the great "wisdom of the past." However the past is past and now is now, and we have to try and decide on the best path for the future.
Yes "firms" corporations, organized nations and religions all want to conserve and preserve the past. They benefit from these ideas.
But we are not living in the 13th nor 8th century, we are living in the 21st century and if we are not careful, may destroy ourselves as a biological species on the speck in the Milky Way we call "planet earth."

Reading the philosophical writings of the atheist posters and human being with his "special" form of Christianity is some great entertainment! You get all twisted up trying to explain the unexplainable. Try some real faith guys, it makes things so much easier.

And wally, how about we just err on the side of caution, when it pertains to life? Who appointed you judge and jury? You're but a mere mortal!

Why do the pro abortionists always want us to believe that most abortions are done in cases of rape and to protect the life of the mother? It's just not true - try convenience.

Maybe you all should relocate to New York - tyrant Cuomo is just getting geared up with some really fantastic abortion rights' legislation. Like all the way up until 9 months and it doesn't even need to be a doctor to perform the good "deed". Ick...

I am a man and I support womens rights! It's about respect, first and foremost.

to those opposed to this: what happened to upholding the constitution?

There is no consensus among religions as to when life begins. Mormons believe it's at conception. Others believe it's at birth. A fetus is completely dependent on the health of the mother and a mother's health is both physically and mentally determined.

The real tragedy here is a leader in the church comparing legal abortion to the ethnic cleansing of more than a million breathing Jewish men, women, and children.

Abortion has been around longer than Christianity and it will exist long after. Legal abortion provides the services necessary to protect the health of women instead of forcing them into alley way hack artists. This is progress. The bishop wants us to believe it's murder. Talk about a backwards way of thinking.

you will never convince a man like me that a concieved person is not just potential, but worth given the chance to grow up and learn to ride a bike, play Scrabble on a slow weekend afternoon, and at some point try to be cool in front of a girl to maybe get a kiss or peck before the bus shows up.

Calling this issue a matter of woman's choice is cheap and extremely selfish. I wont go so far as calling it evil, as Bishop Burns does (all due respect to the Bishop), but I believe it is not a mature position.

1. no offense, I'm taking these one at a time and in no particular order;
2. Somalia is a shithole; not the Somali people -- I have met great compassion there, but also the worst sort of violence against one's own people;
3. I dont preach