Pope makes saint of woman who died after refusing abortion

Great post Terry.
I disagree with that part although. It's slightly chauvinistic (although I am sure it was not meant that way). Parents are the only ones who are qualified to decide that. Parents - not women nor men. There is contraception and there is also enough knowledge today to know that sex is "risk". If it's not rape and there are no serious medical problems I don't think that woman alone should be allowed to make abortion if father wants baby (that is also HIS baby, as well as her) to be born and is willing to actually take care of that baby if woman persists that she won't.

Myownusername. It may also be his baby, but it's HER body. If he carried the baby I'm quite sure he would want the final say also.

I think that when pregnancy is not risky then child should be born if one parent wants it to be born. It is true that women have to carry that baby 9 months, but that's how Nature did it. I am not saying it's completely fair but that's how it is - and since pregnancy is not terminal illness and someone that doesn't want to have children can nowadays avoid it with extremely high percentage of success, well, then I think if one parents is for life and other for "death" then life should be chosen.

Well stated. And I can see your logic. But I insist that, while it may not be always an ethically admirable decision, the woman's decision not to carry a baby, should never be LEGALLY prohibited. She is not a farm.

She is not, you are right. But, to put it in slightly different perspective, I think that women today can choose not to get pregnant in first place.
So, legally, I would prohibit abortion ONLY and ONLY in case when father wants baby to be born and also signs some other kind of legal contract that he will take care of that baby and not run away once baby is born. Of course, once again, only in case when sex was willing, not in cases of rape or medical risks.

So you do believe that society (as the representive of the man in question) has a right to define the terms of a woman's freedom regarding what happens to her body. And under most circumstances a woman loses her freedom on the grounds that she chose to get pregnant or failed in her attempts to avoid pregnancy. Hmmm, sounds to me like you will only grant her the right to her body given certain conditions. I would make it absolute even when I thought her decision was unethical. IT's HER BODY, subject to her rules, not mine or society's.

I respect your view but I think there's a bit of gender chauvinism in it. Baby to be born is not JUST "her body", but a bit more then that. You can't have everything. If you want to have sex and not to care about contraception then you have accept possible "problems" as well. Today contraception gives you extremely high odds that you will not get pregnant, and with combination of contraceptives you might get to practically 100%. If some women (or men) don't want to bother with it - fine, but then they should live with possible pregnancy. And, once again, pregnancy is not terminal illness - most of my friends of female gender that got pregnant were fully active at least 7 months, so it's not like pregnant woman will be terribly affected with it.

You can choose to have baby with someone or not to have it with someone, but when you get pregnant this is simply not just your body, but inside your body is something that is your partner's too. And fact that at the beginning it's not really living person that feels and understands does not change a thing - because if we are going to look from that perspective then father of a child should also be allowed to force abortion if he simply does not want to have baby in this world (and he will, of course, be legally forced to take care of that baby after birth - at least to give money for that child).
So, if mother can choose not to give birth without father having anything to say, then opposite should be allowed too.

MOU, if the father wants the embryo, he should be able to pay for it to be extracted and transferred to the body of a women willing to gestate it, or into his own.

While the theoretical pregnancy rate may be low for certain birth control methods, the actual failure rates for some methods may be as high as 15%. Humans are fallible. Condoms break, pills can be forgotten or made ineffective by antibiotics, people under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or raging hormones may take chances.

Why would society demand that people who are irresponsible or simply unlucky become unwilling parents? That makes no sense.

You've got to be kidding. You would not make such an ignorant statement if you had personally experienced 3 months of morning sickness, backache, heartburn, stretch marks, being kicked in the stomach and bladder for two months, gestational diabetes, eclampsia, curtailment of many activities, lost time at work for prenatal checkups, labor, delivery and recovery, and a significant risk of having major abdominal surgery (16-25% of babies are delivered by C-section in the US) and several weeks off work to recover.

And yes, pregnancy CAN be a terminal illness. Fortunately medical science can save the lives of most women in the US. Women in third-world countries are not so lucky.

An embryo is not the "property" of the man who accidentally supplied the sperm, unless he has a legal agreement to that effect, such as a marriage license or other contract. IMO, an agreement stating the rights and responsibilities of both partners in case of an accidental pregnancy should be mandatory before anyone engaged in sexual intercourse. In the absence of such a document, it is the woman's decision whether or not she wishes to gestate the embryo. The father may not demand an abortion if it is against her principles, but should not be obligated to pay child support for a baby that he took reasonable precautions against fathering.

Terry, I mentioned quite clearly that I would not allow abortion if father wants baby to be born ONLY when there are no serious medical problems (or, of course, if it was rape) and I am talking about those scenarios. And humans are fallible but that can't be excuse for everything.

But, if you think that, as you said, father also should not be obligated to pay child support for a baby that he took reasonable precautions against fathering then we still disagree (and there is no need to further discussion cause I think we will never agree) but there is no problem because in that case your opinion is completely fair.

and, btw, my statement was not ignorant although it obviusly wasn't from direct personal experience. But it was from personal experience of close female family members or friends. Of course, it's possible that it's just pure coincidence that I know only girls and women with no problems during pregnancy.

MOUn, my comments do not express gender bias; I am a male. Don't get me wrong. I acknowledge that sometimes the woman's behavior can be very irresponsible and that sometimes an abortion may be seen as an evil, necessary or otherwise. BUT it's HER body. The body of the fetus is immaterial in comparison to the right the woman has over her own body. She may abort the fetus for reasons I abhor. But it's more abhorrent to FORCE her to carry a baby to term against her will. I don't think that if my life were terminated before my birth I would mind. Do you? BTW, I do not think your views are ignorant, just biased. But, then, so are mine--and everyolne elses'.

He has also canonised some woman who spent the last 13 years of her life lying in bed and apparently eating nothing but communion wafers and wine. That's technically 'hysterical paralysis' and if the Catholic Church could manage to take on some of the innovations of the last two centuries she may have been cured of this condition in a lot less than 13 years. Stupid superstitious bu!!****.

Indeed, Stillwater. From my perspective she was a lazy wino.

JL, would you mind if I quote you for my new signature? ("She is not a farm.")

Osso, it would be my honor.

OK!

She's a wild flowery pasture, to be appreciated, not exploited.

JLN, as I said to Terry, I believe we will not agree in that one, and I also think that we said pretty much everything. Main thing is that Terry's last sentence is very important in all issue - we may disagree but there is no discrimination on either side. If you agree that, as well as noone can force woman to give birth if she refuses, father can also refuse to take care of baby once born if he doesn't want to be parent then everything is fine. But, otherwise female gender would be in much better position and males discriminated. Of course, I think that only in cases where there was no planning, and when baby was not "accepted" at first place. I don't think someone can just leave wife and kids and have no obligations ever again.

And since I believe in total democracy (e.g. citizens voting for every major issue, and this one certainly is) I can't say that I would agree with politicians getting a law like one in my opinion. It's just my opinion.

JLN, I had to look up manichean dualism, but it seems that we are in agreement regarding the Church's tendency to define the world in terms of oversimplistic and opposed absolutes.

Stillwater, you mean that you can become a saint just by lying around and drinking wine? When does he intend to canonize all the rest of the bums … er, I mean good Catholics who have done that?