I'll tell the Col. you said that.

Somehow I suspect he knows already.

Thought about it some more and edited my original post.

You are missing the point JJ. As Apple correctly points out being opposed to abortion is one thing, killing an abortion provider is quite another, the difference being abortion is legal whether you like it or not. Killing handicapped, invalids and elderly is againt the law and IMHO morally wrong.

You must distinguih between what is legal and what you consider to be immoral.

"Euthanize? That's a bad word to use: Euthanize! Get this guy. Watch out we don't euthanize you."

Ditto what Don T said. As a Catholic, I'm against abortion on a moral basis. But as a matter of law, it's a no brainer. The court's have no right to decide what a woman does with her body.

I thank God that as a young man, I was never in a postion where I had take part in a decision like that. Quite frankly, I don't know what I would have suggested. But that's just the thing. As the man, I could only suggest. The ultimate decision is up to the woman. It's her body.

As Don T suggests, morality and legality are two quite different terms; the very basis for the separation between Church and State (which Jesus was fervently in favor of: give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's).

I predicated my response to Salad not based upon legality, but simply upon her rationale, which, if you'll remember, was that a fetus could be destroyed because it relied on another person for survival.

Therefore, based upon that logic, we could (should?) also kill the handicapped and the elderly.

DT makes a good point about the difference between that which is a transgression of the law and that which is considered immoral. DJ makes a good point about killing the handicapped. To that I would add that a newborn baby is quite dependent upon its mother for survivial. Should it be disposed of because it is inconvenient for the mothert to care for it?

By the way PB, do you know what Jesus really meant by those words? The Jews of Jesus time believed that everything in Israel belonged to God. Thus, he was telling Jews to give nothing to Caesar.

But I am still surprised at you PB. "...what a women does with her body." There's another body involved, isn't there? In fact, it's more than that; it's another life which is entitled to the protection of our governments and society's members. As a Catholic, you know that the child in the womb has a soul which is God's breath which gives life, right?

Yes on both counts, Olivant.

Abortion is something which gives me great pause to speak about and a lot to think about. As I said, I'm grateful that I was never in a positon where I had to help make that decision. I realize that's a cop-out, because what if I had?

I just try not to get political about it. It's a subject that I prefer to (and do) speak about with my Priest.

But again, in all honesty, the answer is yes to both of your questions.

wo points here:

1. The notion that a fetus is a human being from the minute it is conceived is contrary to early church teachings. No less than Thomas Aquinas believed that there was no soul until the fetus "quickened," i.e. couild be felt moving around by the mother.

2. When JJ talks of "the handicapped" he does so with a brod brush. I blew out an ACL about 14 years ago in a ski accident and I cannot run, ski or put much stress on it without having great pain, and often for no particular reason it hurts badly enough that I limp. I also have to be careful going down stairs. This is a mild "handicap" but nothing compared to Stephen Hawking. Accordingly I believe JJ's inclusion of "handicapped". in his analysis is imprecise at best .

POPPIE: Yes, but we cannot give the people the right to choose any topping they want! Now on this issue there can be no debate!

KRAMER: What gives you the right to tell me how I would make my pie?

POPPIE: Because it's a pizza!

KRAMER: It's not a pizza until it comes out of the oven!

POPPIE: It's a pizza the moment you put your fists in the dough!

KRAMER: No, it isn't!

POPPIE: Yes, it is!

Aquinas was referring to "ensoulment" which takes us into the fifth month or so. However, in the 21st century, the Church's position is unequivecal:

The Catholic church regards the fifth of the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not kill") as governing in most instances where the life of an embryo or fetus is artificially and directly terminated. (This is the sixth commandment according to the numbering system used by most Protestants and Eastern Orthodox churches.) They teach that a human person comes into existence at conception, perhaps two weeks before pregnancy begins. (Physicians regard pregnancy as beginning after conception, when the fertilized ovum implants itself in the wall of the uterus.)

Again, I'm defining handicapped as someone who is wholly dependent upon others for survival, as per SB's abovementioned post. Obviously, DT, you're self-sufficient in spite of your injury. I think we're talking about more serious cases, such as the mentally retarded, the brain damaged (i.e. Terri Schiavo), the elderly, etc.

It is fortuitous that you should mention Steven Hawking, because he is exactly why these sort of issues of defining "life" are extremely delicate. By and large, he is not self-sufficient, yet we know that he is one of the most highly significant, and scientifically productive, figures in the late 20th century.