your rapist is forgiven, your mother goes to hell!

[Rebel]

The counting of children within Numbers has no bearing on the value of life.

Only children above 1 month of age were counted as being people within the household.

The price amounts in Leviticus are not the fines or values of life if someone is killed. It was a tithe paid for whatever was being devoted to God.

And in this quote no value was placed on a child under 1 month of age. Value is place on every other person. A child 1 month to 5 years is valued at 5 shekels of silver for a boy and 3 shekels of silver for a girl. Why was the younger infant left out of this valuation system?

The comments in Hosea are punishments that God gives out for those that worship false idols.

God has no pity for people and no love for the unborn. If people do not worship at his feet then they are sentenced to horrible deaths irregardless of age.

Again, the comments in 2 Samuel 12:14 are a punishment for the slaying of a man to take his wife as the killer's own.

Not all babies are worthy of living because their father is evil. Kill the baby to punish the father.

Have you ever actually read the Bible or are you one of these Atheists that likes to spout of random crap to make it sound like you know what you're talking about?

I'm an Atheist who read the bible and found it hilarious and horrible. I cannot fathom how someone cannot read the bible and decide that everything it says is moral or real.
You can choose to be against abortion, but to use the bible to back up your argument is silly. It was a collection of myths and stories written thousands of years ago by people who believed that thunderstorms and drought were caused by an angry vengeful god. It has also been translated hundreds of times over from other languages and by groups that are using it for their own agendas. Such as your 'Thou shall not kill' quote which has already been contested by many others as being an incorrect reading.

I have no problem with people reading the bible and believing in god. Some good teachings come from the bible, such as the whole building your house on sand and the Samson strength story. You can believe in god, but when you use you beliefs to punish or terrorize people, then you become a bad person.

Rebel: Sorry, but as somebody who does read the Bible, I'm going to have to say that, while I ultimately agree with you on this one issue, your Biblical citations are completely off the mark, as Crash already pointed out. Don't quote Bible verses seemingly at random and then accuse others of not reading the Bible.

Why do you agree with this abortion if you believe the bible says that it is wrong?
(*I am not trying to state exactly what you believe, just what my impression of your statement was*)
That and I love the belief that Atheists don't read the bible.

[Jaden]

Why do you agree with this abortion if you believe the bible says that it is wrong?
(*I am not trying to state exactly what you believe, just what my impression of your statement was*)
That and I love the belief that Atheists don't read the bible.

I'm not going to bother with the rest of your comments except for this, since you're clearly already set in your beliefs about Christianity and the Bible and nothing I say is going to change your mind.

I never said that you or any atheists don't read the Bible, just that your citations were off the mark. If you're going to criticize people for not reading the Bible anymore, then don't use bad citations.

Sorry if I didn't make it clear, but I believe I've already elaborated on why I think this abortion was ok - I think that abortion is wrong except in cases where the mother or child's life is in danger. The mother's life was in danger - somebody was going to die. They had to protect her life.

[crashhelmet]

Only children above 1 month of age were counted as being people within the household.

And in this quote no value was placed on a child under 1 month of age. Value is place on every other person. A child 1 month to 5 years is valued at 5 shekels of silver for a boy and 3 shekels of silver for a girl. Why was the younger infant left out of this valuation system?

What does this have to do with the value and recognition of life itself? And AGAIN, the monetary value is not what's due if someone kills them nor what they can be sold for. It was a tithe paid for devoting that person to God. It was a custom at the time. If you bothered to read the rest of that chapter, you'd see that there are amounts to be paid for devoting your house or your animals to God as well.

God has no pity for people and no love for the unborn. If people do not worship at his feet then they are sentenced to horrible deaths irregardless of age.

Not all babies are worthy of living because their father is evil. Kill the baby to punish the father.

As it has been well established in multiple threads on this board, God was vengeful in the Old Testament. He gave us everything and He punished those of us that spit in His face. He sent plagues, floods, destroyed cities, and ordered men to kill their kids.

But the New Testament and Jesus Christ changed all of that. So quit trying to argue Old Testament events as being hypocritical of Christian teachings.

I'm an Atheist who read the bible and found it hilarious and horrible. I cannot fathom how someone cannot read the bible and decide that everything it says is moral or real.
You can choose to be against abortion, but to use the bible to back up your argument is silly. It was a collection of myths and stories written thousands of years ago by people who believed that thunderstorms and drought were caused by an angry vengeful god. It has also been translated hundreds of times over from other languages and by groups that are using it for their own agendas. Such as your 'Thou shall not kill' quote which has already been contested by many others as being an incorrect reading.

She said that there was nothing against killing in the Bible. My argument was that there was. If you want to hold me to the improper translation, then I will concede to it and take it in the aspect of what it was corrected to. Thou Shall not Murder. The Church believes that abortion is murdering the fetus. Am I still wrong?

I have no problem with people reading the bible and believing in god. Some good teachings come from the bible, such as the whole building your house on sand and the Samson strength story. You can believe in god, but when you use you beliefs to punish or terrorize people, then you become a bad person.

Blame the person not, the teachings. Unless, of course, you're saying that you think discrimination is perfectly acceptable across all fronts.

Why do you agree with this abortion if you believe the bible says that it is wrong?
(*I am not trying to state exactly what you believe, just what my impression of your statement was*)

If I had to judge which life was more valuable, I would choose the mother in almost every situation. In this particular case, the end result might've been the loss of all three lives.

That and I love the belief that Atheists don't read the bible.

So do I. It allows me to turn the tables on them when they attack the intelligence of theists with a lack of their own.

[Rebel]

What does this have to do with the value and recognition of life itself? And AGAIN, the monetary value is not what's due if someone kills them nor what they can be sold for. It was a tithe paid for devoting that person to God. It was a custom at the time. If you bothered to read the rest of that chapter, you'd see that there are amounts to be paid for devoting your house or your animals to God as well.

Still doesn't prove that infants under 1 month are recognized as being of any worth.

She said that there was nothing against killing in the Bible. My argument was that there was. If you want to hold me to the improper translation, then I will concede to it and take it in the aspect of what it was corrected to. Thou Shall not Murder. The Church believes that abortion is murdering the fetus. Am I still wrong?

The church believing that life began at conception is a relatively recent thing that was influenced by the incorrect scientific teachings of the 17th century.
Before then, the fetus was not believed to even be human until at least the end of the first trimester (slightly longer for female fetuses).

Blame the person not, the teachings. Unless, of course, you're saying that you think discrimination is perfectly acceptable across all fronts.

The bible is just a bunch of stories written over thousands of years ago. It only has power today because people use it to gain power. Words can be easily manipulated by people who are using it for their own agenda. Christians use Leviticus to battle against gay marriage, then they get angry at you when you use another quote from the old testament to fire back at them. After all, Christians don't follow the old testament.
In this case, I blame the church leaders and the people who blindly follow their word and never think to question or investigate.
I'm discriminating because I condemn the church and their followers for their misinformed and hateful stance on abortion? Good to know. Let me know when I'll be headed for that 'hell' that people keep telling me about.

If I had to judge which life was more valuable, I would choose the mother in almost every situation. In this particular case, the end result might've been the loss of all three lives.

If that were true, then there would be no argument about abortion. It would be freely available to all woman irregardless of circumstance.
The fact remains that the catholic church views a bunch of cells as more valuable than a fully grown and fully aware woman. People who argue against abortion are generally doing it because they do not like or trust women. A woman who doesn't want a baby is an aberration and must be saved by the 'love' of Jesus, or something. Fact is, abortion (and contraception) are what are allowing women to finally be able to look for more in life and finally become equal in society. The church doesn't like this.

So do I. It allows me to turn the tables on them when they attack the intelligence of theists with a lack of their own.

Yep, because your interpretation of the bible is the only one that matters and that is true. All the Catholic and Christian churches and sects agree with just the one interpretation.

Either way, the bible holds as much weight in a debate about abortion as a collection of Aesop's tales does.

I personally support abortion for any woman (or uterus bearer), for any reason, at any time. It is a necessary medical procedure.
Once we start restricting it, that's when the crazies can argue for an all out ban.

[Jaden]

If that were true, then there would be no argument about abortion. It would be freely available to all woman irregardless of circumstance.
The fact remains that the catholic church views a bunch of cells as more valuable than a fully grown and fully aware woman. People who argue against abortion are generally doing it because they do not like or trust women. A woman who doesn't want a baby is an aberration and must be saved by the 'love' of Jesus, or something. Fact is, abortion (and contraception) are what are allowing women to finally be able to look for more in life and finally become equal in society. The church doesn't like this.

I fail to see how Crash's statement means that it should be freely available to all women regardless of circumstances. It means that, while he sees the fetus' life as valuable, he also sees the woman's life as valuable, and if she would die for giving birth, then the abortion was ok.

I think your statements following that one are a gross generalization. There may be some people like that, but I certainly don't have anything against women. It has nothing to do with their place in society, nor does it have anything to do with a woman not wanting a baby being an aberration. It has to do with the fact that I view a fetus as a life, and I think the fetus' right to live trumps the woman's right to convenience. Now, as I've said multiple times, it doesn't trump a woman's right to life. I certainly don't see the fetus as any more valuable than the woman, but I do see it as a life, with all the intrinsic value contained therein.

[crashhelmet]

Still doesn't prove that infants under 1 month are recognized as being of any worth.

There you go with monetary worth again... Is that the only value life has for you? What you think it can be sold for or what the dowry should be or what that person could possibly pay out?

The church believing that life began at conception is a relatively recent thing that was influenced by the incorrect scientific teachings of the 17th century.
Before then, the fetus was not believed to even be human until at least the end of the first trimester (slightly longer for female fetuses).

According to the article, the girl was 4 months pregnant. That puts her in the 2nd trimester. Does that constitute "life" for you? If not, what does? The Church viewed it as life and they kicked them out of the Church for doing it.

The bible is just a bunch of stories written over thousands of years ago. It only has power today because people use it to gain power. Words can be easily manipulated by people who are using it for their own agenda. Christians use Leviticus to battle against gay marriage, then they get angry at you when you use another quote from the old testament to fire back at them. After all, Christians don't follow the old testament.
In this case, I blame the church leaders and the people who blindly follow their word and never think to question or investigate.
I'm discriminating because I condemn the church and their followers for their misinformed and hateful stance on abortion? Good to know. Let me know when I'll be headed for that 'hell' that people keep telling me about.

You condemn all Christians for the acts of those that try and hide their own ignorance and hatred behind their Bibles. It would be like me condemning all Atheists for the crimes of Stalin as he worked to build a nation free of religion and the Russian Orthodox Church or the Atheists that vandalize and burn down churches across this country. There's crime and hatred on both sides of the fence.

If that were true, then there would be no argument about abortion. It would be freely available to all woman irregardless of circumstance.
The fact remains that the catholic church views a bunch of cells as more valuable than a fully grown and fully aware woman. People who argue against abortion are generally doing it because they do not like or trust women. A woman who doesn't want a baby is an aberration and must be saved by the 'love' of Jesus, or something. Fact is, abortion (and contraception) are what are allowing women to finally be able to look for more in life and finally become equal in society. The church doesn't like this.

First off, women that don't want babies are not considered an "aberration," as you put it. All women are "aberrations" and can only be saved by giving birth. Again, double check your Bible verses (1Timothy 2 9:15).

As I said already, which by now I'm wondering if you even read and comprehend what I write, I supported the abortion in this case. I support it in the cases where the pregnancy will cause serious/grave harm to the mother. I support it in cases where the pregnancy is due to rape (Yet another qualifier for this case). I do NOT support it as a normal method of contraception though.
It should not be a an escape clause for irresponsible people.

Yep, because your interpretation of the bible is the only one that matters and that is true. All the Catholic and Christian churches and sects agree with just the one interpretation.

Either way, the bible holds as much weight in a debate about abortion as a collection of Aesop's tales does.

I personally support abortion for any woman (or uterus bearer), for any reason, at any time. It is a necessary medical procedure.
Once we start restricting it, that's when the crazies can argue for an all out ban.

Again, this is where the fault is on Man and not the religion itself. It is the greed and desires of Man that says "i'm going to quote this part, ignore this part, and use these parts to get whatever benefits me."

Christianity, as an organized religion, is changing. It is slowly but surely getting out of its corruption and embracing what Jesus taught. Churches are bringing in female and gay pastors/preachers/priests/insertwhatevertitlethatdenominationcallstheirleade rshere, allowing gay marriages, and the Pope himself has sanctioned the use of condoms.

[Rebel]

I don't believe in the bible and that I don't find it relevant to todays society.
I only quote it when people seem to think it applies to the subject and that everyone should agree with what it says.
I value life because this is the only one I'm ever going to get. It is priceless. I will fight for a persons right to live life, but I will never agree that a zygote or fetus is more important than a fully grown woman. I will oppose the church and it's followers when I see them doing wrong, such as in this case. I won't apologise if it upsets you or makes you feel like I'm attacking your religion. I want you to stop attacking mine and other peoples rights to our uteruses and our medical choices first.

As I said already, which by now I'm wondering if you even read and comprehend what I write, I supported the abortion in this case. I support it in the cases where the pregnancy will cause serious/grave harm to the mother. I support it in cases where the pregnancy is due to rape (Yet another qualifier for this case). I do NOT support it as a normal method of contraception though.
It should not be a an escape clause for irresponsible people.

Oh, I read and comprehended what you wrote.
I just think you're biased and incredibly wrong.

Please cite 1 person who is completely educated about contraception, has unlimited access to it, where their contraception is 100% effective at all times, but yet still opts to us abortion as a normal method of contraception. Just 1 person.

Abortion is a last choice. No-one ever wants to get an abortion.

People who get abortions are incredibly varied. The most common reasons they are forced to opt for an abortion is because of unfortunate circumstances.
Either their society refuses to let them become educated about their reproductive systems and choices, refuses to allow them access to contraception (or makes it too expensive), or they are simply the unfortunate percentage where their contraception failed.

61% of women who get abortions already have 1 or more child to care for. They value the care of their living children over that of a clump of cells. They made the responsible choice for themselves and their families.
54% of women who had an abortion were using 1 or more forms of contraception at the time. It failed. Because contraceptives have a failure rate.
42% of women who get abortions live below the poverty line and 27% of women come from low income households. They can't afford contraceptives.

They seem pretty responsible about their choice for abortion in their life.
Or is it just because you don't think they should be allowed to have sex?

Here is a nice straight forward video about abortion in the USA.
Here is a nice easy to read (and accurate) fact sheet about abortion in the USA.

Abortion at the 4 month mark in pregnancy is unusual. Most abortions take place before the 6-7 week mark. This is what they look like. Horrifying I know. I can totally see how you would value that more than the unfortunate woman carrying it.

There should never be qualifiers put on abortion, especially those put forward by individuals who will never have to face the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy.

Again, this is where the fault is on Man and not the religion itself. It is the greed and desires of Man that says "i'm going to quote this part, ignore this part, and use these parts to get whatever benefits me."

Christianity, as an organized religion, is changing. It is slowly but surely getting out of its corruption and embracing what Jesus taught. Churches are bringing in female and gay pastors/preachers/priests/insertwhatevertitlethatdenominationcallstheirleade rshere, allowing gay marriages, and the Pope himself has sanctioned the use of condoms.

And I agree with you here.
The onus is on the people who choose to use the bible for evil.
Such as in this case where the people who saved a young life are excommunicated but the man who likes to rape young children on a frequent basis is allowed to stay.
I would like to think that the church officials are going to be punished for what they've done, but it isn't going to happen.

Christianity is constantly changing, I just hope it is finally able to change to the point where it finally realizes that abortion is a very necessary medical procedure.
Abortion should only ever be decided between herself and a qualified and unbiased medical professional, not a church.
But I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one.

[Sarah Valentine]

All I have to say is that this is a REALLY fucked up decision by the church. That little girl wwas raped, her health and his arrest should be their real concerns. I don't really aprove of abortion, but she was raped it should be allowed.

[crashhelmet]

Please cite 1 person who is completely educated about contraception, has unlimited access to it, where their contraception is 100% effective at all times, but yet still opts to us abortion as a normal method of contraception. Just 1 person.

Abortion is a last choice. No-one ever wants to get an abortion.

Couldn't be further from the truth. Unless you're trying to say that no one gets pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion. But as requested, I'll cite a person. In fact, I'll cite 3.

The first person is my oldest sister. While married to her first husband, the first time, she got pregnant with what would've been their second child. She elected to have an abortion because having another child would've meant they would've had to move back to her husband's family's "compound." She admitted full well that she could've been on the pill or used a condom, but chose not to. She got pregnant again not too long afterwards, but that time chose to keep the pregnancy.

The second is one of my closest friends. She is the type of person that will sleep with a guy as long as it continues to get her what she wants. She won't cheat, but she also won't put the "required effort" into a relationship. She doesn't like kids, doesn't want kids, and doesn't like what pregnancy does to the body. She was with the same guy for 7 years. She had 2 abortions before
having her first kid, had another before her 2nd kid, and has had 3 in the 4 years since that I'm aware of. The two she carried to full term were because her "boyfriend" found out before she could abort them. Again, she had full access to contraception as well as a kick ass health insurance plan that provided cheap access to things like the pill and the implant. She chose not to go with them.

The third is a girl I went to high school with. To simply put it, she enjoys sex far too much. She says enjoys feeling a guy cum inside her and doesn't want to go through the daily responsibility or hassles of other forms of birth control. Her opinion is "If I get pregnant, I'll just have an abortion."

People do choose to have them in lieu of other forms of birth control.

Abortion at the 4 month mark in pregnancy is unusual. Most abortions take place before the 6-7 week mark. This is what they look like. Horrifying I know. I can totally see how you would value that more than the unfortunate woman carrying it.

Apparently you're not reading and comprehending what I wrote. Did I not say that I would choose the life of the mother over the life of the unborn child? I do believe my exact words were

If I had to judge which life was more valuable, I would choose the mother in almost every situation. In this particular case, the end result might've been the loss of all three lives.

There should never be qualifiers put on abortion, especially those put forward by individuals who will never have to face the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy.

So you're saying a woman should be able to abort a perfectly healthy pregnancy at the 37th week if she so chooses? You never did answer what you consider to be a measurement or definition of life.

And I agree with you here.
The onus is on the people who choose to use the bible for evil.
Such as in this case where the people who saved a young life are excommunicated but the man who likes to rape young children on a frequent basis is allowed to stay.
I would like to think that the church officials are going to be punished for what they've done, but it isn't going to happen.

The only possible way I can think of as to why the rapist was not excommunicated would be mentality. I'm sure we would all like to think this guy has some sort of mental illness to be able to do what he has done. If that is the case, then that is why he wasn't excommunicated. The Church cannot excommunicate children or those incapable of comprehending their sins. If he's of sound mind, then he deserves to be excommunicated.

Christianity is constantly changing, I just hope it is finally able to change to the point where it finally realizes that abortion is a very necessary medical procedure.
Abortion should only ever be decided between herself and a qualified and unbiased medical professional, not a church.
But I'm not gonna hold my breath on that one.

I'm having trouble with your use of the word necessary. As I've pointed out, there are times where I'd support one being performed. However, people need to be more responsible and proactive when it comes to sex. If you can't be, then you shouldn't be having it.

[Nekojin]

If he's of sound mind, then he deserves to be excommunicated.

With all due respect, this is one area where I think the Church is grossly overstepping their bounds. The Bible explicitly says that no man may know God's mind (1 Corinthians 2), and that judgement of man's sin is God's alone (Psalms 75:7, Matthew 7), but here you have church-folk stating, "On our word, God's mercy will be withheld from you." And it's not just one priest, pastor, cardinal, or so on - it's an entire doctrine. Excommunication reeks of hubris, to me.

[crashhelmet]

With all due respect, this is one area where I think the Church is grossly overstepping their bounds. The Bible explicitly says that no man may know God's mind (1 Corinthians 2), and that judgement of man's sin is God's alone (Psalms 75:7, Matthew 7), but here you have church-folk stating, "On our word, God's mercy will be withheld from you." And it's not just one priest, pastor, cardinal, or so on - it's an entire doctrine. Excommunication reeks of hubris, to me.

In the past, Excommunication was used for all sorts of reasons. Again, the corruption of Man led to many of them. Greed, power, and hubris were among those reasons.

Excommunication isn't cutting the person off from God. Once you're baptised, you can't be unbaptised. Excommunication cuts them off from the Church and the community within it. It's refusing to allow them to partake in the Sacrament and traditions within the Church and community. It's an exile, if you will, and it can be undone. People can be absolved and accepted back into the fold. Not to mention that the local Bishop has the right to excuse the actions and undo the excommunication.

While we're discussing excommunication here, I need clarify a point here that I forgot to earlier. The title of this thread is wrong.

The girl that was raped was not excommunicated. It was her mother, the would be grandmother of the twins, that was excommunicated for setting up the abortion. Also, excommunication is not a condemnation to Hell. it is, as I said, an exile from the Church and the community.

[Nekojin]

In the past, Excommunication was used for all sorts of reasons. Again, the corruption of Man led to many of them. Greed, power, and hubris were among those reasons.

Excommunication isn't cutting the person off from God. Once you're baptised, you can't be unbaptised. Excommunication cuts them off from the Church and the community within it. It's refusing to allow them to partake in the Sacrament and traditions within the Church and community. It's an exile, if you will, and it can be undone. People can be absolved and accepted back into the fold. Not to mention that the local Bishop has the right to excuse the actions and undo the excommunication.

That's not strictly true. According to Catholic doctrine, if you're excommunicated, you're still required to attend Mass and other Church services. The only things that are explicitly forbidden from you are being in a position of spiritual leadership, and communion.

That said, Catholic doctrine also says that the only way your sins are forgiven are through repentance and communion, so excommunication is literally a sentence to Hell, unless the excommuncation is lifted.

The girl that was raped was not excommunicated. It was her mother, the would be grandmother of the twins, that was excommunicated for setting up the abortion. Also, excommunication is not a condemnation to Hell. it is, as I said, an exile from the Church and the community.

See above.

[Rebel]

Couldn't be further from the truth. Unless you're trying to say that no one gets pregnant for the sole purpose of having an abortion. But as requested, I'll cite a person. In fact, I'll cite 3.
<snip>
People do choose to have them in lieu of other forms of birth control.

Thank god you are able to read minds and know everything about these women. Otherwise you would just be talking from a place of ignorance.

Education is where they were failed here. Education about their own bodies and that of their partners. Also possibly the church, as I'm assuming they may be religious like you.
It's possible that the birth control was affecting their bodies in ways that you would be completely unaware of. I once took a pill that made me so depressed I used to smile at the thought of cutting my wrists just to watch them bleed. Other women can have mood swings, some that can make them unreasonably angry and violent. Or you can gain weight, something that girls are told makes them disgusting and lazy by society. Others are denied being able to use birth control by their parents, their church, or their community because only whores and harlots use it. And they are good girls who would never find themselves accidentally pregnant. God will protect them.

Your sister made a decision that was right for herself and her health at the time. How dare you judge her.
Your friend sounds like she comes from a religious background. BC is often looked down upon for women because that makes them whores.
The other girl is no different. Education failed her. And her excuse of it being a hassle is valid. I switched to an implant because taking a pill at the exact time every day was a hassle and I often forgot. And again, I love how you're able to read her mind and know all her motives. That must come in handy.

And I love how you're only focusing on the women in those examples. Not like men hold any responsibility at all. Nope.

Apparently you're not reading and comprehending what I wrote. Did I not say that I would choose the life of the mother over the life of the unborn child? I do believe my exact words were

Why does your choice matter?
The woman's choice is the only one that is important.

So you're saying a woman should be able to abort a perfectly healthy pregnancy at the 37th week if she so chooses? You never did answer what you consider to be a measurement or definition of life.

Wow. That is an amazing straw-man argument. A truly divine one.
I'm so glad you're so educated on abortion that you can prove that this hypothetical has happened. Ever.

Late term abortions, like the one you've put forward, are only ever done in the event of danger to the mothers life or if the fetus is unviable.
Women who have them done this late are doing it out of love or out of necessity.
Thank god you're there to judge them from your place of ignorance.
Well done sir.

The fact remains that you don't value women very highly.

The only possible way I can think of as to why the rapist was not excommunicated would be mentality. I'm sure we would all like to think this guy has some sort of mental illness to be able to do what he has done. If that is the case, then that is why he wasn't excommunicated. The Church cannot excommunicate children or those incapable of comprehending their sins. If he's of sound mind, then he deserves to be excommunicated.

Guess what? Don't care.
He raped a 9 year old girl and sexually assaulted a disabled 14 year old girl that was in his care.
If you want to try defend him, then you're no better than him.
The church are coddling a pedophile and attacking a young abused girls saviours.
Though I'm not really surprised by this action from them at this point.

I'm having trouble with your use of the word necessary. As I've pointed out, there are times where I'd support one being performed. However, people need to be more responsible and proactive when it comes to sex. If you can't be, then you shouldn't be having it.

Necessary. It's a very easy word. You should learn it.

Abortion is a necessary medical procedure performed only on people with uteruses.
People who have uteruses are the only people who matter in regards to this procedure.
It has been performed for as long as women have been sentient and have found themselves with an unwanted pregnancy.
Abortion allows women to stay healthy, get out of abusive situations, continue their education and allow them to be the best mothers they can to their children.

You don't need to like or support abortions. Simply put, because your opinion doesn't matter.

[crashhelmet]

That's not strictly true. According to Catholic doctrine, if you're excommunicated, you're still required to attend Mass and other Church services. The only things that are explicitly forbidden from you are being in a position of spiritual leadership, and communion.

You're right. I was thinking that it was something you had to wait until you started down the path to absolution to be able to attend again. The snippet in the article about the doctor saying he planned to continue attending the church services stuck me in that mindset.

That said, Catholic doctrine also says that the only way your sins are forgiven are through repentance and communion, so excommunication is literally a sentence to Hell, unless the excommuncation is lifted.

It also says that if you make no attempts to make absolution within a year of excommunication, you're considered a heretic.

But as I said before, excommunication doesn't mean you're no longer a Christian. Whether or not receiving communion is a factor in going to Heaven or Hell is yet another issue of interpreting the Bible.

[Nekojin]

But as I said before, excommunication doesn't mean you're no longer a Christian. Whether or not receiving communion is a factor in going to Heaven or Hell is yet another issue of interpreting the Bible.

Very true.