He's missed a trick - Cherie isn't in power any more..

What do these religious jokers think they are up to anyway? Dressed up like middle-aged clowns, trying to tell us how we should live.

They are no better than a trades union when it comes to political influence.

Poverty and malnutrition tends to occur in over populated countries where abortion and contraception aren't an option.

Like socialism catholicism and most other religions thrives where poverty and ignorance prevail. Ergo - it's in the interest of the catholic church to ensure poverty grows and having lots of unwanted kids around is just the ticket.

It is every womans right to decide what happens to her body and what is in it. Religious Factions have no right whatsoever to meddle in this sort of thing. Its ridiculous that they even have a voice. The catholic church is one of the richest organisations on the planet, yet they still watch the peoples in the third worls starve to death in absolute poverty, it makes a mocary of them and thier so called caring religion. In the Vatican they eat off gold plates, they are hypocritical to the extreme and deserve no voice on any issue in this or any other country.

I would love to put O'Brien in a rocket and blast him into outer space!

Dear Cardinal
Any female brought up in the catholic faith and who believes in the teachings of that faith will not have an abortion.
Those females brought up in the catholic faith who have had or agree with abortion have shown that the doctrine of that faith has not brainwashed them.
Those of us who do not subscribe to your faith or any other for that matter kindly request that you do not try to get laws passed to enforce us to adhere to your religious believes.

"Cardinal throws down gauntlet to PM"

PM says, "Yev dropped yer glove , hen"

Mr. O'Brien looks healthy enough and not without some intelligence. My advice would be to stop sitting around in his bathrobe all day; get out, and perhaps take some courses leading to a real job. I suspect his antipathy towards women would dissipate in time and he could begin to enjoy the only life he is ever going to get.

Talk about double standards, the catholic church should have a close look at its policy of refusing to support the use of condoms in developing countries where AIDS is highly prevalent. The failure to support safe sex results in huge numbers of deaths, more like a Dunblane Massacre every minute.

Since when did the right not to be killed become only an issue of religion?
Let me think. Was it just a few decades ago when western society surrendered wholesale to lies and instead chose to argue on grounds similiar to; that "since they can't be seen, and since they will cramp our two cars in the driveway lifestyle and since we believe the lie that they are just a blob of tissue and my body anyway then I should have the right to choose". That is the right to choose to kill my unborn child.
No not a religious issue, a human rights issue first and foremost. And I see Amnesty has come to the party too. They want a piece of the unborn too.
Cardinal O'Brien, I want to thank you, thank you sincerley for taking this stand, a stand for life. A stand for the innocent unborn and a stand which exposes some of the dark hearts coming out here.

so the druid mentions support from the phillipines on abortion. This is a country of poverty, in as much as the working people have to live. I have just come home after working on a ship in the midddle east, the crew on the ship below officer are all phillipinoes there pay is $150 A month and they have to agree to 2 year contracts for this priveledge. my point is these idoctrinated druids who by the way are supposed to be celibate! are forcing through fear there religious doctrines that keep the poor and uneducated down as it is in there interest to keep the tithe coming in. I have seen simillar in mexico. Dont feel complacent though it has re-emerge at home as the pc brigade, and that clone will have to be put down as these religious people who never were religious but made it sound that way, to maintain thers status.

Abortion is a moral issue first and foremost. Religious leaders have no place in trying to impose their views on the majority of the population. There are already sufficient legal safeguards for abortion.

The Catholic Church is anyway a morally bankrupt organisation - their views have no more relevance than anyone elses. Matters of public policy are decided through the ballot box not the collection plate.

#10

What right do you have to impose you zealous and biggoted views on women who chose to have an abortion? You and people like you have no right to do such a thing. You are misguided and a danger to the very society in which you live. Most women have very valid reasons for chosing the path they take, a difficult and lonley path that they must live with for the rest of thier life.
Your stance and your comments are immoral, you lack compassion and understanding. Your views are extreme and reflect not only a lack of moral fibre but show you up as the uneducated moron you surely are.

#13 Interesting point "Most women have very valid reasons for chosing the path they take" What would be those reasons?

#14

That is not for me or you to question. It is a matter for them and them alone. I take it you are of the same ilk as #10, therefor you are not deserving of any explanation. You can be classed as a lonley , probably barren, religious fanatic who has to meddle in other peoples life's for no other reason than to satisfy your need to be a busy body gossip.

I have no objection to anyone having a belief in any particular mythology, or assorted fairy stories. However, I do object to such people trying to impose their peculiar beliefs on other people.

In this particular instance the Catholic church needs to pull its head in. If believers in their brand of mythology want to follow their teachings, fine, but leave the rest of the world alone, and stop trying to get others to obey your strange strictures.

It seems to me that the Catholic church, as one of the largest and richest business organisations in the world, would be better suited to using some of their enormous wealth to helping people in the developing countries; especially in those developing countries where they hold sufficient sway to impose their dogma through the force of law.

In addition, many of these developing countries have, as a result of Catholic imposed laws, very high numbers of children being born into abject poverty. Their lives are, and remain, a misery as a result of this; and because the Catholic church does nothing, or next to nothing, to help alleviate this poverty.

There might be a tiny Catholic church on the top of Smokey Mountain (a huge garbage dump) in Manila, but the Catholic church does nothing to help feed or clothe the many children who live, and scratch a living, on Smokey Mountain; despite the church's enormous wealth.

Finally, what right has any organisation, particularly a male dominated, allegedly celibate, one like the Catholic church, have to tell women what they can and cannot do with their bodies? If it was up to them, and their desire to impose their beliefs on others by the force of law,the Inquisition would still be in full sway.

#14 FF;

So it's right to condemn the person surviving gestation, if they show they don't believe, or write, as you believe? That's powerful right-livin'.

Organized religion (of any persuasion) should have no seat on a political stage - that is, unless I'm allowed to vote on who gets to be my preacher. Oh, but I do get to vote on that... with my feet. Let religion lobby souls in church. And if the church has trouble gaining constituents, let it look to itself for the reasons why.

#16,

Much applause, I could not have put it any better. Well said and an excellent post.

The issue is so much larger than abortion. How many abortions are performed in pattern bombing? Killing people is not enough, aborting is not enough, man now has found a way to murder the non-conceived child using nuclear bombs. Even these are not enough; he has found chemical ways of doing the same thing. The Machiavellian has no god, no morals, and no principles.

Well, I got this all twisted...

My post @ 17 intended for#13, Fly Fifer, and yes, critical, but now believe I was a bit hasty...

Aye, #17 post is tops!

Drat... #16 tops! Criminy.

scotland is a protestant country and the church of scotland is the national church. should you not ask for the kirk"s view on this matter. also why listen to keith o'brien a man out of touch and of limited experience of how to reproduce a child in the first place. why have you got the catholic church listed on your newspaper? are you catholic owned? it seems like a bit of biase on your part do'nt you think!

#16
Yes Guga, I agree, I too have no problem with those who put their faith in fairy stories on orgins, especially those concocting to be scientific fact rather than theory.
What I do however have a problem with, is when the state shifts the goal posts on what it defines as a human being. It used to be that the state called abortion what it actually is, ie murder. But the state changes and what's murder yesterday becomes todays flavour of the month. the state changes. Morality doesn't. That is why Cardinal O'Brien is correct in all his statements regarding abortion.
If protecting unborn children is a strange stricture Guga, what do you call state sanctioned genocide of over 210,000 unborn children in Britain alone, sensiblity?

Stick to church issues Cardinal, its what you're supposed to do, you're not a politician.

#9 Read the research that tells that one can get AIDs even after you use condoms!! So the Catholic Vhurch is right when it teaches morality and avoid bed-tobed jumping!!
#11 You should study economics. The standard of living in Philipiness is not as high as in Edinburg. The philipino who earns $150 is as rich as someone making $6000.
#13,12,15 and all with fake names (fly flyer, eh??, espeically one's not being pro-life: You guys, make comments on a very important issue and you do not even have the gutts to give out your real name!! What do you guys stand for??
- all of you who have commented against the Cardinals stand or are not pro-life: Imagine if your mothers would have aborted you at conception: you would not be alive writing this stuff. You would not be enjoying this world that God has created!! Can you answer this one!!

and if you still are not convinced, read http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060...
This boy was told to be terminated before he was bron. His mother decided to keep him, and look what a joy he is to his parents!!!

As Catholics we stand for something--we stand for life!!What do you stand for? Nonsense?? A culture of Death??

#17 &#24 "Organized religion (of any persuasion) should have no seat on a political stage "

I think you are both wrong.

Organised religion IS politics. Its about control, its about imposing one groups will on another group, its about making rules that you force others to live by.

Sounds pretty much like politics to me!!!!

I don't think there's anything immoral about abortion at all.

fly fifer you keep on about the womans right, i dont know if you are a man ,or a woman but a woman does not have to get pregnant, what about the potential fathers right, oh i forgot that would be a man so he shouldnt have any rights. im not against abortion but it should not be used as a primary birth control saervice

#24 S'me

Stick to church issues Cardinal, its what you're supposed to do, you're not a politician.

Although I disagree with the views of the Cardinal I defend his right to express his views.

Catholic Church =obediance,fear and bainwashing.They want the child to be born then take their mind away with their doctrine.

#16 Guga II, very good post.

#26 Boy Wonder, you are a posting Encyclopedia! :-)

#28 Royster, that sentence is distasteful. So a 16year old girl or a 40year old mother of six are nazis in your eyes if they opt for abortion?

#12 Auckland Arab2, you sum it up well..."So cardinal, shut the f**k up."

The pro-abortionists avoid argument by attacking the people whose views they find challenging - simple tactics.

If abortion is not about killing, then what is it? This is not a specifically Catholic issue but an issue of dignity and human rights. The Cardinal is entitled to say what he thinks as much as anyone else but it is vital that people see this issue as one about natural law and not religious dogma.

Did anyone else notice Tim Street is the director of family planning in Scotland and not a Catholic ghetto.
Tony Blair was a hypocrite, even more so if he converts to Catholicism. It'll be interesting to see what "son of the manse", Gordon Brown's response is, given his upbringing, but then again the Church of Scotland stance on any moral issue seems to be "whatever the individual believer wants it to be".
My own view on the issue, based on medical training, not religious indoctrination is; Abortion is the Murder of your own child, simple as that.

I can't add anymore than what Guga @16 has written. Well said cove!

#25

Complete nonsense.

Firstly, the use of barriers such as condoms in reducing HIV transmission is beyond doubt. Ask any physician. I don't know what research you are talking about or even the relevance of post-coital HIV transmission, but the use of barriers is beyond dispute.

The issue of bed hopping is of course irrelevant.

And here is a FACT for you. The policy of the Catholic church on condom use directly contributes to the deaths through HIV AIDS of hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of people every year.

And that is immorality on an almost infinite scale. So you do not as Catholics stand for life, in this particular case, you actually stand for death.

Your church's position on aid for developing countries with strings (i.e. "you'll only get money for poverty reduction if you let us preach our morality to you") is also highly immoral.

So don't preach to us. Look at yourselves first you pious bloody hypocrits.

An ounce of rubber is worth a ton of legislation.

here we go again.
The RC church trying to dictate to the rest of the country.
Real RC will obey their teachings,let the rest be free to choose.
Its the womans body and her right to choose.
How would he like it if the government decided to interfere in the unsaviory going ons within the priesthood?

I never understood this "it's a womans body, it's her right to choose" argument. Surely the child is a product of 2 people so therefore it's 2 peoples right to choose, no?

Why do so many of the posts use petty insult with words like 'mythology', 'brain washing' and 'fairy stories'?

Fundementalist aestheists who attack others beliefs and values in such a way a just as bad as any other other fundementalist and far worse than many of the decent good people who attend churches, mosques and temples. Fundementalist aetheists come over as people who will not tolerate or try to understand any others views.

Concerning the Cardinal's comments, I was always brought u[p to believe that there is free speech in this country. The Cardinal AND OTHER LEADERS have a right to express opinions. As the Cardinal is the leader of a significant organisation and therefore is bound to be reported in the media.

#36 - If you read carefully what was said at the recent Assembly of the CoS, I think you will find a great deal of similarity in the views of the two large christian denominations in Scotland.

Why does the possible death of possible children seem to be so much more important to the church than the possible death of actual children due to the government's belief in nuclear weapons, or the actual death of actual children by airstrikes in Iraq ?

another bam spouting his brand of religous beliefs ban them all and the world would be a happier place

I'd like to qualify my question by adding that it is up to the individual(s) with what they do and not up to the church.

However, we are increasingly allowing the government to give us moral guidance (by way of laws and legislation). Sometimes it's better the devil you know!

#32 & #36

Who would I trust more- Brown or O'Brien? Tricky one.......unless you're a bigot!

When will people like you realise that Gordon Brown is viewed as a complete incompetent and immoral chancer by many peole. His thoughts are neither sought nor welcomed.

Brown is of course entitled to his opinion, as is Keith O'Brien. Both are mouthpieces of largely discredited organisations, so don't get on your high horses.

The RC is far from largely discredited I can assure you. Where are you getting your facts from?

It's one of the most powerful organisations in the world has has legions, nae, millions or billions of followers of all degrees of interpretation. Maybe you discredit it but millions don't. Didn't you see the Popes inauguration? Didn't you see the thousands and thousands of people waiting for him in the Vatican?

Brown needs to tell the cardinal and his cronies to keep their noses out, keep religion and politics completely separate, we are a democracy ruled by elected government, when we are ruled by religious fanatics then i move to another country.

#38 Paul - you are absolutely wrong - having spoken to many church workers in poorer places the overwhelming majority carry out their work with no strings attached.

An aetheist relative of mine who went to help Sri Lanka following the Tsunami remarked on her return -'I haven't any time for the Church, BUT if you wanted anything doing out there it was nuns, priests and clergy who were on the ground and got things done.'

I'm not saying that all about church people is good - there are many bad apples as there are in all of society. All I ask is stop condemning a significant part of our community who are actively working to help others.

Life begins at conception. Pretty basic. It's not sustainable life, but it's life. Many adult lives are not sustainable without intervention but we don't kill them.

The boards often go on about how IVF is wrong that a woman does not have the right to create life - so why has she the right to end one? Or the father for that matter? He could have stopped conception too.

A woman already has the choice - not to become pregnant. If that choice was removed - by rape or by abuse of some sort - then that might be a reason for abortion.

The Catholic Church may be a flawed organisation - show me one that isn't though. Don't get me wrong I think all religions are daft and those believing in them deranged, but he's got a duty to his job to spout off on these topics.

For those who are truly interested in understanding the reality of elective surgical abortion I suggest you take the time to read Bernard Nathason's
"Aborting America"

It always amazes me how the Catholic church take the moral high ground concerning certain issues. Considering their evil past it is audacious to say the least.

O'brien wants action now. He wants the PM to strengthen the abortion laws. But what if the PM wanted O'brien and his pope to apologise for the inquisition? What if the PM requested that the Vatican apologise for centuries of torture,murder,rape and pillage?Would there be an apology? I think not, because even know they realise that their organisation is the most dispicable on earth, an apology would mean that their infallibility claim would be rendered dead, and that would be difficult for even the holy see to recover from.

Belief in a divine creator is perfectly acceptable. However, it becomes blasphemous when you marry your belief in god with the church. (ANY CHURCH! )You dont need a church to praise god, you dont need a church to gain access to heaven and you certainly dont need their indoctrinated disgusting lies and filth ridden deceit.

I honestly hope that our PM slams the door in O'briens face, thus offering him no voice. Let O'brien sort his own house out. Let him dwell on the fact that he is part of the most powerful and weathly organisation in the world. Did Jesus have mass wealth,gold and luxuries? Did Jesus murder people who did not see things his way? Did Jesus claim to be infallible?

Abortion is a personal choice, perhaps O'Brien should remember that.Then again, his organisation used to murder people who used their own belief system and thought for themselves.

I am not a fan of abortion, but I am not in any position to lecture those who have abortions, nor am I in a position to judge those who perform abortions. What if a woman is raped? Must she be forced to carry the child? Who decides? and who gives them the authority to decide?

What is the end point for a society that insists on abortion rights? I'd suggest rapid demographic change as the most probable consequence. All economies need people. Where they come now to an increasing degree depends on the extent to which that country supports abortion. If it does then the only solution apart from economic stagnation is to increase immigration. With faling 'native' populations in each nation, then the logical result of this is a rapidly changing society. If a country can accept this then fine, but be prepared to surrender your culture and its norms. It would seem to me that pro abortion people have not examined the consequences for society. In my opinion they are dire. As an example, the race is on to be the country first Islamic majority in Europe. They say it will be either France or Russia and the winner will get there sometime within the next 50 years.

The reason I am angered by the so-called "pro-life" lobby is the absence of any empathy or sympathy in their argument. No-one makes a decision to terminate a pregnancy lightly. It is a terrible, harrowing experience. The Catholic argument is glib and cruel, apparently designed to browbeat people to their way of thinking rather than persuade. I support the rational proposals from the BMA to ease access to abortions in the first trimester, and to retain the 24 week limit to enable parents to make decisions after a 20 week scan. They relate to the reality of life, rather than religiously inspired dogma.

The Cardinal is quite right to raise the issue of what has become 'abortion on demand'
The sanctity of life has become an alien concept in the minds of most people. Life can be taken, be it abortion, or murder. This is the consequence of living life without relating to Our Creator.

Our understanding of the meaning of Life is now clouded by our own needs and demands,selfishness, and takes no account of the needs of others. We are a selfish society.

At the same time in our confused thinking we rightly have TV programmes on saving the planet, and rescuing new born animals. But apart from the Cardinal remain silent on the daily murder of infants in the womb.

In our hypocricy we charge adoctor doing his duty with 'murder', and take him through the courts. We all know he did what was right in the given situation. Allowing the souls of these babies to be released from the hurt and bondage of their bodies, and go on their journey to their maker. Something both parents understood

Let us have an infiormed debate with guidance from our moral and ethical leaders.

God Bless the Cardinal.

Fr John

The Catholic Church is not perfect. They reject condoms, protect abusers, are ostentatious and are sexist BUT they are rightly against abortion.

Butchering a child just because it hasn't popped out yet is repugnant.

How a woman who has undergone an abortion can then have a child at a later date is beyond me. What do they say to the child ? Hey you were lucky.

At least on the bright side, if it can be said, those likely to have abortions are not spreading their pro-abortion genes.

What happened to the separation of church and stae?! It makes me absolutely artery-bursting apoplectic that these religious leaders feel they have a right to dictate government policy.

#57

Why is it so harrowing Duncan? and empathy for whom? If someone is going to die and someone else is going to have to make huge adjustments, and if it were possible to allocate empathy. whom should most empathy go to?

I fail to see why the catholic church should have their archaic beliefs forced on to more sensible people. The quicker we denounce these religious cults the better.

#60

Thats fair enough but it is NOT up to the government to dictate MORAL policy/philosophy. Never has been nor should it ever be.

Could people please just adress the issue?

I got to #10 before finding a post that actually talked about abortion instead of a load of twaddle about OBrien not being allowed a view because he wore a dress/bathrobe, or some other such nonsense.

We need a rational debate on this issue and it simply isn't good enough to keep sayin that this that or the other group of people aren't entitled to an opinion because they are : religious/male/politicians/women- but ones who don't agree withy the status quo, etc.

Why are so many posters determined to silence anyone who disagress with them, or respond to their opinions with a lot of childish insults or claims of bad faith? The tone is virtually hysterical.

This is a legitimate subject for debate by peope from all points of view with a bit of common sense and concern for how we run our society. It's not good enough to just keep ranting "mind your own business" to all comers. If we all did so, the present abortion laws would not exist . They are the direct result of campaigning and political action, not some sort of natural occurence.

And can we please stop the constant attacks on the RC church under the guise of "outrage" over abortion. There are over 50 posts so far and those that mention the church have little to say on abortion and plenty to say on behalf of Scottish sectarianism. The RC church is with the mainstream here. there is not a single Christian church that will support abortion except in the most extreme cases.
Christian belief teaches teh sanctity of life, not easy wasy to end it.

Oh and before anyone starts burbling on about the crimes of the church in the past - since when was the worth of a belief system measured by the way in which peopel associayred with it use it to justify crimes? Virtually every system of religious and political thought has been abused in some way.

knew he would get smarmy salmond on board,but how can he be impartial since he writes a column in a catholic magazine, i am sorry but the catholic church and politics are seperate issues and should be kept that way.

#60
Good question jolly green, what did happen to the seperation of church and state. Seems to me that the State is winning hands down. Just maybe that's what's wrong. Unless these "religious leaders' do speak out you are probably going to be next when hospital bed space shortage meets euthanaisa 101

#48 Angus

I was trying to be impartial. Comparing the Catholic Church to the Labour Party for discreditedness(?) is like comparing John Lennon and the Yorkshire Ripper for goodwill. Many share both doctrines!

Unfortunately there is a section of our population who will despise anything to come out of the church (particularly RC). These come across as the 'Keep your nose out of politics' brigade. Blindly dismissing anything that's put forward as irrelevant, even if it's got good written all over it.

The strange thing is that many of these still listen to what Brown has to say; a man who is a proven liar and party to immorality on a level seldom before seen in government.

#43

The difference between so-called fundamentalist atheists and religious fundamentalits is that the former believe in freedom of thought, freedom of expression, freedom of association and the supremacy of human rights and logic.

This has given us modern society, democracy, advanced technology, science and medicine. It has improved peoples quality of life immeasurably. It is an approach that has lifted us out of the aptly named dark ages where religious fundamentalism ruled.

And even in the dark times of modernism such as world wars, the institutions of christianity have been more interetsed in their own survival than adopting a moral position. Even now they refuse to condemn or act to stop atrocities that conflict with their absolutisit views e.g. see my earlier comments re HIV/AIDS, I hear no outrage from the church about the Palestinian crisis, the immorality of the war in Iraq... the list goes on.

The difference between the two groups is that atheists views evolve, adapt and change as more evidence becomes available. They are based on evidence and are not absolutist and based on very very old, unproven and often ridiculous (virgin birth, resurrection etc., son of God, various miracles etc.)ideas. Religious institutions are more interested in protecting and perpetuating themselves than progress. Quite often they are anti-progress - e.g. resuurect Darwin and ask him.

Also, religious folk do not have a monopoly on being "good decent people".

Of course whassisname has the right to have a view - thanks to atheist developments above and tolerance, I have no problem with that. But its just so hypocritical given the Churches position on many other things.

Good afternoon.

And I throw down a condom to Mr O'Brien.

I just hope he doesn't react in the same way Father Gerry did.

But I do think Mr O'Brien has more pressing issues when his flock include the poorest, least eduacted, worst fed, unhealthiest in Europe.

Still his spin on abortion may distract from what most people would consider to be the real opportunities for a man of compassion and love.

Fair enough Phil.

At least Brown will never approach the RC to become a Catholic though! Door Son of the Manse he is!

#64
All religions should be dismissed (not just the RC Church). There is no evidence to suggest they are built on anything other than nonsense written hundreds of years ago. Their existence is only prolonged due to the brainwashing of children.

So you'd rather take moral guidance from the Government by way of enforced laws and legislation GordonJ?

Thank you Vincent W (43 & 51) for your well balanced comments. EVERYONE HAS THE RIGHT TO HIS OR HER OPINION. Duncan (#57) I agree with you that some people have no empathy or sympathy for those women who have to make a difficult decision. I feel for those who have to make such a difficult decision (because they were raped.....) but I do not agree with abortion on demand. Descent One (#59) Some people who are catholics, protestants, atheists, hindus, muslims, reject condoms, protect abusers, are ostenttatious and are sexist, Oh and there is no shortage of bigots and dictators, atheist and otherwise on this page of comments.

Will some Pro-Lifer or church supporter the church please actually respond to question of the crime of refusing to sanction the use of condoms as a way to halt the spread of HIV/AIDS. If the CC is about protecting life, this policy of yours is killing millions more people than could be saved by ending abortion.

#71 That's your view. Many people disagree with you. They have as the same rights as you. The Catholic church does not force anyone to do anything. We all have choices.

Whatever you might think, live and let live!

#72
At least that is a publicly elected body rather than a group of people whose "belief" system is based on a book that is pure speculation. Religous believers are not the only people who can have morals and make decisions for the greater good.

#75
But that's the point, they are trying to force their views on everybody else. If they didn't want to force them on other people then they would be asking for laws that only applied to their specific religous group.

Paul - the church teaches that we have been given free will - the first book of the bible makes this very clear.

ALL fundementalism is dodgy.

The church promotes learning and continues to do so - why do you think that there are so many schools and colleges and universtities worldwide which have their roots in Christianity? I know of schools in Africa which are 100% paid for by parishes in Scotland.

Christianity is evangelical from it's foundation and so will always try to spread the 'good news'.

Church groups and non church goers in my area are very very active in helping Palestinians through the 'Justice and Peace' movement. What the media choose to report is not in the gift of the church.

I never said the church has a monopoly on 'good decent people' do not put words in my mouth.

There is far more to celebrate than to condemn in all walks of life.

Puzzlers (#64) comment is the best so far.

The point about the whole "pro-choice" thing is that it gives the woman the choice. To terminate or not.

Personally I think the abortion laws need to be looked at again and revised in light of modern medicine which enables babies to survive at a much earlier age.

But for any man who has never or ever will get a woman pregnant to condemn her choice not to continue the pregnancy is, frankly, vile, controlling and inhumane.

Women terminate pregnancies for many reasons, and it's not something done lightly or "for fun". Anyone who believes that women who have abortions do not engage in soul-searching is kidding themselves.

Even in this "enlightened" age, women who have abortions aren't likely to trumpet the fact - it's still seen as something shameful and abhorrent - and yet, they STILL make the decision to go ahead with it knowing that - why? Because the alternative (going through with the pregnancy and then either raising the child or giving it up for adoption) is still untenable for whatever reason.

Nobody has any right to condemn a woman to go through a pregnancy and then childbirth if there are valid health (physical and mental) for her not to.

And shame on those who think to control a woman's body and force her to.

#72 AngusMor: Governments are elected by the people. They may not be the most moral citizens in the world, but they are more inclined to seek answers within the context of a democracy in accordance with the constitution.

The church has no democracy. You listen to what they preach and you abide by it or you are murdered. Ooops, thats right, they dont get away with barbaric murder anymore. They invent places like purgatory in order to scare the living hell out of you and generate wealth and power. Their act of cellibacy is not written in canon law. In fact, sex is acceptable, a slap on the wrist may be dispensed. It is the act of marriage that is really forbidden. Marriage means you have a partner, in death your possessions would be bequethed to your wife as opposed to the greedy and power hungry church.

So yes, not only would I rather look to the government for moral guidance prior to looking to the church. I would look anywhere but the church!

Faith in a divine creator has nothing to do with any church..You are your own church!Trust in yourself and your belief and faith. and give the evil churches the middle finger

The government also force their views on us. The difference is that the Government enforce it through punitive means such as fines, community service or jail.

The church is still volountary.

The government also force their views through from the LadyBird Big Book of EU Legislation. Its a big book of all the laws and legilsation that they "believe" will lead to a better quality of life. I believe the Bible is similar but is done in the fashion of a series of stories. Either way, they are both products of Man's imagination.

A new PM, an old demand. Some things never change in particular the Catholic church. At times I find the stories we are allowed to comment on in the forums confusing. We get this rubbish but so far I have yet to see comments on the Glasgow Airport fiasco???I may have missed it mind.

By handing Moral guidance to the government, you are handing over a certain amount of your liberty too.

#77 They're not forcing their views on anybody. O'Brien is asking for a review of abortion laws. We know the long-stated anti-abortion beliefs of the CC. They're just fighting their corner, as they have done for years. This hasn't stopped abortion legislation thus far. You can't say that the moral case for abortion has been proven. The argument will go on.

Only if the majority wants change, might it happen. Until then stop getting so excited.

The only hypocrit in all of this is o'brien.

He speaks of protecting life but he is against the use of contraceptives in africa and latin america to prevent aids - thereby condemning many to die a horrible death.

apart from anything else he is also a bigoted homophobe and sexist to boot - not many women in his job eh!

What would he or his kind know about about real life, the challenges families, men and women face every day, while he spends his time being chaffeured around and waited on hand and foot - all based on fictional writings to keep the masses in check.

PUZZLER (#64) whoever you are. Thank you!

#79 Bella Donna - agree 100%.

Have you noticed that those who froth the loudest about the abortion of unborn children stop caring about it the minute it is born? George Bush, for example, shows no signs of holding life sacred in Iraq, only in the womb.
If the Catholic Church campaigned against war with the single- minded intensity it brings to bear on contraception and abortion, I would have a lot more respect for them.

jd1

Correct. The RC are against the use of condoms. But remember, the RC also preach abstinance as well as a method of avoiding getting infection and pregnant. The preach wait until you get married, don't be promiscuous etc.

It doesn't work anymore. Why? Because people have no self disciplien nor morals anymore. Why? They stopped listening to the church. Why? Cause it's ok now to be promiscuous and have muiltiple partners. Why? Because we stopped listening to the church and started listening to the Liberals. Why? Because it's easier to give in to temptation that resist it.

#83
And that doesn't happen with a Religous Group? You lose a whole lot more when you take guidance from something that will never change their beliefs.

Just in case you don't understand the extent of the real problems with your flock have a read of

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&...

Now, I am missing the point here Keith? Are you saying that reducing the number of abortions in scotland will help these peoples' lives?

http://www.isdscotland.org/isd/info3.jsp?pContentID=1923&...;

"In 2006, the rate of therapeutic abortions continues to show a clear link with the level of deprivation. In areas of high deprivation the rate is 16.6 per 1000 compared to 8.8 per 1000 for the least deprived areas of Scotland."

I don't think I need to add anything other than when you want to talk abortions, we want to talk about helping people.

AngusMor - It's people like you who make me despair, luckily there are fewer of you left in the World as people become more enlightened.

Lets begin with the paedophiles within, and shielded, by the Church of Rome, Cardinal! And would you like more slave labour as abused by the Sisters of Magdalene?

Gordon

You missed my point. The church is volountary. You need not take advice from the church. The government is the opposite.

Gordon

Sorry what? What do you mean by that?

Has Cardinal O'Brien written to Gordon Brown about Trident and its replacement? about their direct potential for genocide? about the indirect deaths that will be caused as their replacement drains our economy of the little that is left? about the war in Iraq? about poverty in the third world?

No, it's abortion, as usual. If the Jesus Christ in their Bible were alive today, do you think that would be top of his list? The Jesus Christ who threw the money lenders out of the temple? I think he would be a lot more radical than the Church would find comfortable, and I suspect he would dismantle the huge edifice of wealth it sits on first of all.

Hello my name is Houssine Najaar,i'm ethnologyst and linguist,specialised in Celtic societies,i'm 41 years old,you can see my photo in this links whit my friend from Russia,Brittany and Wales
www.bretons-de-reuil.com/images/lesneven_mars2007/DSC0087...
i'm in the theerd position from the left
In islamic societies like Iran or Algeria,the aborption was ilegal .The holy book of Kuran interdict the aborption.In muslim mind the creator of the life is the God Allah and not the man or the woman or the doctor or politics.But in reality they are lot of women to practice the aborption.In the most case the abortion in all sacieties arabs or westerner,the most poepls who practice the aborption was the poor poepls who can't assur the education of his children.If you take statistic of who practice the aborption in 90% it's a poor womens from lower classes of societies.In islam the creator of the life is Allah,they are not involvment of the men or women,in islam the human person was divised in two parties the soul (al-Rouh) and the body (al-Jassad),,and we can't call the life was at two or trhee week afther the fecundation.I understand most poepls was favourable for the aborption because the life is difficult.The problem is if we can kill the baby afther his conception we permited we open the door for human selectivity of the race and only the person who can give a better education for his children can procreat and the other is preferabl for him to kills his children because the probality is great if was maintained in life will be come a charge for the societies(criminels,prostitut,drugs...etc).

#1 Hezza and #5
I was going to ask for these contributions to be removed as objectionable but thought that by reading it, everyone would know how entrenched these persons are in their hatred for the Catholic religion, whereas
#2 obviously hasn't a clue what he's talking about - sounds like the output from pub rhetoric
#3 Everyone has the right, with their free will, to choose their course of actions. Never disputed. However, when a woman's lifestyle is preserved at the expense of pieces of little bodies being sucked down a glass tube and binned, then it's time to consider more deeply, the results of one's actions.
6# You are merely pointing out that those who do not abide by the laws of God choose to be apart from God and that is their decision.

So, while the Scotsman chooses to set the scene by using such a heading for their article, it proves that none of these types of comments come from anyone who, as the Cardinal said, has studied ethics or moral philosophy.
May the God of love bless you all and help you to see sense and reason.

www.bretons-de-rueil.com/images/lesneven_mars2007/DSC0087...

Jennie

Um, the Cardinal DID have a pow wow with the government regarding Trident. It was in the news a month ago or so. The RC stand is one against Trident. Happy now?

jd1 - Are there any women here? This stoning is for men only!

Please,give me your comments about my photo i'm the theerd from the left my friend Vlad was behind me.Thank for the God Allah,if my mother was avorted for me i'm not her to writte you but we can think if the mother of GWB and TB have avorted of them we don't have a war in Irak?

Jennie #87 I know many people who are members of the Catholic Church who speak out against war and who dedicate their lives to caring for others. I know nuns and RC Clergy who speak out against poverty, injustice and abuse. Oh and Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict both spoke out against George Bush's war mongering.

#56 - Chrisoman - I take your point about falling populations but do not think that the rate of abortion is in any way anything other than a minor contributory factor. People delaying starting a family and settling for a smaller family size are the major players. The previous statement infers use of reliable contraceptive methods, most of which are anathema to that very same church and the assuption must be made that policy of the RC church is to encourage its flock to 'go forth and multiply' so that they will outnumber non-RC members of society. Just look at the changing demographics in Belfast if you don't believe me!

Can't see the termination of a pregnancy is any worse than condeming an unwanted child to live a life of misery - or is this taking the 'visiting the sins of the fathers etc' to its logical conclusion the RC church's eyes. Trouble is that Scotland is not an RC country, nor is it a Protestant country it is simply, like the rest of the UK, a non-religious secular country with a post-Christian society.

Finally, another reason for dropping populations is population movement and ANY Kiwi should be more than aware of that! There is nothing new about that - for goodness sake the Welsh used to live in Kent, the Scots in Ireland, and the Anglo Saxons in Europe. Do we really think the world has seen the last of such movements? Changing populations with their affect on society will be with us for as long mankind exists on this planet. It's how we manage that process that matters, not how we try to stop it.

Angus {#88). People stopped listening to the church! Of course they did. As information came into the public arean of institutionalised child abuse, the bishop of Galway, father gerry's fun palace in Glasgow, I could go on and on and on.

Cathlics who were born into the church have turned their back on it, not for selfish reasons or by listening to the Liberals (or liberals?), but because they realised what the church did was different from what they as members were being asked to do.

Double standards you can call it, but it was the cause of millions drifting away.

My comments on poverty on Mr O'Brien's doorstep is exactly the same problem. Talk the big picture stuff, create a bunker mentality which allows you to ignore what you know you should be dealing with on your own doorstep.

I firmly believe that a woman has to have the right to choose what happens to her body but I also believe just as firmly that the 24 week limit is ridiculous and barbaric I gave birth to my little boy at 24 weeks and he is now a happy healthy 18 month old with no physical or mental handicaps. With medical advances there is now more chance than ever that babies born at 24 weeks gestation and upward can survuve and be healthy so the abortion limit should not be set this high.

Unless there is an underlying urgent medical need there should be no reason for anyone waiting until this stage to get an abortion, it's ridiculous.

Funny that the majority of people commenting here are Men!

What a woman does with HER body is her choice

I hold the personal belief that until a child is born it is infact a part of the mother and hence a woman must have the ultimate say on what happens to her own body based on her circumstances and moral beliefs.

The Cardinal of course, has every right to put forward and promote the Catholic teachings on this matter. But in a democratic country, asking for politicians to make changes that would not be supported by a vast majority of the population seems rather a waste of time, but still worthy of respect.

We are all aware of why the church has stopped being listened too but that won't stop the church emphasising its place in society.

As I said, it's easier to give in to temptation than to work having having moral standards.

#78

Paul - the church teaches that we have been given free will - the first book of the bible makes this very clear. SO YOU ARE PRO-CHOICE THEN? IT ALSO SAYS THE WORLD WAS CREATED IN 7 DAYS

ALL fundementalism is dodgy. THE CC IS THE MOST ABSOLUTIST OFFICIAL RELIGOUS INSTITUTION I KNOW

The church promotes learning and continues to do so - why do you think that there are so many schools and colleges and universtities worldwide which have their roots in Christianity? I know of schools in Africa which are 100% paid for by parishes in Scotland. ALL THESE SCHOOLS ARE ALSO PREACHING AS WELL AS TEACHING, WHAT RIGHT DO YOU HAVE TO IMPOSE YOUR RELIGIOUS VIEWS ON POOR AFRICAN KIDS?

Christianity is evangelical from it's foundation and so will always try to spread the 'good news'. I KNOW BUT FROM A POSITION OF POWER YOU ALSO IMPOSE YOUR VIEWS E.G. ON POOR AFRICAN KIDS

Church groups and non church goers in my area are very very active in helping Palestinians through the 'Justice and Peace' movement. I KNOW AND IT IS GREAT WHAT YOU ARE DOING. What the media choose to report is not in the gift of the church. I KNOW BUT CHURCH LEADERS SHOULD SAY MORE AND DO MORE, THEY SHOULD BE OUTRAGED

I never said the church has a monopoly on 'good decent people' do not put words in my mouth. BUT YOU DID IMPLY IT

There is far more to celebrate than to condemn in all walks of life. ALL? REALLY? MOST, YES, BUT NOT ALL

Puzzlers (#64) comment is the best so far. DON'T AGREE

HAVE A NICE DAY

Who else will speak for those whose voice was never heard, whose lives were terminated and who can never now sit at a computer and let us know whether they would have wished to have lived, loved and contributed to society?

You're all of you alive - be grateful for that.

This is not an easy issue and I'm not an absolutist on this either way but many of the comments above are fundamentally prejudiced by ego and, although I'm not a Roman Catholic, thinly disguised bigotry - usually of a self-regarding secular variety.

Oh, and yes the Roman Catholic church should accept the use of condoms.

Voluntary euthanasia seems OK to me as well - because then the person makes their choice whether to live or die. The absence of that choice for "life as yet unborn" is what makes abortion so contentious a moral issue - an issue where Cardinal O'Brien is perfectly right to make his voice heard.

#43
Paul. Interesting that you use the words " the supremacy of human rights and logic " in the same sentence. If all humans have rights then it would be logical to extend that freedom to the unborn. For if the unborn aren't human what are they? Fish?

Attributing modern society, democracy, advanced technology, science and medicine to fundemental atheism (a relatvely recent phenomenon) without acknowledging the Christian faith of the many hundreds of scientists apon whose shoulders they stood is like a child standing on his fathers shoulders shouting "I'm taller than you are".

I believe it was Christianity that kept the spark of knowledge alive during the dark ages rather than being their cause.

Where you get your ideas that Christian leaders have not been standing up and condeming attrocities I have no idea. I can't remember the Pope ever standing up and waving his arms in support of the Iraq war.

As for ideas about the superiority of atheists views simply because they evolve and change, well that's patently ridiculous. When it comes to issues like abortion is is precisely the abandonment of absolutes that is the problem. It's almost as if our society has been sucked into believing that the prime dictates of consumerism, ie this years model good, last year bad, applies to ethics and morality as well. Thank heavens for the Church and it's non adapting views. It may be not be perfect, but if it weren't for the 'benchmark' it provides, it would not only be abortion already legalised, but also euthanasia, infanticide, eugenics, human embryo farms and goodness knows what else.

As for ridiculous myths, a creator God to me is more believeable than "nothing that just exploded".

Thank you again Cardinal O'Brien. Your stand is like a breath of fresh air.

Everyone should look at the comments on the threads from yesterday's article,

"Cardinal slams PM for keeping 'outdated' law" in this newspaper and this one of,

"Abortion: Cardinal throws down gauntlet to PM"

Maybe then everyone will realise that the last thing many Scots people can do is discuss the Catholic Church with a rational and logical approach.

Wether it's discussing the termination of the "state-sponsored sectarianism" of the Act of Settlement that prevents ONLY RC's from becoming either King or Queen and barring the monarch from marrying a Catholic.

Or chatting about the merits of the unborn child debate many in Scotland find it impossible to hide their deep hatred of the Catholic Church.

So much for Bonnie 'One Country Many Cultures' Scotland.

The thread comments on any RC story in this newspaper really reveals the true extent of Scotland' not so secret shame.

As we can see from above it is only a
terminated.

Why should the Church have a place in Society? All it contains is a bunch of people who cannot deal with real life and feel that they must believe in a higher power because they cannot take responsability for their actions. How many times have I heard - "it's okay because God abviously didn't want it to happen". What tosh!

There are eloquent advocates aplenty for the "rights of women" ,but we have a bard Donald John MacDonald to speak for the unborn child in "An Guth a Broinn na Mathar" "Voice from the Womb".

Cha do rinn mi cron air creutair...........
I have harmed no living creature
Beneath the sun on earth
My wish was but to join with you
All growing up in health
When my mother first conceived me
"She will give me love" I thought,
But she sought only carnal pleasure-
No care for infant ill-begot.

The gaelic is more powerful in this poem and to my mind shows the weakness of "womens' rights". If they are true feminists why do they get pregnant with such horrific consequences.

A Society that commits many of their unborn to the furnace does not deserve to exist

Because we live in liberal times and if people want to believe in God and the church, they are free to do so. It's called European Human Rights. The following is the Chapter associated with freedom to religion...

Chapter II: Freedoms (the right to liberty and security, respect for private and family life, protection of personal data, the right to marry and found a family, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and information, freedom of assembly and association, freedom of the arts and sciences, the right to education, freedom to choose an occupation and the right to engage in work, freedom to conduct a business, the right to property, the right to asylum, protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition

That's why Gordon.

Paul,

Frankly and bluntly your knowledge of what goes on in churches (and I suspect Mosques and Temples) is pitiful. Your views are based on distorted snippets of information.

Go to a church and talk to the people there and find out what's really happening. But do it with an open mind.

Incidentally - the distortion you put on the africans in schools being 'force fed' is entirely wrong. Again I suspect your knowledge is pitiful. The schools I am referring to apply no stipulations they are there to educate kids to take control of their own lives.

Are you part of a world wide organisation that works to help eradicate poverty? What is your contribution?

Perhaps the cardinal should leave the church and enter politics.

I am getting sick of his tedious rants and innapropriate drawing of parallels between dunblane and abortion.

Its interesting that when the church tells african catholics to forgo condoms and millions die, they are taking some high moral stance and yet when some girl tries to avoid a life of misery by aborting an unwanted fetus before it becomes a child she is committing some atrocious act on par with blowing the head off an eight year old girl in a primary school gym.

He is a moron and is probably more suited to politics than being our "moral compass".

Several points:

(a) The Cardinal argues that abortion is a moral debate for the whole of society, not just for politicians or doctors. Many posts here appear to have missed this point.

(b) The Cardinal claims that diversionary tactics, such as shooting or questioning the pro-lifers right to express an opinion, are frequently used in the abortion debate. Many posts here prove that. It is no way to have a debate.

(c) People who disagree with the Cardinal should at least realize that the Cardinal is speaking out on this because he believes that it is in the best interests of society at large to do so. Don't be cynical about him or his motives.

(d) The Cardinal makes a point which is not made enough which I think is important. Mothers facing a crisis pregnancy (especially in the case of rape or forced prostitution) should be given support to have the child, and this support is sadly lacking. If one is against abortion (like I am), then one has to be prepared to help the mother through the pregnancy, and process of finding a foster family if this indeed is most appropriate for mother and child.

(e) Finally if women feel so strongly about not having a child, why are they engaging in behavior that results in the birth of children? Sex (even with contraception) in my view entails a general responsibility to bring up children if that happens. (I know in some cases the women is involuntarily forced into having sex because of rape or forced prostitution, but this is not usually the case.)

#10

"For if the unborn aren't human what are they? Fish?"

No - embryos.

The church tells them to forgoe condoms but abstain from sex until married.

The girl wanting to avoid a life of misery could have done so by abstaining from sex. Why is having children a life of misery anyway?

#114 - In my view Religion has no place in a progressive society. It holds society back rather than moves it on.

If Cardinal O'Brien wants to address those of us who do not adhere to "the one true faith" he should stand for parliament or other democratic forum, not shout out of the stairheid window.
If I want to submit to RC authority I will become a member of the RC church.

That is your view and you are entitled to it but I don't think the EU is about the change the Human Rights Charter because of YOUR view somehow.

You are not forced to go to church or be associated with it in anyway. It is volountary. But those that do want to be associated are free to do so.

Abortion is murder.
Euthanasia is murder.
End of.

Anyone who believes otherwise is simply denying the truth.

I 'm an advocat of embryon of 7 week and i take a role of this embryon who defend him self against abortion:

The embryon of 7 week:
Please don't kill me,i want to life like you.
Why you kill me?I'm inocent ,i'm not responsible for any crims,i'm not guilty.
Please in the face of the God,don't kill me.
I want to see the light of the sun,the beauty of the seeplease don't kill me.
I'm an embryon of 7 week and i can't defend my self by my selfplease don't kill me.
The aothor is Houssine Najaar,ethnologist and linguist,specialised in celtics societies,he want visit celtics countries contact him at needjar@yahoo.fr
www.bretons-de-rueil.com/images/lesneven_mars2007/DSC0087...
I'm the theerd from the left between my friend from Brittany and a protestant pastor from Wales behind me is a student from Russia.

#105,

Agree but then 24 weeks wrong 23 weeks OK? Then as medicene gets better 23 weeks wrong 22 weeks OK.
No. No scientist would disagree that a new human life starts with the combining of an egg and a sperm, conception. And that is where the Catholic Church takes a stand. Unpopular, totally. With increasing knowledge has come understanding that most modern day contraceptive pills are abortifacients. How many know that just being on the pill, means they are probably destroying human life, regularly. Again unpopular. The Catholic Church is logically consitent in its teaching that being on the contraceptive pill is wrong for these reasons.

#122 - Then they should not try to inflict their views outside of their cult. I don't want the EU to change their Human Rights Charter. If people are unable to comprehend the truth then I'm happy for them to hide behind archaic beliefs which are the same as worshipping the Sun or Moon. Just keep them to yourself and leave sensible people alone to live their lives in a safe environment away from your evils.

#100 Phil C -
best post in years, and one which sums up the debate. the catholic churhc living in the past where stoning women was acceptable as the norm. Unfortunately, it still goes on some countries in the name of - yes, youve guessed it, religion!

Does anyone think that o'brien is breaking the law regarding his previous comments about gays. After all, replace gay with black, chinese, short people etc etc and he would be breaking the law. Surely his homophobic views require consideration by the police.

It is reported the Cardinal, referring to a discussion with Tony Blair, on, presumably this and other matters, said the then PM made some promises - but failed to ‘act!’

Blair – Failed to ‘act’ – how disrespectful, to one of our greatest at the game!

It seems to me the Cardinal is 'not up to speed' with things!

After such a meeting, and such a statement, it would appear that the Cardinal must be the only person in the Country who actually believed Tony Blair – no matter what was said,, albeit as one would expect from the Blair regime, the words one would want to hear about their cause – regardless, at that point in time!

Insofar as saying to Gordon Brown (same regime and seemingly same lack of morals and principles - so far!) that Tony Blair 'failed to act' - well, how could he be fooled so easily?

Good Heavens man, Tony was the best actor, par excellence, that UK Politics has ever seen, and was acclaimed as such - with astonishing proof almost on a daily basis during his complete premiership, and in almost all of his dabblings!

Luckily he is now gone and, hopefully, completely forgotten!

Now, the question is, will the Pope and the RC Church, because of Blairs 'alleged Political and Social (financially) status be welcomed to entry in their faith - regardless,?

What a test for real and meaningful Morality and Principle by the Church!
Surely a situation far worse than someone born into it - and then wandering off the line, now a decision is required for actual entry by someone who surely cannot be seen as ‘ideal’ material for the purpose – or am I wrong?

I feel sure the whole Country awaits with baited breath and in wonderment – although it’s not too clear, I am sure, about the followers of the Faith and how they will greet the Popes decision.

#123
being a conservative must be murder too!

Leaving aside the Catholic Church issue - which reduces most posters in Scotland to a frothing mob - I wonder how many of these people would still hold the same view if they had to stand next to a doctor or nurse - pulling an unborn child out of a woman's vagina.
Or how would they feel if they had to carry a 22 week old child into a sluice room and leave it there, gasping for breath until it ceased struggling for life?
Or how would they feel if they had to watch a doctor crush the skull of a 23 year old child while still in the womb so as to enable it to be 'evacuated' by suction.

These are moral obscenities of the highest order - regardless of whether any church is involved in condemning them or not. YES abortion should be allowed if the life of the mother is at risk, or her mental health (REAL mental health), yes it should be allowed if the unborn child is grosly deformed. But should we be forcing doctors and nurses to carry out 250,000 abortions a year? Mostly because its 'not convenient' to have a child just now. The UK has killed 7,000,000 unborn children since 1967 and those missing citizens have had a huge negative effect . Even worse, we now have 7 million women and men who have been directly involved in an abortion - and tens of thousands and doctors and nurses who have been forced carry out hundreds of abortions. Society now values children far less and values possessions and careers far more. Any society which does not place paramount value on family and children is doomed - it will be replaced by a culture which does value those things. It's called Muslim culture.

#110

Maybe I should have chosen my words more carefully. What I meant was that logic and regard for universal human rights have become the cornerstone of secular society whereas under religious rule neither exited, only dogma.

In early development you are right the being is more fish like. For the question of the rights of the foetus see Bella Donnas post above

My point about modern society is that was essentially a secularly driven phenomenom. Of course many religious people were part of it but religion was not the main driver.

Monastery's kept the ancient texts safe it is true and something for which modernity should be grateful, but it was mostly to maintain the power and position of the Church. But anyway, the main pint is that obviously the monks never read them and learnt from them and when people started doing that the Church suppressed/oppressed them.

The CC did not stand up to the Nazi's. And today they do not shout loud enough about Western atrocity, again, because they stay close to the main centres of power, wherever they are.

There are very few, if any absolutes. Relativism has trumped Newtonian thought some decades ago. We ar ein the post-modern era not the modern one. To me that is progress. I agree with your criticism of consumerism and fashion, and we need to tackle it, but the tools are scientific method and universal rights, not absolutism.

The "Big Bang" THEORY is more complicated than that. But at least it is a theory, based on observation, evidence, hypothesis and testing. And when more evidence becomes available it will be refined or replaced by a better one, based on best available knowledge. Us atheists won't stick with it just because man said so.

Good afternoon sir.

Bosco Bhoy 1 (#111) I was born and grew up in Scotland. Bigotry against RC Church is the same now as it was then. I am ashamed to say that the country of my birth is a sectarian place. The only consolation is that the rational and logical people are probably the silent, friendly majority. Most bigots live in the "Central Belt" and have nothing better to do with their time. Notwithstanding the bigots, most people are very welcoming to everybody, like they are in Donegal. When the bigots run out of Catholics to hate, they'll find others to hate like poor immigrants. Well, since most of the immigrants are Catholics or Muslims!!!!

Not my evils sunshine. And as it happens, considering the RC church represents almost 2 billion people on this planet, I think the Cardinal is justified in representing the shared beliefs and views of these people.

He is, at the very least, entitled to an opinion, just the saem as yourself.

As I said before, it's volountary. You are not forced to have anything to do with the RC church so no need to be so negative and bitter about it.

Talk about enlightenment. The most unenlightend thing is to mock other peoples beliefs and religions.

#129
I dont recall reading in any of the cardinals comments that Balir said he would act. So why attack blair then for not doing something which he never said he would do?

Good grasp of the language for something that is -31 weeks old.

However, life's a bitch, maybe you would be better off not living it.

#118
Are you saying that human embryos don't constitute human life Fergus?

Keith O'Brien's expressed views, which he falsely promotes as the view of Scottish Catholics, are based on a Catholic interpretation of biblical absolutism. Now we all know that the bible says a lot of bizarre and unpalatable things, and we all know that all so-called "Christians" pick and choose the parts that they consider important. But in this case Keith O'Brien's logic flows from the Catholic concept that, to paraphrase, "every sperm is sacred". The sin of Onan, "spilling his seed on the ground", was the waste of potential human life. This Catholic doctrine considers ejaculated sperm and unfertilized eggs to be potential life, never mind the combination of the two. It is not the case that life begins at conception for biblical absolutists - life is inherent in our gonads, and all their products must be used only to reproduce.

What is frankly laughable is that this "holy law" is nothing more than a set of social rules developed by a desert people thousands of years ago who needed to keep their birth-rate up to maintain their society. It, like most of Leviticus, is a practical, not theological, consideration.

That is why the Catholic Church today rails against non-reproductive sex, including same sex sex; against masturbation; against contraception; and against abortion. They are trying to maintain a set of laws whose relevance has long since passed. Our priority as a society today is to control population growth, not promote it. We have a whole different set of social needs. Why on earth are we still being fed the practical regulations of a long-dead society and told that it is god's law?

No73 weechico
I do not deny this, but the article is about the Catholic Church.
No126
You are correct, most people are unaware that the majority of oral contraceptives are abortifacient. That's why they should continue with this stance but support the use of condoms.

Bloody hell, is this all modern Scotland has to say? What a bunch of vile bigoted people you all are. Any time any representative of the RC church says anything you ignore the message and just vomit your usual anti catholic bile.

Duncan

Who do lad?

Middle paragraph? Spot on!

It is true that the RC need to come into the 21st Century in their interpretation of the Bible. Even us "Wee Free's" try to keep it relatively relevant to our social needs.

How do even! Damn this dyslexia

There will be cases where a woman decides not to have an abortion because of Cardinal O’Brien’s utterances. In such cases, and where the state incurs additional costs as a direct consequence, should not the Catholic Church be held liable for these additional costs? I am thinking particularly of state benefits. Is the Cardinal exerting his power, but shirking his responsibility?

#134

Enlightened enough to say that any Cardinal can preach to his own flock and ask them to behave in any manner that he pleases. When they do not, he should not attempt to enroll the state as enforcers of his own intolerance. I for one do not wish to have his misplaced morality imposed on the vast majority of the population that does not accept the blinkered beliefs of the Catholic Hierarchy.

Religion should be kept well away from politics - and as TBlair has so aptly demonstrated, politics should steer well clear of piousness.

I'm not negative about the RC Church, I'm negative about all religion. The majority of (and all the mainstream) religions have adopted beliefs and laws from thousands of years ago and still try to enforce them today (in a much changes society). Couple this with a beilef in something that cannot be proven just makes it absurd. They might as well believe in an all powerful teapot, that circles the earth, from which all life is poured!

Is God Catholic?

Abortion is wrong, not because the fallible Roman Catholic Church says so but because God says so in His infallible Word, the Bible. The Holy Scriptures are the final authority for our belief and behaviour. All of us - preachers, politicians and private individuals - will be judged by Jesus Christ at the last day according to our works.

Even if there was only the hint of a possibility that what is destroyed by abortion is a fellow human being then the law of the land should forbid it. But the issue is hardly in any doubt. God said to the prophet Jeremiah: "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee" (Jeremiah 1:5). Human life is precious because it is God-given and because uniquely we are made in God's image (Genesis 1:27).

In God's sight abortion is murder. The commandment "Thou shalt not kill" (Exodus 20:13) surely applies as much to infant life in the womb as to adult life outside it.

Oh the guilt of our land in this matter, and especially of those who have promoted and financed the slaying of the unborn! May God in His wrath remember mercy, and may He bring those who have been complicit in the sin of abortion to a true repentance and to salvation through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

It's not as HE pleases Alfred. It is as the RC Church pleases through their own interpretation of the bible.

As for your second sentence "When they do not, he should not attempt to enroll the state as enforcers of his own intolerance" - it suggests that we are ALL his flock. We are not and he would be misguided in his thinking if he thought we were.

I agree that religion and politics are not a happy mix but religion is the keeper of our morals, the state is the keeper of our taxes.

He is entitled to state an opinion. He will have many people supporting his statement. The government is obliged to listen to that statement but not obliged to do anything about it.

If you take away his right to express an opinion, you take away all our rights to express an opinion.

#148 - what a poor misguided person you are. Wake up and smell the coffee, God doesn't exist and you are basing you rlife on something written thousands of years ago - probably by a person who was hearing voices in his head. If these people were around now they would, quite rightly, be either locked up or given a lot of psychiatric help.

146

Absolutely! And if people want to believe in that (I believe it's called Scientology)then they are free to do so. The church brings a lot of comfort to a lot of people.

BTW, what stops you from stealing, murdering, raping and generally being a bad egg?

#148 David Blunt
simple question. Do you believe in and and act out everything the bible says?

#148 Which God - who's God??? your God?? what if an alternative religion has a god who disagrees with your view.

Also - When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations.

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

#148

David, can I be blunt? You need SERIOUS help mate. Which century are you from? Do you know how ridiculous your spouting makes you look. Get a grip on yourself because we are all laughing to death.

#149
No, Angus, religion is NOT the keeper of our morals.

angus mor #149
who says the church is the keeper or our morals. Not mine and not in my name thanks.

Its obriens morals that stink thank you very much!

EDINBURGH, Scotland, June 12, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Cardinal Keith O’Brien, Archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, stated yesterday that the Parliament of Scotland should be able to decide important national issues such as abortion for itself, ....

Now we understand what this is about.

Series of press releases, aggrevating speeches from the pulpit, some bishop in Motherwell doing his bit. A well planned campaign.

Allied to that a few loyalists (if you will excuse the term) to support Keith in forums like this after publication of his press release.

And of course anyone who is FOR abortion is bigoted/doesn't have the facts/lazy/no respect for themselves.

"the last thing many Scots people can do is discuss the Catholic Church with a rational and logical approach."
"everyone would know how entrenched these persons are in their hatred for the Catholic religion"
"When the bigots run out of Catholics to hate..."

Bunker mentality indeed.

Yes, you have kept the focus of the 'discussion' hard on the anti abortion message, and not allowed yourselves to be distracted. A job well done.

This priest is obviously a fun guy, American equivalent of father Gerry I suspect.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9goLXFJzSik

Who are what is then Paul? You cannot just end your denile there without qualification.

#151 - Have you actually got anything to contribute to the debate? I mean, Do you think that the destruction of human life in the womb is justified? If so, why?

The problem with this debate is not so much abortion itself. Its the fact that the Catholic Church (The Woman Who Rides The Beast) is taking the moral high ground.

The organisation that O'brien represents has its foundations stained in the blood of millions. There is no denying that The Vatican is responsible for the rape,pillage and murder of countelss millons over many centuries. There is no denying that they attempted to govern the minds of the masses and if you were found to think something contrary to their teachings you were burnt at the steak by order of the pope. Some men, like Galileo were spared death because they knew the pope personally. House arrest at 78 years of age was his punishment for endorsing the work of Copernicus who established that the Sun was the centre of our universe, as opposed to the EARTH. Galileo had to agree that the Earth was the centre of the universe or he would have been murdered.It took the Vatican 300 years to acknowledge this scientific fact.

The popes have long claimed to be infallible. Vicars of christ on Earth stemming from a direct line to St Peter. Such lies are nausiating to say the least! Their blasphemy knows no boundaries, nor does their hatred of free thinking consciousness. The Vatican would return to the days of the inqusition tomorrow if they had the power to do so. They dont, so they alter their agenda to suit the times.

Take the church out of this debate and we can have a proper discussion regarding the issue. Leave them in it and we cannot. How can we discuss a moral dilema when the most evil institution known to man is attempting to take the head seat in the moral aspects regarding abortion?

Phil in Airdrie:

You considered having my post deleted because you disagreed with it? Well, that is rather typical of the narrow mind-set of religious groups who want to impose their, and only their, practices on other people. You try and obliterate those you disagree with; we all know where we've seen that idiology before.

Your presumption that I know nothing of ethics and moral philosophy falls well short of the mark. If I might suggest some reading for you on this subject - try A.C. Grayling for a kick-off, then I might suggest a bit of Dawkins.

The power and might of the church has spent an incredible amount of money trying to denigrate this pair, so you will no doubt come back with some jib-jab-hoodoo-written nonsense, but there you go.

Who or what is the keeper of your morals then? What stops you from being bad and bad eggs?

#159 with your narrow minded views you would be the perfect poster boy for the pro-choice lobby.

"#48 Angus Mor:-
........Didn't you see the Popes inauguration? Didn't you see the thousands and thousands of people waiting for him in the Vatican?"
..................................................................................................
I bet they were all thinking the same thing........"BA-A-A-A-A-A-H"

Who knows what they were thinking Gina!

Would he not be better employed in rooting out the child molesting priests that his church has helped avoid justice by moving around the world or getting the nuns that hide behind their religion to give evidence on the child abuse that they witnessed to allow their victims compensation from his church. This would give his concerns about human life some credence.

#141 Not so bad, ta.

It is interesting to compare the approaches of different Christian denominations to social and political questions. To me it has always appeared to be a question of that marvellous flag of convenience, "tradition". You can pretty much divide up the denominations - and in some ways, even the major religions - according to which century they stopped thinking.

Clearly the reformation was the key point for a lot of protestant denominations, but many have since espoused the Victorian era as the basis for moral judgement. Methodists and Unitarians are happy with the morals of the mid-twentieth century. Wee Frees and their ilk are most comfortable with the 19th century (IMHO :-); Islam is stuck in the 15th/16th century; Catholicism is stuck in the 11th century while wishing it could go back further... Interestingly Judaism, for the most part, has managed to chart a quite pragmatic course. The irony that the "people of the book" should be among those least likely to turn to it for social guidance is quite striking.

Such thoughts fill my head when I read comments such as #148, who talks of infallibility in the bible. That assertion always drives me to one key question before any others: in what language did the person read the bible? Because if it is in English, then they are calling infallible something which has been interpreted and re-interpreted by humans many times before reaching them. Does your "infallible" bible condemn homosexuality, for example? Because if it does, you should know that the concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation was only coined in the late 1800s. Everything is interpreted, and every interpreter brings their own prejudices to the task.

#152
I am quite capable of determining right from wrong without having to resort from rules given by a "greater being" (which actually doesn't exist and so were actually put together by Man anyway)!

Gordon

How? You think you were born like that? C'mon, think. What prevents you from being bad? You have not answered the question at all.

#153
simple question. Do you believe in and and act out everything the bible says?

If by your question you mean, 'Do I believe to be true everything the Bible says to be true and do I live according to God's moral law?' then the answer is, by God's grace, Yes, although of course as a sinner I always "come short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23).

I think the time limit should be reduced...it is too late into a pregnancy.

Let us not forget that there are men who also demand that their partners have an abortion, even in marriage.

This debate is now a boiling pot of pious moralising, outraged politics and religious claptrap. Women are sexual beings....if we stop having sex (as some of you men would have us, until 'married'!) what would all of you randy males be reduced to and would the rape stats increase?...Oh no, of course I am wrong...you will all go away and masturbate quietly in a corner...salivating at table legs and the underwear section in catalogues.

The emotive religious comments (who is the nutter pretending to speak as an embryo?) and even silly choochter songs from 'bards' are laughable.

Women (especially young) do need to take more responsibility for their bodies and sexuality...but no big pointy moral religious finger is going to make them do that..fires of hell or transferred shame...nor are the trashy celebs/singers who are crap role models, suggesting the more flesh you expose the more power you have. In saying that I would like to see some of these female celebs undo some of the damagethey perpetuate by advertising condoms for the likes of durex. Face it, a lot of young people are not particularly intelligent and they look up to the wrong people..its damage limitation.

As far as rape being a 'crisis' pregnancy is concerned I am aware that the more 'devout' in the Catholic church believe that the pregnancy should go ahead. Again that is a choice for the victim who has been raped and it is her decision. Sorry but If it were me I would see a rape pregnancy as an STD that would require urgent disinfecting.

Yes the Cardinal is right to give his opinion...but under no circumstances should the Catholic church, or any church...influence politics in this country.

I'l say it again....children brought up in a religious household and to be religious,

Re-phrase. What tools have you been handed in life to be able to determine right from wrong in our civilised society?

What tools have you been given in order to achieve civility (albeit civility is merely a vaneer)?

Nearly all the raving fundementalist aetheists in the above posts know squidly dot about the church they so roundly condemn.

They are not describing the oganisations which I am familiar with.
They resort to cheap insults and distortions.
They emphasise the bad things which do happen in the churches, conveniently forgetting that the same bad things are present in society as a whole.

And the crown is when evidence of success and things that are to be celebrated are put forward -there is little or no comment................

eg Paul - that self appointed expert on religion

172

I think most men would want to have sex with a woman as soon as possible regardless of marital status. The RC preaches abstinance to both parties until eligble for marraige which carried a minimum legal age. It is a form of protectionism to the woman, in a way and prevent young men trying to get their leg over.

However, I take on board what you have written.

Flame war! - just marvellous.

I'm all for people to have the right to abortions - admittedly it would be wonderful if all unwanted children could be carried to full ter mand adopted - but that's a fantasy.

Those that believe in them should not be prevented because of the religious beliefs of others (especially if the others are in a minority)

Terminations have been happening for centuries - do we want to go back to the times of women drinking copious amounts of gin, taking raspberry leaves or throwing themselves down stairs?

some folk have huge huge chips on their shoulder egh!

Why don't the Catholics do what they want and everyine else can do the same.

If the Muslims want Scotland to convert to Sharia law would Gordon Brown be consulted?

Pointless argument.

#163 Angus

Why do we need a keeper of our morals. Morals are also relative and human construct, they are determined, developed and practised in a complex way. But at least in modern society there is some debate, some transparency before theybecome formal codes like a law or a bill of rights. But or most folk, moral practise is a matter of personal judgement in the context of general societal beliefs. Thats good sin't it?

Angus, I can see that your intended inference is that Christian ethics have informed general social morals over the years. But I would question the order of cause-and-effect there.

As an atheist, there is no question in my mind that any rules that societies of humans construct stem from the humans themselves, and not a "higher power". And I think that that is a highly credible hypothesis.

Would anyone seriously posit that before the arrival of Christianity in the UK, people were killing each other without social condemnation? That there was no respect of individual rights and responsibilities - "loving thy neighbour as thyself" - before the Christians arrived with their big book of rules?

For me it is self-evident that the Christian, Muslim, Jewish and other religious sets of rules are simply codifications of human-constructed social mores. Morals do not get imposed from the outside - they develop within.

We really do not need the constructed notion of an all-powerful father-god-figure to reinforce these rational human rules any more.

Paul

We require a keeper of morals to maintain this incredibly thin vaneer of civility. Without it, society would break down. Society is breaking down of course, why would that be?

Given the choice, I'd rather hand that job onto the church(s) rather than the government. It's a personal choice, of course.

You are right in your last scentence. However, nobody has answered my question yet because y'll know the answer but won't admit it.

I wonder if Cardinal Keith O'Brien can tell us this, if his church considers life to be so precious, why doesn’t his church give any consideration to giving right to babies that die before birth.

Of course religion and society is a human construct. I will never deny that. At the time., however, when we lived tribalised lifestyles with low birth rate, high infant mortality, regular wars, invasion, crops failures etc, it was easier to contruct this "higher being" in order to galvanise society and work together.

I agree it is outmoded but you have to agree that many aspects of our society are previously based on religion, including many of mans laws.

I also agree that, at a time when questions were being asked of the greater environment that to answer all questions "it's God's will" is slack and lazy.

#154 Which God - who's God??? your God?? what if an alternative religion has a god who disagrees with your view.

There is only one true and living God, as is obvious. He created the heaven and the earth. Idols don't do that sort of thing.

You seem to be somewhat entangled with the yoke of the ceremonial law. New Testament believers are not in bondage to it. The Lord Jesus Christ blotted out "the handwriting of ordinances that was against it" when He died for His people's sins at Calvary.

#131 Thank you for bringing some realism into the debate. I have always thought that if pregnant women had a window into their womb to actually see what they were destroying by abortion it would influence the their decision making somewhat. How can any woman destroy the life that she can actually feel moving and kicking inside her?

One of the main problems with this and many other issues is that we only ever hear about 'rights' being asserted. 'Rights' cannot exist without 'responsibilities'. The 'rights' of two people to have sexual intercourse are balance by the 'responsibilities' of both of them to the unborn child if the women becomes pregnant - it's not the 'right' of the woman to decide, although I accept that many men run from their responsibilities not just in relation to unborn children.

And you are also right to point out the risk of our society departing from its (Christian) roots in valuing the family and children, both born and unborn. It is the proclaimed aim of many Muslims to establish their 'kingdom' in Britain and the Western Europe generally. In that they will succeed if we continue to live in a moral vacuum.

#151 - beware of arrogance. Many a prophet was not listened to in his own land.

#155 - David, can I be blunt? You need SERIOUS help mate. Which century are you from? Do you know how ridiculous your spouting makes you look. Get a grip on yourself because we are all laughing to death.

Have you actually got anything to contribute to the debate? I mean, Do you think that the destruction of human life in the womb is justified? If so, why?

#170
I did answer it - I can tell the difference between right and wrong, what hurts others and hurts me, and what doesn't. I don't need people to tell me that they were decreed by a "God".

#183 I realise that it is an exercise in futility to engage with you on this, but how exactly do you square the idea of an infallible bible with the notion that half of it can safely be ignored?

And by the way, what language do read the bible in?

#168 - Such thoughts fill my head when I read comments such as #148, who talks of infallibility in the bible. That assertion always drives me to one key question before any others: in what language did the person read the bible? Because if it is in English, then they are calling infallible something which has been interpreted and re-interpreted by humans many times before reaching them. Does your "infallible" bible condemn homosexuality, for example? Because if it does, you should know that the concept of homosexuality as a sexual orientation was only coined in the late 1800s. Everything is interpreted, and every interpreter brings their own prejudices to the task.

This view of our English Bible is mistaken. It is not an 'interpretation' of the original Hebrew and Greek texts but a translation of them. The Authorised Version, which I would recommend for its accuracy and faithfulness to the originals, was 'translated out of the original tongues' as it states in the preface.

Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible, both in the originals and in our translation.

Glasgow Boy., #184.
‘Thank you for bringing some realism into the debate. I have always thought that if pregnant women had a window into their womb to actually see what they were destroying by abortion it would influence the their decision making somewhat. How can any woman destroy the life that she can actually feel moving and kicking inside her?’
In most cases, at the time of the abortion the woman wouldn’t feel movement, if there were these feelings of movement from conception the number of abortions would no doubt be smaller. If you are a person who thinks there is no room for abortion at all, how do you get around the woman who is told if she doesn’t have an abortion she will die, but at the same time the pregnancy will not go full term either, and there will be two deaths for the price of one? Now if there is a philosophical argument for abortion in one instance, there also leaves open the possibility for it to be permissible in others.

187

Still haven't answered my question. Who or what gave you the tools to determine what is right or worng? All you have done is quote religion i.e. "Do unto others what other do to you" i.e. treat people the way you would like to be treated. A simple biblical message.

Now, have another go at answering my question. Who or what taught you to determine right from wrong? We are not born that way.

Stephen101 (#157) Thank you for making me aware of LifeSiteNews.com I enjoyed visiting youtube.com once again and yes the video is funny ha ha.......................ha ha ha.............................
You are comical as well! "Bunker mentality indeed." I don't know who Fr. Gerry is and what he or the youtube.com video has to do with bigots, abortion or the Catholic Church.

Isn't it absolutely amazing how many people have absolutely no qualms in displaying their ignorance, lack of knowledge, and incredible level of intolerance every time the 'Church' should dare to speak on isues that affect us all?

Unless I am very much mistaken, all of the above arose as a response to an article on abortion; an issue much too serious to be reduced the the stream of bile that has emanated from a range of upstanding citizens all morning - most of whom, it would appear, are male and would, therefore, know all about how abortion affects a woman.

Just to clarify one or two points:
1. Abortion is illegal in the UK. The 1967 Abortion Act did not legalise abortion, but placed the responsibility on two doctors to discern whether certain preconditions existed that might legalise an abortion.
2. A woman does not have the right to choose to have an abortion, but does have the right to seek medical opinion as above.
3. Cardinal O'Brien is expressing his opinion, to which he is entitled in this wonderful democracy of ours, that the Abortion Act needs to be reviewed since it is now 40 years old and medical science has moved on quite substantially in this time.
4. The Church and State are inextricably linked in the UK.
5. Gordon Brown is the Prime Minister of Her Majesty's Government. Said Majesty is the Head of the Church of England, and her Government appoints the Bishops of the Church of England.

If we are going to indulge in 'rational' debate, would it not be a good idea if those so intent on taking part were to do a bit of background research first?

Or would this just interfere with their ranting and raving?

Next they will be telling us that the Pope is a Catholic and that Bears relieve themselves in the woods.

A Roman Catholic Cardinal takes the opportunity to impress his Church's Party Line on Abortion on the new Prime Minister. Well that's his job isn't it, to push his Church's Dogmas. Now a quick look through Hansard would have confirmed that Gordon Brown has always voted for a Woman's Right to Choose and against any restrictive measures regarding Abortion.

Secondly, unlike the Crypto-Catholic Blair, Brown is Church of Scotland, that is a Protestant, and not therefore likely to take undue heed of the opinions of the Church of Rome.

This story will fade away as others of its type have done and the present Laws on Abortion are if anything likely to be eased with the requirement for two doctors approval being removed for up to 12 weeks and "Abortion on Demand" being openly available in the First Trimester of Pregnancy.

Nice try Cardinal O Brien , and I salute you for your persistence but you are on hiding to nothing. Even some Roman Catholic countries have legalised Abortion and neither Scotland's nor the UK is a Catholic Country.

For the record, if it is not obvious, I have always supported a "Woman's Right to Choose" and I do NOT believe that Life begins at Conception.

Religion is blashemy! If you want to believe in a divne creator then so be it, but you dont need a church to dictate to you, govern you or indoctrinate you. Leave that blasphemous hatred behind and search for your own truth. Its hard, because asking questions means searching for the truth, and the truth is not always what we want to hear.

I used to pray to god every evening. I had a passion for Jesus. I took onboard what I was taught from birth and believed in it. Why would'nt I? My parents never forced me to believe in god, but I could not avoid societies indoctrination so it stuck with me until I was around 25. Then I read the bible, talking snakes who once had legs, a god who murdered Egyptian babies and sent locusts to destroy crops in an act of genocidal rage. Incest, rape, murder and deceit. I could not believe what I was reading, this god was the devil himself.

When I got to the new testament I was far more happier with the stories therein. Love, forgiveness, peace etc. But I could not let go what I had read in the old testament. I then wondered if the new testament had been written as a means of appeasing people like myself. You know, a new story, a more acceptable one to believe in. A way of gaining my trust. But who would want to gain my trust? Who wrote this book I wondered, who were these apostles? Howcome their stories were so different?

I then came across cell fusion, DNA and cloning. I realised that we had the technology to create life in our own image. What if in 500 years from now we come across a deserted planet and create our own clones? What if these clones see us flying our chariots up to the sky and then write stories about us? Suddenly I realised that the story of creation is nothing special. The bible was evil, but then it was made good. The church, especially the roman one had a horrific past steeped in evil and disgusting practices. What was going on? It was time to leave it all behind. I could trust nobody but myself a

Credo

Last scentence is right. Where would the fun be if everybody was rational?? ;-)

I think that it's extremely dangerous when un-elected dictators like the cardinal are given so much power to influence our democratically elected politicians who preside over the majority of people who don't agree with his views.

It is irrelevant that he received support from "as far afield as New Zealand". If people in New Zealand want to criminalise abortion, then do it, but they have no right to influence Scottish Politics.

I am extremely dissapointed that the SNP which have traditionally stood up against these kind of views appear to be making allowances to the Cardinal to capture West of Scotland votes.

#189 You're wrong on a number of fronts. I wonder whether you assert these things as a matter of faith or reason - because of course I cannot compete against faith with my simple tool of reason.

The "Authorised Version" is based on the (Greek) Textus Receptus for the New Testament, and the (Hebrew) Masoretic Text for the Old. The Textus Receptus was the first Greek language printing of the New Testament, produced by Erasmus during the 14th Century from an incomplete set of Byzantine sources, which he hurriedly completed under publisher's pressure and which he augmented with a retranslation from the Latin of a sizeable chunk of Revelations. Ironically the Masoretic source for the Old Testament was a work from the 7th-10th centuries which differed significantly from the quoted scripture used in the Textus Receptus, which dated from the 4th century.

Your Authorised Version, like every other, is a hotchpotch of mistranslation, interpretation and pick and mix. There is no such thing as "the original" version of the bible. It has been bent and moulded to suit the purposes of religions over its entire life, and it continues to be so.

A good example of that is the New International Version, which condemns "homosexuals", while no mention of homosexual sexual orientation appears in any previous bible (quite simply because the notion of a sexual orientation, as opposed to sexual behaviour, was not posited until the late 18th century).

A dialog between a Doctor and an embryon/
D-Hello,i'm Doctor XX from NHS,i'm charged to kill you by the request of your mother and the power of the law.What you call?
Embryon:I'm sadness,the day will be coming darkness,why you kill me?I have the right in the life like any other man,i'm inocent,i don't have comit any crims,what is your argument for to kill me whitout trial?
Doctor:Your mother was asked me of this abortion.
Embryon:I have 7 week and i want to life,my father and mather was from Alba(Scotland today) and i want see and life in the land of my ancestry.
Doctor:I'm sorry,that it's impossible,your mother she don't have a job and she use drugs and alcool for all this reason is better for you to dead.
Embryon:But,i'm inocent of the acts of my father and mother why you charge me by actions was comited by others give me a chance to life my life,please don't mistake your self i plaid for my life i have absolutly no involvment whit Cardinal O'Brien or any religion.
Doctor:i understand perfectly your sentiment of the life and this is a legitim request but if necessarly to understund my embryon they are more 12,000 scotish embryon dead eash years and i can't permit my self to give you a life,i agree i'm a criminel and a bouro but what do you do this a life and my job.
Embryon:Doctor,i pries you don't kill me ,i have a consciuos and mind,i wand to walk in the land of my fathers,to see the sun and when i will teenager i go tothe stadium for supporting the Glasgow rangers.
Doctor:i know all this but i repeat you they are more 12,000 embryon killed in Scotland and 50,000 in france for comparison the numbers of american troop killed in Irak is under 6,000.
Embryon:Doctor you are responsibl of my life,the society have the power to kill me because i can't speak and i can't defend my self.
Doctor:Yes,but they are other parametr,we can't give a jod of all this embryon in the futur and the probability to beeing a crimi

No Angus, I have answered your question. I have the ability to make these decisions because of an all round decent upbringing (without religous input). Just because Religion uses some of these values does not mean that they came from religion. You should have a look at yourself and believe in the good of human nature rather than having to place yourself in the trust of a "supreme being". Who, if it exists, doesn't seem to care what is happening in the world these days. Or is that just because it is trying to test us??

#188 - I realise that it is an exercise in futility to engage with you on this, but how exactly do you square the idea of an infallible bible with the notion that half of it can safely be ignored?

And by the way, what language do read the bible in?

Who said anything about ignoring half of the Bible? The Old Testament is full of instruction for us, and full of precious teaching concerning Christ. I simply stated that the ceremonial law of the Old Testament has been abrogated with the coming of Christ. The moral law remains.

I read the Bible in the English language but also consult the Hebrew and Greek texts on which our translation is based.

Houssine - I think you'll find the Embryo didn't say that.

I wonder if the Catholic church will allow that well known fraud and liar, Mr Blair to join their ranks as he doesn't seem to have done to well in following Catholic teachings. My guess is that Tony will be Catholic any day now and the publicity this brings the Catholic Church will be allowed to outweigh his past.

Finally, you answered the question Gordon. Your "decent" upbringing. Something you did not mention earlier.

Who taught your parents to bring you up decently? Who taught their parents to bring them up decently? Who taught their parents parents so on and so forth. Well?

I do not need to look at myself young man with regards the good of human nature as I do not hand over my ethics to the church, but I do acknowledge the good our own church has done.

As it happens, being an ex-serviceman, I turely understand the good of human nature but also the bad. And the worst side of human nature is a souless, loveless, hate filled monster. Gladly, most of us in the UK have had a resonable, Christian based upbringing, whether you like it or not so we are mostly a civilised society.

199- Nanterre,

You are obviously in France judging by your name. Again , join the debate in France, don't try to affect matters here. I assume your argument was ignored in France too?

#199 A more accurate dialogue between a doctor and an embryo:

Doctor: Hello, small group of cells with the potential to form a human life.
Embryo:
Doctor: Oh sorry, for a moment there I forgot that you are neither alive nor able to speak, but just a set of living cells much like the contents of my testes which I disposed of this morning.
Embryo:
Doctor: Oddly enough, I didn't feel the need to converse with my ejaculate.
Embryo:
Doctor: Okay, I'll just do my job to the best of my ability then.

#201 You read Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek do you?

Now remember, lying is a sin.

#198 You're wrong on a number of fronts. I wonder whether you assert these things as a matter of faith or reason - because of course I cannot compete against faith with my simple tool of reason.

On what basis do you make the suggestion (or perhaps the assertion) that faith and reason are opposed to one another? They are no more opposed than religion and science are opposed. The problem of course is that we are finite creatures and therefore our power of reason is limited. Moreover our minds have been affected by sin and the fall. "Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their heart" (Ephesians 4:18).

In your assertions regarding the Authorised Version you rule out the fact that God has promised to preserve His Word in His church in a providential way. That is why He committed it to writing. "The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep the, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." (Psalm 12:6,7). "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Mathew 5:18)

The Masoretic Hebrew OT Text and the Textus Receptus Greek NT Text are the fruit of God's providential preservation of His Word. We may be confident that in the Authorised Version and other versions based upon these same texts we have in our hands the pure Word of God.

Credo#193 You are correct in saying that abortion is illegal in the UK. Unfortunately women think that they have the right to have an abortion because they see that it is readily available to them, thanks to the doctors who are part of what has now become an industry of death. We can learn a lot from other people even if we think they are ranting or raving!

#206
what would the dialogue be for the 6month old unborn then?

#207 - You read Ancient Hebrew and Ancient Greek do you?

Now remember, lying is a sin.

Lying is a sin, as is any other form of bearing false witness against our neighbour. I am pleased to see that you acknowledge the concept of sin. How would you define sin?

I wrote that I "consult the Hebrew and Greek texts on which our [English] translation [of the Bible] is based. This I do by means of the written texts and the many lexical helps which are readily available - even more so in our internet age.

The problem (or rather, just one of them) is David #210, that although you believe the word of your god to be infallible, the fact remains that the words were written by men, who, I'm sure you'd be the first to agree, are most certainly fallible. Ever played a game of Chinese Whispers? Sometimes you only need to pass the information along to the next person for them to completely misinterpret what you've said and meant. Your god didn't commit his words to writing himself, he passed his words to men to write for him - and you, and no-body else, has any beyond-doubt proof of what was ACTUALLY meant.

Now fast forward a few millenia and the Chinese Whispers are even more jumbled, with everyone taking it upon themselves to proclaim that they, and they alone, know what Yahweh REALLY meant...

BTW, notice that the books of the bible are authored by MEN and therefore for them (and through them, you) to attempt to order what goes on in a WOMAN's body is quite simply beyond the pale.

And another thing, while I'm here I may as well point this out to you - as others have: there is not just "one god". Sorry to break this to you but I'm afraid that's the truth. With a capital "T" if you really want it. You believe it not to be the case, that's your perogative. As it is mine's to know otherwise.

Abortion is illegal???
Is that a fact?
Why don't you go for prosecutions then, instead of trying to to impose episcopal dictatorship on a nation who rejected it 500 years ago and continue to do so today?
A good job neither the medical nor the legal profession take any notice of the air headed "reasonings" of the religious bigots.

Who is this god who forces 40 million sperm cells to race for their life? The rest being killed instantly.

Who is this god? I mean its almost as bas as murdering egyptian babies is it not?

If abortion is murder, what is it called when an institution murders you for not conforming to their doctrines.?

#210 Wow. Just wow.

You have just argued that your chosen true version of the bible in English is true because it says so in your chosen true version of the bible in English.

#193 Tsk, tsk!

Facts have absolutely no place on an internet forum. You just had to go and raise the tone didn't you?

For shame!

#212 Without wishing to sound flippant, I have to tell you that all unborn animals sound the same - silent. The personification of an unborn human is irrational.

At what point can we personify an unborn child then Duncan?

I'm going to watch this with interest this debate between Duncan the rude and arrogant ad hominem attack atheist man and this committed Christian David. Sums up a lot of this debate nicely. Sarcasm and arrogance versus Truth.

IF, Cardinal O'Brien attempted to influence the French government in a similar fashion his church would suffer further punitive legislation?
Since the overt support the French Bishops gave to the Vichy Regime during the Second World War, when it turned a blind eye to the deportation and murders of tens of thousands of French Jews in Vichy and Nazi concentration camps, it has been treated with great suspicion!
The Republic of France is nominally a Roman Catholic nation with over 85 % of the population adhering to that religion but since the well documented treachery of the Catholic Church during Vichy, the Fifth Republic has ensured that Church and State are kept well apart, unlike the position of the established Church of England in the U.K. Constitution!
Any attempt by the Catholic Church in France to interfere in politics is met with more and more legislative safeguards to protect the French Constitution!
Unlike the tighly controlled 1967 U.K. Abortion Act, abortion on demand is allowed in France! Lachie Todd

#213 I hate to labour the point, but in your "studies" of the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, did you reach any conclusions about the qedeshim in the Canaanite and Ammonite traditions as referenced in Leviticus? What do you think of the contemporary theological view that this reference to religious prostitution has been misrepresented in almost all English translations? Is this a sign of God changing his mind?

The life is not only begining white copulation of the ovule cell and the spermatozoit cell but whit the movment inside these cells,this movment is the life.
Others theoricien have comdamned the blak man to slavery because he is not a man and we have many exempls like this.The abortion is the fashist theory to justify the killing of inocent victimms and more behind this theory the goal is a purificatin of the society.The society select an embryo who will be a good citizen and kill the embryon whisch the probability is great he will be and alcoolic,rioter,socialist or communist.

#220 We are allowed to be irrational, Angus. I am not proscribing, just describing. :-)

Its numpties like Mr Blunt that make me glad that the middle ages are a very long time ago!

Duncan @223

Some people claim that God, if in existance, is a woman. Given that, its a Womans/God's perogative to change Her mind! ;-)

Ah, ok Duncan! Thanks.

The funny thing with Houssine is that he wouldn't know any of this, if it weren't for the brave scientists who shunned the church and religion, in favour of the scientific method. Without them, we'd still be barking at the moon.

#224 But UK society does no such thing! It upholds a individual's right to choose, it does not impose a state-sanctioned view of who should and shouldn't have an abortion based on any of the grounds you cite.

I totally agree that eugenics practised via abortion would be horrific. But it isn't happening, so your argument is a straw man.

154#
without meaning to you actually sum up the whole thing. Both the article itself and the posters.
Brilliant.

#227 Aha! Now THAT makes a lot of sense.

Can any of those who are arguing the religious view tell me where it says in the bible that embryos are life and abortion is wrong.

More sense than most of this empty rhetoric, eh?!

#221 I'm glad you're being entertained. I particularly love the fact that right before you accuse me of ad hominem attacks you make an ad hominem attack on me. Circular logic appears to be very popular among the God-bothering fraternity. Pip pip.

Yes Walter but they are not refered to as "embryos" or "abortion" as the Bible was aimed at people with little or no scientific understanding or vocabulary.

WALTER: Here is the thing...What the bible says about it is unimportant.

What the religious leaders say is even less important.

The church is a blasphemous and its evil history should ban it from making any comments regarding this topic.

jennifer

Sometimes I really do believe it! You done a good job with yound Duncan there! ;-)

#237 I hope I don't have to kneel at your feet. My knees are giving me gyp today.

seems just a minority supports an end of abortion. why should a minority get to tell the majority what they are allowed to do? i strongly support the status quo.
a recent report showed that in the USA, after abortion had been legalised in some of the states, crime rate of teenagers dropped significantly there, about 15 years after its introduction. why? because women who didn't consider themselves in a social state suitable to bring up children were able to have an abortion. there again the link to social classes and crime....

Then again dunnoony, we allow the minority to dictate and always will do.

However, the woman who championed abortion rights in America all those years ago admits herself that she was misguided at the time.

126 – I agree with what you say, in my own personal view I would not have an abortion at any stage in my pregnancy, I believe life begins with conception and would be unable to terminate a pregnancy, this if my personal choice, other people have their own, however I don’t believe they will ever completely outlaw abortions in this country, maybe because they are scared of it going underground.

So failing that, the system needs to be reviewed and tighter measures put in place such as

(a) People who go to the doctor for an abortion should be guided and counselled correctly to ensure that they are making the right choice and that thye will be able to deal with the repurcussions of their actions

(b) It should not be as easy as it is to get your doctors agreement for an abortion, as it stands the dr has to give a justified reason for the abortion to take place and around 90% are put down as detrimental to mothers mental health, it’s a cop out

(c) People who have repeat abortions (and there are those who do I have a friend who has had 4) should not be allowed to use abortion as a form of birth control

(d) The cut off period needs to be radically rethought, as I said earlier I believe life is life from moment of conception however, if a baby was born at 14 - 20 weeks it would not and could not survive, I may be wrong but I don’t believe I’ve ever heard of a baby surviving at this stage but baies do survive and thrive in many cases from 22 weeks onwards so there can be NO debate on whether this is life or not, of course it is, my little boy is proof.

In regards to all the religious debate, can it not be knocked on the head and as far as religion is concerned be satisfied with agreeing to disagree??? I am a catholic, I believe in God, however I do not and will not believe in everything the bible tells me, why because the bible was created by the hands of man and could be wrong, I don’t force my beliefs on anyone and do not expect anyone

If any religion wishes to dictate how non believers behave, then it is morally bankrupt, and the state should take steps to remove it's privalages, starting with the exemption to taxation!

#236 AngusMor
In using the words for those that the bible was aimed at where does it say it is wrong.

No97 Phil 241106

It saddens me that the topic is about abortion and yet many posters on here are bringing historical events etc into this debate..

Lets keep to Stephen McGinty's today topic. Please.

Phil I'm Not Roman Catholic but like yourself I have noted many of your points which I agree with.

Abortion is a highly charged emotional subject..

Surely in there is enough to discuss on this alone with honest debate.

My personal view is that abortion across the board is wrong...
In certain circumstances I would agree, but I have seen in my life abortion carried out due to another child spoiling the lifestyle of the adults..
A woman who puts her career before the child in her womb...
Yes there are reasons which I would deem acceptable.. Danger to the mother, A badly deformed feotus.. examples..

I have mentioned just a few reasons why abortion is wrong.. Non of the few that I list are acceptable reasons obviously.. Legalised murder is what I would call this

Some may agree / disagree that is the right of everyone..
Now lets get away from much of the other tripe that has been written on this topic..

The anti Catholic Church syndrome is alive and well in this modern day society as proved in this debate..

Thankfully with my education and rearing from my parents I treat all religions and people with respect

Some of you it seems would accept murder in an attempt to get at the Catholic Church..

Debate on matters regards the church should be left to an appropiate topic... Please .

Walter

You want me to write scriptures for you? Please, you are a big boy, go read the damn book yourself!

244

If the State wishes to dicate to believers on how to behave, then we have lost our personal freedoms.

#247 AngusMor
I have read the damn book and do not recall anywhere that it can be interpreted as abortion being wrong.

#214 -The problem (or rather, just one of them) is David #210, that although you believe the word of your god to be infallible, the fact remains that the words were written by men, who, I'm sure you'd be the first to agree, are most certainly fallible. Ever played a game of Chinese Whispers? ....

Response: "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" (2 Timothy 3:16). 'Chinese Whispers' are not given by inspiration of God. Obvious, really.

BTW, notice that the books of the bible are authored by MEN and therefore for them (and through them, you) to attempt to order what goes on in a WOMAN's body is quite simply beyond the pale.

Response: The Bible is the Word of God and reveals God's will for both sexes of mankind, which He made. "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:27)

And another thing, while I'm here I may as well point this out to you - as others have: there is not just "one god". Sorry to break this to you but I'm afraid that's the truth. With a capital "T" if you really want it. You believe it not to be the case, that's your perogative. As it is mine's to know otherwise.

Response: Amazing how dogmatic people are who reject the source of dogma, the Word of God! The Bible teaches that there is only one true God and there are many false gods. No-one has a 'prerogative' to believe otherwise; it is sin in our hearts that causes to rebel against the truth.

Why are we even taking seriously advice on childbirth and sexual practises from a clergy which is rigidly male, against female priests and celibate (apart from some doing nasty things to altar boys)?

If this were coming from another religion, such as Islam, we'd have folks protesting about religious fundamentalists trying to impose their values on secular society and laws and frankly that is how I feel about this - he has his right to his opinion, but using his church position to try and shove his religious agenda on the rest of the UK is completely out of order - he even went on record as saying he though Catholic MPs should not take communion unless they supported his views, which is moral blackmail and highly unethical. I have no wish to live in a society governed by laws passed by religious leaders, the Cardinal should leave this to medical and political authorities to decide.

#233 Walter, it's the verse just before the one that goes'

Ye verily if thy spouse be found to have an ectopic pregnancy, then it is a judegement of God. Ye shall standby and watch her suffer her hell on this earth before she finds her enternal suffering.

Well GorgieRepublic, you'd better get the hell out of the UK as many of our current laws are based on religeon.

Thou Shall Not Steal. Property is now around 8/10'ths of the law.

This man has a hidden agenda (well he thinks it is hidden).

#217 Wow. Just wow.

You have just argued that your chosen true version of the bible in English is true because it says so in your chosen true version of the bible in English.

I haven't actually. Rather I referred to one characteristic whereby the Scriptures evidence themselves to be the Word of God, namely the special care and providence by which God has kept them pure in all ages - a care and providence which He has not extended to any other writing.

How many of you decrying abortion are the same ones that decry single mothers 'leeching' off of the state and bringing up their offspring from the contents of your pockets via the tax man?

So usual "its a womans body to do with it as she pleases"

murder is murder ..................... time that the anti abortionists were permitted to show pictures of aborted children that in other circumstances medics would be fighting to jkeep alive YES it is that close now. a car accident with a late term pregnant mother and the medics will fight tooth and nail to help the premature baby live YET in another ward in the same hospital at the same time medics can be cutting up an unborn child at the same stage of pregnancy because some woman isnae ready fur a wean ................ go figure !!!

#162

Re my #97

Yes, I did, but I also explained why I decided not to do so. Yer, you're probably a very nice fellow.

Cheers

#162

Re my #97

Yes, I did, but I also explained why I decided not to do so. Yet, you're probably a very nice fellow.

Cheers

#223 - I hate to labour the point, but in your "studies" of the original Hebrew of the Old Testament, did you reach any conclusions about the qedeshim in the Canaanite and Ammonite traditions as referenced in Leviticus? What do you think of the contemporary theological view that this reference to religious prostitution has been misrepresented in almost all English translations? Is this a sign of God changing his mind?

No, I seem to have missed out on this crucial matter! I would rather attribute infallibility to the timeless Word of God than to any "contemporary theological view" - which being contemporary is very likely to be temporary only - those who spend their time with these things moving on to some other academic enquiry that takes their fancy.

Meanwhile, "the word of the Lord endureth for ever" (1 Peter 1:25).

126...You are living on another planet pal....maybe if more women took the pill there would be less need for abortion...and say, infanticide in India..(costly female babies of course)..baby abandonment in China due to their strict stance on breeding....

The Catholic church is logical?...since when did logic ever enter into myths magic, fairytales and fables?....telling people that condoms pass on HIV is sick, evil and wicked in the extreme and the Catholic Church is resonsible for many many deaths due to its malevolent stance on this. Women are also prescribed the contraceptive pill for polycystic ovarian syndrome, severe bleeding during menstruation and many other gynaecological problems....thanks to the contraceptive pill women have been freed from the burden of multiple children and having to endure abortions....sorry, but your 'Catholic' stance is claptrap.

Let the Catholic church 'teach' its flock that the contraceptive pill and abortion is wrong but it better not present its ideas to my face and tell me that it is wrong because as a non-Catholic I do not believe its propoganda.....indeed the Vatican and the mafia share a lot in common; money...fear...power...blackmail, exploitation of the vulnerable...too many fingers in too many pots and too much corrupt condoned behaviour.

#258 90% of abortions are carried out during the first trimester, ie 12 weeks. Of the 10% carried out during the second trimester, the majority are as a result of medical complications which either threaten the mother's life or preclude the viability of the progeny.

But don't let that stop you painting your diabolical picture of what abortion is. After all, you have the right not only to hold your point of view but also to promote it using whatever graphic imagery you like and without any concern for the psychological effects on people who might actually have first-hand experience of the subject.

#249 Yes yes, we seem to be having this circular argument: I argue that the bible is written by men and therefore fallible, you argue that it’s wrtten by Yahweh and therefore infallible. Ah, David, we could debate this all day (and you still wouldn’t shake me from my beliefs – nor should you in fact: it is not for you as a mere mortal to dictate what I may and may not believe – after all, to consider that you should and could is to have an over-inflated opinion of your importance, ie pride. Tsk.)

Every person’s soul is unique and so too is their communication and interaction with their gods. And yes, gods plural. Even Yahweh (well, according to the men who wrote about him) acknowledged them (else why the injunction to ignore them?) but then given that it’s quite likely he had a consort himself, Asherah, not to mention the references to Ba’al etc, so he could hardly ignore them. Even Paul said that though there were many gods, Christians should worship only one - ie monolatry rather than monotheism. Subtle but very important distinction.

I’m thrilled for you that you’re happy with your god, really I am. But that still doesn’t give you, or anyone else, the right to tell me or anyone else either what to believe or what to do with their body.

David, please.

#255 That is precisely and exactly what you have done. "Scriptures evidence themselves to be the Word of God"? Can you not see the impossibility of that statement? It's laughable. You are saying that because it says, in your chosen translation of the bible, that your chosen translation of the bible is the word of God, then that is evidence to support that assertion. How can it possibly be?

#261 Haha, you really do have difficulty seeing anything outside your safe world view don't you. The point I have been trying to impress upon you for quite some time is that the Authorised Version was a contemporary view of its time. And it was based on a contemporary view from 14th century and another from the 7th century which themselves were based on previous contemporary views.

Your infallible bible has in fact been amended by every hand that has touched it. It is still being reinterpreted today, and will be in the future. For you to decide that at one magic moment in the 16th century it was absolutely right, that all changes before that were correct, but that all changes after were wrong, is not just wishful thinking, but wilfully dangerous. Why on earth should we live by the social mores of a different, and long-extinct, society?

What is worse?

A woman who is raped terminating her pregnancy?

OR

A savage attack on innocent Egyptian babies?

To all psuedo Greek,Hebrew Christian so called scholars:-
It is every womans right to determine what she does with her body.including abortion.The only point to address in such law is the time limit that such a procedure can be carried out,not that it should be carried out at all,and certainly not by a cleric of an organisation with such questionable morals ie hild molesting,contraception HIV and support for some very strange political activities.
Where as every one has the right to his point of view,we have the right to treat such ponderings with the contempt to which they deserve.

#249 - Did god create man or did man greate god?

Duncan .............. nice statistics 90% sounds so much like 90 and 10% sounds so much like 10 put the numbers to the percentages please ....... lets just stick with your 10% how many is that in real numbers in the uk (or Scotland if you prefer) and of the number you send online here ............. how many are not for medical reasons and oh yes tell me of the ones that are late term and are not for medical reasons had to be cut up before being removed or sooked up in the tube.

Yep easy to reduce numbers to simple statistics just as it seems it is easy to reduce a viable living thing to "medical waste"

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/JohnSmeaton/

#15 No not lonely- happily married for 37 years. No not barren- 3 grown sons and 10 grandchildren. Just thought that since you made the statement you had thought it through and actually had some coherant reasons for your position. Sorry I was mistaken. from your reply I can only assume that you think a mother should be allowed to kill her child for any reason. And you think I am extreme!

272 well said ......... please note the subtle difference in th eperson who took a name very close to mine for obvious reasons ...............

#270 Eh? Sorry, I inhabit a world where people are able to interpret statistics using their brains, and don't think that a percentage is the same as a number. I think rather than dumbing down on this we should educate up, otherwise we end up talking only in very basic terms and lose the important nuances of the argument. If you want a simple argument, go to the Daily Mail.

If, however, you want a rational discussion, then consider that the small minority of elective abortions between 19 and 24 weeks (less than 2%, compared to the medically required more than 8%) were largely among women who didn't know they were pregnant until late on. Not every pregnancy has the usual signs - but you'll know that, being an expert on human reproduction.

Do you really think that your attitude, of talking about how unpleasant the procedure is, and criticising the women who feel they have no option but to have an abortion, is helpful? Do you think it is fair or reasonable? Who the hell are you to tell someone else what they must do with their own body?

274 Duncan in answer to your questions to show you how it is done ....

Do you really think that your attitude, of talking about how unpleasant the procedure is, and criticising the women who feel they have no option but to have an abortion, is helpful? YES Do you think it is fair or reasonable? YES Who the hell are you to tell someone else what they must do with their own body? I HAVE MY OPINION AS YOU YOURS,

now back to the questions I asked you and wouild still like a reply to.......... I think you are intelligent enough to realise the point I was making ........... 10 % could mean 10 abortions or 20 or 300 or indeed 5000 per annum which makes your 2% statistic have a more relevant meaning.

Lastly Duncan have you caused a partner (to your knowledge) to be pregnat who has gone on to have an abortion ?

Don't do to the Unborn child that which was NOT done to YOU! Our parents did not abort us so how can we condone the murder of a little helpless & vulnerable person as a baby. A foetus is ALSO a person.

We MUST defend the rights of the unborn babies rather than sacrifice them for a lifestyle choice. If the mothers or fathers don't want children then take precautions I say or simply don't have sexual intercourse if you are not willing to be a responsible parent. I don't know how women can sleep at night after murdering their offspring for it is a callous, heinous & selfish act which will haunt their consciences forever until their damnation!

Rant over!! Have a nice weekend y'all!

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-ukscot... wow not even I thought it was that high !!!

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07053005.html

Eugenic Abortion Looms Large in UK as Abortion Pill Use Doubles
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/may/06052902.html

He should keep his religious sermons for those who choose to go to his kirk and not preach to those who are not interested in what he has to say. This is nothing to do with politics. This is a choice which a woman should legally have the right to make.

Incidentally, why were we not allowed to comment on the headline story?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/6701695.stm

281 .......... duh do you realise how hypocrytical your statement of 281 is .......... just look at what you wrote !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

you want to comment on the headline story but when someone who you disagree with voices their opinion on a story that is open for discussion you say he should keep his opinions for a closed kirk ................ That just about sums up your level of intelligence ................ DUH!!!!

#277 I have never told someone else what they must do with their body. Don't try to equate my position with yours, they are incomparable.

I don't agree that bald numbers have "more relevant meaning" than percentages. They have more impact if you are trying to use shock tactics to force people to behave in a certain way - but that is your area, not mine. Percentages allow us to compare different outcomes much more clearly in order to reach rational conclusions.

I am not going to enter into a discussion about my personal life, and I am disgusted that you have tried to turn the conversation in that direction.

Is wee Mr O'Brian no like a wee taliban?

284 you are hung by your own petard there Duncan equally percentages have LESS relevant meaning and less impact if you are trying to make things look better and encourage people to behave in a certain manner.

This comment is not anti- any specific religion; my comments are directed at all types off modern day religious nutters whatever their claims may be, and wherever they hail from. It makes one in the year 2001 to seriously re-assess the evolved progress made, since emerging from our cave existence.
Established religion centuries past, was the main oppressor of the oppressed. Its hierarchy used it to control the controlled who had no say whatsoever in their everyday lives.
The current modern day zealots - religious and political- cleverly use religion in a similar manner to control the majority of people who have virtually little or no control over their own lives. The controllers>rulling class>> or the Establishment; whatever their guise are usually the backbone of the mythical religious explanations of society fed to our children as soon as they are old enough to listen. State violence, plus oppression equals repression. Most repressed states today;and some claiming to be democratic who use the religious bogey, have been foremost in the success stakes in the art of controlling the controlled. The days haven't gone yet; when from an early age, we were taught how to doff our caps to our superiors and accept we must be inferior in some way. We were taught that no matter how miserable our existence maybe, when we finally died, usually prematurely, we would be be well rewarded and find solace when we reached the mystical religious heaven. The controllers today, like the controllers of yesterday lived in sumptuous dwellings with access to all the good things of life available.
Our controllers hierarchy today; live their corrupt lives in similiar circumstances. The controlled have to provide the wealth created. The controllers shamelessly decide the sharing out.
The controlled throughout history fight and die in they're controllers wars.
Freethinkers want to see a better world here and now and leave heaven for those who swallow the r

#286 Well if you're reduced to arguing on the periphery, it's hoist, not hung.

#247 The state is not telling believers how to behave, it's simply telling them to keep their nose out of other people's business. Personally I believe that people have the right to form their own opinons, and the right to believe as they choose. When they start trying to force their opinions an beliefs on others, then those of us who do not agree have the right to resist this by any means possible. Most religions seem to have been founded by people who "listened to god" and were called saints or prophets, as an explaination for this long ago. Nowadays they would be termed paranoid schitzophrenics, and I for one am not about to base my life on the ramblings of the mentally challenged!

The comments on these pages are a sad indictment of our small minded and bitter society. Many are a disgrace...the demented rants of anti Catholic bigots, gathered in the same place as those in favour of the butchery of babies.

287

wattie

I'm a Freethinker, and a devout Catholic.

Can you get your freethinking head around that?

281

Bluevoice

I'm deeply troubled to see your angry denunciation of free speech. Are you against ALL civil liberties, or just freedom of speech?

I am quite shocked by the ignorance and illogicality of the supporters of easy abortion. He certainly makes good points about a choice of counselling for women and appropriate state funding. The illogicality of describing an offer of a choice of counsellor as "anti-woman" indicates the thoughtlessness of some contributors.

Well done to the Cardinal for speaking up for moral philosophy and religion and advocating a rational consideration of these difficult issues.

Media 266

Not sure I understand what you're getting at (do you?) but the answer is plainly the savage attack on Egyptian babies.

Religion should be a personal thing and not enshrined in law. Do we really want to go down the road of following the religious beliefs of the majority, imposed on everyone?? Soon it will be Sharia law then.

295

Which planet are you on today?

No-one is suggesting religion should be enshrined in law...apart from you.

However our society concludes that the butchery of babies is wrong then that SHOULD be enshrined in law.

Why should a pregnant woman have to endure "counselling" before having an abortion any more than a Cleric should require "counselling" before commenting upon matters of the flesh?

297

because she's seeking the butchery of a baby?

had this society any morals she would not be counselled....but she would not be allowed to have her baby butchered.

Has anyone checked the abortion law in Italy? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. In Italy, abortion is Legal on demand through the 12th week. (Law passed in 1978) ... In practice, the "mental health" clause has resulted in abortion on demand.

Not at all. She is making a decision about the contents of her own body.

I'm intrigued by the implications of your (silly and inflammatory) statement "but she would not be allowed to have her baby butchered". Let's ponder this for a moment. Imagine I am a pregnant woman who wishes to have an abortion. How, exactly, do you propose to stop me? And please do come up with somthing a little more imaginative (and humane) than merely removing all state services and making me undergo a "backstreet abortion" (oh, there's compassion for you!).

Let's do reality. The birth rate in the UK is above that of the 'Catholic' countries. The birth rate in the UK hovers about 1.8 per women on average, in Sweden, that site of liberalism and feminism, its about 1.9. For twenty years or or so, the birth rate in Spain and Italy has been below 1.5, at times it has been down to 1.3 per woman. Look it all up in EUROSTAT statistics collected by the European Union. How do they achieve that? Wholesale abstinence?

The Catholic Church is the ulimate - Emperor's New Clothes - outfit. Why should people in the UK pay any attention to those who tell women endlessly that they are the moral leaders? And who are these moral leaders in Italy and Spain, those countries where still half the population say they are Catholics but use contraception and abortion to a huge extent? These people ignore the Catholic bosses, obviously. But the Catholic hierarchy never mentions these statistics? I wonder why?

Hail the wonderful Catholic Church, which denies communion to those who don't agree with it, even though the communion wafer is supposed to be the Body of Christ, Who alone knows the state of a person's soul....For poor mortals (even Cardinals are still mortal, for pity's sake!) to be able to say yes or no to anyone regarding one's relationship with the Almighty is tantamount to being able to read God's mind! The last I heard, that was not possible!

Oh, and if the Church is so d***** worried about the well-being of humans, it ought to be more militant about getting the child predators out of its ranks...

The cardinal needs to understand that just because a woman has been impregnated, it does not automatically mean a) that she is willing to accept the result of the act which may or may not have been with her cooperation and permission; b) that she has the obligation to carry the child, because the man's obligation, procreatively speaking, ended the moment he completed his part of the act, and it becomes the woman's decision, at that point, to go on with the pregnancy or not; c) that as long as there are two people involved in procreation, under any circumstances, the woman has the societal onus (or delight) of having the big belly and then bearing the child and, usually, raising it too, for the next 20 years or so; since it is she who is affected hormonally, physically, psychologically, financially, etc. (no matter if the dad is there or has moved on), she should have the right to say yes or no to all that....

Why should men wearing frocks make decisions about sexual matters anyway? Go back to your lavish residence, Cardinal O'Brien, and take your Nazi Pope with you....

300 matt

your defence of this baby butchery is quite sinister.

"contents"....it's a baby FFS! Human life!! How sick are you?

YOUR proposals for stopping the baby butchery are sick too.

I'm advocating making baby butchery a criminal offence, with an appropriate tariff.

299

why are you goin on about italy?

this is scotland!!!

301

When will you be doing reality?

302

that was just bigotry.

stop it please.

Again, not at all. It is a content of the female body. It has no autonomous legal rights.

But leave that to one side. You are not, surely, going to resort to the feeble measure of retrospective legal punishment (ie send me to jail if I have an abortion). That won't save the foetus and, in your warped vision, must remain a profoundly immoral action. So stop being disingenuous. If you really want to prevent me from having an abortion, you are going to have to secure me in a room under constant supervision and force me to bring a foetus to term against my will. You are, in other words, going to reduce my humanity to the contents of my own womb - and you have the everlasting gall and hypocrisy to do that in the name of "life"!

#303 Do you consider a 12-week foetus to be a "baby"? What about a 6 week embryo? A 10-day collection of subdivided cells? A freshly fertilised egg? An unfertilised egg? A sperm?

As far as I'm concerned none of the above is a baby. And for you to talk about "baby butchery" in reference to them is not credible.

I might have more sympathy with the Cardinal's point of view if he didn't have blood on his hands. Thousands of abortions are carried out because of the Catholic Church's attitude towards sex education and contraception. Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and you reduce the number of abortions - it's not rocket science!