I pray that Ted Kennedy is now in a better place, but am disturbed at the perception that he was a good force in this society by virtue of his power as a senator. No, abortion and embryonic stem cell research supportare not acceptable Catholic behavior At least the last I heard. The way things are handled by our clergy, who really knows anymore? But I will still give the church the benefit of a doubt if not the clergy. God help his family and ALL of us.

I wonder how he's fairing....sitting at the the throne of "Camelot"?

I wish so much that Ted Kennedy had stuck with with his sister Eunice and remained pro-life. I find it so sad that, with his drive for helping the poor and the ill, homeless and helpless, that he became the most pro-abortion Senator. I'm not a Catholic, but I am praying for his soul. I sure would like to meet him someday on the other side.

The Church has a wide variety of opinions regarding economic policy, foreign policy, taxation, health care etc..

It does not have a wide variety of opinions on abortion. The church has debated at what point the unborn gets a soul, or when human life begins, because at that time science was debating the later of those two. The church has always condemned abortion though. From the 1st century onwards, the church that Jesus christ founded to guide the faithful has called abortion murder.

It is possible for a Catholic to support certain wars if they are just, it is possible for a Catholic to believe that there are different economic approaches to helping the poor. It is not possible for a person to call themselves Catholic but support the murder of beings scientifically proven to be human, with their own DNA, their own blood type, fingers, toes and heat beat.

John - You will find that your assertion about the Catholic church position on abortion is a fiction concocted by your church to cover for the fact that the Catholic Church had no objection to abortion within certain guidelines right up until 1869. Prior to that time, abortion was, like all surgery, a dangerous proposition only to be used when necessary within the guidelines. Abortion was approved up until the moment of "quickening", generally considered as when the bones harden in the fetus. This point was determined to be at 40 days for male fetuses and 80 days for female (even then the value of females was diminished), and any abortion that occurring after 40 days, was "presumed" to have been female. Abortion was not officially made a sin until 1901. You will not find this information within any documents of your Church that are available to the public, or even to a large segment of the priesthood, as these documents have been relegated to secret and highly restricted archives.

The information was however available to the general public, who had no real need to focus on the issue, and has been slowly "erased " over time. The Quakers, in 1970, issued a study on the issue of population trends and policies that clearly laid out your church's positions relative to the facts above. It was condemned by your church, but not so loudly that interest would have been focused on it, and most copies quickly "disappeared" from libraries. It can still be purchased from time to time on abebooks.com . You should always remember that your Church has a long history of rewriting history, or adapting what they cannot erase, or change to come into line within accepted or desired dogma.

John - The publication referenced above took a bit of time for me to locate, but luckily was only in the third box I had to search. It is titled "Who Shall Live?Man's Control Over Birth and Death" Abrahamson, Julia and others. There are currently 7 copies available at AbeBooks.com starting at $1.50.

Who cares what someone used to do? The Catholic church and any good Christian will agree that abortion is wrong. Thanks.

Another conspiracy nut...
"these documents have been relegated to secret and highly restricted archives"
and yet, somehow YOU have access to them and nobody else does?

Or is it just the quakers have access to secret vatican documents?

Either way it doesnt sound very plausible.

Kevin - Even the Church admits to archives that are restricted due to their "sensitive" nature. Considering that they have done so much that could be considered as outside of what they would rather not see the light of day, where do you think these documented atrocities would be hidden, and whom do you think would be allowed to have access to them.

Although some people try to say the fault is on the Church, we the people make up the Church. FAITH in GOD is an individual binding tie in a GOD that will ultimately judge us and HE will either say YES or NO.

It would have been better that Judas were not born as Jesus put it, so it is pretty obvious as to what Jesus was saying. Judas gave up the life of a Man whom Judas did not believe was the Messiah, but how much worse will it be for a person who gives up the life of a baby.

I was on the wrong side of the fence for many years being advised that the early stages of an infant was not human at all, but with all the changes in science that prove that conception is life, how can we say now, "ABORTION IS RIGHT". I know now, "ABORTION IS MURDER".

GOD have mercy on us all

Reuben - Abortion is murder only if the fetus is considered a person, which entails a condition called self-awareness, at least that's the definition accepted by those who do not subscribe to the religious argument about ensoulment taking place at the moment of conception. If you are arguing that the coercive power of the state should be used to enforce a religious definition, you will, of necessity, bump right up against constitutional restraints against such actions. What you have to do is find non-religious reasons that make your opinion of when life begins superior to those whose opinion are not the same as yours. In as much as it is your side that means to hold a figurative gun against the heads of women to force them to breed against their will, it is the least you will have to prove. Their opinion of when life begins, has no effect on your right to not have an abortion, which you can freely exercise at your will. As it stands now, the anti-choice position hasn't any leg to stand on legally and must rely on emotional hucksterisms in an effort to contravene the rights of those you would repress and oppress.

Reuben - Gee, who appointed you the blog blowhard? I take issue with most of your bloviating, but I'll stick to the last comment. So, by your enlightened opinion, I can kill anyone in a coma, and it's not murder. They're certainly not self-aware. Get a life.

Sorry, Reuben. I meant Robert. Also, I doubt any of us are anti-choice. Just another annoying piece of propaganda. We're pro-life.

Rob - Once a fetus attains person-hood, they have it for life. No one can just kill anyone in a coma, but once a determination that a person is brain-dead, they can have the plug pulled by a relative and that is as it should be. Once you are brain-dead, you are no longer a person and there is little purpose served in prolonging a hopeless situation that no longer qualifies as life.

Do not kill the babies. Let them be born. Let them grow up. If they are boys let them become altar boys. If they are altar boys let them accept of their adored priests in cassocks. Let them be raped. Let them hide in shame while the perpetrators are protected and even promoted. Let there be birth, more and more birth, let there be no artificial insemination, no in vitro fertilization, let there be no gay sex, let there be no contraception, let there be a flat earth, let there be a geocentric universe, let there be a hiding place for stolen Nazi art right in the Vatican--the Catholic church in favor of life--what a piece of baloney. The larger the population of the Earth the more the folks in it to join the Catholic church, the more the desperately aspiring celibates to become seminarians and theologians, the more the little children to chomp on--the Catholic church has created policies to feed all its big fat appetites. And by the way Rob, people are disconnected from life support when they are in a coma and allowed to die, every day across America, and no one is sent to jail for murder. Perhaps you want to rewrite our laws to arrest them or perhaps we should appoint you guardian angel for those who would lie like Terry Schiavo for 40 years eating up all our health care resources while the babies you've saved from being killed grow up, languish in inner cities across this country, become addicts and die for want of good nutrition and medical care? Spontaneous abortions are very common during the first trimester of pregnancy. Would that make God an abortionist?

Well Anon, maybe you could encourage more people to use birth control. Thanks.

Robert there is no scientific proof to support your definition. The fact is no one knows for sure when life begins. Your definition is based on nothing but faith in the opinion of scientists. That happens to be your religion. The pro-life position is simple since we aren't sure ewhen life begins err to the side of life.

ravensfan - I never pretended that my definition was anything more than a widely held opinion, as is your opinion. The difference is that the enforcement of my opinion in law, would have no effect on your right to have, or not have an abortion, according to your beliefs. The enforcement of your opinion, in law, would force women to bear unwanted fetuses to term against their will. In as much as your opinion is a religious position and you would use the coercive power of the state, so as not to err against that position, you will find that The Constitution has constraints against such intrusions of religion on the individual freedoms it guarantees.

I agree both definitions are opinions, and that the law currently favors your opinion. That doesn't mean it should be the position. At one time the law allowed slavery and I think we can both agree that was wrong. After that it allowed discrimination. In fact the idea of erring to the side of life isn't simply a religious position as much as you'd like it to be. If it were I'd agree with you on abortion. However, since we don't know when life begins we could very well be sanctioning murder. The Constitution is supposed to protect the rights of everyone Until we prove where life begins we should err towards protecting possible life.

ravensfan - The law not only favors the pro-choice opinion, but because the definition of when a fetus becomes a person is not definable in scientific terms to a degree that satisfies the scientific community, the law sides on the side of the woman's right to determine that question for herself. You would take away that right because you think your opinion is more valid than hers and unless you can fix that point in a scientific manner, your opinion carries no weight that would warrant taking away her freedom on the basis of a coin toss of ideas.

Actually Robert your opening comments support my claim not yours. Since the scientific community can't show when life truly begins it is the government’s job to protect it at the earliest possible moment it exist. Not at some arbitrary line drawn by the courts. Also keep in mind that the law didn't always favor abortion. It actually favored the pro-life side originally. Without any new scientific evidence it shifted from protecting that potential life to the current pro-abortion side. As for choice anyone's right of choice stops when it does or could infringe on someone else’s. Until it can be shown that it isn't a life it should be considered as one and protected. Robert I'm sorry to say that it's your opinion that carry's no weight that would warrant giving someone the power to decide to end what could be a life.

If nothing interferes with a fetus' development after conception, what happens to it? Does a cat appear? A horse? A fish? A cornstalk? Life is the only "natural" way if nothing interferes. And God made it that way ... perfect!

ravensfan - You are not going to put a gun to the head of a woman to force her to breed on the flimsy chance that a fertilized zygote is a Human, when clearly a single celled thing has no Humanity. When does it gain Humanity, when does it deserve that which we accord a person who is living and has been born? I think you are going to have to call that point the spot in its development when it is differentiated from lower animals and that to me is the point where it can survive outside the womb in a self aware state, without the extraordinary technological support that we may someday be clever enough to invent that would negate having a woman involved in the process at all. A prospect that may end up pleasing many of those of your faith that have problems with sex, even within the bonds of marriage.

The only other consideration that can be examined in the acquisition of Humanity is in the gift of the divine, a soul. Unless you can demonstrate the existence of a soul, then the point at which a fetus becomes a Human lies in the realm of the unknowable until it becomes obvious (nothing like the slap on the butt to make the fetus painfully self aware of its Humanity). That you would force undue suffering on women to assuage your clearly religiously influenced conscience, is the height of arrogance.

Robert With the exception of rape becoming pregnant is the result of a choice made willingly. Any suffering was self inflicted. Abortion isn't a choice rather it's a sad attempt to avoid the consequences of a choice already made. If you want to make exceptions for rape fine in that case it wasn’t a choice. You seem to want to bring religion into this discussion. I guess that's because the only way you can justify to yourself your position is to try and make it a religious one. I've already said if it was a religious issue I'd agree with you despite what my religion preaches as it would be solely a moral decision. The arrogance here is yours in making up rules for when a life is a life. Funny because you spend so much time attacking Clay for beliefs he can't prove yet here you are doing the same thing to support your own narrow minded view of when life begins. You can spin all the wise tales about when a life is a life but the fact remains neither you nor I know when that is. Until we can the broadest view should be taken towards protecting human life. Any society which claims to value human life would do this. Leave religion out of this and spare me the gun to the head nonsense Robert. I don’t think a baby slapped on the butt is any more self aware than it was right before it came out of the womb.

ravensfan - It is obvious that you have a fixation about the sexual act that makes it something that has to have a price to be paid, if unwanted results occur. Would you have sex only occur if pro-creation is desired? What about the individual who wishes to act responsibly by not having more than the replicative number of children in and already crowed world, would you require they never have sex again after they have their two, on the off chance that their birth control fails (if you would allow that at all, as some of your fellow delusionalists wish to impose on society), or they are just unlucky? What freaking planet do you come from and why did they dump you here?

Robert you seem to be the one with the problem since you feel the need to belittle and insult rather than intelligently debate the issue. You also failed to comment on the issue of your fairy tale view of when life begins or what a society that values life would do in the case of the uncertainty of when life begins. We both know it’s because you can’t give an intelligent response. That’s why you attempt to make it me asserting my faith’s beliefs and make petty insults. Let me try one more time to say this. None of anything I’ve posted has anything to do with the Catholic Church’s position. Is that clear enough for you? I’m not sure I can make in any more simple than that.

I have no fixation with sexual acts you seem to be the one doing the talking about it. All actions, nonsexual as well as sexual can carry consequences. You know as well as I do that most abortions occur because no contraceptives were used. Don’t insult my intelligence by denying that. If you choose to use contraceptives there is still the risk it won’t work again that word consequences. Anytime you choose do something right, wrong, good, bad, neutral you live with the consequences. I made no comment on when, where or how sex should occur. That’s up to each individual to determine based on their views not on what my or anyone else’s faith says.

Here’s a challenge for you Robert try responding with an intelligent answer that doesn’t insult anyone’s faith or character. Tell me why given the current scientific knowledge about when life begins any society that claims to value life would choose a narrow definition as the one you suggested without anything to support it. Again try and do it without any religious slurs if you can.

Robert, one more thing if you are going to try and once again distort my position as to be based on my faith back it with something this time. Before you do go back and read all my posts and keep in mind if I was following Church doctrine I’d be decrying contraceptives and sex outside of marriage. It's getting rather tiresome listening to your Catholic-phobic rants.

Fortunately, your view of when life begins cannot be forced on women any longer and it is unlikely they would allow you to turn back the clock to the barbaric era of forced breeding. It is a freedom that can no longer be denied, especially if denial of this freedom is based on the opinions of one group who's motivations are religious, no matter how much they argue to the contrary. You know the religious argument cannot carry any weight before the Supreme Court, which is why religion has been fighting tooth and nail to put people on the court who would have no problem rewriting "Separation of Church and state" to the point where we end up a theocratic dictatorship. Your side also has been struggling to come up with a rationale that seems non-religious, but as yet, they have not made a case that out-weighs the opinions of those you would oppress.

ravensfan - Painting me as carrying on a vendetta against Catholicism is a bit dishonest. I treat all systems of belief that are based on the accumulated myths and superstitions of less than knowledgeable ancestors, that have been institutionalized, dogmatized and mounded into a colossal pile of manure they can somehow claim is "ultimate Truth", to be equally nothing but rubbish. It is true that some religions are more intrusive in their insistence that their imperatives become every one's imperatives, and these tend to get more direct attention from potential victims, who plan to not roll over and be bulldozed by these intrusions. Here, in the U.S. the fundy Protestants, the Catholic Church, the ever weird Mormons and the financially colossal Cult of Sun Myung Moon, represent the greatest threat to our freedoms by their intransigent nature and "divine" belief they are right. You are just one among many.

I think Obama's health care bill is more of a threat to my freedom than Donny Osmond. As a matter of fact, I wouldnt mind seeing him run for office. He looks good on tv so maybe he could win. Not only that, he would bring a Christian back into the White House. Now what is that other guy's name? Romney?

Robert I have made no view of when life begins only you have done that. My point is simple no one knows where that point is and the law shouldn't be drawing that line. Your failure to actually answer that yet again and instead try again to assert it's based on any religion is complete nonsense. My argument is pure science Robert. Your continued attempt to divert it to religious beliefs and not actually address my point shows you don't have an answer. So you throw up a smoke screen and talk about the Supreme Court and Separation of Church and State. For the record while nowhere in the Constitution use the words separation of Church and State I actually believe in it myself. That’s why I’ve kept my religious beliefs out of the conversation. Robert I gave you a challenge in that last paragraph and you pretty much showed you couldn't do it. At the risk of sounding conceited I take that as game, set & match.

Robert I stand corrected you are an equal opportunity bigot when it comes to religion. Your intolerance and phobia far goes beyond my own faith. Fortunately we live in a free society where narrow minded intolerant people as you can't oppress people's freedom of religion no matter how hard you want to do it.

ravensfan - You are perfectly free to believe any pile of rubbish you wish, just don't make the rest of us pay for it, either by paying a higher rate of taxation to make up for the taxes not paid by religion, or to educate your children in religious schools (vouchers, transportation, text books, etc.), or to pay the price of being force bred to assuage your confusion over when a fetus becomes a human.

This game, set and match you claim, reminds me of playing chess with a pigeon. It knocks over all the pieces, craps on the board and then flies back to its flock to declare victory. You keep religion out of the beginning of life discussion, because you know it is a slam-down knockout for you the second you make that connection, Supreme Court wise.

When exactly did I ever even attempt to force my religious views on you or anyone else for that matter Robert? How exactly is not taxing religion costing you anything? Good luck with that since there are many more people of some faith than atheists. I'm not an advocate of any government assistance for private schools. I pay out of my own pocket to send my kids. Confusion on when a fetus becomes a human? Does that mean you now have proof when that occurs? I'm still waiting on you to do that. When you do I'll accept abortion up to that point. I'm afraid the confusion there is all yours. You just can't, or won’t admit no one really knows.

You already used the pigeon example on Clay. I would have thought you'd have come up with something more original. However, since you chose to use it again let me suggest that description more accurately applies to you. I'm simply placing on you the same burden of proof you demand. You're the one who spouted off on when a fetus becomes human. All I did was ask you to show me the proof that science knows what that point is and you avoided answering. Actually you tried to change your story once or twice then tried to shift the focus numerous times. You also couldn't even respond without more arrogant, intolerant insults. You try and make this a religious issue because you know that based on science it's a slam dunk knockout against you.

Just accept the fact that you can’t win this argument Robert. I’m not Clay quoting scriptures, or even my own Church’s doctrine. I’m using your own logic against you and you have no way to respond other than blow smoke about religion.

You seem to want to make this an argument about me rather than the women you would force to breed to encompass your interpretation of when a fetus becomes a person. I think that the legal determination that satisfies a woman's right to choose is just fine. I have no big problem unless people of your ilk try to change it to a point where women are forced against their will to carry a fetus to term.

As to the religious tax free ride, just drive around any city and see all the properties that are not on the tax rolls just because they sport a symbol of one religion or another. Many of these properties are considered prime high value locations and they pay not a freaking dime in taxes. I watched the city plow out the snow from the parking lot of a church near my house one day and when I went over to the driver and told him where my driveway was so he could plow it too, he looked at me like I was nuts. I pay taxes, the church does not, yet they take full use of services that are not even available to tax paying citizens. Now, who pays that portion of tax that all these properties do not pay? Who is forced to subsidize religion by being forced to pay that portion by the state, unconstitutionally? Lastly, why do you think sheer numbers of adherents should be used as an excuse to contravene The Constitution of The United States by flagrant violation of the Establishment Clause and the separation of church and state? Using that bit of contra-logic one could argue for the reestablishment of slavery.

Robert I don't want to force anyone to breed. There are plenty of contraceptives as well surgical procedures to avoid getting pregnant and giving birth. If you chose not to utilize them then a choice was made. Your forced breeding issue is pure nonsense a pathetic attempt to somehow justify the hole you’ve talked yourself into. My advice quit while you’re behind.

As to you issues with the church by you I can't comment on that one by my church and all the other Catholic ones in this area pay for snow removal. My guess is so did that church did as well. You just let your anti-religious bigotry get the better of you. No one pays any additional property tax that's one of the dumbest comments you've made so far and that says a lot. The one using contra-logic is you Robert. Actually no logic is probably a better description. No nonprofit organizations are taxed not only Churches. What exactly do you think happens if churches get taxed? Charitable work they do gets cut and who do you think will be picking up that bill in the form of more entitlement programs Robert? You're letting your anti-religious bias get the best of you. Try calming down and thinking more before you rant.

ravensfan - I have already addressed your first bit in the thread about the air-head blond above.

As to taxes being affected by the removal of property from the tax rolls every time some church gets its hand on it, I suggest you search "Tarrytown NY/ taxes" and learn why the population all became members of the Universal Life Church and declared there homes churches, to point out how absurd it was when religions (especially the Moon Cult) came in and took so much property of the tax rolls the taxpayers were being driven to bankruptcy by the increases needed to cover services. The effect might not be as visible as it was there, but I assure you it is there in every city and town in the country.

The church being plowed out by city plows was a "courtesy" extended by the city board of supervisors and approved by the mayor, that they had to stop once legal action was threatened forcefully.

Robert I already responded to that post. I'd suggest we simply agree to disagree and drop the topic. I'll even let you have the last word if you want to respond on the other thread.

You are taking one extreme example with the Tarrytown situation and using to justify your position. You sound as bad as the nut jobs that talk about death panels on health reform. That one example doesn't prove your point Robert. Like I also said nonprofit organizations are paying taxes so to tax only religious ones would be discriminatory, unless you’d like to tax all nonprofits.

The church should have never received the plowing services from the city in the first place. Since they aren't paying taxes they shouldn't be getting government services unless the government charges them.

Other non-profits are NOT religions, and are not part of the separation of church and state mandate. There is a vested interest in the work they do, that far exceeds the evil represented by delusional superstitious beliefs that we are saddled with by not evolving beyond the need for your silly mythical crutches. There is no way that the government should be forcing the American public to pay that portion of taxation that religion does not pay.

Tarrytown is an example of what is going on at a smaller scale all over the country and you know it, so don't pretend you don't..

Robert churches are nonprofits as well and protected under the same law. You can't take away their rights just because you don’t agree with their beliefs. They also do considerable good for their communities as well as other ones which make them no different than the other nonprofits. Add to that the very Separation of Church and State you keep harping on and that only adds to the argument you can’t tax them. You can’t invoke the rule when it suits you. Just because your religion (Atheism) says other religions are wrong doesn’t make it true. No one is paying more because of religions. If Churches were paying taxes no one else’s taxes would be getting reduced, and no ones are increased because of it Robert so your entire argument is completely without merit.

I know so such thing regarding Tarrytown and neither do you. In fact I didn’t really find anything on it Tarrytown. I’m accepting you at your word on it. One example doesn’t do anything to support your opinion in this. You have no basis in fact to support such a statement.

The forced subsidization of religion by the state is unconstitutional and as long as they pay no taxes, especially property taxes, they are forcing everybody else's taxes to rise to cover the loss. It matters not that the churches are non-profit, they are churches and do not merit such favoritism from the state at the expense of the citizens.

Also, who do you think is being forced to pay for all the yellow buses that come from different public schools that are transporting religious school children to be religiously indoctrinated, not to mention the voucher crap that would put tax payer money directly in the hands of those religiously indoctrinating children?

Robert no nonprofits pay taxes. You can’t single out one group because you have issues with them. Also since we agree they should receive no benefits from the state why pay taxes? The only favoritism is in your mind. Keep in mind that if we adopt your idea atheist groups would have to be taxed as well. Also you have nothing to support your ridiculous the current status costs the taxpayers anything. Keep in mind that any money gained in taxing churches will have to be picked up in assisting those the churches won’t have the resources to help.

All those yellow buses are paid for by the parents of the kids going to private school. I know because I've paid those bills. Sorry to tell you that it costs you nothing. What vouchers are you talking about anyway? I’ve never seen anyone use or talk about them. If they do exist somewhere I agree with you they shouldn't and would support ending them. Maybe you could give me some details on these alleged vouchers? Are you reading off some atheist talking points sheet Robert? I noticed you didn't bother responding when I challenged that crap about Tarrytown being a going on across the country.

Face it you own bias against religion keeps you from rendering any objective opinion.

Robert Littel, your point is simply ridiculous. Just because the Church had various understandings of the gestational periods of unborn humans in its earlier history--as did the rest of societies of the past that lacked the scientific and medical advances we have today--and that influenced its doctrine on when and when not abortion was morally permissible, how does that make the Church's current position on abortion incorrect or suspect? I mean, do you want to ditch modern neurological brain surgery because doctor's once--in their oh so secret archives available apparently only to you, Dan Brown, and few unnamed Illuminati--described and promoted trepination? Robert, you are a goof--and a suspect there's probably a little anti-Catholic prejudice running through you, too.

John - Why do religionists always take the disdain that rationalists have for ALL religion to be only about THEIR religion? I find you ALL to be ridiculous, though the impact of some of them on this society are of a more focused concern, you may rest assured that the over-breeding intractable and xenophobic Muslims, half a world away, are held in just as much disrespect as your silly religion.

We should do everything in our power (and trying to get people to not have sex outside of procreation is clearly outside of our power) to educate all citizens about sex, reproduction and birth control. Realizing that unwanted pregnancies are going to occur and that there are compelling reasons why an unwanted birth should be prevented (even after conception), abortion should be freely available, while at the same time society should be trying to limit unwanted pregnancies from occurring in the first place to minimize the number of abortions needed. That you have a problem with dealing with this issue in a rational manner, is not my fault.

Robert I wouldn’t bring up anyone else’s distain. Your’s for religion runs through every post you make. You cling to aethist dogma just as much as any fundamentalist Christian, Moslem or any other religion does to their own.

ravensfan - Atheism (spelled correctly) does not have dogma. It is the total absence of dogma. There are no Atheist gods, Atheist saints, Atheist incantations or prayers, no Atheist afterlife, but most of all, no Atheist desire to force someone to have an abortion, who doesn't want one, because of superstition and institutionalized fairy-tales.

Robert Ateists do in fact have a dogma. Deny it if it makes you feel better. Just as we Christians believe in something we can't prove exists. You deny the existence fo God but can't prove it. All you are is the reverse side of the same coin.

Using totally objective worldly logic you should be an agnostic.

Sorry to break it to you but you are following dogma as well my friend.

http://zdenny.com/?p=1512

Robert since you decided to bring up abortion again Atheist desire to give no rights a child until born that's your dogma. One of denying rights to one group over another. One of not valuing life until you absolutely have to do it.

I'll take mine over yours anyday.

The pope showed very poor taste when he chose to ignore a letter from a dying man. That is not what Jesus would've done. Jesus would've said his sins were forgiven and to go and sin no more. But maybe Benny feared that would draw too much criticism. Jesus said you must choose God over the world and pick up your cross whatever it is. The Gospel also says that you should give to everyone who asks. Christ came to help the sinners and expected nothing from them in return.

Amen wwa. Thats what I said in another post about Ted Kennedy. Thanks.

wwavocd the letter wasn't ignored it was handled by an assistant which is routine. I quite sure the pope received considerable correspondence andisn't able to answer each one personally. Didn't Jesus delegate authority to act in his name to his disciples?