Respecting the Moral Agency of Women

The Importance of Choice

Modern readers of John Milton's 17th-century epic, Paradise Lost, usually wonder why God tempted Adam and Eve by placing the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in Paradise and then forbidding its use. Why didn't a loving God protect Adam and Eve from the opportunity to sin? Milton's response would be that had Adam and Eve had no genuine choice, they would have been deprived of moral agency and the opportunity to love and serve God in a nondeterministic way. As Bishop Henry King I remarked in 1643, without the freedom and the means to disobey, Adam and Eve would have been nothing more than God's "marionettes." Milton's God explains in Book Three of Paradise Lost that Satan and the fallen angels had been created

just and tight,

Sufficient to have stood, though free to fall..

Freely they stood who stood, and fell who fell.

In the same way, according to the Bible and Milton, Adam and Eve were created "sufficient to have stood, though free to fall."

Like Milton, most Christian ethicists have understood that freedom of informed choice is a basic component of moral responsibility and growth. Without it as Milton says, God could have taken no pleasure in humankind's cooperation, because without choice, people's will and reason are rendered "useless and vain," so "passive" that they are serving necessity, not God.

Despite the almost universal consensus that authentic choice is an ethical necessity, citizens of the United States are currently witnessing a powerful attempt to deny to pregnant women precisely that most basic component of any conscious cooperation with the will of God. If abortion is once again made illegal, or if the 1977 Hyde Amendment continues to deny impoverished women the financial aid that makes abortion a viable choice for them, society will have succeeded in denying to pregnant women any integrity of procreative conscience.

To force any human being's conscience is an act of violence. To coerce a woman to bear a child she feels she cannot adequately care for is a violent function of sexism. To coerce an impoverished woman by denying funding or blocking her access to information is a violent function not only of sexism but also of classism.

Gen. 1:26-28 informs us that God gave to Adam and Eve the responsibility for making decisions on behalf of the whole earth and all the creatures in it. If God thus limited God's own power by bestowing choice upon human beings, who are we to deny pregnant women the opportunity to choose the course of action that seems to them most responsible within their current circumstances? As the Episcopal Church stated at its General Convention in 1988:

"We therefore express our deep conviction that any proposed legislation on the part of national or state governments regarding abortions must take special care to see that individual conscience is respected and that the responsibility of individuals to reach informed decisions in this matter is acknowledged and honored. To deny a pregnant woman the power to make decisions is to disrespect the integrity of her conscience and, ultimately, to deny her full personhood. To apply coercion because we believe she is making an immoral decision is to substitute our own conscience for hers, and thus to wipe out her presence as a person directly and primarily responsible to God and to human relationship as she Perceives it. Currently, as evidenced by the denial of funding and full information to the poor of the world, the system of coercion is already in full swing."

If abortion were legally banned in the United States, the effect would be to render the will and reason of every pregnant woman passive, useless, and vain. Whether she chose to carry her fetus to term or wanted to abort and could not afford to go abroad to do so, she would be serving legal necessity, not God. She would be a slave to biological process rather than the responsible moral agent she was created to be.

In the entry for "abortion" in Baker's Dictionary of Christian Ethics, Martin H. Scharlemann says:

"Incipient life may become a threat to the life of the mother. In that case, choice needs to be made between two beings; and its primary thrust must be to save that fife which is already functioning as a developed person....The mother is already involved in many other responsibilities of life, where her presence and assistance are needed. Under such circumstances, abortion is the indirect and unfortunate consequence of an action undertaken to preserve life."

Although the context here speaks only to the preservation of the physical life of the pregnant woman, the same principle is applicable to her moral life, to the procreative choice without which she is not able to do what she deems responsible within her complex situation. Only she and God can evaluate whether by giving birth at this time she will enhance or destroy the quality of her response to all her other commitments and relationships.

Most people would agree that it is a serious matter to force the conscience of another human being. If we ourselves were commissioned to make the rules for society, and if we had to set those rules without knowing how we would enter that society--as male or female; poor or rich; gay or heterosexual; black, white, red, or yellow; "Third World" or "First World"; able-bodied or otherwise-we all know in our hearts that we would rapidly develop a sense of justice many of us currently lack. Certainly we would want to protect ourselves from coercion by establishing the principle that those who must bear the physical consequences of a decision should have primary control over that decision.

The very thought of being the despised and powerless "other" within society fills us with apprehension. Facing our personal fear of losing the opportunity to decide our own destiny in a responsible fashion, we must ask ourselves this question: What value could possibly be so great that in its name we would be willing to deny to pregnant women the opportunity we covet for ourselves?

When Does Personhood Begin?

Anti-abortionists respond with a simple declaration that human life is the ultimate value; that human personhood begins at the moment of conception; that killing a fetus is therefore no more acceptable than killing any other human being; and that protection Of human life justifies the coercive and repressive use of law.

But such a statement short-circuits ethical discussion by assuming that one theological viewpoint has such validity that it must be imposed on people who in all honesty cannot agree with it. Anti-abortionists claim that the personhood of the fetus is a biological fact rather than a theological perspective. However, the fetus is biologically human only in the sense that any part of a human body is human: every cell carries the full genetic code. (A severed hand is genetically human, as well, but we do not call it a person.) By contrast in all but the most materialistic philosophies, human personhood is defined by a personal awareness that goes beyond biology.

The full human personhood of the embryo from the moment of conception is therefore a theological assumption that cannot be proved. Furthermore, it is not historically a Christian belief. Even the Roman Catholic Church did not declare early abortion a mortal sin until 1869, and then the declaration was more a matter of papal authority than of agreement among Catholic theologians about fetal personhood.

Up through the 19th century in England and America, abortion was considered acceptable prior to quickening, usually during the fifth month, the assumption being that no murder could be involved until then because no "child" was involved until then. As Rosalind Petchesky points out "the idea that [all] abortion is `murder' and you are `killing a baby' is a [recent] culturally generated one, not shared by many eras and peoples."

Dr. Robert L Johnson, Director of Adolescent Medicine at New Jersey Medical School and a deacon at Union Baptist Church in Orange, New Jersey, regularly performs abortions for young women who feel they need them. He explained in my presence that six hundred million sperm are "aborted" in every act of masturbation or wet dream. Although an embryo is certainly a potential human life, so are those six hundred million sperm; yet surely none of us would argue that the life of every one of them must be sustained. Furthermore, a healthy woman has the potential of bearing thirty children within her reproductive lifetime. Although the eggs "aborted" each month ate surely alive and potentially human, the life of every one of them simply cannot be sustained. And what about the millions of miscarriages that occur, each of them a spontaneous abortion of potential human life?

Physician Carolyn B. Coulam comments that "the magnitude of [naturally occurring] fetal wastage in humans is considerable, approaching a loss of up to three quarters of fertilized ova." If the embryo is a person and has an absolute right to life, then don't we as a society have a responsibility to stem this "wastage" as well? Anyone claiming that an embryo has an absolute right to life must carry the burden of proof by supplying the criteria for differentiating the embryo as a full human person from the millions of aborted eggs, sperm, fertilized eggs that fail to implant, and miscarriages.

The Decision Is Ours

I have studied the Scriptures used on both sides of the abortion debate when the debate is narrowly conceived as a matter of competing rights between mother and fetus, and I can find no passage, interpreted honestly within its context that definitively settles the abortion issue. Certainly no passage of Scripture tells us exactly when human life begins, unless we decide to accept Dr. Johnson's definition that human "life began only once, [when] life was created by the Creator." Since that time, Johnson says, every life has been a process of entering and exiting from human existence.

Science has now given humans the power to join an egg and a sperm outside the womb; in the future, even greater "miracles" will be scientifically possible. like it or not we can no longer rely on the limits of science to make our moral decisions for us.

If Scripture will not answer our questions concerning reproduction, and if science will not answer our questions, then we must rely upon our own powers of moral reasoning. Since neither science nor Scripture can say with certainty when or whether a fetus is fully human, we should not use language that assumes an answer to the question, such as referring to an embryo or fetus as a "baby" or to abortion as "murder." We must be honest enough to admit in our public discourse that more than half of all abortions are done before the embryo is 8 weeks old; over 90% are performed before 12 weeks. Furthermore, we do not and cannot know how God deals with embryos that are spontaneously aborted; but we do know what repressive laws have done to people and to the human spirit through the centuries. It is our responsibility to work with what we know rather than with what we cannot know.

Even if we were to accept the highly controversial and recent claim that an embryo is a person from the moment of conception, we would still be looking at only one very important value among many. Other very important values are the quality of life that the unborn could look forward to after birth; the probable impact of that birth on the welfare of the already existing family; the mental health, well-being, and conscience of the potential mother, and the impact on society of laws that repress obedience to the dictates of conscience and remove a woman's control over her own destiny.

In other words, morality cannot simply deal with separate individual occurrences, but must concern itself with the common good and with personal decisions taken within the context of moral field-thinking. A newborn infant needs not only physical care but also psychological attention and tender affection, and the covenant between mother and child is lifelong. Only the woman involved is capable of deciding whether she can live up to that covenant -- or whether, should she give the baby up for adoption, she can endure the lifelong anxiety about her child's welfare.

At the Last Supper, Jesus compared his imminent suffering to the travail of a woman in childbirth (John 16:21-22). In 1973 the Supreme Court recognized that modem legal abortion is seven times safer than childbirth; so any woman who chooses to give birth has chosen to run a risk seven times greater than the risk should she choose abortion, not to mention maintaining the covenant of caring. after the birth. Can we, dare we, force another human being to make such a Christlike sacrifice?

It is self-serving and exploitative for people in power to teach powerless people--those trapped in poverty or marginalization-that they ought to lay down any power they may have achieved in imitation of Christ's self-emptying of power. According to Philippians, Chapter 2, Jesus the Christ chose servanthood from a position of tremendous power, laying aside the very form of God in order to die the death of a slave. The lesson for Christians is that Christlike servanthood can be chosen only by people who have the power to choose. To deny procreative choice to women is to deny them the opportunity to choose Christlike servanthood, or, conversely, to recognize when for various reasons they cannot make the necessary covenant of caring.

The religious community learned long ago, or should have learned, that nobody recruits good missionaries by romanticizing the mission field. Neither do good mothers result from romanticizing motherhood. It should be unthinkable to force anyone to become a pastor or a missionary who does not feel called to that form of service. It should be equally unthinkable to force motherhood on women who are not able to foresee maintaining a covenant of caring with the newborn and then the developing person.

It is true that when society affirms the moral agency of women, some will make choices that others will consider wrong or irresponsible. According to Genesis, the same thing happened in the Garden of Eden; God foresaw that Adam and Eve would make wrong choices, yet for the sake of human moral agency, God permitted it to happen. Every day people around us make choices we ourselves would not make and cannot approve, such as living extravagantly while others are in desperate need; yet we cannot seek to undermine the civil and human rights of these people, because then our own human and civil rights would be jeopardized. Destroying the procreative moral agency of women is too high a price to pay in order to head off irresponsibility in those few who might abuse their power of choice.

Instead of trying to influence the state to impose a single set of moral and religious attitudes upon everybody, the religious community should join together to encourage social policies that will make the moral life at least a possibility for all people everywhere. Because women must either control their fertility or be controlled by it, procreative choice is essential to the moral life of women. A commitment to protecting the integrity of the individual conscience would entail, among other things, opposition to all attempts to force sterilization or abortion on Third World or otherwise powerless women. It would entail ensuring the availability of legal, medically safe abortion services for those who choose them, and the availability of public funding without which impoverished women cannot exert their procreative responsibility. It would entail working for conditions that would improve the quality of life of the born as well as the unborn, such as ensuring food, shelter, and clothing for poor families; reliable, affordable means of contraception; adequate, affordable childcare centers; thorough sex education, including healthy attitudes toward sexuality as God's good gift to be used in caring, responsible ways that honor human dignity; shelters for battered spouses and children; and overturning the unbiblical notion that might makes right, whether in the home, in domestic policies, or in relationships between nations.

According to Scripture, God knew that Adam and Eve would misuse their power to choose. Yet God chose to give them that power, creating them "sufficient to have stood, though free to fall." We human beings should follow our Creator's example by giving one another moral elbow room. Through the ages, a remarkable number of women have willingly and unselfishly devoted themselves to their children. The way to honor them, and to honor God, is to restrain ourselves from coercion and to seek government policies that support the moral agency of women as well as men, of people of color as well as whites, and of poor people as well as the affluent.

-- Sophie (andher@choice.com), February 17, 2001

Answers

Dear Moderator:
Please consider purging this -- yet another plagiarized, pro-death, radical-feminist crock.
The original, by one "Virginia Mollenkott, Ph.D." (not given credit by Unsophisticated Sophie) may be viewed here.
Friends, please do not respond to this claptrap, unless you cannot withhold your outrage.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 17, 2001.

Excuuuuse me. I forgot to link it. A quick search on the title would reveal all anyone would need to know about the author. If I were just a plagiarizing, pro-death, radical-feminist, as you acuse me of being, I would have left out the title. Get a grip.

Who do you think you are? That was just plain rude. I would like to contribute something to the discussion here. Did I make a second mistake and not ask your permission on what I may or may not post?

I was born and raised in the Roman Catholic church and I would like to know how other Roman Catholic's feel about the points made in this article.

Would our loving God deprive women of their moral agency? Does He want us to serve necessity and not Him?

"To apply coercion because we believe she is making an immoral decision is to substitute our own conscience for hers, and thus to wipe out her presence as a person directly and primarily responsible to God and to human relationship as she Perceives it."

-- Sophie (andher@choice.com), February 17, 2001.

Dear Sophie:

The article you quoted has many flaws with it. First of all, God's gift of freedom cannot really be applied to secular law. Murder is wrong, but GOd does not stop us from committing it. A policeman would. Slavery is wrong, but God did not strike all slaveowners with lightning bolts. Theft is wrong, but people can and do steal. God gives us the freedom to sin. But why should a government make it easy? If your argument were correct, slavery should be legal, and it would just be on the slaveowners' consciences that they abused so many human beings. Rape should be legal-- whoever rapes a woman should just feel guilty, right? It's not the government's business to prevent that, right? A man has the right to have sex whenever and with whomever he pleases, right? Wrong.

I firmly believe that everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. A person's right to freedom is more important than his "master's" supposed right to own him and make money, and it always was, even when slavery was an important part of the economy (sickening, no?). A woman's right to freedom is more important than another person's supposed "right" to have sex. A black man's right to life is more important than a white man's "right" to hunt and kill him out of racial hatred, and it always was, even when lynchings were accepted. A three year-old child's right to life is more important than her parents' "right" to fly into violent, drunken rages, and kill her. A baby's right to life is more important than his father's "right" to put a pillow wherever he likes (like on the baby's face.) And a fetus' right to life is more important than the mother's "right" to abort him.

Scientifically, the article is pathetic. The embryo was compared to a cut-off hand, a body cell, and a sperm cell. A cut-off hand does not grow into a person. A cell in the body does not, and can not, grow into a person. A sperm cell, by itself, can not possibly grow into a person. If it could, guys would have millions of babies spontaneously developing in their testes. (OUCH!) An egg cell cannot grow into a person. If it could, women would have hundreds of babies developing in their ovaries. (OUCH!) A fertilized egg cell CAN develop into a baby.

SO, eggs and sperm are not people. However, the Church believes, and so do I, that a fertilized egg that failed to implant was a person, with a soul, and that miscarriages are too.

The really weird thing about this article is that it takes a double stance. THe first argument is that abortion laws are wrong because they don't give the same freedom that GOd gives. THe article even says that women "abuse" the power of the Choice. So it implies that abortion is wrong. Then it goes on this scientific nonsense, implying that abortions are not wrong because embryos are not human.

The thing I really wonder about, then, is where does this "right" stop? What should the abortion laws' limit be, if some fetuses are better than others? Six weeks? Three months? Nine months? If the fetus is accidently delivered and is alive, can the doctors leave it on the table to die? Can they actively kill it? If a girl gives birth to a baby after nine months of pregnancy, should she be legally allowed to leave it in a dumpster? To stab it or suffocate it? What about a two-year old? What about a ten year-old? WHere would you draw the line? Also, what about retarded children? Say an intelligent child gets a horrible fever, almost drowns, or is in a bad accident, and is now brain-damaged. Say this once-bright child is not a "vegetable" but can walk around. However, she is severely retarded and has no hope of ever being autonomous. She must be taken care of for life. Do her parents, who could handle a normal child, but will be strapped for finances and time now that their child is so helpless, have the right to kill her? Another question: if rich parents suddenly lose all their wealth and are now quite poor, do they have the right to kill their children? Before, they could afford children, but now they don't see how they can manage. (Hey, this sounds like "Hansel and Gretel!") Should the US laws permit these money-saving actions?

These are my questions for you. What do you, personally, believe? I know these are tough questions. Please answer them honestly, in your own words. I believe that the right to life has nothing to do with intelligence, age, or ability. I believe that every abortion is tragic.

You also said that a woman could give a child up for adoption, but that would be very painful for her. I believe giving up a child would be painful. But why is it painful? Because she does not then get to share in the child's life. How much more painful must it be to refuse to give your child life! A woman who gives up her child for adoption gives that child a chance to live a happy life. THere is also the chance that the child will meet her again some day. That child will be making choices away from her, and may never make the choice to find her. But by adoption, the mother opens up a world of choices for another person. By abortion, she takes those choices away forever.

-Hannah

Blessed Mary, Mother of us all, pray for your children, especially those mothers and children still joined by the womb. Pray for them, sweet Mother, that they may grow in love to serve Your Son, whom you willingly accepted, despite the pain you knew you would have to bear.

-- Hannah (archiegoodwin_and_nerowolfe@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.

People have free will. Free to do right or to sin. But that doesn't mean we have to facilitate or endorse the methods by which people choose to sin. I take issue with the notion that only God and the woman know what's best for her. I would delete the woman from that sentence (as I would delete myself from it, if I appeared there). If that were the case there would be no abortions in the first place, no divorces, no crimes, no drugs, et cetera. In short, people seem to be pitifully deficient at knowing what's best for themselves. The short answer is; if the woman doesn't want to have a baby, don't have sex. If she does want to take on the responsibility of having a baby, that she must do so with respect for all possible outcomes of and situations (good or bad) that may arise from that attempt. Therein lies her "moral agency" and not in whether or not to abort the child.

..............

-- anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), February 17, 2001.

--Do all of us know that dismissing Sophie's premises summarily could be un-Christian? No harm can come of being just, and hearing her argument; not passing immediate judgments. Is the Christian and proper way to --look at her point of view? Are Pro-Life Christians close-minded?

|

Because women must either control their fertility or be controlled by it, procreative choice is essential to the moral life of women.

|

I just want to know, Sophie, what is ''the moral life'' of a Christian woman? Not all women, just Christians?

I would expect my own good mother to be moral, Sophie-- about her ''procreative'' activity. Sixty-three years ago, she gave me birth. Nobody questioned her ''choice''. She was a married woman, and made her choice.

Today, unmarried women want the choice to co-habit and lounge around as sex-kittens; all the while having ''choice'' to abort the necessary consequences. (Yes, you would bring up all a bevy of poor, underpriveleged and unfortunate women; for whom more burdens are unfair and reprehensible. Did we ask why they got pregnant in the first place, Sophie?) OH! That's unfair. Not conducive to a '' moral agency'', where women are concerned?

Is God ever concerned, Sophie? Did you ever worry what God would think?

Nuestra Senora de Guadalupe! Ora por nosotros hijos tuyos. Amen! --Senor Santiago, apostol bendito, Ora por tu foro! Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 17, 2001.

Hannah, anthony and eugene,

Thank you for your thoughts on this essay. I appreciate your civil replies. For the record, as Mr. Gecik so rudely points out, I did not write this piece.

Hannah,

What do I personally believe? I believe in a woman's right to choose.

I believe that the statistics on when most abortions take place has to be factored into any discussion of the subject. The above article states those statistics as being:

"...more than half of all abortions are done before the embryo is 8 weeks old; over 90% are performed before 12 weeks."

I believe that partial birth abortions are wrong, very wrong. I believe the power of choice can be abused if a woman waits until the fetus can survive outside the womb. I believe that any fetus that survives an attempted abortion cannot be left to die. Your talk of killing children after birth, IMO, has nothing to do with this issue.

"God's gift of freedom cannot really be applied to secular law."

This point is well taken. We are in the process of determining what that secular law should be. Everyone plants their flag somewhere between conception and birth. As the above statistics point out, most Americans, including Catholics, plant that flag somewhere between conception and 12 weeks.

anthony,

Maybe only God knows what's best for us but we were given free will. It is up to us.

At this point in our history we have separated sex and reproduction. Sex is a normal, healthy, loving act between two people. I doubt that young women (and men) will give sex up.

eugene,

I've read enough of this board to know that you have spoken up about allowing different points of view to be heard here. Thank you.

You ask:

"...what is ''the moral life'' of a Christian woman? Not all women, just Christians?"

I'm asking:

What is the moral life of ALL Christian women?

There are many, probably the majority, of Christian women who use birth control. A good portion of them also believe in a woman's right to choose. They believe the decision is between them and God. They don't believe the government has the moral authority to make that choice for them.

These are the women (and men) I have come here to talk too.

Sex-kittens? Did you really say that "Today, unmarried women want the choice to co-habit and lounge around as sex-kittens"? Talk about violent sexism. eugene, do you know that there are many who are frightened by people like you? Please don't take that as an attack, it's not. You just need to understand that not everyone believes as you do.

-- Sophie (andher@choice.com), February 18, 2001.

Sophie,

Mr. Gecik is not "rudely" pointing out anything. YOU had the responsibity to at least SAY this was someone else's work, so as not to have people believe it's yours. The "rudeness" is on YOUR part, in fact, what it's *really* called is plagarism.

Also, this is a Catholic forum. It didn't matter whether everyone in Sodom believed their actions were appropriate, the important thing was that *God* didn't. The murder of innocent children by their own mothers! is WRONG and no amount of "sophie-stry" is going to change that.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), February 18, 2001.

Yes, Frank, this is a Catholic forum. I am Catholic. So are many others who believe in a woman's right to choose.

There are a whole lot of CATHOLICS FOR A FREE CHOICE.

How do we make this split in our Church right? Perhaps a heartfelt letter from a woman's perspective might help? If everyone can keep an open mind while reading the following maybe we will be able to have a meaningful conversation afterwards.

An Open Letter From A Catholic Birth Mother

Some time ago, Mary Jean Wolch wrote a letter to her friends, including a prolife priest, reflecting on her experiences as a birth mother - someone who has given up her child for adoption. The priests reply - welcoming her openness and reflecting his prolife beliefs - prompted her to write back and explain her feelings in greater depth. Here, Wolch makes her second letter public.

By Mary Jean Wolch

Dear Father,

Thank you for your reply to my letter. I must admit to some trepidation in sending it to you; we have known each other eight years, but I had never before shared with you that I am a birth mother.

More than a decade after the birth of my child, the pain of this experience erupted as the central event of the past year. I realized it was time to share with you, those who knew, and those who did not, what it has been like to live with the loss of a child through adoption, and how this event has profoundly impacted my life. That is why I wrote a letter this year describing this journey and sent it to the people in my life. It was not the typical letter one finds tucked among the Christmas cards.

I had not shared this experience with you before because I know you are strongly "prolife." Prolife people are the hardest ones to talk to about the birth mother`s experience. Their perception of the experience is so disparate from its reality that discussion is difficult if not impossible. That is why I am writing today, to answer your questions and respond to your comments.

You asked if I had considered an abortion and who or what got me to change my mind. I was a single, 23-year-old college student and an active Catholic. I attended Mass, participated in campus ministry social justice actions, helped plan liturgies and retreats, and participated in Scripture study groups. I wanted with all my heart to be a "good" Catholic. I was taught to believe life began at conception. I was adamant that adoption was a better alternative than abortion. I believed this because the church said so, and the church had all truth, told all truth, and was all truth.

Then the "good Catholic girl" was pregnant. Suddenly a whole new awareness opened up for me as I realized what this experience meant for a woman going through it. Now I was experiencing what I had not heard discussed from the pulpit. It was a time of tremendous fear and despair. I prayed desperately, "God, get me through this." Having a baby is a very big deal. Prolife people who use the word "convenience" to describe a decision made about whether or not to have a baby are discounting a major life event. I had to take stock of my life. I had to weigh the limitations against the hopes and the dreams. I had to look at my finances, my marital state, the impact on employment and educational pursuits, the effect on my health, my emotional readiness for parenting, the support or lack of it from my family, and the social ostracism from my community. I had to make a decision based on these conditions and my future options as I rightly or wrongly perceived them at that moment.

This assessment is the reason women lose their children through adoption. The prolife voices hail this decision as courageous, unselfish, and loving. The same assessment is then condemned as "excuses" for women who choose abortion, The forced nature of the decision in both situations - in all its fear, despair, and powerlessness - is rarely acknowledged.

I chose against abortion because I believed it would be hypocritical to have an abortion after my adamant stand against that option for other women. I have always believed that Christ hates hypocrisy far more than sin. I might have given someone else permission to change her mind, but I could not give myself the same. As immature a love as it was, I loved this child’s father. And I bonded early on with my child. I knew I could not be kicked out of school for being pregnant. I struggled to do "the right thing," as I had always heard it: have the baby and give it up for adoption. Thus I chose to go through the pregnancy.

In the course of this pregnancy, I moved from a strongly antiabortion position to the realization I could never tell another woman what her choice should be. The change in my belief was not a simple move from one position to another. It was the painful expansion of my horizons as I moved through this experience. My context was changing. I remember thinking over and over, "So this is what it`s like to go through this." I was living on campus in the dorm, and as my "condition" became obvious, other women came to me and we talked. The women told me of abortions they had had, one of them had starved and exercised herself into a miscarriage. None of these women had ever told anyone before. I had chosen a course different from theirs, yet we understood each other. We understood what goes into making this decision. This understanding allowed us to be supportive of each other.

My daughter`s birth was the most powerful and joyous event of my life. Within me a war now raged around the adoption decision. I stalled on signing my relinquishment papers and made visits to the Catholic "foundling" home to hold her and feed her. In the end, the struggle to keep my daughter was defeated by my tremendous feeling of shame and powerlessness, by my frozen belief that it was not all right to come home with a baby to my parents’ house, and by my religious programming, which said, adoption is the "right thing to do."

It could be argued that this view of adoption - as the only choice for a woman shamed by pregnancy outside of marriage - is not the teaching of the church. Still, it was the perception I had formed from reading Catholic publications and writings and sitting in Sunday Mass year after year listening to sermons. In discussing theology with those who have had the opportunity for in-depth study, I have learned that the common understanding of the church’s position on adoption is actually tangential to the essence of church teachings on family life and abortion. While the church teaches that unborn life is of the utmost importance, people in the pews often hear an added message that upholds the "traditional" two-parent family as morally superior and attaches shame to single motherhood as well as abortion. It is the responsibility of those in positions of teaching and preaching to address this issue.

Giving up your child for adoption satisfies the church`s injunction against abortion, answers the prayer of the adoptive couple, and we hope, provides for the child. In the push to do what is "best" for the child, agencies and persons working with birth mothers never address the sexuality and self-esteem issues that got most of these women into this situation in the first place. These groups, despite their intent, are primarily advocates for adoptive parents and babies. The assistance they offer birth mothers is limited to gestational support. Birth mothers leave this experience and these "resources" more damaged than when they arrived - more shame- filled, more devastated, and more needy. They have incurred a life- long and terrible wound to the psyche, the loss of their child. It is a loss most cannot even speak about. It is at this point that adoption resources, adoptive parents, and the community abandon the birth mother. When one lives in a state of pain, isolation, and abandonment, it is not especially unusual to wind up pregnant again. This was my experience.

Six months after I had lost my baby forever, I was pregnant again. My life after losing my daughter was an emotional and spiritual devastation no one prepared me for. I had heard about the emotional and spiritual trauma of abortion for years. Not once in all that time had anyone, including those who "counseled" me, said this happened to birth mothers as well. Somehow, the decision to choose life was supposed to eliminate this consequence. Facing this decision again, I still believed there was no support for my child and me together. Just six months into the devastating aftermath of adoption, I knew I could never choose adoption again. I chose to have an abortion at eight weeks.

It was to be one of the most profound spiritual experiences of my life. Three days before my appointment, I found myself pacing around my apartment in anguish. I sat down and began to pray. I asked God to sit before me to my left, and the spirit of this child to sit to the right. Before these two, I poured out my pain and my grief. I acknowledged my mistake in having had sex with someone who did not care about me nor I about him. I told them about my daughter and the terrible pain of losing her. I told the child spirit I could not go through this right now, and I told her my sorrow about it. I promised when I got out of nursing school to take responsibility for a child who was already here. I accepted the responsibility for the abortion decision. I asked both of them for forgiveness. And a miraculous thing occurred: I knew in that moment I was forgiven. The angel of death from the days of Moses passed over my house and did not strike me down. I experienced the unconditional love and mercy of my Creator in a way I never had before. The peace of that experience carried me through my appointment and ever since. It is a peace I have never known with the adoption experience.

The abortion forced me finally to get honest about my behavior. I had to accept that I was not a celibate person and that "pretend" celibacy is not a contraceptive. I had serious problems to work on in order to understand why I was in relationships with men who would not or could not love me. I had to understand the terrible needs and emptiness inside that drove me to use sex in ways that were harmful to myself and others. I had to give up the image of myself as a "good Catholic." I had to learn to accept myself as I was.

After these experiences, I quit going to Mass on Human Life Sundays. It was hard for me to understand the prayers and the grief of the church for the aborted unborn when there was nothing for the fetus who miscarried at two, three or four months, and sometimes later. No funeral, no death certificate, no mention in the bulletin. If a woman miscarries in the early stages of pregnancy and doesn`t have a profound loss experience, no one finds this particularly aberrant. Who recognizes the loss of the woman grieving an early, spontaneous abortion? As a birth mother, I know how it feels to sit in the pew and have the loss of a child completely ignored. The church grieves the aborted unborn and abandons the silently weeping women in its midst. Innocence is held in greater esteem than life. The experiences of miscarriage, abortion and adoption are ignored. And the decisions and feelings of women are condemned.

When prolife people say to birth mothers, "Be glad you didn`t have an abortion, because that’s really hell," most never speak from actual experience. Pain is pain. I`m not "glad" I had an abortion; yet for me the pain of an abortion did not touch the pain of adoption. This will not be every woman’s truth. However, the women I know who have had devastating loss experiences around abortion are few compared with the birth mothers. The vast majority of women who have chosen abortion speak of it as a sad and difficult part of their history. They have not experienced the trauma I struggle with around my adoption. Both adoption and abortion are forced choices. Both are unnatural separations of a mother and a child. Both are experiences of a loss. Adoption, however, is never finished.

You spoke of your work with Project Rachel and asked if I had heard of it. I have. I wonder why they minister only to women who have traumatic loss experiences around abortion. The group I am part of - Catholic birth mothers - has been completely ignored. Is the ministry truly for healing, or is healing secondary to the political and social agenda of the church? I believe the church creates part of the trauma around abortion for Catholic women by making the experience such a capital crime it cannot even be spoken about - unless one has had a conversion to the prolife point of view.

I attend a birth parent support group, one of a handful in existence. At any given meeting, 50 to 75 percent of the women and men present are Catholics and former Catholics. Some are new birth parents; some have been living with this loss for 30 years or longer. Where is the church for us? The message I would give you is this: there are many devastating loss experiences around childbearing; abortion is only one. Adoption, stillbirth, miscarriage, infertility are others. Project Rachel needs to expand its focus to have any credibility with the larger group of women. If the church is to be there for all of us, the leadership and the community will have to recognize our issues and become sensitized to our experiences and our pain. There must be more listening, more compassion, and less condemnation. I have pondered these things in my heart, and I now find myself outside the Catholic circle of "perfect truth." My seamless garment is torn. I fail the prolife litmus test of a "true " and "good" Catholic. I feel as though I have lost my tribe, and my tribe has lost me. Healing for me has come only when I owned my truth and not denied it. Why have this healing and the truth of my experience separated me from my church?

You and I are on opposite sides of the abortion issue because of our different life paths and experiences. Yet I attempt this dialogue because I feel it is important to do so. I believe God trusts women to make good decisions about their lives and, even when we do not, still loves us unconditionally. This is the truth we need the church`s help to find. Women in crisis and pain will come to you, in your role as priest. You must affirm God’s unconditional love for them no matter what decision they make. As a priest who advocates adoption, you must recognize the need for long-term grief counseling of birth parents, for support groups, for changes in adoption practices. You can acknowledge birth parents from the pulpit on Mother`s Day and Father`s Day. You can acknowledge our loss and our existence to the community. You can strive to make your community a place of compassion for all the women in the pews, as well as a place of welcome for mothers and children who are together.

At the 1982 Jesuit Volunteer Corps orientation in San Antonio, I cut an article out of the paper. A 17-year-old woman named Cathy Petri was banned from speaking at the commencement ceremony at Incarnate Word High School, though she was valedictorian with a 4.0 grade point average. The reason? She had a 16-month-old daughter and was unmarried. Cathy Petri chose life and was made an outcast. She does not stand alone. She joined a group far larger than she could ever imagine - the women who have faced the choice of adoption, abortion, or single parenthood. The church has failed to address the needs of these people. We are banned even from speaking, and thus we are made outcasts of our community.

-- Sophie (andher@choice.com), February 18, 2001.

Sophie,
Of course any stance taken against your agenda is seen immediately as ''violent, and frightening''. And I do the words sex-kitten etc., for the shock value. I mention unmarried women, and it presses your feminist button. Unmarried women, according to God's commandments are not supposed to engage in ''normal, healthy loving acts'' AT ALL! It is a sin. Men either-- there IS no double standard, God will punish the men as well, who break his commandments.

I find your crude statement, ''We have separated sex and reproduction'' to be a great affront against decent women everywhere in the world. Decent women who bring children into the world in complete accord with God's Will and respect for the sanctity of life. Folks like you are just lying in your teeth when you say a ''majority'' of them practice birth control! Maybe you and your clique do it; speak for yourselves.

You think I'm horrid, I'm sure. Well, believe me, I'm keeping my irritation with you under very strict control! In closing I'll request of you-- Please, next time you come on board to discuss ''a process of determining what that secular law should be'', and Milton's Paradise Lost, cover your nakedness, Sophie !

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 18, 2001.

"At this point in our history we have separated sex and reproduction."

Congrats, you have just identified what may be at the heart of most of this country's problems.

I firmly believe, that this is people's biggest problem with religion. Religion tells them they can't do something they want to (and feel they "need" to, society tells them they *should*). So they reject the more conservative worldview of religion, and therefore have a secular worldview in all things. BINGO - the modern US of A.

Christianity fighting amongst itself doesn't help our credibility, either.

The answer is not to accept the evil change, it is to fight to change it back. ..................................

-- Anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.

"Then the "good Catholic girl" was pregnant."

WOAH!!!!!! Didn't we miss an important step here? Unless we're talking about Mary, there's something you've forgotten, and that's where the moral agency comes in...

"Perhaps a heartfelt letter from a woman's perspective might help? "

Perhaps a heartfelt letter from an unborn child's perspective might help?

...........................

-- Anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.

So, Anthony, your answer to Mary Jean Wolch would be what?

Suffer? Good for you? I'm going to pretend I didn't hear you?

-- Sophie (andher@choice.com), February 18, 2001.

Jmj

Dear Sophie,
I don't believe that you have any right to criticize me for what I did. It was you who made a serious error in the beginning. What you should have done is to begin with words that resemble the following:
"Hello. I am a former Catholic I am in the 'pro-choice' camp on abortion. I have found the following article by Dr. So-and-So to be very persuasive. I copied it from http://etc.. May I ask you Catholics, please, to give me your best critique of it? I know that you won't agree with it, and I'm not trying to force these beliefs on you. But I wonder if the article will persuade you to believe as I do -- or that your refutation of it will persuade me to believe as you do."

Sophie, if you had written something helpful like that, not only would I not have reacted as I did, I would have praised you greatly.
But you simply copied the article above your name -- with no "header" and no "trailer." This was unkind to us readers, and I even have to stand up for the author, who was short-changed.

You mentioned to Eugene, "I've read enough of this board to know that you have spoken up about allowing different points of view to be heard here."
But if you are somewhat familiar with the board, Sophie, it becomes even more of a mystery that you did what you did. For several weeks now (as it seems you must be aware), this site has been plagued by people who have been using copy-and-paste to impose big anti-Catholic screeds -- and at least one vile pro-abortion essay -- on us, usually without attribution. This unChristian activity has been increasingly obnoxious to me (and, I think, other Catholics). Under these prevailing circumstances, it was only natural for me to think that you might be the woman who posted the previous pro-abortion article, and I reacted accordingly.

Sophie, I am glad to learn that you may be a more responsible person than I originally thought, but I am sad to see that you left the Church that Jesus founded and that you slipped into pro-death errors. [Yes, I saw your statement ("I am Catholic), but I think that the Church has made it clear that there really is no such thing as a "pro-choice Catholic." Your body may sometimes be in the Church building for Mass, but your heart and soul are now elsewhere.]
The Catholic bishops of the U.S. have utterly rejected and condemned, in many places, the illegitimate organization known as "Catholics for a Free Choice," which you recommended we consider. This anti-Catholic farce has no membership. It was set up by an excommunicated former abortion provider. It survives on big sums received from pro-abort non-Catholics, even from the "Playboy" empire. No decent Catholic would get anywhere near CfaFC.

In future, Sophie, please have the courage and class not to use the ungrammatical pro-death slogan, "a woman's right to choose." The word "choose" is a transitive verb after which one must provide explanatory language -- a "direct object." In this case, in order to be honest, you need to speak of "a woman's liberty to choose to have her baby murdered." (I replaced your word, "right," with "liberty," because no woman has a "right" to kill an innocent, defenseless tiny person. God is the only one who gives us "rights," and he has never given mothers the right to embryocide/feticide.)

Thank you, Hannah and others, for your fine replies to Sophie. And, thank you, Frank, for speaking up for me.

St. James, pray for us. Mary, new Ark of the Covenant, pray for us.
God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jgecik@desc.dla.mil), February 18, 2001.

Sophie,

My answer would NEVER be to kill the child. If the only alternative to that you see is "suffering" then yes, she must. The child's DEATH outweighs the woman's SUFFERING. Get the difference? DEATH --- SUFFERING. Which do you feel is more grave?

........................................................

-- Anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), February 18, 2001.

From the above letter -

"Cathy Petri chose life and was made an outcast. She does not stand alone. She joined a group far larger than she could ever imagine - the women who have faced the choice of adoption, abortion, or single parenthood. The church has failed to address the needs of these people. We are banned even from speaking, and thus we are made outcasts of our community."

What about the women who choose adoption or single parent-hood? There is no 'death of a child' yet the woman is still is made an outcast. Why? It seems apparent that what we were dealing with is sexism and outmoded attitudes toward sexuality.

The Church wants laws against contraception and laws against abortion. Do they also want laws against sex?

If their fight to outlaw abortion is so important to them why don't they lighten up on contraception? It would save so many women from this heartbreaking choice.

I'm asking these questions in a sincere effort to understand.

-- Sophie (andher@choice.com), February 19, 2001.

Sophie, pardon but:
All we really need is a law against selfishness. No church an enforce that; but only warn you God has determined the limits of our self-interest, our self-centeredness and our self-love.

Now you and many other self-interest groups would denounce even the WARNINGS of God's Church! So the Church failed to address the needs of whom? Women who do the proper thing, hoping in God's mercy? Women who are castigated, not by a Church, but by narrow-minded people who know no better.

The young mother who ''wasn't allowed to speak'' may have earned highest grades in her school, Sophie. But, in fairness to her school, she did not earn the right to run the commencement ceremonies! Methinks thou objects too much! In fact, couldn't she have enjoyed these, with her baby daughter? No-- you feel she had a ''right'' to speak, and others have a ''right'' to choose death for an unborn child.

In short, you feel every right to be selfish. But the Church should have no right to teach anyone! Shame on you, and your so-called ''sisters''. You don't represent the mainstream of American women. And you aren't ''educating'' or ''raising awareness'' coming into a Catholic discussion board with this agenda. Go beat the drum in China, where you'll be appreciated.

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 19, 2001.

*society* has attached a stigma to single parenthood for two reasons 1) in most cases, people don't know the child is adopted and so that implies pre-marital sex or divorce and 2) realising the inferiority of daycare and au pairs, how do you * properly* raise a child alone while working?

Many people can to this, but many people can't. But onto the Church's views:

Well, sophie, the Church does have a "law against sex" as you put it, sex outside of marriage.

The problem with certain kinds of contraception is similar to the problem with abortion, and so allowing one over the other isn't solving the problem.

The Church is not here to select the "lesser of two evils" to either placate the masses or improve PR. It's up to the masses to educate themselves and do the right thing.

I am reminded of a line from the movie "The Mission" (good one, rent it!)

"Thus is the world..." "No. Thus have we made the world." When we have "made" an injustice or an evil, it is up to us to "unmake" it, not for the Church to endorse it...

.............

-- Anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), February 19, 2001.

By the way, somebody please tell me what is the meaning of this verbal twist, ''moral agency of women''?A rationale based on syncondrosis ? Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 19, 2001.

Sometimes I really believe that all those who believe in abortion should have been aborted themselves. Don't you know that God gave Adam and Eve the choice to do good or bad, meaning Heaven or Hell.

Those who believe in abortion better know that the next step is to put you to sleep if someone deems you worthless for any reason. No one but God has the right to allow someone to die. Even if the Catholic Church agreed to abortion, it's God who will judge you and He judges whether or not you have enough love for yourself that you couldn't allow yourself to kill.

I was born into severe poverty. My father drank up all the money, there was no food and mom already had four boys when she finally got a separation from him. Immediately after that she found herself pregnant with me. She had to demean herself to the authorities by begging for food for us. Welfare was not yet in. I never married and took her and I off of welfare when I was 20. Yes it was hard, but I thank God all the time because she had given me a trust in God that I don't see very often.

By the way, not being married meant not having sex. Was that easy? No. When she passed away I have never been sorry because responsibility is what makes you strong. Abortion is all about selfishness. How dare you think you can do what you want and nobody is supposed to criticize you. Our criticism is nothing. Wait until you have to face Jesus. Yes he is loving. That's why he wants to help you. He is not like a grandparent who loves to spoil their grandchildren. He is truth and if you can face the truth now, you can change the whole world. If you can't you will have to when you die and there is no turning back.

-- Beverley Chichester (Yaleacres@aol.com), February 19, 2001.

Bravo, Beverly! --Here is the considered opinion of the Episcopal Church and its 1988 General Convention:

|
To deny a pregnant woman the power to make decisions is to disrespect the integrity of her conscience and, ultimately, to deny her full personhood. To apply coercion because we believe she is making an immoral decision is to substitute our own conscience for hers, and thus to wipe out her presence as a person directly and primarily responsible to God and to human relationship as she Perceives it. Currently, as evidenced by the denial of funding and full information to the poor of the world, the system of coercion is already in full swing." (the bold emphasis is mine)--

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 19, 2001.

This incredible statement by a church body ostensibly doing Christ's work in the world-- shows why the Catholic Church can never concede teaching authority to so-called reformed Christian churches. In fact, these churches have proceeded arrogantly against the ecumenical spirit of the times to ordain women and accept open homosexual arrangements for their clergy. Our friend Sophie paints theirreassurance of her feminist ''rights'' as dealing with sexism and outmoded attitudes toward sexuality. Something the Catholic Church ''fails'' to do! She figures people like Beverly and other Catholics are only ''marionettes'' in the hands of God!'' What a scream!

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 19, 2001.

No, eugene. I don't figure people like Beverly and other Catholics are only 'marionettes' in the hands of God.

I figure they are people who have the freedom and means to love and serve God in a deterministic way. They are not deprived of 'moral agency'. And if anyone tried to take that from them I would be one of the first to come to their (and your) defense.

With that being said, you have to begin to understand that many do not believe as you do. You cannot take away THEIR freedoms and you (or I) do not have the right to get between them and their God (or lack of one). Not on the issue of abortion, not on the issue of contraception and not on the issue of sex.

"The lesson for Christians is that Christlike servanthood can be chosen only by people who have the power to choose."

eugene, it does no good to try and change laws. We have to try and change hearts.

BTW, please don't call me friend if you have a need to do it with sarcasm. That's not nice and it's a lie.

-- Sophie (andher@choice.com), February 19, 2001.

Then let us abolish all laws, for to use the state to "coerce" anyone into obeying any precept is to remove from them full range of choice and thus their "personhood."

This makes no sense! This argument would not be laughed off any forum ONLY ON THIS ISSUE where people seem to set up a nice double-standard for themselves.

Save the whales, but let's put convenience before some child's life.

Where modern secular America's beliefs come into conflict with Church teachings; modern secular America is WRONG! No two ways about it! Just because the Episcopal church sees fit to make a concession to secular pressures does not make it right!

..................

-- Anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), February 19, 2001.

Sophie - I don't understand exactly what it is you are trying to do.

Please don't quote Milton (or sources quoting Milton) out of context. The whole argument of 'Paradise Lost' was that people needed the freedom to choose in order for those choices to have any validity (and consequences), but granting people the freedom to sin is not the same as granting them a license to sin. Milton was NOT a libertarian.

I'm an agnostic who left the Church because I disagree with many of its teachings (and beliefs). My experience has shown me that couples that have sex before marriage (and sometimes never marry) are just as capable of having a happy relationship than those that don't (and marry). I no longer believe (as I used to) that pre-marital sex is a sin and I don't believe that marriage is essential any more. I know that this goes against the Church's/God's teaching, but screw the Church's/God's teaching! I still believe in monogamy, but so do the majority of non-Christians (faith, trust, and loyality are not the exclusive property of Christians).

You seem to be saying that by advocating no-sex before marriage (and marriage) and condemning contraception, the (Catholic) Church is somehow taking away people's choices. This is ridiculous! The Church is saying that some choices are good, and some choices are sinful. If I CHOOSE to be a Christian (or a Catholic Christian), then accepting these teachings is part of that DECISION. I don't accept these teachings, therefore I CANNOT be a Christian (or a Catholic Christian) and CHOOSE not to be one.

The Church is only removing by choices when it seeks to make LAWS that would prevent me from having pre-marital sex, viewing pornographic/erotic material, masturbating, using contraception, or forcing me to marry my partner. My arguments with people here revolve around REAL attempts to take away my ability to choose - I never dispute their right to hold their beliefs and insist that people who claim to be Christian (or a Catholic Christian) should follow them.

Abortion is a possible exception (I use 'possible' because I still haven't thought it out properly).

I will resist any law (NOT 'teaching') that turns an activity which does not violate the rights of anyone else into a criminal act punishable by fines, imprisonment etc. Legislation which outlawed pre- marital sex would fall into this category. I support laws which aim to protect people that are considered to be too young (a grey area in itself) to make informed decisions.

Abortion DOES violate/over-ride the rights of the unborn child. Most, if not all, of this forum's members equate this to murder. Others will try and claim that the unborn child has no rights, or destroy any argument for its rights by calling it anything else other an unborn child. 'Unborn child' is such an emotive term - a 'blob of cells' is so much easier to destroy than something that sounds human (note - I'm being sarcastic). Then there are the people in the middle (like myself) who find it difficult to call abortion murder, but despise those who insist that an abortion has no moral consequences or implications (in the name of convenience). We tolerate it (and support its legalisation), but we do not approve of it in the slightest. Yeah, it's a cop-out, but it could we worse...

I understand the Catholic position on abortion (and contraceptives such as IUDs and versions of the pill that prevent implantation), and I concede that (based on my rights theory of laws) there is a case for making abortion illegal again. The enforcement of such a law and the punishments those who break it are things which I haven't really thought about.

[I don't understand their objection to contraceptives that prevent fertilization of ovulation (or sperm production eventually), but that is a question for another day. I know the reasoning behind it (even sex within marriage shouldn't be 'casual'), but it makes as much sense to me as their position on masturbation. I'll post something on this soon - don't take me to task on it now]

Sophie, from my non-Christian perspective it looks like you are trying to have your cake and eat it. Leaving aside the issue of whether abortion should be legal or not, I would EXPECT the Church to co-erce (i.e. persuade) women not to have abortions. Most non- Christians don't mind this as long as the Church puts its money where its mouth is (and it frequently does, but I'm sure if this help is unconditional [I think it ought to be, but other might disagree]).

I think you have made a very insightful point about single-mothers. The Church expects women to have their children, yet some of its members will not embrace a 'single-mother' (who has made the RIGHT decision) out of sheer prejudice. This is not universal though, and I doubt that anyone of rank within the Church would take such a view. Shame on them if they did.

I think that you do have a point about co-ercion, but ONLY in regard to the Church seeking to make abortion illegal. I guess I half-agree with you. However, your original post and subsequent replies seem to hint at something much broader and I must respectfully disagree with you. If you choose to follow Christ then you must sacrifice some choices, specifically the freedom to sin. I chose to keep this freedom, and am therefore no longer a Christian. You can't have it both ways.

-- Matthew (mdpope@hotmail.com), February 19, 2001.

Sophie and Matthew are really in the same camp. Shopie chooses hypocrisy and cant, Matthew chooses hedonism and pride. Both seem selfish enough to warrant a reproach. But as Matthew says, ''Screw 'em!'' I won't plead with the enemies of Christ's Church. If they don't love me, too bad.

I can privately pray for their conversion. Only don't give me that determinist ploy. It's another word for ''GOOBYE MORALS!'' To each his own /

-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), February 19, 2001.

In matt's defense, however, he hits the nail on the head with the fact that one can't pick and choose what doctrines they like and those they don't. The Church is not a buffet or salad bar!

This seems to be one of the most even handed (fair, relatively speaking) and thought out non-Catholic posts I've seen perhaps as long as I've been here.

Matt left the Church for reasons, but it doesn't appear that he got them from "the Catholic Chronicles" or some street-corner-preacher with a Bible and a sandwich-board saying "repent the end is neer." Do I believe he made the right decision? No, I don't, but I can't accuse him of basing it on misinformation, just mis-placed...priority(?)

............................................

-- Anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), February 19, 2001.

It's a shame that the following will probably be cut, along with it's baggage, for I feel that jr has managed to make sense twice in one day:

"[a condemnation of] a person choos[ing] to live an immoral life and then want the right to kill the child that God gave them! ...[I]f people truly knew the Lord there decisions would be based on Hi[s] word...Unless a sinner repents and truly seeks the Lord they shall always remain bound by sin."

This differs from the Church by not one single word.

good evening, jr .........................................

-- Anthony (fides_spes_et_caritas@hotmail.com), February 20, 2001.

Sophie,

I am pro-life (meaning anti-abortion, anti-death penalty, anti-euthanasia, etc.), but I also consider myself a liberal when it comes to politics. I know this is trite, but I want a real answer, not just an excuse to blow me off. Where do you draw the line as to which human lives are acceptable to allow to live? Is it ok to abort if the child will be born into a married household with enough income to support him or her? What if the child does not fit in to the plans of that couple? Is it allowable for a married couple to abort a child that will have a disability? Is there any difference between that decision and that of a unmarried mother? Is it more acceptable for her to do that than a couple? And if it is, why so, is the "fetus" in her body any different from the one in the womb of the other mother?

I agree with your point that we must change hearts, but that does not exclude the fact that we must change laws. If the US government had decided to change the hearts of slave owners before the Emancipation proclamation do you think that we wouldn't have slavery today? Sometimes leaders need to take a moral stance, even if it isn't in with the Zeitgeist of their era. I'm sick of wishy-washy morals in our society. God does not want us luke-warm.

Oh, and just so you know, I am an 18 year old girl who grew up in the era of this "sexual liberation" b.s. Thanks to "the right to choose" half of my generation is dead. It is possible for young women to today to have options to abortion. Its called abstinence outside of marriage. I'm doing it... its a Catholic thing... join the club.

I apologize if I sound angry, but I am. I'm sick and tired of my generation trying to get the easy fix. I'm saddened by what we have done to God's beautiful creation. Is it only by luck to be born to good Christian parents that I am alive today and not just another "glob of cells".

No, Sophie, I cannot agree, as a woman, that we have any right to decide whether or not our children should live. They should not have to die for our sins. Jesus already did.

-- Shannon (lilwimp03@yahoo.com), January 26, 2004.