In US, what I don’t understand is that the people who are hard-core pro-life (i.e. their vote depends on it) also believe that for all other matters governments shouldn’t indulge in public social issues, for example, dictating what can and cannot be taught in the schools. Why this contradiction?
Also, I wanted to know in which other countries it is a debate issue in national election campaigns? Most Muslim countries are totally oblivious to this and I suspect in Western Europe it is such an accepted norm that there is not much debate anymore (maybe in Ireland) but what about South American, East Asia or Eastern European countries that have the majority of Catholics are dealing with it? And how is EU handing such social issues?
The semantics of this issue are interesting. One group calls itself Pro-Life... does it mean their opponents are Anti-Life? Sounds more than a little strange.
Majority Pro-Life movement is Catholic but not all.
I was raised in the catholic religion.
Abortion is not something I would chose for myself but I would not judge another if such decision was made. Because of my thinking I suppose I am a poor example of a catholic.
The question is regarding when life begins? Does life begin at conception? If so? Isn't taking of life a sin?
Recently politics in the mix in that if one supports the right of abortion one's taking of communion is forfeit.
Politics certainly raised up by repulican party in reference to Kerry stance.
Question is? Should a path understood as choice for some..
A path understood but not a path one would choose personally condemn the one who understands?
Rep. Chris Smith says he hopes that he played a small part in stopping Uruguay from becoming the first Latin American nation besides Cuba to legalize abortion. Critics say he was meddling in the affairs of another country.
Smith, R-N.J., and five other anti-abortion House Republicans on April 30 sent letters to Uruguay’s senators urging them not to “make the same costly mistake” America made 31 years ago and “legalize the violent murder of unborn children.”
On May 5, the Uruguayan Senate rejected, by 17-13, the bill that, in addition to making abortion legal for women in the first trimester of pregnancy, would have promoted sex education, contraceptive distribution and maternal health care services. The bill had already passed Uruguay’s House of Representatives.
No one is suggesting that Smith’s letter changed the outcome of the Uruguay Senate vote, and even had it passed Jorge Batlle, president of the heavily Roman Catholic country, said he would veto it.
But one sponsor of the bill, Sen. Monica Xavier, said she had filed a complaint with the foreign ministry, and another lawmaker, Sen. Reynaldo Gargano, called the “an act of gross meddling.”
Imagine, he told The Associated Press, “if we had sent a similar letter concerning the war on Iraq. … This was totally improper.”