Give me a break Gregorio. The number of abortions performed for anything close to "legitimate" reasons is relatively small. There are PLENTY of people willing to adopt these "crack babies" as you call them. I know such folks and their adopted kids personally, and they would not trade them for the world.

Most abortions come down to selfishness. This is what people simply don't want to admit. Your willing to take a life so you don't have to be "inconvenienced", or suffer humility, or financial repercussions. Let's celebrate those who choose to be selfless in these circumstances!

You may be happy know that there are indeed, many who are willing to adopt "unwanted" babies. However, to assert that those who are against abortion should be willing to adopt the 'interracial and inner city crack pregnancies' is like saying that anyone who is against robbery should be willing to give money to the robbers so they don't commit that crime. We are all responsible for our own choices, and those choices are sometimes WRONG! That being said, there are many compassionate people and organizations whose goal is to help women and children (and men too) in bad situations like this. Just because something is legal doesn't make it right.

This was powerful! Thanks Fr. Damick! What an amazing woman.

I agree with Amy. In order to be a survivor, your mother must have actually attempted the abortion procedure. The fact that the choice was available doesn't mean that you survived it. I've heard people say that anyone born after '73 is an 'abortion survivor', which is just ridiculous. If I go swimming and don't drown does that make me a drowning survivor? I don't mean to play semantics, but there are actually people out there who have survived actual abortion attempts. They can claim that title, but not the author.

Why? Your comment only seems to make sense if churches agree with the sentiment in the last clause of your first sentence, i.e., you are requiring that they give up their doctrinal teachings about abstinence and the purpose of sex. Shouldn't churches be permitted to decide their own doctrine for themselves and then to act according to it?

Susan, most denominations are not anti-birth control. Churches can decide their theology, and people are free to choose a Church or not. No one should force you to believe in any particular way, and no one should dictate what a Church should or should not teach.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/not-just-catholic-controversy-protestant-colleges-threaten-drop-232819956.html Title speaks for itself, but interesting article.

Some key points:

1) If churches were exempt, they argued, why aren't institutions that base their bylaws on the same faith-based principles?

2) "The Department of Health and Human Services hardly seems like the appropriate place for such a determination to be made," wrote Mark Benedetto, the president of the University of Sioux Falls in South Dakota, a school founded by Baptists in 1872. "I am concerned that the regulations as written will violate the conscience of our institution as it relates to the health care plan that we offer to our students--the exemption is for employer plans, as written it does not appear to also include the student plans.

3) "Not only would this force our institution to violate our religious convictions by offering emergency contraceptives to our students, it would put us in the awkward position of offering a health care plan to our employees that is consistent with their religious convictions while offering another to our students that violates their religious convictions."

I understand that the Catholic church does "endorse" or at least allows the rhythm method for birth control "on some level" for married people. That seems to cover the "moral obligation" that Susan suggests might exist in a relatively natural way. Perhaps Fr. Damick can clarify.

I am not a Roman Catholic, but my understanding of Roman Catholic doctrine is that it is artificial birth control which is regarded as inherently sinful, which is bound up in the larger doctrinal picture of marriage as necessarily being open to children. (Indeed, one of the reasons for which the RCC will grant an annulment of marriage is that one of the spouses intended not to have children when they were getting married.)

Thanks for your comment, Special. No judgement intended ... just a different perception of the issue from my personal experience. It's often we hear the argument for one side or another, but I haven't heard from many who perhaps were in my shoes as a 'lucky one.'

It's painful to think of lives lost that could perhaps be doing good things in the world, just as I have tried to do with the life I was given.

It truly is a moral issue and one that is only between the person and God. I strive not to judge others, for as you said, we haven't walked in their shoes. I know people who have dealt with abortion and I think no less of them. My heart does hurt for them, for I know it's not something that has just disappeared. It will always be with them.

But my personal belief is that once conception has occurred, there is life. I've seen the heart beat for both of my sons as early as six weeks. Life is a miracle and one we should cherish despite how it happened. Probably idealistic, but that's just how I feel.

perhaps "choice" survivors