Like I said, I vote for the OPTION to have a SAFER medical procedure. If the church wants to put a spin on that, they gotta do what they gotta do.

oh no...it didn't seem snarky to me at all. I'm just saying that since I'm pro-choice, to me there are other options than abortion. i.e keeping it, or putting it up for adoption.

BUT - when the term "pro-choice" is tossed around, it's in regards to abortion. No one debates the legality of being able to keep a baby, or put it up for adoption. If abortion is just a medical procedure with no other baggage, why wouldn't a supporter of legalized abortion be okay with being termed "pro-abortion"? By the same token, if we are talking about abortion it is, I believe, more straight-forward to say you are anti-abortion than any other euphemism.

That's not what "pro-choice" means though. The difference between pro-life and pro-choice is the latter believes that abortion should stay legalized (and the woman can chose to have an abortion).

as another option. My church's authority does not extend beyond itself. I'm personally not allowed to even consider an abortion, but my concern is not those outside of the church. God will deal with them. The problem is that, legal or not, women will have abortions. So, do we care about the health of the mother who could ultimately confess what she's done and repent? Or do we let her die in a botched operation? (Not directed at you, in particular, epchick)

My bishop knows who I voted for and completely disagrees with my selection, but would not deny me communion. Now, if I told him I was planning on getting an abortion, we'd have a problem.

Logical fallacy alert - it is not either/or. The only two choices are NOT have an legal abortion, or die in a botched illegal one. Going back to the issue of choice - your hypothetical woman who CHOSES to have an illegal abortion has made a CHOICE.

People are always going to any number of immoral acts which are also illegal - you don't see many arguing that we should simply turn a blind eye to them legally and let God deal with them. The central issue is really quite simple - at what point does a baby become a baby, rather than a piece of tissue/fetus/embryo? I'm really tired of anti-abortionists being painted as somehow desiring to restrict freedom. Anti-abortionists believe that life begins at conception. If that is the case, destroying that innocent life is murder. I believe that most pro-abortion supporters do not believe that a fetus/embryo counts as a human (at least not for a certain period of time) and that therefore abortion is not the same as killing.

Both sides need to respect the idea that the other side has a different fundamental belief regarding the point at which life begins. That is where the debate should center, instead of the idea that anti-abortionists are somehow crazed fundamentalists who want to punish women, or that pro-abortion supporters are murderous immoral relativists. (climbing down off soap box)

Don't anti-abortionists (aka "pro-life" ) believe life begins at conception which is why an abortion, at any stage, would be considered murder; and pro-abortionists (aka "pro-choice") believe life begins at birth, thus why an abortion wouldn't be considered murder?

Whoops - you're right, I misspoke. I'll go correct it.

eta - corrected. Life begins at CONCEPTION. Jeez . . .

This is infuriating me as much as Obama wanting required service for young people.

I may not support Obama's views on this issue or on many others. But voting for Obama (or for anyone) is not a reason to forbid communion. Who knows if the voters did not even consider abortion due to its not being a high priority issue for them as individuals? Who knows if Obama's pros outweighed the cons for them- ok, so I am having a hard time visualizing this given the fact that McCain would be optimal for me, but still.

It's not like the voters automatically engaged in the behavior that the church disapproves of.

And I am the kind of person who thinks everyone should be welcome to receive communion because everyone is welcomed by the Higher Power. That it should be up to you and your conscience- between you and the Supreme Being. That no third party should tell you what to do.

I do not like being told what to do or what to think.

Many protestant denominations do not take official stances on social issues, and NONE are supposed to promote certain political issues, ballot measures or candidates. This sounds like a violation of separation of church and state to me, which means revocation of 501 c 3 status.

Catholics view communion very differently from other Christian denominations. In other denominations, the bread and wine/grape juice are symbolic. But Catholics are supposed to consider them actual body and blood...that Christ "became" the bread and wine. Therefore they do not take their communion lightly. Even though I am presbyterian, I still do not think people should take communion if they do not accept what it stands for.

I think that a theological point could be made that it might depend on WHY you voted for the candidate you did - what are the candidates' postions on capital punishment, for example - but ultimately, it is a case of a Roman Catholic bishop warning Roman Catholic members of a possible consequence of voting for Obama. I don't agree with it, but I'm not a Roman Catholic. It doesn't affect anyone BUT Roman Catholics, and since being a Roman Catholic is a voluntary choice, I don't think that it is worth non-Roman Catholics getting upset about. However, if Roman Catholics think he has overstepped his bounds, I think that is something they should take up with higher-ups.

I'll just add this to the list of reasons I'm not supposed to take Communion and then take it anyway. If I start feeling bad, I'll go to confession.

And no, I couldn't find another church I like more. I like my brand of crazy much better than the other kinds. :)

My pastor when I was going through confirmation made me sit down and have a serious discussion about pre-marital sex, and how it was wrong. Including asking me if I ever thought of having sex.

I looked him dead in the eye and said "seeing as we don't have confession, I don't see how it's any of your business.:)"

Then I promptly told my parents that I thought it was particularly creepy that my pastor felt the need to sit down with me (a 14 year old girl that was more interested in school than boys) and tell me something I ALREADY KNEW.

That guy was such a creeper.

About the topic at hand, the only thing I've ever heard my church as a whole putting forward to the congregation to consider is that homosexuals are, indeed, actual people, and should therefore be treated as such. And that it was mean spirited and sinful to treat them any differently than we would any straight person. Whether that applies to marriage, not sure.