Back to my point that both sides need to step away from the inflamed rhetoric.

How does the Catholic Church feel about reduction if one is having multiples (for instance, if you're pregnant with sextuplets and can only feasibly carry a couple of the babies).

Although it's really rare for a woman to be pregnant with that kind of multiples without modern medicine making it so - does the Catholic Church have a stance against fertility treatments?

Selective reduction is a no.
I'm pretty sure fertility treatments are, too.
RCs, correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes. This can play out sort of fun when somebody gets IVF or whatever and gets knocked up with a large amount of multiples.

Here's another question (since obviously I'm not up on Roman Catholic policy):

What if the choice is the baby or the mother (in a situation where you're already in childbirth)?

Is the father going to H-E-double hockey sticks if he chooses the mother? Or is that just a situation where the choice is so difficult anyway that it's a non-issue?

An example . . .
 

http://www.saintgianna.org/

eta - I don't know the overall policy, but I did know of St. Gianna.

So then the choice is to save the baby? Interesting.

I wouldn't go that far based on St. Gianna - but she is an example of a mother who would not put her own self-interest first.

But isn't the debate in a way already centered there? For one to assert that abortion is wrong or that it's murder wouldn't one have to have a working definition of when life begins? Some say that life begins at gestation, others say it begins when vital organs begin to develop, and others (like myself) say that life begins when the fetus is able to survive on its own outside of the womb.

I think that both sides already understand that each has a different belief regarding the beginning of life I think the question is moreso which side has the "correct" definition.

I hope I never have to make the choice, but it's gotta be a hard one. Give one baby life but leave three with no mother.

But I like the testimonials. There is something about faith in especially difficult times.

LittlMs - I would argue that both sides attack the other not based on discussing the issue of when life begins, but on the sterotypes I mentioned before.

Live in is in Houston at a wedding, and he said his family has started a heated discussion. Half the family supported Obama, half supported McCain.

Apparently, they're yelling at each other.

Who was the moron who brought up politics at a family wedding?

To a certain extent those stereotypes do hold to be true.

Only if you are willing to make a gross generalization. And the belief that the stereotypes are true prevents either side from engaging in the kind of dialog that would enable both sides to work together to solve one problem both agree on - that we want a society with fewer abortions.

eta - back on topic. I think the issue of separation of church and state and whether that means that ministers cannot speak at all on moral issues that might have an impact on elections, or whether that means the state should not in any way, shape or form censor speech in churches, is an interesting one.

I didn't quite mean it that way.. what i meant to say in so many words was that on either side there are people who fit the stereotype but the topic of abortion is filled with many gray areas that it isn't wise to make such a generalization. I do agree that that would prevent both sides from engaging in dialogue but do you really think it's plausible for both sides to solve one problem that everyone agrees on?

but to get back on topic....i'm an avid supporter or the separation of church and state but is there or should there be a limit to the amount of separtation?