In case you don't know who Margaret Sanger is, she was the founder of Planned Parenthood who viewed certain elements of society as "human weeds" and was admired by the KKK and Nazis alike.

Oh, and she is largely responsible for the more than 1 billion abortions that have been committed worldwide. The butchers of the Balkans could only dream of committing such a mass murder: http://www.lifesitenews.com...

There you go again, Pax. The abortion issue is primarily about choice. Like most organized religions, your contradictory idea of democracy is no choice at all. 

CNN conveyed a report that one billion people are going hungry. Considering how much of this number are children, I'd say that is abortion at its cruelest. 

Nor is objection simply against clinical abortions. All other forms of birth control is under attack by churches who would force others to conform to their religion.

Think of it this way. Why is one group of fundamentalists so enthusiastic about subjugating another group of women, almost all of whom are poor, non-white and fertile?    

Catpaw, the choice to do what? Do something that goes against the "common good?" While I believe that we should keep up the fight against hunger, I also believe we shouldn't be turning our backs on the least among our brothers and sisters. You certainly have the right to do that, but only at the risk of your eternal salvation, which, of course, is another choice of yours to accept or decline. Those who are subjugating women are just as wrong as those who are subjugating another class of humans: the unborn. Do I hear an amen?

Since I'm not a woman, the choice is unlikely to be mine. Nor should it be. The birth rate in Russia and Japan (and probably a few other countries) is declining. China has directly controled its birthrate. There are reasons for this. African countries on the other hand, have let nature take its course; and it has. The poverty and subsequent child mortality rate is tragic. You and I have different concepts of what the "common good" is. 

Defining life at conception does not nail down the quality of life. (If you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em.) Not just for the over burdened parent but for the unborn you'd expose the certainty of being a victim of its environment. Can you honestly say that is life as God intended?  

Catpaw, don't be surprised if God questions you about your efficacy as your brother's keeper. Have you thought about the choice not being yours to make when it comes to whether an unborn faces an uncertain future? I can't imagine there'd be too many folks who think, "I wish ma had aborted me." If they want to kill themselves, fine--although that'd go against the natural law and God's commandment to not kill. But taking the life of another is one of the sins that cry out to heaven. And you have another think coming if you think you'd be absolved of any responsibility of a woman's eternal fate for killing her own child(ren). Ditto for the men who have abandon their fatherhood responsibilities.

The choice may not be mine, but the responsibility ultimately is. I shouldn't be charged with either. To have a child or not to have one should be up to the woman's willingness to commit her life to that responsibility. But she can't do that if she doesn't have a choice, in which case someone else's moral decision and religious beliefs are forced upon her.