being human with animals

There are things that are sensitive for humans, we still have ethic questions, which make sense: I am already tired of following the abortion debate on the news and tired to see men getting involved and making rules for what I believe to be women stuff.

The debate was triggered by very retarded comments from a member of the Spanish church. I know they will always be against it, that must remain their position due to beliefs and what not, but that particular priest dared saying that the sexual abuse some children had to suffer from priests is not as bad as the free choice of a woman to stop an UNwanted pregnancy.

The statement condemns them and invites to say 'no comment' or what is happening right now, a rain of reactions.

The funny thing that moved me to write something about it is the fact that while seeing the ongoing debate on the news I was having one of my week interests in cats, cat pregnancy and sterilisation.
A cat (but it applies to other animals/mammals) needs to be sterilised for different reasons: one of them is to avoid overpopulation and the other because more pregnancies can damage the cat's health and increase their risk of cancer. Of course they don't have a position towards it, so we decide the best for them.

While we are so condescendent with them and we sterilise them for their own sake, we also humanly put them to sleep when they are having a terminal disease or when they are handicapped.
I used to defend my animals like the Vatican and was against giving them up, but then again, putting them to sleep is stopping their suffering. I would still be confronted with such a decision, in part we want to stop their suffering as much as we want to stop ours...

When it comes to finishing a life we are much more human with animals than with humans themselves. There is no cruelty in that, the only point is that the animal has no choice, we make choices for them.

When a human chooses what is best for their lives and other's then the whole controversy kicks in: But, if it is a personal choice, what do we have to do about it? Isn't it that bit better (at least relieving) to take action on a request to stop someone form suffering than having to make a decision on someone who cannot decide any longer? (such as Eluana Englaro?)
I made my point on that once. If I was on a coma state I am sure I would be struggling and wouldn't want anyone to decide for me, but I would also not like to ruin other people's lives for one that most probably won't have a chance any longer.
Such a decision must be frigging hard.

In regards to pregnancy, how come people brings children into the world without regrets or without attending to consequences and not feel bad about those who are already born and are facing a chanceless life or most probably a very early death? Isn't letting a child die, that is already there not more cruel than responsibly choose to stop a process that will only bring misery? Like Max Frisch put in his piece, doesn't the fact that we don't do anything to stop a disaster make us part of the problem?

I used to think that in order to stop the misery in the 3rd world countries, women in them should be limited to 2 children and then be sterilised. I was wrong. That is not right if it is not their choice, and once sterilised it wouldn't stop the risk of sexual transmitted diseases or AIDS. In such case, information is the best option. What they can take to avoid unwanted pregnancies is a good start and I cannot think of a better ally than a condom. Not a gadget in history could save more lives. No chemicals, no interventions, one of the greatest inventions after the wheel. Forget the abstention. We know sex is for humans a basic need. We are not so driven than animals but it is part of our affective life. Unfortunately there are not enough lines to describe its boundaries. Something so natural has become a powerful weapon of suggestion, marketing and unfortunately often far from the concept of love and union.
How come the pope has the cold blood to condemn a condom? I can imagine the frustration of people, working for years trying to make some cultures understand, and there comes Mr holy man, who has no idea about sex or parenting and blows in a sentence a whole process, campaigns, the effort of people REALLY caring.
Man! When it comes to sex or pregnancy, they shouldn't allow them to open their mouths a bit. They have their position, ok, but we know already, they should keep it for themselves and concentrate on doing good deeds: provide food, money, love or spiritual guidance (although I also have my doubts on how beneficial or useful their beliefs are for humanity. I guess if they would just be able to transmit the strength that faith brings to people and keep it there, it could be of help: love and peace, that does not need a dogma). I guess they are frustrated, and cannot help but transmit their bitterness. Wrong, wrong, wrong... It will never be natural to be a spiritual guide and live surrounded of treasures in a man-only community. Men need women. A spiritual guide should have a family in order to be able talk about it.

The only abortion that should be definitely forbidden is the one against a woman's will.
It is impossible that a man will ever understand in their own skin what a difficult choice is, both deciding to keep an unwanted being, giving it away or deciding to stop it on time, and it is morally wrong to push someone against their will, whatever the outcome.

I am going way out of theme. There are things I just can't understand. They have no idea and only a woman should decide on that. Why don't they put the abortion subject to be voted exclusively by women? I would love to see the results.