The Abortionist Of Auschwitz

This woman aborted as many as 3,000 babies while she was a prisoner in Auschwitz. Is she a murderer or a hero?

 

The Abortionist of Auschwitz
Shmarya Rosenberg • FailedMessiah.com

To the Catholic Church and many Evangelicals, Dr. Gisella Perl was a murderer.

An Orthodox Jew who was the daughter of a rabbi, Dr. Perl worked as an obstetrician in Sighet, Romania, Elie Wiesel's hometown. After the Nazis took Romania, she was deported to Auschwitz with the rest of the town's Jews. Her family was murdered there.

Dr. Perl was put to work in the camp infirmary and was also made to work as a prisoner assistant to Dr. Josef Mengele, the monstrous Nazi doctor who, among other atrocities he committed, performed exceeding cruel and painful medical experiments on the retarded, handicapped, twins and pregnant women.

When these brutal experiments were completed, the surviving patients were sent to the gas chambers, where they were murdered.

Pregnant women not given to Mengele for his experiments were immediately tortured and murdered. According to Dr. Perl, pregnant women

“…were surrounded by a group of SS men and women, who amused themselves by giving these helpless creatures a taste of hell, after which death was a welcome friend…They were beaten with clubs and whips, torn by dogs, dragged around by their hair and kicked in the stomach with heavy German boots. Then, when they collapsed, they were thrown into the crematory - alive.”

Babies who were somehow born in Auschwitz were immediately murdered by camp guards.

For pregnant women to survive in Auschwitz they had to somehow conceal their pregnancies from these Nazis – a very risky proposition – or they had to abort.

While working for Mengele by day, at night Dr. Perl ran a secret medical practice for Auschwitz prisoners. Without any access to anesthesia, sterile wipes or even instruments, Dr. Perl stitched wounds, performed surgery and immobilized broken bones, saving hundreds of lives.

But there was one more thing Dr. Perl did.

To save the lives of pregnant women who would otherwise be tortured by Mengele and then murdered, Dr. Perl performed abortions – thousands of them.

Under Jewish law, these abortions were permitted and, in most cases, required.

Jewish law views the mother's life as primary and the life of the fetus as secondary. If a conflict between the two exisits – for example, carrying a pregnancy to full term endangers the mother's life, either from a medical condition or, in this case, from certain torture and murder – the fetus is viewed as a rodef, a pursuing agent which seeks to bring about the death of the mother.

Jewish law then allows – and, in most cases, mandates – abortion of that fetus.

The pro-life movement does not follow Jewish law. It views the life of the mother and the potential life of the fetus as equal. For the pro-life movement, killing one is no different than killing the other. Therefore, for the pro-life movement all abortion is murder – even when carrying a fetus to full term will certainly kill the mother – and its ideology and proposed legislation reflects that position.

For Jews, Dr. Gisella Perl was a woman dumped into a pit of horror who was forced to make choices we in our worst nightmares can't envision. And while not perfect, she gave thousands of slave prisoners, primarily Jews but Poles and Roma as well, the chance to live another day and, perhaps, survive.

But for pro-lifers, there is no moral ambiguity. Dr. Perl is a murderer.

Judaism views every abortion as a tragedy. But at the same time, it recognizes that there are times when it is unsafe for a woman to carry a pregnancy to full term. In those cases, Judaism allows and often mandates abortion.

That is why Judaism does not support the pro-life movement, and that is why the abortionist of Auschwitz was not a murderer.

Comments

[phillip]

HERO...without question

[dlz]

Great post!

[yidandahalf]

Yes, it is an excellent post on a topic not yet covered. It has been much needed and Perl was a super hero.

[Bfeirush in Fartscroll]

Hero.

[PulpitRabbi]

As the article correctly noted, "Under halakha, Jewish law, these abortions were permitted and, in most cases, required."

HERO!

[state of disgust]

What happened to Dr. Perl?
Please tell the rest of the story.

[effie]

I read her bio and was under the impression that they were done in secret in the barracks. I don't understand how the majority of these women didn't become ill from lack of clean instruments and real medical care.

[pierre]

I think you missed the chane for a better post if it was INCLUSIVE of the views of authoritative representatives of the others. Jews generally don't appreciate when others choose to say "what Jewish Law believes" - even when the Jews in question are not Orthodox. I would have asked representatives bodies of the Catholic Church and Pro-Life organizations, NRLC for example, for their views on the matter.

[Shmarya]

The Catholic Church views all abortion as murder as do many Christian fundamentalists.

Their views have been well-publicized for dozens of years.

[ruthie]

no one EVER can judge anyone in the camps

[Bilaam's Donkey]

Yes, that's the Catholic view. But it's not the uniform evangelical view, much less the uniform view of the "pro-life" movement. I don't think you'd appreciate it if some asshole wrote an op-ed about how "Judaism" requires its adherents to wear a funny fur hat.

In fact, most evangelicals (Southern Baptists, the United Methodist Church, etc.) support abortion to save the mother's life.

[anuran]

She did a difficult, terrible thing to serve a greater good. She's a genuine hero.

[ali]

. . . Judaism does not support the pro-life movement. . .

What's the difference between the Jewish woman brood mare mentality of Frummies and fundamentalist pro-lifer groups? Very little that I can tell. Frummies just do their promoting more quietly.

[anuran]

...and she did more to save the lives of Jews than a thousand black-hatted herring-breathed self-important rabbis mumbling incantations in Aramaic and straightening mezzuzahs.

[Shmarya]

Yes, that's the Catholic view. But it's not the uniform evangelical view, much less the uniform view of the "pro-life" movement. I don't think you'd appreciate it if some asshole wrote an op-ed about how "Judaism" requires its adherents to wear a funny fur hat.

In fact, most evangelicals (Southern Baptists, the United Methodist Church, etc.) support abortion to save the mother's life.

Posted by: Bilaam's Donkey | May 03, 2011 at 10:21 AM

I wrote "many" not all.

Past that, the pro-life movement clearly wants to ban ALL abortions.

That some Evangelicals want to ban MOST abortions does not change that fact.

[Commentator]

.. and the point of this post is?

[What kind of goyishe name is Harold z"l?]

.. and the point of this post is?

.. To test your level of comprehension.

[Bilaam's Donkey]

"The pro0life movement clearly wants to ban ALL abortions." And your evidence for this is what, zip? Back on planet Earth, it's pretty well known that the pro-life movement isn't a monolithic whole. Most pro-lifers I know support abortion to save a mother's life, and many support rape/incest exceptions.

Similarly, where's your evidence that "many" Evangelicals oppose abortion even to save a mother's life? It may well be true that "some" Evangelicals believe this, just like I'm sure you can find "some" Orthodox Jews who support legalizing crack cocaine. But the Evangelical churches I know of either support abortion to save the mother's life, or take no position at all.

[Shmarya]

My evidence for this is that whenever the pro-life movement has been confronted with a situation that puts its outlook to the test, it moves to ban.

For example, partial birth abortion, which is done in extremely rare cases because the birth would kill the mother.

The pro-life movement successfully banned partial birth abortion, despite the fact that the only normative use for the procedure is to save the mother's life.

[Bilaam's Donkey]

And, as is your typical fashion, you tell only half the story. If you are referring to the federal "Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act" (18 USC 1531) it exempts abortions found "necessary to save the life of the mother whose life was endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself."

[Shmarya]

No. You're telling only half the story.

Lawmakers have to concerned with more than the pro-life movement, and until now laws that would ban all abortion or all of one type of abortion are difficult to pass, and laws reflect compromise.

But the stated GOAL of the pro-life movement is to ban all abortion.

Cutting off all funds to Planned Parenthood paints with a very wide and inaccurate brush. Yet that is what the pro-life movement wants and what it lobbies for.

You know all this to be true.

Why you do not admit it is a question I doubt we will ever get answered.

[Bilaam's Donkey]

Shmarya,

If that is, in fact, the "stated GOAL" of the "pro-life movement," maybe you could find some evidence to support your claim? Such as the actual "GOAL" that, supposedly, has been "stated." Saying something is true doesn't make it so.

In reality, on planet Earth, the "pro-life movement" consists of dozens of different groups with different beliefs. Undoubtedly some (largely Catholic in origin) want to ban all abortion. But most just want to stop abortion on demand, not endanger the few women who need abortion to save their lives.

[Shmarya]

You are ignoring what I wrote:Cutting off all funds to Planned Parenthood paints with a very wide and inaccurate brush. Yet that is what the pro-life movement wants and what it lobbies for.

You know all this to be true.

Why you do not admit it is a question I doubt we will ever get answered.

[Izzy]

Just observing the conversation here (as I usually do), but the fact that funds to Planned Parenthood were cut off does not support the fact that the pro life movement is monolithicly opposed to abortion in all cases, even to preserve the life of the mother. The fact is that Planned Parenthood provides other services (such as providing birth control and woman's health services) that many/most pro-lifers are not opposed to.

[Shmarya]

97% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to non-abortion services.

Of the 3% that goes to abortions, a significant number (I'd guess less than the majority, though) goes to lifesaving abortions.

Yet pro-lifers lobbied to kill ALL funding to Planned Parenthood because of abortion.

[Izzy]

You have proven my point. You cannot use the the cutting off of funds to Planned Parenthood by pro-lifers as proof that pro-lifers are against abortion even to save the life of the mother. According to your numbers above, pro-lifers lobbied to have the funds cut off because of abortion, a mere 3% of the budget. By that token, who's to say that they were not motivated by abortions where the health of the mother is not at risk, which would account for approximately 1.5% of the annual budget, rather than the other 1.5% of abortions where the life of the mother is at risk?

[Adam Neira]

All behaviour is a result of mindset and setting. The pure evil of the setting these women found themselves in gave rise to the unfortunate abortions. All people can be judged on how well they act under the circumstances they are placed in. The lesson of the holocaust is that we must do everything in our power to prevent such regimes from rising again.

[Shmarya]

I hope that is not a serious question.

The public debate on this issue, such that it was, was all about banning ALL abortion, without exception for abortion done to save the life of the mother, and to make sure that no federal funds went to abortion of ANY type.

[Izzy]

I was a serious questions, but perhaps you are correct. I have been poking around on the internet a bit, and I can't find anything that really speaks conslusively to the issue. What would be most relevant to the question would be what the members of congress said when they voted for the act.

[Shmarya]

What would be most relevant to the question would be what the members of congress said when they voted for the act.

That the government should not fund any abortion.

[PishPosh]

Oh my God. Nobody can sit in judgment on this woman. Im stupefied to think that not only was she condemned to this purgatory. But she had to work with the Devil himself in order to save lives. I shudder to think what nightmares she must have and I cry and tremble when I think of what she had to do to save the pregnant woman of the camp. God give her peace.

A heroine? A supernatural being I would say.

[WoolSilkCotton]

PishPosh, agreed.

[Bilaam's Donkey]

I'm sure that at least 97% of what Hamas does is not Jew killing. Would you support public financing of Hamas? Or maybe, just maybe, the 3% Jew killing means that there are better ways to spend taxpayer dollars.

[Shmarya]

I'm sure that at least 97% of what Hamas does is not Jew killing. Would you support public financing of Hamas? Or maybe, just maybe, the 3% Jew killing means that there are better ways to spend taxpayer dollars.

Posted by: Bilaam's Donkey | May 03, 2011 at 05:28 PM

What a shoteh you are! You can't even make a logical argument.

Process: If the government bans all abortions or even bans government funds for all abortions, women will die as a result.

Are you too stupid to see that?

[Bilaam's Donkey]

Tell you what Shmarya. You've made a pretty strong claim: that it is the official, "stated GOAL" of the pro life movement to ban abortion even to save the life of the mother. Find that "stated GOAL" on the website of any large, mainstream pro life organization (i.e., the National Life to Right Committee, the Republican Party, etc.) Except for, perhaps, a wholly Catholic group, you won't find it. Because it doesn't exist.

[Shmarya]

And the fact that you would compare abortion to funding terrorism proves you are both an idiot and a person who is not following Jewish law.

[Shmarya]

Tell you what Shmarya. You've made a pretty strong claim: that it is the official, "stated GOAL" of the pro life movement to ban abortion even to save the life of the mother. Find that "stated GOAL" on the website of any large, mainstream pro life organization (i.e., the National Life to Right Committee, the Republican Party, etc.) Except for, perhaps, a wholly Catholic group, you won't find it. Because it doesn't exist.

Posted by: Bilaam's Donkey | May 03, 2011 at 05:34 PM

Idiot.

The Republican house voted to defund Planned Parenthood over abortion – even though women will surely die as a result.

In what passes for your logic, those deaths would be collateral damage incurred while doing the right thing – blocking all public funding of abortion.

The problem is that halakha does not agree with you.

[Bilaam's Donkey]

You can call names all you want. But what you can't do is to find facts to back up your blatantly false claim about what the "stated GOAL" of the pro-life movement is to end all abortion, no exceptions.

Your "logic," as far as I can tell, is that Republicans obviously want to end all abortion, no exceptions (and despite their "stated" official platform to the contrary), because they voted to defund Planned Parenthood. I pointed out, using the Hamas example, exactly how flawed that logic is. What bothers Republicans isn't the few hundred (perhaps) abortions that Planned Parenthood performs to save life (abortions which most hospitals would happily perform) -- it's the hundreds of thousands of purely elective abortions. Similarly, what bothers you about Hamas isn't the support for widows and orphans. It's the Jew killing that goes along with it.

Call me all the names you want. For that matter, put all kinds of words into my mouth (i.e., you will notice I haven't "stated" a personal opinion on abortion, I've just pointed out the blatant fallacies or distortions in your postings). None of that changes the facts. It just exposes your argument for how weak it is.

[Bilaam's Donkey]

For the record (not that facts matter to Shmarya), the bill the GOP supported to deny public funding for abortion EXPRESSLY permits funding for abortions done to save the mother's life.

Don't believe me? Read the bill yourself. It's right there in Section 309.

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/112-h3/text

[A Yid]

"The Republican house voted to defund Planned Parenthood over abortion – even though women will surely die as a result."

A woman who needs an abortion to save her life and has no money of her own can ask for private donation, or ask her family's help. Her city or state can fund these abortions etc.
It is incorrect to suggest that when federal government stops funding some program people "will surely die as a result" as federal financing is only one of many possibilities how to fund various programs.

[Yochanan Lavie]

The women this woman saved could go on to have other children. Both mother and fetus would have surely died otherwise. She did the right thing.

[Rochel]

The Republican house voted to defund Planned Parenthood over abortion even though the federal money Planned Parenthood received did not go to abortions and abortions are only about 3% of what PP does. The rest is women's (and men's) reproductive health care: breast exams, pap smears, gyn exams, breast/uterine (also testicular) cancer screenings, vasectomies, tubal ligations, STDs, etc. and yes, also birth control and abortion.

[yudel]

Bilaam you are so off base i will not engage you. Something i have thought about for a long time that would take the wind out of the sales of the anti abortion movement. What most of you do not know simply because you have not attended their gatherings is that the attack on abortion always uses films focusing in on the murder of babies at the hands of doctors in America. In a word, they focus in and use only examples of partial birth abortions and hammer after that point with great passion. As far as abortion goes in the sense discussed here that is a side issue. It is discussed but only in terms of the back drop partial birth murder.

Now make partial birth abortion's murder and bring doctors to trial who continue to perform that proceedure on viable fetus's and the whole issue will fade. It will lack the emotional punch and we can get onto more important issues. As long as the pro life defends murder through partial birth abortions they keep the issue alive.

[Shmarya]

Call me all the names you want.…None of that changes the facts. It just exposes your argument for how weak it is.

Posted by: Bilaam's Donkey | May 03, 2011 at 05:53 PM

Okay, I will.

In that tiny inadequate little mind of yours, it is okay to cut off medical care including abortions needed to save the life of the mother in order to stop abortions done for less noble reasons.

So you resign death, illness and suffering on the innocent in order to curtail the actions of those you consider to be guilty.

Your position has no support in halakha.

[Shmarya]

For the record (not that facts matter to Shmarya), the bill the GOP supported to deny public funding for abortion EXPRESSLY permits funding for abortions done to save the mother's life.

Please.

As I noted above:

Lawmakers have to concerned with more than the pro-life movement, and until now laws that would ban all abortion or all of one type of abortion are difficult to pass, and laws reflect compromise.

Past that, cutting off all funding to Planned Parenthood means cutting off funds for all birth control help it provides, cutting off pap smears and mammograms and other tests and treatments that preserve life and help prevent illness.

Planned Parenthood did not use federal funds for abortion before the Republican congress voted to defund it and provided the government with audited statements each fiscal year to confirm that.

Yet the Republicans voted to block all funds to Planned Parenthood anyway.

Planned Parenthood uses 97% of its budget to provide pap smears, STD counseling, mammograms, etc. Only 3% goes to abortion. None of that 3% is paid for with federal money and some of the abortions done by Planned Parenthood fall under everyone's definition of saving the life of the mother.

In other words, what the Republicans did is vote to defund any agency that provides abortion services no matter how small those abortion services are unless that agency provides only life saving abortions (as defined in a very narrow way that is in opposition to normative halakha).

That bill means tens of thousands of poor women won't get mammograms and pap smears and thousands will die of cancer unnecessarily as a result.

Other women will die from getting illegal back room abortions or from carrying risky pregnancies full term.

And you are too dull to see why the Republican's bill violates Jewish interests and halakha.

[jay]

A Yid- so you would have a woman be forced to go to strangers and beg for money in order to save her life? What if she has no immediate family? What if her city and/or state do not provide any funds for abortions in order to save lives? Obviously you don't think poor women deserve any consideration or dignity.

[Pierre]

I didn't have a chance to come back to comment on this as of yesterday morning, but I did happen to run bump into someone who briefly recounted the development of catholic view of abortion over time, and it has never been as simple as media sources (which Jews no more posken from than the Magisterium does), set it out to be. He said 'blee nader' he would try and send me pertinent material, but off the cuff offered one of several doctrinal formulations where medical abortion (death of the fetus), is not doctrinally considered at all abortion if done so indirectly and not as the end goal (after several latin spelling attempts I found it;
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

Lawful Therapeutic Means

15. On the other hand, the Church *does not consider at all illicit* the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever."

He gave other ramble about evolution of views of life, 'quickening', etc, but said he would get back to me later, and that will likely be long after any readers of this blog care to hear, but i will try to post what he gives me, but he was clear that it is disingenuous to paint catholic doctrine as 'all abortion is murder', and that the Magisterium doesn't legislate from 'well-known perspectives' in the media. I will myself send the Dr's story to cath theologians for a response to "what they'd think of her" in the circumstances.

[jay]

The Catholic church does consider all abortion murder. They do, however, allow for "incidental" abortion. Example:
If a woman has an ectopic pregnancy- something that's always life threatening- they allow removal of the fallopian tube containing the embryo.
They do not, however, allow the tube to be flushed instead. Flushing the tube is direct abortion. Removing the tube, they teach, is not. So they would render her partially infertile rather than abort.

[flailed]

Read her book. The woman was a saint.

[David Aharon]

While it is not for me to judge the action, there is a comparable event that occurred after Paro decreed that male children born were to be thrown into the Nile... Amram then divorced his wife Yocheved ... and all the men did the same. His daughter approached him and said you Amram are more cruel than Paro ...you are preventing females also from being born. So Amram takes his wife back and the rest you can read in the Tanach in Exodus.

[Yitzchak Ben-Shmuel]

As far as I know of Gisella Pearl, she made
her way to Eretz Yisrael, married, and had
three children of her own.

Yitzchak Ben-Shmuel

[pierre]

there is a story in the last Halberstam "small miracles" book on the holocaust recounting her helping in the birth of a child in Israel to a woman she'd aborted a child of during the Holocaust, something like that.

[Shmarya]

While it is not for me to judge the action, there is a comparable event that occurred after Paro decreed that male children born were to be thrown into the Nile... Amram then divorced his wife Yocheved ... and all the men did the same. His daughter approached him and said you Amram are more cruel than Paro ...you are preventing females also from being born. So Amram takes his wife back and the rest you can read in the Tanach in Exodus.

Posted by: David Aharon | May 05, 2011 at 07:43 AM

Tell us the truth. It's been a very, very long time since anyone besides your mother told you that you're smart, right?

Moron.

[Pj Suttle]

As a former Jewish student that was forced to attend Catholic Schools & "mass", I can state without a doubt that history teaches us that the Catholic Church & the Pope did NOTHING to help or stop what occurred during the Holocaust. The Catholic Church is a corrupt "gang of thugs" in "fancy robes & hats".

Even today's Pope has publicly apologized for that era & the ERRORS of that time. I don't believe his sincerity. He was part of the youth Hitler movement - being Pope doesn't change his past. And him asking for "confession" & being absolved of his past "sins" still doesn't make me feel any different in my opinion about Catholicism.

I am an American Hebrew Southern Woman who believes in Jewish Law teachings & respects those who had to do what they had to do to survive. I do not however, condone what the House is doing by having Federal funding taken away. That is NOT progressive thinking or logical mentality.

A most pleasant day to all. ~ Shalom ~

[Shmarya]

As a former Jewish student that was forced to attend Catholic Schools & "mass", I can state without a doubt that history teaches us that the Catholic Church & the Pope did NOTHING to help or stop what occurred during the Holocaust.

You can "state without a doubt" that the earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so.

There is more than ample evidence that shows the Church saved Jews during the Holocaust.

The mental unbalances you may have due to your upbringing should be dealt with by psychiatrists.

[aspacia]

She prevented further torture of her brethren and is a hero.

[Jimmy]

Whats the point of being jewish?

[amshinover]

Who gives a crap what the church says about ethics it if wasn't for 1000 years of bible thumping antisemitic rhetoric from the pulpit perhaps the Holocaust wouldn't have happrned

[Ashley]

Even the LDS/Mormon church supports abortion in some cases.
“The Church opposes abortion and counsels its members not to submit to or perform an abortion except in the rare cases where, in the opinion of competent medical counsel, the life or good health of the mother is seriously endangered or where the pregnancy was caused by rape and produces serious emotional trauma in the mother. Even then it should be done only after counseling with the local presiding priesthood authority and after receiving divine confirmation through prayer."
(Quoted from the churches website.)

[midwest rabbi]

Very interesting article, but I have one comment about the language used in it. The term "pro-life" a misnomer. The term anti-abortion is a more accurate description than pro-life. Those of us who believe in women's reproductive rights are also pro-life. We believe in "life" even if we define the outcome of that belief differently than those who are anti-abortion.

[Another Halocene Human]

I was in tears reading this post. Yes, HERO. In the face of unspeakable horror, she saved not one, but thousands of human lives.

Catholic morality is a sham. A priest once told my CCD class that the proper interpretation of the Ten Commandments would hold that it would be a sin to lie about hiding Jews in your attic when the Gestapo is banging on your door, even though this will certainly lead to their deaths. Of course, I have heard other priests backpedal and claim it would be acceptable to commit this "sin".

They are all hypocrites--the Pope himself was hiding Jews in the Vatican during WWII. He also used secret diplomatic packets to conceal this fact and others from the Nazis. No doubt he was a big sinner, too (sin of Pride, for starters), but not for that reason.

Sadly, the Kantian absolute morality, "a moral precept is true in every situation, no matter the circumstances" is very popular with the Jesuits, who are the dominant intellectual force in the RCC.

I guess the priests themselves have so many psychological issues that they've missed the obvious facts in that Kant was a) completely crazy (probably OCD), b) his theories are intellectual garbage, howbeit appealing to people that need some "intellectual" excuse to defend their belief in a higher power, and c) they actually contradict Jesus' teachings, which the RCC is supposed to give primacy. Jesus once encouraged his disciples to violate the Sabbath by picking and eating corn. "The Law was created for men, not men for the Law."

"Jesus"' teachings are in line with later rabbinical thought but not as fully developed. ("Jesus" is almost certainly a sort of pen-name or pseudonym--or nom de guerre--and most of the teachings in the three synoptic gospels are believed to have been lifted from an earlier source document that is associated with the Teacher of the Essenes.) The syncretic thought of the "Epistles" (the work of early Christian bishops, no matter the forged authorship) are rather contradictory to the Jesus texts and have provided a lot of the impetus for the Protestant and Jansenist movements and the fracturing in Christian thought.

[Another Halocene Human]

@Ashley,

That Mormon teaching is no different from the Catholic one. In both cases a woman facing death due to pregnancy complications must request permission from a MAN to have the procedure done.

I want to say the Mormon version is worse, but check this out: On the Catholic side, you are allowed to make the choice to have an abortion, then seek forgiveness and not necessarily face ostracism in the community, yet there is that little problem of Catholic hospitals which refuse to perform certain procedures (even when the fetus is already dead, in some cases!!!). A Catholic hospital recently drummed out a nun who was on the ethics board and made the decision to allow an abortion. Mormons elevate untrained laity (always MEN, this is an iron rule) to positions of authority and if they are mean and nasty there is absolutely no recourse. So in conclusion, the one which is worse depends on your circumstances at the time--where you live, who the local hierarchy is, what hospital you have access to, what your community is like (are your fellow females evil witches who will judge you, etc).

The Catholic church has gotten more radical on this issue under the silk-Prada-gloved iron fist rule of Ratzi. Some Catholics in South America were excommunicated for performing an abortion for a nine-year-old child who was incapable of carrying the pregnancy to term. Btw, she was raped by her stepfather. The procedure was done in defiance of RCC edict, leading to the excommunication. Ratzi has no compassion for girls, even very young ones, but loads of compassion for priests who rape vulnerable little boys. He is the Roman Polanski of prelates, I suppose. Those altar boys were asking for it.

[Another Halocene Human]

You got one thing right, Pi Suttle, Ratzi isn't sorry at all.

I wonder how "close" JPII and Ratzinger really were or if having Ratzinger--who held opposing views to his--so close was a political move. After all, Karol Wojtyla grew up in a mixed community of Catholics and Jews, was himself, as a Pole, subject to Nazi persecution, having to flee for his life at one point during the war, and also, according to B'Nai B'Rith, saved the lives of many of his Jewish countrymen.

Poles were declared Untermenschen (subhuman) by the Germans. My great aunt's father was a politician in Poland. For this crime, she was shipped to Auschwitz KZ as a young teenager. Today she is very slender and stands well under five feet tall and still has the numbers tattooed on her arm.

[Mike B]

HERO without a doubt! The so called pro life movement is a joke in every sense of the word. These people have no clue what pro-life means. They should really go by Pro-life is who we decide should live.