Abortion up to the Moment of Birth-it's Spreading!

I knew I had heard something like this before. Abstinence was the only acceptable method of birth control, and it would follow that artificial / technologically enhanced methods of birthing children would also be forbidden.

Where does the church stand regarding technological advances for delivering babies and keeping them alive, as opposed to leaving their mortality entirely in God's hands?

I'm also interested to know which scripture provides the authority for this interpretation. I was raised Catholic, but would most likely be considered a CINO.

I’m not Catholic, not even in name only... sort of a NECINO (not even Catholic in name only), and I have  historically disagreed with the C-Church’s proscription against (actual) birth control (as opposed to using an abortofacient as birth control).  However, whether from the Catholics or not, I do agree with Credo’s statement “...any such child conceived artificially is no less huma than any other and has the absolute right to life.”  Even though I still do not know what (other) options to offer the barren.  

My wife was an abstinence educator for Catholic Social Services some years back.  She was repulsed at the level of ignorance posessed by local, public and private High School students on matters of reproduction, and particularly birth control.  She would teach abstinence is the only 100% solution to prevent pregnancy, and the students (or many of them) were taken aback by that.  

I am not aware of the Catholic Church having a position on delivery technologies, but maybe Credo (or someone else) is more in tune than I.

John Rogers statement reveals a lack of faith in the concept of free will. He believes that if you are born into bad circumstances, you will end up as a drag on society. Not that you might or that the path to lead a good life might be a bit tougher, but that you will without exception, be a criminal. In his mind, people have no choice or responsibility for their actions, they are just a byproduct of their circumstances.

He could not be more wrong.

I submit, if the child is given a choice, between being unwanted or killed, that child will almost always choose life... even if they are not wanted.

To us, there is no difference.

but pro-abortionists have redefined the unborn as a more impersonal “fetus” (or, in the case of people like Fordama, “zygote”) to avoid recognizing the obvious and scientific fact that the unborn child is both “living” and “human.”

if they dont don’t call the unborn “child,” they want to believe they are absolved of any consequence for killing him or her.

He has also used the terms “embryo,” and “blastula” as I recall: I believe he will use any term other than “child” to refer to ... well, a pre-born child