Time to Overturn Roe v. Wade?

Tonio:
Thought I'd lost you there.

"Parents and teachers can teach some of this, in terms of how to be responsible, but they cannot teach a child to care about responsibility."
True. You can't teach experience, but not holding parents and potential parents to their decisions fosters an environment in which they don't have to learn responsibility, and won't.

I'm referring to George Orwell's dystopia 1984, in which the state has the technology and authority to arrest anyone on the basis of thinking about committing crimes.
You can control people's actions, but not their thoughts and intentions.
It is unrealistic to say that the court has reasonable evidence to prosecuting would-be aborters. Could you put someone in jail for asking if anyone has marijuana?
I guess the next argument would be, "What about murder? You can be arrested and tried for attempted murder. Wouldn't this be the same thing, since abortion is considered to be murder?"
In the end, it depends on what overturns Roe. If the court rules that abortion is the exact same as murder, then all would-be aborters would have to be prosecuted. If it does not, and I don't think it will, then we can make legislature at our ease.

"Can you provide evidence that sex was intentionally designed for reproduction?"
That's a ridiculous question; of course sex was meant for reproduction. That's the whole point. If sex isn't or wasn't about reproduction, then humanity never would have made it this far.
Think about it. Naturally, would there be an instinct to have sex simply because it felt good? Of course not. If humans or other animals simply had sex because it was pleasurable, we would have died off. Animals eat for pleasure, yes, but also because it is necessary to survival. Sex is the same way: it is necessary for the continuation of the species and as such is entwined in our genes. The fact that it feels good is an added plus that makes it easier.

"Married couples stay emotionally connected through intimacy, which is not the same thing philosophically as sex. We can't ignore the possibility that human sexual intimacy evolved because it may have offered a survival advantage through lasting relationships between couples."
We also can't ignore the fact that we as humans are fabulously good at making excuses. Sex feels good, so we find reasons to engage in it. What do you mean by 'intimacy,' if not sex?
That's a stretch.

"The unintentional effect of treating sex as solely about reproduction is to reduce women to the status of life support systems for wombs. In human socities there are very strong correlations between availability of contraception and freedom for women in general, not just in sexual matters. While that's not proof, that correlation cannot be ignored."
I don't think I fully understand your meaning. We shouldn't treat sex as solely for reproduction. We shouldn't be so fanatically hedonistic and treat it as solely for pleasure, either.
I don't understand the stated correlation. Are you saying the more contraceptives, the more freedom for women? History is playing tricks here. Contraceptives and contraceptive surgeries are easier than ever in history. Coincidentally, women have more rights now than ever before. The two aren't necessarily related. There were societies in the past that have granted women more rights, and it was unrelated to the contemporary contraceptives.

"The principle is that no one has a right to use someone else's body. The other person may choose to permit the use, but that's merely the granting of a privilege. Men have a right to make a decision about whether or not to become fathers. But because women are the ones who carry the children, their right to determine how their bodies are used takes precedence. That's intended as a defense of contraception, not abortion."
"...I was referring not to the child but to the husband. In many cultures past and present, the woman's role is simply to provide the husband with children (read: sons) to perpetuate his own social position. That devalues the humanity of women."

Sorry for the misinterpretation.
That establishes a sexist system in which women are inherently 'greater/better' than men. Your argument in essence defends rape as long as a woman is raping a man, or at the very least sex for the woman. If a woman's right to her body takes precedence, then men should be subordinate.
By giving the woman a higher inherent value, you are tipping a necessary balance, and this leads to dangerous ends. By this logic, men are less than women (and indeed this mindset permeates our legal system already) when it comes to children, and as such have less right and less responsibility to and for them. How's that for a vicious circle?
"Acknowleding that women have the final say in whether they reproduce in no way denies the important role that fathers play in raising children."
How does it not? You are placing women above men. At the very least, you diminish the role of father. Reproduction is a 2-part effort. In case the fact passes unnoticed, it still takes two sexes to reproduce, despite all efforts to the contrary in a variety of forms by society. By giving one party a bigger say in the role they play in sex is not treating them equally, and they are equal. The biological roles of sperm and egg are totally equal, just as the roles of mother and father are. You are giving the women the final say in whether men reproduce as well.

"We cannot assume that other people think of themselves and of sex that way [being "above" having sex to reproduce]. We can only address our own motivations as individuals."
How is this not your motivation, as evidenced above: "Can you provide evidence that sex was intentionally designed for reproduction?", "We can't ignore the possibility that human sexual intimacy evolved because it may have offered a survival advantage through lasting relationships between couples."

As to bigamy, this is certainly has to do with bigamy as bigamy, not bigamy as legal spousal behavior. I don't know the exact wording of a marriage contract, so I'm not sure whether it says anything specific about not having sex with anyone other than the spouse. Bigamy is a sort of special case in that it breaks the church-state separation when it comes to what you can and can't do in a religion inside your own home. Bigamy was outlawed, and the Mormons were forced to change their practices. Bigamy still is illegal. As bigamy, not as spousal deception.

"Of course they [teenagers] aren't perfect. That doesn't mean they're mindless in sexual matters."
Mindless? Quite the contrary. Teenagers know all about sex. Every nook and cranny, every gross, twisted detail, every little sexual word, phrase, and slang term. They know nothing of responsibility. They are taught nothing of responsibility. They are not shown responsibility. They are not exposed to responsibility. Their role models are playboy rock stars, football players who do drugs and have multiple wives, politicians, actors, and celebrities vying for the next 'biggest scandal'. No, our society has done an absolutely wonderful job of educating our young on sex. But nothing, absolutely nothing, about responsibility. About honor. About dignity. About following through on their actions.

In conclusion:
We are supposed to be worrying about the morality of Roe, not legal problems that are relatively small in comparison. First we stop the killing. Then we reform the prison system and make laws about arrests and prosecutions. If you truly believe something is good, stand up for it. Fight for it with all your might. If you truly believe something is evil, do everything in your power to stop it. Anything less is hypocrisy.

BMorris,

"Who's going to learn if no one teaches?"

I mean learning from experience. Parents and teachers can teach some of this, in terms of how to be responsible, but they cannot teach a child to care about responsibility. They can set examples so the child may learn from them.

"That comes perilously close to 'thoughtcrime', to use Orwell's vocabulary."

How so?

"Attempted murder or no, it's unrealistic to try and jail everyone who searches for an abortion."

I'm suggesting that unrealistic may not be sufficient legal grounds. There very well may be legal grounds for not arresting or prosecuting would-be aborters, I just don't know how that would be possible.

"But this point is irrelevant compared to Roe. This is a legal knot we're trying to untie, not Roe itself."

Would you explain?

"Then maybe the court needs to be a little more trusting."

Doesn't that conflict with your point that hormones drive people batty?

"All sex is meant to be open to life (childbirth). Sex not resulting in children is not at all the same as sex specifically meant to separate the two."

Can you provide evidence that sex was intentionally designed for reproduction? Married couples stay emotionally connected through intimacy, which is not the same thing philosophically as sex. We can't ignore the possibility that human sexual intimacy evolved because it may have offered a survival advantage through lasting relationships between couples.

The unintentional effect of treating sex as solely about reproduction is to reduce women to the status of life support systems for wombs. In human socities there are very strong correlations between availability of contraception and freedom for women in general, not just in sexual matters. While that's not proof, that correlation cannot be ignored.

"A child does not 'use' someone else's body. The child needs it."

While I agree with your point, I was referring not to the child but to the husband. In many cultures past and present, the woman's role is simply to provide the husband with children (read: sons) to perpetuate his own social position. That devalues the humanity of women.

"we think we are "above" having sex simply to reproduce"

We cannot assume that other people think of themselves and of sex that way. We can only address our own motivations as individuals.

"Elaborate."

Acknowleding that women have the final say in whether they reproduce in no way denies the important role that fathers play in raising children.

"It's immature to assume our teenagers and young adults are perfect. "

Of course they aren't perfect. That doesn't mean they're mindless in sexual matters.

"I would call that a law against bigamy, no?
Would you call that an intrusion into people's personal lives?"

I suggest that bigamy is illegal because the deceiving spouse's behavior is interfering with the legal rights of the other spouses under the marriage contract. That's different from simply infidelity, and the spouse's behavior reaches the point where government has a compelling interest in stepping in.

QUOF:

Good point.
However:
"The opposite of love is not hate, but indifference.
The opposite of life is not death, but indifference.
The opposite of peace is not war, but indifference to peace and indifference to war. The opposite of culture, the opposite of beauty, the opposite of generosity is indifference. Indifference is the enemy."
-Elie Wiesel

Is there really a choice? "Men deciding for women." What kind of bizarre feminism is that? By that rule, men can only make laws that pertain to men, and women only to women. Hmm.

Main Page | Video | By Religion | The Panel | xml RSS Feed|Add Us To Your Site
Time to Overturn Roe v. Wade?
John McCain and Sarah Palin say it's time to overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion. Do you agree? What is the right moral choice?

» New Comments Policy
Posted by Sally Quinn and Jon Meacham on September 24, 2008 3:35 AM
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (123)
Alyosha1 Author Profile Page :

QOPH-

Thanks for making a good point about people debating Roe v Wade without reading it.

It always bugs me when public opinion polls show large majorities of Americans voicing support for Roe v Wade while subsequent questions in the same polls (about the specific instances in which people think abortion ought to be permissible) make it clear that large majorities of Americans are opposed to the actual holding in Roe v Wade. Clearly people don't have a clue what Roe v Wade said.

Another thing that bugs me is when people- including most journalists and political commentators- assume that support for abortion rights is the key to winning women's votes (or conversely, that opposition to abortion will cost a candidate women's votes). Take a look at any of the major polls done on this subject; across the board women are less supportive of abortion than men.

October 5, 2008 12:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Dhub1 Author Profile Page :

A priori definitions don't work.
Functionally speaking, if it's got GILLS,
Its a FISH.

If it speaks to me, I'll grant that it's HUMAN,
but up to that point, it's just someone's (cute)
pet ape.

~D

October 4, 2008 12:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
qoph Author Profile Page :

In discussions of Roe v Wade, my first question is always "Has anyone here actually read the decision handed down by the court?" No one ever answers in the affirmative. In the lengthy text, MISTER Justice Harry Blackmun uses, among other devices, his understanding of medieval common law, specifically the concept of "quickening" and magically concludes that HE knows when a fetus becomes a person. HE also through mysterious meanderings withing the Constitution a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. MISTER Justice Stewart writes a concurring opinion. MISTER Justice Rehnquist dissents.

(Masculine highlighted for obvious reasons: men deciding for women.)

"Barrack Obama, in his famous Father's Day speech, declared that black men must realize that fatherhood's responsibilities extend beyond the moment of conception. That must mean he believes a life begins at the moment of conception."
That's a stretch. And if so, that's even worse!
He supports abortion. If he believes that's a human child, then he fits Aristotle's 'vicious' personality all too perfectly.

DHUB1:
Definition of a being by its abilities?
Then every disabled person, mentally retarded person, everyone who lost a limb, any blind, deaf, or mute person; all of these are not human to you.
How unjust.

You can't avoid the issue by 'not' defining it. First, this leads to a lethal indifference (refer to Wiesel quote above). Second, even when trying not to define it, you discover (as DHUB1 hopefully has) that you are defining it anyway.

The entire name 'pro-choice' is fundamentally incorrect. The Supreme Court did not rule that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy whenever she wants:

"On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree."

Back to QUOF:
Sure, let's do as you do: let's not take an actual stand on the issue. Let's sit down and talk about it reasonably! Let's not fight for what we believe in, or what's right!

I wouldn't define Roe as 'intellectually insulting gibberish'.
I would say it is legal jargon that ties logic and reason in a loop.
Thanks for the link, though.

QOPH-

Thanks for making a good point about people debating Roe v Wade without reading it.

It always bugs me when public opinion polls show large majorities of Americans voicing support for Roe v Wade while subsequent questions in the same polls (about the specific instances in which people think abortion ought to be permissible) make it clear that large majorities of Americans are opposed to the actual holding in Roe v Wade. Clearly people don't have a clue what Roe v Wade said.

Another thing that bugs me is when people- including most journalists and political commentators- assume that support for abortion rights is the key to winning women's votes (or conversely, that opposition to abortion will cost a candidate women's votes). Take a look at any of the major polls done on this subject; across the board women are less supportive of abortion than men.

A priori definitions don't work.
Functionally speaking, if it's got GILLS,
Its a FISH.

If it speaks to me, I'll grant that it's HUMAN,
but up to that point, it's just someone's (cute)
pet ape.

~D

In discussions of Roe v Wade, my first question is always "Has anyone here actually read the decision handed down by the court?" No one ever answers in the affirmative. In the lengthy text, MISTER Justice Harry Blackmun uses, among other devices, his understanding of medieval common law, specifically the concept of "quickening" and magically concludes that HE knows when a fetus becomes a person. HE also through mysterious meanderings withing the Constitution a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. MISTER Justice Stewart writes a concurring opinion. MISTER Justice Rehnquist dissents.

(Masculine highlighted for obvious reasons: men deciding for women.)

I, personally, do not object to abortion. I object to a discussion in which all parties accept lies and distortions to make their cases.
In the process, our increasing understanding of biology and genetics gets pushed aside.

Barrack Obama, in his famous Father's Day speech, declared that black men must realize that fatherhood's responsibilities extend beyond the moment of conception. That must mean he believes a life begins at the moment of conception.

Granting that a fetus is a human life, however, creates two many ethical difficulties. Taking a human life is, by definition, murder. We must, therefore, rewrite our laws against murder, to allow for these exceptions.

However, we also have laws (think Scott Peterson) that an attacker killing a fetus in utero commits murder. Scott Peterson was convicted of dual homicide in the murder of his pregnant wife.

There is also the choice of labels in the never-ending quarrel between "pro-life" and "pro-choice" advocates. Why won't they discuss abortion as abortion? Because the word and the deed are ugly.

This poster is neither for nor against abortion. I just wish people would have an honest discussion of the real terms and issues. I also wish just one person who cites Roe v Wade would be able to answer "yes" when I ask "Have you actually read what you discuss?"

It is the decision, as written, that I find to be intellectually insulting gibberish. Those interested will find it here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1562778/posts

Or do your own search.

Tonio:
"This goes to my point that a sense of responsibility is most likely learned and not taught."
Who's going to learn if no one teaches?

"I'm simply explaining that the justice system would probably be required to judge would-be aborters as legally culpable."
Would it? That comes perilously close to "thoughtcrime", to use Orwell's vocabulary. Attempted murder or no, it's unrealistic to try and jail everyone who searches for an abortion. But this point is irrelevant compared to Roe. This is a legal knot we're trying to untie, not Roe itself.

"I'm suggesting that the courts may be suspicious of any woman saying she had a miscarriage. They might suspect her of lying to cover up an abortion, or they might suspect her of deliberately engaging in unsafe activities to induce a miscarriage."
Then maybe the court needs to be a little more trusting. when and if the number of miscarriages (or so-called miscarriages) rises unnaturally, then we need to worry about that.

"I see Roe as the lesser of two evils, becuase criminalizing abortion would lead to more harm than keeping it legal. Also, Roe has to be viewed in the context of government doing more to reduce both abortions and unwanted pregnancies."
Correct: On its own, taking down Roe will not do much. But overthrowing Roe, and using those same principles to get other legislature in place protecting the rights of these children, and implementing positive adoption programs that forward the ideas of responsibility and moral judgment, will.

"Agreeing to sex is not agreeing to be pregnant, because most sex does not lead to pregnancy. Obviously it's unwise to have unprotected sex when you don't want to get pregnant, but that does not translate to consent."
You divorce sex from children. All sex is meant to be open to life (childbirth). Sex not resulting in children is not at all the same as sex specifically meant to separate the two.

"The principle is that no one has a right to use someone else's body. "
Be careful, sir. You are skirting a dangerous edge. A child does not 'use' someone else's body. The child needs it. The child grows in it. It would be denying that you are a human female to say that as the child grows inside you, that the child is a part of you, and not his own entity. If everyone thought like this, then humanity would have died long ago. Is this what you advocate?
Now I know that is a bit extreme, but it is the logical extrapolation of that thought.

Continuing:
"But because women are the ones who carry the children, their right to determine how their bodies are used takes precedence. That's intended as a defense of contraception, not abortion."
They are determining how their bodies are used in sex.
Contraception is a scandalous denial of the single most fundamental and necessary part of life itself. we think we are "above" having sex simply to reproduce. We are so high up (i.e., we are so full of ourselves) that we think we have the right to separate sex and procreation. Sex is procreation. Sex means willingness to create life. You cannot separate the two, under any circumstance. Ever. To do so is selfish, arrogant, and, above all, wrong!

"While I agree since I'm a father myself, that has nothing to do with my point."
Elaborate.

"Where you get eerie from? I've never had that experience with my hormones. It's wrong to assume that people are automatically irresponsible until they prove otherwise."
How long ago were you a teenager? It's immature to assume our teenagers and young adults are perfect. Of all the words I can think of to define hormones and their effects, 'eerie' is perhaps the most fitting. This country was founded on a mistrust of the general populace. Our laws prove that even if well-behaved citizens are in the majority, they suffer because of the mistakes of the few.

"First, individual morality is not absolute. That does NOT mean that such morality is automatically 100 percent subjective. The lack of absolute morality does NOT translate to people doing whatever the hell they want. Two people can operate from the same moral principle of avoiding harm and arrive at different answers to a difficult moral question."
This is why we have different faiths and religions. Oddly enough, they don't arrive at conclusions that different from one another. all the major faiths share the same basic principles.

"Second, legal questions involve different moral equations, since the purpose of law is to balance the rights of the individual with the interests of society. Many things that people consider immoral are not and should not be illegal. While we would both agree that infidelity is immoral, government has no compelling interest in making infidelity illegal. Doing so would be an unwarranted intrusion by government into people's personal lives."

The purpose of government is to serve the people. Majority rule anchored by minority rights. On the infidelity count, you're incorrect. There is a famous case in which a man and woman left their spouses. They traveled to New Mexico and stayed just long enough to get residence. They signed divorce papers and were married. Upon their return to the east coast, they were found guilty of bigamy. That was the Supreme Court's ruling. I would call that a law against bigamy, no?
Would you call that an intrusion into people's personal lives?

BMorris,

"I mean take care of them; take responsibility for them."

Thanks for the clarification. For people who don't understand responsibility, being forced to take care of their children will probably not lead to that understanding, particularly if the forcing is done by others. A few of them might acquire that responsibility sense through natural circumstances. This goes to my point that a sense of responsibility is most likely learned and not taught.

"I don't advocate forcing would-be-aborters to prison."

I'm not saying you did, I'm simply explaining that the justice system would probably be required to judge would-be aborters as legally culpable.

"There are oceans on all sides of us, unless you want to go to Canada (unlikely unless you're in the north). And I don't think people want to go to Mexico, either."

I understand that before Roe, some people did in fact go to Mexico for abortions. The question becomes one of logistics, specifically money and means.

"Natural miscarriages happen "

Of course they do. I'm suggesting that the courts may be suspicious of any woman saying she had a miscarriage. They might suspect her of lying to cover up an abortion, or they might suspect her of deliberately engaging in unsafe activities to induce a miscarriage.

"You're forgetting the premise of this debate: is Roe a moral decision or not?"

I see Roe as the lesser of two evils, becuase criminalizing abortion would lead to more harm than keeping it legal. Also, Roe has to be viewed in the context of government doing more to reduce both abortions and unwanted pregnancies.

"Choosing to have sex is the choice of when. That's more than enough."

Agreeing to sex is not agreeing to be pregnant, because most sex does not lead to pregnancy. Obviously it's unwise to have unprotected sex when you don't want to get pregnant, but that does not translate to consent.

"So we should deny the procreative power to men by letting women choose whether they want to have a child that was created just as much by the man as the woman?"

The principle is that no one has a right to use someone else's body. The other person may choose to permit the use, but that's merely the granting of a privilege. Men have a right to make a decision about whether or not to become fathers. But because women are the ones who carry the children, their right to determine how their bodies are used takes precedence. That's intended as a defense of contraception, not abortion.

"However, to say that the man's role is any less important is to do him, her, and the child a grave injustice."

While I agree since I'm a father myself, that has nothing to do with my point.

"You underestimate the eerie power of hormones. And that of hormones combined with alcohol, drugs, social pressure, etc."

Where you get eerie from? I've never had that experience with my hormones. It's wrong to assume that people are automatically irresponsible until they prove otherwise.

"why is there this enormous pressure to remove morality from the way we live our lives? Shouldn't we try to make our laws moral, too?"

First, individual morality is not absolute. That does NOT mean that such morality is automatically 100 percent subjective. The lack of absolute morality does NOT translate to people doing whatever the hell they want. Two people can operate from the same moral principle of avoiding harm and arrive at different answers to a difficult moral question.

Second, legal questions involve different moral equations, since the purpose of law is to balance the rights of the individual with the interests of society. Many things that people consider immoral are not and should not be illegal. While we would both agree that infidelity is immoral, government has no compelling interest in making infidelity illegal. Doing so would be an unwarranted intrusion by government into people's personal lives.

Tonio:
"Do you mean forcing them to take their children to prison?"
No, no, no. I mean take care of them; take responsibility for them.
Again, I don't advocate forcing would-be-aborters to prison.

"Laws against abortion have next to no effect, since people will go elsewhere to have them. It's very common for Irish women to go to the UK to have abortions."
It's slightly different when Ireland and the UK are a stream apart. There are oceans on all sides of us, unless you want to go to Canada (unlikely unless you're in the north). And I don't think people want to go to Mexico, either.
Could you say the abortion rate has not risen with the passage of Roe?
If you can't, then the anti-abortion obviously did.

"Also, any attempt to criminalize abortion would raise the question of how miscarriages would be treated under the law."
Natural miscarriages happen. You're forgetting the premise of this debate: is Roe a moral decision or not? You're getting tied up in the nuances. If we are firmly committed to undoing these injustices, then we will find a way to make it work.

"Abortion aside, one's fundamental human rights include the right to reproduce and the right to determine whether one reproduces."
Since when has the right to determine when one reproduces been a 'fundamental human right'? Is that in the Constitution Roe claims to uphold? Choosing to have sex is the choice of when. That's more than enough.

Continuing:
"Of course there are responsibilities that go along with those rights. But one way patriarchal societies have controlled women is by taking their right to determine reproduction and giving that authority to men."
So we should deny the procreative power to men by letting women choose whether they want to have a child that was created just as much by the man as the woman?
I'm not condoning the actions of evil and 'deadbeat' fathers, but our society has a tendency to say that the man has no right, say, or power in the creation or upkeep of his children. There are plenty of evil women out there, too.
What I mean is that we have a tendency to deny the man's role in sex and marriage, in part because there are so many bad fathers. We have a tendency to place women above men when it comes to children. There is no denying that there are psychological connections inherent in a mother-child relationship, since she nurtured the child. However, to say that the man's role is any less important is to do him, her, and the child a grave injustice.

"I suspect that holds only for people who don't understand responsibility in the first place. Someone who understands responsibility would not lose that understanding simply because contraception is available."
You underestimate the eerie power of hormones. And that of hormones combined with alcohol, drugs, social pressure, etc.

"That's one reason I would hypothetically not choose abortion myself. (Hypothetically because of my gender.)"
Something that's been bothering me a little: you seem to be against abortion, but believe it is a legal necessity. As I've said since my very first post, why is there this enormous pressure to remove morality from the way we live our lives? Shouldn't we try to make our laws moral, too?

"That's a moral argument and not a legal one - the larger legal question is what are the best strategies for government to reduce both the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions. Simply making abortion illegal would accomplish neither."
I was dealing strictly with Roe—of course other initiatives need to be taken in order to make this work.
Among them, is the need to give the common American a heightened sense of responsibility, and ethics.

For the illegal abortions issue, they will always be there. We can only do our best.

Ender2:
"You statement is the most dangerous and unAmerican comment that can be made on this site."
I have the freedom AND the right to practice and proclaim any religion I choose. Denying the fact that the Founding Fathers were all Protestant (and up until perhaps very recently, so was the entire country almost without exception), does not change it.
Now it is 'unAmerican" to promote any religion?
Reference, next under.

"England and France had state sponsored required religion. Americans came here to get away from that and framed our Constitution to guarantee it never would happen here. Despite the Reichwing attempt to revise the Constition, separation of church and State should be mission #1 for every American of every Religion and of no religion."

Americans did not come solely for that. A couple of Puritan, as well as Lords Baltimore and Calvert, and a couple of Quakers came for freedom to practice religion, not to escape religion entirely (most of people with your train of thought forget). The Jamestown settlers came looking for gold. The Virginia Company came looking for money, as did most colonists in the end.
Please don't accuse the right wing of trying to revise the Constitution, as you make yourself sound like an extremist.
The right wing advocates the replacement of morality in all areas of life, but specifically politically. As I do.
I think life without faith and religion is empty.
However, life without morality is life with no guidelines. No rules. It is naive to think anyone can live like that. Every decision you or I make should follow these moral guidelines (some call them *gasp* ethics). Therefore, life without ethics is not really life. It's a free-for-all, every-man-for-himself mentality, one which, as I recall is fundamentally contradictory to the social contract upon which this country is undeniably founded.

BMorris,

"By forcing them to take their own children, don't you think the message is bound to sink through at some point?"

Do you mean forcing them to take their children to prison?

"The abortion is far less likely to take place if abortion is illegal."

Laws against abortion have next to no effect, since people will go elsewhere to have them. It's very common for Irish women to go to the UK to have abortions.

"Do you really think jailing them will solve anything?"

Of course not. I'm not advocating prison time. I'm saying that refusing to sentence abortion seekers to prison may not be legally defensible, although I'm no legal expert. Also, any attempt to criminalize abortion would raise the question of how miscarriages would be treate under the law.

"Contraception encourages the divorce of sex from children, and as such the separation of actions and responsibility for them."

I suspect that holds only for people who don't understand responsibility in the first place. Someone who understands responsibility would not lose that understanding simply because contraception is available.

Contraception is really a form of liberation for women because procreation is a form of power. Abortion aside, one's fundamental human rights include the right to reproduce and the right to determine whether one reproduces. Of course there are responsibilities that go along with those rights. But one way patriarchal societies have controlled women is by taking their right to determine reproduction and giving that authority to men.

"The fact I mentioned earlier: that destroying potential for life is just as bad as destroying life itself. Even if you don't believe the child is human, or alive, you cannot deny that potential."

That's one reason I would hypothetically not choose abortion myself. (Hypothetically because of my gender.)

That's a moral argument and not a legal one - the larger legal question is what are the best strategies for government to reduce both the number of unwanted pregnancies and the number of abortions. Simply making abortion illegal would accomplish neither.

"no, I have no statistical proof, but it's as reasonable as assuming that there will be illegal abortions if Roe was to be overturned."

The latter is no assumption, since we have actual examples such as the Ireland one I mentioned.

BMORRIS244
"Ender2:
"You are making religious arguments in a secular nation."
Again, incorrect. This is a Protestant country, and darn proud of it, as my U.S. history teacher once said. Despite all efforts to the contrary by relativists such as yourself, this country is quite religious."

You statement is the most dangerous and unAmerican comment that can be made on this site.

Our founding fathers used the word god once in the line "Nature and Nature's God" and religion once in saying "there shall be no test of" to hold public office.

England and France had state sponsored required religion. Americans came here to get away from that and framed our Constitution to guarantee it never would happen here. Despite the Reichwing attempt to revise the Constition, separation of church and State should be mission #1 for every American of every Religion and of no religion.

Ender2:
"You are making religious arguments in a secular nation."
Again, incorrect. This is a Protestant country, and darn proud of it, as my U.S. history teacher once said. Despite all efforts to the contrary by relativists such as yourself, this country is quite religious.

"You seem to think quantity of life is more important than quality."
You seem not to value any life, no matter what the quality. Your point?
You would advocate life only for the prime, the cream of the crop?

"When you remove a woman's right to control how, when and where she reproduces, you create a second class person that will never join the list you yourself post."
Last time I checked, it took the biological functions of a man and a woman for the woman to get pregnant. What about dignity laws? We control public behavior already. Would you have people fornicating on the street.? That's definitely control over 'how, when and where'.

"Do you rate women's potential as equal to these men and the one myth? You are a victim yourself of the demonification of women by the cults of Abraham."
First, you make my point for me. Women's potential (or, more accurately, the potential of their children currently being slaughtered) is not equal to any of these. You are taking away that choice by allowing them to kill their children.
By destroying the potential for life, you are committing murder.
Second, your crude reference to the 'demonification of women by the cults of Abraham' is as outdated as it is naive. Learn some dogma and teaching of the faiths you ignominiously insult, then make your points. All Judeo-Christian religions acknowledge the full value of women (except maybe Islam, but as I'm not a Muslim I wouldn't know. Enlightenment on this anyone?) as equal to men.

Tonio:
"I disagree with your cookie analogy, because responsibility is not about following laws or rules for their own sake. Responsibility is about recognizing that one's actions have natural consequences. Someone who refrains from doing something irresponsible only because the act is illegal doesn't truly understand responsibility. Your cookie analogy falsely implies that all people will act irresponsibly unless forced otherwise."
Regardless of whether people understand responsibility or not, I think it's safe to assume that people make mistakes. There will always be those who do not understand responsibility, and there will be those who do. By forcing them to take their own children, don't you think the message is bound to sink through at some point?

"So are you arguing that jailing the parents would harm the child? While that's a valid point, what if the abortion has already taken place?"
The abortion is far less likely to take place if abortion is illegal. We all know what a mess almost all prison systems are, including our own. Do you really think jailing them will solve anything?

"Why? Are you referring to the failure rate? Or are you opposed to all non-procreative sex?"
Contraception encourages the divorce of sex from children, and as such the separation of actions and responsibility for them. The fact I mentioned earlier: that destroying potential for life is just as bad as destroying life itself. Even if you don't believe the child is human, or alive, you cannot deny that potential.

As to illegal abortions, no, I have no statistical proof, but it's as reasonable as assuming that there will be illegal abortions if Roe was to be overturned.

You're starting to evade the main points and deal with very small minorities here. We can't solve every problem. But we can do what is best for the majority.

Climacus, I'm sincerely interested in your approach. However, the prompt still stands, and many are getting away from that. Morally, ethically, Roe deserves to be fought and taken down.

Sally, John, why ask whether overturning Roe v. Wade is the "right moral choice"? Indeed, strictly speaking, it is a religious matter?

After all, overturning Roe v. Wade rests, or ought to rest, on a fairly technical question of law: does the Constitution guarantee a right to abortion? If it does, then Roe should be upheld. If it does not, then Roe should be overturned. This is true regardless of the morality of abortion or of abortion laws.

By the same token, people's view on the desirability of making abortion legally available should not necessarily dictate their view on whether Roe should be overturned. It is entirely possible to be strongly in favor of legalized abortion and yet conclude that the Constitution, in its present form, neglected to guarantee a right to it (in other words, there's no formal contradiction between being pro-choice and being anti-Roe).

CCNL :
"Thou Shalt Not Kill" is somehow imposing the religious beliefs of a leadership candidate???

Actually, yes. When it is qualified with thou shalt kill muslims in an illegal war and thou shalt kill humans found guilty of crimes and thou shalt let children die prematurely of malnutrition and lack of medical care, and thou shalt kill primates with IQs above 50 and vocabularies of 800 words,

that little part about thou shalt not kill the fetus losses its right to say thou shall not.

You are making religious arguments in a secular nation.

"bmorris244 :
Ender2:
"Are you willing to see the state take on the complete burden of care for crack addicted children? These children are the bane of the public school system, the usually, the prison system after incomplete schooling."

How DARE you!
I have four extremely good friends who are all adopted, and a teacher. They have never once been in the prison system, and they all are succeeding in one of the most demanding high school educations on the East Coast. The teacher was never in any such situation either. Please refrain from insulting them."

What are you talking about? You must be reading words besides those you posted. I didn't mention adoption or teachers. Unless your 'friends' enter the world crack addicted, which you didn't say, then this part of you post is utterly meaningless. But then so is most of your post.

You seem to think quantity of life is more important than quality.

Most religious posters who are anti choice get their beiliefs from the Bible, Koran or Talmud. The Cults of Agraham are pretty much the worlds only Praternal religions. Religions designed by men to keep men in power and women subjugated.

Control of women's reproduction has always been a part of keeping women out of the true circles of religious and secular power.

When you remove a woman's right to control how, when and where she reproduces, you create a second class person that will never join the list you yourself post.

" This implies you would rate any human life, any even potential human life, the same as an animal. What about Churchill, Washington, Shakespeare? What about Martin Luther King, about Gandhi? What about King Henry VIII? Caligula? Alexander the Great? Mohammad? The Buddha? What about Jesus himself? After all, He was fully human. You would rate the potential for all these lives the same as a fish?"

Do you rate women's potential as equal to these men and the one myth? You are a victim yourself of the demonification of women by the cults of Abraham.

"Thou Shalt Not Kill" is somehow imposing the religious beliefs of a leadership candidate???

Time to overturn Roe v. Wade?

No.

And time to vote for the candidate who WON'T try to impose his particular religious beliefs on the nation. To do so is UNAMERICAN.

BMorris,

"If we can overturn Roe, hell, let's go all the way and get legislature making it easier to get adoptions."

I would advocate making adoptions easier no matter what the legal status of abortion.

"with the cookie analogy, if you are at a party (and you're the kind of person who is loose) the fact that there is no legal abortion will make you think twice about going ahead with it."

I disagree with your cookie analogy, because responsibility is not about following laws or rules for their own sake. Responsibility is about recognizing that one's actions have natural consequences. Someone who refrains from doing something irresponsible only because the act is illegal doesn't truly understand responsibility. Your cookie analogy falsely implies that all people will act irresponsibly unless forced otherwise.

"But I don't support contraception. As long as contraception is okay, abortion is a larger problem."

Why? Are you referring to the failure rate? Or are you opposed to all non-procreative sex?

"Again, the woman has to deal with the child, and so will the father (overlook many pro-choice advocates) through welfare etc."

So are you arguing that jailing the parents would harm the child? While that's a valid point, what if the abortion has already taken place?

"No matter what you do, you will end up with women seeking illegal abortions on the street."

That was one of my reasons for keeping it legal, because the illegal abortions cause harm to the women as well.

"Those too poor to afford abortions are still getting them on the street."

Can you provide citations?

Ender2:
"Are you willing to see the state take on the complete burden of care for crack addicted children? These children are the bane of the public school system, the usually, the prison system after incomplete schooling."

How DARE you!
I have four extremely good friends who are all adopted, and a teacher. They have never once been in the prison system, and they all are succeeding in one of the most demanding high school educations on the East Coast. The teacher was never in any such situation either. Please refrain from insulting them.

You also said, "the fetus has less brain function than a fish."
Funny. No one's killing fish eggs. But that's beside the point.
Although men may act like animals, we are not justified in treating them like it.
This implies you would rate any human life, any even potential human life, the same as an animal. What about Churchill, Washington, Shakespeare? What about Martin Luther King, about Gandhi? What about King Henry VIII? Caligula? Alexander the Great? Mohammad? The Buddha? What about Jesus himself? After all, He was fully human. You would rate the potential for all these lives the same as a fish?
By killing an unborn child, any potential is removed. Potential for good, or evil. Hitler might not have been born, but then neither would Churchill.
Someone earlier stated that outlawing Roe is playing God. The exact opposite is true. Life is not ours to take. That power belongs to God, and to God alone. The true choice lies with the child within. You deny him or her any chance whatsoever at survival. At love, joy, happiness. At life.
And that shows a profound disrespect for humanity.

My last bone to pick with Ender2:
"For either of us to assume that a full term pregnancy followed by giving up the child is any easier than early term abortion would be an outrageous assumption."

Please don't play the 'you're men, what do you know?' argument. If so, what qualifies you yourself to argue at all? For all I've seen, Lepidopteryx is the only woman on the forum. from your point of view, none of us have any right to talk about any of this.

Think2:
"The moral issue is when is society going to seriously look at what it takes to educate people, men and women, boys and girls, film makers and sex trade operators, as to the consequences of sex."

I think forcing them to take responsibility for their actions is 'consequence' enough. I'd like to provide an analogy:
There's a cookie on the table.
If you're starving, of course you'll take it.
If you're moderately hungry, you'll take it.
If you're a little hungry, you'll take it.
If you're not hungry (and you're like me ;) ) you'll take it.
If the cookie is there every day, you will start to depend on it.
If there is no cookie on the table, the latter two will not get up to find other food. Even some of the moderately hungry won't. But if it is there, then we take advantage of what is there, and use it as a fallback if, say, we forget to pack lunch or something.

And Tonio:
As to an alternative to Roe, something can easily be supplemented. Adoption is great. If we can overturn Roe, hell, let's go all the way and get legislature making it easier to get adoptions. I would support such a law, and I wouldn't mind paying any necessary tax to help fund such a program.

"Of course not. I'm simply saying that I don't know the exact reasons why there are so many unintended pregnancies. I mean the motives behind the people who cause them...I want to stay away from any argument that women in generally cannot be trusted with unplanned pregnancies."

I don't mean to speak for their motives, but again with the cookie analogy, if you are at a party (and you're the kind of person who is loose) the fact that there is no legal abortion will make you think twice about going ahead with it. Or at the very least finding an effective contraceptive. But I don't support contraception. As long as contraception is okay, abortion is a larger problem.

"Why wouldn't you also prosecute the woman for at least being an accessory? Or the perpetrator if she attempts to administer the abortion herself? I see no legal reason to focus only on the doctors."

Again, the woman has to deal with the child, and so will the father (overlook many pro-choice advocates) through welfare etc.
As you said, it is unrealistic to try and put every woman seeking an abortion in jail. No matter what you do, you will end up with women seeking illegal abortions on the street.

A new point for consideration:
Many overlook the fact that Roe did not stop alleyway abortions from happening. It merely opened the way for doctors to make money off of abortions and made it a safer process for the woman (the result is devastatingly more efficient on the child...)
Those too poor to afford abortions are still getting them on the street. Those rich enough to afford them are getting them with their money.
Roe does nothing to solve this problem.

lepidopteryx,

Thanks for sharing some of your history. The wife and I also still enjoy going through the motions.

CCNL :
lepidopteryx,

So we trust you have had your tubes tied and your condom-hating "boy" "friend" has had a vasectomy so no more growing babies risk their lives in your womb???
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not that it's your business, but I have had an endometrial oblation.
The pregnancy I aborted occurred while I was on birth control pills. Why would people in a long-standing monogamous relationship feel the need to use condoms when using birth control pills? Had I known about the drug interactions, I would have insisted that he either wear a condom or sleep in the hall.
The man to whom I am now married was sterile when we met, and I am now menopausal. We can't make babies together, but we enjoy going through the motions.
Any more questions regarding my reproductive organs?

Think2, excellent post.

"I assume you are male, as am I. For either of us to assume that a full term pregnancy followed by giving up the child is any easier than early term abortion would be an outrageous assumption."

Correct on both points. I'm trying to avoid such assumptions.

"A young girls life could be made almost impossible by a teenage pregnancy."

I was aware of that, but only on an intellectual level.

but face family pressure not to give up the child

I didn't know that. Based on two situations I know about personally, I would have expected the pressure to be in the other direction, to get the teenager to give up the baby for adoption.

"There are many medical reasons that make child birth ruin a mother's health, often for life."

That I also knew on an intellectual level - can you offer concrete examples?

"These children are the bane of the public school system, the usually, the prison system after incomplete schooling."

While you have a valid point, I'm uncomfortable with using that as a moral argument for abortion.

"The constitution does not give the state the right to make the decision in favor of a life form that cannot sustain itself over that of the mother. That should remain inviolate."

I agree. I'm simply arguing that the state also has a compelling interest to reduce unplanned pregnancies and to help people facing such pregnancies. I'm arguing that the legal and social issues on the issue are different from the moral ones. I think we both agree that the fewer abortions, the better.

How can we, who mostly live organized and planned lives, ascertain the variety of circumstances in which a woman would choose abortion rather than adoption? Is it not arrogant to assume we know best, when we cannot know best for everyone?
Therefore, if society must legislate this most critical and sensitive issue at this time of chaotic sexual desire, the moral choice is individual choice. Again, the work ahead is education, education, education, parenting, caring, serving. Each of us is responsible for the effects of our choices: we are constantly sowing and reaping, generating karma, creating causes and effects.

"Carstonio :
Earlier, Robert_B1 mentioned the staggering costs of adoption. What if the government offered financial inducements that would make adoption a more attractive choice, such as subsidies for the medical care? Or reduced the bureaucratic paperwork involved? I would be interested in knowing the specific reasons why someone with an unplanned pregnancy would choose abortion over adoption. "

I assume you are male, as am I. For either of us to assume that a full term pregnancy followed by giving up the child is any easier than early term abortion would be an outrageous assumption.

A young girls life could be made almost impossible by a teenage pregnancy. Victims of abuse and incest would most probably feel violated for the second time, by the state. Abused and neglected children, as adults, know that they would make terrible parents, but face family pressure not to give up the child which could face the same abuse the mother did.
There are many medical reasons that make child birth ruin a mother's health, often for life.
Are you willing to see the state take on the complete burden of care for crack addicted children? These children are the bane of the public school system, the usually, the prison system after incomplete schooling.

The court has decided, that at least during the first 20 weeks, that is the mother's choice. The constitution does not give the state the right to make the decision in favor of a life form that cannot sustain itself over that of the mother. That should remain inviolate.

Earlier, Robert_B1 mentioned the staggering costs of adoption. What if the government offered financial inducements that would make adoption a more attractive choice, such as subsidies for the medical care? Or reduced the bureaucratic paperwork involved? I would be interested in knowing the specific reasons why someone with an unplanned pregnancy would choose abortion over adoption.

The problem in this nation is the issue has become so polarized that neither side is willing to blink because they are afraid to lose ground.

98% of induced abortion are within the first trimester. During that period, the fetus has less brain function than a fish. The court decided in Roe V. Wade correctly that a womans right to determination of her physical state overrides any rights an brainless foreign body might have. Scotus took this all the way out to 20 weeks. Technology has still not made a fetus viable in any but extreme cases before this point in the pregnancy.

I think America should have the arguement that there should be increasing difficulty and burden of proof of cause beyound 20 weeks, or maybe even 13 weeks, but as long as the Reichwing insist that the state's interest in determining a womans reproduction status always overrides that adult humans, we cannot have reasonable and constructive conversation or any resolution to this issue. Any submission on new law or appointment of Supreme Court Justices that wish to rewrite the Constituion regarding abortion will open the door to a return to coat hangers and persecution of rape and incest victims that force them to suffer double penatlies for victimhood.

VICTORIA WHO LIVES IN ASTORIA

Well, since it has gone unnoticed yet again on this religious forum- Muslims ended their 30 day fast today- and Ramadan is over now. The next 3 days are the biggest holy days we have, they are called Eid.
Just figured some might be interested.
Peace all

Malcom X wasn't adopted, he was fostered out by the state. I'm wondering if there are other inconsistentcies in this list- and what it proves anyway.

lepidopteryx,

So we trust you have had your tubes tied and your condom-hating "boy" "friend" has had a vasectomy so no more growing babies risk their lives in your womb???

List of famous adoptees- in case you are interested.

Andy Berlin - entrepreneur: chairman of Berlin Cameron & Partners
Anthony Williams - politician
Aristotle - philosopher
Art Linkletter - comedian
Bo Diddley - musician, performer
Buffy Sainte-Marie - musician, actress
Carl-Theodor Dreyer - Danish film director
Charlotte Anne Lopez - Miss Teen USA
Christina Crawford - author
Clarissa Pinkola Estes - author
Crazy Horse - Lakota war chief
Dan O'Brien - decathlete
Daunte Culpepper - football player
Dave Thomas - entrepreneur: founder of Wendy's
Debbie Harry - singer
D.M.C. - hip hop artist
Edgar Allan Poe - poet, writer
Edward Albee - playwright
Eleanor Roosevelt - First Lady
Eric Dickerson - athlete
Faith Daniels - news anchor
Faith Hill - country singer
Freddie Bartholomew - actor
George Washington Carver - inventor
Greg Louganis - athlete
James MacArthur - actor
James Michener - author
Jean Jacques Rousseau - philosopher
Jesse Jackson - minister
Jesus - adopted by Joseph the carpenter (Bible)
Jett Williams - country singer and author
Jim Palmer - athlete
John J. Audubon - naturalist
John Hancock - politician
John Lennon - musician
Langston Hughes - poet and writer
Larry Ellison - entrepreneur: chief executive of Oracle
Lee Majors - actor
Leo Tolstoy - writer
Les Brown - motivational speaker
Lynnette Cole - Miss USA 2000
Malcolm X - civil rights leader
Mark Acre - athlete
Matthew Laborteaux - actor
Melissa Gilbert - actress
Michael Reagan - author, talk show host
Moses - Biblical leader
Nancy Reagan - First Lady
Nat King Cole - singer
Nelson Mandela - politician
Patrick Labyorteaux - actor
Peter and Kitty Carruthers - figure skaters
President Gerald Ford - politician
President William Clinton - politician
Priscilla Presley - actress
Ray Liotta - actor
Reno - performance artist, comedian
Sarah McLachlan - singer
Scott Hamilton - figure skater
Sen. Paull H. Shin - politician
Sen. Robert Byrd - politician
Steve Jobs - entrepreneur: co-founder of Apple computer
Surya Bonaly - figure skater
Tim Green - football player/commentator
Tim McGraw - country singer
Tom Monaghan - entrepreneur
Tommy Davidson - comedian
Victoria Rowell - actress
Wilson Riles - educator

What is the moral choice for a woman? It is freedom to choose. No less. Ask any ER person about whether women should have legal abortions and they will tell you about the days when abortions were illegal and women bled to death in alleys and ambulances. How moral is that?

The moral issue is when is society going to seriously look at what it takes to educate people, men and women, boys and girls, film makers and sex trade operators, as to the consequences of sex.
Human traffiking for sex is the third most profitable illegal business in the world behind drugs and guns.

"That's the thing about Roe. It doesn't discriminate between women seeking abortions out of convenience and those whose lives are endangered."

What do you propose as an alternative?

"The thing about contraceptives and artificial birth control is, they too encourage the same activity. The 'small minority' you speak of is much larger than you might think."

I'm not sure of your point here. Are you saying that huge numbers of women are deliberately and consciously choosing not to use contraception because they know that they can obtain legal abortions? How would you or I know what their motives are?

"Do you honestly think that the majority of women getting abortions are rape victims?"

Of course not. I'm simply saying that I don't know the exact reasons why there are so many unintended pregnancies. I mean the motives behind the people who cause them. I don't know how many cases are due to forgetfulness, drunkenness, deliberate irresponsibility, contraceptive failure, or other reasons that I may not know about. We cannot make assumptions about those motives. I want to stay away from any argument that women in generally cannot be trusted with unplanned pregnancies.

"As to the enforcement of such a ban, I don't think you would have to go too much farther than punishing the doctors who perform the abortions. If a woman could do it on her own, this wouldn't be an issue, would it?"

Why wouldn't you also prosecute the woman for at least being an accessory? Or the perpetrator if she attempts to administer the abortion herself? I see no legal reason to focus only on the doctors.

CCNL:
Hmmm, so a growing baby is considered by some to be nothing more than an infection? Talk about having no respect for life!!!!!

And Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rational for killing the unborn or those suffering from dementia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience your life???

We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succumb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nice twisting of my words there. How big a wrench did you have to use to get that much torque?

I did not say that a pregnancy was the same as an infection. I said that any time a foreign organism takes up residence in my body, regardless of its species, I have the right to decide if it gets to stay there or not.

I have a daughter, and I'd list her in the top five Most Wonderful Things in My Life. When I got pregnat a second time (while on birth control pills mind you), having a second shild would have meant taking food out of the mouth of the one I already had, and that was not acceptable. I chose the welfare of the living, breathing, walking, talking, laughing, playing child I already had over the welfare of the potential child in my uterus. In my case, abortion was the best solution for me, my partner, and my daughter. For that, I make no apologies and I have no regrets.

Ender2,
Last time I checked, God wasn't forcing machines up out of the earth to crush babies inside their mothers' wombs. That was us. Listen to CCNL (kudos to you as well, CCNL).
You are completely, utterly, and fantastically incorrect. I suggest you check your sources adn your statistics. Any practicing Catholic or so-called fundamentalist Christian will tell you abortion is not only declared to be wrong by their respective Churches, but they themselves agree.
In fact, if you do support abortion or 'choice', you are not allowed to receive the Eucharist (in the Catholic faith).

Thank you, Porzitski! Hear, hear!

Tonio:
"Are you arguing that legal abortion encourages people NOT to abstain or to use contraception? That may be true for a tiny minority of people, but probably for reasons that have little to do with either abortion or contraception."

Reference Porzitski, particularly "Instead of practicing safe sex or (gasp!) abstinence, women seek a remedy after the fact by murdering a child, fetus, zygote, offspring, mistake or whatever you want to call it."
That's the thing about Roe. It doesn't discriminate between women seeking abortions out of convenience and those whose lives are endangered.
The thing about contraceptives and artificial birth control is, they too encourage the same activity. The 'small minority' you speak of is much larger than you might think. Do you honestly think that the majority of women getting abortions are rape victims?
As to the enforcement of such a ban, I don't think you would have to go too much farther than punishing the doctors who perform the abortions. If a woman could do it on her own, this wouldn't be an issue, would it? Outlaw and ridiculously fine/jail etc doctors who do. This is worse than physician-assisted suicide, and that is illegal. Don't turn it over to the states. I'm pretty sure (don't quote me on this) that criminal law is federal jurisdiction.

To Robert_B1:
"If the federal and state governments succeed in outlawing abortions, would you support a large expansion in federal and state programs to provide grants and other monies to adoptive parents?"
Yes, I would, and whole-heartedly. It beats the heck out of allowing innocent children to be ruthlessly murdered at whim.

From Concerned the Christian now Liberated:

Hmmm, so a growing baby is considered by some to be nothing more than an infection? Talk about having no respect for life!!!!!

And Nature or Nature's God is the #1 taker of everyone's life. That gives some rational for killing the unborn or those suffering from dementia, mental disease or Alzheimer's or anyone who might inconvenience your life???

We constantly battle the forces of nature. We do not succumb to these forces by eliminating defenseless children!!!!!

Nature, and Nature's God, as our founding father's only referrence to any divine figurehead, is THE NUMBER ONE PROVIDER OF ABORTION IN THE US. Between 15 and 20% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion.

Induced abortion only accounts for less than 2% of terminated pregnancies.

I think you hypocrits need to pray to your ANTI-CHOICE GOD about the abortion issue. He(obviously a male god) is obviously pro-abortion, but antichoice.

My personal knowledge of Christians indicate most of the fundamentalist ones agree. They tend to be prodeath, but antichoice.

bmorris244 wrote, "I said earlier that adoption is the way to go. I have many, many friends who are all adopted, and I can't imagine how different I would be if they had been aborted."

I too believe that this is the wisest move. My wife and I are currently pursuing international adoption.

However, the monetary costs involved for adoption (domestic or international) are absolutely staggering (especially when one considers the relative ease with which many women can become biologically pregnant). With a domestic adoption (certainly the cheaper of the two options), which often involves paying for the mother's medical care and other expenses, there is also a 40% chance (according to my research) of a false start. This means that the mother changes her mind and keeps the baby. Different states have different laws about when this can occur after the birth of the child.

My question to BMorris244 and other posters who support the pro-life position is this: If the federal and state governments succeed in outlawing abortions, would you support a large expansion in federal and state programs to provide grants and other monies to adoptive parents?

"I know too many women who (repeatedly) use abortion as birth control."

I suspect that nationwide, that is actually a small minority of women. The problem there is not abortion or even sex, since those women would almost certainly pursue illegal abortions. There are always a few people, both men and women, who don't grasp responsibility for a number of reasons. I hope your "comprehensive campaign of education and options for sexually active people" would be effective for most such people.

I notice some discussion of Islam and women here, some invoking Sharia law. To clarify, Shariah is less a list of "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" than a system, a series of anecdotes describing Islamic behavior vs. un-Islamic behavior. Yes, there are some clear proscriptions, but mostly it is presented in a way to allow the reader to see their own behavior and be guided by precedent.
In today's world, Islam in general and especially Islamic fundies carry a large misogynistic burden, and add it to their (often mis-)interpretations of the entire body of Islamic teaching. In so doing they serve nothing but the preservation of their own socio-political power. If this is Allah's will, these guys must really be something special. But I doubt it.

"Humans are a male-dominated species. We have to overcome this because we know women are equal, but that is the tendency and predisposition."

Again, I'm concerned that sexists will use the dominance part to argue that sexism is both natural and desirable. The dominance is also depressing, because it could be interpreted to mean that humans can never rise above our origins.

"It is also clear that women (and females of other species) did NOT have any say in who they had intercourse with or mated with, respectively."

When I mentioned denying sex, I meant in a collective Lysistrata sense.

"Instead of responsibility, Roe allows and encourages a lack of responsibility and self-control on the part of the couple."

Are you arguing that legal abortion encourages people NOT to abstain or to use contraception? That may be true for a tiny minority of people, but probably for reasons that have little to do with either abortion or contraception.

When I read VIM876's original post, I wondered why she wasn't choosing to abstain or to use contraception, but I didn't want to make assumptions as to her motives.

"Where you believe abortion is wrong, but Roe should be kept legal, I believe Roe should not."

How would you enforce the law, and what steps you would suggest to prevent or alleviate the harm caused by criminalizing abortion? I doubt you would advocate send a pregnant woman to jail for seeking an illegal abortion. But I would know of no other way to enforce such a ban. The larger problem is that criminalizing abortion may in large part bring back the old sexist stigma about unplanned pregnancies, with all the shame falling on the woman and none falling on the man. If a repeal of Roe v. Wade returned the issue to the states, I can imagine pregnant women being harrassed by police whenever they crossed state lines.

I am all for women controlling their bodies, but I know too many women who (repeatedly) use abortion as birth control. Instead of practicing safe sex or (gasp!) abstinence, women seek a remedy after the fact by murdering a child, fetus, zygote, offspring, mistake or whatever you want to call it.
Because I believe a woman has certain rights over her body, I don't know if repealing Roe v. Wade is the right thing (I wish I didn't have to say that), unless it was replaced by a comprehensive campaign of education and options for sexually active people.
In learning, often the best way to get your message across is to tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, tell 'em, then tell 'em what you told 'em. Yet as far as safe sex goes, we can't even tell 'em, let alone tell 'em what we told 'em. That's just a really foolish and harmful policy. We are being done in by a misguided moralistic barrier that fearful hearts put before others.
My advice is to wait until your are married, but if not, learn what you are getting into.
Pete Porzitski
Hendersonville, Tennessee

It is obvious too many women are losing their self/body-control to male slave owners.

A woman who is not in control of her body is a slave.

I was referring to the title at the top of this page, which says, "What is the right moral choice?"

Robert_B1:
I said earlier that adoption is the way to go. I have many, many friends who are all adopted, and I can't imagine how different I would be if they had been aborted.

Tonio:
You said "That doesn't sound quite accurate. Surely men's upper body strength would be balanced in power terms by women's ability to deny sex to men and to bear children. Plus, I had understood that women were heavily involved with the food-gathering in ancient societies."

I don't think this (woman's ability to deny sex) is true. If it was, wouldn't equality between sexes have been much easier to occur all across the planet? In some species, the females are dominant (i.e., some spiders, elephants too, I think). Humans are a male-dominated species. We have to overcome this because we know women are equal, but that is the tendency and predisposition. It is also clear that women (and females of other species) did NOT have any say in who they had intercourse with or mated with, respectively.
Also, "food-gathering" = "picking berries", not hunting, killing, and fighting for/against other humans and predators.

Here, Tonio, I believe we have reached a fundamental stalemate and reached the end of our debate:
"Where government is concerned, I'm suggesting that criminalizing abortion is the wrong moral choice, because it would NOT prevent abortions and would cause more harm. Keeping abortion legal gives both government agencies and private agencies the flexibility to create strategies to reduce both abortions and unplanned pregnancies."

Where you believe abortion is wrong, but Roe should be kept legal, I believe Roe should not. This is the single most convinceing argument I've heard, and for a minute you almost had me convinced. Read on:

VIM876:
"Instead of assuming that all women choose abortion simply because it's "convenient," why not consider the circumstances under which women who might otherwise be personally opposed to the practice would procure one? I, for instance, am not pregnant, but if I were to become so, I would have an abortion BECAUSE I feel responsible for the life I bring into the world. See, I have been living with severe depression. I take a cocktail of nine different medications every day to keep me alive (I swear that this is not an exaggeration), and some of those medications have that little warning on the bottle saying not to take them (or sometimes to even handle them) if "you are or may become pregnant." If I became pregnant in a society that prohibited abortion, I would have to choose between a painful, awful, and probably short life without the medicines in which I might or might not make it through the gestation period to actually have a child, or knowing for the rest of my life that I might have the (possibly incredibly severe) disabilities and disfigurements and pain that my child would go through. Is that really a For those who might suggest that a "life and health of the mother" exception would cover me, those very, very often exclude mental illness because their framers think that women would use that as a loophole to get "abortion on demand." Thanks to Roe vs. Wade, I (and other women like me) would have a real choice in such a situation."
You provide a perfect example of what I was saying to Tonio a few days ago. Instead of responsibility, Roe allows and encourages a lack of responsibility and self-control on the part of the couple. Here, instead of choosing to abstain from sex because you are under medication which endangers the life of any potential children, or even allowing such a child to live a full and complete life, you would choose to abort him/her. This is the point you were trying to disprove, and is as such an abortion of convenience. If you are not going to abstain from sex, then you need to be able to accept responsibility for your actions and you need to see it through to the end, whether the child is perfectly healthy or not.
How selfish.

Rbaldwin22 wrote "do women have the right to choose? The answer IS yes...END."

We don't want America to burn. People who approves abortion should live elsewhere and live like animals as they please. NOT in the land where the first settlers (Mayflower Pilgrims) had envisioned this land to be -- a Holy Land.

Besides the insane fairy tale romance stories of organized religion generally, this discussion is beyond realism. Their is only one discussion here that should be on the table - do women have the right to choose? The answer IS yes...END.

You've said a sensible thing Lib- we see it's effects in the male-heavy population of China today-I'm hoping it was sensible- and not a setup for some bizarre theory.

And abortions that are done because the baby is not a male are declared what?? "Female-slaughter" comes to mind!!!!!

@ROHITCUNY:
To be completely honest, I actually think there are far more stable footholds in the right to choose to have an abortion in the Constitution than Roe is built on. But nevermind that, this particular bit of writing was premised on the idea of trying to introduce a (possibly new) idea to those who believe that abortion is wrong, but the health and life of them mother take precedence over the life of the other; there are women who will suffer and die because of Roe is overturned, if it happens. In your comparison of abortion law to law on killing developed humans: If I believed that the vast, vast majority of people who killed did so for self defense, and that laws against an extremely small number of people who murdered "for fun," or because they were brandishing a gun as a power symbol and their finger slipped, or for whatever other reason, would prevent a significant number of those people defending themselves from doing so, I would not believe that murder should be illegal.
"No one claims that all women who choose abortion choose it because it is convenient." While it's true that I've never encounter that explicitly claimed that all abortions were matters of convenience, people show their unconscious assumptions in other ways. For instance, by calling existing abortion law "abortion-on-demand," one conveys a sense women see abortions as a commodity, a fad that they are standing in line "demanding" like petulant children.

VIM876 said:

"Instead of assuming that all women choose abortion simply because it's "convenient," why not consider the circumstances under which women who might otherwise be personally opposed to the practice would procure one?"

No one claims that all women who choose abortion choose it because it is convenient. But I am not sure if you are arguing for a situation where some women choose abortion out of necessity, and other women choose it from convenience. In that case it would be true that not ALL women who choose abortion choose it for convenience. But many WOULD be choosing abortions of convenience.

Is that OK that some women choose abortion for convenience as long as some other women choose it out of necessity?

If some people kill for self defense, that hardly justifies others who kill for fun, does it?

Edit: I meant to write "...knowing that I might have prevented the disabilities..."

Instead of assuming that all women choose abortion simply because it's "convenient," why not consider the circumstances under which women who might otherwise be personally opposed to the practice would procure one? I, for instance, am not pregnant, but if I were to become so, I would have an abortion BECAUSE I feel responsible for the life I bring into the world. See, I have been living with severe depression. I take a cocktail of nine different medications every day to keep me alive (I swear that this is not an exaggeration), and some of those medications have that little warning on the bottle saying not to take them (or sometimes to even handle them) if "you are or may become pregnant." If I became pregnant in a society that prohibited abortion, I would have to choose between a painful, awful, and probably short life without the medicines in which I might or might not make it through the gestation period to actually have a child, or knowing for the rest of my life that I might have the (possibly incredibly severe) disabilities and disfigurements and pain that my child would go through. Is that really a For those who might suggest that a "life and health of the mother" exception would cover me, those very, very often exclude mental illness because their framers think that women would use that as a loophole to get "abortion on demand." Thanks to Roe vs. Wade, I (and other women like me) would have a real choice in such a situation.

If as a people we cannot protect the child in the womb, what should be the safest place in the world, we cannot keep children safe anywhere. If we cannot persuade our citizens that their children are precious and worthy of life we shouldn't be surprised when we read the horrific accounts of child abuse.

It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.

from the CDC-2006
"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

Hmmm, and Marianon notes: "

The sexual act and everything else associated with it, or resulting from it, for instance, unwanted pregnancy, is absolutely private and comes exclusively within the autonomy of a woman."

Great news and said autonomous women are raising and paying for all their children on their own. Males out there send your wives bills for all the child rearing costs you have been paying for all these years.

Yonkers, New York
28 September 20008

I am vigorously opposed to overruling Roe v. Wade.

My position is that government has absolutely no right to prevent a woman from resorting to abortion if in her opinion she needs it, for whatever reason.

The sexual act and everything else associated with it, or resulting from it, for instance, unwanted pregnancy, is absolutely private and comes exclusively within the autonomy of a woman.

Government meddling or interference with a woman's privacy or autonomy is an unwarranted and abhorrent diminution of a woman's liberty and autonomy.

The right moral choice is for a woman to feel absolutely free to resort or not to abortion.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

Yonkers, New York
28 September 20008

I am vigorously opposed to overruling Roe v. Wade.

My position is that government has absolutely no right to prevent a woman from resorting to abortion if in her opinion she needs it, for whatever reason.

The sexual act and everything else associated with it, or resulting from it, for instance, unwanted pregnancy, is absolutely private and comes exclusively within the autonomy of a woman.

Government meddling or interference with a woman's privacy or autonomy is an unwarranted and abhorrent diminution of a woman's liberty and autonomy.

The right moral choice is for a woman to feel absolutely free to resort or not to abortion.

Mariano Patalinjug
MarPatalinjug@aol.com

It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.
from the CDC-2006
"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."
How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

morality and legality.

to establish and maintain the morality people must as well establish the legality .separating between morality and legality is exactly as separating between the church and the state or the place of worship and life.

where people get morality from?what ever happen to the morality tank?where ?how?and since when?

darwinian materialistic morality need modeification and transformation to baisc common humanbeing morality .

the species need for morality is no less than the species need for water and grain.

plese vote for common ground morality.

Astoria,

"Just a guess- but because they are bigger, bring the food, and are able to control the women? "

That doesn't sound quite accurate. Surely men's upper body strength would be balanced in power terms by women's ability to deny sex to men and to bear children. Plus, I had understood that women were heavily involved with the food-gathering in ancient societies.

"It seems unlikely that they would not have carried this over into all their relationships."

The question is, wouldn't the women have that same desire for dominance? A certain amount of natural aggression is present in both genders, although women have been socialized in most societies to sublimate this.

Bmorris244,

"The prompt here is 'What is the right moral choice?' "

Do you mean by government or by individuals? Where government is concerned, I'm suggesting that criminalizing abortion is the wrong moral choice, because it would NOT prevent abortions and would cause more harm. Keeping abortion legal gives both government agencies and private agencies the flexibility to create strategies to reduce both abortions and unplanned pregnancies.

"Society dictates almost everything in the vast majority of people's lives, from what kind of car to drive, to what kinds of clothes to wear, and even, in some cases, what to think."

And it's wrong in principle for society to do those things. Society's ONLY interest in dictating individuals' behavior is (or should be) with behavior that helps or harm others.

"Being a Christian myself, and having taken quite a few classes on the subject, this interpretion is that held by young children."

No, I've seen that interpretation in my limited reading of both Augustine and James Dobson. (I can't believe I mentioned those two in the same sentence.) You may be right that it is a misinterpretation, but it's one that still has enormous influence.

From Victoria- (who happens to live in Astoria)

TONIO(?)
"how did societies become patriarchal in the first place, and why didn't they become matriarchal or gender-egalitarian?"

Just a guess- but because they are bigger, bring the food, and are able to control the women?
In early societies, men's dealings with each other in their scrimmage for dominance were based on the men with the biggest sticks(:)
It seems unlikely that they would not have carried this over into all their relationships.

ROBERTB1- By uncountable conversations with women who have been raped (in homeless shelter- where the stats are horribly high-many having just come from that situation) and also many conversations with staff members.

ANGELA : In response to your query-
"Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn; you both... When did John McCain or Sarah Palin ever say they would overturn Roe v Wade. ".

This will be a little long, please bear with me.

The Justices of the Supreme Court (the highest court in America- that would make the decision to overurn Roe v Wade) are appointed by the President for life.
They either retire , or die.
So their appointment determines the political atmosphere of America for many years, after the influence of the POTUS has left office.

Two justices reitred- John Rehnquist, and Sandra Day O'Connor- and their vacancies were filled by George Bush's appointment of John Roberts and Samuel Alito- both known pro-life ant-choice judges.

There is an expected retirement coming up soon, of John Paul Stevens, who is a liberal.
The balance is still in place, but if Palin (a vociferous anti-choice pro-life advocate) and McCain (also pro-life anti-choice) get into office- they will assuredly appoint a pro-life Justice, and tip the balance in favor of conservatives- and known anti-choice judges.

(Actually Bush appointed Souter also- but he has proven to be an actually fair and impartial judge- much to Bush's, and the religious right's dismay)

It is possible there may be another retirement also.
So that would mean 2 appointees who might overturn and make illegal and criminal abortions in America.

Instead of forcing people to obey anothers views- we should put our energy into reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies.

I think if pro-life anti-choice folks put their energy into that cause, instead of trying to force the rest of America to bow to their political and ideological will- it would benefit the very babies they are trying to protect.

Not to mention the girls who go through the pain, and emotional and physical toriture of abortion.

But the bottom line is-
No one is forcing any woman to have an abortion.
But the religious right wants to force women into back alleys and possible death or mutilation, because- women or girls who do not want to carry a child to term- will find a way- .

History shows us again and again- that we cannot legislate morality.
Usually, it ends up creating the situation where more people become curious about that which is forbidden- and engage in activities they might have not thought about before. Look at Prohibition.

So, no one is lying here- if McCain gets in, he will definitely appoint an anti-choice judge- whose presence would tip the scales fo justice in faovr of overturning Roe v Wade.
Actually justice, is supposed to be impartial, don't you agree?

Dear on faith, I keep having problems signing in. The computer keeps saying it does not recognize my email address and when I go through the whole process over again (the registration) it keeps changing my user id, which is simply daniel to daniel10 or daniel12, etc. Please fix problem or make signing in easier for people like me (generally computer ignorant).

I doubt Roe versus Wade will be overturned. I dislike abortion but I believe it will be through science, education, etc. that abortion will be minimized and finally eradicated. I do not believe abortion can be eradicated by the McCain/Palin method. The best that can be done by especially the Palin method is...well, just look at her family situation. The Palin method just accepts the accidents of birth. Modern economics and science conflicts with accidents of birth and expects productive citizens. Abortion will be eradicated only when we finally through science begin making the human race by design--that is the direction we are heading....

From Concerned the Christian Now Liberated:

It is obvious that intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control with over one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone.

from the CDC-2006

"Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) remain a major public health challenge in the United States. While substantial progress has been made in preventing, diagnosing, and treating certain STDs in recent years, CDC estimates that approximately 19 million new infections occur each year, almost half of them among young people ages 15 to 24.1 In addition to the physical and psychological consequences of STDs, these diseases also exact a tremendous economic toll. Direct medical costs associated with STDs in the United States are estimated at up to $14.7 billion annually in 2006 dollars."

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, condoms and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Might a list of those having an STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

bmorris244 --

I note that your most recent post did not address the second part of my response to your concerns. What do you think should be done for these children after they are born?

test

No, Llcalh, I'm not the moderator.
But this is a debate. I am commenting on others' opinions.
We're all throwing our comments out there, why shouldn't I respond to them as well?
Arguments become useless if you can't convince anyone else of anything. Debate is not merely stating your own point of view and then leaving. This is why I keep responding. Posters like Tonio keep pointing out flaws in my argument, which I must correct or defer.

You said, "Individual rights were established to nullify the tyranny of unchecked majority rule, and popular opinion. We know what a system of majority rule unchecked by individual rights is named. This system is called fascism."

This is not called fascism. In fact, it is called true or direct democracy, and this is what Locke and our Founding Fathers greatly feared: rule by the masses.
You are right about majority rule having to be checked by minority rights.

"We strive for a political system in which my opinion, or yours, is acceptable so long as we do not try to impose it on everyone else. Our political system constrains every individual so that society as a whole can live with the most freedom. Unfortunately, legal constraints on the individual required to protect the rights of others are easily confused with justifying laws meant to impose morality.
We may all feel that some behaviors and practices in our society are morally or ethically repugnant, but imposing legal constraints require a need to protect society as a whole. "

I do not believe in the system you describe. Do you believe that seeing a wrong and doing nothing is as bad as doing the wrong thing?
I still don't see how abortion is helping society as a whole. I don't see how this relates. How does abortion protect society? Should we not be trying to make morally and ethically correct laws?
A delicate balance is required to keep things going well: there must be a balance of idealist and realist. The idealist keeps striving for perfection, while the realist sees those ideas out practically.

Robert_B1:
"OK, so which moral code should guide our lawmaking process, Christianity or Islam? Should we completely outlaw all forms of media that promote immoral behavior? How can we do that without infringing on freedom of speech? I'm all for natural law, but there are limits to human law reflecting it within the confines of the freedoms protected by the Constitution. That's what I mean when I say some sins must remain legal."

I don't mean we should restrict our rights, or that we should prescribe a particular moral system in the government. This would violate separation of Church and State.
However, we should still be trying to do what is right for all people. The mere fact that some laws are not morally or ethically right does not mean we should not strive to make them that way.

Tonio:
"I'm not debating the morality of abortion, I'm simply debating the legal question."

The prompt here is "What is the right moral choice?"

"I'm talking about government or society trying to impose a certain behavior on individuals. When government or society tries to control individuals' sexual behavior, the result is the loss of rights unrelated to sex. For a variety of reasons, this affects women much more than men - it promotes the hateful idea that women are an evil temptation for men."

Do you mean government and society shouldn't tell people how to behave?
It's too late. Society dictates almost everything in the vast majority of people's lives, from what kind of car to drive, to what kinds of clothes to wear, and even, in some cases, what to think.

A final point: the idea that Eve represents a sexist Christian idea is false. Being a Christian myself, and having taken quite a few classes on the subject, this interpretion is that held by young children. The message is not that Eve is responsible for the Fall, but rather that they both had a choice and they both blew it on their own (regardless of Adam's response).
I'm not saying patriarchy was never present in the Church; but that is a misinterpretation.

Robert_B1 is right; the patriarchal ideas evolved from man's natural role as the hunter, the taker, and the ruler. These pre-homo sapiens ideas showed up in mythology of all forms.

"I'm not a sociologist or an anthropologist, but it seems to me that male-dominated societies might have evolved out of the role of the man as defender and hunter of the tribe."

While you may be right, my concern is that such theories can and have been misused to justify patriarchy as not only natural but desirable. Whenever a sexist misuses those theories that way, I admit that I want to shame such people into silence.

Tonio (at least I hope you're the poster who used to be known as Tonio...)--

You wrote "I'm suggesting that neither patriarchy nor matriarchy is natural and that something might have happened in early human history that artificially tipped the balance."

I'm not a sociologist or an anthropologist, but it seems to me that male-dominated societies might have evolved out of the role of the man as defender and hunter of the tribe. I think we can all agree that men tend to be better suited biologically for the sudden exertions of fighting and hunting. You want big muscles to defend the cave and to kill mammoths.

Also, when you consider how many women must have died in childbirth in prehistoric society, there may have been more men than women around...

Astoria --

"The first question asked by men to women who have been raped? 'What were you wearing?'"

I don't want to seem impolite, but do you have any evidence to back this up? Or is it an assumption based on your idea of "universal patriarchy"?

"It is the universal patriarchy, that has blamed women for their rapes throughout history. And is equally prevalent in America."

Good point. I have a larger question that is best left for a separate discussion - how did societies become patriarchal in the first place, and why didn't they become matriarchal or gender-egalitarian? Surely there weren't groups of men in ancient times deliberately plotting ways of oppressing women so they could seize control of society - that's too much like a conspiracy thriller. I'm suggesting that neither patriarchy nor matriarchy is natural and that something might have happened in early human history that artificially tipped the balance.

"It is a male reaction to blame a woman for rape"

That is almost certainly not an instinctive reaction, but one rooted in patriarchal beliefs about women as property. A male with such beliefs would subconsciouisly misinterpret the rape as damaging his property. It's not that much different from an abuser trying to pass blame for the abuse onto his or her victim. I blame those negative reactions you mentioned to the lingering influence of patriarchal beliefs.

"Not picking on you, just wnat to nip the islamophobia on these boards- and not get into the blame game-"

No problem - I was attempting to criticize absolutism in any religion and in any secular ideology.

Thanks for your response Carstonio- It predates Ancient Greece also- Manu's laws in India codified the danger of the corrupted woman also.

It is the universal patriarchy, that has blamed women for their rapes throughout history.
And is equally prevalent in America.
Ask any rape counselor, and you will find that uniformly the number one impediment to women healing themselves after a rape is the reaction of the men around her.
The first question asked by men to women who have been raped? 'What were you wearing?'
It is a male reaction to blame a woman for rape-
and not a religiously coded one.
People misunderstand what Sharia law is- the core of it is justice and protection of the weak.
There is no Islamic government on the planet today to draw any comparisons for blame or praise right now.
No, Iran is not an Islamic government.
Not picking on you, just wnat to nip the islamophobia on these boards- and not get into the blame game-
In this case- blame can be laid squarely on male dominated patriarchal attitudes. :)

To BMorris244, who responded to my comments thus:

"I hope I'm misinterpreting this. Although we know that laws and morality do not coincide, shouldn't they. After all, isn't this what should guide our lawmaking process? If not, what is the point?"

OK, so which moral code should guide our lawmaking process, Christianity or Islam? Should we completely outlaw all forms of media that promote immoral behavior? How can we do that without infringing on freedom of speech? I'm all for natural law, but there are limits to human law reflecting it within the confines of the freedoms protected by the Constitution. That's what I mean when I say some sins must remain legal.

"This is a flimsy argument at best. 'We can't let all those babies live! Where will they go? Who will pay for them?' Should not our legal decisions be based on the true morality of an issue? Let's find a better and more humane way to deal with overpopulation, please."

Idealism is all fine and dandy until we run smack into real life. Whether we like it or not, there are practical concerns to making abortion illegal. The questions you mockingly ask are still valid ones. Shall we answer them as Scrooge did: "Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?" Or shall we make some moral provision for these kids?

Our rights and privileges must be subjugated to the common good, to allow society as a whole the most freedom. This concept is not to be perverted to impose arbitrary moral standards. The common good does not equal majority opinion. Of course, minor children do not possess full individual rights in our society.

Individual rights were established to nullify the tyranny of unchecked majority rule, and popular opinion. We know what a system of majority rule unchecked by individual rights is named. This system is called fascism.

We strive for a political system in which my opinion, or yours, is acceptable so long as we do not try to impose it on everyone else. Our political system constrains every individual so that society as a whole can live with the most freedom. Unfortunately, legal constraints on the individual required to protect the rights of others are easily confused with justifying laws meant to impose morality.

We may all feel that some behaviors and practices in our society are morally or ethically repugnant, but imposing legal constraints require a need to protect society as a whole.

Abortion is a special case in which a minor individual is tethered for life and sustenance to another individual. If the minor is incapable of sustaining its own life, the rights of the child are in conflict with the rights of the mother. This conflict presents a grave moral dilemma for the mother, but not a matter that can be addressed fairly in the law under our constitutional constraints. A competent mother’s rights clearly have precedence over the rights of the dependent child.

BMORRIS244,

Are you the moderator? Is this an online ch you need to respond, dismiss, interpret, or misinterpret, everyone else’s thoughts on the question presented?
You seem to confuse morality with the purpose of laws in our society. This is a common problem due to the poor role models provided by many prominent religious leaders and politicians.

"Let us see that Sharia law, if you can find one."

For clarification, I wasn't thinking of Sharia as a whole, but of how fundamentalist Muslim cultures have interpreted the concept against women.

"The concept of Original Sin, and that women are an evil temptation for men, is a Christian one."

It predates Christianity - it was found in some versions of the Pandora story in ancient Greece.

"In Islam, women and men are born in a state of original grace, are equal,and there is not centuries of this association."

I'm not talking about Islam in general, but the fundamentalist variety which hides women's bodies and blames women if they are raped.

The concept of Original Sin, and that women are an evil temptation for men, is a Christian one.
In Islam, women and men are born in a state of original grace, are equal,and there is not centuries of this association.

Getting the ideologies confused on this issue is a very common misunderstanding.
Let us see that Sharia law, if you can find one.
(Please, from a reputable source- be careful-there are alot of defamatory fake sites out there.)

Peace and good points.

Carstonio-

"it promotes the hateful idea that women are an evil temptation for men. Sharia law comes to mind."

Which Sharia law might that be?
Are you sure about that?

"However, this is the debate over morality. "

I'm not debating the morality of abortion, I'm simply debating the legal question.

"So, to pose your question to the issue: is abortion in the general welfare?"

That's not the question I'm asking. My question is whether it's in the general welfare to keep abortion legal or to criminalize abortion. My own position is that the general welfare would involve a combination of legal status for abortion and government measures to discourage both abortion and unintended pregnancy, or even promoting adoption. It's the same philosophy that has led to needle-exchange programs. But I wouldn't rule out the idea of abortion being legal but much more regulated than it is now.

"This is the relativist position that you can't impose a belief on someone else."

I'm not necessarily talking about one person imposing a belief on another. I'm talking about government or society trying to impose a certain behavior on individuals. When government or society tries to control individuals' sexual behavior, the result is the loss of rights unrelated to sex. For a variety of reasons, this affects women much more than men - it promotes the hateful idea that women are an evil temptation for men. Sharia law comes to mind.

"But this reasoning is why abortion should be illegal."

That would only turn women with unwanted pregnancies into objects of shame and potential criminals. It would discourage them from coming forward about their pregnancies and choosing adoption. We don't want to return to that old hateful, sexist social order. This would be especially hard on teen girls.

Llcalh,
Again, you confuse freedom as the right to do whatever we want. Should we allow people to commit something we know is wrong, regardless of religious stance.
Shall we respect the citizen's "right" to follow their own moral code without interference if or when that moral code causes harm?
The most common definition of a 'right' (even though it is wrong) is something you can do so long as it doesn't hurt anyone.
AS for the subjugation of rights and privileges, this is part of any form of representative government, particularly the Federalist Republic to which we belong.
It was Locke himself who said that this is the reason societies and governments form in the first place: a group of people come together and give up some of their rights and privileges to a larger government which in turn offers its protection.
But abortion does not fall under that category. This debate follows under a different area, one debated since monotheism began: should we allow people to do right and wrong as they see fit, or should we tell people what is right and what is wrong, making laws accordingly?
Either way, Roe falls out of the majority. As I said, our laws are supposed to be barely based in morality (even though they are not). So, we are telling people what is right and wrong; you murder, you are punished. Clear enough?
Roe says that people should choose for themselves whether killing fetuses is wrong. This is directly against clear laws that we have set up.

Torio, I see what you are saying about abortion and morality. However, this is the debate over morality. So, to pose your question to the issue: is abortion in the general welfare? As much as I despise pure utilitarianism, this becomes the main factor. You end up weighing the potential life of an unborn child against the money, time, and energy it would cost to raise that child.

"While I don't disagree, I'm making a different point, which is that such responsibility cannot be imposed from without. Whatever the consequences of irresponsible sex, the consequences of societies trying to stop irresponsible sex through law or custom are much worse."
This is the relativist position that you can't impose a belief on someone else.
You are right in that irresponsible sex cannot be stopped. This is not what I'm trying to promote. A respect for life, in all its forms, for conception to natural death (CCC), is necessary. If people had this respect, from it would flow the necessary sense of responsibility. But here we have a utopia.
This isn't going to happen. But this reasoning is why abortion should be illegal.

"I'm talking about the type of parent who wants to be responsible but doesn't have the knowledge to do so. It's the difference between good intentions gone awry and self-serving intentions."
Good intention or no, they lack responsibility. It may or may not be their fault, but as adults, they should know better.

As for society and its views on sex:
As you said, society presents sex as a naughty thing. Society also glorifies the naughty and the rebellious. This appeals particularly to teenagers and adolescents, because they have predispositions towards such things anyway. By doing both of these things, society is fostering both sides of this.

"Humans have the ability to have sex purely for pleasure, but does that give them the right to. Forgive the cliché: 'With great power comes great responsibility'. This doesn't curtail human freedom because freedom does NOT mean that we are allowed to do whatever we want."

While I don't disagree, I'm making a different point, which is that such responsibility cannot be imposed from without. Whatever the consequences of irresponsible sex, the consequences of societies trying to stop irresponsible sex through law or custom are much worse.

"A drastic lack of a sense of responsibility on the part of the parents has led to thier ineptitude."

I'm talking about the type of parent who wants to be responsible but doesn't have the knowledge to do so. It's the difference between good intentions gone awry and self-serving intentions.

"Rather, as you also said, sex is treated as a rebellious vice. It is noeither downplayed nor hidden. Watch any TV show watched by tons of adolescent viewers: Family Guy. South Park."

By "taboo," I didn't mean that sex was being suppressed. I meant that our society wrongly believes that sex SHOULD be suppressed. Those shows you named celebrate sex by treating it as "bad" or naughty, which leads to my next point...

"Also, society is pushing for a rebellious attitude. Rebellious is in. It's 'cool' to be the rogue one who drinks, smokes, and has sex. I see it all the time."

While that's technically accurate, it misses the larger picture. Part of the rebelliousness is simply the maturation process. When society deems that something is bad, it automatically makes it look attractive to rebellious teens. They think they are doing something bad and getting away with it - they think they are thumbing their noses to authority figures saying "Because I said so." The disapproval gives those things a glamour and attractiveness that they don't deserve.

"Again, who qualifies for such a seminar? And how would this shift the burden off of teachers? "

I was just throwing out an idea for discussion - I wasn't arguing that it would be workable in practice.

" As I said to Tonio above, freedom does NOT refer to being able to do whatever we want. We always have a choice. The morality of that choice is the reason we have the law, no?"

Law and morality don't necessarily coincide. Most of us would agree that infidelity is immoral because it involves betrayal and deception. But most of us would also agree that laws against adultery would constitute an unnecessary intervention by government into people's personal lives. The mission of the law is not to mandate a certain moral stance but to promote the general welfare - there has to be a compelling government interest in making something illegal. I stated earlier that criminalizing abortion would cause more harm than keeping it legal - it would not save fetuses and would bring harm to mothers and doctors. That's different from a simple moral argument about abortion itself. The real legal question is not whether abortion should be legal, but what should government's role be in reducing unplanned pregnancies.

The right moral choice is to defend our constitutional democracy and uphold Roe v. Wade. We have must remember that our individual rights depend upon respecting the freedom of all citizens and their right to follow their own moral code. We must remember that in a Pro-Choice America, Pro-Life adherents may follow their moral code without interference. In a Pro-Life America, everyone must subjugate their rights and beliefs to a faith-based morality. In a Pro-Life America, we step off the path toward a more ideal constitutional democracy and onto the path toward theocracy.

These debates are so destructive because on the one-hand we are re-arguing the reasons for the United States to exist – to promote the ascent of mankind by creating a country in which freedoms are protected by right, and, we must argue to limit the social influence of emotion-filled faiths and mythologies learned as children, reinforced by respected parents and awesome ceremonies, in favor of the dry social ideals of Locke and Rousseau.

These debates were easier for our forefathers that understood from their recent history that religious beliefs beget doctrinal fervor, repression, violence, and religious wars soon thereafter.

Perhaps we need an “On Democracy” column to help citizens understand the personal and emotional sacrifices required to maintain their liberties.

The moral choice is to adhere to the ideals of our forefathers and spare the lives that will be lost on the intolerant path toward theocracy. We of all faiths and no faith have struggled too long to achieve our freedom to allow this assault on its foundation.

I'll try to respond to each as I saw them, person by person. Forgive me if I repeat a point or two.

First, to Tonio:
"No, it's biology itself that has divorced sex from children, since humans are capable of having sex purely for pleasure. It's simply not possible for societies to enforce a sex-for-procreation-only concept as a rule or law with drastically curtailing human freedom in areas other than sex..."

Biology has not divorced sex from children. Humans have the ability to have sex purely for pleasure, but does that give them the right to. Forgive the cliché: 'With great power comes great responsibility'. This doesn't curtail human freedom because freedom does NOT mean that we are allowed to do whatever we want. I'll address this later on.

"My theory is that adolescents who are both curious and fearful about sex need guidance and information from adults who aren't their parents but who still care about them, and this may have been done informally in the past by those social networks I mentioned...Of course, the lack of training would apply only to well-meaning but inept parents, as opposed to people who just don't give a damn about responsibility for whatever reason. Probably no training can cure the latter attitude. I suspect such people have always been with us, it's just that we have more of them than before since our population has risen..."

A drastic lack of a sense of responsibility on the part of the parents has led to thier ineptitude. This train of thought leads to an ancient question: should there be some rule regarding who is allowed to have kids? Of course not. But if we have irresponsible parents, of course we will also have irresponsible children. 'The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.'

"...I do know that our society inaccurately treats sex as taboo..."

As one who lives in said society, and as much as I hate to give a 'my-word-against-yours' argument I must declare my stern disagreement. Rather, as you also said, sex is treated as a rebellious vice. It is noeither downplayed nor hidden. Watch any TV show watched by tons of adolescent viewers: Family Guy. South Park. And all the rest. Also, society is pushing for a rebellious attitude. Rebellious is in. It's 'cool' to be the rogue one who drinks, smokes, and has sex. I see it all the time.

To Robert B:
"I also believe that in a free society, some sins must nevertheless remain legal...

I hope I'm misinterpreting this. Although we know that laws and morality do not coincide, shouldn't they. After all, isn't this what should guide our lawmaking process? If not, what is the point?

"My "overriding moral concern" is that to date, no pro-life GOP politician has produced any plan to raise the children that will be brought to term should Roe v. Wade be overturned..."

This is a flimsy argument at best. 'We can't let all those babies live! Where will they go? Who will pay for them?'
Should not our legal decisions be based on the true morality of an issue? Let's find a better and more humane way to deal with overpopulation, please.

And to Athena:
"A question to everyone who wants to ban abortion:
Will we be arresting and prosecuting women who have abortions? How many years will they get for having an abortion?
Do you honestly think that making something illegal will stop the practice?
What about women who have to terminate their pregnancies because of serious fetal abnormalities? Should they be punished as well?
Who is going to pay for all of the unwanted children that will be put into the foster care system?"

The same points are addressed above.
I'm deeply hurt by the term "unwanted children". Adoption is a wonderful thing. In essence you are saying that humanity will not pick up, and that there are not enough good people in the world.
Although at times my faith is shaken, I do believe the number of good people outweighs the bad.
The same type of argument is put for for the legalization of marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol for minors. 'If it's legal, we can regulate it, etc etc.' This neither addresses nor solves any moral issues. In fact, it dodges the issue entirely.

What we are talking about here is the morality of abortion, and, based on that legality, whether abortion should be legal or not.

To Rae:
"When it comes to RoeVwade being overturned we come dangerously close to playing God. Under no circumstances are we to take another's free will away. Roe v wade allows woman to make a choice that in the end is between god and her."

Hmm. This relates to murder. We always have the choice whether to kill someone or not, or to rape someone, or to steal, or to rob. Making these things illegal doesn't take away your free will. As I said to Tonio above, freedom does NOT refer to being able to do whatever we want. We always have a choice. The morality of that choice is the reason we have the law, no? We think it is wrong to kill, so we outlaw it. There are logical moral reasons for most of our laws. Why should Roe be any different.

Tonio again: "How about whenever kids enter middle school, their parents go through a week or so of training on how to talk comfortably about sex?"
Again, who qualifies for such a seminar? And how would this shift the burden off of teachers? Who would have to lead the seminars? Would they have to pay to bring someone in? Would that someone, or the teacher have to take a class, get a degree, attend a seminar themselves? The list goes on and on.

Finally, to Lepidopteryx:
"Have you ever been raped? If not, you have no business telling someone who has to "bite the bullet." Twenty-plus years after the fact, I still have nightmares about it. I just thank the gods I didn't become pregnant as a result of it."

You're absolutely right. I can't possibly come close to feeling any of your pain, and I pray to God I never will.
However cruel I feel saying it, two wrongs don't ever make a right. However the child may have been conceived, destroying him/her/it (however you think of them), is not justified. This shows a disrespect for life.
Again, I know I won't ever feel anything close to your pain. But fundamentally, it's not right.

I'll try to respond to each as I saw them, person by person. Forgive me if I repeat a point or two.

First, to Tonio:
"No, it's biology itself that has divorced sex from children, since humans are capable of having sex purely for pleasure. It's simply not possible for societies to enforce a sex-for-procreation-only concept as a rule or law with drastically curtailing human freedom in areas other than sex..."

Biology has not divorced sex from children. Humans have the ability to have sex purely for pleasure, but does that give them the right to. Forgive the cliché: 'With great power comes great responsibility'. This doesn't curtail human freedom because freedom does NOT mean that we are allowed to do whatever we want. I'll address this later on.

"My theory is that adolescents who are both curious and fearful about sex need guidance and information from adults who aren't their parents but who still care about them, and this may have been done informally in the past by those social networks I mentioned...Of course, the lack of training would apply only to well-meaning but inept parents, as opposed to people who just don't give a damn about responsibility for whatever reason. Probably no training can cure the latter attitude. I suspect such people have always been with us, it's just that we have more of them than before since our population has risen..."

A drastic lack of a sense of responsibility on the part of the parents has led to thier ineptitude. This train of thought leads to an ancient question: should there be some rule regarding who is allowed to have kids? Of course not. But if we have irresponsible parents, of course we will also have irresponsible children. 'The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.'

"...I do know that our society inaccurately treats sex as taboo..."

As one who lives in said society, and as much as I hate to give a 'my-word-against-yours' argument I must declare my stern disagreement. Rather, as you also said, sex is treated as a rebellious vice. It is noeither downplayed nor hidden. Watch any TV show watched by tons of adolescent viewers: Family Guy. South Park. And all the rest. Also, society is pushing for a rebellious attitude. Rebellious is in. It's 'cool' to be the rogue one who drinks, smokes, and has sex. I see it all the time.

To Robert B:
"I also believe that in a free society, some sins must nevertheless remain legal...

I hope I'm misinterpreting this. Although we know that laws and morality do not coincide, shouldn't they. After all, isn't this what should guide our lawmaking process? If not, what is the point?

"My "overriding moral concern" is that to date, no pro-life GOP politician has produced any plan to raise the children that will be brought to term should Roe v. Wade be overturned..."

This is a flimsy argument at best. 'We can't let all those babies live! Where will they go? Who will pay for them?'
Should not our legal decisions be based on the true morality of an issue? Let's find a better and more humane way to deal with overpopulation, please.

And to Athena:
"A question to everyone who wants to ban abortion:
Will we be arresting and prosecuting women who have abortions? How many years will they get for having an abortion?
Do you honestly think that making something illegal will stop the practice?
What about women who have to terminate their pregnancies because of serious fetal abnormalities? Should they be punished as well?
Who is going to pay for all of the unwanted children that will be put into the foster care system?"

The same points are addressed above.
I'm deeply hurt by the term "unwanted children". Adoption is a wonderful thing. In essence you are saying that humanity will not pick up, and that there are not enough good people in the world.
Although at times my faith is shaken, I do believe the number of good people outweighs the bad.
The same type of argument is put for for the legalization of marijuana, cocaine, and alcohol for minors. 'If it's legal, we can regulate it, etc etc.' This neither addresses nor solves any moral issues. In fact, it dodges the issue entirely.

What we are talking about here is the morality of abortion, and, based on that legality, whether abortion should be legal or not.

To Rae:
"When it comes to RoeVwade being overturned we come dangerously close to playing God. Under no circumstances are we to take another's free will away. Roe v wade allows woman to make a choice that in the end is between god and her."

Hmm. This relates to murder. We always have the choice whether to kill someone or not, or to rape someone, or to steal, or to rob. Making these things illegal doesn't take away your free will. As I said to Tonio above, freedom does NOT refer to being able to do whatever we want. We always have a choice. The morality of that choice is the reason we have the law, no? We think it is wrong to kill, so we outlaw it. There are logical moral reasons for most of our laws. Why should Roe be any different.

Tonio again: "How about whenever kids enter middle school, their parents go through a week or so of training on how to talk comfortably about sex?"
Again, who qualifies for such a seminar? And how would this shift the burden off of teachers? Who would have to lead the seminars? Would they have to pay to bring someone in? Would that someone, or the teacher have to take a class, get a degree, attend a seminar themselves? The list goes on and on.

Finally, to Lepidopteryx:
"Have you ever been raped? If not, you have no business telling someone who has to "bite the bullet." Twenty-plus years after the fact, I still have nightmares about it. I just thank the gods I didn't become pregnant as a result of it."

You're absolutely right. I can't possibly come close to feeling any of your pain, and I pray to God I never will.
However cruel I feel saying it, two wrongs don't ever make a right. However the child may have been conceived, destroying him/her/it (however you think of them), is not justified. This shows a disrespect for life.
Again, I know I won't ever feel anything close to your pain. But fundamentally, it's not right.

"Unfortunately, many parents have decided to leave parenting to the school system. Why those parents are too busy to take care of their kids, I'll never know..."

The theory I suggested could apply here - perhaps many people in past decades learned parenting skills from extended families and close communities. Of course, the lack of training would apply only to well-meaning but inept parents, as opposed to people who just don't give a damn about responsibility for whatever reason. Probably no training can cure the latter attitude. I suspect such people have always been with us, it's just that we have more of them than before since our population has risen.

Well, I see that we now need to register before posting here. Maybe that will keep the Jacob Jovenz's off of here...

Anyway, back to the discussion --

Tonio wrote: "How about whenever kids enter middle school, their parents go through a week or so of training on how to talk comfortably about sex?"

This is probably the best compromise possible, but I still wish parents would get over their discomfort and fulfill their responsibilities. This is part of being a parent, especially in the modern world. Unfortunately, many parents have decided to leave parenting to the school system. Why those parents are too busy to take care of their kids, I'll never know...

i cant believe i am saying this, but i agree with CCNL

mark

As a teacher, I have to wonder why and how it became my responsibility to teach high school students about sex. I think people in my profession have enough to deal with teaching kids about literature, science, history, etc. Why can't we just leave this to the parents?

Fair question. I suspect that in past decades, many of the social problems and responsibilities that schools now face were handled by extended families and close-knit communities. My theory is that adolescents who are both curious and fearful about sex need guidance and information from adults who aren't their parents but who still care about them, and this may have been done informally in the past by those social networks I mentioned.

I'm not a sociologist so this is partly guesswork. I do know that our society inaccurately treats sex as taboo, which leads many, many parents to be uncomfortable with the thought of their own children becoming sexually active or even curious. Such parents may be too emotionally invested to give such guidance and information even when they desire to do so. In some cases, the subject may bring up the parents' painful memories of their own adolescence. I should emphasize that many other parents do not have such emotional issues and can give excellent guidance on sexual matters.

You're right about the unfairness about the additional responsibilities landing on teachers. My answer is that the social costs of not addressing this are too great to ignore. When parents cannot give sexual guidance, and when other adults cannot or will not give it, then adolescents will get it from peers who are equally ignorant about sex. Or else they will be too influenced by media titillation, which merely plays up and perpetuates the sex taboo by encouraging adolescents to think of sex as a rebellious vice.

How about whenever kids enter middle school, their parents go through a week or so of training on how to talk comfortably about sex?

I am a lawyer and basically pro-choice, but I would not mind much if Roe v. Wade were overturned and if the mess were turned back over to the States. That would mean that some States would do as South Dakota did, briefly, and ban just about all abortions, period. Other States would not. Eventually, I suspect that the courts and legislatures in most states would return us to more or less the situation that has prevailed under Roe v. Wade -- abortion is generally and pretty freely available during the first trimester or before fetal "viability," and progressively more difficult to obtain in the second and third trimesters.

I have never objected to the methodology that Roe v. Wade and later Supreme Court cases have produced and refined, based on the sensible and scientifically well-founded principle that a conceptus that consists of only 200 or fewer cells, or even an embryo later in the term, is at most only a potential human being if it lacks the beginnings of a central nervous system. It cannot suffer and therefore is not a "person" for the purpose of constitutional or statutory protection against being "murdered." Drawing the line between unprotected collection of cells and nascent human being or citizen is going to continue to be difficult, whether Roe v. Wade is overturned or not.

One advantage to overturning Roe v. Wade -- the process of nominating and confirming federal judges to the Circuit Courts of Appeal and to the Supreme Court would be somewhat less politicized and would cease to be held hostage to the extremists on both sides of the abortion debate.

Given that the Roe decision was made in 1973 and the GOP has held power in Washington for most of the years between then and now, one has to wonder how devoted the GOP is to ending abortion. Could it be that the powers that be want keep their favorite wedge issue alive? Could it really be that simple?

Personally, I believe abortion is a sin. I did not always believe this, but then I became the father of a few miscarried children. That being said, I also believe that in a free society, some sins must nevertheless remain legal. My church teaches that I should only vote for a pro-choice politician if there is an over-riding moral concern. My "overriding moral concern" is that to date, no pro-life GOP politician has produced any plan to raise the children that will be brought to term should Roe v. Wade be overturned. I think the charge that the GOP cares more about fetuses than it does about children outside the womb has much validity. This is why I like the approach that the Democrats are currently supporting (ending the need for legal abortion, etc.).

In the end, though, unless our society becomes more mature about sexuality, this conflict will continue. Sadly, I don't see much hope for that level of maturity in the near future...

Tonio --

You wrote, "I don't know what you think sex ed is about, but every program I've encountered or heard about stresses exactly those things. Any sex ed program that focuses strictly on the mechanics has no place in any school curriculum."

As a teacher, I have to wonder why and how it became my responsibility to teach high school students about sex. I think people in my profession have enough to deal with teaching kids about literature, science, history, etc. Why can't we just leave this to the parents?

McCain is absolutely cratering in the polls, so the WaPo jumps in to reignite an abortion debate that hasn't even been an issue in this campaign.

The media's hapless propping up of McCain/Palin's silly and childish candidacy would be funny if it weren't so insulting to one's intelligence. A quick look at the columnists who elected to jump in on this softball/talking point/no minds will ever be changed On Faith question offer nothing new to the debate. BTW - notice how the majority of the columnists represent the rabid right who will eat up this red meat, even as they ride it to a massive Republican defeat in November?

If I was them, I'd start praying, not that doing so will do them a bit of good.

Sally, I just listened to an interview with you on Wisconsin Public Radio. I appreciate your candor.

You had said, that still to this day, you haven't found a suitable answer to the question, "How can God let suffering happen?"

I think many of our problems when it comes to finding sense in issues like abortion, or terrible tragedies is that we need to remember or know, if we never did, that God has given us FREE WILL. The Bible is clear from cover to cover that we choose which path we take and that at the same time we will witness horrors because of the choices of others or ourselves.

Then how can suffering happen in the case of illness or natural disasters? Again we have our lives on earth and God is not Zeus up in the heavens there to arrange life for us to be pleasant at every turn. In suffering we make choices...how will we heal ourselves in sickness or help others to overcome disaster?

When it comes to RoeVwade being overturned we come dangerously close to playing God. Under no circumstances are we to take another's free will away. Roe v wade allows woman to make a choice that in the end is between god and her.

I think another important point that needs to be made is that forever men have chosen to take lives in war and justify it by saving the world from evil or even just to conquer territory for resources. Men are free to take life in this way. It goes on to be accepted and justifiable. We don't like it but so it goes.

A woman on the other hand makes a choice to send a conceived being back to the creator and is seen as murdering.Her choice is one of compassion and mercy yet such a decision is not an acceptable one.

At any rate it comes down to free will. Overturning Roe v Wade takes a person's God given free will away.

RE: SPIRITUAL MONGREL:
I feel the utmost pity and sorow for those victims of rape, but two wrongs don't make a right. And although I almost feel cruel saying it, they have to bite the bullet. -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Have you ever been raped? If not, you have no business telling someone who has to "bite the bullet." Twenty-plus years after the fact, I still have nightmares about it. I just thank the gods I didn't become pregnant as a result of it.

Logically, I'm sure someone, upon reading the above paragraph, jumped to the correct conclusion that I am a male, and as such it is easy for me to say, that rape victims should bear the burden. This is very narrow-minded. What their argument is in essence saying is that men have no connection with their offspring. This is a ridiculous fabrication. Scientifically, the child has the father's genes, and there is definitely some sort of psychologically connection as well.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If a woman gives birth to a child conceived as a result of rape, should the biological father have visitation rights in order to foster his "connection" with his offspring?

A question to everyone who wants to ban abortion:

Will we be arresting and prosecuting women who have abortions? How many years will they get for having an abortion?

Do you honestly think that making something illegal will stop the practice?

What about women who have to terminate their pregancies because of serious fetal abnormalities? Should they be punished as well?

Who is going to pay for all of the unwanted children that will be put into the foster care system?

Famous Adopted Persons

Andy Berlin - entrepreneur: chairman of Berlin Cameron & Partners
Anthony Williams - politician
Aristotle - philosopher
Art Linkletter - comedian
Bo Diddley - musician, performer
Buffy Sainte-Marie - musician, actress
Carl-Theodor Dreyer - Danish film director
Charlotte Anne Lopez - Miss Teen USA
Christina Crawford - author
Clarissa Pinkola Estes - author
Crazy Horse - Lakota war chief
Dan O'Brien - decathlete
Daunte Culpepper - football player
Dave Thomas - entrepreneur: founder of Wendy's
Debbie Harry - singer
D.M.C. - hip hop artist
Edgar Allan Poe - poet, writer
Edward Albee - playwright
Eleanor Roosevelt - First Lady
Eric Dickerson - athlete
Faith Daniels - news anchor
Faith Hill - country singer
Freddie Bartholomew - actor
George Washington Carver - inventor
Greg Louganis - athlete
James MacArthur - actor
James Michener - author
Jean Jacques Rousseau - philosopher
Jesse Jackson - minister
Jesus - adopted by Joseph the carpenter (Bible)
Jett Williams - country singer and author
Jim Palmer - athlete
John J. Audubon - naturalist
John Hancock - politician
John Lennon - musician
Langston Hughes - poet and writer
Larry Ellison - entrepreneur: chief executive of Oracle
Lee Majors - actor
Leo Tolstoy - writer
Les Brown - motivational speaker
Lynnette Cole - Miss USA 2000
Malcolm X - civil rights leader
Mark Acre - athlete
Matthew Laborteaux - actor
Melissa Gilbert - actress
Michael Reagan - author, talk show host
Moses - Biblical leader
Nancy Reagan - First Lady
Nat King Cole - singer
Nelson Mandela - politician
Patrick Labyorteaux - actor
Peter and Kitty Carruthers - figure skaters
President Gerald Ford - politician
President William Clinton - politician
Priscilla Presley - actress
Ray Liotta - actor
Reno - performance artist, comedian
Sarah McLachlan - singer
Scott Hamilton - figure skater
Sen. Paull H. Shin - politician
Sen. Robert Byrd - politician
Steve Jobs - entrepreneur: co-founder of Apple computer
Surya Bonaly - figure skater
Tim Green - football player/commentator
Tim McGraw - country singer
Tom Monaghan - entrepreneur
Tommy Davidson - comedian
Victoria Rowell - actress
Wilson Riles - educator

Lying is a greater Moral Sin than Abortion the Result of the Big Lie of Adam and Eve.

"God's Daily Promises" 9/25,08. This week's promise: Lies will be exposed What's so bad about a little lie?"
"Truth stands the test of time; lies are soon exposed. Proverbs 11:17 NLT"

"Lying is the basic fault line in the foundation of the soul, putting all the superstructure in jeopardy. All the believability a person has, his very integrity, totters on the shifting sand of one lie. Deceit holds hostage all other virtues. Robertson C. McQuilken"

What was the Big Lie in Genesis 3? This Lie affected all Human Bodies since, and caused the Human Physical Body to Die. Religion teaches, the Soul Spark keeps on Living out of the Body, at Death, but the Physical Body returns to Dirt at Death.

We again have the High Tech Science Knowledge, of Seen and Unseen GOD Elements. The Holy Spirit and the Soul are the High Tech Science Electro-Magnetic Force. The Atom is the Dirt.

How do Humans that lost their High Tech Science Knowledge, translate this idea of a Soul that never Dies? When a Human Life Species Dies, we Know the Physical Body returns to Dirt, in the Bible.

Today, Have we Evolved up to this High Tech Science Knowledge, or was it with the Higher Human 'Beings' 'in the beginning', called Gods, Goddesses and Angels 'in our Image'?

What happens to the Soul Element? Religion says what the Unseen Soul Element Returns to God. Today Science calls this the Universe, of which our Earth is a small part. Humans are Entities in the Universe, as ants are to a Planet.

Are Humans today ready to accept a High Tech Science Translation of the Bible, All Scriptures, and Myth, to find the Truth about the Religious 'Heaven' for Dead Humans, and Eternal Physical Life After Birth on Planets and in Spaceships for Alive Humans?

High Tech Can Prove, the Biblical Truth, that it is Possible for the Humans Species to Have Purebred Eternal Physical Male and Female Clone Life After Birth, Alive on Planets and in Spaceships.

morality is a form of worship.

the religion is prescribed to mankind to accomplish and attain the highst supremacey of morality .

morality is also a form of legality,
morality is not pure academic nor to be kept in the closet or the drama performance theater or in folklore ,morality is to be practiced in life, by love and also by the sword and the guillotine of justice .

morality is driven by faith (god love and fearing) or driven by the secular system (love and fearing ),what makes you love your neighbour or attacking him is the love and fearing of the god or the love and fearing of the system and the sword of the system both are subject to the theory and practice of crime and punishment.

morality is to be taken as a whole ,
people need to enter morality as a complet paradigim, marginal and total morality is one body.

in the$ land of the free $people want to fonicate,comit adultury ,drink and use drugs and when their women get pregnant they want to sit down and study the^ moralistic^ side of the matter do they baptise the child at the church of christianity or pass the child in the nerst toilet???

"made the comment that God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not an indictment of homosexuality but what happens when a community cancels its law of welcoming the stranger."

I see no practical difference between the two - both equate to Pat Robertsonism.

"Because of the prominence of National Cathedral as the 'church for the nation,' this is of importance to the average American."

How so? The Cathedral has no official government status. You may have a point if you're talking about Episcopalians who would use their denomination's doctrine to decide their votes.

Recently, the beseiged Episcopal Bishop of New Hampshire appeared on the Diane Rehm show and made the comment that God's destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was not an indictment of homosexuality but what happens when a community cancels its law of welcoming the stranger.

The problem for Bishop Robinson is that the Church he represents has excluded the unborn as a "stranger" to be welcomed. This was made painfully clear when a former Presiding Bishop signed an Interfaith Letter urging the members of Congress not to overturn President Cliinton's veto of the proposed ban of the partial-birth abortion procedure.

Because of the prominence of National Cathedral as the "church for the nation," this is of importance to the average American. The question is whether or not this information will be brought to public attention before the election.

I don't know what this gray business is about. We have 40 shades of green and good old gold solves a lot of problems. Then there are the Rainbows to bridge the future with the past. Right now it's right now.

"UNDERHILL, Vt. (AP) -- Could climate change dull the blazing palette of New England's fall foliage? The answer could have serious implications for one of the region's signature attractions, which draws thousands of "leaf peepers""

You are a leafer or a peeper. The palette is supposed to be great this year according to my sources. I'm a leafer fer lifer myself. I hope I can make it Maine in time for the long cold winter. I don't think I'll make it this fall. We have leaves here, so I'll be busy. I'll leave after the leaves.

Dreams and Nightmares
Trick or Treats
After birth and chemicals linked to the deaths of four babies turned up in candies and other Chinese-made products that were quickly pulled from store shelves in China and abroad. I'm looking for a broad and we're still making baby food without industrial chemicals in the USA. It's getting to be like trick or treat time and we're all supposed to hand out Chinese made candy to all the neighborhood kids. I think I'll look for made in USA or Swiss made on the candy this year. Maybe I'll splurge and give the kids Swiss chocolate. Then there's Thanksgiving to think about. Stay well, stay well connected
http://www.swissconnection.com/
Stay wired
http://www.swissconnection.com/sc101101/assets/product_images/large/100993.jpg

"What Tonio proposes is not less sex or even regulated sex, but more contraceptives, which will simply not work."

Not true - I was proposing education and contraception as parts of the overall solution, as some of the tools in the toolbox. We need to determine why there are so many unwanted pregnancies and address the problems at the source - it's simplistic and inaccurate to brush the problem off as simply the product of irresponsibility. Addressing the problem will obviously include education and contraception, but would include much more, such as the promotion of self-esteem.

"I will reiterate what I previously said: Society is divorcing sex from children. "

No, it's biology itself that has divorced sex from children, since humans are capable of having sex purely for pleasure. It's simply not possible for societies to enforce a sex-for-procreation-only concept as a rule or law with drastically curtailing human freedom in areas other than sex.

"Teaching more sex ed will not teach them self-control or responsibility. "

I don't know what you think sex ed is about, but every program I've encountered or heard about stresses exactly those things. Any sex ed program that focuses strictly on the mechanics has no place in any school curriculum.

Pills to arouse and pills to abort so where are the pills to eliminate the sex drive?

Who needs them you say? Catholic priests, teenagers, young adults and Muslim husbands.

Of course, "auditioning your finger puppets"(Google it)
is a lot cheaper and safer.

It's a material world. I didn't make it that way. That's just how I found it and that's how you leave it. You leave it with more as anybody with stuff knows. I guess the option is to loot and be looted so nobody has any material.

How materialistic.

" "Life! ...is SO unfair!" Not if you pursue it. People give up, go broke whatever. You have to love living, because dying is one big pain in the fannie. More money kind of makes it more fair. Not for everybody though. "

That's not really true. There will always be that time when life throws you a curve ball and you have to react. Whether the curve ball is winning the lottery or getting raped, that's life. More money certainly won't solve all our problems.

When are the debate on? Anybody.

"Life! ...is SO unfair!" Not if you pursue it. People give up, go broke whatever. You have to love living, because dying is one big pain in the fannie. More money kind of makes it more fair. Not for everybody though.

Pregnancy can be unplanned and chaos can be planned. The big problem is that people can get caught in the middle, not understand what is going on and then you have panic and losses that result. Billions lost and Middle East markets crashing one after another. Collateral damages occur and it gets expensive and your little campaign gets aborted along with all these businesses who gave you all this cash to run around the world with. Then it gets real nasty and more expensive, so we need to make collections and heads will roll. At the end of the day, it's just business and business can be good, in spite of the doom angle and the talk. It can go the other way to and it can lead to bankruptcy and your whole operation a total ruin. Now we're looking at wrecking the newspaper business, just because we haven't wrecked enough business already. I kind of don't care for that idea. Some people are bigger pains than others and all they can do is debate and it looks like the debate was cancelled to deal with other things. All these ad dollars are spent promoting the debates and now no debates or later debates. How about that.

The argument contradicts itself.
If there are shades of gray, why should we make absolutes concerning life and death? If these "shades of gray" exist, would it not be necesary to examine them on a case-by-case basis?

There are a few things I want to address:
1. Those who are for the most part against abortion, but don't think it's fair for a rape victim to have to carry "someone else's" child.
2. Those who are totally for abortion in any case, arguing that the woman should be able to choose.
3. The women who argue that men cannot know what they are talking about, and therefore should shut their big fat ugly mouths. "The women know better than the men. The men think they know better." ("Bar On" from above")
4. "The idea that overturning Roe v. Wade will magically do away with abortion is simply fantasy. One can oppose abortion on moral grounds while also opposing the criminalization of abortion, because the legal questions are different from the moral ones. True opposition to abortion means making education and contraception available to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible, as well as helping people facing such pregnancies. Treating such people and their doctors as criminals will not reduce abortion."
("Tonio", above)

First, the second argument, most would agree, is completely illegitimate. This fosters the lack of responsibility that already runs far too rampant. This belief stems from society's divorce of sex from children.This shows a blatant disrespect for life in any form, and is contrary to any religious belief of any kind.
The first argument is possibly the hardest situation. What do you do? It technically wouldn't be her responsibility to care for the child— or would it? The idea that the woman carries around "some rapist's child" (I've heard the phrase used often enough by varying sources) is not a good one. To quote the Great Gonzo, "Life! ...is SO unfair!" I feel the utmost pity and sorow for those victims of rape, but two wrongs don't make a right. And although I almost feel cruel saying it, they have to bite the bullet. As someone else eloquently made the argument, I'll just refer to them : Go adoption! I have at least four very good friends who were all adopted. It's the way to go.
Logically, I'm sure someone, upon reading the above paragraph, jumped to the correct conclusion that I am a male, and as such it is easy for me to say, that rape victims should bear the burden. This is very narrow-minded. What their argument is in essence saying is that men have no connection with their offspring. This is a ridiculous fabrication. Scientifically, the child has the father's genes, and there is definitely some sort of psychologically connection as well. Some woman have also said, "You're a guy. What do you know? You've never had a kid." And to many of them, I say, "Neither have many of you. What qualifies you to argue?"
Finally, to Torio, I must express my disappointment. The idea that more sex ed will solve the abortion problem is nonsense. Teaching adolescents how to use condoms hardly qualifies as solving the abortion problem. As was also stated in another article, the problem is also with contraception. I will reiterate what I previously said: Society is divorcing sex from children. Teaching more sex ed will not teach them self-control or responsibility. What Torio proposes is not less sex or even regulated sex, but more contraceptives, which will simply not work.

Pills to arouse and pills to abort so where are the pills to eliminate the sex drive?

Who needs them you say? Catholic priests, teenagers, young adults and Muslim husbands.

Of course, "auditioning your finger puppets"(Google it)
is a lot cheaper and safer.

Never rufuse an option when you can get it.
http://www.adopting.org/
Cut your losses short.
Let your love run on, the beach.
Watch for beached whales.
Life's a beach.

"The staggering illegitimacy rates are so central a cause of social pathologies"

You have more births and later society pays or you have less births now and the costs being carried later are lower. You hate to reduce it to numbers, because the numbers suck and the issue is one of pathologies and despised bills of mortality. I have a book that goes into this in more detail. The numbers suck and you end up with a beggar class of people being supported by a ruling class, with the rest of the people stuck in the middle paying for both. The entire debate is pathological. Adoption is about the best option.

Why is the Moral Choice to Kill Humans that are Alive Ok, but only be Pro Choice for Fetus'?

Why is it Weird, to think Humans can reproduce Life, in a High Tech Science Womb, and make Genetic and Physically Perfect Humans? Cause that is God Work?

Why is it Weird, to think High Tech Science Humans can Colonize Life as we Know it, on another Planet? Cause that is God Work?

Why is it Not Weird, to see how Humans use their High Tech Science for Polluting their Home Planet with Nuclear Waste, and making Nuclear Bombs to Blow up their Home Planet?

Why is it Weird to think Humans Evolved from algae on Earth, to be the Unequal Killer Species? Or is it Weird, to think Humans, were literally Started Supernaturally, 'in the beginning' to be the Equal Caretaker Species?

What difference does it make? Humans have the Free Will to Unite, as an Equal Sharing Species, or, Kill the Whole Mess they have made on their Earth Home in the last 100 years. Why? Because Heaven their Home, not Earth?

It is Not Weird, for Humans to have Greed, Instead of Sharing the Limited Resources on Earth with Each Other. Humans Store it up the Extra in Barns, and let other Humans be Homeless and Starve. Why?

What is Wrong with Humans on Earth? Which Weirdness makes more Sense, to their Gods up there, and out there? Or No God? The Results are the Same. Abomination of Desolation will be the Judgement Day, to our Home Planet Earth.

Pills to arouse and pills to abort so where are the pills to eliminate the sex drive?

Who needs them you say? Catholic priests, teenagers, young adults and Muslim husbands.

Of course, "auditioning your finger puppets"
is a lot cheaper and safer.

It's going from bad to worse. HP is getting rid of 24,000 employees. Too many computers, too many people and not enough work. This is serious, because people plan their families around their jobs. The problem with fraud is that all these plans are changed and people were counting on the company, so it's a moral issue. This entire high technology industry is dangerous. I'm not sure if the newspaper and publishing business will get as bad as some other new economy titans have gotten. If the Post goes down and other publishers crash, the job losses and economic fallout will be tremendous. Bailouts have limits and there is plenty of damage ahead. If the free press goes down, we're all in more trouble than we are in now. Basically we are about to go from the frying pan to the fire for others bad deals. It seems to me that paper has enduring value. I'm shutting down the computer and going back to the paper chase. Keep the presses rolling and I'll keep trying to keep up with it. You might want to post a free software section, because the paid stuff is looking like a meltdown soon. More people are looking for work, so do us all a favor and expand the newspaper business. There's lots to cover and lots more to come. A bunch of HP talent could use some new work and there's always work and babies and the future to think about. I'm reading my baby book. Paper, no escape. Ink, no end.

The idea that overturning Roe v. Wade will magically do away with abortion is simply fantasy. One can oppose abortion on moral grounds while also opposing the criminalization of abortion, because the legal questions are different from the moral ones. True opposition to abortion means making education and contraception available to prevent as many unwanted pregnancies as possible, as well as helping people facing such pregnancies. Treating such people and their doctors as criminals will not reduce abortion.

Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn; you both should be ashamed of yourselves. When did John McCain or Sarah Palin ever say they would overturn Roe v Wade. You both along with the majority of the media are in Obama's camp and would do anything to ensure it happens. Whatever happened to fair journalism.

Response to above e-mail......

If your with Obama than I approve of your choice to ask the question you asked. If your just trying to bring up something that everyone need to decide for them self for the reason of just getting us to think about it than. I approve of that too. You guy are cool. Thanks for all the hard work be proud of yourself. Do your best to do what you think is right. Like when they wrote The U.S. Constitution. Those guys got it too. They wrote a great living document. And look at the positive in the world due to their efforts.
God Bless.

Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn; you both should be ashamed of yourselves. When did John McCain or Sarah Palin ever say they would overturn Roe v Wade. You both along with the majority of the media are in Obama's camp and would do anything to ensure it happens. Whatever happened to fair journalism.

Response to above e-mail......

If your with Obama than I approve of your choice to ask the question you asked. If your just trying to bring up something that everyone need to decide for them self for the reason of just getting us to think about it than. I approve of that too. You guy are cool. Thanks for all the hard work be proud of yourself. Do your best to do what you think is right. Like when they wrote The U.S. Constitution. Those guys got it too. They wrote a great living document. And look at the positive in the world due to their efforts.
God Bless.

Angela,

While they don't specifically call for overturning Roe v. Wade, the GOP platform clearly calls for a Constitutional amendment that bans all abortions with no exceptions, even in the cases of rape and incest. This would effectively overturn Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. Surely the GOP nominees support their own platform?

Jon Meacham and Sally Quinn; you both should be ashamed of yourselves. When did John McCain or Sarah Palin ever say they would overturn Roe v Wade. You both along with the majority of the media are in Obama's camp and would do anything to ensure it happens. Whatever happened to fair journalism.

What is a Moral Choice for Killing Alive Humans?

What do Americans 'Believe' today? High Tech Science is Fact, not Fiction? Will Humans 'Believe' in High Tech Science Humans, and as they do in our the Human 'Gods', in our Image, in Religion and Myth.

"God's Daily Promises, 9/24/08" "This week's promise: God has conquered all our enemies" "Are you concerned about losing your faith?" - Vance Havner. "We are God's People" We are not babes in the woods—we are God's people and, no matter how it looks now, we are going to inherit this earth and rule it. The devil may be prince of this world, but the earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, and He will set up His kingdom and His people will be in charge of it."

Will this Literally happen? Humans are Killing their Eco System, and then Life as we Know it, cannot Exist on Earth.

Humans can Regenerate/Repair the Human Body, with High Tech Science. They Reproduce a Fetus in the Lab, and make genetic corrections in the Lab, and in the female womb.

Humans Clone Animals and can Clone Humans, without using the Heterosexual Sex Act. This is the Fact, of how the Lord God, in our Human Image, made Eve from Adam's rib.

So what are Humans doing with this High Tech Human God Knowledge? Using it for making Perfect Humans, or making High Class Pollution, and Nuclear Bombs to Kill off this Killer Human Species?

Are Killer Humans concerned, about losing their Faith Belief, in Dying and Going to Jesus in Heaven? Should they be Concerned about Losing their Physical Life on our Dying Home Planet?

High Tech Peace Humans, Can have Eternal Physical Life After Birth, on Planets and in Spaceships, like the 'Peace' Gods of Religion and Myth.

What’s the right moral choice regarding abortion?

Jehovah is the Source of life. All living things owe their life to God. (Psalm 36:9) Life is sacred to God. Even the life of an unborn child inside its mother is precious to Jehovah. To kill such a developing baby on purpose is wrong in God's eyes.—Exodus 21:22, 23; Psalm 127:3.

A person following a Christian way of life, based on Christ’s teachings, is protected from much needless heartache, including an unwanted pregnancy. Like all people, a Christian is not immune to crime and can become a victim of rape. No matter what horrific situation a person faces, Jehovah does not leave us on our own. We have his holy spirit, his Word, his earthly organization and our international brotherhood to help us deal with anything we may face in this system.

The way a government treats the most vulnerable in their society reveals how much or little they value human beings. Following Christ’s example to “keep separate from the world”, Christians wouldn’t become involved in political debates or participate in political legislation. Jehovah allows each government to pass what laws it will. Doing so allows human governments themselves to prove that God’s Kingdom is the only solution to all mankind’s problems.
Whatever time it takes to recover from injustice, we can be sure that Jehovah knows how to help us recover. And he is certain to undo any injustice we may have suffered in this evil system of things. Furthermore, he has promised us the final reward, everlasting life in the new world in which “righteousness is to dwell.”—2 Peter 3:13.

Just the question means it's an unsure thing. The women know better than the men. The men think they know better. I know I know what I don't know. It's a good thing we have courts to figure out the life and death issues. I'm real busy with life right now and hope to keep busy for a long time to come. You never know about some things and some people. I just want to get to the shore again for sure things are certain and doubtful things are uncertain. One wave after another keeps crashing in and all you can do is accept the things you can't change and take the kids to the beach. A lot of guys died on the beach so you could do that. Courts are better than wars, they just don't compare with the beach. At least when you are a kid. You build your sand castle and the waves come and it's all gone.

The right moral choice begins before thinking about abortion. The right moral choice is having responsible sex practices. People have got to take more responsibility for their own actions. I have to say I do feel differently regarding rape -but those innocent lives deserve a chance too. That's a tough one for me.

Generally speaking, I don't think we have the right to choose to end life. Give some thought to the 40 million lives that have been taken by abortion. What could some of those children contributed to this world? What would they have meant to our econmy? It's too much of a risk. Believing God has a plan for each and every one of us - It's hard for me to imagine the talent that was snuffed out and I don't believe God will continue to overlook this. He is a loving God but he is also just.

I just think in a shame that the government has had to get involved with this issue. We are now in the same position with the government taking over because of our poor spending habits in America. We are not a land of need (yet) we are a land of greed, selfishness and instant gratifciation.

I had an abortion in the late 60's. I had it before I believed the way I do today. I had it because I thought it would be too hard to raise a child alone. I knew I couldn't count on the Father for much. I was able to get something called a Theraputic Abortion - just a fancy name for ending life. I regret haveing that abortion, I know God has forgiven me for it but I often wonder what I've missed and what the child missed.

As much as people want to make this a black or white issue it is certainly shades of gray.

There are a few problems with banning abortions.

We can not prove when the soul enters the body so regardless of what your religion may say, there is no scientific proof. As for the fetus feeling pain, I think ‘Silent scream” provides a good argument that there is “some home” in the fetus so we can’t have a free for all abortion. I don’t agree with late term abortions with the possible exception of jeopardizing the mother’s life.

Rape and incest – this is such an ugly situation for the mother, the younger the worse it is.

Banning abortions does not solve the problem of teen pregnancy or unwed mothers both of which can spawn welfare families or at least ones that struggle financially. Poverty has a propensity of leading to crime.

My choice is for life and if that means giving the child up for adoption fine. However carrying a child and birthing a child cost money and many can not afford this. We would need a support system to enable them to carry the child to term.

With all that being said I do not support a ban on abortions which I guess makes me pro life and pro choice. I am a male in case anyone wonders.

Here are the two big reasons I also support choice. If the argument is a life is a life and should be protected at all costs then while we are at it we should ban going to war. Either it is okay to kill in some situations (as determined by man) or it is not. We should also ban starvation/poverty which kills more people than abortion, though both numbers are unacceptably high.

Secondly, having the government control anyone’s body is a slippery slope. Would a government every usurp personal freedom or overstep their authority, well except for Homeland security, Guantanamo Bay and the proposed $700 billion bailout which would the treasury department without oversight from anyone, including the courts. But other than that I think we are golden.

Banning abortions simply treats the symptom of unwanted pregnancy it does not remove the root cause. We can maintain choice and reduce abortions significantly by teaching sex education and birth control, better parenting, better schools, getting the knowledge into the hands of people who need it, helping raise up the poor so they feel more able to handle the burden of parenthood.

Knowledge, not legislation, is the key.

Abortion boils down to one simple question, when does human life begin?

And one paramount law:

Thou Shalt Not Kill

Added considerations:

The soul (if it exists) separates personkind from the animalkind. If personkind starts at conception then said soul is present at said conception. Aborting/murdering i.e. denying nourishment to or poisoning this body and soul kills the body but not the soul. The RCC says the aborted soul goes to limbo. What rubbish!! The souls from aborted bodies definitely would go to Heaven (if it exists) as these spirits would be perfectly pure.

Do said souls require the future ability to think? To be able to know right from wrong? Do the souls of mentally disabled fetuses, have this ability? Do they then have souls or not? Are they to be considered personkind or only animalkind?

Are our mentally disabled brothers and sisters to be considered animals? Have our senior citizens with dementia or Alzheimers lost their souls and now to be considered animals?

Or maybe we should protect all of our brothers and sisters at every stage of their lives without considering the state of their souls??