Boxer, a Democrat, claimed that repeal of Roe “means a minimum of 5,000 women a year will die” from illegal abortions. But that's a 69-year-old figure dating to a time before penicillin and the birth-control pill. Experts say nowhere near that many women were dying from abortion complications even in the years just before Roe made abortions legal nationwide...

Analysis

Boxer’s False Statistic

On July 5, Sen. Boxer claimed that overturning Roe v. Wade would cost the lives of more than 5,000 pregnant women a year. That might have been true before the invention of penicillin and the birth control pill, but it's not true now. The best evidence indicates that the annual deaths from illegal abortions would number in the hundreds, not thousands.

Boxer made the claim to support her position that the repeal of Roe would be the sort of "extraordinary circumstance" that could justify use of the filibuster to stop the confirmation of a nominee to the Supreme Court. The Associated Press quoted her this way:

Boxer: It means a minimum of 5,000 women a year will die. So all options are on the table.

But Boxer was just wrong. The figure comes from a 1936 study by Dr. Frederick Taussig who estimated that abortion claimed the lives of 5,000 to 10,000 women a year. It is impossible to know if his figures are accurate, given that no reliable records exist on the total number of illegal abortions that occurred, much less the number of deaths. Taussig extrapolated the data from trends in New York City and Germany.

His estimate is at least plausible. Women had few means to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and illegal abortions were often performed in less than sanitary settings. Furthermore, penicillin wasn't in use until World War II, and not widely available to the civilian population until after the war ended in 1945. And Enovid, the first oral contraceptive, wasn't available until 1957. But whether Taussig's estimate was accurate or not, the conditions of the 1930's don't apply today.

From the 1940s through the 1960s, in fact, the best available evidence shows a dramatic decline in abortion-related deaths occurring even before the first states liberalized abortion laws in 1967. The Journal of the American Medical Association quotes official estimates from the National Center for Health Statistics showing an 89 percent decrease in abortion-related deaths by 1966. That is based on counting the number of death certificates that listed complications from abortion as the cause of death. The numbers reported for any given year are assuredly low since doctors could easily misstate the cause of death to protect the family. Still, these are the only figures that allow comparisons over time. There's no reason to think that the rate of under-reporting would vary from one year to another, and so little reason to doubt that a steep downward trend took place long before Roe was decided.

Christopher Tietze, one of the leading experts on abortion trends, wrote in 1969 that it was plausible that 5,000 women a year died from abortion in the 1930s, but concluded that it cannot be anywhere near the true rate now.” He said that, although the 235 formally listed on death certificates in 1965 was too low, “in all likelihood it (the actual number) was under 1,000." An abortion statistics expert at the Guttmacher Institute, Stanley Henshaw, is studying abortion rates during the first part of the century. Though his data collection is unfinished, Henshaw concurred that Tietze’s estimate of fewer than 1,000 deaths is “reasonable.”

Boxer would have been correct to say that some increase in deaths of pregnant women would result should abortions be made illegal. But the number is much lower than she claimed. In 1972, the last year before Roe v. Wade legalized abortion nationwide, CDC counted only 39 deaths from illegal abortions based on surveys of health care providers, medical examiners' reports, state and national records, and news reports. However, Henshaw said it’s difficult to quantify the number of deaths that could result today if Roe were overturned. For one thing, it is not clear how many states would actually make abortions illegal again. And Henshaw noted it is unlikely that the numbers of deaths would be as high as they were before 1973 due to medical advances and emergency services available today. In any case, Boxer's 5,000 figure was nearly 70 years out of date, and clearly wrong...

http://www.factcheck.org/society/abortion_distortions.html

Then I guess you're trying to say, Guy, that we have no good candidate to choose from because I don't see how McCaine's war stories and jokes are any better of an answer to these questions than Obama's. You Republicans need to face the facts that maybe the only right and wrong choice here is to vote for the man who is not being fake, who is not slapping a nit-whitted woman onto his ballet to gain the Hillary supporters' votes, who is not afraid to say in front of the Americans that he is from an interracial relationship and a poor community. That he is the American dream which this country used to thrive upon! Obama is the man who knows the middle class, cares about the middle class, actually has a clue of the middle class struggles and he wants to improve the state of our country before we go rubbing our noses around other countries' affairs. Obama believes in being humble and not power hungry and isn't that also a religious teaching?? So many other countries are laughing at America because we are so blinded by our own greed and thirst for POWER that our OWN homeland is tipping towards the point of no recovery. Obama wants to bring the focus back to the people, who keep this country growing, the people who work to support every yuppy up there on the hill making decisions for us, the people who are losing hope that this country will ever again be a united nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Then I guess you're trying to say, "Guy", that we have no good candidate to choose from because I don't see how McCaine's war stories and jokes are any better of an answer to these questions than Obama's. You Republicans need to face the facts that maybe the only right and wrong choice here is to vote for the man who is not being fake, who is not slapping a nit-whitted woman onto his ballet to gain the Hillary supporters' votes, who is not afraid to say in front of the Americans that he is from an interracial relationship and a poor community. That he is the American dream which this country used to thrive upon! Obama is the man who knows the middle class, cares about the middle class, actually has a clue of the middle class struggles and he wants to improve the state of our country before we go rubbing our noses around other countries' affairs. Obama believes in being humble and not power hungry and isn't that also a religious teaching?? So many other countries are laughing at America because we are so blinded by our own greed and thirst for POWER that our OWN homeland is tipping towards the point of no recovery. Obama wants to bring the focus back to the people, who keep this country growing, the people who work to support every yuppy up there on the hill making decisions for us, the people who are losing hope that this country will ever again be a united nation, under God, indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.

Supposedly a good documentary film on abortion ---

Unborn in the USA: Inside the War on Abortion (2007)

Points to note:

Killing abortionists or bombing abortion clinics is NOT the answer.

Educating women, young and old, about the real nature of abortion - the killing of a baby growing in the womb - BEFORE they visit an abortion clinic is *vitally important.*

The Eugenics Movement in America

The Eugenics Movement in America was more pronounced than many knew. Two persons figured heavily in the new field: Margaret Sanger, known for Birth Control, Women's Liberation and the founding of what was to become Planned Parenthood; and W.Davenport, a reknown Eugenicist and Zoologist. Davenport, a Harvard educated Scientist who taught at the University of Chicago, and headed the "Station for Experimental Evolution"1in New York, believed that biological Statistics could be applied to the Study of Inheritance. He proposed that certain moral traits were also subject to inheritance/genetic factors such that one could 'breed' moral traits into the human race. He was one of a number of scientists, who in the first part of the century argued heartily against immigration; redefining bigotry as science, believing that immigrants were largely genetically inferior. His ideology set the the tone for the emerging interest in Eugenics in this country.

Equally or even more influential on popular culture was Margaret Sanger 1883-1966. Sanger is known as a crusader for contraceptive rights; but few know that her concern for contraception was based firmly on concern for racial control. Her early work in impoverished environments led her to the belief that 'genetically inferior' persons should have less children, and that centers for birth control should be 'wisely' placed in neighborhoods which were impoverished, which also frequently happened to be in minority settings. Her first major 'research' journal, Birth Control Review published articles and research by Eugenicists including a few published by one of Hitler's Eugenicists. 9 Few know of Sanger's concern with racial policies and control, but a careful perusal of authors and articles in these early journals demonstrate her concern with human engineering. She was later in life appointed honorary head of Planned Parenthood, the group which grew out of her original organization in the 1940s; the journal has continued as a research arm of Planned parenthood till this day, under a different name. These and other influences of Eugenics proponents in the United States were formidable contributing factors in the lobbying for isolationism and restricted immigration during World War II, hurting mostly Jewish persons wishing to escape the Shoah.

Source: http://www.shoaheducation.com/pNEW.html

The post about Nazis could also be from Farnaz, the forum resident Holocaust expert, supposedly an atheist Jew from Iran.

The previous post seems to be from Spiderman2 who uses the word stupid almost in every sentence he/she uses.

Anyway it is NOT from me who has tried to make a case against abortion with reference to human embryology.

Most Dog Breeder are known for their ability to breed the brains out their line of dogs.

And human eugenics put forward by Darwin's cousin and attempted by the Nazis was a dismal failure:

The Aryan Cause/Belief and the "SuperRace"
The funding and focus on developing a science of "Eugenics" or human engineering increased immediately with the Nazis taking power in 1933. This was also a function of timing: American interest in Eugenics was at its apex also; it fit perfectly into early plans of Hitler to create a Europe free of Jewish citizens. This 'racial cleansing' was decided early. While some argued for years after the war that Hitler either did not know about the mass exterminations or that he had no direct decision-making role, nothing could be further from the truth. Early documents, speeches and writings of Adolf Hitler show clearly that he formulated plans early in his involvement in the Nazi party to eradicate the Jewish Race and begin 'Endlosung or final solution to the "Jewish Problem". For example:

"Hitler did not stop at the idea of eradicating Jews and Judaism from Europe. Once this "inferior race" was eradicated, a new Aryan race with Nordic characteristics would over a generation or two replace earlier inferior races. A master race concept is not new: the idea or concept appears in many cultures, and the description of the race usually fits the archetype of the racial group describing it. Hitler's concepts however went far deeper. He believed with many of his inner circle that the race that inhabited the Ancient possibly mythical city/civilization of Atlantis were a superior group of human beings excelling in every human attribute, physical and intellectual. This race disappeared with some cataclysmic event but certain descendants survived. The Nazis believed the German/nordic people called "aryans" were descendants from this super-race of people. They also believed that the races evolved from more primitive races, and a 'root-race' to more and more complex races. When the 'lower' races were erased, a utopia would evolve. Hitler, Himmler, Goebbels and others believed that a new Aryan Germany would take leadership in this era, over a unified Europe and then over a global society. Eugenics was the science which would aid in this process: people, like animals would be bred towards this aryan perfection: anomalies would be removed from the bloodlines. In Hitler's estimation, the Jews fouled the bloodlines and this purpose: if Jewish children could not be germanized they also would be killed. (Those few chosen for 'germanization' after their parents were deported were often those with aryan-looking phenotypes). Experiments in bring about that perfect bloodline included Lebensborn, the Medical Experiments of Mengele and others in the Killing centers including "Twin " Studies, basic research and the implementation of Racial Laws. Additionally men and women were separated in the Camps to avoid procreation, in the hopes of erasing Jewish birth rates. Forced abortions and outlawed Jewish pregnancies were also legislated in some areas."

http://www.shoaheducation.com/pNEW.html

Those Aryan children bred during the Nazi years turned out to have a myriad of problems including depression and suicide. I'm not making this up- read it and weep.

Marc Edwards ---

Shouldn't we be looking the other way in cases of infanticide, homicide, genocide etc, after all there are the millions of living children and adults to worry about?

Marc Edward ---

Why don't you actually read my posts?

Does human embryology, Fetology, neonatal pediatrics, the Hippocratic Oath...ALL come across as flippant to you?

Marc Edward:

If we're having awards, shouldn't we have one for the person who treats the issue of legal abortion in the most flip manner possible? The person who pretends to care about the unborn, but like most Republicans, doesn't really give a hoot beyond getting votes for the Republican Party (of death) ought to be......
(wait for it)
(wait for it)

Anonymous!
The poster too lazy to even type it's own name!

Congratz! You're a winner, probably for the first and last time in your life!

August 29, 2008 9:32 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Btw, Mary Cunningham, who types her own name, is an Irish Catholic who lives in London. Do you think she is trying to get votes for the American Republican

I did not post after this one, except the previous post now.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Anonymous:

Pam:

"Breeding dogs is apparently a source of income for you "

BWAHAHAhahahahahahahaha!

Sorry, heeheehee, I can hardly type for laughing!

Breeding show dogs (or cats) is a VERY expensive hobby. Keeps me poor. I go to work every day to support my habit. Hahahahaha....

August 29, 2008 1:21 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Kids should be bred like show dogs/cats too? with only the best ones that can make it to the "show" having the right to live etc?

Just a thought.

August 29, 2008 5:46 AM

From Wikipedia on Dog Breeding ---

Dog breeding is the practice of mating selected specimens with the intent to maintain or produce specific qualities and characteristics.

Dogs reproduce without human interference, so their offsprings' characteristics are determined by natural selection. Domestic dogs may be intentionally bred by their owners. [1] A person who intentionally mates dogs to produce puppies is referred to as dog breeder.

Breeding relies on the science of genetics, so the breeder with a knowledge of canine genetics, health, and the intended use for the dogs attempts to breed suitable dogs...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog_breeding

Spiderman2:

two corrections, and then I just ignore your posts.

That was a Minor Seminary. Therefore, I am a he, not a she.

I got as far as the end of my junior year in electrical engineering, including Fourier and Laplace transforms and Diff. EQ. Even learned a bit about Tensor mathematics. Found that my true addiction, Signals Intelligence was a bigger draw than Basic Field Theory and went back into the ASA. I too am unimpressed by an engineer who knows as little about Math, Physics, Geology, or logic as you seem to. I don't argue with fringe Christians trying to teach me MY CHURCHES Scriptures. Remember, it was without question the Fathers of the Catholic Church, Roman, Mozarab, and all the Eastern Rites. WE wrote the new testament, and we ought to know how to interpret our own writings.

"If you knew the gift of God that was talking to you..."

Should you ever join the Christian mainstream, I might then read your posts, but for now,

Pax et Bonum.

"If you are the product of this generations of DAMAGED DNAs , no wonder you have a DAMAGED BRAIN"

Perhaps I should have used the word "altered" instead of "damaged" because radiation inflicted changes to the DNA strands, SOMETIMES (not very often) produce changes that prove to be advantageous. So yes, my brain is much smarter than yours because my ancestors' DNA was at some point altered by something to make them smarter than your ancestors.

And YES, at some point in history, an alteration to someone's DNA made their skin darker (by luck) which helped them survive and reproduce much more successfully than those around him/her who had much lighter skin.

OR (since the changes in question are purely random)

It might have happened the other way around... someone's altered DNA made their skin much lighter, which helped his body manufacture vitamin D with much smaller quantities of sunlight than a dark skin person requires to make sufficient vitamin D, so that the light skinned person was better able to survive in regions that get much less sunlight than equatorial regions.

Spiderman2, are you actually saying that you don't believe that DNA ever gets altered/damaged?!?! Have you never seen mutated creatures before!!?!? Like snakes with 2 heads, albino tigers/rhinos, babies with 3 nipples or extra fingers or toes? Do you think these things are the work of the DEVIL!?!? ROFL!!! (rolling on the floor laughing!!!!)

"If you are the product of this generations of DAMAGED DNAs , no wonder you have a DAMAGED BRAIN"

Perhaps I should have used the word "altered" instead of "damaged" because radiation inflicted changes to the DNA strands, SOMETIMES (not very often) produce changes that prove to be advantageous. So yes, my brain is much smarter than yours because my ancestors' DNA was at some point altered by something to make them smarter than your ancestors.

And YES, at some point in history, an alteration to someone's DNA made their skin darker (by luck) which helped them survive and reproduce much more successfully than those around him/her who had much lighter skin.

OR (since the changes in question are purely random)

It might have happened the other way around... someone's altered DNA made their skin much lighter, which helped his body manufacture vitamin D with much smaller quantities of sunlight than a dark skin person requires to make sufficient vitamin D, so that the light skinned person was better able to survive in regions that get much less sunlight than equatorial regions.

Spiderman2, are you actually saying that you don't believe that DNA ever gets altered/damaged?!?! Have you never seen mutated creatures before!!?!? Like snakes with 2 heads, albino tigers/rhinos, babies with 3 nipples or extra fingers or toes? Do you think these things are the work of the DEVIL!?!? ROFL!!! (rolling on the floor laughing!!!!)

Rationalist wrote "When the DNA in an EGG OR SPERM is damaged, the creature that results from that damaged DNA is a little bit (or a lot) different the the creature that originally produced that DNA."

If you are the product of this generations of DAMAGED DNAs , no wonder you have a DAMAGED BRAIN.

"This is why people who live near the equator have dark skin (that helps them survive the intense sunlight). "

So a dark skinned person has damaged skin? Continue talking, let us see more of your damaged rationalism.

I can't believe you got these ideas from school. DOOMSDAY IS SO NEAR.

IDIOTS HAVE INVADED THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.

Sorry Marc-

You post shows your ignorance so I will overlook your "clump of cells" comment.

Learn the meaning of conception and human growth.

How insensitive of you to value one stage of human development over another. What is next? A functioning fifty year old is more valuble than a ninety year old incapacitated and senile elder?

karen writes
"Some one explain to me how forcing 1.4 million more babies to be born every year (by outlawing abortion) will help any of these starving babies. Lets feed the existing babies before we make millions more, eh?"

Hey Rationalist-

"Since you have no problem destoying 1.4 million lives in the womb- why not just kill off the starving babies in Haiti. Those millions babies (you encourage to be aborted) have already been conceived (made)."

Karen, I'll type this real slow so I don't get to far ahead of you. Clearly Rastionalist (like me) doesn't see a 3 week old glob of cells as having the same legal and ethical rights a a 2 year old child. Conceived children are not the same as born children.
You win one of two prized - your choice. You can get the "Talk about missing the point!" prize, or the "Really Bad Anologies" prize.
Congratz!

"Some one explain to me how forcing 1.4 million more babies to be born every year (by outlawing abortion) will help any of these starving babies. Lets feed the existing babies before we make millions more, eh?"

Hey Rationalist-

Since you have no problem destoying 1.4 million lives in the womb- why not just kill off the starving babies in Haiti. Those millions babies (you encourage to be aborted) have already been conceived (made).

Apparently Haiti (which is closer to the U.S. than Florida is to Texas) is one of these "far away" lands in which starvation of thousands of children is too far away to matter to the posters on this board.

Haiti is one of our neighbors, and yet has one of the most apalling rates of child malnutrition of any country in the world.

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/wastedfood-com-and-starvation-haiti

Some one explain to me how forcing 1.4 million more babies to be born every year (by outlawing abortion) will help any of these starving babies. Lets feed the existing babies before we make millions more, eh?

"Although your question is INVALID, let me answer it this way. I can build an earth (land) bridge to Australia for kangaroos to hop on or fly them by plane but your theory that birds came from dinosaur is so twisted that even with modern technogy, the idea is still a FANTASY."

Apparently people who spend all day every day reading the same book that was written 2000 years ago need a basic lesson in biology...

Every cell in every living creater contains this stuff called DNA. DNA is a string of amino-acids that contain all the information needed to created all the different chemicals in a creatures body. DNA can be damaged by a variety of things, including radiation, ionization, various chemicals, etc. When the DNA in an EGG OR SPERM is damaged, the creature that results from that damaged DNA is a little bit (or a lot) different the the creature that originally produced that DNA. If that DNA difference helps that creature survive some hardship or predator better than the creatures with the original DNA, then the new creature lives to pass its new DNA to its offspring. Over billions of years these small changes accumulate and eventually produce creatures very different than the original creature. This is why people who live near the equator have dark skin (that helps them survive the intense sunlight). Dinosaurs did not "turn in" to birds, they had DNA damaged babies that were a little more birdlike, which had babies that were a little more bird like, until PRESTO, there were birds.

I find this process of evolution to be one of God's most amazing creations.

P.S. calling other posters mean names is a vioation of the terms of use of this board, and it wastes the time of people reading the posts.

Anonymous writes "oh no. the catholic vote just swang to the republican party from the top down. every catholic blogging on the web loves loves loves sarah palin- with the exception of stevens whatsitsname who will need to chime in and let us know what he thinks."

I don't know much about her, not being a follower of Alaska politics, but I like that she supports gay rights and gay marriage. States should not discriminate against gay couples.

oh no. the catholic vote just swang to the republican party from the top down. every catholic blogging on the web loves loves loves sarah palin- with the exception of stevens whatsitsname who will need to chime in and let us know what he thinks.

Spiderman2 is:

1) a young evangelical preacher
2) a retired deacon
3) a Baptist
4) demented

In the future, historians will look back at this period in American history, and wonder whether the nation lost its collective mind, debating with all righteousness: which came first, the chicken or the egg? ad nauseam, for decades...while bridges collapsed, schools crumbled, hospitals mal-functioned, national debt mounted, wars dragged on, infrastructure deteriorated, a nation crumbled.

Those who promote this cynical polemic instead of helping those in need, bear on their consciences the losses realized.

If we're having awards, shouldn't we have one for the person who treats the issue of legal abortion in the most flip manner possible? The person who pretends to care about the unborn, but like most Republicans, doesn't really give a hoot beyond getting votes for the Republican Party (of death) ought to be......
(wait for it)
(wait for it)

Anonymous!
The poster too lazy to even type it's own name!

Congratz! You're a winner, probably for the first and last time in your life!

" Most incoherent anti-Catholic: Spiderman2 "

Maybe for people who are brainwashed by the Vatican, I would sound incoherent.

Holy biscuits, holy water, holy rosary, holy pedophile priests, holy cow, everything is holy except the HOLY BOOK.

No to abortion but NO also to any other contraception. What a stupid church.

They don't let the priests marry and yet majority of these priest have secret lovers.

"But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn." (1 Cor. 7:9)

They would rather choose to burn than go against their celibacy vow. How stupid.

Final special special award

Most likely to be more than a little insane: Spiderman2

Best of this blog:

Biggest Bible-thumping bully: Spiderman2
Most incoherent anti-Catholic: Spiderman2
Most obtuse obfuscator: Fate
Most ardent abortionist: Pam
Runner up to above: Fate
Scantiest grasp of statistics: Marc Edward (for placing his two experiences at an abortion clinic in contrast to the compilation of the *entire* stats of 2004 compiled by the Public Medicine dept. of the National Library of Medicine)
Lamest lesbian: pagan place

Special award of whyever-she-posting-here?: Victoria

Pam:

"Breeding dogs is apparently a source of income for you "

BWAHAHAhahahahahahahaha!

Sorry, heeheehee, I can hardly type for laughing!

Breeding show dogs (or cats) is a VERY expensive hobby. Keeps me poor. I go to work every day to support my habit. Hahahahaha....

August 29, 2008 1:21 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Kids should be bred like show dogs/cats too? with only the best ones that can make it to the "show" having the right to live etc?

Just a thought.

"Myself to myself" opinions are usually written in a private diary, not a public blog of a mainstream newspaper. Readers are invited to post responses to comments here.

VICTORIA:

Anon needlessly
"The BIG difference is nobody, absolutely nobody considers homicide, genocide RIGHT, whereas the pro-abortionists consider abortion to be the RIGHT of a woman."

You don't get to tell me what I believe you nitwit-

How can there be a big difference, or ANY difference in what I say I believe- as there was no comparison made- from myself to myself-hence no invitation for other opinion-

August 29, 2008 2:07 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just in case you didn't notice this thread is titled "Catholics Have New Reasons to Rethink Abortion Politics."

So what does an ex-Catholic Muslim have to say about it? discuss genocide, homicide etc???

Anon needlessly
"The BIG difference is nobody, absolutely nobody considers homicide, genocide RIGHT, whereas the pro-abortionists consider abortion to be the RIGHT of a woman."

You don't get to tell me what I believe you nitwit-

How can there be a big difference, or ANY difference in what I say I believe- as there was no comparison made- from myself to myself-hence no invitation for other opinion-

Pam wrote "An oblong or *any* other variation, could only have a *larger* radius, not smaller. Who's the idiot?"

An oblong DON'T have a single "radius". Try riding a bicycle and hit it to a wall. Check the front wheel and measure it's many "radius".

Pam, I have an advice to Pagan. Go with her coz you need it too.

Remember, you breed dogs and don't solve the floor area where your dogs are caged.

Now, who's the idiot? Let those admissions personnel in an engineering school tell you that.

As long as I'm laughing...

"Those are the possiblities and to say that the Bible declared that pi=3 are ideas that usually comes from IDIOTS. "Circular in form" is NOT a declaration that it was a PERFECT CIRCLE. The Bible never said it was a perfect circle but just stated that it was "circular in form". Even the olympic oblong tract can be called CIRCULAR IN FORM, IDIOTS."

Statements like this make it quite clear that not only are you no engineer, but you've never even been exposed to the slightest bit of engineering education. A perfect circle has the *smallest* possible radius (pi). An oblong or *any* other variation, could only have a *larger* radius, not smaller.

Who's the idiot?

"Breeding dogs is apparently a source of income for you "

Anonymous was right Pam. You present yourself as a seller of dogs. Blame yourself for bad story-telling.

Rob dela Rosa wrote "Should I even mention that by giving people condoms and contraptions you are often affirming people in their sin of fornication? "

Who says that Planned Parenthood means giving away condoms in schools? Are high school students parents already? Shoud I define what is a parent or should I rather define IDIOCY? Hmmmm?

ceflynline@msn.com claims she is a Franciscan. She also claim that it was her church that told her that the bible stated that pi=3.

What else did the devil teach you lady?

Here is a crash lesson for non-engineers:

Pi is a constant and it doesn't change. When the Bible said that the metal sea was 10 cubits across and 30 cubits in circumference, it could mean the following : The metal sea was not a perfect circle or could be slightly oblong or their method of measurements are innacurate IF it was ASSUMED that it was a perfect circle. It is also possible that since they were using cubits and not centimeters, bigger amounts are sliced off in case they rounded off the numbers. 9.6 could have been rounded off into 10 and 30.2 into 30.

Those are the possiblities and to say that the Bible declared that pi=3 are ideas that usually comes from IDIOTS. "Circular in form" is NOT a declaration that it was a PERFECT CIRCLE. The Bible never said it was a perfect circle but just stated that it was "circular in form". Even the olympic oblong tract can be called CIRCULAR IN FORM, IDIOTS.

The idiots are so particular about this verse but never wondered who cooked their chocolate cakes. They just assumed it cooked by itself. The STUPIDITY is so GREAT that it is not a wonder why God will allow to let them BURN.
Their brains are so twisted that the only solution to cure it is to BURN IT. Wait for it guys coz it's coming. Very soon. There is no mistake about it. SOON, YOU WILL FINALLY KNOW WHO BAKED YOUR CHOCOLATE CAKES.

And just like the dogs of Pam, you will not have any rights to complain while you burn. ALL YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE STRIPPED OFF IN HELL. The only right you will have is the right to shout in pain.

Fate wrote: " How did the kangaroos hopped to Australia?"

The same logic you're using how the first bird evolved from a dinosaur. Which do you think is more funny?

Although your question is INVALID, let me answer it this way. I can build an earth (land) bridge to Australia for kangaroos to hop on or fly them by plane but your theory that birds came from dinosaur is so twisted that even with modern technogy, the idea is still a FANTASY.

Can you see the difference? Our "impossible" is more possible than your impossible. Even a million years from now, the theory that dinosaurs can turn into birds are still impossible. The same with your theory that monkeys can turn into humans.

Modern big ships today got their idea from Noah that such a big ship is possible. How about your theory that scales can turn into feathers? Who's the idiot engineer who tried your idiot theory, hmmmm?

"Breeding dogs is apparently a source of income for you "

BWAHAHAhahahahahahahaha!

Sorry, heeheehee, I can hardly type for laughing!

Breeding show dogs (or cats) is a VERY expensive hobby. Keeps me poor. I go to work every day to support my habit. Hahahahaha....

THOU SHALT NOT KILL as a Commandment has been around for at least four thousand years and killing has been considered a crime and punished by ALL human societies since time immemorial.

Killing an innocent, voiceless, defenseless growing child in its mother's womb as a legal right is only 35 years old.

It is used to be considered killing before that. Hippocrates, the Father of Western medicine, forbade doctors from being involved in the crime.

It can be said with certainty that the vast majority of women are not going to mastermind genocides or be guilty of homicide.

But millions, yes millions of them are already guilty or are about to be guilty of killing the growing child in their womb.

When they say, let's forget about that and talk about genocide far away......

Pro-abortionists call to focus on the genocide happening in far away lands, or homicide in a few dozen cases a year and IGNORE the murder of millions of human children in their mothers' womb happening in their own backyard, in their own homes/wombs, in their own families...........is hypocrisy of the highest order.

VICTORIA:

Obama had an interesting line in his speech tonight- something about not letting people turn a big election into small issues.

Abortion is certainly an important issue to some people- but there are so many really really big issues out there to tackle-

Haven't we let ourselves be distracted long enough?

Things I believe are murder.

1) Homocide
2) Genocide
3) all the cides-

then there are varying degrees of humiliation and torture and oppression etc.
2)

August 29, 2008 12:44 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The BIG difference is nobody, absolutely nobody considers homicide, genocide RIGHT, whereas the pro-abortionists consider abortion to be the RIGHT of a woman.

It is no different to a murderer and those who mastermind genocides calling their action morally justifiable.

Genocide and homicide appear right to those who engage in the activity.

As has been suggested in a pro/anti-abortion discussion, it is necessary to check the real reason behind a person's pro-abortion stand:

Are they Uninformed -

a. by chance or intent?
b. in denial of known science of abortion?

Are they profiteers -

a. abortion service providers;

b. men who have forced their wives/partners/lovers to have abortions or would like to have the freedom to do so?

c. women who have had abortions (and in denial about their guilt or would like to rationalize it away) or would like to do so without qualms?

Rob dela Rosa wrote "Should I even mention that by giving people condoms and contraptions you are often affirming people in their sin of fornication? "

Who says that Planned Parenthood means giving away condoms in schools? Are high school students parents already? Shoud I define what is a parent or should I rather define IDIOCY? Hmmmm?

ceflynline@msn.com claims she is a Franciscan. She also claim that it was her church that told her that the bible stated that pi=3.

What else did the devil teach you lady?

Here is a crash lesson for non-engineers:

Pi is a constant and it doesn't change. When the Bible said that the metal sea was 10 cubits across and 30 cubits in circumference, it could mean the following : The metal sea was not a perfect circle or could be slightly oblong or their method of measurements are innacurate IF it was ASSUMED that it was a perfect circle. It is also possible that since they were using cubits and not centimeters, bigger amounts are sliced off in case they rounded off the numbers. 9.6 could have been rounded off into 10 and 30.4 into 30.

Those are the possiblities and to say that the Bible declared that pi=3 are ideas that usually comes from IDIOTS. "Circular in form" is NOT a declaration that it was a PERFECT CIRCLE. The Bible never said it was a perfect circle but just stated that it was "circular in form". Even the olympic oblong tract can be called CIRCULAR IN FORM, IDIOTS.

The idiots are so particular about this verse but never wondered who cooked their chocolate cakes. They just assumed it cooked by itself. The STUPIDITY is so GREAT that it is not a wonder why God will allow to let them BURN.

Their brains are so twisted that the only solution to cure it is to BURN IT. Wait for it guys coz it's coming. Very soon. There is no mistake about it. SOON, YOU WILL FINALLY KNOW WHO BAKED YOUR CHOCOLATE CAKES.

And just like the dogs of Pam, you will not have any rights to complain while you burn. ALL YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE STRIPPED OFF IN HELL. The only right you will have is the right to shout in pain.

Obama had an interesting line in his speech tonight- something about not letting people turn a big election into small issues.

Abortion is certainly an important issue to some people- but there are so many really really big issues out there to tackle-

Haven't we let ourselves be distracted long enough?

Things I believe are murder.

1) Homocide
2) Genocide
3) all the cides-

then there are varying degrees of humiliation and torture and oppression etc.
2)

My *personal* impression after reading Pam's posts is that she doesn't consider human beings much different from the dogs she breeds, and considers all manipulation of human life justifiable.

As has been suggested in a pro/anti-abortion discussion, it is necessary to check the real reason behind a person's pro-abortion stand:

Are they Uninformed - by chance or intent?

Are they profiteers - apart from the abortion service providers;

are they men who have forced their wives/partners/lovers to have abortions or would like to have the freedom to do so?

are they women who have had abortions or would like to do so without qualms?

Pam:

"Pam would like us to brush up on human embryology."

Jeeze, Anonymous, you just never get tired of misquoting and twisting, do you? I said to brush up on *biology*. Google "parthenogenesis". No, doesn't happen in humans, but it could be made to, with a little chemical tweaking.

August 28, 2008 6:37 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If I recall correctly, you mentioned "biology" in connection with describing the number of chromosomes in a HUMAN OVUM. The last time I checked, human embryology is a biological science that studies it.

I googled at your suggestion Parthenogenesis:

"Parthenogenesis is a form of asexual reproduction in which females produce eggs that develop without fertilization."

What has that to do with the abortion of human children that has been the topic of the discussion?

Pam:

"Once the hormones kick in (triggered by the smell and sound of the puppies) they (dog mothers) are usually happy to care for their young."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Are human mothers only capable of caring for their young AFTER they have been able to smell and hear the sounds of their born child?

I always imagined human beings were somewhat more advanced in their cognitive development and were perfectly capable of considering the growing child in their womb their child.

Pam:

Wrong. Dogs do not have *rights*, nor do puppies, born or unborn. May it ever be so. Those of us who own them have a legal responsibility not to abuse them, but they cannot sue us for any reason, and we may decide the time of their death.

If groups like PETA have their way, there will be no pets. Don't take my word for it - visit their Web site and read their manifesto.

Early in development, puppies are indeed a clump of cells. It's stupid to even talk about their mother's "right" to end her pregnancy, since she has no means of doing so - nor do chimps, bonobos, etc.

Of course I love my dogs and of course the puppies are wanted - otherwise I would not be choosing the sire and dam and putting them together. Duh. I also pay for their every need.

Many first time mothers are frightened by the pain and the sensation of birth and try to leave the room. Once the hormones kick in (triggered by the smell and sound of the puppies) they are usually happy to care for their young. However, there are some that refuse absolutely to do so, which is why Esbilac exists.

There are also sometimes mismatings - "oops" breedings, as in the classified ad that offered puppies whose "mom is a pure-bred Lab, dad is a curly-coated, high-fence jumper."

I haven't had one of those, but there is a "morning-after" injection for such cases, and I would not hesitate to use it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Breeding dogs is apparently a source of income for you and you do what it takes to keep the quality of your "product" high. Maybe you even love them in your own way, although you would not hesitate to put away pups or dogs away who are not good for business.

Puppies are NOT a clump of cells, without all the inherent qualities of their dog nature in their early stages of development simply because YOU say so. Those so called clump of cells are a growing puppy, and could never develop into anything else.

Some keep animals as pets and love them like they would love a child.

There are laws as you said that prevent cruelty to animals. There are animal rights activists who want animals to be left alone to live their lives naturally.

In every religion animals belong to a different level of existence than human beings, although cruelty to them is not permitted. Buddhists and Jains strictly prohibit animal slaughter.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

If killing a human child after it is born constitutes murder, what makes it right while that same child is growing in its mother's womb?

Pam:

"Now, in spite of availability of contraceptives, why is there an exponential rise in the number of abortions after abortion became legal? Easy availability of abortions should have kept the number of abortions at least constant, if not reduced, since contraceptives became available."

You're fantasizing. While we have no recent statistics, thanks to Bush, abortion rates dropped steadily throughout the late Eighties and Nineties.

August 28, 2008 7:11 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Does it matter that only ONE percent of the abortions is due to rape/incest, about FOUR percent due to health issues of mother or unborn child and almost NINETY FIVE percent of abortions are abortions of convenience?

There were only about one hundred thousand abortions per year pre Roe vs Wade, but post Roe vs Wade, abortions went up to as high as 1.6 MILLION per year, and remained at an average of 1.4 MILLION? The more recent abstinence only sex-education seems to have not had much success.

The REAL reason behind the rise in the number of abortions is because it is being used as a contraceptive method without qualms. Your attitude is a case in point. Obviously millions of women share your view.

Pam:

"As long as humans have existed it is known that sex produces children, which is why sex outside marriage was so strictly prohibited in traditional societies and fornication and adultery was so severely punished."

Oh, horse-puckey. Sex is punished because of silly religious ideas and the desire of men to control women.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

This is completely new to me. Does silly religious ideas produce children? I thought sex between men and women did.

Pam: "Why is there a demand that others ought to take the responsibility for the child in the womb a woman's sex life produced?"

There isn't. YOU are the ones who want that baby born, no matter what. It then behooves you to step in and care for it.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Does being against murder of an innocent, voiceless, defenseless child growing in the womb and the expectation that a woman be responsible for her body BEFORE the child is conceived, and face the consequences of her sexual activity in a way that does not involve murder of the innocent, come with the responsibility to take over the responsibility of that woman?

The day may not be far off when someone with similar logic says with great "moral" conviction, "Take care of this person who is inconvenient in my life if you don't want me to kill him/her."

Pam: "Well, duh (again), because we believe that abortion is a legitimate way to deal with failed contraception, if a baby is unwanted. This counts as being responsible for one's actions."

So killing an unborn child is taking "responsibility" for one's actions? Hmmmmmmmmm...

Senator McCain chose the Church denomination of his wife. Some men do that. Mostly though it is women who accept the religion of their husbands, as Muslims well know.

VICTORIA:

What will the Republicans do if McCain chooses Mitt Romney?
Romney has been pro-choice for most of hsi career, and like McCain and his convenient switch to Baptist from lifelong Episcopalian, also switched his stance on abortion.

August 28, 2008 5:47 PM

----------------------------

FYI

Senator Mitt Romney is a Mormon, has always been a Mormon and comes from a family of Mormons.

He was pro-abortion but is now staunchly pro-life.

Other Anonymii have posted since I last posted August 28, 2008 4:21 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Said Pam:

Well, duh (again), because we believe that abortion is a legitimate way to deal with failed contraception, if a baby is unwanted. This counts as being responsible for one's actions.

"Why is there a demand that others ought to take the responsibility for the child in the womb a woman's sex life produced?"

There isn't. YOU are the ones who want that baby born, no matter what. It then behooves you to step in and care for it.

"As long as humans have existed it is known that sex produces children, which is why sex outside marriage was so strictly prohibited in traditional societies and fornication and adultery was so severely punished."

Oh, horse-puckey. Sex is punished because of silly religious ideas and the desire of men to control women.

"Now, in spite of availability of contraceptives, why is there an exponential rise in the number of abortions after abortion became legal? Easy availability of abortions should have kept the number of abortions at least constant, if not reduced, since contraceptives became available."

You're fantasizing. While we have no recent statistics, thanks to Bush, abortion rates dropped steadily throughout the late Eighties and Nineties.

August 28, 2008 7:11 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Pam:

Anonymous says:
"Pam said she has bred dogs for years. So one can presume she would fight for dog's rights like her oown life, even the rights of unborn puppies. I doubt whether she would call the unborn puppies a "clump of cells" that the mother dog had the right to dispose off at will. Anyway no dog aborts its puppies at any stage of development. Neither do bonobo apes, chimps or gorillas, supposedly our direct ancestors in the animal kingdom."

Wrong. Dogs do not have *rights*, nor do puppies, born or unborn. May it ever be so. Those of us who own them have a legal responsibility not to abuse them, but they cannot sue us for any reason, and we may decide the time of their death.

If groups like PETA have their way, there will be no pets. Don't take my word for it - visit their Web site and read their manifesto.

Early in development, puppies are indeed a clump of cells. It's stupid to even talk about their mother's "right" to end her pregnancy, since she has no means of doing so - nor do chimps, bonobos, etc.

Of course I love my dogs and of course the puppies are wanted - otherwise I would not be choosing the sire and dam and putting them together. Duh. I also pay for their every need.

Many first time mothers are frightened by the pain and the sensation of birth and try to leave the room. Once the hormones kick in (triggered by the smell and sound of the puppies) they are usually happy to care for their young. However, there are some that refuse absolutely to do so, which is why Esbilac exists.

There are also sometimes mismatings - "oops" breedings, as in the classified ad that offered puppies whose "mom is a pure-bred Lab, dad is a curly-coated, high-fence jumper."

I haven't had one of those, but there is a "morning-after" injection for such cases, and I would not hesitate to use it.

"Pam would like us to brush up on human embryology."

Jeeze, Anonymous, you just never get tired of misquoting and twisting, do you? I said to brush up on *biology*. Google "parthenogenesis". No, doesn't happen in humans, but it could be made to, with a little chemical tweaking.

August 28, 2008 6:37 PM

"Paganplace : Maybe someone with a Bible can sort out that last bit, ....but I was pretty sure the Bible 'literally says' the ratio of pi is 'rounded off' to a straight 3:1. For the benefit of cake-bakers, no doubt. :)"

I first learned the statement that the Bible teaches that pi is equal to three in a religion class in a Franciscan Minor Seminary. We were dealing with the problem of some Christian Sects demanding that the Bible be taken literally in order to use it as an authority for some radical teaching that couldn't otherwise be justified, as, for instance, Fundamentalists who demand that the world was created, in six twenty-four hour days about six thousand years ago.

In describing the vessels manufactured for use in Temple services in the first Temple, the books of Kings (or Chronicles) describe the "Brazen Laver" or brass sea. foot notes note that Temple Mount has no source of readily available water, and apparently a large, hemispherical or cylindrical container was created to store water for purifications. The vessel is described as being ten cubits across and thirty cubits in circumference. Taken literally, that means that for that vessel, pi is equal to three. the actual value of pi was known to the Egyptians and the Sumreians for a very long time before as approximately 3.14. since ten times 3.14 is thirty one and change, and other passages in the Bible do quote lengths in Cubits and Spans, to be accurate within a particularly reasonable amount the passage should read the circumference as Thirty-one cubits and a span. If you don't insist on literal inerrancy the passage can be read as bragging about the splendor of the first Temple.

But if, like Spiderman2, you are so stuck on SOME passages in the Bible being literally innerrant that you would propose that the Himalaya Mountains didn't exist at their present height less than six thousand years ago, or insist that the world was much smaller to make a world wide flood possible, then that passage is one that drives literalists bananas. My contribution to the demonstrateable fallacies is to point out that John, who wasn't particularly numerate, apparently believed that there were only a finite number of counting numbers, and it wasn't all that large. Since Archimedes, in "The Sand Reckonner" showed that he could count the grain of sands needed to fill the universe (albeit not nearly as vast as what we recognize) to show how to reckon with very large numbers, By John's time many numerate Greeks and Romans could easily talk of numbers at least equal to our trillions. John is, of course, just speaking figuratively, but if the Bible must be taken literally, this is a literal mathematical fallacy, first,beause there is no end to the counting numbers, proven even before Archimedes, and in fact a competent Sumerian calculator could easily count to hundreds of billions, using his base 12/base 60 numerical system and its associated abacus. If Methusalah literally lived those nine hundred and sixty years, he could have easily counted more people, in his lifetime, counting eight hours a day, 300 days a year, to have counted far more people than had ever lived by John's time. Taken figuratively it is picturesque, but if the Bible is literally inerrant, than here is an absolute mathematical and practical fallacy. John writes something that can never be true.

Spidey preaches an extreme form of Christianity, not Biblically based, but in accordance with what he wishes the Bible to say. He can claim Biblical support for his totally unsupportable positions, and in the same breath deny that that self same Bible does not literally contradict him, when it actually does. His explosions have placed him where we ought to leave him, out on the lunatic fringe of Christianity. Christians and non Christians ought to be able to discuss complicated concepts like right to life, Pro-Life, morals versus laws, civily. Being able to quote scripture to suggest a point, ("Peter I acknowledge, Jesus I must obey" was the response of a demon to a non Christian trying to expell him by the authority of "The Jesus Christ that Peter preaches" in the Acts of the Apostles) can enrich such a discussion.

The problem is that blogging is the new CB Radio. several people trying to use a CB Channel to have a discussion invariably draws the deliberate interferers into the mix. That very large collection of very hateful posts, TRUEHRISTIANS and ANTICHRISTIANS and others one must wade through to find thoughtful commentary for or against one's position slowly makes reading these columns harder and harder. When the Spidermen of these blogs, preaching entirely on their own claimed authority are prodded they invariably react in a way as to expose their true position. Once the position is exposed, perhaps it is best to ignore the rantings and discuss the real thread of the column instead.

As a Franciscan, in times like these I tend to close with the greeting Francis bade us use, Pax et Bonum.

Fate: I know you addressed this to spiderman2 but I'd like to take a shot at answering your
concerns on the Bible:

1) Who is Joseph's dad?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

>> The general reason usually given for the differences in the Jesus geneologies is that one list concerns the actual bioloigical fathers, while the other (I believe it is Matthew)focuses on the Jewish practice of Brothers siring heirs for their deceased relatives.

2) How many stalls of horses did Solomon have?
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

==> In The New American Bible, both 1KI 5:26 and 9Ch 9:25 refer to 4000 stalls. I don't know where you got the 40000. In any case, this is an unimportant detail

3) Since when do rabbits chew their cud?
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

==> actually hares do reingest their food.

4) How many legs do insects have?
LEV 11:21-23 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

==> Again, I don't know why this is a big deal but its probably in how the ancients counted legs. This certainly doesn't detract from anything remotely theological

5) God warned David about how many years of famine?
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee.

==> My bible has both saying 3 years of famine

6) Does God tempt people or not?
JAS 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
GEN 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham.

==> You are being a little selective in how you use these quotes. The Genesis Quote said God put Abraham to the test. The James quote in context is: No one experiencing temptation should say, "I am being tempted by God"; for God is not subject to temptation to evil, and he himself tempts no one. Rather, each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire conceives and brings forth sin, and when sin reaches maturity it gives birth to death. I believe that in general life is a test to see whether we will do God's will or not. This is consistent with the genesis quote. This is different than temptation, which James notes is from our own desires for something not of God's will for us.

7) How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

=> My bible: the new american bible quotes 2SA 21:8: But the king took Armoni and Meribbaal, the two sons that Aiah's daughter Rizpah had borne to Saul, and the five sons of Saul's daughter Merob that she had borne to Adriel, son of Barzillai the Meholathite, Therefore, they are talking about different women.

8) Why didn't the second coming of Christ happen long ago? The gospels said it would happen within a generation.
MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

=> To be fair, the rest of Matthew 24:34-36:
Amen, I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. "But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. So its very probable that the first statement is a prophesy of the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD, well within the lifetime of that generation.

9) And my personal favorite, how did the kangaroos get off of Noah's ark and hop to Australia?

==> why is this a serious biblical question and why would it be your favorite? How do you think kangaroos got to Australia?

Listen, 'Spiderman2', you are entitled to your "freedoms" but boy, you walkin on thin ice.

You can spout off whatever evangelical statements you want; but, I guarantee, I'll be right there turkey. When you offend the Church you offend me. When you crassly bad mouth priests you offend Jesus who instituted the priesthood and the Apostolic Succession of Peter. We were directly founded by Christ--I know that is in the Bible. I guess your copy must have that page missing, or do you just dismiss this as being 'apocryphal'???? Either way I know I'll never get through to you, but what heck, it's worth a shot.

It would be naive to ignore Planned Parenthood's heritage of elitism. Margaret Sanger WAS a freak-just look at the history man. Stop being obtuse like 'Fate'. Just because Planned Parenthood's message has been hidden and softened over the years does not mean I am buying it.

The fact you think PP is not evil, but the Catholic Church is, really hurts your cred man.

I understand why you think contraception is the end of abortion. But, it is not so simple. Abortion is just a safety net for contraception-they are not separate, but very similar. Are you going to force people to USE it? How are you going to enforce your little miracle inventions???? Maybe a task force of "condom cops" that patrol the ghettos and barrios and college campuses and underneath high school bleachers? Should I even mention that by giving people condoms and contraptions you are often affirming people in their sin of fornication?

You are trying to provide material solutions to spiritual problems; and you will only perpetuate the problems.

But, you just go on thinking THE CHURCH is the mean crazy facist.

Sure.

You go do that.

Just don't look in the mirror.

Pagan, my advice is you try to enrol to any Engineering class. Im sure they will reject you outright. You won't only waste the school's time, you will also waste the paper and the ink in you pen coz Im sure your entrance exam papers will end up in the carbage bin. Try that and see how prophetic I am.

Maybe someone with a Bible can sort out that last bit, ....but I was pretty sure the Bible 'literally says' the ratio of pi is 'rounded off' to a straight 3:1.

For the benefit of cake-bakers, no doubt. :)

"Spiderman2:

"ceflynline@msn.com: wrote " Mathmaticaly literate you aren't. The smallest circumference a figure can have for a given "Radius" is a circle. any other figure has a greater circumference.""

"I told you it could be possible that it was NOT a perfect circle. Like Catholicism, you are fond of twisting facts. Iam an Engineer and I think you obviously are NOT. Only fools believe that they can be a Christian and at the same time ridicule the Bible."

Did I mention, 'Engineer,' that given your 'grasp' of mathematics, I'd much prefer if you put warning labels on anything you 'engineered?'

Maybe go into baking chocolate cakes.

You can do that without having any clue about Pi. Which I believe the Bible states incorrectly, now that I think of it.

"I can't believe anyone can speak positively of the ending of life as "over in 5 minutes". That is grotesque and macabre. What am I supposed to think? What a kind and thoughtful murderer you are? Do you hear yourself??"

WOW, talk about pulling a statement out of context!!!

Read it again and you'll see that I only asserted that a quick death for an entity that is not yet 'self-aware' is preferable to a lingering and painfull death for an already born breathing and peeing baby/child. I have repeatedly tried to get accross the concept that every NEW baby impacts the likelyhood that the rest of the currently existing babies get to eat or NOT. Can you not understand that? Did the statistics about 15 MILLION babies/children dying each year even make you blink for one second?

Do you have a PHD in DENIAL?

Jimbo56 says:
"When pro-abortion advocates were trying to have abortion legalized, they spoke about how legalization would lower the crime rate, it would lower the rate of children born out of wedlock and how it would ultimately reduce the poverty rate. Well, none of that has happened, in fact, it's gone the other way."

Where do you get this? In fact, the crime rate dropped dramatically a generation after Roe v. Wade. Read "Freakonomics".

And from Anony again:
"How come pro-abortionists NEVER, EVER, mention that a woman ought to be responsible for the consequences of her sex life and killing an unborn child should never be considered one of the options in dealing with failed contraception?"

Well, duh (again), because we believe that abortion is a legitimate way to deal with failed contraception, if a baby is unwanted. This counts as being responsible for one's actions.

"Why is there a demand that others ought to take the responsibility for the child in the womb a woman's sex life produced?"

There isn't. YOU are the ones who want that baby born, no matter what. It then behooves you to step in and care for it.

"As long as humans have existed it is known that sex produces children, which is why sex outside marriage was so strictly prohibited in traditional societies and fornication and adultery was so severely punished."

Oh, horse-puckey. Sex is punished because of silly religious ideas and the desire of men to control women.

"Now, in spite of availability of contraceptives, why is there an exponential rise in the number of abortions after abortion became legal? Easy availability of abortions should have kept the number of abortions at least constant, if not reduced, since contraceptives became available."

You're fantasizing. While we have no recent statistics, thanks to Bush, arbortion rates dropped steadily throughout the late Eighties and Nineties.

ceflynline@msn.com: wrote " Mathmaticaly literate you aren't. The smallest circumference a figure can have for a given "Radius" is a circle. any other figure has a greater circumference."

I told you it could be possible that it was NOT a perfect circle. Like Catholicism, you are fond of twisting facts. Iam an Engineer and I think you obviously are NOT. Only fools believe that they can be a Christian and at the same time ridicule the Bible.

Tell your pope that the Bible proclaimed that pi = 3 and without a doubt, he will believe it. How do I know? Fools act that way. Same as you do.

"Your understanding of Geography and Geology is beyond the pale."

Whatever fools say is as good as the "air" inside a vacuue tube. They not only are worthless, their presence corrupt the tube. That is what your presence here and the Vatican's meddling to world affairs are -- WORTHLESS AND CORRUPTING.

"And I ask you again, by what authority do YOU teach? "

Throw your bible if you don't believe it and get your lessons directly from your "vicar of Christ" whose AUTHORITY come from himself. The authority comes from Bible, just read it yourself and comprehend it, IDIOT.

Anonymous says:
"Pam said she has bred dogs for years. So one can presume she would fight for dog's rights like her oown life, even the rights of unborn puppies. I doubt whether she would call the unborn puppies a "clump of cells" that the mother dog had the right to dispose off at will. Anyway no dog aborts its puppies at any stage of development. Neither do bonobo apes, chimps or gorillas, supposedly our direct ancestors in the animal kingdom."

Wrong. Dogs do not have *rights*, nor do puppies, born or unborn. May it ever be so. Those of us who own them have a legal responsibility not to abuse them, but they cannot sue us for any reason, and we may decide the time of their death.

If groups like PETA have their way, there will be no pets. Don't take my word for it - visit their Web site and read their manifesto.

Early in development, puppies are indeed a clump of cells. It's stupid to even talk about their mother's "right" to end her pregnancy, since she has no means of doing so - nor do chimps, bonobos, etc.

Of course I love my dogs and of course the puppies are wanted - otherwise I would not be choosing the sire and dam and putting them together. Duh. I also pay for their every need.

Many first time mothers are frightened by the pain and the sensation of birth and try to leave the room. Once the hormones kick in (triggered by the smell and sound of the puppies) they are usually happy to care for their young. However, there are some that refuse absolutely to do so, which is why Esbilac exists.

There are also sometimes mismatings - "oops" breedings, as in the classified ad that offered puppies whose "mom is a pure-bred Lab, dad is a curly-coated, high-fence jumper."

I haven't had one of those, but there is a "morning-after" injection for such cases, and I would not hesitate to use it.

"Pam would like us to brush up on human embryology."

Jeeze, Anonymous, you just never get tired of misquoting and twisting, do you? I said to brush up on *biology*. Google "parthenogenesis". No, doesn't happen in humans, but it could be made to, with a little chemical tweaking.

What will the Republicans do if McCain chooses Mitt Romney?
Romney has been pro-choice for most of hsi career, and like McCain and his convenient switch to Baptist from lifelong Episcopalian, also switched his stance on abortion.

"Fate: Peter, You realize I hope that one cannot excommuicate themselves. It must be done by the church. "

Well, not exactly. While the Church does issue decrees of excommunication, they actually always state the the excommunicate, "By his actions has placed himself outside the Church." Technically one excommunicates oneself by actions that cause a break between him and the Church, and by obstinately refusing to amend those actions.

For the several of you who state that a Catholic cannot vote Democrat, because he must vote pro life, again, not exactly. I am obliged to vote for a pro life candidate, probably, IF THERE IS ONE. Since I haven't seen a Republican candidate for office since my grandfather died that I could truly call pro life, I am not obliged to vote for a candidate who isn't pro life, and may take into account the fact that the candidate tells me he is pro life, but isn't.

I find that being pro truth is far more a judge of whom I vote for than being politically pro life when it is convenient. If I weigh the claims of the Democratic Party, and the Republican Party, I find that the Democratic Party meets far more of the real criteria for being Pro Life than the Republican Party. So if I am required to vote as pro life as I can, I must be required to vote Democrat.

By the way, a party whose President and administration tells lies to get the Country into an illegal, immoral, unjust, and unnecessary war primarily to enhance the profits of its prime contributors definitely forfiets whatever consideration it might have for its particularly constrained and unconvincing claims to be anti-abortion. (Its claims to be pro life are proven to be untrue.)

Spidey: Mathmaticaly literate you aren't. the smallest circumference a figure can have for a given "Radius" is a circle. any other figure has a greater circumference. Your understanding of Geography and Geology is beyond the pale. (Pale: a section of Russia where Jews were required to live. Jews not abiding by those laws, living 'Beyond the Pale" were totally without rights or protection.)

And I ask you again, by what authority do YOU teach?

HEADLINE:

"Obama to Urge Elimination of Nuclear Weapons"

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/02/us/politics/02obama.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

HEADLINE:

"No details on McCain’s nuclear weapons policy exist on his web site. However, his voting record shows McCain voted against ratifying the comprehensive test ban treaty in October 1999"

http://blogs.physicstoday.org/politics08/2008/01/john_mccain_on_nuclear_weapons.html

HEADLINE!

"McCain, Bush Largely Similar on Nuclear Policies"

excerpt:: "Yet even on that point McCain equivocated by also stating in his nuclear policy speech Tuesday that "we must continue to deploy a safe and reliable nuclear deterrent."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4950235

How in the world Nuclear weapons can be "safe" I cannot imagine. Even the smallest one spews radiation into the atmosephere which can mutate people, plants, animals, and BACTERIA! Any doctor can tell you the most dangerous bacteria are the NEW ones, that no one has immunity to. Once new kinds of bacteria/virus are introduced into the world, they kill people indiscriminately, all around the world, INCLUDING BABIES.

Maintaining enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world shows flagrant disregard for the rights of everyone else in the world, and their BABIES, NOT to be destroyed for something they have no part in.

Speaking of which, the one part of the Bible I refuse to teach my kids until they are ADULTS, is the part where (in Exodus) God KILLS all the FIRST BORN CHILDREN of the Egyptions for something that the PHAROH DID!!!! I will never understand why so many innocent babies had to die in order to punish the PHAROH! Could not God have simply made all the Egyptions fall asleep for 3 days while the Jewish people left?

Howdy Pagan - I agree with much of what you say, especially about a better social contract. Limits on abortion would be easier to stomach if
- birth control free as part of a comprehensive health care system
- schools (as many parents are unable to) would teach sex education (not abstinance only). Side note, my kids are between 6 and 10 years old and I have made sure they know where babies come from.
- There was good, safe public housing, pre-school programs, day care for working parents, nutritional programs, and decent paying jobs even for low skill workers
- Better options than "foster care" for unwanted children - our current system is a horrible mess

There's no good reason to prevent abortions up to a certain point (not sure how many weeks that would be). I think fetal abnormality, genetic flaws (like Trosomy 18) are good reasons to allow abortion at fairly late stages of pregnancy. Certainly those "babies" who won't survive till childbirth or will die shortly afterwards can be morally aborted.

Given the current state of things in the USA (almost no safety net and pro-life people are absolutists on the question) I certainly don't think there can be any comprimise on the Right to Privacy.

Sorry about the lapses in grammar, there. Does smart a bit, some of these 'Christian ideals' in practice.

Particularly the line of 'If Only Everyone Pretended To be Straight And Had White Babies, It'd be Great. Put Yer kids up for Adoption, Which we reserve to a very few strangers and deny to 'undesireables.'

I say, diddlysquat.

You want *life,* I'll tell you about life.

Give people a choice. A real and unqualified one.

Then you'll see some life.

Capiche?

'

"-- only in your mind"

ORLY, brave Anonymous? What's in *your* mind?

And who put it there?

Cause, I mean, kind of mind like yours is liable to tell gay women they're supposed to force themselves to be straight.... by getting pregnant, ....then say of course that they're unworthy to raise resulting kids, and try to pass 'purity laws' about it.

Now you say, you want every potential pregnancy to be treated 'as a human life...'

Well, unless, of course they're *born* as 'mistakes' and need to be added to the 'rphan pool' for only 'virtuous Christian straights' to adopt, even if it means taking em away from two mothers that love them, ...why, give paternity rights to the *male-to-female transsexual* you told to join the army and knock up to'make a man' out of himself...

Even if s/he don't want em.

I had a wonderful stepdaughter, you know.

Might never have 'existed' in that messed-up circumstance... But *she* got nothing but horrid treatment, and eventually me having to leave her and her birth-mother... Cause someone's idea of 'sanctity of life' didn't include *reality.*

Or caring for actual children in actually-not-so-tidy circumstances.

Ever faced the 'choice' of leaving a kid you love, and a birth mother you love, ...so she can have a future, against people who want things all so simple?

Was she better off cause someone demanded 'morality?'

I don't think so.

You want absolutes, how bout *these* absolutes.

Every child a wanted child.

And no child loses a Mommy cause you feel entitled to make the situation worse than it is.

How bout them absolutes?

Ryan Haber writes
"Victoria,Your argument is silly. Pro-lifers tend to be heavily involved in a range of volunteer activities. Every single pro-life worker - paid or volunteer - that I know, at least, is involved in a range of other activities for the betterment of society as well"

I'm not sure you got her point (or maybe I didn't). Some people think that Republicans are "pro-life" because they claim they want to end abortion (a claim I doubt, but more about that later). The original article is about whether the Republican party is the only party for pro-life people. Victoria makes the point that the Republicans are also for torture. How does that square with being pro-life? How can anybody chose to go to war (especially when they know it's not needed), kill hundreds of thousands of innocents, and be considered by anybody to be "pro-life"? I'm NOT saying that all pro-life people need to demonstrate against war or torture, but I am saying that the Republican party does not qualify as pro-life in any reasonable way.

In regards to the Republicans seriousness about ending legal abortion, I would like to point out that in the Fall of 2002 President Bush and his fellow travelers carried out an extensive campaign to get the country behind their planned invasion of Iraq. President Bush showed a lot of (bad) leadership - through his words he was able to bring the country around to his point of view. If he considers abortion to be murder, where is a similar campaign? Where are the daily speeches? Where are his people on the Sunday Morning shows, trying to win the country over to his pro-life views? How many times a week/month/year does he speak out against abortion?

He doesn't, nor do the rest of the Republicans, because they have no desire to lose a gold mine like the abortion issue. Heck, didn't they promice to amend the constitution to end the "threat of gay marriage", but nothing for the millions of unborn?

The Republican party is more pro-abortion than the Democratic party, IMHO.

Have a good afternoon!

Ryan, your own goodness and positive actions are not in question.
You are living up to your ideal of having compassion for ALL people-
which is my point.

When that compassion is lopsidedly inconsistent- and only seems to extend to this one speicific issue- and doesn't extend to all life-

It reveals itself as not compassion at all- but a cover to disguise intentions that are based on fear, and greed.

If abortion is the ONLY morally superior position that Republicans can claim- that is highly suspicious to me.
When every question asked is answered with pro-life pro-life-

that is no answer-

It is like McCain hiding behind his POW status-

The answer for not knowing how many houses you own is NOT I was in Hanoi-
The answer to why he voted against health care for children- babies included- (why are babies only valuable before their birth?)
is NOT POW-

or any of the many many questions- caring for the poor, even equal rights between races- McCain DID vote against MLK,Jr.Day in Arizona.

His wifes, and his repeated lie that Mother Teresa implored him to take that baby abd adopt it- (neither of them spoke to her)

and- PLEASE don't tell me, that I cannot get an abortion if it is a necessity for me- if I was raped, or my life is at stake- or any reason.
I claim self-determination in my own life.
I shouldn't have to state that others deserve the same autonomy and repsect.

Decide for yourself- that is all you can do- you can't pray my prayers or live my life for me.

I won't do it to you, and if I dictated what you could or could not do-with your own body- you would feel the same.

Peace Ryan, you are a welcome and clear voice.

"Tried asking this earlier, but like any reasonable question around here, it gets ignored."

Beg pardon. I must have been overwhelmed by the exercise of so much iron-clad logic. :)

"I want to know from pro-choice folks what limits on legal abortion they'd accept in order to settle this question. From people like you I'd like to know under which circumstances you'd allow abortions."

In a context of *no coercion or refusal of emergency contraception and proper health care and a society which supports motherhood, even of single mothers, and doesn't use this issue as a foot in the door to try and promulgate fear, shame, and ignorance about sex,* well...

I would accept some legal limits. Not as 'absolute rules' handed down by some God, but, as *a viable and consistent social contract.*

No one likes abortions, least of all a late-term pregnant woman. Many people can't see the difference between 'telling em about condoms and supporting self respect' and 'Supporting 'Abortion on demand as the contraceptives we won't tell them about.'

Real respect for life, and motherhood, actually, needs no laws.

But if you want some, no, Americans don't like third-trimester abortions, unless... Well, unless there's a good reason for them.

Maybe frivolously-chickening out should be illegal, but... That's not what this is, is it?

This is about someone's absolutes.

As Pagan clergy, I've supported women in many unplanned and problematic pregnancies. But, even if I were to *adopt the child myself,* you think I can tell someone they must bring a child to term with no health care amid all manner of danger and poor nutrition, and even fricking drug-resistant strains of TB that people who don't believe in evolution encouraged?

No. *You* want 'absolutes,* you make sure that it *is* a choice. Not decide it's just easier to condemn people who have no practical choice for not obeying you anyway.

We can probably have standards.

But not till women are actually empowered to live up to them, or actually have the choice whether or not to become pregnant in the first place.

Look at reality.

You tell *me.*

You think your megachurch preacher in his fancy suit and car knows what it's about?

Piffle.

"I believe it's spelled 'shyster' and that's an ethnic slur against Jewish lawyers."

-- only in your mind

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=sheister

Marc typed-

"Most gun owners are responsible, so we don't take away gun rights because of the bad people who misuse guns."

I agree.

Most doctors are responsible, so we don't take away their surgical instruments. But if a doctor uses those instruments not to save life but to intentionally end life- he must be stopped.

In the same way- a gun owner who uses his gun to take a life is stopped. It should always be our lawful intention to find justice for the murdered.

Marc Edwards- that's a decent analogy.
Ryan, you know (but would never broadcast it) and I know that you are that rare commodity- a practicing and earnest Chrisitan.

Now, I doubt only women drink water in Peru Ryan.
No- it's not a women's issue.

And 'not working hard enough' is not the issue.
Actively supporting candidates and policies that are inhumane is.

At what point does life become unvaluable.
After birth?

Where are all of these volunteers on this board?
When onevolunteers on a regualr basis, ones social circle is - volunteers.
So the fact that most of the people you know are involved in such activities in no way substantiates your claim that all pro-lifers are so active.

Why does this compassion not extend to other people children in other countries?
Or the health care for our own children here?
Or the adults struggling to make it on minimum wage while the richest 1/2 of 1% waelth his at an all time historical high?

Why does the sympathy and compassion stop after the birth?
That is my point, and it is not only not in the category of silly- it is depserately serious.

Hey Ryan - been wondering when you'd pop up!
You write "Likewise, slavery was a dying institution, to be sure, by the time of the Civil War."

Well, the Civil War wasn't fought over slavery, it was fought to preserve the Union. It was the South that had been trying to expand slavery into states that didn't want it (like California). I don't see (which doesn't mean it doesn't happen) the leadership of NAREL trying to change the abortion laws in Peru.

"It was clearly no longer economically ascendent, and was losing viability. But do you think that there would not be slaves today, on some country club or wealthy plantation owner's place, or in some luxury highrise - simply as a status symbol? "

sadly for all of us, Slavery is still occuring in the United States. Do a google search (cause my kids are wanting to be fed for some reason) on the numbers of slaves being brought into the USA. I think it's around 20,000/year.

Personally I don't see slavery as like abortion. The "people" who have to suffer for legal abortion to continue are invisible and pointless, while the people who would suffer from limiting the right to privacy can vote. So far the majority of Americans DONT want Roe overturned, while they will accept some limits on abortion.

Tried asking this earlier, but like any reasonable question around here, it gets ignored.
I want to know from pro-choice folks what limits on legal abortion they'd accept in order to settle this question. From people like you I'd like to know under which circumstances you'd allow abortions.

Ryan.

" Ryan Haber:

"I wonder what the Democratic Party, or Prof. Kmiec, would say if someone, at the end of the Civil War, had proposed legislation to reduce the number of abortions, rather than merely to outlaw it, on the grounds that outlawing it would not actually reduce it?"

At the time, it *was* outlawed, and if you think that it's fun to have a choice of trying to end a pregnancy or be utterly disgraced and destitute, ....along *with* your family and said baby when clean water even in America was *no fricking joke,* well...

Here. Have some foxglove tea and tell me how 'selfish' the choice was.

"I wonder how history would judge such a scheister. The proposition is preposterous."

I believe it's spelled 'shyster' and that's an ethnic slur against Jewish lawyers.

Anonymous writes
"What kind of unbelievably cruel person conceives and becomes pregnant, only to have their offspring surgically removed from the safety of their womb in a slow and painfull death?!?!"

Interesting question. I read a piece at Salon.com a year or so back. The writer and her husband had gone to some lengths to concieve a child. During the pregnancy they started a divorce proceeding, so she had an abortion (mid term). That is the kind of person you and I would agree is "unbelievably cruel".
People end pregnancies for all sorts of reason, some are better than other.
Having a right doesn't mean one will use it with a sense of responsibility. Most gun owners are responsible, so we don't take away gun rights because of the bad people who misuse guns.

Victoria,

Your argument is silly. Pro-lifers tend to be heavily involved in a range of volunteer activities. Every single pro-life worker - paid or volunteer - that I know, at least, is involved in a range of other activities for the betterment of society as well.

Your argument is like insisting that NARAL workers are hypocrites for not working harder to improve access to drinking water for women in Peru. That's a women's issue, no? Not part of the "whole spectrum"? But yet, how many NARAL volunteers give money or help dig wells in Peru?

Do you see how silly that is?

for the faux muslim who has no understanding of the sanctity of life-

Whosoever has spared the life of a soul, it is as though he has spared the life of all people. Whosoever has killed a soul, it is as though he has murdered all of mankind.
Qur'an 5:32

I wonder what the Democratic Party, or Prof. Kmiec, would say if someone, at the end of the Civil War, had proposed legislation to reduce the number of abortions, rather than merely to outlaw it, on the grounds that outlawing it would not actually reduce it? I wonder how history would judge such a scheister. The proposition is preposterous.

More to the point, according to NARAL's website, 35 states have current laws on the book that outlaw or severely restrict abortion, which laws are presently suppressed by Roe v Wade and which would again regain force should Roe be overturned.

That's a lot of saved babies.

We must not forget that the law has not only a punitive purpose, but a pedagogical one as well. It not only prevents and punishes wrongdoing, but teaches people what is good, as well. The history of littering or seat-belting in my state is a trivial but good example. Laws against littering and driving without seatbelts were introduced in the 1980s against some considerable minority opposition. Now, for the great majority of people, littering and unseatbelted driving are almost unthinkable, especially for people growing up under those laws.

Likewise, slavery was a dying institution, to be sure, by the time of the Civil War. It was clearly no longer economically ascendent, and was losing viability. But do you think that there would not be slaves today, on some country club or wealthy plantation owner's place, or in some luxury highrise - simply as a status symbol? Of course there would be. There are fewer and fewer doctors willing to perform abortions every year, as NARAL and NOW have noted. But there will always be abortions because there will always be depraved doctors willing to profiteer upon desperate women; but delegalizing abortion and imposing administrative or criminal penalties upon doctors who perform them will almost certainly reduce the numbers.

The professor is right that the Republican party uses the abortion issue, and that pro-Lifers shouldn't be fooled. As the DNC becomes more tolerant of pro-Lifers and pro-Life candidates, it gives us more leverage to get what we want. 75% of Americans, after all, want abortion to be less legal than it is now. The party that genuinely listens will win votes more than lose them.

But let's stop the hypocrisy of wanting to make abortion "rare" without wanting to make it illegal. After all, why make it "rare" if it is not wrong; and if it is wrong, how not make it illegal?

"your assumption that most abortions are "slow and painfull" for the fetus is not based in reality..Most abortions involve a Vacuum and are over in 5 mins..."

I am unfamiliar with the "pro-choice" argument. So reading here has been both eye-opening and nauseating for me.

I can't believe anyone can speak positively of the ending of life as "over in 5 minutes". That is grotesque and macabre. What am I supposed to think? What a kind and thoughtful murderer you are? Do you hear yourself??

Now I know why "pro-life" people are so determined to overturn roe v wade.

Babies born have a chance. Babies aborted do not.

Killing babies by vacuum, pills or by ripping out brain matter is still the eradication of life violating the sacred God-given or Evolved Commandment, Thou shalt not Kill!!!!

Rationalist, Rationalist, Rationalist,

References supporting our policy about nukes? Nukes by the way are bipartisan with the development and use being done under the leadership of the Democratic Party.

What kind of hypocrite rails and weeps so for unborn children, but fails to shed a tear forthe health of children already born?

If you want to politicze this issue- then politicize the whole spectrum-

It is not enough to vote for the right because you feeel compassion, if that same party actively tortures already born people overseas- or imprisons them without rights off our shores.
Aren't they also life?

What about the people who are losing their homes and their children?
Aren't thy also life?
What about the social conditions that make it impossible for a woman to support that child?
McCain voted against equal pay for women.
Aren't women in the category of life?

What about the poor of this country, who can find no other way to get an education than going to another country and killing someone elses mothers and children and fathers?

Aren't they also life?

What about a nation without healthcare?
Isn't quality of life a life issue too?

How will we care for the health of these unborn children when the GOP has voted and shut down the SCHIP for childrens health care?

Are children only valuable when they are unborn, and can push a wedge as a political tool to be used to force the haves against the have nots?

Do they not have enough valuable when they can no longer be used to push an emotional button to guilt people into accepting all of the other anti-people anti-life policies we must swallow?

Aren't I also alive, and worth something?

"What kind of unbelievably cruel person conceives and becomes pregnant, only to have their offspring surgically removed from the safety of their womb in a slow and painfull death?!?!"

answer:
A person who is too poor to afford birth control, and is harshly dominated by an evil man who insists on having sex, even though they currently cannot afford to feed the children they already have, and who does not want to see yet another of her children starve to death.

OR

A person who tried to take every precaution, but had the birthcontol method fail (like they all do at times), and who cannot afford to feed more than the children they already have.

Also your assumption that most abortions are "slow and painfull" for the fetus is not based in reality. Why must you pretend that the very late term partial birth abortions are the norm?!?!? They are very rare. Most abortions involve a Vacuum and are over in 5 mins...certainly not comparable to a baby starving over the course of 2-3 weeks.

"What kind of unbelievably cruel person would make sure a baby gets born, only to have it (or the one it took food from to live) STARVE in a slow and painfull death?!?!"

Rationalist you should be ashamed of your missing logic-->

In the FIRST place:

What kind of unbelievably cruel person conceives and becomes pregnant, only to have their offspring surgically removed from the safety of their womb in a slow and painfull death?!?!"

Spiderman2 said:
"Currently, only 3 states (Massachusettes, California and New York) are at the crosshair of God's wrath for allowing abortion and gay marriage. An Obama presidency might make that into 50."

Newsflash to Spiderman2 (et al), voting Republican means you are voting PRO-NUCLEAR WEAPONS. The United States is the ONLY country on Earth that has flat out stated that our national policy is: "If the U.S.A is in danger of losing a war to an invader, the U.S.A will use it's NUCLEAR weapons to DESTROY EVERY LIVING THING ON THE PLANET (mutually assured distruction). Talk about the ULTIMATE ABORTION!! "If we go down, we are going to take every last Baby in the world with us". And you Republican supporters believe that God LOVES the country that has created enough weapons that can/will destroy EVERYTHING God has spent the last 3 billion years creating!?!!?!?!?! PRO-NUKE supporters threaten the lives of every baby on the planet, and yet THEY THINK God is angry at the people trying to PREVENT our Earth's eco-system from being crushed under the ever growing tide of out-of-control human breeding!?!?!? Population control SAVES the LIVES of those already born by preventing even more children from starving than the 15 MILLION kids who starve to death every year.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C002291/high/present/stats.htm

What kind of unbelievably cruel person would make sure a baby gets born, only to have it (or the one it took food from to live) STARVE in a slow and painfull death?!?!

"social benefits and ante-natal care alone has not reduced abortions in European countries."

Actually, they have. In 2003, which is the last year available to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the U.S. abortion/live birth rate was 21/1000. Western Europe's was 12/1000.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/12/world/12abortion.html

Also from that article: Some countries, like South Africa, have undergone substantial transitions in abortion laws in that time. The procedure was made legal in South Africa in 1996, leading to a 90 percent decrease in mortality among women who had abortions, some studies have found.

Abortion is illegal in most of Africa, though. It is the second-leading cause of death among women admitted to hospitals in Ethiopia, its Health Ministry has said. It is the cause of 13 percent of maternal deaths at hospitals in Nigeria, recent studies have found.

Peter writes "Actually, by endorsing Obama, a fervent supporter of not just abortion, but a supporter of questioning a child's right to life even after birth"

Obama supports the right to get an abortion, which is part of the "Right to Privacy". As a teacher of Constitutional Law he ought to understand it. That is not the same thing as "supporting abortion". As for questioning a child's right to live, you're just lying.

"Kmiec is no-longer Catholic."

Lying is against the commandments, so I guess you are no longer Catholic?

"Anyone who actively supports abortion through their voting for a pro-abortion candidate when there are other anti-abortion candidates available (regardless of party) has excommunicated themselves "by the very act" of endorsing a mortal sin."

Yep, yer a liar.

"In this instance, and for quite some time, Republicans have been more in line with Catholic Teaching than democrats."

One could say Charles Manson was pro-life if he said he was against abortion, but his actions dictate otherwise. Republicans say they are pro-life, but they take no actions to end legal abortion. You are wrong again!

"Besides, it's been proven that Democrats do not donate nearly as much as conservatives, even while their incomes are higher. (http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm) "

You need to read a bit more deeply. Mr. Brooks "study" was flawed, and when you took away giving to one's church, donation amounts between conservatives and liberals were even. It help when you question what people tell you rather than just assuming something is true just because it makes you feel good about yourself.

"So to say democrats support social justice more is just naive. Their views on our environment and abortion and eugenics have shown nothing but contempt for human life."

How?
It has been Republicans who have called Legal Abortion a "holocaust" and done nothing. It was Republicans who sold the invasion of Iraq using lies. It was Republicans that chose to do nothing when New Orleans was dying. Where you get the eugenics argument I don't know. Who in the last 40 years is supporting eugenics?

Peter,

You realize I hope that one cannot excommuicate themselves. It must be done by the church.

And if opposing church doctrine, by supporting candidates whose policies led to murder, is grounds for excommunication, then not one person who voted for Bush, who has killed many people through war and execution, is in any way in good standing with the church. But from what you have said, a person can only be murdered before they are born. After that there is "room to argue".

I've viewed this debate from a distance for 30 odd years and have to wonder about all the really critical issues it displaces as it rages on: the men and women who die on the battlefields, the elders forgotten in slum care homes or tossed out of hospitals and onto the street, the children without adequete care and education, whole generations of men warehoused in prisons.

The lack of attention to these members of our society is shameful.

And yet we obsess over and consume the national attention span with the whens and hows of individual health care, if it is provided to a woman.

What's wrong with this picture.

Actually, by endorsing Obama, a fervent supporter of not just abortion, but a supporter of questioning a child's right to life even after birth, Kmiec is no-longer Catholic.
Anyone who actively supports abortion through their voting for a pro-abortion candidate when there are other anti-abortion candidates available (regardless of party) has excommunicated themselves "by the very act" of endorsing a mortal sin.

In this instance, and for quite some time, Republicans have been more in line with Catholic Teaching than democrats. Socialism (supported by liberals) is contrary to church teaching as is abortion.

The church has allowed room to argue about the best method to apply social justice programs, capital punishment, and EVEN WAR but the church has stated that ABORTION is a NON-ARGUABLE subject.

So in no instance is supporting abortion allowed by Catholics, whether outrightly by donating to a program or implicitly by a vote.

Besides, it's been proven that Democrats do not donate nearly as much as conservatives, even while their incomes are higher. (http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm)

So to say democrats support social justice more is just naive. Their views on our environment and abortion and eugenics have shown nothing but contempt for human life.

Mary C. writes "It's my hunch that white women are not so consistently targeted by the eugenicists and secularists as minorities, but I have no supporting numbers here."

I think you're perceiving a pattern where there are alternative explanations. I don't think anybody is "targeting" whites or minorities to trick them into getting unwanted abortions.

Planned Parenthood is first and foremost about helping people control their fertility. When I was a teenager I helped several girls I dated get their first birth control at Planned Parenthood, because they were afraid of going to a family doctor with their parents and admitting they were engaging in sex. Having been to real abortion clinics twice with women who were getting abortions (not my kids, the two women in question wanted support) I can tell you that in my experience the clinics were packed with underage white girls. Most of the girls didn't look 2 minutes over 14 years of age. One girl didn't look mature enough to be able to get pregnant! Is there a breakdown of age and abortion? Certainly for a 13 or 14 year old girl the argument could be made that an abortion would be better than having a child.

"[Planned Parenthood] is an organization founded by rich, white, protestant elitists that felt threatened by the waves of ethnic CATHOLIC Europeans coming to America"

This might well be true, but that was a long time ago. Certainly there were people 100 years ago that had opinions we'd consider outdated. Some Republicans thought Hitler a great man, some Democrats thought communism under Stalin was better than capitalism. It isn't fair or sensible to tie incorrect opinions held by people generations ago to people today. My neice is a vegetarian, but I don't think she's a closet Nazi, even though Hitler was a vegetarian.

Controling one's fertility is helpful in getting a better standard of living. Bill Gates and PP aren't trying to hurt poor people but help them.

Maybe it is simply that rich white folk like Mary C. can afford other means to release sexual desires???

Mary C.,

Just wanted to correct a few things you said:

"It's my hunch that white women are not so consistently targeted by the eugenicists and secularists as minorities, but I have no supporting numbers here."

Can you give an example of 'eugenicists and secularists' that target minorities and how that targeting is done? All I have heard from you is some stats and you are using those stats to invent a large eugenic conspiracy with no evidence of one. Stats do not prove cause.

"Additionally the Catholic Church is fighting a valiant rearguard action against unlimited abortion, but the Church cannot protect its flock so well as in the early days of Catholic immigration."

Please define 'unlimited abortion'. I live in the US where abortion is limited, depending on state, except in the first trimester.

"But Rob de la Rosa said it better than me:
"[Planned Parenthood] is an organization founded by rich, white, protestant elitists that felt threatened by the waves of ethnic CATHOLIC Europeans coming to America for a better life...
Planned Parenthood's philosophy is part of AN ARCHAIC, ARISTOCRATIC VIEW OF POVERTY THAT SEEKS TO ELIMINATE POVERTY BY ELIMINATING THE POOR THEMSELVES. Bill Gates is an avid $upporter of Planned Parenthood..."

Well, if your eugenics conspiracy was aimed at Catholics by Protestants it failed misersably, considering most Catholics in the US in 1973 were white and whites have the lowest abortion rate accourding to your statistics. And Bill Gates? I'm not sure what to make of that. Is he a bad guy? He's giving millions to wipe out malaria, which kills thousands of people in Africa (blacks) each year. That doesn't sound like a member of a eugenics conspiracy.

"This will be all from me."

I seriously doubt it.

It's my hunch that white women are not so consistently targeted by the eugenicists and secularists as minorities, but I have no supporting numbers here. Additionally the Catholic Church is fighting a valiant rearguard action against unlimited abortion, but the Church cannot protect its flock so well as in the early days of Catholic immigration. But Rob de la Rosa said it better than me:

"[Planned Parenthood] is an organization founded by rich, white, protestant elitists that felt threatened by the waves of ethnic CATHOLIC Europeans coming to America for a better life...
Planned Parenthood's philosophy is part of AN ARCHAIC, ARISTOCRATIC VIEW OF POVERTY THAT SEEKS TO ELIMINATE POVERTY BY ELIMINATING THE POOR THEMSELVES. Bill Gates is an avid $upporter of Planned Parenthood..."

This will be all from me.

I don't *know* why the abortion rate is so low amongst white women. But I sincerely believe that those rates amongst poor minority women are a disgrace. There's an old Italian saying: "How many children rich are you?" Children have always been the poor's greatest treasure. This wholesale incidence of abortion amongst them is awful.

Best,
MC

Marc Edwards,

I went further. I said there was a subtle eugenicist undertone in the arguments used by the proponents of unlimited abortion. Or not so subtle as this comment by Candide would suggest:

CANDIDE:

Thanks, Mary Cunningham. I didn't realize black women were aborting so much. I hope they keep it up and increase it. We don't need more pickaninnies on the public dole.

AUGUST 27, 2008 10:55 AM

Maybe it is simply that rich white folk can afford other means to release sexual desires???

Good Morning Mary Cunningham,
Are you saying that white women are too smart to opt for abortion in large numbers, while latinas and black women are so stupid they are easily swayed to have abortions? To some it might appear that's what you're saying.

You might, when going over your well researched statistics (and you links are very helpful and informative) look for alternative reasons for the disparity in the numbers of abortions according to "race". I think a statistical breakdown based on income, age, and/or education might also be helpful. Of course it would also be helpful of some university's social sciences department did a study to look into which cultural norms might lead to increased unwanted pregnancy and abortions.
There is no evidence that modern day proponents of legal and safe abortions are trying to "target" minorities.

Thanks for your time. Although I disagree with you I believe you are sincere in your outlook and very polite.

Dan Figman wrote " In other words, the full agenda of Planned Parenthood has come to materialize"

In other words, catholics who believe this are IDIOTS. See what catholcism has done to many catholic countries. One very poor CATHOLIC mother who gets pregnant so often because catholicism teaches that contraception is evil told her toddler : "If you get sick, good if you die right away coz we have no money for your hospitalization".

I believe this kind of situation are so common in many catholic countries. WHAT A CRAZY RELIGION.

CATHOLICISM IS THE DEVIL'S CHURCH !!!

This has become the DEBATE BETWEEN TWO FOOLS. One FOOL who opts for abortion and the other who oppose it but oppose other forms of contraception and even calls Planned Parenthood as evil. TWO DEVILS FIGHTING IT OUT.

Truly , this world is doomed. I truly believe atheists and the Vatican will burn simultaneously.

Well, Pontificator, whenever, someone wants to persuade me to do something that I feel is wrong (& that my Church tells me is wrong) I check to see if *he* (or she) is doing too. Now the numbers show that while atheists and secularists are *white*, and promoting abortion, they themselves are not having very many. They are promoting abortions for poor black and Latina women, but they (or their wives, daughters, girlfriends, &tc) don't have them. This makes me a little suspicious. OK, maybe I am too distrustful.

Now the numbers show that white women have the lowest abortion rate. White women are 66% of the population with 34% of the abortion (roughly speaking). Hispanics comprise 14% of the population with 22% of abortions, so their rate of abortion is higher than white women but much lower than African-American. Scroll down to my 5:21 AM comment for more specific rates:

Rates of induced abortion, variations amongst women (per 1000):

Non-hispanic white women: 11.7
Hispanic women: 30.6
Non-hispanic black women: 57.4
(It’s also sourced.)

Some African-American preachers have also charged that secularists are targeting poor black women, proselytising, as it were, the ideology of abortion. Latinas are also the target of this ideology, although they seem to be able to better resist it that blacks, but not so well as whites. But you can see why Catholics are angry when a pol. like Biden says he supports abortion (especially when so many poor Latinas are the target of the Planned Parenthood brigade.)

Why do I respect numbers over rhetoric? Well, they lie a lot less, assuming you know enough to handle them. The above numbers certainly tell me a pretty depressing story, I don't know what they tell you.

I've asked this before, but I'll try again, hoping that I might get a better discussion out of it.
To those who are pro-choice (which is my perspective), are there any limits on the right to legal abortion you'd be willing to accept? For example would you be willing to accept limits on abortion after XX number of weeks except in cases of Fetal Abnormality?

To those who are against legal abortion, are there any abortions you'd allow? Would you all allow abortions before 12 weeks? Would you all allow abortions in the case of fetal abnormality?

Unlike the pro-life leadership and the Republican leadership, I think it would be good to solve this issue rather than see it milked by one side for another 40 years. The rate of abortion can be reduced with good public policy - President Clinton proved that. Isn't reducing the rate of abortions better than seeking a ban that will never, ever materialize?

No doubt I'll only get answers that scream "no compromise EVER!", but it never hurts to try.

Dan Figman wrote: "The 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI contained 4 prophesies stemming from the culture of death that was been engendered in his days...:
1. Infidelity would increase and sexual morality decline.
2. Men would lose respect for women.
3. Population control would be used as a weapon by governments.
4. Men would claim dominion over women's bodies.
In other words, the full agenda of Planned Parenthood has come to materialize.

So abortion Roe v. Wade lead to these things? lets see, what has happened since 1973:
1) Infidelity is at about the same level. Divorce has increased but so have "annulments" in the Catholic church. Have false marriages increased? Did abortion cause that? And the highest rates of teen pregnancy and divorce can be found in the bible belt.
2)Men have lost respect for women? Just the opposite has happened, at least in law, the workplace, etc. No company allows sexual harrassment and it is a firable offense in most places. That was definitely not the case in 1973 I can tell you. If anything respect by men for women has increased since 1973, but I do not attribute it to abortion. I attribute it to women being in the workplace and the Constitution that gave them the same rights as men and struck down laws and practices that discriminated against women at work and elsewhere.
3) How is abortion being used as a weapon by any government? The closest you could get to this is the Chinese 1-child policy, which relies heavily on abortion to maintain the policy. But it is not a weapon.
4) The only men claiming dominion over women's bodies are those who are working to ban abortion and remove a woman's personal choice, claiming dominion over the fetus and thus the woman that carries it and her decisions about it.

So Paul VI was right, abortion has lead to many of these things, but things that have not sprung from those who approve of abortion as legal, but from those who consider it a sin. It is the anti-abortionists that do not respect a woman's right to choose and claim dominion over a woman's body which they want to codify into a law against all abortion. And these anti-abortionists tip their hand to being part of the culture of death by their support for war and the death penalty.

The same people here on On Faith who believes in evolution support abortion and gay marriage.

Christians should start TARGETING the source. All of these STUPIDITY starts from Evolution and Christians should fight this evil theory out from our schools.

Anonymous writes "Abortion Statistics

http://www.wpclinic.org/abortion/abortion-statistics/"

This site seems to be a pro-life site pretending to be informative. If one checks it's other articles they highlight "risks" of abortion including mental illness and breast cancer, both of which are totally unfounded.
Anonymous ought to know that Lying is right up there with murder in God's book.

AK writes
'"I'm sorry AK, seems like a reading comprehension lesson is in order. I stated I can't remember any attempt by the Republican government to BAN abortion."

You got caught forgetting the Partial Birth Abortion ban, and now you're trying to twist things. Okay, but we both know what you're doing.'

That "ban" only stopped one type of late term abortion. It didn't prevent a single abortion from taking place. Better luck next time!

'Now you want to tell me that because the GOP didn't pass a law banning each and every abortion, it hasn't done anything for pro-lifers.'

More to the point, the Republicans didn't even ban 2% of abortions. 40 years the Republicans have called legal abortion "a holocaust" and yet they've done virtually nothing. How many times has a Republican President spoken live at your annual rallies on the mall? Would that be ZERO?

'The GOP took two big steps towards banning abortion: Alito and Roberts. But I suppose that doesn't count for some reason.'

Pretty much - you can't whine about "judges legislating from the bench" and then say "we want our own justices legislating from the bench". You ought to check into what Jesus said about hypocrits (sorry for my poor spelling, just woke up).

Dan Figman wrote " In other words, the full agenda of Planned Parenthood has come to materialize"

In other words, catholics who believe this are IDIOTS. See what catholcism has done to many catholic countries. One very poor CATHOLIC mother who gets pregnant so often because catholicism teaches that contraception is evil told her toddler : "If you get sick, good if you die right away coz we have no money for your hospitalization".

I believe this kind of situation are so common in many catholic countries. WHAT A CRAZY RELIGION.

CATHOLICISM IS THE DEVIL'S CHURCH !!!

It seems to me that the Mary Cunningham stats actually prove nothing whatsoever - and certainly not her highly subjective theory that these abortions are largely due to the influence of atheists, liberal Protestants, and assorted eugenics proponents!!

Wow - that is a seriously skewed perspective....and especially coming from someone who doesn't reside in the USA. I wonder how many practicing eugenicists there are in America? Could we have some stats please?

Hispanics are currently the most populous minority in the USA, and yet have lower abortion rates than either black or white residents, according to these stats. They also have a different cultural orientation - which I'm quite familiar with.

Yes, they are predominantly Catholic - but Protestantism is on the rise among Hispanics throughout Latin America. Children is so revered among Hispanics, it's no wonder abortion rates are much lower (center of the universe would be more like it). Family support is legendary.

In fact, many Hispanic families keep their unmarried children at home, regardless their age.
Family is a very, very big thing in this sub-culture. On the other hand, there is probably a socio-economic relationship between number of abortions, income, and racial makeup.

Among African-American and Caucasian populations, abortion will more often be a first response if the mother is poor, single, and unsupported by family - and possibily with other children already in the picture.

And yes, some women will obtain abortions because a child doesn't fit in with their present lifestyle and/or marital status - the so-called abortion of convenience.

On the other hand, if income and other socio-economic and educational dynamics are improved, abortion rates will very likely go down.

In the end, terminating a pregnancy is a highly personal and completely individual choice - and a choice it should remain. And there is a reason why legal abortion limits refer to viability - the stage at which a child could conceivably live on it's own outside the womb.

It means just what it says....living independently and away from the biological environment provided by the mother.

All in all, there are many reasons as to why sub-cultures and groups of people vary in their family planning and reproductive behavior - imagine the stats if we broke down every available demographic on different ethnic and racial groups residing in the USA.

We would have to look at many more similarities and differences in order to arrive at a real, testable hypothesis that accurately applied to the behavior of any group or sub-group.

A few stats are much more convenient for the purposes of a particular agenda, but far less probable in the accuracy of their outcomes.

The 1968 Encyclical Humanae Vitae of Pope Paul VI contained 4 prophesies stemming from the culture of death that was been engendered in his days (See "Paul VI's Prophetic Vision Examined," National Catholic Register, August 20, 2008, p. 3):

1. Infidelity would increase and sexual morality decline.

2. Men would lose respect for women.

3. Population control would be used as a weapon by governments.

4. Men would claim dominion over women's bodies.

In other words, the full agenda of Planned Parenthood has come to materialize.

It is about time someone realized this. The Republicans have been using this for years. The worst thing that could happen to them would be to ban abortions as an issue. We are told "By their fruits you shall know them." When RR and GWB were elected, there was all of this rhetoric about anti-abortion, but neither ever made a move to start a constitutional amendment to ban abortions (which is the constitutional method to overturn a Supreme Court decision) in their 16 years in office. BUT both immediately instituted tax cuts (mainly geared at the wealthy) as soon as they took office. That is their real goal but they dare not run on it because there are not enough people at that high earning level. So they can get a lot of people whose interests would lie in the policies of the Democratic party by appealing to this "non-issue" of abortion politics. They throw just enough meat to the crowd by putting up some trivial legislation about parental notification and what-not to give the impression that they are working on the project. And, frankly, the Catholics are probably not the primary base they are looking to. Many poor folks in the South who are under the spell of some multimillionaire preachers are probably more easily manipulated than those from a group whose bishops once called for a "seamless garment."

My gripe is not so much with the Republicans, but rather the Conservatives. When I was a boy, these same people were Democrats -- especially in the South. They became Republicans only after Civil Rights laws were passed in LBJ's time. It is not the GOP per say, but those who they allowed to take over their party who will speak against abortion (which is hardly touched in the Bible) while being very pro greed. And Jesus had a lot more to say about GIVING to the poor than almost anything else. I stressed "GIVING" to emphasize the point that Mother Theresa made in Philadelphia in 1976 about those who complain that we should not GIVE to the needy. As she so wisely pointed out, who among us has ANYTHING that was not GIVEN to us by God.

When I hear these so-called Christians give at least as much time to "turning the other cheek," changing swords into plowshares, the socialism showed in the early church such as the story of Ananias and Saphira in the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus' answer when He was asked about paying taxes "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's..." etc. instead of the underlying greed with which they approach almost everything, then I might believe in their sincerity. Until then, I will take their abortion claims with the grain of salt these hypocrites deserve. But I will NOT allow them to use my religious beliefs as a Catholic to further their greedy agendas.

" Fate:
Dwight: "you cannot be catholic and support abortion, you cannot condone the killing of the children of Christ... - a women bears the sin of murder of her own child... - a doctor bears the sin of murder of the abortions he has erformed...
- a person who supports abortion carries the sins of all the murdered children of abortion..."
During the Inquisition only Catholics were brought in for torture and execution if found to be heritics. Muslims and jews were not since they were not catholics and were not going to heaven anyway. During the Inquisition, Catholic law only applied to Catholics, as it should always be.
Why then should Catholic law concerning abortion be applied to all people of all religious persuations? If you, as a Catholic, feel abortion is wrong, don't do it, just as you don't eat meat on Friday (or is that ok now?) but don't bother other people of other religions about eating meat on Friday.
Bringing up religious reasons to support a secular law will only win applause from your own religion. If you want to change secular law, use secular arguments. If you want to change Catholic law, feel free to quote scripture and such.
August 27, 2008 4:30 PM | Report Offensive Comments"

I agree with you, but this article was aimed at Catholics because the dems want their votes. biden says he is catholic, but catholics don't support abortion...so he can't be...
this article was aimed at Catholics and convincing them that it's ok to vote for a politician that does support abortion...

" steve k:
re: " Dwight:
you cannot be catholic and support abortion, you cannot condone the killing of the children of Christ...
a women bears the sin of murder of her own child...
a doctor bears the sin of murder of the abortions he has performed...
a person who supports abortion carries the sins of all the murdered children of abortion..."
Sez you. The Church is the people. WWJD? Rant and rave or try to make things at least better. Do you know what really made Jesus rant and rave? Look it up.
August 27, 2008 5:23 PM | Report Offensive Comments "

No, SEZ Our Lord Jesus, The Christ, The Son of the living GOD...
The Church is about Our Lord Jesus Christ and that is where we worship him and there is no place for abortion in the Catholic faith...the people don't make up the agenda of the church...your ignorance is showing...

MAN IS SPIRITUAL, NOT MATERIAL! You can live like the Adam and Eve family, full of hate, jealous, and war OR you can live like God's family (Genisus 1) where God made everything good in his image. I choose living Spiritually where there is order, love, and peace.

Politics is not an issue to God, why should it be an issue to us?

How might I help you?

Why is this not the question asked, instead of a zillion rationalizations about why I have the right to direct the inner workings of another human being's body.

Mary C. wrote: "I should provide more numbers to document my assertion that abortion is aimed at poor minorities"

While I agree statistics are a powerful way to develop a hypothesis, they are not necessarily proof in themselves. You use the term "aimed" yet you show no one "aiming" abortion at poor minorities and no conspiracy to do so.

Developing a conspiracy theory based on differences within American subcultures is not going to be convincing. Is illegal immigration aimed at the wealthy, who tend to hire them and their services? Is crime aimed at the poor who are usually its victims. Is farming aimed at white people? Is single motherhood aimed at blacks?

Now some conspiracies can be shown to be possible using statistics but the statistics are just the foundation for a hypothesis. For example, statistics showed that cigarette companies in the 9170s were marketing heavily in inner cities and were using marketing to black culture, as Joe Camel typified. But that did not prove the conspiracy, that took documentation from the tobacco companies who initially called it ridiculous. On the other hand, statistics showed that thousands of people have seen "flying saucers" and many in government were told to be quiet about it. A reason to form a hypothesis that the government was hiding the reality of flying saucers, but a conspiracy that has never been shown to be true nor the existance of flying saucers.

So if you believe your statistics prove anything on their own you are wrong, especially since subculture differences can explain them. But please continue to dig for just who may be aiming abortion at poor minorities and who may be controling this diabolical conspiracy and why. Wishing it to be true is not enough.

Just remember, you can't be both Pro Life and Pro War & Pro Death Penalty.

spiderman2: A few errors and contradictions I found in the bible. Please explain:

1) Who is Joseph's dad?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.

2) How many stalls of horses did Solomon have?
1KI 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
2CH 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.

3) Since when do rabbits chew their cud?
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

4) How many legs do insects have?
LEV 11:21-23 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

5) God warned David about how many years of famine?
II SAMUEL 24:13: So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?
I CHRONICLES 21:11: SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee.

6) Does God tempt people or not?
JAS 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man.
GEN 22:1 And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham.

7) How many children did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have?
2SA 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
2SA 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite.

8) Why didn't the second coming of Christ happen long ago? The gospels said it would happen within a generation.
MAT 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
MAR 13:30 Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done.
LUK 21:32 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled.

9) And my personal favorite, how did the kangaroos get off of Noah's ark and hop to Australia?

"Planned Parenthood, unlike what some are claiming on this blog, is certainly in the business of controlling people. They want to tell people what to think and how to view sexuality, even though much of what they say is clearly offensive to many people's faith."

Hahahahahaha! THat was supposed to be funny right? BEcause of all the irony of a CATHOLIC posting it.

I'd also like to give a hearty laugh to your even FUNNIER joke about trying to make Planned Parenthood look WORSE by associating them with such scourges of humanity as Martin Luther King, Jr. and Bill Gates.

Over turning Roe V Wade would have more of an effect than merely returning the question to the states. It would send a message to the whole country and even the whole world that abortion isn't a choice that the constitution defends.

I should provide more numbers to document my assertion that abortion is aimed at poor minorities:

Racial Breakdown of US 2004

Black (who account for 37% of abortions):13%
White (who account for 34% of abortions):66%
Hispanic (who account for 22% of abortions):14%
Asians:(who with indg.account for 8% abortion)5%
Indigenous:(with Asians account for 8%abortions):2%

I would like to put this issue in an historical perspective: if Catholic politicians like John Kerry, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Ted Kennedy, and company were living back in the 1500s, they would all have been considered heretics. And indeed, despite varying levels of culpability, they are heretics right now, because on every moral issue they just happen to be at odds with the Church. This is bad secular leadership. The clergy and the rest of the Church is doing its job, but these people are CHOOSING not to listen, and they are setting very bad examples for their brothers and sisters in Christ.

My grandparents on both sides were Democrats--all 4 of them; working poor Italians and Mexicans--I could tell you plenty of 'heart-wrenching' tales about where we come from. We know what it is like to be poor, to be a minority, but we also know what is right and what is wrong.

I know that the times have changed and that the party has metamorphosed into a rather insidious creature. Social justice and helping those that need help is just an alibi for party leaders that have other radical agendas they really don't want us to know about--like gay marriage. They want us to keep voting them in by promising us they will be better for our families, but really, those benefits are worthless when these same leaders are working against the moral fabric of the family.

I understand why some Catholics vote Democrat. I really do. But I have to tell you, that when you vote as such, you are indeed giving your TACIT APPROVAL to many other things that are counter to Our Church's teachings and to what we hold sacred.

Dear Professor Stevens-Arroyo,

You do not want what has happened to African-Americans to happen to your own race. You do not want to see young Latinas abort their infants in the same magnitude as black women.

Do not make the Faustian bargain of swapping your children for benefits. When you sup with the devil you need a very long spoon.

Stay strong in your faith and hew to the guidance of Holy Mother Church. Keep up your writing and stay a good Catholic.

Yours in good faith,
Mary C.

Abortion in the United States is primarily used as a method of birth control by poor women, as a response to active proselytising by atheist and Protestant liberals. There is an eugenics background to most of them. Eugenicists and atheists like Candide *rejoice* in the destructions of these innocents.

Proportion of US Abortions: 2004 (%)

Women aged 15-44

Black: 37%
White: 34%
Hispanic: 22%
Other: 8%

Thus you can see 67% (or two thirds) of abortions were performed on minority groups, the largest by far on African-Americans.

Other numbers bare repeating:

The general fertility rate was 64.8 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years (2002)
In 2000 there were 21.3 induced abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44 years (1 out of 3). But look at the variation amongst groups!

Rates of induced abortion, variations amongst women (per 1000):
Non-hispanic white women: 11.7
Hispanic women: 30.6
Non-hispanic black women: 57.4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16466522

There has been an outcry about this trend from some members of the black community. In response Guttmacher (a key ngo dedicated to providing abortion and other birth control services) replied:

“This much is true: In the United States, the abortion rate for black women is almost five times that for white women. Antiabortion activists, including some African-American pastors, have been waging a campaign around this fact, falsely asserting that the disparity is the result of aggressive marketing by abortion providers to minority communities.”

http://tinyurl.com/5db467

Now, if you cared at all about these poor women, these numbers would make you hold your head in your hands. No Catholic should ever condone these numbers, or even be associated with them.

But what really bothers me is the behaviour of the Dems. These are their people! What are they doing, aiding in the destruction of so many children *of their core constituencies*? I can see, maybe, why the GOP wouldn’t bother much—except, of course, as a method to gain votes— it’s an overwhelmingly white party and their wives and daughters are not busy destroying their children and grandchildren.

But the Dems. What are they doing? Why are they doing it?

Anonymous:
Feminism and Abortion:

"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton, organizer of the first Women's Convention, Seneca Falls, N.Y., 1848

What happened? How could founding feminist leaders understand the total unacceptability of abortion, yet most of today's mainstream feminists organizations embrace killing the unborn as a "respectable right?"

Serrin M. Foster, president of Feminists for Life

Pro-life feminism?

This may sound like an oxymoron to many, but, in fact, Feminists for Life finds its inspiration in a strand of feminism that is often ignored by the feminist mainstream. Early feminists, such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and many more, understood abortion to be morally wrong in-itself, but within the context of a society that made it possible and prevalent. They believed that abortion was a symptom of deeper social problems, and that it often only freed men from the responsibilities of fatherhood. These women recognized the humanity of the fetus in a time before ultrasound, before color in-the-womb snapshots, before our in-depth knowledge of fetal development. They recognized that whatever the baby looks like in the womb, which is remarkably like a baby outside the womb, that is simply what human beings look like at that age. They recognized that the fetus is a living organism. They affirmed that that living organism was a real person and to end its life was a violent act.

(Source: J. Kirk, "The Logic of Pro-Life Feminism," January 1998)

__________________________________________

Whomever you are, you have some amazing points.....we really have forgotten our roots.

Mary Cunningham made a valid point: social benefits and ante-natal care alone has not reduced abortions in European countries.

As long as abortion is viewed as a "reproductive right" with no education and knowledge invested in teaching women and men the real nature of abortion - killing unborn children - it will continue to be used as a method of late stage contraception.

It is vitally important to study the writings of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood.

Some of her writing is outright sinister.

Again, whenever you hear people say they will "reduce abortions", this is a polite, shorthand way of saying they will promote contraception usage among PERCEIVED 'at risk demographics', that is, the youth, the poor, and minorities. Planned Parenthood is, of course, at the center of such efforts; and is responsible for many of the thoroughly liberal doctrines found in "sex education".

Look at the history of Planned Parenthood, folks. It is an organization founded by rich, white, protestant elitists that felt threatened by the waves of ethnic CATHOLIC Europeans coming to America for a better life.

Planned Parenthood, unlike what some are claiming on this blog, is certainly in the business of controlling people. They want to tell people what to think and how to view sexuality, even though much of what they say is clearly offensive to many people's faith. They are really no different than a religion since they are working to change people's thinking.

Indeed Planned Parenthood wants to control people. You will be surprised to know that Martin Luther King himself was awarded Planned Parenthood's highest honor in 1966, the Margaret Sanger Award. You can take from that fact what you like....But indeed, Planned Parenthood's philosophy is part of an archaic, aristocratic view of poverty that seeks to eliminate poverty by eliminating the poor themselves. Bill Gates is an avid $upporter of Planned Parenthood....

You see, social justice has sadly become an alibi for liberal politicians and influential people. Behind their desire to help the needy and help society is, unfortunately, a dark way of looking at the world, that is often times hostile, and even dangerous to the institutions of Marriage, the Family, and above all, the Church. This is not mindless right-wing banter-this is FACT. In fact, it is HISTORICAL fact.

PLANNED PARENTHOOD IS NOT DOING US ANY FAVORS!

Feminism and Abortion:

"When we consider that woman are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit."

-- Elizabeth Cady Stanton, organizer of the first Women's Convention, Seneca Falls, N.Y., 1848

What happened? How could founding feminist leaders understand the total unacceptability of abortion, yet most of today's mainstream feminists organizations embrace killing the unborn as a "respectable right?"

Serrin M. Foster, president of Feminists for Life

Pro-life feminism?

This may sound like an oxymoron to many, but, in fact, Feminists for Life finds its inspiration in a strand of feminism that is often ignored by the feminist mainstream. Early feminists, such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and many more, understood abortion to be morally wrong in-itself, but within the context of a society that made it possible and prevalent. They believed that abortion was a symptom of deeper social problems, and that it often only freed men from the responsibilities of fatherhood. These women recognized the humanity of the fetus in a time before ultrasound, before color in-the-womb snapshots, before our in-depth knowledge of fetal development. They recognized that whatever the baby looks like in the womb, which is remarkably like a baby outside the womb, that is simply what human beings look like at that age. They recognized that the fetus is a living organism. They affirmed that that living organism was a real person and to end its life was a violent act.

(Source: J. Kirk, "The Logic of Pro-Life Feminism," January 1998)

Two types of abortion supporters:

1. The Uninformed 2. The Profiteers

The Uninformed:

This group is by far the majority.

Many people claim to know all about abortion. In fact, In fact, they may be well educated about the social and legal aspects. The widespread ignorance, however, usually encompasses the physical aspects – the actual reality of what a growing fetus really is, and the appalling violence of the abortion act itself.

Most people would never condone violence, regardless of the circumstances. It’s interesting too, that some people are passionately against capital punishment, yet at the same time they support the execution of helpless babies.

But how can people be against something they don’t know exists?

You can’t blame the Uniformed. Our society has done a terrible job at educating us about abortion.

The schools, government, and media are fearful about abortion education due to its controversial nature. The uninformed simply need to be --- informed.

Includes misguided "do gooders" - those who truly believe they are helping other women by extolling abortion as a mandatory "woman's right" -- while either refusing or not bothering to research the true nature of the violent abortion act, and the resulting emotional upheaval, guilt and depression that so often follows.

#2: Profiteers

Those who profit in some way from abortion.

Abortion providers – those who gain financial profit from the lucrative abortion industry. Includes clinics and their employees, many doctors, some medical equipment suppliers, etc.

Some Politicians – those who profit from misguided positive public opinion on abortion to gain support for their candidacy or viewpoint.

Some women’s rights activists – those who profit by women's ignorance about abortion, touting the misconception that abortion is (or should be) a "women’s right"*

Guilt-ridden - those who once had an abortion, and now derive (temporary) emotional profit by continually trying to suppress the reality and pain of what they did through abortion advocacy.

Fashion-Conscious – those who profit by their own personal enjoyment of being (in their own mind) progressive or "contrarian" on a controversial issue.

It's possible that someone can be both an "Uninformed" and a "Profiteer."

The next time you encounter someone who supports abortion, ask yourself "which group do they fit into?"

It’s clear that the two types of abortion supporters are very different. It’s one thing to be uninformed about a subject. It’s quite another to profit from something so entirely violent and destructive to human life.

Women (and men for that matter) do not have complete control over their bodies. We cannot legally inject or take narcotics. We cannot sell our bodies for sex (in most states), or sell body parts. We cannot legally take our own lives. The fetus, in fact, is not part of the woman at all – it’s classified as "foreign tissue." There are also some women's groups who recognize the total unacceptability of abortion ...

Source: http://www.abortiontv.com/Lies%20%26%20Myths/thetwo.htm

Abortion Statistics

http://www.wpclinic.org/abortion/abortion-statistics/

Fetal Development - (Link provided in previous post)

Day 1: fertilization: all human chromosomes are present; unique human life begins.

Day 6: embryo begins implantation in the uterus.

Day 22: heart begins to beat with the child's own blood, often a different type than the mothers'.

Week 3: By the end of third week the child's backbone spinal column and nervous system are forming. The liver, kidneys and intestines begin to take shape.

Week 4: By the end of week four the child is ten thousand times larger than the fertilized egg.

Week 5: Eyes, legs, and hands begin to develop.

Week 6: Brain waves are detectable; mouth and lips are present; fingernails are forming.

Week 7: Eyelids, and toes form, nose distinct. The baby is kicking and swimming.

-------------------------------------------

Week 8: Every organ is in place, bones begin to replace cartilage, and fingerprints begin to form. By the 8th week the baby can begin to hear.

-----------------------------------------

Weeks 9 and 10: Teeth begin to form, fingernails develop. The baby can turn his head, and frown. The baby can hiccup.

Weeks 10 and 11: The baby can "breathe" amniotic fluid and urinate. Week 11 the baby can grasp objects placed in its hand; all organ systems are functioning. The baby has a skeletal structure, nerves, and circulation.

-----------------------------------------------

Week 12: The baby has all of the parts necessary to experience pain, including nerves, spinal cord, and thalamus. Vocal cords are complete. The baby can suck its thumb.

-------------------------------------------

Week 14: At this age, the heart pumps several quarts of blood through the body every day.

Week 15: The baby has an adult's taste buds.

Month 4: Bone Marrow is now beginning to form. The heart is pumping 25 quarts of blood a day. By the end of month 4 the baby will be 8-10 inches in length and will weigh up to half a pound.

Week 17: The baby can have dream (REM) sleep.

____________________________________________

Week 19: Babies can routinely be saved at 21 to 22 weeks after fertilization, and sometimes they can be saved even younger.

___________________________________________
-------------------------------------------

Week 20: The earliest stage at which Partial birth abortions are performed.

At 20 weeks the baby recognizes its' mothers voice.

-------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------

Months 5 and 6: The baby practices breathing by inhaling amniotic fluid into its developing lungs. The baby will grasp at the umbilical cord when it feels it. Most mothers feel an increase in movement, kicking, and hiccups from the baby. Oil and sweat glands are now functioning. The baby is now twelve inches long or more, and weighs up to one and a half pounds.

Months 7 through 9: Eyeteeth are present. The baby opens and closes his eyes. The baby is using four of the five senses (vision, hearing, taste, and touch.) He knows the difference between waking and sleeping, and can relate to the moods of the mother. The baby's skin begins to thicken, and a layer of fat is produced and stored beneath the skin. Antibodies are built up, and the baby's heart begins to pump 300 gallons of blood per day. Approximately one week before the birth the baby stops growing, and "drops" usually head down into the pelvic cavity.

------------------------------------------

Sources Used:

Bergel, Gary (Produced by NRLC) "When You Were Formed in Secret." 1998.

Flanagan, Geraldine Lux. Beginning Life. The Marvelous Journey from Conception to Birth. New York: DK Publishing Inc., 1996.

Hopson, Janet L. Fetal Psychology. Oct. 1998. 07 Jan 2003.
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html.

Internet Sources:

"Fetal Development." 07 Jan 2003.
http://www.w-cpc.org/fetal1.html.

Fetal Development

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/fetaldevelopment.html

From the website of National Right to Life

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/pba/Blackmunpapers.html

In the UK it is legal for termination to be carried out up to 24 weeks of pregnancy, but most hospitals and clinics will not consider termination beyond 18 to 20 weeks.

MzFitz:

Sorry Butterfly3, and all of the so-called "pro-life" folks, but you have missed the point of this column. This column was focused on providing a different point of view. Stop spouting the same BS anti-choice rhetoric that we keep hearing.

I think that that's fine that you don't agree with abortion. No one is forcing you to have one. Making abortion illegal will not stop it. If you rally cared, you would keep your opinion to yourself and work towards advocating safe sex, healthcare for all, sexual violence prevention, facilitating adoption and foster care, and childcare assistance. Posting ignorant opinions on blogs, protesting outside of Planned Parenthood (who btw, do everything that I mentioned earlier), and creating TRAP laws do nothing to help the woman and the cluster of cells, fetus, baby, or women placed in these situations. If you REALLY had an issue with people making choices on behalf o the maker, we'd see you protesting outside of fertility clinics.

August 27, 2008 10:39 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Btw, only ONE PERCENT of abortions are due to rape/incest;

only SIX PERCENT of abortions are due to health issues of the mother/child;

but NINETY THREE PERCENT of all abortions are abortions of choice by healthy mothers of healthy babies growing in their womb. To deny the atrocity of the act, the growing child has been dehumanized by calling it a clump of cells/parasite etc. Medical science does NOT dehumanize a human embryo by referring to a developing human being by different names. It is merely a scientific tradition to give different names for different stages, like the egg of a butterfly goes through different stages - caterpiller and pupa - before it finally emerges in the form of a butterfly.

Brendan,

Thanks man. It is nice to have a pat on the back in between the slaps in the face. Thanks for your thoughts and edifying words. We can never be afraid to speak up and keep people honest.

To repeat, RU-486, the abortion pill is now available on-line, no prescription required. The decision to end fetal life is therefore solely an agonizing decision by the carrier of said life. The Commandment, Thou Shalt Not Kill, would be the major agonizing factor.

Abortion clinics have vested interest in presenting abortion as the "right" of a woman, not as the killing of unborn children.

I did not speak on behalf of PAM, regarding her love for dogs.

I was merely expressing MY opinion.

Pam BREEDS dogs. It is a well known fact, animal lovers, who keep pets or breed them, generally love their animals like humans love their children.

MzFitz:

Sorry Butterfly3, and all of the so-called "pro-life" folks, but you have missed the point of this column. This column was focused on providing a different point of view. Stop spouting the same BS anti-choice rhetoric that we keep hearing.

I think that that's fine that you don't agree with abortion. No one is forcing you to have one. Making abortion illegal will not stop it. If you rally cared, you would keep your opinion to yourself and work towards advocating safe sex, healthcare for all, sexual violence prevention, facilitating adoption and foster care, and childcare assistance. Posting ignorant opinions on blogs, protesting outside of Planned Parenthood (who btw, do everything that I mentioned earlier), and creating TRAP laws do nothing to help the woman and the cluster of cells, fetus, baby, or women placed in these situations. If you REALLY had an issue with people making choices on behalf o the maker, we'd see you protesting outside of fertility clinics.

August 27, 2008 10:39 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Human embryology is science, not the personal opinion of anyone who is against abortion.

A developing human child in the womb remains a human child in development no matter what name you choose to call it.

How come pro-abortionists NEVER, EVER, mention that a woman ought to be responsible for the consequences of her sex life and killing an unborn child should never be considered one of the options in dealing with failed contraception?

Why is there a demand that others ought to take the responsibility for the child in the womb a woman's sex life produced?

As long as humans have existed it is known that sex produces children, which is why sex outside marriage was so strictly prohibited in traditional societies and fornication and adultery was so severely punished.

Now, in spite of availability of contraceptives, why is there an exponential rise in the number of abortions after abortion became legal? Easy availability of abortions should have kept the number of abortions at least constant, if not reduced, since contraceptives became available.

"PLEASE DON'T SPEAK ON BEHALF OF PAM WITHOUT HER PERMISSION.'

Yes- let's not expect Pam to show compassion for her dogs. She has already shown us her lack of empathy for her own species.

However- I do believe her dogs are protective of their litters and will struggle to sustain and nuture their pups.

ceflynline@msn.com wrote "So, Spidey, answer me this: By what authority do you teach? "Peter I acknowledge, and Jesus I must obey, but who are you?"

It's good that you acknowledge Peter and Christ. I only clarify what they say in the Bible. I have nothing to add. Like Catholicism, your problem is READING COMPREHENTION. Biscuits are NOT holy and so is water whether they pray over it or not. They are all figures of speech. The bread is the picture of Christ and water in baptism is the picture of the Holy Spirit. Bread as a picture of LIFE and water a picture of CLEANSING.

RE: ANONYMOUS:
Pam said she has bred dogs for years. So one can presume she would fight for dog's rights like her oown life, even the rights of unborn puppies...

PLEASE DON'T SPEAK ON BEHALF OF PAM WITHOUT HER PERMISSION.

"Also he made the cast metal sea, ten cubits from brim to brim, circular in form,
and its height was five cubits and its circumference thirty cubits" (2 Chronicles 4:2)

It doesn't say pi=3. What it means is that it was NOT a perfect circle. IDIOTS.

Sorry Butterfly3, I meant JIMBO56.

Sorry Butterfly3, and all of the so-called "pro-life" folks, but you have missed the point of this column. This column was focused on providing a different point of view. Stop spouting the same BS anti-choice rhetoric that we keep hearing.

I think that that's fine that you don't agree with abortion. No one is forcing you to have one. Making abortion illegal will not stop it. If you rally cared, you would keep your opinion to yourself and work towards advocating safe sex, healthcare for all, sexual violence prevention, facilitating adoption and foster care, and childcare assistance. Posting ignorant opinions on blogs, protesting outside of Planned Parenthood (who btw, do everything that I mentioned earlier), and creating TRAP laws do nothing to help the woman and the cluster of cells, fetus, baby, or women placed in these situations. If you REALLY had an issue with people making choices on behalf o the maker, we'd see you protesting outside of fertility clinics.

Spidey: having shown you that the bible DOES concern itself with circles, and other open invitations to provable error, and cautioned you that "The Bible is not subject to error ONLY in teaching faith or morals" I will now tork off the non Catholic Community, and a few Catholics as well, by refining my statement. The Bible is not subject to error when it teaches faith or morals, BUT, humans are quite prone to error when teaching what they claim the Bible teaches in respect to faith or morals. Unless you are a Catholic who accepts that the Church, and the Pope in particular, teaching excathedra on matters of faith and morals, cannot be in error, you are on your own, all bets are off, because without the Magisterium to protect you, you cannot be sure that what the preacher, teacher, mystic, or savant is telling you about the Bible is true, or, in the case of the radical fringes of Christianity, is even in the Bible at all.

So, Spidey, answer me this: By what authority do you teach? "Peter I acknowledge, and Jesus I must obey, but who are you?"

ceflynline@msn.com wrote "By the way, try calculating how fast it would have to rain to raise the height of the oceans y 30,000 feet in forty days."

If your assumptions are wrong , you'll not get the right answers. Mountains like the Everest could not have yet existed in Noah's time. Also the earth keeps on growing. It was smaller during the time of Noah. It's gravity therefore is lesser to let water accumulate in the atmosphere in larger volumes.

Noah's flood happened and Doomsday will happen. Just wait for it coz the BIG OVEN is already there. Just a push of a button and it will come your way.

Butterfly3,

I have 3 adopted children and am pro-life.

I often ask people who support abortion rights and have had children, "when did your fetus become your baby? Was it a baby only on the day it was born?" "How about the day before it was born or the day before that?"

I do believe that life begins at conception. Every piece of unique genetic material is present.

Some people talk about "viability" outside the womb. Who of us was viable without our parents nurturing us?

Here is the bottom line. In the majority of all abortions, it is being used as a form of birth control. These women weren't raped, they are the result of incest, they just had unprotected sex.

When pro-abortion advocates were trying to have abortion legalized, they spoke about how legalization would lower the crime rate, it would lower the rate of children born out of wedlock and how it would ultimately reduce the poverty rate. Well, none of that has happened, in fact, it's gone the other way.

Fredierick wrote "The Bible says Pi=3"

These epeople are fond of lying just to "back-up" their false accusations.

The Bible is not concern about circles. Why would it mention about the value of pi?

Here's what the Bible mentioned.

"But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him." (Luke 12:5)

The person who said that also said that his words
will be preached around the world. It already happened. You guys have no idea who you are messing with.

Spiderman: Think about this: If Methuselah had counted one person per second, eight hours a day, six days a week, fifty weeks a year, from his twentieth birthday until his 920th birthday, he would have counted 7.676 billion people. Babylonian Arithmetic and computation skills being what they were in his time, he could easily have counted twelve times that many, or about 84 billion people. If John saw a bigger number than that, it is going to be an awful long time until the end times, because that is more people than ever lived, let alone more people than the elect, (actually, martyrs, an even smaller contingent.)

Best accept the Catholic Church's teaching that the Bible is inerrant when teaching faith and morals.

Paganplace:

Your attempt at using statistics and presidential terms to prove that pro-life messages are counter-productive.. is.. well, statistically wrong. Bear in mind, we all know that statistics can prove pretty much anything.. but since you want to play the statistics game.. how about this: In 2004 (that's pretty much smack dab in the middle of Bush's two terms), abortion reached an all-time low since the year after Roe v. Wade. Now, according to your theory, his pro-life message would have resulted in an all-time high! Hardly. Presidents are elected to LEAD. And if they're going to lead at all, they ought to lead on the issue of LIFE!

Abortion issues have been discussed at length in the blogs of panelists John Mark Reynolds, Chuck Colson and Father Reese (August 2008) and Susan Jacoby (July & August 2008). It has also been discussed previously on this Catholic blog.

The heart is the first organ of the body to start functioning and starts to beat at the age of 18-21 DAYS of the human embryo.

At the end of EIGHT WEEKS the human embryo is called the FETUS or little one, because the embryo has developed all the features of a baby and only grows in size and matures from that point on.

spiderman2: OK, here are two biblical statements that are absolute fallacies:

The Books of Kings give the size of the Brazen Sea, used to store water for ritual purification, as being ten cubits across, and thirty cubits in circumference. That makes pi equal to three. and any reasonable engineer or mathematician from half a millennium before that time could have given a reasonably accurate circumference: thirty-one cubits and a span.

Tea Apocalypse, after getting the list of the tribes of Israel wrong, says that John "Saw a great multitude, such that no man could number it..."

There is no collection of discrete objects, however numerous, that a man could not number, whether you mean count, or name. Archimedes described at least one method of such numbering a quarter millennium before the birth of Christ. John wrote perhaps a hundred years after.

In both cases, given the undeniable literal meaning of the passage, the passages are false.

(By the way, try calculating how fast it would have to rain to raise the height of the oceans y 30,000 feet in forty days.)

Mr Kmiec, Obama , and Arroyo all seem to be similar in that their brains have disappeared and so I would say they are "blobs".

Well said Frank on the Democrats liberal social platform- spot on. And I'm with you that I can't vote for them until they wise up on these issues.

"We do not know why some women sometimes miscarry before the 20th week or have stillbirths after the 20th week. Miscarriages and stillbirths are losses of pregnancy due to NATURAL CAUSES."

Score one for the Intelligent Design movement.

Continuing on the science of human development:

What we do not know for certain is why not all eggs released from the ovary are fertilized, even if the woman may have had sex during that period.

We do not know why all the fertilized eggs do not get implanted in the wall of the uterus of the mother.

We do not know why some women sometimes miscarry before the 20th week or have stillbirths after the 20th week. Miscarriages and stillbirths are losses of pregnancy due to NATURAL CAUSES.

Pam said she has bred dogs for years. So one can presume she would fight for dog's rights like her oown life, even the rights of unborn puppies. I doubt whether she would call the unborn puppies a "clump of cells" that the mother dog had the right to dispose off at will. Anyway no dog aborts its puppies at any stage of development. Neither do bonobo apes, chimps or gorillas, supposedly our direct ancestors in the animal kingdom.

Pam would like us to brush up on human embryology.

The UNfertilized MATURE ovum that is released from the ovary at the rate of about one per month (very rarely two) from the ovary, roughly two weeks before the menstrual period (if the woman is not pregnant), has only HALF the number of chromosomes. Only the immature eggs present in the ovary have the full number of chromosomes.

We know for a FACT that the life of EVERY human being begins as a FERTILIZED ovum, and that particular human life did NOT begin 3.5 million years ago.

The other half of the chromosomes in a FERTILIZED OVUM is supplied by the sperm from the father of the child.

The fertilized ovum has a unique combination of genes and its OWN GENDER.

The FERTILIZED OVUM implants itself in the wall of the uterus of the mother on the SEVENTH DAY, BEFORE the pregnant woman misses her period and suspects pregnancy.

Until implantation, the fertilized ovum grows rapidly as part of its process of growth at its genetically pre-determined pace. After implantation the process of growth merely continues, but it does NOT acquire any further input from its mother in its human development except oxygen and nutrients, just as any human being needs oxygen and nutrients for its growth after it is born.

The Other White Pope: Wrong question. Better question: there are tens of thousands of cell masses from in vitro fertilization procedures resting in liquid nitrogen. Unless they find some woman willing to have them implanted they will eventually deteriorate to non viability. Which of you women who are so dedicated to life begins at conception will be willing to surrogate mother some of those frozen children? For that matter, it has been claimed that it might be possible for men to carry a child to term with appropriate chemical and medical intervention. Any of you male pro lifers willing to volunteer?

And since, once the cell masses are deteriorated beyond viability, they may still be alive, do we keep them frozen for eternity, or at least till they deteriorate to the point when they are no longer alive? Is disposing of them murder? Is letting them deteriorate negligent homicide?

The Catholic Church is morally opposed to in vitro fertilization. If we are to legislate the Catholic Church's moral position, it must be illegal. How many of you Pro-Lifers are willing to seek such legislation?

One party says it has the only answer, make abortions illegal. It doesn't ever talk about what the punishment for the crime is, or, for that matter, who is the criminal. We are supposed to trust them to get that right after they get to make abortion a crime. The other party says that making abortion a crime isn't the answer, that making abortion unnecessary and societally unacceptable is the answer. It gives numerous ways that making abortion less common could be accomplished.

On the whole, based on results, one might expect that the approach of making abortion rarer and rarer would be the obvious choice of Bernardinite Pro-Lifers. But that would mean encouraging women to complete pregnancies, and would be interpreted as encouraging women to get pregnant in order to reap those benefits. Ronald Reagan and his depiction of "Welfare Queens" (always assumed to be black and single, just not actually so stated) was the most notorious "Pro Lifer" to espouse that contradiction, but the theme and variations is still in there being used by "Pro-Life" Conservatives to oppose "SOCIALISM" (sound of terrified horses off stage).

So, those of you who are mostly intent on reducing the number of (medical) abortions, (There must always be some because a D & C procedure to remove a dead fetus is still a (Medical) abortion) you have your choice; Which Party's platform seems to you most likely to lead to the greatest reduction in abortions? As you are truly pro life, it is that party you should vote for.

Now go read both party's platforms for the last fifty years. Read them honestly and the Republicans are toast.

Pam:

When life begins is completely irrelevant. I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that a morula is a group of *living* cells. The fact is that life began some 3.5 billion years ago and has never ended. The egg that you came from was alive in your mother's ovaries before she was born.

Life is not the issue. Neither is humanity (I'm also willing to stipulate that an embryo with human DNA is a potential human. Emphasis on potential.

The soul business is, as far as I'm concerned, pure fantasy. When one of you can show me one of those, we'll talk. Until then, let's stick to what we actually know.

The *only* question is when does a human obtain *rights*.

For all of time, that has been only after birth - and even then, not *full* rights until the attainment of majority.

An embryo can't own property, apply for an SSN or a passport. It can't even have a legal name. It doesn't yet have a DOB.

Rights at conception, as McCain says? Let's just forget for a moment that no one knows when the moment of conception *is*. Even when a pregnancy is known, there's no guarantee that it will come to fruition.

I HAVE BRED DOGS FOR YEARS...(capitals mine for emphasis only)

August 27, 2008 6:05 PM

----------------------

Pam:

It doesn't have rights because it is not yet an independently living (biologically speaking) human being.

"Because an egg, or sperm, does not have a complete set of human chromosomes."

Beg to differ. The eggs in the ovaries *do* have a full complement of chromosomes. It's not until they shed the polar body that they become haploid.

Try again.

August 27, 2008 6:43 PM

-----------------------------
Pam:

Man, you're thick. That's why I said "biologically speaking" - it cannot exist independently of it's mother's *body*. Requiring care is nothing to do with biological independence.

No, you don't have the right to kill an independently living child (even one that depends on you for care), but you *do* have the right not to allow your body to be used to sustain biologically dependent life.

"No egg, in any state, at any time until it unites with sperm, can be implanted in a uterus and begin development."

Don't be so sure. Time to brush up on biology.

August 27, 2008 7:03 PM

Pam:

When life begins is completely irrelevant. I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that a morula is a group of *living* cells. The fact is that life began some 3.5 billion years ago and has never ended. The egg that you came from was alive in your mother's ovaries before she was born.

Life is not the issue. Neither is humanity (I'm also willing to stipulate that an embryo with human DNA is a potential human. Emphasis on potential.

The soul business is, as far as I'm concerned, pure fantasy. When one of you can show me one of those, we'll talk. Until then, let's stick to what we actually know.

The *only* question is when does a human obtain *rights*.

For all of time, that has been only after birth - and even then, not *full* rights until the attainment of majority.

An embryo can't own property, apply for an SSN or a passport. It can't even have a legal name. It doesn't yet have a DOB.

Rights at conception, as McCain says? Let's just forget for a moment that no one knows when the moment of conception *is*. Even when a pregnancy is known, there's no guarantee that it will come to fruition.

I've bred dogs for years. I can take a pregnant female in for an X-ray in her 7th week and see that she's carrying 11 puppies, but I'd better not start counting the sales money, because it's quite likely that whether the birth is natural or by C-section, some of those won't make it out alive.

And with rights, an embryo/fetus has the right to sue. Believe me, the lawyers will be more than happy to take the case when the Right-to-Lifers decide that a pregnant woman is recklessly endangering her "baby" by smoking, or drinking, or not eating an optimally healthy diet, or by exercising too hard, or not enough... Can you say "can of worms"?

Potential lives do not have rights, nor should they. Every egg is a potential life, and there are hundreds of them in every ovary. Should a woman on welfare get benefits for every egg she carries? Why not?

The RU-486 pill prevents implantation, so that no pregnancy actually ever occurs, but you hard-liners are against it because it takes effect *after* the moment of conception. But maybe not. At that point, you don't know whether or not there *was* a moment of conception. You also don't know that even if there was, it might not have washed out without attaching entirely on its own - this happens quite frequently.

If you hard-core Catholics, who go for your opinions to a bunch of never-married old men, who can hardly wait for new crop of children to molest, can't bring yourselves to approve *any* method of birth control, then you might as well resign yourselves to the status quo. Those of us who, like OldBob, below, remember the bad old days, and/or who value the lives and rights of actual existing human lives, will never allow you to force women into motherhood when they do not desire it, and can't afford it.

No way, no how.

August 27, 2008 6:05 PM

-----------------------------------------

Pam:

AK says:
"The rest of this is just a tautology: A fetus doesn't have rights. Why not? Because it doesn't have rights."

Not at all. It doesn't have rights because it is not yet an independently living (biologically speaking) human being.

"Because an egg, or sperm, does not have a complete set of human chromosomes."

Beg to differ. The eggs in the ovaries *do* have a full complement of chromosomes. It's not until they shed the polar body that they become haploid.

Try again.

August 27, 2008 6:43 PM

----------------------------------------

Pam:

AK writes:
"What does independence have to do with anything? An infant - even a small child - is entirely dependent on others, "biologically speaking." That does not give those upon whom it is dependent the right to kill it."

Man, you're thick. That's why I said "biologically speaking" - it cannot exist independently of it's mother's *body*. Requiring care is nothing to do with biological independence.

No, you don't have the right to kill an independently living child (even one that depends on you for care), but you *do* have the right not to allow your body to be used to sustain biologically dependent life.

"No egg, in any state, at any time until it unites with sperm, can be implanted in a uterus and begin development."

Don't be so sure. Time to brush up on biology.

August 27, 2008 7:03 PM

Odd how Arroyo replaces that Pope dude with "Professor Kmiec." Wonder what his Bishop thinks? This is entirely new logic.

Abortion is OK for Catholics, cuz, like, the Democrats totally endorse it but think warm rainbow like thoughts?

Dude, you are totally wrong. Both Biden and Obama got ZERO ratings. Maybe the first part of Barack's name is ZERO. ZERObama.

Were you high writing this?

Frank the Papist translated:

I want government to control your sexual behavior and your reproductive freedoms. The Democratic party does not, but they pretend to act like us to fool us, when they really want the government to have no say in your sexual behavior or your reproductive freedoms.

And you know what, he's right! The Democrats are cowards for pandering to the Theocrats.

Angela: great comments, I love ya.

Now let's rock and roll.

A perfect Washington Post affiliated article. Doin a little sucking up to all us Catholics. Despite the author and this mixed-up Kmiec feigning even-handedness on the issue, I AM NOT SWALLOWING THIS.

The fact is, Roe v. Wade was an activist decision and now it has gained precedence in the law. Therefore it is nearly impossible for anyone to overturn the decision without being branded for eternity as an evil conservative monster, or getting assassinated. So don't worry. But here is a trivia question, "do you know some of the Supreme Court Justices who were of the majority opinion on Roe v Wade?" Your hero Thurgood Marshall and William Brennan, an Irish Catholic, were two.

"In the exercise of the freedom afforded by our faith, a vote for a Democrat is just as valid a decision made from a faith perspective as a vote for a Republican" I think this is the main point of the article, and Stevens-Arroyo should have left it at that.

But that anyone would even suggest there is not "a dime's worth of difference" between the parties morally is being very dishonest with themselves and the public. And we need some straight honest talk and we need to can the double-talk and guarded euphemisms.

No matter how much the Democrat Party makes attempts to mend their radical Ted Kennedy image, everyone knows that abortion, secularism, and encouraging contraceptive use among our youth, are cemented features of the Democrat Party Platform. Their soft and careful language does not fool me and it should not fool other Catholics either. Don't be fooled by Democrat promises of treasure and pleasure.

You will see it more and more, folks, Democrats are recognizing abortion is too extreme and are trying to soften their image by "reducing abortions" which merely means they are going to PROMOTE CONTRACEPTIVE USAGE AMONG "AT RISK" GROUPS LIKE MINORITIES AND THE YOUTH.

In the end, the Democrat Party will just be perpetuating sexual immorality, as has been the case for the past 3 decades. Especially when party leaders generally refuse to take a morally-based approach to these issues.

The language of this article is quite careful, but I am definitely sure of one thing: abortion, liberal sex education, gay marriage, euthanasia, have never been platforms of the Republican Party-they are however, prominently featured in the policies of the Democrat Senators you know and love.

I will proudly vote Republican until the Democrats wake up and get real.

...and the crickets chirp...

omg, spiderman, i didn't list the fallacies...Pam did you tool!

Chapter and verse, and you just ignored them over and over again, like your trying to do now.

So I can only assume that you have NO ANSWER to the specific biblical fallacies put to you.

Dude...have you ever even READ the Bible?

Anyone (not brainwashed or desperate for meaning in life) with a friggin 8th grade education can tell its a load of BS.

But, if your too lazy to read the specific fallacies listed by Pam, here's one.

The Bible says Pi=3

Pi, in fact does not equal 3.

Enlighten us, oh webby wonder, with your explanation of this biblical paradox.

Yup, SPECIFIC fallacies like monkeys turned into humans. Give me a break. You people are the ones who are making fallacies.

Please list the "biblical fallacies" you are talking about. I'll give you idiots my nth lesson about the bible and knew at the back of my mind that IDIOTS don't learn anything.

c ya later.

"Oooooooh! Scareyyyyy!"

Im not scaring you. Im just saying it so the people or the audience who will see how you will fry will praise the Lord once it happens. A prophecy fulfilled.

Nobody messes with God. EVER. You are specimen number 948578576 and not a single person escaped.

What made you think you are an exception? Hmmm?

AK - Citations, please. I know it's going to be difficult for you - chemical abortion remained legal and was practiced in the Roman Empire post-establishment of Christianity. And I'd like an explanation of why Catholicism doesn't permit baptism of babies in the womb or frozen embryos, if it is truly committed to the proposition that those are unique, ensouled human beings with full human rights.

Also, an infant is dependent on others, but unlike a fetus or embryo, is not dependent on one particular person to the exclusion of all other possible caregivers. A mother who doesn't want to take care of her infant can give her to someone else; a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant can't. I suspect you understand the difference, but like to fudge it to serve your purposes and try to

Spiderman, you are a tool.

How many times does Pam have to present you with SPECIFIC fallacies from the Bible (pi=3 and so forth) before you will reply with anything other than your fetish with nuclear weapons and your ignorance of biology.

You just maker yourself look like your avoiding her questions, which were clear as glass.

"Like what?"

You know very well like what.

"Like nukes are already there positioned and aimed at you right now? The BIG OVEN is there already. What's lacking is the match to FIRE IT UP."

Oooooooh! Scareyyyyy!

"Now you want to tell me that because the GOP didn't pass a law banning each and every abortion, it hasn't done anything for pro-lifers.

The GOP took two big steps towards banning abortion: Alito and Roberts. But I suppose that doesn't count for some reason."

Uh...last I heard, the Supreme Court is a judicial body, rather than a legislative one, and has the power to ban precisely nothing.

The best you can hope for is an overturning of Roe v. Wade, which, ultimately, MIGHT mean that your kid has to go one state over to get an abortion, after which the deleterious effects of criminalized abortion would turn one state after the other, like dominos, into Democratic strongholds.

But I guess, if it makes you feel better, keep on fightin' the good fight.

I will tell you that, in the end, abortion will be legal in probably all 50 states due to popular demand. They don't sell 1.4 million (or whatever) of em a year for no reason.

Pam wrote "They must be private indeed, because the Christian Bible is full of slavery"

Take it from the person who does NOT read the Bible. The person who does NOT know that Apostle Paul wrote more than half of the New Testament. And lastly, she believes that scales can turn into feathers.

See where freedom reigns. Is it in Bible believing America or is it in atheist countries like China and North Korea. IDIOT!

AK writes:
"What does independence have to do with anything? An infant - even a small child - is entirely dependent on others, "biologically speaking." That does not give those upon whom it is dependent the right to kill it."

Man, you're thick. That's why I said "biologically speaking" - it cannot exist independently of it's mother's *body*. Requiring care is nothing to do with biological independence.

No, you don't have the right to kill an independently living child (even one that depends on you for care), but you *do* have the right not to allow your body to be used to sustain biologically dependent life.

"No egg, in any state, at any time until it unites with sperm, can be implanted in a uterus and begin development."

Don't be so sure. Time to brush up on biology.

Pam wrote "I showed you multiple instances of the Bible being wrong, "

Like what? Like nukes are already there positioned and aimed at you right now? The BIG OVEN is there already. What's lacking is the match to FIRE IT UP.

Just a push of a button and you're FRIED. That's what I call ACCURATE prophecy.

Your reality is based on SCALES TURNING INTO FEATHERS. What a pity. A future human torch.

"They must be private indeed, because the Christian Bible is full of slavery, and never says a word against it."

Indeed. It's a good thing that I'm a Catholic, and therefore don't believe that the Bible is an exhaustive and exclusive guide to morality.

"You can keep writing stuff like this. It won't make it true."

You can keep writing stuff like THAT. It won't make it true.

"I shouldn't force others to comply with my private religious beliefs that slavery is wrong."

They must be private indeed, because the Christian Bible is full of slavery, and never says a word against it.

FROM:CONEY ISLAND NEW YORK YA!

Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!
Better a OBAMA never a McCAIN!-……_______________
PEACE,PAZ,SALAAM,SHALOM,FREIDEN,

"I'm sorry AK, seems like a reading comprehension lesson is in order. I stated I can't remember any attempt by the Republican government to BAN abortion."

You got caught forgetting the Partial Birth Abortion ban, and now you're trying to twist things. Okay, but we both know what you're doing.

Now you want to tell me that because the GOP didn't pass a law banning each and every abortion, it hasn't done anything for pro-lifers.

The GOP took two big steps towards banning abortion: Alito and Roberts. But I suppose that doesn't count for some reason.

"The Bible is NEVER wrong."

Singing that song again, Spidey? I showed you multiple instances of the Bible being wrong, and you couldn't explain away any of them.

">v>o>t>e>>>>>">http://./>>>>>
FRM CONEY ISLAND NEW YORK
Better my CLINTON Not BORACK!
Better my CLINTON than McCAIN!
Better me CLINTON Not BORACK!
Better CLINTON’S than OBAMA‘s!......._________________
Better the CLINTON's than the McCAINs! Thanks AMERiCA!
.

Note: Hillary & Bill are GOG (reality/Truth) 'not' Barack & Michelle, MAGOG (illusion/Delusion) http:///

"It doesn't have rights because it is not yet an independently living (biologically speaking) human being."

What does independence have to do with anything? An infant - even a small child - is entirely dependent on others, "biologically speaking." That does not give those upon whom it is dependent the right to kill it.

"The eggs in the ovaries *do* have a full complement of chromosomes. It's not until they shed the polar body that they become haploid."

No egg, in any state, at any time until it unites with sperm, can be implanted in a uterus and begin development.

AK says:
"The rest of this is just a tautology: A fetus doesn't have rights. Why not? Because it doesn't have rights."

Not at all. It doesn't have rights because it is not yet an independently living (biologically speaking) human being.

"Because an egg, or sperm, does not have a complete set of human chromosomes."

Beg to differ. The eggs in the ovaries *do* have a full complement of chromosomes. It's not until they shed the polar body that they become haploid.

Try again.

"You mean you can't recall the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, passed by the GOP-controlled Congress and signed by George W. Bush?

Might want to have that memory checked out."

I'm sorry AK, seems like a reading comprehension lesson is in order.

I stated I can't remember any attempt by the Republican government to BAN abortion.

(hint: keyword is in capital letters)

Frederick wrote:

"AK, I am truly in a state of awe. I mean, 6 years of the Republicans owning the legislature and the executive, and I can't recall one attempt to ban abortion."

You mean you can't recall the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, passed by the GOP-controlled Congress and signed by George W. Bush?

Might want to have that memory checked out.

I don't believe in slavery. I think it's wrong because my religion tells me it's wrong.

But who am I to decide whether someone owns a slave or not? It's not my plantation. I don't have a right to say what goes on there. I shouldn't force others to comply with my private religious beliefs that slavery is wrong.

Anti-slavery? Then don't own one. And shut up.

AK writes: "That's interesting, because the Democrats are constantly warning us that Roe vs. Wade is only one vote from being overturned. It looks like the Republicans have been doing something, after all. Either that or the Democrats or lying."

Well gawsh, AK...you think the Democrats are LYING???

Politicians LYING???

Never!!! Its not like they're trying to get votes or anything.

AK, I am truly in a state of awe. I mean, 6 years of the Republicans owning the legislature and the executive, and I can't recall one attempt to ban abortion. Homosexuality...sure!!! Abortion...nothing.

If the plain facts can't wake you up, I suppose I should just tip my hat to Rove for a job well done.

"Wherever abortion has been banned or restricted, as it has been in Christian communities for 2,000 years, fetuses have enjoyed the right not to be destroyed."

You can keep writing stuff like this. It won't make it true.

The Monk:

I answered your question about life insurance. I even offered you a policy.

I'd like to know what the point of your second question, the one about death certificates, is.

Pam wrote:

"The *only* question is when does a human obtain *rights*. For all of time, that has been only after birth - and even then, not *full* rights until the attainment of majority. An embryo can't own property, apply for an SSN or a passport. It can't even have a legal name. It doesn't yet have a DOB."

It's not true that fetuses have never enjoyed rights. Wherever abortion has been banned or restricted, as it has been in Christian communities for 2,000 years, fetuses have enjoyed the right not to be destroyed.

The rest of this is just a tautology: A fetus doesn't have rights. Why not? Because it doesn't have rights.

"Every egg is a potential life, and there are hundreds of them in every ovary. Should a woman on welfare get benefits for every egg she carries? Why not?"

Because an egg, or sperm, does not have a complete set of human chromosomes.

"The RU-486 pill prevents implantation, so that no pregnancy actually ever occurs, but you hard-liners are against it because it takes effect *after* the moment of conception. But maybe not. At that point, you don't know whether or not there *was* a moment of conception. You also don't know that even if there was, it might not have washed out without attaching entirely on its own - this happens quite frequently."

This is a strange argument: because we can't be *certain* that a life is in existence, we can take an action that will kill that life if it exists. This is like saying that if we don't *know* whether or not a gun is loaded, we can point it at someone and pull the trigger.

LIZ:

Answer this simple question: What happens in an abortion? No pro-baby killers ever want to talk about what actually happens in an abortion, they always go to "it's none of your business" or "it's about the choice." The choice is to have an abortion or not. And in an abortion, a child dies. Period.

The Monk asks:

Questions to the Pro-Lifers: 1) if life starts at conception, could the woman take out life insurance for the protection on the child?

Answer: Sure, if an insurance company issues such a policy.

And 2) if life starts at conception and the woman has a miscarriage, is she by law required to have a death certificate?

No she isn't, but parents often do baptize the baby and arrange for a funeral and burial of their angelic son or daughter.

Republicans have and will continue to appoint conservative judges opposite to the Dems who have and will continue to appoint VERY LIBERAL judges.

Pam wrote "the soul business is, as far as I'm concerned, pure fantasy"

The Dems like this lady are the MAGNETS of DOOM and doomed will be the fate of their states.

The Bible is NEVER wrong. We will get to see how these peole will fry.

Frederick wrote:

"The Republicans are playing you for suckers. They have identified that you will only vote against one use: abortion. So, being smart politicians, they tell you they, too, are against abortion, but they do NOTHING about it."

That's interesting, because the Democrats are constantly warning us that Roe vs. Wade is only one vote from being overturned. It looks like the Republicans have been doing something, after all. Either that or the Democrats or lying.

In case you pro-lifers haven't got the message from the likes of Marc Edwards, let me spell it out for you in plain terms:

The Republicans are playing you for suckers. They have identified that you will only vote against one use: abortion. So, being smart politicians, they tell you they, too, are against abortion, but they do NOTHING about it.

They probably laugh about you behind closed doors (isn't Carl Rove on the record as doing so?)

Meanwhile, the last thing they want is criminalized abortion, because it would alienate probably around 65% of the country, and they would lose power.

Wake up....you are being played.

No sweat off my brow: either way abortion will remain legal, but don't you all have any pride?

To Anonymous 4:04pm

The choice is to have an abortion or not. I don't happen to believe in the Catholic church's stance that life begins at conception. Therefore, I don't believe abortion is murder. But the fact is, pro-choicers believe in letting people CHOOSE. The choice is to have one or not. Don't even begin to try to say that pro-choice is pro-abortion. It's more like pro-NOYB (none of your business).

As far as not addressing my question re: murdering doctors & nurses? I am shocked, shocked!, that you won't. It's a perfectly legitimate question. I guess you belong in the 'ambivalent' camp.

Separation of church and state NOW! I'm not a catholic, why should I have to abide by their arbitrary & misogynistic rules?!

The issue of abotion and gay maariage are always decided by judges. What matter is the CHOICE of judges. Obama's choice of judges are TOO liberal.

For that, he doesn't deserve to be president. America would become a nation of abortions and gay marriages if he becomes president.

Doomsday is near and America would become a big magnet attracting the WRATH of God if that happens.

Currently, only 3 states (Massachusettes, California and New York) are at the crosshair of God's wrath for allowing abortion and gay marriage. An Obama presidency might make that into 50.

When life begins is completely irrelevant. I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that a morula is a group of *living* cells. The fact is that life began some 3.5 billion years ago and has never ended. The egg that you came from was alive in your mother's ovaries before she was born.

Life is not the issue. Neither is humanity (I'm also willing to stipulate that an embryo with human DNA is a potential human. Emphasis on potential.

The soul business is, as far as I'm concerned, pure fantasy. When one of you can show me one of those, we'll talk. Until then, let's stick to what we actually know.

The *only* question is when does a human obtain *rights*.

For all of time, that has been only after birth - and even then, not *full* rights until the attainment of majority.

An embryo can't own property, apply for an SSN or a passport. It can't even have a legal name. It doesn't yet have a DOB.

Rights at conception, as McCain says? Let's just forget for a moment that no one knows when the moment of conception *is*. Even when a pregnancy is known, there's no guarantee that it will come to fruition.

I've bred dogs for years. I can take a pregnant female in for an X-ray in her 7th week and see that she's carrying 11 puppies, but I'd better not start counting the sales money, because it's quite likely that whether the birth is natural or by C-section, some of those won't make it out alive.

And with rights, an embryo/fetus has the right to sue. Believe me, the lawyers will be more than happy to take the case when the Right-to-Lifers decide that a pregnant woman is recklessly endangering her "baby" by smoking, or drinking, or not eating an optimally healthy diet, or by exercising too hard, or not enough... Can you say "can of worms"?

Potential lives do not have rights, nor should they. Every egg is a potential life, and there are hundreds of them in every ovary. Should a woman on welfare get benefits for every egg she carries? Why not?

The RU-486 pill prevents implantation, so that no pregnancy actually ever occurs, but you hard-liners are against it because it takes effect *after* the moment of conception. But maybe not. At that point, you don't know whether or not there *was* a moment of conception. You also don't know that even if there was, it might not have washed out without attaching entirely on its own - this happens quite frequently.

If you hard-core Catholics, who go for your opinions to a bunch of never-married old men, who can hardly wait for new crop of children to molest, can't bring yourselves to approve *any* method of birth control, then you might as well resign yourselves to the status quo. Those of us who, like OldBob, below, remember the bad old days, and/or who value the lives and rights of actual existing human lives, will never allow you to force women into motherhood when they do not desire it, and can't afford it.

No way, no how.

I disagree with your statement, "...neither presidential cadidate supports abortion on demand." Senator Obama has voted against every pro-life legistration in the state of Illinois. I have not heard him say minors shouldn't have abortions, poor women shouldn't have abortions, women shouldn't have abortions because of rape, sex selection, mental illness, health or because they simply choose to have an abortion. It sounds like abortion on demand to me. He wouldn't even vote against partial birth abortion.
On the other hand, I don't totally disagree that there are some republicans who do use the abortion issue for their own purposes. Perhaps we should consider Ron Paul.

Good God - literally.
To the Pro-Obama and the mentally/morally challenged Steve K - WWJD, Really ?

I hate when heathens/atheist/agnostics have the nerve to say this to a real Follower of Christ (Cahtolic).

I can tell you what Jesus would NOT do...

He would not reach up into a woman's body, pull out the head of a (viable) baby, stick a knife into the head/brain, suck out the baby's brain, and the child out of the "mother" and throw it in the trash.

He would NOT watch idly by as a child who survives the abortion attempt and is born alive is tossed on a shelf gasping for breathe and denied medical care.

And as a Catholic - a real Catholic - I know that ACTIONS matter - it is not like fake Christians think - " all I have to do is SAY that Jesus is my personal Saviour and that allows me to do and say any vile thing."

Excommunicate Pelosi, Kennedy's et. al.

AK wrote:

I'm afraid I don't grasp your point. Can you be a little clearer?

I don't need to be clearer, there needs to be a better understanding on what is 'life starts at conception'. A woman can have an miscarriage and still collect on life insurance.

It is obvious that this is an issue many are passionate about. There are stories that Obama has voted to kill babies and I think his response to this on Fox news is informative, ""On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that. Part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral. Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall. As president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, (or) I don't understand their perspective. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done." There are many Democrats who may not want abortion to be illegal but who want them to be extremely rare if they happen at all. "If we can't save every life, let's not save any at all" seems to be the motto of some people. There are other ways to reduce abortions and ways that both pro-life and pro-choice people can work together. Wouldn't that be a wonderful day? To get that to happen, we have to stop demonizing each other and spend some time listening. It is possible. Faith tells us this is possible. We need to say "no more" to polarizing discourse and "yes" to discourse that allows us to find the common path to reduce significantly if not end abortions voluntarily.

"[H]e articulated openly what has been obvious for some time: the GOP uses the issue to get votes, but will not outlaw abortion."

I read the cited article and I simply did not see this point made in it. Do many state-level Republican platforms include a ban on abortions contingent upon the Supreme Court striking down Roe? If so, then I think Mr. Stevens-Arroyo's assertion is flatly wrong.

re: " Dwight:

you cannot be catholic and support abortion, you cannot condone the killing of the children of Christ...
a women bears the sin of murder of her own child...
a doctor bears the sin of murder of the abortions he has performed...
a person who supports abortion carries the sins of all the murdered children of abortion..."

Sez you. The Church is the people. WWJD? Rant and rave or try to make things at least better. Do you know what really made Jesus rant and rave? Look it up.

Another question to Marc Edwards quiz...

You want the government to do everything for you, you complain about jobs being shipped over seas but then support illegal immigrants who take the remaining jobs (FUNNY HOW IN THE RAID IN I BELIEVE MO THE LEGAL EMPLOYEES APPLAUDED THE ILLEGALS GETTING ARRESTED), you think that the wealthiest 5% of americans who pay 70% of the taxes dont pay enough, you ideal of foreign policy is appeasement (Hitler didnt teach you anything?), you like to spend other peoples money, you have no respect for human life, and you have no concept of PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY. You are

A. a Democrat
B. a Liberal
C. Both

John Cook wrote:

"As I read the comments on this article I am astounded by the simplistic understanding of so many on the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice sides. I do believe there is common ground that both sides could discuss yet this low level of intellect and mean-spiritedness makes this impossible. Pity."

First day on the internet?

As I read the comments on this article I am astounded by the simplistic understanding of so many on the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice sides. I do believe there is common ground that both sides could discuss yet this low level of intellect and mean-spiritedness makes this impossible. Pity.

Redleg wrote:

"Why do Catholics deny any and all sacraments to the unborn"

Yes, we evil Catholics don't allow fetuses to go to confession, get married, receive communion, or become priests. We deny them those sacraments because, well, we're evil.

"The Monk" wrote:

1) if life starts at conception, could the woman take out life insurance for the protection on the child?

Sure, why not? I don't know of any insurance companies that do it, but I'll do it for you. For $100, I'll give you a $1,000 life insurance policy on your fetus. Sorry, you can't collect if you abort.

And 2) if life starts at conception and the woman has a miscarriage, is she by law required to have a death certificate?

I'm afraid I don't grasp your point. Can you be a little clearer?

Fate:

I don't know which I would save, but whatever my choice, I wouldn't feel "sick" about it. I wasn't responsible for the fire. I'd be happy that I was able to save one, or one thousand.

Thanks for answering my first question, but you didn't answer my second question: Does the fact that you would save your mother rather than a nurse you never met give you the right to kill nurses you've never met? I'm sure your answer is "no."

So how does my decision to save an adult woman rather than some embryos give me the right to kill embryos?

1) You claim to be Pro-life, anti-Abortion, and that you believe life deserves legal protection. You will never take the slightest action to back up your claims.
You are
A) A fruad
B) A liar
C) A huckster
D) A Republican
E) All of the above

2) You support wars based on lies, you support the torture of innocent, laws mean nothing to you. You hate other people having sex, and you wish women would go back to being 2nd class citizens.
You are
A) A member of the Taliban
B) A Republican
c) The President
D) Anonymous

3) You enter online discussions about the abortion issue, but your mind is so closed your arguments consist of repeating lies about people. You have so little confidence in your convictions that you won't answer simple questions.
You are
A) Anonymous
B) A poster at OnFaith
C) RIGHTPOV
D) The President of the United States

petras vilson writes
"There is a BIG gap between the pro-life positions of the two parties.

One party supports life for the weakest and most vulnerable of our society.

One party supports life for the most violent and dangerous in our society"

Neither party is going to end legal abortion. You've been lied to by Pro-Life leaders. Without the issue of abortion they might have to get jobs. The Republicans will never lift a finger to end legal abortion. I hope you stop posting lies like the above.

As for being "anti-death penalty", it's pretty easy to understand for people who think. The Death Penalty kills innocent people, it is not applied fairly so it is unjust, and it does not discourage crime at all. Maybe you like the legal system to be unjust and kill innocent people, but I think you are wrong.

You are an abortionist. Your religion is:

1) Atheist
2) Agnostic
3) Unitarian
4) None, you are too busy flushing children down the toilet to pay much attention to religion.

You are an abortionist. Your political party is:

1) Democrat
2) Libertarian
3) None, you are too busy flushing children down the toilet to pay much attention to politics.

Questions to the Pro-Lifers: 1) if life starts at conception, could the woman take out life insurance for the protection on the child? And 2) if life starts at conception and the woman has a miscarriage, is she by law required to have a death certificate?

Fate believes strongly in social justice. But although he is honest enough to know that the world is not perfect, he is determined to *do something* about poverty. Fate is also a Democrat & a liberal. Fate has a job that perfectly fits his beliefs.

Fate is:

a) a lawyer
b) a politician
c) a social worker
d) an abortionist

Answer: D, Fate is an abortionist. Congratulations Fate!

CCNL, you dodged the question again.

AK, you dodged it to. But I'll answer the question you used to dodge mine. Certainly I'd save my mom first, but I would feel sickened and might even risk injury to try to also save the nurse after saving my mom. Would you feel sick watching the tank of embryos begin to boil? Would you risk being injured to also try to save the tank?

I don't expect an answer.

Why do Catholics deny any and all sacraments to the unborn, yet say that it might be OK to baptize a child of the objections of both parents?

And where was the Catholic Church/ sovereign Vatican City when the Catholilc Hitler and Mengele were doing their thing? One enforced Catholic law and the other was always in full communion.

Dwight: "you cannot be catholic and support abortion, you cannot condone the killing of the children of Christ... - a women bears the sin of murder of her own child... - a doctor bears the sin of murder of the abortions he has erformed...
- a person who supports abortion carries the sins of all the murdered children of abortion..."

During the Inquisition only Catholics were brought in for torture and execution if found to be heritics. Muslims and jews were not since they were not catholics and were not going to heaven anyway. During the Inquisition, Catholic law only applied to Catholics, as it should always be.

Why then should Catholic law concerning abortion be applied to all people of all religious persuations? If you, as a Catholic, feel abortion is wrong, don't do it, just as you don't eat meat on Friday (or is that ok now?) but don't bother other people of other religions about eating meat on Friday.

Bringing up religious reasons to support a secular law will only win applause from your own religion. If you want to change secular law, use secular arguments. If you want to change Catholic law, feel free to quote scripture and such.

Fate, Fate, Fate,

If the liquid nitrogen cylinders explode everyone dies.

And RU-486 is already available on-line without a prescription. Again, abortion is reduced to the carrier of said life. There are separate female and male responsibilities in life. Time for everyone to deal with them.

Anonymous wrote: " 'I would not punish my daughter with a child for making the mistake of getting pregnant.'~ Obama - That my friend, is not the voice of someone against killing unborn children, no matter how hard you try to spin."

A few other quotes from noteable people:

"My position is that I understand from a medical situation, immediately after a rape is reported, that a woman normally, in fact, can go to the hospital and have a D and C. At that time... that is before the forming of a life. That is not anything to do with abortion." ---- Senator Dan Quayle

"You're a very strong woman... Though this would be a traumatic experience that you would never forget, I think that you would be very successful in life. " ---- Senator Dan Quayle, telling an 11-year-old girl why he would want her to have the baby if she were raped by her father.

"All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy. . . Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed [abortion]. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!" ---- Susan B. Anthony, women's suffrage movement leader

"[T]he line between lawful and unlawful abortion will be marked by the fact of having sensation and being alive." ---- Aristotle, Politics

"If one strikes a pregnant woman or gives her poison in order to procure an abortion, if the foetus is already formed or quickened, especially if it is quickened, he commits homicide." ---- Henry Bracton, 2 On The Laws and Customs of England

"The states are not free, under the guise of protecting maternal health or potential life, to intimidate women into continuing pregnancies." ---- Harry Blackmun, U.S. Supreme Court

"You're not going to get the answers from holy texts. You're not going to the answers from biologists. These are matters of human concern. There are conflicting values and taken in isolation each of these values is quite legitimate. Choice is legitimate, preserving life is legitimate." --- Noam Chomsky, linguist and political writer

And my favorite:

"Everybody is right when it comes to the issue of abortion." --- Alan Dershowitz, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School

You believe in equality, that each person is possessed of inherent dignity, and is/should be equal in the eyes of the state. You also want to combat poverty.

You therefore become:

1) a teacher
2) a doctor
3) a member of a religious order
4) an abortionist

If you're a Dem you can be all of these! (Well, not the religious order).

LIZ:

The "choice" to do what?
Answer: the choice to kill a child or allow him/her live. At least have to guts to own up what abortion really is. Either you believe that it is ok the kill a child or you don't, it's that simple. Sorry, but the truth hurts.

Your comment about killing nurses and doctors is ridiculous. I don't think I need to address that any further.

BOBCATHOLIC: You appear to have read some art of the article, now read it again with your mind open. You apparently can't get past the part which says you won't ever be able to declare abortion a crime and make it stick, and even if you could you won't prevent a single abortion by doing so.

So, given that you can't reduce abortions by criminalizing them, how do you propose to reduce the number of abortions?

You provide incentives to carry pregnancies to term and to support the child who is born because of it. You reduce disincentives to carrying the pregnancy to term, and reduce disincentives to caring for the child when it is born. You change the culture to value other people's children enough to support them in raising their children.

You help mothers, before, during, and after, pregnancy.

The Republican party calls that WELFARE and HATES it. The Democratic Party calls it a societal necessity. Call it socialism if you will, it is the only way that we can reduce the number of abortions.

So you actually get an either/or choice: Criminalize abortions, or bring an immediate reduction in the number of abortions, and eventually bring the number of medical abortions down to where the only medical abortions are not what the Catholic Church defines as abortions.

"For the Health and safety of the mother", and "Terminating a non-viable pregnancy if the mothers life are at risk" are no more congruent than the Medical definition of abortion and the Catholic Church's definition of abortion. Until the Church uses the same terms as the medical world, getting to an agreed upon point is impossible. So framing the question as "human rights" will never solve the problem, where framing the question as "how do we educe abortions to the smallest number possible" gives us a solvable project.

you cannot be catholic and support abortion, you cannot condone the killing of the children of Christ...
a women bears the sin of murder of her own child...
a doctor bears the sin of murder of the abortions he has performed...
a person who supports abortion carries the sins of all the murdered children of abortion...

To Anonymous 2:39pm

First of all: pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. Pro-choice is exactly that: pro option to choose. You can have one or not have one. It's nobody choice but your own.

Second of all: I don't agree with the term 'pro-life', because I believe it's misleading, considering a fair amount of people on that side of the debate either are ambivalent about or actively advocate for the murder of doctors and nurses.

See? I can play extremist semantics, too.

re: "OK- I gotta ask the obvious question...Do the Dems pay you? Does the Obama camp pay you? Is it an in-kind payment? Do you get free trips or first class airfare? Because there is no other way to understand the crap you write here weekly. The unmitigated bias, the knee-jerk love fest of teh dems and teh consistently subtle but detectable anti-republican rhetoric cannot be explained any other way. I mean- you really cannot believe the crap you write. "today neither presidential candidate supports abortion on demand." WHAT?? that's not just wrong- it's a lie. It's an outrageous lie. Obama not only supports abortion on demand- he supports infanticide. Even the New York #$@! Times exposed Obama's opposition to BAIPA and his campaign's cover-up. He's got a 100% NARAL rating!!! You must be a Pelosi camp who tells us that the Church is really "unclear" as to when life begins. Ask Cardinal Eagan and Archbishop Weurl about that comment. Listen- no one is saying you can't be a dem. It's America buddy- you can be what you want. But don't DISTORT truth to fit your agenda. And that is what you do- week after week- in the "Catholic America" column. And you make thopse of us who are Catholic in America pretty angry. And sick. Shame on you. If you prefer abortion, vote for pro-abortion, pro-infanticide, pro-death Obama/Biden."

my response:

And the church once taught that masturbation was sinful because it killed babies (thought to be contained in the seminal fluid.) It was like murder.

This writer is so angry that the possibility of him/her ever contributing to fewer abortions seems minimal. This writer would rather foam at the mouth than seek solutions.

Even in the face of empirical evidence that outlawing abortion does NOT reduce the incidence, this writer demands criminalization.

Scientists know what fertilization is, but who knows when those cells become a human being? Should all tissue from a spontaneous "natural" abortion then be baptized and buried in a Catholic cemetery? Is that done now in Catholic hospitals?

Obama's quote that he would not punish his daughter with a baby does not at all preclude putting the child up for adoption. I wonder how many staunch Catholics praised and recommended the movie _Juno_?

I oppose abortion. If a daughter of mine had an unplanned pregnancy I'd have to share my views with her and help her see alternatives. But if she were of an age to get an abortion and she wanted to... I would have to respect that, though sadly. Imposing moral precepts seldom helps improve things.

The church itself teaches the primacy of conscience. If we all try to solve a problem rather than condemn people with a different opinion, perhaps less babies would be "killed".

Or is that not this writer's true agenda?

srk
California

You couldn't save your mom if she had aborted you.

"If you saw a fertility clinic on fire and ran in and found a nurse on the floor, unconscious, next to a tank of 1000 frozen embryos, and you only had enough time to save either the nurse or the embryos, which would you choose to save?"

Let's try an alternative scenario:

If you saw a fertility clinic on fire and ran in and found a nurse on the floor, unconscious, next to your mom, also unconscious, and you only had enough time to save either the nurse or your mom, which would you choose to save? You'd probably save your mom.

Does the fact that you chose to save your mom in this scenario give you the right to kill nurses?

RightPOV,

If you saw a fertility clinic on fire and ran in and found a nurse on the floor, unconscious, next to a tank of 1000 frozen embryos, and you only had enough time to save either the nurse or the embryos, which would you choose to save?

If we had laws that truly were in line with Christian thinking, not only would abortion be illegal, but so would war, the death penalty, wealth, and poverty.

Do rich people get into heaven?

Ask Jesus. He talks specifically about this.

The issue is not abortion or not abortion. It is about the criminalization of abortion. I am old enough to remember when abortion was done in dark rooms and in alleys, when young women getting abortions risked infection and death. So, I suspect that criminalizing abortion will lower the incidence somewhat, but make the procedure illegal and very risky.

Dr. Roche at the University of Notre Dame explains that the highest incidence of abortion in the world is in Latin America, where it is generally illegal. The lowest rates are in Belgium and the Netherlans, where it is legal.

The difference is poverty and poor education. The upshot? The pro-life people should be working hard to eliminate poverty and advancing education among vulnerable populations. I don't see that happening.

There is a BIG gap between the pro-life positions of the two parties.

One party supports life for the weakest and most vulnerable of our society.

One party supports life for the most violent and dangerous in our society.

Take your pick.

Truly, if Republicans cared about babies we wouldn't have poor ones dying for want of the care that rich ones get.

Truly, if Republicans cared about life they wouldn't be killing innocent women and children daily in Iraq, or championing the death penalty.

Truly, if they would get the beam out of their eye and read Scripture, many more of them would see the blasphemy in using God for nothing more than to gain political power.

"I would not punish my daughter with a child for making the mistake of getting pregnant."~ Obama

That my friend, is not the voice of someone against killing unborn children, no matter how hard you try to spin.

This is not a gray topic area; there is either pro-life or there is killing unborn babies (I don't agree with the term "pro-choice" because I believe it's misleading). Having conversations with those who believe in baby killing is very different than being and advocate for it.

OK- I gotta ask the obvious question...

Do the Dems pay you? Does the Obama camp pay you? Is it an in-kind payment? Do you get free trips or first class airfare?

Because there is no other way to understand the crap you write here weekly. The unmitigated bias, the knee-jerk love fest of teh dems and teh consistently subtle but detectable anti-republican rhetoric cannot be explained any other way. I mean- you really cannot believe the crap you write.

"today neither presidential candidate supports abortion on demand."

WHAT??? that's not just wrong- it's a lie. It's an outrageous lie. Obama not only supports abortion on demand- he supports infanticide. Even the New York #$@! Times exposed Obama's opposition to BAIPA and his campaign's cover-up. He's got a 100% NARAL rating!!!

You must be a Pelosi camp who tells us that the Church is really "unclear" as to when life begins. Ask Cardinal Eagan and Archbishop Weurl about that comment.

Listen- no one is saying you can't be a dem. It's America buddy- you can be what you want. But don't DISTORT truth to fit your agenda.

And that is what you do- week after week- in the "Catholic America" column.

And you make thopse of us who are Catholic in America pretty angry. And sick.

Shame on you.

If you prefer abortion, vote for pro-abortion, pro-infanticide, pro-death Obama/Biden.

spiderman2 wrote:
Here's something many of us could agree on: Those who are for abortion should be oblidged to TIE their fallopian tubes. That would stop abortion for sure.

Why, pray tell, put the burden on the women? Typical sexist propaganda that puts all the responsibilities on the women. Men could also have vasectomies, could they not?

And if they make a "mistake" and do have an unwanted pregnancy, how about we force them into an operating room at gun point and force the procedure on them? That would delight the "many that could agree with you", I'm sure.

the way to end abortions is to forget about when life begins, or the Supreme Court. an abortion is morally reprehensible at any stage, whether the soul has arrived or is about to is hardly important. when we have created a world in which the choice to abort is no longer viewed by pregnant females as the only choice they can make, we will not only have greatly reduced their number, but have created a civil environment in which we could discuss outlawing it as the frivolous choice - but that's only if we can make it a frivolous choice that we wouldn't hesitate to punish. until then, as the author notes, no one proposes to put women who abort in jail because we know that they feel compelled to and are under tremendous emotional strain. we need pastors who do not judge (too much), parishioners who do not judge, parents who do not disown, friends who do not ridicule, a community that provides the support necessary to make school, work, etc. feasible, etc.

it's easy to make the case that the democrats are doing more to reduce abortions than republicans who talk about the supreme court and then do nothing at all.

I am still confused by the term "pro life". Almost without exception those who claim to be "pro life" also believe in the death penalty and supported the invasion of Iraq. How can this be considered pro life?

" Brendan:

"Theocratic agendas increase abortions?" I haven't the slightest idea what that even means or how one comes to such a conclusion. Teaching that abortion is immoral somehow increases abortions? Playing the counter-productive card, are we?"

These are the statistics. Clinton's policies of making abortion 'Safe, legal and rare' was the time of the biggest decresase in abortions, which had seen an unprecedented rise under the 'pro-life' Reagan/Bush administrations, and rose again under W, who stopped the government from *counting* abortions early in his presidency because that would show his 'anti-sex' policies have the opposite of the desired effects.

The *theocratic* agenda increases abortions by *acting as though* just commanding someone religiously not to do something is somehow more effective than supporting the policies that educate people on how to avoid unwanted pregnancies, prevent discrimination against single mothers, hold fathers to account, and make it more economically-feasible for a woman to keep her child.

The 'theocratic agenda' simply wants to command 'Christian Virtue' while keeping people in the dark about how to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and trying to 'punish' women who get pregnant anyway.

But actually supports candidates who in the real world support policies that make more abortions seem the only way out.

I was in a setting for my son's school the other day, and the Biology teacher asked an audience of the students parents the magic question, "Where does life begin?". She got the usual responses of "at conception" and "at birth" from the audience of parents. When I was asked, I responded with the question, "Do you mean Biological life or Human life?". This drew some strange stares from the audience, and I was asked if my response would differ between the two. Biologically speaking, an individual cell is "alive" if it is actively undergoing metabolic processes. It even contains all the genetic material to form a complete human being (assuming it is a human cell). But most would not consider this to be Human. If one then asks when does this cell or clump of cells become Human, the question becomes more difficult to answer. The process of human development is just that - a gradual process that takes 9 months or so. To pick a point in time when you then say that clump of cells becomes "Human", will always be somewhat arbitrary. But, some say, the "moment" of conception is that point! Well, if you study your biology books, you will find that even conception is a process, and to pick an exact point in time when conception "occurs" will also be somewhat arbitrary. The only thing one can say from a purely biological perspective is that a developing fetus gradually takes on human characteristics as it matures within the womb. It will always be impossible (again from a purely biological perspective) to define an exact moment in time when the fetus suddenly becomes human.

Now, with all that said, do I resist any attempt to define such a moment? The answer is no, but one needs to understand that the definition will necessarily be from either a religious (*see note below) or a legal perspective. The dilemma is akin to the question “when does a human become an adult?” question. In most areas, this is defined as the exact moment of their 18th birthday. But this is surely somewhat arbitrary (different areas define this differently) and is based largely on a legal perspective. One cannot (with a straight face at least) say that a person one second before their 18th birthday is significantly different or more mature than that same person one second after their 18th birthday. But from a legal perspective, it is important to “draw a line” and define a point. I think the same reasoning can apply to the developing fetus as well. While one can never pick an exact moment when the developing fetus becomes human, it is still important to do so from a legal perspective. This in turn will dictate what can and cannot be done before and after that point. This in turn will require negotiation and that both sides drop their hard line, no compromise, stances. Many will not like this proposal, but the reality is that life is based on compromises and some give-and-take.

* As a side note, some have answered this dilemma with the answer “it become human at the point God infuses it with a soul”. This is a purely religious argument and not based on any science. Since I do not know the mind of God, I could personally never respond to this argument and will make no attempt to do so here.

Marc Edward wrote: "Actually in the old days the mother was the one who was supposed to die, as reported to my mother who was born in 1926."

The logic was/is that the mother is baptised so she will go to heaven whether she dies during childbirth or in old age. But the baby has not been baptised and if it dies it will not go to heaven, and since it has original sin, will go to hell. So bringing the baby out to be baptised is much more important than saving the life of the baptised mother.

Just more warped logic from those who believe in spirits and want those beliefs to become law, for everyone.

1. It is a woman's privilege to die for her child if it were needed. What are we thinking, to see it otherwise?

2. There is truth in this article insofar as it suggests that Republican economics is no more Christian than Democratic abortion policies. "Free Market" is not the God toward which Catholics, at least, should genuflect. Popes Leo XIII and Pius XI both wrote in favor of controlling the excesses of capitalism in order to save it from itself. But Pius XI said that in order to exercise the 'moderate socialist' programs from which any Catholic economic program would be indistinguishable (defined as those which are intended to influence the exercise of private property for the commn good WITHOUT alienating private property) the Church and the State would have to be at the same time supporting morality most forcefully. The two things together, or none at all. Morality and liberal economics. Not one or the other. These are the two things that those who benefit from the current economic situation have divided.

Issues typically defining 'morality' for the Church have been family (divorce; polygamy;,definition of marriage that would exclude any but a freely chosen procreative relationship between a man and a woman; birth control)and social issues like observation of Sunday rest, abortion, care for the sick and aged, health care, education, and the availability of material means for a dignified life, for all, even for the poor. Pius XI said that it was not only the right of people but their obligation to modify the market,profits, prices, and wages,when necessary to promote the common good. Pius XI said that it was are obligation to help each other get to heaven,not make it tougher. And traditional Catholicism has always taught, and even lived as a society, for at least fifteen hundred years before capitalism that when you have enough to live, it is your obligation to pass on further opportunities to earn to others, to one's community. That's why advertising and usury were illegal. (Could we please have some controls on advertising, by the way, like yesterday?! Start with flyers and a system similar to the Do Not Call list: No Commercial Leaflets Within These [specified] boundaries, something like that!)

Neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are delivering anything close to this, not on the moral issue side nor on the economic issue side. Not a single proposal, for example, regarding the development of those previously protected oil fields do anything to influence the horrendous concentration of ownership in the oil industy. The Democratic Party's proposed economic changes would hit the middle classes, not the 90% of corporations that pay no taxes, nor the richest segments of our society.

Broadest ownership of private property is an ancient and current Catholic belief; Pius XI called on Cathlics to find ways to achieve this, through selective increased taxation on concentrated holdings, promotiting sell-offs, and other initiatives.)

We need a third party that unites what has been purposely divided, and Catholics in particular are urged to study the encyclicals of the Church regarding these issues. A good start is Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno translated. It is, actually, easy to read. That's because of an absence of bs. I remind Catholics that obedience to the Church's teachings in the encyclicals is obligatory.

3. May God forgive the hateful statements made by some about the poor on this blog.

CCNL wrote: "The now readily available prescription abortion pill, RU 486, when it goes OTC will eliminate most of the debate about abortion i.e. the eradication of life will then be solely up the carrier of said life."

But the reason it is not OTC is due to anti-abortionist lobbying. They consider taking RU-486 to be equivalent to performing an abortion. They consider it murder. According to the illnamed Family Research Council's website http://ru486info.com:
"While the Family Research Council, the sponsor of this site, opposes the use of RU-486 as an abortifacient because that use ends a human life, we also believe that the legal and safety issues raised by RU-486 should be a matter of concern to all people of good conscience regardless of their opinions regarding abortion."

So they view this pill no differently than a clinical abortion. It will not end the debate, just shift it from abortion clinics to pharmacies and the FDA, and continue to hound women going through a terrible time, calling them murders.

What nice christians these "pro-lifers" are when they consider an embryo *they* would not save from a fire to be more important and have more rights than a living breathing person.

Francis writes "1. Marc, of course if the life of the mother is directly endangered as in the case of an ectopic pregnacy, then everything must be done to save the life of the mother. The key here is the intent of the mother/father/physician. If the intent is to save the mother and the baby dies as a result then that is not considered an intentional abortion. Cases where the baby endangers the life of the moter are rare."

Actually in the old days the mother was the one who was supposed to die, as reported to my mother who was born in 1926. The Husband made the choice. Otherwise I agree with your statement.

"2. One candidate is against abortion and the other is not. This is not based on false assumption. Simply look at voting records."

Sure - how many times have the Republicans, who have had the House, senate, White House and Supreme Court, sponsored legislation seeking to end legal abortion in the United States. That would be ZERO times. Saying "I'm against abortion" and doing nothing is the same thing as saying "I'm for the woman's right to get an abortion".

"Let's the logic of a 0.0% chance of ending abortion to say feeding the hungry. With each candidate there is zero percent chance that either one will feed all the hungry in America."

False comparisan, because one can fail at an attempt, but the Republicans have made no attempt. Heck, the Pro-Life folks have a rally every January in Washington DC, no? In the near 40 years since Roe, how many Republicans Presidents have showed up to speak? Again the answer is ZERO.

How many times have the Republicans attempted to amend the constitution to end legal abortion? Once, or none?

Democrat Nancy Pelosi doesn’t understand when life begings?!

Not to pick on Nancy Pelosi too much, but this is typical of the many unqualified and ungodly people associated with running a supposed One Nation Under God. To support abortion in any capacity is to support murder. She and the many others who side with her can explain there stupidly to God when standing before Him. Regardless of religion or political party, let there be No mistake of life’s authenticity at conception.

a. A couple scriptures taken from the Word of God and what He says about life:

1. Job 31:15 Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?

2. Ecclesiastes 11:5 As thou knowest not what is the way of the spirit, nor how the bones do grow in the womb of her that is with child: even so thou knowest not the works of God who maketh all.

3. Isaiah 49:5 And now, saith the LORD that formed me from the womb to be his servant, to bring Jacob again to him, Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious in the eyes of the LORD, and my God shall be my strength.

4. Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations.

5. Luke 1:41 And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:

6. Luke 2:23 (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;) (That comes out of the womb.)

A dead fetus does not grow!

Advocate4Good

CCNL, you dodged the question. No firefighters nearby. The liquid nitrogen tanks will explode in the fire and not put it out. The embryos will die unless you save them as will the nurse.

Try again.

Marc,

You noted: "Concerned The Christian Now Liberated writes " As noted previously, what is needed is a 24 hr effective pill to eliminate sexual desires."

This of course pertains to both men and women.

Again,

The now readily available prescription abortion pill, RU 486, when it goes OTC will eliminate most of the debate about abortion i.e. the eradication of life will then be solely up the carrier of said life. She will have to live with the decision.

RU 486 is already available on-line apparently without prescription. http://www.abortion-pill-online.com/

With respect to saving the lives of an unconscious nurse vs. frozen embryos, one would call 911. Only firefighters should enter a burning building. Said firefighters would make the judgment as who to save. Since the embryos are protected by liquid nitrogen, the decision should be easy.

Of course if the fire is small, put out the fire using the liquid nitrogen line on the cryogenic embryo chamber, reattach the line saving and the embryos. Report your heroic act.

"Left unchecked, a future U.S. president would introduce a gay First "Lady" years from now. If it's legal, what would stop them from that."

History proves that will not happen. America will fall before that happens.

SIGNS OF DECLINE-

Rampant decadence and moral decay.

Collapsing economy and hoarding/deficit.

Weakened military unable/unwilling to defend against aggressors.

Uprising of vandals (gangs) from within and without.

Religious polarity.

When there is serious threat against the citizens-their entertainment is cranked up and becomes extreme and excessive.

Marc Edwards wrote:

If my wife were pregnant and the pregnancy might kill her, I'd choose abortion over letting my wife die.

"To support a proabortion candidate"

There is an equal chance ( 0.0%) that McCain or Obama will end legal abortion in the USA, so neither candidate is "pro abortion" or "anti abortion". McCain will do nothing to give "legal protections starting at conception". Your argument is based on false assumptions.

"a "pre-emptive" war or stance on the death penalty is not enough of a reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate."

Neither candidate is pro-abortion. The Republicans will do nothing to end legal abortion. You have been lied to.
################################################
1. Marc, of course if the life of the mother is directly endangered as in the case of an ectopic pregnacy, then everything must be done to save the life of the mother. The key here is the intent of the mother/father/physician. If the intent is to save the mother and the baby dies as a result then that is not considered an intentional abortion. Cases where the baby endangers the life of the moter are rare.

2. One candidate is against abortion and the other is not. This is not based on false assumption. Simply look at voting records. Let's the logic of a 0.0% chance of ending abortion to say feeding the hungry. With each candidate there is zero percent chance that either one will feed all the hungry in America. If each candidate were equal on all issues except ending hunger, then we should not vote for either one because neither can guarantee that every American will not go hungry. The reason applied to your earlier comment doesn't make sense.

Let's not be so open minded that our brains fall out.

I remain unconvinced by Mr. Kmiec's argument. I am boycotting the presidential element of the 2008 election as neither party represents my interests as a Catholic. Neither Pro-war McCain or Pro-Abortion Obama are, in my opinion, qualified to hold the highest office in the land. As for Biden as Obama's running mate (though it's not yet really official until the Democratic Convention makes it so) - all the Democrats did to me as a Catholic was give me a very hard slap in the face. That will not be forgotten anytime soon.

Good encapsulation of the sub-text of the pro-life philosophy Fate - in fact, about the best I've seen.

The proposed re-establishment of the subordinate role of the woman in society by virtue of law, is not the exclusive domain of Protestant fundamentalists by any means - you have spoken the unvarnished truth for all to see.

And here we just celebrated Women's Suffrage and the rise of women in our society as political equals under the law only yesterday.

What we need now, and will get under Obama is more female Supreme Court justices, and more females in general throughout the judicial system.

spiderman2 wrote: "Fate, is the "unconscious nurse" dead or alive?"

When was the last time you heard of an unconscious dead person?

spiderman2 wrote: "What a stupid question. Of course it's the nurse first."

Why, if the embryos are human beings too, and there are 1,000 of them? You could save 1,000 children versus one nurse. Why would a single nurse be more important than 1,000 children?

spiderman2 wrote: "If you don't want to give birth, then why not disable your egg cells by TYING the fallopian tubes?"

Many people do, and they take birth control and use other methods.

spiderman2 wrote: "You guys just want some bloody fetuses. That's why."

Yes, and they taste good too spidy. (that was sarcasm if you didn't recognize it)

spiderman2 wrote: "I think in many countries, even without an abortion law, if a fetus endangers a woman's life, abortion can be legal."

But that is not what pro-lifers are proposing in this country. Neither health, rape or incest will suffice as a reason to "slaughter a child". An embryo must have the ultimate right over all, even a woman's life in the minds of pro-lifers. They prove it every day in their propaganda. They showed it when they would not allow a partial birth abortion ban to consider a woman's health.

The pro-life movement is about making women subserviant to the rights of an embryo, making her a vessel that must care for that embryo by law or face legal consequence. Its about removing a woman's rights when she becomes pregnant.

That is about as UnAmerican as one can get, yet they wrap themselves in the flag and carry a cross as though that makes them patriotic and God fearing as they remove a woman's constitutional rights and consider her nothing more than an incubator to carry an embryo with full legal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. A warped sense of thinking that ignores a woman, her rights, her privacy, her humanity.

"Which would you choose if a building was on fire Mary and you could save only one thing, an unconscious nurse or a container of 1,000 frozen embryos?"

Fate, is the "unconscious nurse" dead or alive?

What a stupid question. Of course it's the nurse first.

If you don't want to give birth, then why not disable your egg cells by TYING the fallopian tubes?

You guys just want some bloody fetuses. That's why.

spiderman2 wrote: "Here's something many of us could agree on: Those who are for abortion should be oblidged to TIE their fallopian tubes. That would stop abortion for sure."

As I was explaining to Anonymous, there are unintended (or maybe intended) consequences if an embryo has legal rights. Leave it to spiderman to come up with one. Not too surprising, but there are many out there who would go further. This is just a glimpse of the pandoras box pro-lifers are trying to open and the fascist laws that would be imposed on women once their rights are secondary to an embryo's at the time of conception.

Cunningham wrote: "Unlimited abortion has resulted in a huge destruction of black children, all in the name of--what?"

The death penalty has resulted in a disproportionate number of black inmates being killed by the state. All in the name of what?

Which would you choose if a building was on fire Mary and you could save only one thing, an unconscious nurse or a container of 1,000 frozen embryos?

Why won't any pro-lifer answer this question? They are so good at answering questions of morality when they frame the questions themselves but won't answer this one for some reason.

Thanks, Mary Cunningham. I didn't realize black women were aborting so much. I hope they keep it up and increase it. We don't need more pickaninnies on the public dole.

Re: legalized abortion for minorities

Well, Candide, your eugenics has already happened. Unlimited abortion has already become the preferred method of birth control for blacks. Abortion by white women is fairly low. Let's look at some numbers (these are all I could find, source 2000 census).

The general fertility rate was 64.8 births per 1,000 women aged 15-44 years (2002)

In 2000 there were 21.3 induced abortions per 1000 women aged 15-44 years (1 out of 3). But look at the variation amongst groups!

Rates of induced abortion, variations amongst women (per 1000):

Non-hispanic white women: 11.7
Hispanic women: 30.6
Non-hispanic black women: 57.4

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16466522

Oh that is eugenics by any name. Unlimited abortion has resulted in a huge destruction of black children, all in the name of--what? No wonder the GOP has done little! But abortion is supported by--who? The Dems! And these are their people. I would have thought the Dems would have been more protective of these minorities but they continue to shovel out the abortion choice like there's no tomorrow.

Anyway. The whole thing is just depressing. This is all from me.

Here's something many of us could agree on: Those who are for abortion should be oblidged to TIE their fallopian tubes. That would stop abortion for sure. Simple and effective and yet abortionists wont accept it. What they want are dead fetuses. Something "exciting" and evil.

Catholics don't want it either. They oppose any effective birth control. That would stop abortion and that would be bad for them. Their GRANDSTANDING to be on the limelight would cease. It's all for show. They are the primary supporters of democrats and percentage wise, they are the biggest customers of abortion clinics.

Im not blaming the average catholics. They are just victims. Im blaming CATHOLICISM, it's the devil's religion. The same can be said of Obama's church.

Obama will appoint pro-abortionist and pro-gay marriage judges. Left unchecked, a future U.S. president would introduce a gay First "Lady" years from now. If it's legal, what would stop them from that.

Here's something many of us could agree on: legalized abortion for all minorities.

Greg writes "This article isn't even close to true, nor is Kmiec's position. What about all the partial birth abortions that the democrats would allow but republicans stopped"

Those "partial birth abortions" could have been stopped years earlier but the Republicans wouldn't allow an exception for the health of the mother. The Republicans preferred PBA to continue unchecked because they liked the campaign issue. Republicans don't care a wit about the "unborn".
Secondly, PBA hasn't been stopped at all - just one method. It still continues. And, of course, PBA is so rare that banning it doesn't make a dent in the total number of abortions.

Now why don't you tell me why Republicans have done nothing to end legal abortion in the USA when they have had all the power for years? I know the answer. They want your vote, your donations and your support without giving you anything in return. They think you're a sucker. Your side has been waiting near 40 years and all the Republicans can do for you is try to appoint justices that will legislate from the bench.

"Fate" is 100% right on this issue.

"The reps are the party of illegal back alley abortions that lead to woman dying needlessly."

Inventing "good" reasons to soothe their disturbed conscience.

I think in many countries, even without an abortion law, if a fetus endangers a woman's life, abortion can be legal.

Abortionists are just using this excuse to legalise ALL kinds of abortion.

Nobody messes with God. Payback time will come.

Anonymous wrote: "The Dems are the party of abortion."

The dems are the party of legal and safe abortions if one chooses. The reps are the party of illegal back alley abortions that lead to woman dying needlessly.

Francis writes "The rights of the child within the womb reigns supreme."

No they don't. If my wife were pregnant and the pregnancy might kill her, I'd choose abortion over letting my wife die.

"To support a proabortion candidate"

There is an equal chance ( 0.0%) that McCain or Obama will end legal abortion in the USA, so neither candidate is "pro abortion" or "anti abortion". McCain will do nothing to give "legal protections starting at conception". Your argument is based on false assumptions.

"a "pre-emptive" war or stance on the death penalty is not enough of a reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate."

Neither candidate is pro-abortion. The Republicans will do nothing to end legal abortion. You have been lied to.

Anonymous wrote: "To pro-abortionists:If killing an innocent, voiceless, defenseless child growing in its mother's womb is morally right, what is wrong with euthanasia for anyone who is inconvenient?"

You start by defining what is in the mothers womb and then state the question. I'll do the same in the case of a mother's life in danger due to pregnancy: If killing a mother to save the growing fetus in a woman's womb, what is wrong with euthanasia for anyone who is not able to care for their children. Lets kill all the deadbeat dads and women who put their children up for adoption!

Anonymous wrote: "Mary Cunningham brought up a valid point: she threatens to kill her "inconvenient" grandmother, if the pro-abortion group is not willing to "adopt" her."

The problem with your statements and Mary's are that upon conception a woman has a *child* inside her, with all the rights and privileges of a child in school today, and a soul. This is the point anti-abortionists do not want to debate and it is the focus of the difference. Pro-choice advocates do not consider a 3 day embryo to be a "child". A "potential" child for sure, but isn't every egg a woman lets go unfertilized each month also a potential child? No talk about the crime of menstruation though nor having sex every day to ensure an egg does not go unfertilized. And not even talk about saving embryos in fertility clinics, embryos that are destroyed each day out of "convenience" (it costs money to maintain a frozen embryo, about $40/month).

Anonymous wrote: "Pro-abortionists get to enjoy the sex that led to the conception of the baby. They are not willing to share the sexual pleasure with anyone of course. They only demand others should take responsibility for its consequence, otherwise they threaten, they are going to kill............their OWN child."

Wow, this is a little over the top. You make it sound like "pro-abortionists" enjoy abortion and go out, have sex, get pregnant, have an abortion, have sex, have an abortion, etc... like its a lifestyle. Do they boil and eat their babies too? Why do you bring this debate to these extremes instead of discussing what is the real issue: When does a fertilized egg gain rights under law and a soul from God? Maybe because when you discuss the real issue your argument is not only deflated but wrong? Lets deal with the real issue:
1) On the religious side, when is an egg infused with a soul? Do all the eggs in a woman's ovary have a soul? Do sperm have souls? If not, when after fertilization does a soul enter the embryo?
2) On the legal side, when should that egg/sperm/embryo/fetus gain rights under law?

If on the legal side a embryo has rights the day it becomes fertilized, then you have a lot of legalisms you need to consider (but do not), such as investigating a miscarriage as a possible first degree murder, holding women who refused doctors orders and then had a miscarriage for negligant homocide, and women refusing to cooperate with a doctors order to prevent a miscarriage could be held in a hospital under armed guard until the "child" is safely born. Yes, I can go over the top too...

This article isn't even close to true, nor is Kmiec's position. What about all the partial birth abortions that the democrats would allow but republicans stopped.

Concerned The Christian Now Liberated writes " As noted previously, what is needed is a 24 hr effective pill to eliminate sexual desires."

In men or in women? Seems to be the biggest problem isn't the women, but the men who fail to use condoms. In some cultures women cannot "say no" to their husbands.

Brendan writes "Actually Marc Edward, the issue of abortion is not too complicated for me"

In the abstract it isn't complicated, in real life it is. Just to show, one poster here asked the question "If you found yourself in a clinic which suddenly caught fire, and you had the choice between saving a healthy young woman or a tray of 30,000 frozen Embryos, which would you save, and why?" - he didn't get one taker, because the issue is complicated.

"You can't justify the taking of innocent human life. There's no other way to interpret it but as immoral."

I don't see a 2 week or even 12 weeks group of cells as being the equal of a 2 year or 12 year old child. Nobody does.

"My goodness! Even people that are "pro-choice" consistently talk about reducing the number of abortions. Why?"

Because we are taking the concerns of your side seriously. Because we want comprimise, so this "war" can end. It the Republicans and the Pro-life leadership that want abortions to continue at the present rate so they can use it as an issue in campaigns.

"Because they can't help but recognize that there's something terribly wrong with the it"

Wrong compared to what? Legal abortion is a whole lot less wrong than our government invading a country that was no threat to us and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians. Legal abortion is less wrong than our government carrying out torture in our names. There are all sorts of things that are more wrong than abortion.

'"Pro-choicers" love to peddle the "incest and rape" card, even though we all know most abortions involve neither and are done out of convenience."

I also think the "incest and rape" thing is a bogus argument. I have seen no evidence that people get abortions because they are convenient (they aren't), but maybe you have a different interpretation of what convenient means.

"All I know is, if I must err in this life, I'm going to err on the side of life"

I'll agree with you that human life has value - that's the basis of my own outlook on life.
Have a good day!

The rights of the child within the womb reigns supreme. Kmiec is wrong and any Catholic worth his salt would take him to task over his specious thinking and more damaging advocacy.

To support a proabortion candidate, there has to be proportionate reason. Over 1 million preborn babies die at the hands of abortionists and their mothers each year in the US. The only way there could be a proprotionate reason to support Obama would be if Hitler or Stalin were running against him. Otherwise a "pre-emptive" war or stance on the death penalty is not enough of a reason to vote for a pro-abortion candidate. Benedict XVI, then Cardinal Ratzinger said it himself, in his letter to Cardinal McCarrick "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion" in 2004. (Interestingly enough on the war issue, Benedict XVI, during his last meeting with President Bush, urged US efforts to stabilize the country before withdrawal.) Catholics cannot and must not vote for Obama or any politician that supports abortion. Truth is truth even when no one believes it. God Save the United States!

I've already made up my mind! Stop trying to confuse me with your assertions that the world is not black-and-white.

As noted previously, what is needed is a 24 hr effective pill to eliminate sexual desires.

Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Dolton made abortion available for any or no reason up to the ninth month. Do you support this? The DNC does; Obama does. So vote for more slaughter with Barack.

This is fantasy. Is this guy in an alternative world?

The Dems are the party of abortion.

But that is the choice sincere Catholics are presented with:

the Reeps--pre-emptive war(aka aggression), preferential spending on the rich, no abortion

the Dems--defensive war, preferential spending on the poor and vulnerable, abortion

If my police force was corrupt, must I choose between a corrupt police force and *no* policing at all? No. I should insist that my police force be honest.

Similarly Catholics should not have to choose between accepting what the Church prohibits (abortion) and practicing what she encourages (love and mercy towards the poor).

It's a false choice.

MaryC writes:
I am one of those Catholics who believes in a measure of support of these children from society at large, the state if you will.

Then you're voting for the wrong party - the Rs don't believe in raising taxes for *anything*, remember? And this would be a really big increase - do you know how much it costs to raise a child these days - birth through college? And you're talking millions of unwanted babies.

Maybe we can just borrow the money from China.

Maybe some of us (most of us) don't *want* to pay for it. We're already paying for millions of unadopted orphans.

Hey - I have an idea! Why doesn't the Catholic church pay for them?

Just saw Rastawoman's post down there. Her idea sounds like a domestic version of those programs in which you sponsor a child in the third world. I don't see why it couldn't work.

The article above assumes that all women who have abortions do so because they are financially unable to carry the pregnancy to term; however, some women decide long beforehand that if they ever get pregnant they will DEFINITELY have abortions and do not for a minute consider carrying to term. No amount of social welfare spending would reduce these abortions.

from an ex catholic born in France
Cher ami
Do not be deceived God is very specific in psalms 139 God states that He has made each and every one of us.
As well remmember Sodom and Gomorrah!
Jesus stated that " He that is not with Me is against Me"
God is gracious and merciful
It has been proven that a country that honor God is blessed a country that stray from the biblical principles degrades.
After observing the cultures as a woman the safest place remains a democratic bible believing standing country.

Rationalist:
Not a very rational argument, and one which completely avoids the point of the post. Infanticide is abominable, and cannot be morally justified by any catholic under any circumstance. Help for children elsewhere in the world is a separate issue, and one I support. But you use it as a distraction to draw attention away from Obama's stated, categorical support of a policy that allows newborns to die from intentional neglect in a hospital setting. There is no rational, moral argument that can be made in support of that stance. Outside a hospital or abortion clinic that would be considered child abuse resulting in the death of the child, and the strongest legal penalties would be brought to bear upon those responsible. Vote Obama if you choose; just don't pretend any catholic church would support infanticide.

Euthanasia for anyone who is dependent on another is by far the easiest way to free up funds for other useful purposes. Think of all the money that could be saved.

I wonder why pro-abortionists don't agree with me on that.

But wait, the day may not be far off when some "bright" people build a water-tight legal case (it is all after all about having a legal case, isn't it?) FOR euthanasia for all inconvenient pernsons, and it is buttressed with the financial gains for those who are inconvenienced, etc, etc, and then we will be hearing the same kind of arguments from its supporters as we are hearing from the pro-abortionists.

Yes, it is only a matter of time...........

To pro-abortionists:

If killing an innocent, voiceless, defenseless child growing in its mother's womb is morally right, what is wrong with euthanasia for anyone who is inconvenient?

Mary Cunningham brought up a valid point: she threatens to kill her "inconvenient" grandmother, if the pro-abortion group is not. willing to "adopt" her.

Pro-abortionists get to enjoy the sex that led to the conception of the baby. They are not willing to share the sexual pleasure with anyone of course. They only demand others should take responsibility for its consequence, otherwise they threaten, they are going to kill............their OWN child.

paul c writes "I have a hard time with the argument that people should not speak out against abortion because the majority support roe v Wade."

Goodness I hope nobody says that. That would be a rather unAmerican argument.

"This is not so very different than slavery."

I think the difference is pretty clear. Legal slavery requires one group of people to lose all their rights. Making abortion illegal makes all women lose their right to privacy. Moreover, making abortion illegal doesn't lower the number or rate of abortions.

"The slaves only got their rights when a third party (the abolitionists) took a stand, not because of self interest, but because of moral outrage. Over time, that group of morally outraged people gained enough power to overturn slavery and eventually, it was understood by virtually all that slavery was indeed morally wrong."

Interesting point. Anti-slavery people, like proponents of Civil Rights in the 1960s put their lives on the line to stop a moral wrong. Why are pro-lifer merely content to wait 40 years so maybe they can have their own judges "legislate from the bench" if every abortion is a "murder" and legal abortion is "a holocaust". Seems the anti-slavery folks had a lot more guts than Pro-life folks.

"It will be much the same way for the unborn children. Eventually, the moral outrage will grow until the pro-life group is strong enough to overturn Roe v Wade. Eventually, most of the supporters of abortion will come to realize it as morally wrong."

That's pretty doubtful. One hopes that people will come to realize that abortion should be rare, not used for birth control, but assuming that people will toss away their freedoms is silly. I'd rather people became more responsible.

Senator Obama's pro-choice position comes from his church - The United Church of Christ position on abortion!!!!!!!!!!!!

Read Professor Thistlethwaite's essay as confirmation of the UCC position. She is a theologian who teaches that view to pastors in training at her seminary.

Senator Obama was expressing not only his view as a lawyer supporting Roe vs Wade, he is also expressing his view as an ex member of UCC, whose Christian values were shaped by a UCC pastor.

"You are causing a problem and it's your fault?" I guess you're just having a laugh. I've heard a lot of rediculous claims made in the abortion debate, but accusing pro-lifers of being responsible for the epidemic of abortions is surely a new one. I suppose firefighters are responsible for fires and charitable organizations are responsible for poverty. Please, humor me. How does my defense of innocent human life lead another human being to choose to have an abortion?

Shiye,
Do you have ANY idea how many babies we could have saved from starvation/thirst/disease in Africa, Haiti, etc, with the 2 Trillion dollars that Bush brain decided to spend in Iraq? And McSame wants to continue indefinitely spending hundreds of billions of dollars trying to control the crazies over there instead of saving babies in desperate need around the world. Obama will absolutely save more babies around the world than McSame, because he is not obsessed with American PRIDE (that thing that brought down the tower of Babylon). Which do you really care about...the oil (and your comfy way of life) or saving millions of starving babies?

Vote Obama!

The leader of the Democrat ticket argued for and supported through legislative efforts the deliberate, neglectful homicide of living, breathing human beings, simply because, were they allowed to live, it might - MIGHT - have an adverse effect on abortion law. Never mind that the laws in question specifically safeguarded against changing existing abortion law. NO catholic (small "c" intentional) of any stripe can morally justify support of this presidential candidate. Forget the theoretical musings of a law professor. Instead, ask yourself how you will explain your vote to Our Lord on Judgment Day.

Sen. Bob Casey, who was speaking at the Dem Convention, just said (9:27 PM EST) that "I disagree with Barack Obama on abortion, but I know that he will seek to solve the problem rather than letting it divide us."

So there.

"Theocratic agendas increase abortions?" I haven't the slightest idea what that even means or how one comes to such a conclusion.'

"You are causing the problem and its your fault"

That's what you say when you have lost the argument and have no argument to defend your position.

I remember it working real good for me when I was six or seven and fought with my friends.

Whatever you do- don't deny it or someone will start saying --"did to" 'did not"

"Theocratic agendas increase abortions?" I haven't the slightest idea what that even means or how one comes to such a conclusion. Teaching that abortion is immoral somehow increases abortions? Playing the counter-productive card, are we?

That sounds about as logical as advising parents NOT to tell their kids that playing with fire is dangerous. Perhaps they'd be better advised to douse their house in gasoline and give their kids a box of matches.

I absolutely encourage contraception, and I hope that no abortions will ever have to be performed in the future, because it is emotionally painfull for all involved. But for many Catholics contraception is the same as abortion, so there is no point in arguing the difference. It seems as though these types of Catholics would tell a married couple...that has been told a pregnancy could be fatal to the wife...should simply abstain from sex for the REST OF THEIR LIVES, despite the damage that would do to their relationship and their happiness. I am simply trying to get accross that making more babies can cause the death of other, already-existing babies. Many people on this board can't seem to grasp that fact.

Well, look who gets uncomfortable when someone points out theocratic agendas increase abortions, as opposed to progressive ones, which actually reduce them.

It's about *lives,* right, righties?

Or is it?

"Eventually, most of the supporters of abortion will come to realize it as morally wrong. "

Actually, the trend will be for organized religion to die a slow death and for people to rely more on pragmatism than ideology on topics like this. Look at the trends in Europe and Asia if you don't believe me. It's inevitable.

For you- it should be rational to promote contraception. Abortions are not contraception. Once conception occurs there is no contraception available.

Right, Rationalist?

Babies are wonderful until you have so many they are starving in their cribs, or dying of thirst from lack of clean water, as thousands to every day in our over populated world.

TOO MUCH LIFE == DEATH (this is why God made predators)

The story below shows how we can save even a 21 week old baby, given a million dollars or so. The mystery still remains, why these red-state, save-all-the-babies types, NEVER vote to raises their taxes so the Government has money to save the babies WITH! Instead, the holier-than-thou Repubs voted to create a 50 Trillion dollar medicare entitlement for their OWN care/medicines (for old people), so THEY will live longer, while REFUSING to support taxes for basic medical care for the children they supposedly care so much about.

Some of you will find any excuse to vote for Obama despite his extreme views on abortion.

To equate McCain with Obama in order to encourage fellow Catholics to vote for Obama is insane.

With Obama, you get Nancy Pelosi and all her cohorts, so not only will Roe v. Wade remain the law of the land, anything more they can do to ensure Planned Parenthood millions of our tax dollars will glide right through both Congress and the White House.

There is no comparison here. Vote McCain if you have a conscious; Obama if you don't.

And can we stop with this rediculous assertion that the majority of Catholics support abortion? The Church has been clear for two thousand years, and as much as the media would like you to believe otherwise, there's no crisis in the Church on the issue of life.

So abortion is the oldest surgical procedure known to mankind, and prostitution is the oft-cited oldest profession... so what? I guess the implication is that the longer something has been happening, the more acceptable it is. Well, that doesn't follow! Robbery, torture, and murder have occurred since the beginning of man; that doesn't mean we condone them or turn a blind eye. We recognize evil when we see it and we do all that we can to prevent it. Nobody is forcing anyone down a dark alley. God gives us free will, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as right and wrong.

"But don't force my little sister into a back alley if she decides it is right for her."

Do you defend your little sister's decision to kill anyone? or just a family member? or just her unborn child?

Better watch your back, Reinadelaz.

Paul C. wrote "Just because something is popular doesn't make it right."

Abortion is not popular. Maybe it is popular among catholics which support the Democrats but not among true Christians.

Liberal judges made that into law and not thru a referendum.

CAtholics only comprise 25% of America. It means that abortion cannot win if there will be a referendum on that.

Nowhere in the Bible is the word or practice of abortion mentioned. Thinking people know that making abortion illegal will not stop the oldest surgical procedure known to mankind. Senator Obama is right when he says no woman comes to this decision lightly. If you don't think abortion is right, then don't have one. But don't force my little sister into a back alley if she decides it is right for her.

Well said, Paul C.

I have a hard time with the argument that people should not speak out against abortion because the majority support roe v Wade. Just because something is popular doesn't make it right. This is often the case where one group (in this case pregnant women)gets a financial advantage by exploiting another group that has no rights. (their unborn child).

This is not so very different than slavery. If you took a poll of slaveholders 150 years ago, no doubt slavery would be popular. If you polled the slaves (who of course had no rights), I'm sure the results would be very different. The slaves only got their rights when a third party (the abolitionists) took a stand, not because of self interest, but because of moral outrage. Over time, that group of morally outraged people gained enough power to overturn slavery and eventually, it was understood by virtually all that slavery was indeed morally wrong.

It will be much the same way for the unborn children. Eventually, the moral outrage will grow until the pro-life group is strong enough to overturn Roe v Wade. Eventually, most of the supporters of abortion will come to realize it as morally wrong.

James, thanks for that beautiful story and pictures. Truly touching and inspirational to us all, and especially to those of us who call ourselves "pro-life."

As intimated in this composition by Prof. Stevens-Arroyo and echoed in the view of several other posters, reproductive rights will remain the law of the land - religious objections notwithstanding.

Women will make the final choice regarding whether to give birth or not - and that's as it should be. This seems to be a naturally given law of life.

Better to vote for the party that is sympathetic to the need for choice, rather than the party that panders to pro-lifers for their vote - but in reality could care less once the vote is in.

This is the way the republican party operates on a constellation of social issues and policies - in the end, what's good for Corporate America and Big Business is what gets supported by the republican party. This is also a natural fact.

The decision to give birth has been a decision that women have made for the lifespan of our species thus far, and they will continue to do so. Nature does not always make the decision to nurture.

We are what we are - evolving animals, along with all other genetically related lifeforms that accompany us on our stellar journey.

We're gifted with the cognitive freedom to make the decisions that we can make for ourselves, and the outcomes are not always as we'd like. Many of the decisions related to life and death are made for us by nature itself. We are one with Nature, and in a very real way, an instrument of Nature.

Much of this is hard to accept for many - as is clear by these many posts weighing heavily against abortion rights.

There are other effective strategies that would impact the frequency of abortion, but many of the posters here would object to those practices as well - particularly the devout Catholics that may be present. We've had these discussions before.

Marc Edward-

Thanks for your honest reply. When told an abortion is the removal of a parasitic clump of cells- women find it easier to agree to abort. But the truth is now evident.

You say:

"I certainly hope the child attains normal development."

We have every reason to believe the child will be fine. This child was born in London.

"As he lay desperately ill in his incubator under ultraviolet light, the tiny baby looked to be losing the battle for life.

Dylan Ardill had suffered a bleed on the brain, had a hole in his heart and his lungs had not formed properly.

He was born weighing less than 2lb and could have fitted into the palm of his father's hand.

But a week later came a signal which filled his parents Ralph and Annalex with hope.

He raised his hand and gave his mother's finger a squeeze as Mr Ardill captured the moment on camera.

That moment proved to be a turning point.

Dylan began to put on weight, his medical problems were resolved and, at three months old, he was allowed home from St Mary's Hospital in West London.

He is now a healthy two-year-old.

'We will treasure that photograph for the rest of our lives,' said his 33-year-old mother, who runs a design company with her husband."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1049098/My-tiny-1lb-9oz-baby-squeezed-hand--gave-hope.html

PLEASE CHECK OUT THE PICTURES AT THE LINK

Actually Marc Edward, the issue of abortion is not too complicated for me, nor is it too complicated for anyone that lives in the real world. It's not complicated at all in fact, only some people diligently try to obfuscate the issue. You can't justify the taking of innocent human life. There's no other way to interpret it but as immoral. You can dance around the issue, or outright criticize the principle, but you're fooling no one only yourself.

Comments on this board have tried to rationalize it with everything from (paraphrasing) "We're really doing the baby a favor since it will go straight to heaven" to "I know a person that had an abortion, but it was good because she went on to have many more kids, and that's really the more pro-life option." My goodness! Even people that are "pro-choice" consistently talk about reducing the number of abortions. Why? Because they can't help but recognize that there's something terribly wrong with the it.

Joe Biden, one of THE most liberal senators, is against partial birth, public funding of abortions, and here's the best part: PERSONALLY disagrees with abortion! It seems nearly all parties admit abortion is regrettable, but "pro-choicers" are willing to turn a blind-eye and allow this travesty to continue, whereas pro-lifers WILL NOT!

"Pro-choicers" love to peddle the "incest and rape" card, even though we all know most abortions involve neither and are done out of convenience. But let's consider even these most heart-renching of cases. A woman is raped by a criminal, and societies response is to sentence the unborn, innocent child (who is as much a victim as his mother) to death? I say a decent society doesn't respond to one act of evil with another act of evil. We all know two wrongs don't make a right.

All I know is, if I must err in this life, I'm going to err on the side of life.

Yun writes
'Marc Edward: "Are you (pro-life folks in general) willing to allow any abortions at all? Is there any comprimise at all that can be made?"

No.'

Wow, so you'd rather Abortion continue at a rate of a million+ a year rather than comprimise? I have to wonder if you place any value on babies at all.

'You can spew all the platitudes you want about whether or not the child will suffer if born, or won't live long afterwards, but that doesn't change the fact that abortion is the intentional killing of a human being.'

So what? If a woman learns at 22 weeks her baby has no brain, why go through the remaining months of pregnancy? Just to punish her? If a mother learns at 29 weeks her baby has sever abnormalities and cannot survive long after birth, why force her to go through with it? Do you have any morals at all?

'Human life is not judged by utilitarian criteria.'

Yes it is. A person without an upper brain isn't considered "alive".

"A human being is not an old car that you can send to the scrap heap if it doesn't work properly. A human being with a genetic defect is still a human being, and intentionally killing him/her is still unjustifiable"

Of course it is. When we (wife and myself) were having kids we talked long and hard about what we'd do if gross fetal abnormality were detected, and we decided that while we didn't want an abortion, we'd get one and try again. We didn't consider ourselves financially or emotionally capable of raising a child who had no hope what so ever of having a normal life. Others make the other decision every day. We never had to choose abortion, so I don't have to carry the moral weight of that decision, but I was prepared to. For me, I'd rather raise kids who have the usual problems than have on child with extreme problems that would make it impossible for us to have more.

I'm sure you don't care, but I think you deserve the chace to learn that very few issues are black and white.

Pendergraft is a notorious abortionist in Florida. Try googling- James Pendergraft abortion.
Then again if you are foolish enough to think his botched abortions are bogus- you probably believe there is no fraudulent abortionists.

"Florida officials have halted abortions at five clinics in the state -- two indefinitely -- and have suspended the medical license of the problem-plagued owner of the facilities in connection with accusations that he performed illegal late-term abortions.

An emergency order issued Wednesday by the Florida Department of Health suspending Dr. James S. Pendergraft IV's license stated he showed "a flagrant disregard for the laws of the state of Florida and a willingness to endanger the lives and health of pregnant patients."

In separate action, the state Agency for Health Care Administration put an indefinite halt to abortions at Dr. Pendergraft's Orlando Women's Center and EPOC Clinic, also in Orlando. The agency also barred abortions at his clinics in Tampa, Fort Lauderdale and Ocala for a week.

The state says that in 2004 and 2005, "Dr. Pendergraft endangered two female patients by performing third-trimester abortions outside a hospital setting and without concurring certification from a second physician."

Under state law, third-trimester abortions are lawful if needed to "save the life or preserve the health of the pregnant woman." But the law requires that such procedures be performed in a hospital unless two physicians "certify in writing" that an urgent abortion is needed to save a woman's life.

Dr. Pendergraft's attorney, Robert Buonauro, said an appeal of the suspension will be filed in the next day or two.

Dr. Pendergraft "operated within the (medical) guidelines and protocol" of Florida and "had the appropriate certification" for the third-trimester abortion he performed in July 2005, Mr. Buonauro said.

He said it is his client's position that the woman involved in the 2004 abortion was in the second trimester of pregnancy, not the third, and so the doctor was not subject to the same legal restrictions.

Marti MacKenzie, a spokeswoman for Dr. Pendergraft, said he has "encountered obstacles" since opening his first abortion clinic in Orlando nearly 15 years ago.

"This is a Bush-run state that is constantly anti-choice," she said. "Dr. Pendergraft is many women's last hope, but there are always movements afoot to hinder him."

Dr. Pendergraft has had other legal difficulties. He was convicted of extortion in February 2001 and sentenced to nearly four years in prison after he and a business associate filed a lawsuit saying that his Ocala clinic was not given adequate protection from abortion protesters. Officials said the lawsuit was part of an extortion plot to get the county to pay the two to close the clinic.

Dr. Pendergraft spent seven months in prison before an appeals court overturned his conviction. In 2004, he pleaded guilty to a count of accessory after the fact to making false statements. The Florida Board of Medicine later dismissed the case.

In April last year, a former patient filed inhumane-treatment charges against Dr. Pendergraft, saying she gave birth to a live 23-week-old in a clinic restroom after an abortion earlier in the month, according to the Christian Newswire. The woman said no one responded to her cries for help for the baby, who died. The clinic doctor said the baby was stillborn, and the medical examiner's office said it found no reason to disagree."

Democrats back abortion and the biggest supporter of Democrats are Catholic. Catholicism is the DEVIL'S RELIGION. It is that simple. All the talk about the pope's opposition to abortion is just for show. All talk but no walk. Statistics show that Catholics are the biggest group that undergo abortion.

james writes
'Marc Edward-
"Of course no baby could survive outside it's mother at 22 weeks."

And you may need to reconsider the standard for viability in light of Amillia's case (see below).'

I stand corrected! I am amazed that they could deliver and save a baby at 22 weeks. Of course an MSNBC story on the child states
"Full-term births come after 37 to 40 weeks, and few babies born before 22 weeks survive. Amillia suffered respiratory and digestive problems, as well as a mild brain hemorrhage, but doctors believe those problems will not have major long-term effects."

I certainly hope the child attains normal development.

This is why I find later abortions to be morally problematic. This is why I wish more discussions about abortion would be less emotional and more rational, because if BOTH sides can find some middle ground we could make more headway in reducing abortions without limiting the choices of women. I used to more of an absolutist about abortion. Growing older, makiing the decision to have children and actually going through with it (3 times!) gave me insites I didn't have before. Certainly there are now abortions that aren't neccessary (I read a piece in Salon.com a year or so back where a woman had an abortion at 22 weeks because he husband left her and she wanted to punish him).
Thanks for the information!

Keep in mind, for Amillia to survive cost a lot of money (I'm guessing over a million bucks, but it's probably a lot more) and I certainly hope that President Obama can come up with a health care system where every child can get the same care as Amillia.
Have a good day!

Marc Edward: "Are you (pro-life folks in general) willing to allow any abortions at all? Is there any comprimise at all that can be made?"

No. You can spew all the platitudes you want about whether or not the child will suffer if born, or won't live long afterwards, but that doesn't change the fact that abortion is the intentional killing of a human being. Human life is not judged by utilitarian criteria. A human being is not an old car that you can send to the scrap heap if it doesn't work properly. A human being with a genetic defect is still a human being, and intentionally killing him/her is still unjustifiable.

The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons.

So I must ask the Priests, Pastors and Believers who are encouraging a compromise on abortion.

What will it profit you if you gain the whole world and lose your soul? And what will you give in exchange for your soul?

I beg you to reconsider- Be unashamed of the Gospel and the Son of G-d. He only has the Power to forgive your sins and raise you from the dead.

According to Quinnipac, 63% of people support Roe vs Wade, versus 33% that do not. Why in earth would our elected officials attempt to overturn laws that the large majority of their constituents support? This is just another hot-button issue that politicians use to pander to voters and get them to vote against their own economic interests. Wake up people.

Anon, Anon, Anon, wherever and whomever you are,

References supporting your comment that RU 486 has not made any difference in the UK. Is the drug available without prescription? Are there restrictions as to gets said prescriptions? Do parents have to be notified about said prescriptions?

As noted previously, what is needed is a 24 hr effective pill to eliminate sexual desires.

Everyone,

The "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" that went through the Ill. Senate stated - not in specific language that - A fetus born prematurely due to a botched abortion shall be considered a live child and treated as such. Senator Obama fought this act - wisely - to protect abortion rights. If this act survived, the right to choose would not have. It would have been used as presidence to identify and unborn child a person and as such a life.
Your opinions are your own, but as for me I'd like to leave it to the mother to decide. Senator Obama has the best rational to help America deal with the abortion CRISIS, because that is what it is.

-Brad

Here a few facts regarding the "abortion-on-demand" development:

Availability of contraceptives --1960

Sexual revolution -- 1967

Roe vs Wade -- 1973

Ultrasound to monitor child in the womb --1976

Fetology: treatment of child in the womb late 1970s.

Abortion pre Roe vs Wade - one hundred thousand per year

Abortion POST Roe vs Wade - 1.4 MILLION per year

Considering that a story of that sort, if confirmable, would have been all over the papers, I'd have to label it as highly suspect. It reads very much like the kind of stuff Keating used to make up to support his anti-porn drives, before he was put in jail for mail fraud. Or like a Chick tract.

May I humbly submit that when I agree with the Catholic guy, we could be onto something, something good enough to be getting on with?

If you actually want fewer abortions, how bout we go with the policies that *reduce* them, rather than the 'morally-absolutist ones' that are so *unsuccessful at actually reducing abortion and in fact increase it,* that Bush had to stop anyone from *counting?*

How about... We use government for the stuff it's *good at,* a la the dreaded 'Pro-choice liberal' support contraception and education and mothers,

...rather than the 'Pro-Life,' "Screw results, let's damn people, remove their civil rights, force women to back alleys and abusive situations, and make childrearing otherwise economically-untenable to show how horrible not being a right-wing Christian is! That'll work! (This time, really!)"

Marc Edward-

"did a quick google search on "baby rowan"

Listen to the utube of the actual 911 tapes and the pictures of baby Rowan. His mother would not relinquish his body to the abortion clinic and took him home and gave him a proper burial.

"Of course no baby could survive outside it's mother at 22 weeks."

And you may need to reconsider the standard for viability in light of Amillia's case (see below). Over the years, the technology that we have available to save premature babies has improved dramatically. Today, we can save babies that would have never survived 10 years ago. In time we will have artificail wombs that will sustain life for the very youngest.

"Sonja Taylor is overjoyed to be taking baby Amillia home after four months in the NICU at Baptist Children's Hospital in Miami, FL. Amillia is the world's youngest gestational-age baby, born at 21 weeks and six days on Oct. 24, 2006. Weighing less than ten ounces and measuring only 9.5 inches in length, she is also the fourth smallest baby in the world to survive."

http://www.genengnews.com/news/bnitem.aspx?name=13108261

Barack Obama is without doubt the most extreme candidate for president with respect to abortion. Obama was the only legislator to stand against the Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Act when a state senator (a nearly identical law passed unanimously in the US Senate. Mr. Kmiec is a best bizarre and at least a disgrace.

Brendan writes " I've never seen so many ignorant comments written on one message board, and considering the standard the internet sets, that's saying something! If I was to go point by point refuting such nonsense, I'd have to quit my job and take this up full time"

Translation - Brandon cannot defend his viewpoint outside of saying "Abortion takes a LIFE!"

Brandon, life you be so easy if everything were black and white, simple choices where good decisions were rewarded and evil decisions were punished. It's a complex world, where evil people (like the Vice President). If the issue of abortion is too complicated for you, perhaps you ought to stay away from it. Nobody's asking you to get an abortion after all. Just don't have sex and you'll never have to worry about it.

Howdy James, did a quick google search on "baby rowan" and the only references are at World Net Daily and Operation Rescue, neither of which anybody would consider a reliable news source, so I don't know if this incident happened. Of course no baby could survive outside it's mother at 22 weeks. A baby forn 6 weeks later might survive, at a cost of millions, and would never have any kind of normal life. Of course such a child, outside of requiring massive financial assistance, would be severly congnitive hadicapped.
Not sure what your point is.

I've never seen so many ignorant comments written on one message board, and considering the standard the internet sets, that's saying something! If I was to go point by point refuting such nonsense, I'd have to quit my job and take this up full time. Abortion is the extinguishing of innocent human life: FACT. If you want to see what rediculous lengths people will go to rationalize such an indefensible act, pour yourself a cup of coffee and read the comments on this gem of a comments section. But fair warning, you'll leave this website far dumber than upon your arrival.

Many people here argue that "all life is sacred", without admitting (even to themselves) that all life requires RESOURCES! They don't want to admit it but our world has a finite number of resources! The number one killer of children in the world is...LACK OF FRESH/CLEAN WATER!!!! The number 2 killer of children in this world...LACK OF SUFFICIENT FOOD!!!! So to all you "save every child" folks, just remember...every time you water your grass or wash your car, YOU ARE KILLING A CHILD somewhere. For every one of you pro-lifers who is OVER WEIGHT...you have killed numerous children by EATING THEIR FOOD! For you pro-lifers driving around in SUVs and pickup trucks...you are killing children with your wars and pollution. For each of you who has not yet bought solar panels for their house (I have), you are POISONING children with your coal created electricty (mercury, sulfuric acid, soot).

Now lets hear from a pro-lifer who is a very thin, vegitarian, anti-pollutionist, who never WASTES WATER on lawns, car washing, or excessive showering/toilet flushing, etc, and I will SALUTE you as someone who actually PRACTICES WHAT THEY PREACH. I can always respect someone who actually practices what they preach, even if I disagree with them.

"No it isn't. It's legal, murder is illegal."

Here Marc Edward:

Abortion Clinic 911 Emergency Calls - Baby Rowan

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lfnNzIzvT-k

http://www.22weeksthemovie.com/

See the above link for the movie based on the true story of Baby Rowan, a 22-week-old boy who was born alive in Dr. James Pendergraft's abortion clinic in Orlando and left to die!

OFD: Orlando Fire Department.

(Unintelligible.)

OFD: Thank you. What is the address of the emergency?

Friend: 609 West Virginia Street. The EPOC Center.

OFD: 609 West Virginia? One moment please.

Friend: Let's see ... I don't have the address on me. A friend of mine called from the abortion clinic and her baby was born alive.

OFD: Okay. Do you know the closest intersection? Did she call you on a phone?

Friend: Right, she called me on her cell phone.

OFD: Okay. Did you ask her to call 911? Because ...

Friend: She asked me to call because she was back there with no kind of ... They were just telling her to leave it ... this is gross but ... leave it in the toilet, you know, and let it die.

OFD: Is she in a house?

Friend: She's in the clinic, the abortion clinic.

OFD: Okay.

Friend: Correct. EPOC. Center. Oh my God! I'm freaking out!

OFD: Did she call from a cell phone?

Friend: She called from her cell phone.

OFD: Okay. What did you say? She was having ... the baby just came out?

Friend: Right. She as getting an abortion and the baby came out and it was still living. And they're wanting it to die.

OFD: Okay. And she's inside the clinic?

Friend: Correct.

OFD: Okay. Let me give a call to the county. Hold on. Actually, do not hang up. Just hold on the line, okay?

Friend: Okay.

DISPATCHER CALLS COUNTY

OCFR: Orange County Fire and Rescue

OFD: Hi, can you look up a couple of addresses for me. I have a 911 caller on the line with a baby. She's in an abortion clinic and the baby is born and it's still alive. They don't know for how long.

OCFR: What would we be going for?

OFD: Uh, it would be for an obstetrics. It's a female that's in the center, I guess for ... it's an abortion clinic, but the baby was born, and it's alive at this moment and they don't know for how long.

OCFR: Oh!

TRANSFER TO ORLANDO FIRE DEPARTMENT

OFD: Orlando Fire Department.

Friend: I need an ambulance to 609 Virginia Drive in Orlando.

OFD: 609 Virginia Drive?

Friend: Correct.

OFD: Okay, and what's going on there?

Friend: Uh, it's the women's clinic. Uh, my friend was having an abortion and the baby was born alive.

OFD: Okay, you said the baby was born?

Friend: Correct.

OFD: Okay, hold on one second for me.

Friend: Okay.

OFD: 609 Virginia Drive?

Friend: Correct.

OFD: What's the business name?

Friend: Uh, EPOC Clinic for Women. E-P-O-C.

OFD: EPOC Clinic for Women? Okay. Is there a phone in the building?

Friend: Yes.

OFD: Okay, can you call me from that or just pick up that phone and dial 911?

Friend: Uh, well I'm not there. She's there. She called me and they're not allowing her to use the phone there.

OFD: Okay.

Friend: But they're wanting the baby to die.

OFD: She wants the baby to live?

Friend: Correct.

OFD: Okay.

Friend: She was expecting it to not be alive, and it is.

OFD: Okay. I'm going to get help out there.

Friend: Okay.

OFD: Just stay on the line with me.

Friend: Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!

OFD: Okay. The baby's been born?

Friend: Correct.

OFD: How long ago, do you know?

Friend: Uh, she just called me. It wasn't 10 minutes ago. And said that the baby was born and it was alive and they were wanting her to leave it in the toilet. And uh ... just let it die. And uh ... she's not wanting that to happen.

OFD: Okay, we do have help on the way like I said. We're going try and call the center as well as have someone on the way.

Friend: Thank you very much.

OFD: Your welcome.

DISPATCHER CALLS WINTER PARK FIRE DEPARTMENT

OFD: Hi. Can you respond with us to 609 Virginia Drive?

Ambulance: For?

OFD: Uh, this is supposed ... This is the EPOC Center E-P-O-C Center for Women. We are going fro a lady that is in an abortion clinic. She says that the baby has been born ten minutes ago, but the center wants to kill the baby and will not let the mother call 911.

Ambulance: Whoa!

OFD: Um hmm! So we have a third party calling because the mother did call 911 ... uh ...call a family member.

Ambulance: Okay, so we are the way now. All right.

OFD: Okay.

Ambulance: Bye!

It also never seems to occur to “pro-lifers” that often times an abortion of one fetus early in a womens life allows her to have many more children later in life. My own wife is an example of this. She had an abortion before I ever met her, but if she hadn’t, she would not have come to college when she did, we never would have met, and our 4 children WOULD NOT EXIST! These are simply the facts. You pro-lifers would really advocate FOUR children never being born so that ONE baby got a chance to live in that particular year, instead of in a different body later? Some of us believe aborted babies will get another chance to live in another time and place, since you know, God is Just.

If abortions are made illegal than every woman who miscarries will end up in jail, because she “might” have done something to encourage her body to miscarry (slamming her belly against a stair rail, drinking to much, not taking folic acid, having her boyfriend hit her belly with a bat, not eating enough, being tooo athletic, etc). There is no possible way of determining whether a miscarrige was “natural” or “induced”. So what pro-lifers really want is to lock millions of American women in jail, even ones that WANT to be home taking care of the kids they DID decide to have. It is not enough that the U.S.A. (the land of the “free”) has more people locked in jail than any other country on Earth, the so called pro-lifers want to add millions of young women to our prison population. Somehow, they think, that will make God happy. It is simply not possible to enforce anti-abortion laws without victimizing legions of potentially innocent women. (but of course women and the families they take care of are not as important as that ball of 200 stem cells inside her).

The rules of the Church are very plain as is the morality behind it.

If the author or Demorcratic pols believe that their position on Abortion trumps Church teaching there are thousands of other faiths out there that will welcome them with open arms.

The church is not a Democracy but neither is membership forced. If one can't follow the beliefs then join the side you are actually on, don't lie to yourself by pretending that you are something you aren't.

The really odd thing about “religious” peoples objection to abortion is how little faith these people seem to have in their God. Don’t these people believe in heaven/salvation? It seems to me that anyone who had any faith in Divine Justice, would believe that a loving and forgiving God would never condemn any soul that was truly innocent and pure. Therefore any human that never got a chance to live (i.e. was aborted) would either go straight to heaven, OR would be given another chance at life in another body at some point. In either case the baby’s soul is not harmed or doomed. Can any Catholic claim that, given the chance, he/she would not choose to go straight to Heaven, and skip the gamble he/she might end up suffering eternal torment?

On the other hand, if God is not good/loving/caring then they might have something to worry about. I am not an organized religion adherant, but I have faith that God will treat these souls Justly.

Paul S. - I don't have any children, adopted or otherwise, because I am young, newly married, and want to be responsible by waiting until I am financially ready to support children. My mother was adopted, as were my aunt and uncle, and my husband and I have already decided to have one kid and adopt the other when we're ready. You happy? I'm pro-choice and I'm going to pick up YOUR slack.

You pro-lifers DO have a responsibility to put your money where your mouth is. You rant and rave about the poor little babies, but you don't adopt any yourself. If you REALLY cared about these children, you would step in and offer to adopt some. It's the hypocrisy, stupid.

There are plenty of pro-choicers that adopt children. In fact, there are many special needs children who are adopted by loving GAY couples, the same couples that the Republican party, which is SO pro-family, are trying to keep from forming families.

patprolifedemocrat - you are the first pro-lifer who has EVER answered me with an affirmative - at least you're consistent. Some of you other anti-choicers should take a note.

what am I reading? writes
"I don't understand; this is so obvious."

Simple answers to complex moral questions usually aren't right.

"A few centuries ago, I would have been considered 3/5 of a person."

Wrong again. The "3/5 person" think was less than "few centuries" ago. It wasn't even 2 centuries ago!

"Now we see a tiny human being with little feet, arms, a beating heart, and we're trying to justify killing im or her at 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks...etc."

Heart, feet, arms at two weeks? Really?

"It's murder"

No it isn't. It's legal, murder is illegal.

"and the Catholic Church in Her wisdom teaches that abortion cannot be justified."

And the Catholic Church said the 30 Years War was justified - too bad for the 8 million German civilians that died. The Catholic Church gets things wrong like the rest of us. The Catholic Church opposes comdom use to prevent AIDS, condemning millions to a horrible death. Maybe you ought to try thinking for yourself.

"Too bad Obama voted AGAINST the Born Alive Act. At least I know who I'm NOT voting for."

Why did Obama vote against it? If you don't understand that, you can't use that vote against him. Go by his campaign site and see if he can explain it to you, if truth is something you value.

"I don't understand; this is so obvious. A few centuries ago, I would have been considered 3/5 of a person."

How much of a person do you figure a *woman* is when if you give a Fundie a plastic name-tag at the pharmacy counter, they can decide emergency contraception is 'abortion' and therefore they can lie, refuse to fill prescriptions issued by doctors, and *retain* the prescription to prevent the woman going anywhere else?

How much of a person is the woman who's forced to not get emergency contraception, then carry a rapists's spawn to term, then give him paternity rights to her *and* the child for eighteen years?

How's the fractions working out on that?

Sean writes
'Marc Edward stated:
"Actually Chip you are totally wrong. The Republican party calls abortion murder and legal abortion a Holocaust. They have yet to pass a single law to end abortion. Bettter luck next time."

First of all there are very good reasons the Republicans haven't passed a law ending abortion.'

Yes there is - they don't believe their own words. They know if the outlaw abortion the country would turn against them. Keeping abortion legal and paying lip service to "pro life" every two years gets them votes and money from well meaning pro-life folks.

'An opposition congress for the past 6 years'

The Republicans have held both houses of congress from 1994 till 2006, so you might want to check your facts.

'not withstanding even if they did pass a law the fist woman who was refused an abortion in adhering to the law would only sue her way to the Supreme Court where the Court would strike down the law as unconstitutional'

Not if they amended the constitution. Of course they would save countless "babies" while they were waiting for the SCOTUS to rule, and the current SCOTUS is very Republican. Your point seems to be "the holocaust of abortion isn't worth stopping unless it's easy". Glad that wasn't how lefties felt about civil rights!

'citing Roe v. Wade as the relevent case law. The answer to making abortion illegal begins with the Court overturning Roe v. Wade.'

No it isn't. You can change the constitution. You can change the law. You can pass laws against abortion and dare the President to veto it. You can formulate laws against abortion and dare Democrats to vote against it - unless you believe that the country would side against you. Is that it? You pro-lifers think the country is against you, or do you think you have a majority on your side?

'Any laws made outlawing abortions until then are irrelevent and the Republicans are smart enough to realize that'

Translation - the Republicans lack the courage and commitment to stop a "holocaust" that has been going on for 40 years, because it isn't easy enough. If other civil rights movements had leadership like that, blacks and whites would still be drinking at seperate fountains, women wouldn't be able to vote, and blacks might well be slaves.
Does embracing cowardice really make you feel good about yourself?

I don't understand; this is so obvious. A few centuries ago, I would have been considered 3/5 of a person. Now we see a tiny human being with little feet, arms, a beating heart, and we're trying to justify killing im or her at 2 weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks...etc. It's murder, and the Catholic Church in Her wisdom teaches that abortion cannot be justified. She (the Church) doesn't dispute that the woman being faced with an unwanted pregnancy is hurting. Instead, She asserts that we (those aware of the genocide taking place) protect the rights of the unborn child who can't run away. Unfortunately, unlike slaves who could at least try to run away,are stuck in their mothers' wombs as different instruments shred them to pieces. 48 million dead, and you think nobody cares? The number of those who are finally seeing the blood that our country (and others) have shed under the disguise of "free choice" are waking up. Too bad Obama voted AGAINST the Born Alive Act. At least I know who I'm NOT voting for. This article is a disgrace.

Dog is above Obama's paygrade--

"An eight-year-old dog has touched the hearts of Argentines by saving the life of an abandoned baby, placing him safely alongside her own new puppies.

The country's media are calling him "the miracle baby".

He was born prematurely to a 14-year-old girl in a shanty town outside the capital, Buenos Aires.

She is said to have panicked and abandoned the boy in a field, surrounded by wooden boxes and rubbish.

Then along came La China, reports say, the dog which somehow picked up the baby and carried her 50m to place him alongside her own puppies.

The dog's owner reported hearing the child crying and finding him covered with a rag.

The baby, weighing 4kg (8lb 13oz), had some slight injuries, but no bite marks."

I hardly know where to begin. I must say this column is filled with more illogical assertations than any material I have ever read. Let us start with R Charles who stated:
"Nature kills -- yes, aborts!! -- about half of the fetuses that normally occur. Clearly if Nature has such little concern for each and every fetus, there is no moral reason for man to hold a higher value."
Is he for real? If you accept the premise of that statement then by extension because nature kills adult humans on a daily basis and shows "little concern" for human life in general then murder of adults as well as babies should be legal. That statement isn't even rational.

Marc Edward stated:
"Actually Chip you are totally wrong. The Republican party calls abortion murder and legal abortion a Holocaust. They have yet to pass a single law to end abortion. Bettter luck next time."

First of all there are very good reasons the Republicans haven't passed a law ending abortion.
An opposition congress for the past 6 years not withstanding even if they did pass a law the fist woman who was refused an abortion in adhering to the law would only sue her way to the Supreme Court where the Court would strike down the law as unconstitutional, citing Roe v. Wade as the relevent case law. The answer to making abortion illegal begins with the Court overturning Roe v. Wade. Any laws made outlawing abortions until then are irrelevent and the Republicans are smart enough to realize that.

Side note:

Abortion is never a fun thing to do. Abortion is always a very critical decision, that has no happy ending.

Please let the people that need to make this choice alone. They don't need your hate. They have enough hate for themselves.

"Not quite, animals don't kill their unborn offspring...and afterwards make me sick about moralising about what good people they are."

I bet they would if they were smart enough.MANY ANIMALS EAT THERE YOUNG. Ever have hamsters? Ever seen male lions around baby lions?

Animals kill there young ALL THE TIME, get edumacaddddid.

CCNL

It's been available in the UK for over a year & hasn't made any difference.

Not quite, animals don't kill their unborn offspring...and afterwards make me sick about moralising about what good people they are.

The now readily available prescription abortion pill, RU 486, when it goes OTC will eliminate most of the debate about abortion i.e. the eradication of life will then be solely up the carrier of said life. She will have to live with the decision.

RU 486 is already available on-line apparently without prescription. http://www.abortion-pill-online.com/

NEWS FLASH!!!!

HUMANS ARE ANIMALS!!!!

HUMANS HAVE SEX!!!!

Oh My God! What will God think when humans use all the abilities GOD GAVE THEM and have intercourse with each other! What world we live in where people can use the gifts that were given to them by GOD!

Seriously though, either let people use contraceptives, or let people use abortion. You can not have your cake and eat it too.

Science has proven that not having sex causes fanaticism. God gave men harmones. If you don't release the poison, you become crazy. Look at elephants/lions/dogs for proof. We are all animals.

With the exception of China and Russia, abortion is most prevalent in the world;s richest countries whose birthrates are already at or below replacement. And the offering of abortion 'rights' came *after* the population had begun to decline sharply.

The only thing we can truly say is associated with abortion is - conception.

Prevent unwanted conception, prevent unwanted abortion. Very simple.

Oh for feck's sake, high fertility is associated with rural poverty, not with whether or not abortion is offered. The higher the poverty, the more the children. The Rockefeller Foundation funded the sterilization of 8 million Indians 20 years ago, and it didn't make a bit of difference. OTOH migration from the Chinese hinterlands to their cities made a big one, more influential than their policy of forced abortion.

Abortion is not associated with population growth. Poverty is.

Good point. If a church talks politics, it is not longer non-profit. It has a political profit.

Take away ALL tax breaks and charge these political campaign churches as businesses.

Or they can STFU and keep their hate messages for themselves.

If you listen to the fanatics they will have you think that abortions are indescriminatelly performed when in fact they are not. Also if you want to reduce abortion numbers then you need to make all forms of birth control more available.

It's time for reason to be added to the mix in this debate.

I believe the time has come to remove the tax exemptions on all churches that are involved in politics. They are acting as sorrugates of the republican party and not as independent entities.

Each is using the other for their own political gain and thus have surrendered their status.

There are too many humans in this world anyway. If we don't allow abortion God will just send the next black death plague and reduce our numbers his way.

Think about it. God regulates the amount of every species in this world by carefully constucting a long food chain. Humans are the only species that can make themselves immune to God's work.

I know when to keep my pants zipped, probably not a situation you've had to face osize, how many times have you said no to a woman?

I'm sure the opportunities were endless for you.

If anything, the tie-up of abortion with care for the most vulnerable--prenatal children--makes me extremely sad. I am one of those Catholics who believes in a measure of support of these children from society at large, the state if you will.

Combining this with a philosophy of killing those self-same children is a great travesty.

The Other White Pope:
For those that believe that life begins with conception:

You're standing in a fertility clinic. A fire breaks out. In the room with you is a young woman (whom you've never met) and a tray of 3,000 "conceived" children (i.e., 3,000 fertilized eggs
_______________________

I bet you get no takers on your question. Of course you could add "a young woman, an ugly hobo, Dick Cheney, and a tray of 3000 fertilized eggs" just to make it interesting.

Hey, I want to know how we could enforce "legal rights from the moment of conception". How will the government know when a girl has skipped a period? Government mandated monthly fertility checks? How will the government tell if a miscarriage is a miscarriage and not an abortion? Will every miscarraige result in a murder investigation? As "abortion is murder!" will all women who get abortions be put to death, or just put in prison without parole?

"I am not suggesting that Prof. Kmiec speaks for all Catholics: but he does represent the thinking of a SIGNIFICANT number."

What an interesting choice of words. Is Stevens-Arroyo representing Catholics or Obama's Campaign?

"Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks." (Matthew 12:35)

"...I don't cause unwanted pregnancies and I'm not a woman."--AWI

Translation: "I've never been on a date and I have a stack of porn under my bed."

Want to stop abortion?

You can't do it by making it illegal.

Try supporting pregnant women, no matter what they want, and you will get less stress induced decisions.

Abortion is for people who can not afford to raise a child effectively. If we could support these people, or supply contraceptives, abortion would go down.

I'm a dead genius, these are just random things coming out of a computer I left on before I kicked off.

You can pray for my computer if you like.

Good grief, stats. I said *there was no connection*. Don't put straw in my mouth, I'll just spit it out.

I;ll say it again: "There is no connection betw. the trend in abortion and the addition of social benefits."

In fact, in China there was a positive one, in the 1 child policy, enforced by coerced abortion. More abortion=more money=more social benefits. In Ireland, fast economic growth=more social benefits, but abortion stayed prohibited. Birth rate fell anyway.

I;ll say it again: "There is no connection betw. the trend in abortion and the addition of social benefits." Dems could add social benefits and the abortion rate could fall. Or it could rise.
There is no connection.

For those that believe that life begins with conception:

You're standing in a fertility clinic. A fire breaks out. In the room with you is a young woman (whom you've never met) and a tray of 3,000 "conceived" children (i.e., 3,000 fertilized eggs).

You can save only one. Which, and why?

inf writes "The pro-lifer's views on this issue are informed by their religious beliefs. It's really a strawman argument for them to transitively enforce their superstitions on the remainder of us who don't share those superstitions"

Not sure I totally agree with that. As somebody who supports abortion rights I think that there might be room in the argument for limiting abortions. How we get there I don't know, because the pro-life side is rather absolutist (as are some on the pro-choice side),

What gets me is that assumption that Republicans are pro-life when they have done nothing outside of words to end abortion. No Amendment to the Constitution, no national ban, no sending guard units to shut down abortion clinics. They know that the vast majority of Americans are pro-choice (with limits), and the pro-life radicals are a tiny vocal minority.
The other thing that is annoying is how easy it is to be "pro-life". By protecting people that don't exist (sorry, a 2 week old sack of cells isn't a person) who haven't asked for help, pro-lifers get to feel like they are "taking a moral stand". Instead of going after their terrible leadership (and the pro-life leadership is more despicable than the Republican leadership) of the Republicans who have been betraying them for 35 years, they bray about "supporting life". They make comparisans to Slavery (which is silly) but they don't have the guts the anti-slavery movement did. In the 1960s Lefties put their lives on the line to end legal discrimination in the American South. Many were beaten, some were killed, but they didn't give up. Pro-lifers on the other hand pretty much do nothing aside from going to church, praying, and posting at boards. I drive by our local Planned parenthood and in 10 years I've never seen a gathering of protesters that numbered more than one.

I pray for you. Your anger, vitriol, and bigotry are so apparent in even the shortest sentence you right. But, hey, if remaining uninformed helps you stay comfortable in your little shell of thought, then so be it. Far be it for anyone to question anything that you say or write, because you are a living genius whose word is final, unquestionable dogma. You sure you weren't Torquemada the Inquisitor in a past life? Ooops, I forgot, there is no soul...

"Self control and responsibility are antiquated notions that get in the way of a hedonism that often leads to tragic consequences for unborn children and their mothers."

Well, I agree with that completely.

So what is it you're really trying to do here, control their hedonism? enforce self control and responsibility as you see it should be done?

I find abortion to be a disgusting act, particularly when it's used as retroactive contraception. I also find it's none of my business, since I don't cause unwanted pregnancies and I'm not a woman.

You pro lifers are your own worst enemies. Why should anybody pay attention to that bitter, shaking with rage self-righteousness smeared all over every thing coming out of your mouth?

There are other ways to convince people of your side in this disagreement, your methods are convincing people only to avoid you.

AWI,

You must be as uniformed and bigotted as INF. My wife and I are pro-life, have an adopted daughter, and not motivated by self-righteousness but by doing right as opposed to wrong. The saddest thing about this whole issue is how we have become so callous in this nation; many with the gift of fertility treat it like it is a burden, something with no more importance than an inconvenient stone in our path to pleasure. Self control and responsibility are antiquated notions that get in the way of a hedonism that often leads to tragic consequences for unborn children and their mothers.

Mary Cunningham, your inference from your premise was that anything they said based on these statistics is crap, there is no correlation.
In fact, I agree with you on that for the most part, correlation is no proof of causation.

Then you go on to say that using this data will cause more abortions. Why are they not allowed this invalid inference, and you are?

"I am not suggesting that Prof. Kmiec speaks for all Catholics: but he does represent the thinking of a significant number."

Kmiec is simply attempting to provide more cover for Catholics who are already outspokenly in favor of legalized abortion and those who are "closet" supporters of legalized abortion.

Stats:

What is your point--except that you like to throw a lot of long words and judgements around?

Anyway, you don't counter any of mine. About the only information we *do* have about the combination of social benefits AND unlimited abortion in developed states is that there is NO correlation between unlimited abortion and social benefits. Some countries ban abortion and have high social benefits, some have unlimited social benefits AND unlimited abortion.

Since Prof S-A is making the case that abortion will be DECREASED by INCREASING social benefits, the case of other developed countries is germane. In these countries (cited):there IS NO CONNECTION between the level of social benefits and the trend of abortion. (If there is, show me where.)

If you won't me to qualify my statement I could thus say "Based on all the available evidence from countries at a similar level of economic development, age pyramids and net migration as the US, there is NO CORRELATION between unlimited abortion and social benefits." (How's that?)

wow John, you found one.

What I said is true whether you like it or not. In fact you've just proven my point. Why should I listen to a religious fanatic tell me anything, you people are sick. Even if what you say is valid, I'm going to smell it for a while before I decide whether it stinks or not, just because it's coming out of your diseased mind.

INF,

Your handle should be UNINF for uninformed. Not all opposition to unlimited abortion rights is religiously motivated. Nat Hentoff is an avowed atheist who bases his anti-abortion stance on the constitution and rational, human rights laws that do not depend on the existence of a human soul. You know, the very same laws you take for granted every day as a soulless natural, material being. No god or soul is necessary to belive you and I and everyone else should be free to live and exercise our rights without fear of violence, murder, false imprisonment, etc.

have to agree with inf. pro lifers aren't self righteous about protecting babies, that's not the direction this goes. They "say" they're protecting babies so that they can be self-righteous.

The self-righteousness is the goal, protecting babies is merely the means.

Mary Cunningham:
Oh, for goodness' sakes, Rasta people, I have a granny that is getting a bit sick and I don't have the money to send her to a nursing home. Will *you* adopt her? She's quite nice, if a bit incontinent. If not, I'm going to murder her as she is extremely inconvenient to me. It's your choice.

~~~~~~~~~~~

I say dump her.

Interesting, but the Democrats have a lot to prove if they want to claim that they are for reducing the number of abortions. Let's see the plan. Let them distance themselves from the radical, fanatical pro-choice lobby and embrace moderation and reason on the issue. So far, there is little to show, and they have enshrined abortion as an unassailable dogma that any discussion of a limitation (say a partial birth abortion ban, etc.) is met with such opposition that they soon cower and grovel for the campaign money that issues forth from organizations such as NOW, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood.

The pro-lifer's views on this issue are informed by their religious beliefs. It's really a strawman argument for them to transitively enforce their superstitions on the remainder of us who don't share those superstitions.

It's this soul nonsense, don't you know. Their god manufactures these souls, and he hovers around people when they are having sex, waiting for fertilization to occur and then bam! ensouled.

Really, all you pro-lifers, nobody is pro abortion, nobody wants to kill babies. Demonizing those who have a different opinion on these matters as baby killers only makes them resist you even more.

I don't hear anything positive coming out of you, my first reaction when I hear or read a pro lifer is to shut them out as a religious fanatic.

Is this how you expect to end abortions? My, look how successful your self-righteousness has been. We're not resisting your argument so much as we're resisting you.

Caitlin, great post. well said.

dcp writes " If a woman requests an abortion, we should consider informing her that since she has control over her body, she can only remove parts of her own body. This means she cannot merely remove the fetus which is another's body, she has to remove her uterus which does belong to her body. This way she will only be responsible for one death and not five."

Well, that's about the ugliest, nastiest thing I've read all day.

As somebody who totally supports the Roe decision, I'd be willing accept limits on legal abortion. Once you're in the 2nd trimester (yeah, I know trimesters aren't the best way to judge a fetus's human-ness) abortion become morally problematic. I'd certainly permit abortions in the case of fetal abnormality (yes, including somebody with Downs syndrom) but not permit abortion if it's just about "well we got divorced" or "tests show the child will be gay" or something like that. Certainly any unborn child that will die shortly after birth can be morally aborted.
Are you (pro-life folks in general) willing to allow any abortions at all? Is there any comprimise at all that can be made?

What is that on Joe Biden's head? Will it jump off an attack when the camera flashes?

Mary Cunningham,
"Thus the combination that the Dems are offering--that by enhancing social benefits you will lower abortion--is completely false. You will get *just* as high an abortion rate if you increase social benefits."

You use several examples to point out how rates of health care services have no correlation to the number of abortions, then you claim they will be "just as high". You deny the validity of the proof for the premise with which you disagree, then instantly use it to validate the premise with which you do agree.

Which is it? A "false" implies anything, why is it's use in the area you don't like any more or less valid than in the are you do like?

This kind of logic is specious, and agenda-driven. A true non-sequitur.

Duchbo writes "Much more than the abortion issue itself is Obama's denial of the right to life of those children who are alive at the end of the horific abortion procedure"

Wow - that would be awful if it ever happened. Somehow it sounds fictional to me. Most abortions take place in the 1st trimester, no? There is no way in this universe that a 1st or 2nd trimester would result in a live birth.

Rock claims "the Republican party is the life party"

Hey Rock - explain how the "life party" supports torture and the deaths of between 100,000 and 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians. Explain why the "life party" has never sponsored any laws to end abortion, which they call "murder". Explain why noe Republican President has bothered to make it to the pro-life rallies that are on the Mall in Washington DC, bordering on the White House. I think you are misinformed or a liar.

Frank Hubbard claims that Abortion is just like slavery. I'd like to hear him expound on that interesting theory. Personally I don't buy it.

John Marshall claims we shouldn't teach children that abortion is a constitutional right. So we should lie to children? Why should we lie?

Mary Cunningham writes "Firstly: abortion is _wrong_."

You may be right, but it is legal, and the cost of making abortion illegal is higher than keeping it legal. You just want to make it harder on poor women to get abortions, since people of means will always be able to get abortions.

"Secondly: Where is the statistical correlation betw. enhanced social benefits and abortion by choice?"

I often wonder where you get your statistics yourself. The feds don't keep statistics (Bush stopped it - you ever wonder why?)on abortions and neither do many of the states. I've been by Guttmacher institutes website and they have little date after 2004.

"Most abortion is just a cheap method of birth control."

Now you're just making things up. Abortion is expensive, and I doubt there has been any reliable study to determine why people use abortion. Aside from that, doesn't your side also want to make birth control illegal? Wouldn't that cause abortions to go up? I don't see the Democratic Party as being the "party of abortion", but maybe slander is your last best argument. Since President Clinton the Democratic Party has been for reducing abortions (which did go down under Clinton's term) while Republicans are the party of "pretend to be against abortion and than do nothing"

" Paul S.:

"In response to Butterfly3, if one buys the argument that pro-lifers have some special responsibility to adopt unwanted or special-needs children, then it applies with equal force to pro-choicers. Those who purport to favor a choice about whether to carry a baby to term should support them in whatever choice women make, including birth. "

What, by not gutting social services or making health care inaccessible to prospective mothers?
By protecting said mothers from discrimination based on their marital status whenever some employer decides to have a 'crisis of conscience' that just happens to suit their business or desire to discriminate?

Something like that?

Sure.

Tribes I've been in have bought into that whole 'it takes a village' thing, quite sincerely, when someone decided to give the motherhood thing a go.

People constantly try to frame this as a matter of Christian political *authority,* where the reality of it is in caring for each other, on both a national and more personal level.

We may not all have the same religious and scientific or pseudoscientific 'definitions' of 'when human life and thus a human soul 'begins,' but *motherhood* is sacred to, not just Pagans, but, theoretically, just about everyone.

Sure, let's support it. As well as supporting education about contraception, and freedom from religious and government interference in our bodies, let's not punish women for *either* choice, and focus on what's happening. Sure, let's support mothers.

From top to bottom in this country.

I'm game.

So are the Dems.

Let's do it.

Xtine,well said. I agree with you 100%. I would also like to add that the legality of abortion makes those who enter poverty after having a child recieve blame for being irresponsible, because they had the choice to kill their child and they didn't. The perception is that if they were smart, they would have done away with the "problem" and spared themselves the "burden."

And anonymous, I agree. If a woman requests an abortion, we should consider informing her that since she has control over her body, she can only remove parts of her own body. This means she cannot merely remove the fetus which is another's body, she has to remove her uterus which does belong to her body. This way she will only be responsible for one death and not five.

Wisdom In Seattle writes: "What confuses me, as a Catholic, is how come Catholics can vote for someone who is for the death penalty? I would expect a party that is pro-life on the issue of abortion to also be pro-life on the issue of the death penalty."

With all respect, your question is off base in two key respects. First, abortion and capital punishment are NOT the same. The Church teaches that there is a difference between abortion and other issues like capital punishment, and war. In the cases of capital punishment and war, neither of them is good, but they can be justified in some limited cases (eg World War II). The Church opposes the death penalty in most cases (and I happen to agree with the Church on that point), but it allows that there are some rare cases where capital punishment may be justified. In contrast, the Church believes that abortion, the deliberate murder of an unborn human being can NEVER be justified. Even in cases where the mother's life is at stake, abortion is not justified, but merely accepted with regret as the unintended but unavoidable by-product of a legitimate attempt to save the mother's life.

The second flaw in your reasoning is your belief that Catholics cannot vote for someone who favors abortion, or the death penalty, etc. The Church, as far as I can tell, has never prohibited Catholics from voting for a pro choice politician, if on balance, you deem his/her overall polices to be more likely to advance Christian values. If you are voting for the pro choice politician because you AGREE with him/her on abortion policy, then that is a different matter.

In response to Butterfly3, if one buys the argument that pro-lifers have some special responsibility to adopt unwanted or special-needs children, then it applies with equal force to pro-choicers. Those who purport to favor a choice about whether to carry a baby to term should support them in whatever choice women make, including birth.

How many children have YOU adopted, Butterfly3? If you have indeed adopted one or more, I sincerely applaud you. Now, how about the millions of other pro-choicers? Saying you favor this or that taxpayer-funded social program, however meritorious the program may be, doesn't count as stepping up to the plate yourself.

Much more than the abortion issue itself is Obama's denial of the right to life of those children who are alive at the end of the horific abortion procedure. Even abortion rights groups did not object to legislation requiring physicians to render life saving procedures to these helpless babies. No one that supports infanticide will ever get my vote!

Bobcatholic says "The abortion question has been, and always will be about human rights. When a society allows abortion, society says that certain people (namely the unborn) are not worthy of human rights. When society does that, others will also be declared unworthy of human rights too, like Terri Schiavo, and society goes downhill from there"

As a parent I think it's very offensive to say a 2 week old clump of cells has the same rights as a 2 year old child. We don't give legal protection to a 2 week old clump of cells. You integrity is in question when you bring up Terri Schiavo who was brainless and didn't want to be kept alive.

David J. Townsend claims "Obama is in favor of aborting children at any point during the pregnancy"

You are confused. Pro legal abortion doesn't = pro-abortion. It's about rights. If you don't understand the issue, you might refrain from commenting on it.

Posted on August 26, 2008 12:41

Chip writes "Sorry, this article has it completely wrong.
1) Democrats are the party of abortion on demand, with no limitations whatsoever.
2) Republicans are the pro-life party"

Actually Chip you are totally wrong. The Republican party calls abortion murder and legal abortion a Holocaust. They have yet to pass a single law to end abortion. Bettter luck next time.

Kim Nguyen writes
"To Anthony,
You was lucky because your mother had not aborted when she had been carrying you."

Just like saying I'm lucky Hitler started WW2 because my parents would never have met - a weak pointless argument.

Chip is right on the money.

This article is incorrect and quite obscure. It is based on the premace that the opinion is bascially fact where it is truly just a "hypothesis" by Kmeic. Perhaps you need to watch a bit of Father Corapi, who is by far more educated than this twit and in the truth. I can not believe this was even published. The candidates have spoken, we have listend. The Republican Party is the Life Party. Why don't you look in the mirror, and ask yourself what you believe and then pray for the grace to follow the truth. This headline in itself is a disgrace and could easily confuse what is truly a clear cut issue and obvious who stands for what. You obfuscate the truth by reporting on Kmeic's opinion, and that is all it is . The States being allowed to legislate this issue would save lives, as their are 27 or so red states, in other words republican states and plenty of pro-life voters. Hmmm, perhaps you can find a different line of work other than reporting, although you fit right in with the liberal media. Negligent article, one sided merely theory. Now, back tomyour line of work, I think that you would make a better fry cook.
Sorry if this is offensive, but killing the best of us on a daily basis in the one place that should be safe, the mother's womb REALLY offends me.

First trimester abortion is and should always be available to anyone. Nature kills -- yes, aborts!! -- about half of the fetuses that normally occur. Clearly if Nature has such little concern for each and every fetus, there is no moral reason for man to hold a higher value.

Beyond that, we will never have agreement on the abortion issue. It is almost always raised as a religious position, but that is contrary to our constitution, which expressly separates government and religion. The pro-lifers want the US Government to support a position of their religion(s), they want a government that will outlaw what they oppose as sinful, such as abortion, stem-cell research and homosexuality; that is a theocracy. They should move to Iran or Saudi Arabia, both working theocracies.

Fortunately, more rational minds are winning in the USA since we now have legal same-sex marriages (MA, CA) and government funded stem-cell research (NJ, CA) and abortion on demand.

RCG

Look, providing good health pre-natal care probably is about the most cost-effective method *anywhere* of helping the poor.

But what bright Dem. decided to tie this up with unlimited abortion? You should fire her for she is certainly mad.

Fobbing off abortion foes with some more medical benefits will (should) anger them. It's a Faustian choice, a pact with the devil. Abortion and pre-natal care shouldn't even be in the same sentence!

If Catholics truly want to minimize abortions they would remove their prohibitions on all forms of birth control.

A strong stand has to be made against the argument that the democratic plank on abortion will "save lives faster than overturning Roe vs Wade."

Abortion is not contraception- When an abortion is sought: conception has occurred and the purpose of the surgery is to abort a living growing human being. It should be clearly stated to all believers that Roe vs Wade must be overturned to stop the convenient disposal of an unwanted human life. Don't be intentionally misled without seeking to inform yourself and making a personal decision based on knowledge.

And BTW- the Priests/Pastors who are touting this "new abortion choices" are politically inspired and spiritually disobedient. If you check you will find they agree with every major liberal issue- from compromising on abortion and gays to supporting the enemies of Israel.

What a joke.

Think about your argument - let's end slavery by helping slaveowners be better masters, provide health care to slaves, and on the job training.

BUT no, NEVER, will we propose that slavery should be illegal.

Seriously, think for a few seconds.

typical pseudo-Catholic pro-abortion rubbage

Those interested in the truth should read the statements of the Denver and Washington archbishops.

Agree with Bob - it is a human rights issue. Once you concede the point that it can be a legitimate choice to take the life of the unborn, it undermines everything else you want to do in social policy.

I now hear people complaining about paying taxes for the social programs and support needed by desperate single parents, or parents of children with Down syndrome for example because in a sense it was their own choice to go through with the pregnancy.

How the Democrats have ended up on the wrong side of this issue I don't understand. We used to stand up for the little guy.

Butterfly3
Fwiw I've adopted two children and I oppose the death penalty.

Oh, for goodness' sakes, Rasta people, I have a granny that is getting a bit sick and I don't have the money to send her to a nursing home. Will *you* adopt her? She's quite nice, if a bit incontinent. If not, I'm going to murder her as she is extremely inconvenient to me. It's your choice.

Rastawoman-

Is there a site where a woman who requests more than one abortion can be sterilized for free?

Prof. S-A:
Once again you show you are a democrat first and a Catholic second. Why bring political parties into the abortion discussion at all? I don't get your logic either. Are you really saying that the party that supports Abortion on demand has a superior program to end abortion than the party that supports overtuning Rowe v. Wade.

As for Caitlin's argument that Rowe v Wade in some way reduces abortions, that's a completely unsupported argument. While it is clearly true that abortions would still happen illegally and with more danger, it is equally true that community sanction and the availability of medical care has greatly increased abortions in the US since the Rowe v Wade ruling was handed down in 1972.

Lets face the absolute, undeniable truth: Abortion is the cold blooded murder of a woman's own child. How can this be sanctioned by anyone, anywhere.

Rastawomen: great question.

my one response is would that work? Id love for it to be put in place and find out. What I would fear is that parents who just want to be financially free from raising their child but have no intention of having an abortion, and actually do have the means to support a child may try to take advantage of the program.

I think it would be worth a try.

Firstly: abortion is _wrong_.

Secondly: Where is the statistical correlation betw. enhanced social benefits and abortion by choice?

The continental EU has a low rate of abortion *and* good social benefits; Ireland has *no* abortion and good social benefits, the UK has a (disgustingly) high rate of abortion and good social benefits.

Thus the combination that the Dems are offering--that by enhancing social benefits you will lower abortion--is completely false. You will get *just* as high an abortion rate if you increase social benefits.

Most abortion is just a cheap method of birth control. It needs to be made more expensive. How I don't know. But I do know better pre-natal care is not going to make a bit of difference.

Pro-lifers know they cannot succeed. Therefore their one-issue politics is designed to keep the rightwing in power.

We should not be using our government to teach teenagers that abortion is permissible. Because "Roe v Wade" remains enshrined in the laws of the land, there are many teenagers who believe and argue that abortion is a constitutional right. We should not be sending this message to young people. If we do, we are immoral. We will face the judgement of God on this issue and Jesus Christ will not intervene for us.

Is there a site where the Right to Lifers can sign up to financially support an unborn child through college...yet allow the biological mother to keep them? This could be done with a weekly deduction from their pay check and carrying the child on their insurance policy.

This would reduce nearly all abortions, but would require folks to put their wallet where their ideals are.

I also challenge the Right to Lifers to extend their generosity to the born...not just the unborn.

When Democrats talk about reducing the number of abortions, they are usually talking about increasing contraceptive services, not something Catholics support. Artificial contraception creates an expectation of sexual freedom with no worries about pregnancy or commitment. When a pregnancy does occur, (because no method is 100% and many are pretty inadequate)there is a natural feeling of anger and injustice. Thus an unplanned pregnancy becomes a real crisis and the idea of loving the child and welcoming him or her into your life is such a shift of attitude that few can make it. All the social welfare programs in the world are not going to make a man take on the responsibilities of a father. I would guess that very few women decide to have an abortion because they don't have access to prenatal care. They may very well have an abortion because they can't afford to raise a child on their own, but very few women with decent jobs would choose to go on welfare instead of having an abortion. If the man they were having sex with wanted to marry and support them, it might be a different story, but even Obama doesn't have a magic wand that can make that happen. It is the availability of contraception and abortion that has made having children and having a sexual relationship so widely separated. And as long as we have imperfect methods of contraception, abortions will occur. They will only be reduced when men and women develop higher standards of sexual behavior and more respectful attitudes toward each other.

Prenatal care and support for women and children is far preferable to having them begging on the streets, but what we all really need to see is for the fathers to be involved and supportive. Nothing will change if that doesn't happen and nothing the government does can make that happen.

COGIC Bishop Charles Blake
Pro-Life Democratic Bishop at Interfaith Gaithering

PLEASE WATCH- (you won't see it on mass media)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=de0VvX-mry0

Q: Why didn't the DNC ask this articulate man (a passionately pro-life registered Democrat) to help write their abortion plank and give the benediction to close the convention after Obama accepts nomination?

A: He wasn't able to convince voters that ``this (new platform) will win over those that are looking for an excuse to vote for Obama,'' and ``They just needed one signal that, if I vote for him, more babies can be saved than if we keep wrangling over whether Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned.''

Its a classic pairing. One party (desperate to win and gain power) is looking for anything that will bring in a few more votes AND a useful idiot who is willing to sell his soul for recognition and temporal gain.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=washingtonstory&sid=a2nC1Wysvtg4

Caitlin: you're DECEIVED...

The arguments made in this article speak more to pro-life supporters as a whole than Catholics.

As a pro-life supporter who has been frustrated by seeing Bush, a republican pro-life president, unable to make strong head way against abortion, this article comforts me as a change in white house leadership approaches. What this article correctly points out is that even if there is a pro-life candidate that makes it into office, the number of abortions will not necessarily decrease let alone be outlawed.

From a Catholic standpoint, neither Stevens-Arroyo nor Kmiec are considered authorities, the Pope and the bishops are the authority on leading Catholics through discerning what is the just thing to do. What the Catholic church continues to consistently point out is that electing a president who does not value life as a sacred gift is wrong.

Unfortunately for many Catholics, like myself, who are proud of Obama's support for health care, ending the war, lower income families, and his general message of hope; we can not justify voting for someone who does not believe all life from conception to death is sacred, even if his policies may indirectly lead to a decrease in the number of abortions.

In response to Angela: It is easier for Stevens-Arroyo to speak to what "Catholics" stand for rather than Christians as a whole because the Catholic Church is supposed to have one single view on these matters, but Christianity as a religion is comprised of many denominations that have differing views. So to say "Christian's view..." would probably be a generalization that would actually be incorrect because some Christian denominations may actually hold opposing beliefs. Although, saying this about Catholics may seem to be untrue, because in America there are many Catholics who do not actually support all of the Catholic doctrine and thus it is not unfair for outsiders to view us as hypocritical and less unified than we claim to be (Catholic means universal... it should be the same one church throughout the universe and all members are supposed to be united in one).

What confuses me, as a Catholic, is how come Catholics can vote for someone who is for the death penalty? I would expect a party that is pro-life on the issue of abortion to also be pro-life on the issue of the death penalty.

One more thing. Stop referring to the bible every five seconds. Not everyone believes in the thousand year old, ignorant ramblings of a collection of people that thought that they were talking to a god that has never been proven. Wake up. Every time one of you tries to push your religious beliefs on someone in one of these forums, it lets everyone else see how narrow your views of the world really are.

What I believe that Mr. Stevens-Arroyyo is saying is that he agrees (like me) that Roe vs. Wade is never going to be overturned. Ever. McCain and Obama seem to share our sentiments. However, Obama (and the rest of the democratic party) seem to be taking measures to reduce the numbers of abortions. From what I have read, Obama is pushing for measures that make it tougher to get an abortion and make it more appealing to NOT get an abortion. I will admit that I do not know if McCain and the republican party are willing to take these measures.

I am Catholic. I am pro-life and would never council anyone to get an abortion- but I do not believe that abortion should be outlawed in the United States. I realize that I (nor the rest of the Church) can convince a whole nation that abortion is wrong. If we were miraculously to outlaw abortion, they would still happen - at perhaps higher rates than now with much more risk to the mother. I think a much more effective stance is to push for making abortions harder to get - although not impossible. A complete set of options other than abortions needs to be presented, a waiting period needs to be instituted so that parents can truly think over if they are doing the right thing and ultrasounds need to be preformed and shown to the mother before the abortion is preformed. These things are proven to lower the abortion rates - and not only are they safer then sending the mother to a back alley office with a "doctor" but they are also much easier to put into place than overturning a Supreme Court Case (and then keeping it overturned). I believe that Obama shares my beliefs and is the reason that I see him as my "pro-life" candidate.

I am going to ask the same question of all of you posters that I ask on every abortion thread that I run across:

How many of you have adopted children?

As usual, I doubt that anyone will respond, but it's always worth another try, right?

Pro-life - until babies leave the womb, then those welfare babies can just go to h*ll!

However did the Democratic Party--with its (former) core constituency of the Catholic working class--ever allow itself to become the "party of abortion"?

What boy genius was responsible for this?

Catholics (worldwide really) almost always prefer a political party that matches their social conservatism with some state-sponsored paternalism(or progressivism now that "liberalism" is tainted), a party like, say the Christian Democrats in central Europe, or even New Labour in Britain in its early days. Basically, Catholics generally vote for a party that shields them from the worst of "Anglo-Saxon" capitalism and this is as true in Europe as it is in the US.

Instead, American Catholics, along with universal health care, must also accept "a woman's right to choose" right up until 8 months (abortion in continental Europe is capped at 12 weeks) which, I'm sorry, is just really a woman's right to dispatch her unborn--often viable--child, anytime and at her convenience. As well as being completely immoral offering this "benefit" to poor young women is terrible social policy. They need to be able to defer gratification and gain qualifications, like their middle and working class Catholic sisters. Instead implicitly they are told to have sex with impunity, and if they "make a mistake", an abortion will fix it. And the Dems support this! That the children of these poor women are worthless!

Oh well, this year abortion politics don't matter. But as good times follow bad, it will matter in the near future. Abortion is terrible morality and--increasingly--being the party of abortion will be bad politics.

Anthony Arroyo has been confusing reader by his article.

To Anthony,
You was lucky because your mother had not aborted when she had been carrying you.

It is about time that someone recognized that even though the republican party talks tough on the abortion issue, they would never outlaw it if given the chance. If abortion was outlawed, then they wouldn't have that powerful platform to stand on when trying to court the religious vote. They would be doing themselves a disservice. While some religious republican supporters would argue that they look forward to the day where abortions are no longer illegal, the higher-ups are not as stupid. They may believe that outlawing abortions is murder and immoral, but they fear losing this powerful tool for fighting democrats even more.

I hear so much about Right Wing and Right and Left, I wonder what has happened to Right and Wrong.

Like the Bible warns us, the church is begining to fall away from the truths and commands of God's word. And we are packaging deception in all kinds carnal intilectual packages.

Again Paul inspired by the Holy Spirit was right when he told Timothy of a time when men and women would not want to hear the truth, but rather have their ears tickled with lies.

I think it was quite telling that when asked when an unborn child gains "human rights", Mr. Obama claimed the answer to that question was above his pay grade. I appreciate his honesty. However, if such a determination is above his pay grade, how will he determine what is torture? How will he determine when to put the lives of our armed forces in harm's way. How will he determine who deserves the death penalty and who deserves a pardon? Maybe we should elect someone who is not afraid to answer these questions.

Kmiec is a disgrace. Since you quote him I need read no more of your moronic pap. He wants a Supreme Court appointment no matter how many babies he has to sell out. How do you explain switching from Romney to Obama in a few weeks time?

Prof Kmiec does an excellent job of justifing his pro choice stand against his moral beliefs, if such they are? What a bunch of hog wash.
Either you believe in life or you believe in the slaughter of the inocents.

Sorry, this article has it completely wrong.
1) Democrats are the party of abortion on demand, with no limitations whatsoever.
2) Republicans are the pro-life party.
3) The Catholic faith is completely opposed to abortion.

As for Biden, I have no respect for him because he claims to be a Catholic and yet he is not pro-life. The church should excommunicate him.

Obama is in favor of aborting children at any point during the pregnancy. So it's ok with Obama if a scissors is rammed into a child's head to suck its brains out while the child is alive in the birth canal. It's murder, pure and simple. Here's one Catholic who won't be voting for anyone who favors murdering unborn children.

Mr. Stevens-Arroyo,

First I'd like to ask you why do always say what "Catholics" stand for. Are you not a Christian (a follower of Christ). Do you exhault Catholicism over other denominations. It's very sad to even read your posts. First, have you never sat down with other denominations or even other religions (i.e., Buddhist, Muslims, Jews) to determine how we can find a common goal to heal the rifts between the different faiths. Also, at least McCain is willing to have a discussion w/pro-choice republicans but that doesn't mean his stance on pro-life has changed. Do you not welcome or talk to unbelievers or other denominations. Please explain to me: who would you rather vote for: the Democrats who blatantly spoke at the DNC yesterday Speaking before prime time at a Democratic National Convention reaching out to Christians, Nancy Keenan acknowledged religion among Democrats. But she said the right to abort a pregnancy is one of the party's "core moral values." I also hope that you put your religion aside and ask yourself what Does God's word say. In addition, there are so many religious people as yourself but are not followers of Christ as they have a form but not the power.

May the Lord Jesus have mercy on those who blasheme His name and change his teachings to religious hypocrisy as yourself....Continue to be a "good" Catholic...whatever that means...

I'm in favor of abortion-on-demand. Whom should I vote for?

By emphasizing pro-life programs like guaranteed health insurance, programs in pre-natal care and government support to families,

If someone is dead, guaranteed health insurance is useless.

If someone is dead, pre-natal care is worthless.

If someone is dead, government support to families is worthless.

What this article avoids is the big question.

The abortion question has been, and always will be about human rights. When a society allows abortion, society says that certain people (namely the unborn) are not worthy of human rights. When society does that, others will also be declared unworthy of human rights too, like Terri Schiavo, and society goes downhill from there.

We must change our society so we are not like the Aztecs, sacrificing children on the altar of selfishness. We've seen what happened to their society. Let's not have that happen to our society.

Just Catholics? How about ANYBODY, regardless of religious affiliation who believes abortion is murder?!