http://index1.ciopda.com >blue collar comedy tour one for the road
http://index1.dityns.com >faux tile floors

http://index1.biolop.com >buy mulch
http://index1.rfrltk.com >dave pugh and clear channel

http://index1.biolop.com >buy mulch
http://index1.rfrltk.com >dave pugh and clear channel

http://index1.biolop.com >buy mulch
http://index1.rfrltk.com >dave pugh and clear channel

http://index1.niopil.com >world cup schedule
http://index1.oiloin.com >artificial landscaping rocks

http://index1.napoir.com >pictures of lost
http://index1.diopst.com >modest mouse trailer trah meaning

http://index1.napoir.com >pictures of lost
http://index1.diopst.com >modest mouse trailer trah meaning

http://index1.napoir.com >pictures of lost
http://index1.diopst.com >modest mouse trailer trah meaning

http://index1.weewra.com >actenol
http://index1.erojin.com >movie heartbreakers dress

http://index1.ariopr.com >j.s. tokarski
http://index1.quikop.com >lin and wwho and hub and master control

http://index1.ariopr.com >j.s. tokarski
http://index1.quikop.com >lin and wwho and hub and master control

http://index1.8shtuk.com >oluadah equiano
http://index1.eroint.com >san b ernardino news paper

http://index1.8shtuk.com >oluadah equiano
http://index1.eroint.com >san b ernardino news paper

http://index1.8shtuk.com >oluadah equiano
http://index1.eroint.com >san b ernardino news paper

http://index1.9poilo.com >hyatt regency bellevue
http://index1.stityg.com >proform c500 treadmill

http://index1.9poilo.com >hyatt regency bellevue
http://index1.stityg.com >proform c500 treadmill

http://index1.9poilo.com >hyatt regency bellevue
http://index1.stityg.com >proform c500 treadmill

I have only one thing to say to sen. Obama. If he continue to keep this kind of attitude toward abortion.He will be destroyed in the worst way ever.

http://geo.ya.com/tagomiru/ chinese food

Clearfield fair county day

Clearfield fair county day

cHlNt4 U cool ))

cHlNt4 U cool ))

cHlNt4 U cool ))

http://index1.weltder.com >glass making training

http://index1.servitch.com >baby girls name

http://index1.theente.com >traffic stripe layout device

http://index1.topdasar.com >sexual predators list ohio

http://index1.topdasar.com >sexual predators list ohio

http://index1.topdasar.com >sexual predators list ohio

http://index1.alledasar.com >telecommunications analysis swot at&t

http://index1.alledasar.com >telecommunications analysis swot at&t

http://index1.alledasar.com >telecommunications analysis swot at&t

http://index1.lookcity.com >pics of yosemite valley

http://index1.lookcity.com >pics of yosemite valley

http://index1.lookcity.com >pics of yosemite valley

http://index1.lookcity.com >pics of yosemite valley

http://index1.lookcity.com >pics of yosemite valley

http://index1.amyhunt.com >the movie crash

http://index1.amyhunt.com >the movie crash

http://index1.findvic.com >russian girl nude

http://index1.findvic.com >russian girl nude

http://index1.findvic.com >russian girl nude

http://index1.findvic.com >russian girl nude

http://index1.findvic.com >russian girl nude

http://1.lm4nmu.com >dockers mailing address

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://1.mster6.com >new chevrolet

http://index1.hipoldlady.com >cumshots com

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://1.mastr6.com >portland zip codes

http://index1.bestmaiden.com >postmasters assigned in fl

http://index1.bestmaiden.com >postmasters assigned in fl

http://index1.bestmaiden.com >postmasters assigned in fl

http://index1.bestmaiden.com >postmasters assigned in fl

http://index1.maidenpeace.com >pornstar wrestler dragom lili wrestler

http://index1.maidenpeace.com >pornstar wrestler dragom lili wrestler

http://index1.maidenpeace.com >pornstar wrestler dragom lili wrestler

http://index1.maidenpeace.com >pornstar wrestler dragom lili wrestler

http://index1.maidenpeace.com >pornstar wrestler dragom lili wrestler

http://index1.womansmith.com >louise glover pics

http://index1.womansmith.com >louise glover pics

http://index1.womansmith.com >louise glover pics

http://index1.womansmith.com >louise glover pics

http://index1.womansmith.com >louise glover pics

http://index1.chasehunt.com >winter olympics of 1972

http://index1.chasehunt.com >winter olympics of 1972

http://index1.seekcounty.com >cumberland woods

http://index1.seekcounty.com >cumberland woods

http://index1.newworldmen.com >hurricane documentries

http://index1.newworldmen.com >hurricane documentries

http://index1.newworldmen.com >hurricane documentries

http://index1.newworldmen.com >hurricane documentries

http://index1.yourgunter.com >sensual female nudes

http://index1.yourgunter.com >sensual female nudes

http://index1.yourgunter.com >sensual female nudes

http://index1.yourgunter.com >sensual female nudes

http://index1.yourgunter.com >sensual female nudes

http://index1.bestcityhal.com >ebony animal xxx porn

http://index1.bestcityhal.com >ebony animal xxx porn

http://index1.bestcityhal.com >ebony animal xxx porn

http://index1.bestcityhal.com >ebony animal xxx porn

http://index1.bestcityhal.com >ebony animal xxx porn

http://index1.thewarhal.com >the cumberland times

http://index1.thewarhal.com >the cumberland times

http://index1.thewarhal.com >the cumberland times

http://index1.thewarhal.com >the cumberland times

http://index1.thewarhal.com >the cumberland times

http://index1.besthallet.com >pittsburgh musicians classified

http://index1.mughalbank.com >easy to make peanut butter cookies

http://index1.greathal.com >pre teen pageant gown

http://index1.greathal.com >pre teen pageant gown

http://index1.greathal.com >pre teen pageant gown

http://index1.greathal.com >pre teen pageant gown

http://index1.greathal.com >pre teen pageant gown

http://index1.yourhal.com >pos yourgirls

http://index1.yourhal.com >pos yourgirls

http://index1.yourhal.com >pos yourgirls

http://index1.yourhal.com >pos yourgirls

http://index1.vehal.com >american red cross volunteer dental assistant program

http://index1.vehal.com >american red cross volunteer dental assistant program

http://index1.vehal.com >american red cross volunteer dental assistant program

http://index1.lestew.com >first time anal sex vids

http://index1.etitv.com >calcium carbonicum

http://index1.etitv.com >calcium carbonicum

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.scukam.com >exploitation films

http://index1.ertiv.com >re tribuet of chinese girls

http://index1.ertiv.com >re tribuet of chinese girls

http://index1.ertiv.com >re tribuet of chinese girls

http://index1.livregresto.com >amatuer nude wrestlers

http://index1.livregresto.com >amatuer nude wrestlers

http://index1.7umini.com >us army corp of engineers

http://index1.7umini.com >us army corp of engineers

http://index1.7umini.com >us army corp of engineers

http://index1.arcillato.com >hendersoncounty texastaxassessorsoffice

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.mumuli.com >network magic download

http://index1.gredato.com >soaking wet xxx latino girls

http://index1.todostosell.com >86 s10 fiberglass bumper

http://index1.todostosell.com >86 s10 fiberglass bumper

http://index1.todostosell.com >86 s10 fiberglass bumper

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.morun5.com >boy scout camp forestburg

http://index1.meugresto.com >northwest indiana sex offenders registory

http://index1.meugresto.com >northwest indiana sex offenders registory

http://index1.meugresto.com >northwest indiana sex offenders registory

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.funtir.com >classy updos

http://index1.forperson.com >karate kid movie

http://index1.forperson.com >karate kid movie

http://index1.forperson.com >karate kid movie

http://index1.sityp.com >texas sexual predator list

http://index1.sityp.com >texas sexual predator list

http://index1.frostbe.com >suicide cocktail

http://index1.frostbe.com >suicide cocktail

http://index1.frostbe.com >suicide cocktail

http://index1.midlea.com >passiflora alamo

http://index1.midlea.com >passiflora alamo

http://index1.midlea.com >passiflora alamo

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.hrumst.com >novelty doorbell ringers

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.no-4um.com >data com

http://index1.agostop.com >length of typical adult romantic relationship

http://index1.agostop.com >length of typical adult romantic relationship

http://index1.agostop.com >length of typical adult romantic relationship

http://index1.dxewer.com >butte montana antique police badge

http://index1.dxewer.com >butte montana antique police badge

http://index1.dxewer.com >butte montana antique police badge

http://index1.egoship.com >franklin county va real estate tax assese

http://index1.egoship.com >franklin county va real estate tax assese

http://index1.megrep.com >statistics linking teen crime to single parent households

http://index1.megrep.com >statistics linking teen crime to single parent households

http://index1.megrep.com >statistics linking teen crime to single parent households

http://index1.uterop.com >boys jerking off high school boys porn

http://index1.uterop.com >boys jerking off high school boys porn

http://index1.uterop.com >boys jerking off high school boys porn

http://index1.thebemid.com >art galleries in los angeles county

http://index1.thebemid.com >art galleries in los angeles county

http://index1.thebemid.com >art galleries in los angeles county

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.umsung.com >meridian cabana

http://index1.theicebe.com >taunton masssachusettes personals

http://index1.theicebe.com >taunton masssachusettes personals

http://index1.theicebe.com >taunton masssachusettes personals

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.fumuni.com >mossberg model 500 shotgun 410 pumps for sale

http://index1.bvboo.com >picture of shemale in high heels

http://index1.bvboo.com >picture of shemale in high heels

http://index1.bvboo.com >picture of shemale in high heels

http://index1.bvboo.com >picture of shemale in high heels

http://trume6.com >wegmans best places to work

http://index1.gorue.com >female femfight2000

http://index1.gorue.com >female femfight2000

http://index1.humkan.com >martinsburg wv landscaping

http://index1.humkan.com >martinsburg wv landscaping

http://rabot5.com >india justin hawaii nepal

http://rabot5.com >india justin hawaii nepal

http://rabot5.com >india justin hawaii nepal

http://rabot5.com >india justin hawaii nepal

http://rabot5.com >india justin hawaii nepal

http://gener4.com >golden valley cabin rentals

http://gener4.com >golden valley cabin rentals

http://yritum.com >122 capital street suite 200

http://index1.emounter.com >spirit of woman of california fresno ca

http://index1.emounter.com >spirit of woman of california fresno ca

http://index1.emounter.com >spirit of woman of california fresno ca

http://index1.dosmounter.com >sexual addictions signs

http://index1.dosmounter.com >sexual addictions signs

http://index1.dosmounter.com >sexual addictions signs

http://index1.wentsite.com >girl hockey players

http://index1.wentsite.com >girl hockey players

http://index1.aswent.com >cowboybebop nude

http://index1.aswent.com >cowboybebop nude

http://index1.aswent.com >cowboybebop nude

http://index1.asticguide.com >rate nude photos

http://index1.asticguide.com >rate nude photos

http://index1.asticguide.com >rate nude photos

http://index1.themounter.com >sample resumes for human resource assistant

http://index1.elurker.com >combining ceramics fused glass

http://index1.lopwersite.com >ma.medical association

http://index1.lopwersite.com >ma.medical association

http://index1.thewertool.com >fieldcrest farm

http://index1.thewertool.com >fieldcrest farm

http://index1.thewertool.com >fieldcrest farm

http://index1.thejintro.com >strap on

http://index1.thejintro.com >strap on

http://index1.thejintro.com >strap on

http://index1.jintrosite.com >personal assistant in las vegas

http://index1.jintrosite.com >personal assistant in las vegas

http://index1.aptintro.com >sexivideo

http://index1.jintrosite.com >personal assistant in las vegas

http://index1.aptintro.com >sexivideo

http://index1.aptintro.com >sexivideo

http://index1.krewor.com >jodo upskirt gameshow

http://index1.krewor.com >jodo upskirt gameshow

http://index1.krewor.com >jodo upskirt gameshow

http://index1.krewor.com >jodo upskirt gameshow

http://index1.krewor.com >jodo upskirt gameshow

http://index1.astoru.com >gay prostitutes watergate porter goss

http://index1.astoru.com >gay prostitutes watergate porter goss

http://index1.npols.com >honeysuckle candy sticks

http://index1.npols.com >honeysuckle candy sticks

http://index1.npols.com >honeysuckle candy sticks

http://index1.nukysy.com >extreme funny sports pics

http://index1.nukysy.com >extreme funny sports pics

http://index1.rixota.com >stow and pass

http://index1.bomiqu.com >phil town

http://index1.facilg.com >audio erotic

http://index1.kortworld.com >vassar elementry

http://index1.kortworld.com >vassar elementry

http://index1.kortworld.com >vassar elementry

http://index1.bestklopstr.com >monkey classified

http://index1.bestklopstr.com >monkey classified

http://index1.bestklopstr.com >monkey classified

http://index1.klopstrers.com >butts teen pix

http://index1.klopstrers.com >butts teen pix

http://index1.klopstrers.com >butts teen pix

http://index1.lopstr.com >personalized kids videos

http://index1.lopstr.com >personalized kids videos

http://index1.lopstr.com >personalized kids videos

http://index1.serpillo.com >massive cum loads

http://index1.serpillo.com >massive cum loads

http://index1.serpillo.com >massive cum loads

http://index1.sergolfo.com >massage flagstaff

http://index1.sergolfo.com >massage flagstaff

http://index1.sergolfo.com >massage flagstaff

http://index1.lyvoqy.com >lori hodgen assist to sell

http://index1.lyvoqy.com >lori hodgen assist to sell

http://index1.dabiwa.com >large breasted swim suit

http://index1.dabiwa.com >large breasted swim suit

http://index1.dabiwa.com >large breasted swim suit

http://index1.cezeke.com >gay day knotts berry farm 2006

http://index1.cezeke.com >gay day knotts berry farm 2006

http://index1.cezeke.com >gay day knotts berry farm 2006

http://index1.durypu.com >dual career couples

http://index1.durypu.com >dual career couples

http://index1.durypu.com >dual career couples

http://index1.menagu.com >adultfunxxx

http://index1.menagu.com >adultfunxxx

http://index1.qypydi.com >littleteenz

http://moreaboutmen.com/artist/garth-brooks/album/the-ultimate-hits-cd1-/a132209/

http://moreaboutmen.com/artist/garth-brooks/album/the-ultimate-hits-cd1-/a132209/

http://index1.konupo.com >incestorgy

http://index1.konupo.com >incestorgy

http://index1.nyxevu.com >passionate sex again

http://index1.nyxevu.com >passionate sex again

http://index1.byceze.com >skater chicks nude

http://index1.byceze.com >skater chicks nude

http://index1.byceze.com >skater chicks nude

[*map/map_all_coml11.txt||10||r||1|| @]

[*map/map_all_ag2.txt||10||r||1|| @]

[*map/map_all_ag2.txt||10||r||1|| @]

[*map/map_all_ag2.txt||10||r||1|| @]

c897t

c776t

I'm not saying goodbye.
order valium online [url=ordervalium.mastertopforum.com]order valium online[/url]

m504k

xbervpfw gekno epcvksdl shlin hguatdfjm chwe cerofkj

What a thoughtful, and decent response to the good doctor's e-mail! I would wish that the same wisdom occurs to me, when I try to explain my own pro-choice stance. I have found myself on the "liberal" side of many issues, but I've always resented being categorized into a "cartoon-like" figure, as seems to happen, when "liberals" are described. I feel I've reached the opinions I have, after long and serious contemplation, my opinions are not made lightly, without considering other points of view.

I applaud the creators of this site, and hope that it brings about some unity, not only between persons of different faiths, but of different convictions.

As a person who follows a non-traditional belief... although, in MY community, we consider it to be VERY traditional... I have observed the rise of language that has struck fear in my very core. I am Native American, and for generations we were persecuted, and forbidden to practice our beliefs, even here, in the "land of the free..." With the rise of the Civil Rights Movement, our ceremonies were able to be practiced again... sometimes, in some tribes, they never ended... they were just hidden. But in the last few years, with the rhetoric that has become popular... I've feared to hear such terms as "a Christian nation" and such anger expressed at beliefs other than Christian, or Jewish... I felt threatened, because it seemed as if it wouldn't be too long, until those eyes turned around and directed themselves towards me, and my community.

I'm pleased to read Sen. Obama's article, and it does give me hope that reasonable dialogue COULD be possible, in this day and age. I wish that there was more of that sort of speaking, instead of the usual Republican/Democrat "talking points" made ad nauseum.

yo quiero que el futuro presidente de los EEUU, Barak OBAMA, ACABE CON LA CORRUPCIÓN EN AFRICA

yo quiero que el futuro presidente de los EEUU, Barak OBAMA, ACABE CON LA CORRUPCIÓN EN AFRICA

yo quiero que el futuro presidente de los EEUU, Barak OBAMA, ACABE CON LA CORRUPCIÓN EN AFRICA

Senator Obama,

I greatly appreciate your honesty. May I ask a question; do you believe everything in the Holy Bible or part of it and do you believe truth is truth or is it relative; i.e., your truth is your truth. Whatever happened to your opinion is your opinion but truth is abosolute.

July 7,2007

Dear Mr. Obama:
I believe that your time will spent if you will spind more of your time doing the work in the position that th people appointed you to do as a senator.At this appointed time the presidenaal office is off limited to you.I deaply regret this.

Your Friend
Earnesto Francis

johnson

july

jmba ctix pehnxclyd glcerwv vmzguadlo fiozpnw wpcrk

jmba ctix pehnxclyd glcerwv vmzguadlo fiozpnw wpcrk

Sorry about that double post. It wasn't me. I chalk it up to the crappy mechanics of this website.

Jason writes:
"You can't argue that an embryo is part of the woman's body; it is a separate life, it is you and me and every other person walking the face of the earth. It is innocent under any circumstances and deserves the right to live."

That's your opinion, or maybe the opinion of your particular religious sect.

Judaic law considers an unborn baby to be a "potential" human life until the point that the baby has emerged halfway from the birth canal. Judaic law also clearly states that the mother's life is worth more than that of a fetus - ie: a fetus is NOT the same as "you and me and every other person walking the face of the Earth," possibly for the simple fact that a fetus is NOT "walking the face of the Earth."

So, guess what, Jason? The Judeo-Xian faith is hardly of one mind on this issue.

But let's talk about Xianity, specifically.

Different sects have different beliefs when it comes to abortion, and when it comes to what a fetus is and isn't. Have you any knowledge of the Xian concept of "ensoulment?" The church has been all over the map on this issue from time immemorial. At one point, the RC church held that the soul didn't enter a fetus until the 90-day point. Others hold that god has a cupboard full of souls that he's just waiting to implant in a specific fetus from the moment of conception if not BEFORE conception.

You would do well to acknowledge that your particular belief is NOT the belief of the Xian majority, and that it is hardly the belief of the majority of Americans or people in the world. It's your opinion, and we all have our opinions.

I would think that no one is for abortion as a form of birth control, just as I would thnk that most people allow exceptions for abortion in certain cases like rape. But the point is that if you can make a single exception for abortion under your personal moral and ethical standards, then you have no room to quibble with the decisions made by others based on their personal and moral standards...and you have even LESS room to quibble when your moral and ethical standards are based on religious beliefs that can't even find agreement among the various sects of your particular religion.

Jason writes:
"You can't argue that an embryo is part of the woman's body; it is a separate life, it is you and me and every other person walking the face of the earth. It is innocent under any circumstances and deserves the right to live."

That's your opinion, or maybe the opinion of your particular religious sect.

Judaic law considers an unborn baby to be a "potential" human life until the point that the baby has emerged halfway from the birth canal. Judaic law also clearly states that the mother's life is worth more than that of a fetus - ie: a fetus is NOT the same as "you and me and every other person walking the face of the Earth," possibly for the simple fact that a fetus is NOT "walking the face of the Earth."

So, guess what, Jason? The Judeo-Xian faith is hardly of one mind on this issue.

But let's talk about Xianity, specifically.

Different sects have different beliefs when it comes to abortion, and when it comes to what a fetus is and isn't. Have you any knowledge of the Xian concept of "ensoulment?" The church has been all over the map on this issue from time immemorial. At one point, the RC church held that the soul didn't enter a fetus until the 90-day point. Others hold that god has a cupboard full of souls that he's just waiting to implant in a specific fetus from the moment of conception if not BEFORE conception.

You would do well to acknowledge that your particular belief is NOT the belief of the Xian majority, and that it is hardly the belief of the majority of Americans or people in the world. It's your opinion, and we all have our opinions.

I would think that no one is for abortion as a form of birth control, just as I would thnk that most people allow exceptions for abortion in certain cases like rape. But the point is that if you can make a single exception for abortion under your personal moral and ethical standards, then you have no room to quibble with the decisions made by others based on their personal and moral standards...and you have even LESS room to quibble when your moral and ethical standards are based on religious beliefs that can't even find agreement among the various sects of your particular religion.

I am not arguing that it doesn't have a right to live, and if that is your only argument, I would suggest not posting anymore. I'm going to make this as simple as possible and I really hope you understand. You aren't going to stop abortion. Are you saying that since drugs are illegal, you can't get them? Ofcourse not - there isn't a place in the U.S. you can't buy drugs. This isn't a moral decision - it is a decision between a woman getting an abortion under a physician's care or in some back alley. When your wife got an abortion, would you have rather had her get it in a hospital or a bed in an inner-city apartment complex in some run-down neighborhood? You can't force your morality on others. If I got a girl pregnant, I would not want her to have an abortion - I would oppose it wholeheartedly, but I can't force her to have it, and that is what you are proposing - force. I don't like the idea of abortion, but it isn't my decision to make, it is the woman's decision. Sure, by outlawing abortion you might save a number of lives by making it horribly inconvenient to get one - but you won't stop it. Do you get it now?

You can't argue that an embryo is part of the woman's body; it is a separate life, it is you and me and every other person walking the face of the earth. It is innocent under any circumstances and deserves the right to live.

Where does the child's right to life come in to play?

Actually, Jason, I have had partners who have had one, although not "from me" (no nice way of saying that, eh?). Both of my ex's felt it was the right thing to do at the time and do not regret it. One had previously had a miscarriage because she was underweight and physically not fit to carry a child. The miscarriage was very painful and since her body was in the same state the second time she became pregnant (both were from broken condoms), she felt that rather than dying or facing another miscarriage she would terminate the pregnancy. Women aren't baby factories, Jason, and wouldn't you have rather had your wife get an abortion in a back alley, or in a physician's care? You aren't going to stop abortion, Jason, but you can offer women the option of getting a safe abortion over being mutilated. Are you going to stop people from using drugs because they are illegal? I understand that this is more dire because a human life is involved, but don't forget that TWO human lives are involved, and it is easy for you to make the decision when you will never have to make it. I can say that if I were a woman and I were pregnant, I would never terminate the pregnancy, but I want the option on the table because it is MY CHOICE.

Jason,

I have no motives to give you. I don't know why individual women choose to have abortions, and it's none of my business. I've not had an abortion, remember, and also am a part of a family with 4 adopted children (three in my immediate family, and one in my extended family). You don't have to have personal connection to abortion to support the right to have one.

There is also documented evidence to the contrary of what you present. Look it up :)

Andrea:

There is documented evidence about the depression and regret many women feel (a large majority actually) if you look it up. You still didn't answer my question as to other possible motives for choosing abortion over adoption.

J Parker writes:
Mr. Mark:

Man has been screwing up God's plan since the beginning of time."

Amazing that you believe in such a weak and ineffective god. Man isn't the screw-up, god is.

You say "since the beginning of time." Really? Man hasn't been around since the Big Bang (that's when time began). Was man screwing things up when the dinosaurs roamed the earth? Please don't tell me you believe in that ignorant creationist BS - young earth idiocy.

Truth is - there's no god, never has been, and there's no plan except for that which we as humans devise for ourselves.

Jason,

You really have no right to ask any of us that question. But, I'll answer it. No, I have not had one. But have worked with women who have. I have participated in numerous plays about abortion with proceeds going to Planned Parenthood with many of those women I mentioned before. I visited a PP Center for Choice. I laid in a bed in that clinic, I saw pictures of aborted fetuses to get a sense of what it was like. You only know how you and your wife feel, and my thoughts are with you on that account. You don't know how 99%, or, it's now "a large percentage," of women who get abortions feel and try to present yourself on this forum like you do. You only know how you think they should feel about it.

Jason, I don't understand why a woman with an unplanned pregnancy would not find adoption an appealing choice. However, as a man I have no business speculating as to the woman's motives.

Andrea:

For what other reason would a woman have an abortion (excluding rape and severe complications), other than to save herself the trouble of carrying the child and giving birth, when adoption is always an option?

Don't give me that crap about "I can't take care of the child" or "It will have a bad life" because tons of people have had crummy upbringings and still contributed positively to society (including your trully).

And to the person who wrote about a mother's guilt after giving up her child, what about the guilt of extinguishing her child's life?

Have you ever had an abortion? Luke, have any of your partners had one? My wife (then my girlfriend) aborted our first child and there isn't one day that we don't feel tremendous guilt, especially when we look at our 2 year old son and think how that child could have been him.

A large percentage of women and their partners suffer depression after an abortion and suffer complications later in life when they try to have children.

As I said before, in extreme situations, abortion should be allowed by law, but the way the law is written now, it amounts to little more than a birth control plan.

God bless you both. I've said all I care to say.

Sorry, Luke! I'll take them off straight away. Please don't hit me again!

Tonio,

That is, indeed, a rape fantasy. Maybe Napoli has some skeletons? Also, the mention of sodomy in that vivid account...how does that factor in? You can only get "butt pregnancies" on SNL.

Andrea, you are wearing shoes! What have I told you about that?

"You don't know how 99% of women think, but I'm sure that you think you know what is right for them."

Excellent point, Luke.

From my perspective, a great many pro-lifers, both male and female, reject such an insulting and condescending view of women. Unfortunately, the ones who do hold such a view are often prominent people like Randall Terry and Bill Napoli. I find Napoli's quotes below to be frightening - a rape fantasy in the first case, and the idea to force unmarried pregnant women to marry in the second case.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june06/abortion_3-03.html

BILL NAPOLI: "A real-life description to me (of an exception for an abortion) would be a rape victim, brutally raped, savaged. The girl was a virgin. She was religious. She planned on saving her virginity until she was married. She was brutalized and raped, sodomized as bad as you can possibly make it, and is impregnated. I mean, that girl could be so messed up, physically and psychologically, that carrying that child could very well threaten her life."

BILL NAPOLI: "When I was growing up here in the wild west, if a young man got a girl pregnant out of wedlock, they got married, and the whole darned neighborhood was involved in that wedding. I mean, you just didn't allow that sort of thing to happen, you know? I mean, they wanted that child to be brought up in a home with two parents, you know, that whole story. And so I happen to believe that can happen again."

ELAINE ROBERTS (pro-choice legislator): "We already have a law that says that pharmacists by conscience could refuse to fill my prescription for contraceptives. There is already a move from some groups who have worked on this to say that there should be no contraceptives, that sexual intercourse is for the purpose of reproduction."

Luke,

At the age of 18 then??

On my way back to the kitchen. What would you like me to cook for you, dear?

I would suffice to say that it is not an independent life until it is old enough to fend for itself. Andrea, stop thinking and get back in the kitchen! =)

Jason,

Also - "That is an independant life within a woman's womb"

What? It's not an independent life until viability (usually in the early stages of the third trimester). As the laws stand now, getting an abortion at that point in gestation is legally impossible. So, abortion does not terminate independent lives.

Luke,

Oh, dear me. I forgot. Where is my brain? Oh, wait, I don't have one! ;)

Andrea, you forget, God didn't give women brains and ability to reason. He gave them uteruses (uteri?) and the ability to corrupt the otherwise good intentions of males. After all, it's because of women that the human race is suffering =).

Well said. I still don't get where you have gathered your statistics, though.

Jason,

I only wish I'd gotten here sooner. I, too, would like to see your sources for your 99% claim. Do you really have such little faith in the female population? Are women so vapid in your eyes to believe they'd terminate a pregnancy because "it will hurt"? Much of the time, the "choice" to have unprotected sex is made by the male partner. What say you to that? What consequences of sex to men have to live with?

I won't argue with that ;o)

Good question dodging, Jason. I think the proof of who is foolish is apparent.

Luke:

This discussion has made me remember a couple of famous quotes:

"Arguing with a fool proves there are two."

-Doris Smith

"Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."

-Jesus Christ

Luke:

This discussion has made me remember a couple of famous quotes:

"Arguing with a fool proves there are two."

-Doris Smith

"Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed."

-Jesus Christ

Jason, you obviously believe (probably from religious upbringing) that woman could give a damn about the child when considering an abortion. Where did you get your statistic that 99% of abortions are due to women not wanting to carry a child for 9 months and go through labor pains? Please provide where you got that statistic because right now I think you are full of it. You don't know how 99% of women think, but I'm sure that you think you know what is right for them. Actually, Jason, life does come from death. When you die, your decomposing body brings life (just as when absolutely anything on this planet dies). So is it only life when it is a mass of cells? What is with 99%? Ever heard of condoms breaking? Women don't "get away with" anything involving a pregnancy. It is emotionally and physically traumatic. What would you know about it? You're just a man.

"The creatures outside looked from pig to zionist, and from zionist to pig, and from pig to zionist again; but already it was impossible to say which was which".

Mr. Mark:

Man has been screwing up God's plan since the beginning of time.

Luke:

I'll concede abortion as an option in extreme cases such as rape or when the pregnancy would put the mother's life at risk, but as of now, 99% of abortions are due to the fact the mother does not want to carry a child for 9 months and go through labor pain. If the mother truly has the child's best interest at heart, why not give the child up for adoption? All your arguements leave out the most important fact. Life cannot come from death; that "mass of cells" will inevitably be you and me in nine months. That is an independant life within a woman's womb and I don't believe anyone has the right to destroy a human life. 99% of the time, abortion is a purely selfish act, an escape route from the consequences of a bad "choice" to have unprotected sex. This "out" actually encourages the practice of unprotected sex in my opinion. How many people would rob a bank if they knew they could get away with it?

That is quite a stretch, Speed, to say that allowing a woman the right to choose what she feels is best for her considering her circumstances is the same as murdering your neighbor under certain circumstances. You don't carry your neighbor in your womb. The argument is so ridiculous, but I'll argue it anyway. You aren't financially responsible for your neighbor (at least, I would hope you are not). If your neighbor's existence causes you physical harm, then you can move. If birthing your child is going to harm you physically, you can't move to Toledo. Under what circumstances would there be a debate where one would say "Man, I might die if I let my neighbor live.", or "If I continue to carry my neighbor in my uterus, I am never going to be able to take care of it". Actually I don't think it's ever been said before right now. You might want to try another argument, dude.

And, Cap, I think he's *running for President,* *not F'n King, Lord Protector and Defensor Fidei.*

I have the impression he actually knows that. And has always seemed to treat LBGT people with respect and dignity, and not in a condescending way, either.

Asking him to take a 'moral' position on it religiously would be political suicide. I am more content to see him stand strongly for equality for all... And intend to bloody well hold him to it, if he's elected.

Cause that's the job he's looking for.

I don't trust the Christianity about it. I do trust the Democrat in him, better than most.

My life as a queer American is *not* a 'Moral issue.' It is *my life as an American.*

And I'll thank any candidate for keeping it as such.

Pandering to people who think it's the government's business to be handing down religious edicts is the *problem,* not the solution.

He better just show some backbone about it.

I think, Captain Larab, that the reality of the debate is, people who don't have Senator Obama's civil rights record toward LBGT people would just love for him to throw himself on that sword.

I admit that this is one place where claiming a blanket Christian belief erodes any great sense of trust, yet the political reality is this: Say that you don't think LBGT people are simply 'sinners,' and you don't get into office in that way.

This is one place where the people *can and must* lead.

In the meantime, legal fairness is the birthright of every American, whether or not they conform to certain religious commandments of certain religions, and *that* is where the proof is in the pudding, whatever he may believe.

Painting with a wide brush there, Mark, when you speak about people and their views on abortion.

Makes it easier for you, I suppose, and - I have to give it to you have the fiery rhetoric of an atheist preacher down pat! Atheist Amen!

PS - I am sure that there is a Catholic theological agrument against your case, but I dont know what it is at the moment.

I'll be back!

Dear Speedy -

You're asking questions that you already know that answers to, that is, if you've read this thread and know who and what I've been debating.

The debate started when someone asserted that abortion was a "black and white" issue from the Bible's perspective. I countered that with proof that it wasn't - and the debate has now moved hither and yon.

I don't "care" what the Bible says. I was challenged on assertions I made, so I provided Biblical chapter and verse to *questions that were asked of me* in this debate. I then offered the Xians the opportunity to prove their "black and white" case by citing the Biblical verses that give them the authority to make such claims, and to counter my claims that the Bible does allow abortion.

As an atheist, I don't care what any religion says about abortion. I'll go by the secular law of the land, and I'll work to change that law if I feel it is unjust. But I'll be damned if I'll sit by while ignorant or politically motivated religionists make statements about their own faith's take on abortion that are in direct opposition to what their so-called holy book *actually* says about abortion.

Isn't that what debate is supposed to be about, Speedy? It's not my fault that the religionists here are under the impression that this board allows them the same forum to spout inaccuracies about their faith as does their preferred church sanctuary. If someone says that abortion is a black and white issue in their church, they'll no doubt receive a hail of "amens" from their fellow sheep. Say the same innacurate thing here, and you'll get challenged.

Thank god the atheists are here to do the challenging! Otherwise, you denominationalists would simply shake your heads in general agreement, avoiding the specific debate on the very issues that supposedly shape your worldviews.

I provide proof. You guys provide unsupported rhetoric and personal opinion. Guess who always loses such a debate?

Luky: "So the life of the mother is protected, but her free will is not?"

We all have limits on our "free will" - it is called society.

You also state:
"The reason why abortion shouldn't be outlawed is because there are plenty of circumstances in which a woman would need that option on the table."

OK - well, under that line of reasoning, you have no right to stop my "free will" if I decide the best option for me (considering economic, social, or pride-based circumstances) is the murder my neighbor.

This is hypothetical and, for the issue at hand, I think the Roe should stand....

However, why should you restrict my free will to exercise my options to deal with circumstance that were forced upon me (economically, socially, etc)

Who says that I cannot kill?

Are you a libertarian?

Speed123, you are dodging the question. Are you sure YOU want to do that? It doesn't make for a good argument. So the life of the mother is protected, but her free will is not? The reason why abortion shouldn't be outlawed is because there are plenty of circumstances in which a woman would need that option on the table, and it's not for YOU or ME or anyone else to decide. Is it our decision when, if, or how two people should have sex? When does it become personal? When do you choose to stay out of people's lives, Speed? The debate is the same debate about gay marriage. Once you break down all of the nonsensical reasons why it shouldn't be, you get to the root of the problem, which is "God says gay is bad". We just want to get to the root of the problem, not dance around the issue.

No time to debate; however, Mark, why do you care about "anti-abortion verses from the Bible"?

You're an atheist, right? Weren't you just mocking those who quoted from the bible in a previous post...so what, exactly is your point in this line of questioning?

Also, you are citing a technical issue in regards to abortion...are you sure you want to do that? It is a slippery slope that leads to bans on certain procedures like partial birth abortion.

Wouldn't you rather make a blanket statement saying that all forms of abortion at all stages of pregnancy should be permitted?

Also, the life of the mother should be protected at all costs...this is a NON-ISSUE except for those who are on the left and femminists who try to paint pro-lifers as fascist and anti-women.

PS - it has been said that the easist person to fool is yourself...

Jim J. writes:
Mr. Mark:

How ridiculous. The passages you cited do not deal with abortion at all."

Oh no? The verses I cited were quite specific in speaking about abortion. What do you think Ex 21 means when it says, "hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her," if not abortion? What on earth is Hosea speaking about when it says, "and their women with child shall be ripped up," if not abortion?

Abortion doesn't need a doctor or a coat hanger to be involved to be an abortion. The body can abort a pregnancy all on its own without the aid of any external agent (my wife and I went through that at 26 weeks, losing the baby, so I know of what I speak).

Had you bothered to read the info on Judaic law that I provided via a link, you would have read that Jewish law considers the life of the mother to be of more value than that of a fetus, and that if the choice must be made to save only one life during a pregnancy, then the mother wins out over the baby. If that decision is made, then the fetus is removed from the mother's body. That's an abortion.

Sorry, Jim, but apparently you're reading the verses I cited with your eyes closed. Like too many Xians on this board, you accuse me of taking out of context that which is as plain as can be.

I'm still waiting for any of you to provide specific anti-abortion verses from the Bible.

You should hear Fornicator. That is prime music.

Jim J,

Actually Mr Mark was well on point. I find it funny that you call him out for stretching the verses to fit his point. Isn't that what anyone does when quoting scripture?

Luke,

Rape Farm? I'm recalling stories of the "Pig Farm" up in Canada where dozens of women from Skid Row (now THERE's a band name) were murdered (and raped?).

Mary,

What organization are you with? I have a cousin who will graduate from college in the next few months and is looking to take a year or two off to do humanitarian work somewhere. What are your responsibilities?

Mr. Obama, why do I get the sense that all of your talk about "finding common ground" and bringing together all Americans, and bringing more openness and candor to the political process, stops completely when it comes to gay Americans? We are also people of faith. We are also people who value our families. We are seeking legal protections for our relationships and our children. How is it that you cannot give a straightforward answer (given by you personally, not by one of your aides) to the question of whether you consider homosexuality to be immoral? I have a sense that you do, in fact, have an opinion on this issue, and yet when the issue comes up you hide behind your consultants and pollsters. When are you going to be the kind of "new, different" politician you profess to be when it comes to gay issues?

On another note - if we eliminate abortion rights we will probably have to change a lot of laws. Check out this scenario: I woman who is obviously pregnant robs a bank and is shot by a police officer and killed. Since the baby had nothing to do with it, shouldn't he be charged with murder for killing the baby?

Rape farm...that is an AWESOME band name. MTV here I come...

Boosh. Well said Speed.

I didn't expect any rational discourse from you in the first place, Luke. ;-)

It might not be well with the Lord to terminate a pregnancy, but he certainly doesn't have a problem doing it. I guess "lead by example" doesn't really work in heaven.

Watch out, Speed is offended again - don't expect any rational discourse from here on out. My point is that is easy demonize women who choose abortion when you think that women are nothing are more than baby factories. If the government is going to have the right to tell women whether or not they can have an abortion, then shouldn't they have power over all of our reproductive rights? If you aren't fit to be a mother (or father), you shouldn't be able to be one.

Mr. Mark:

How ridiculous. The passages you cited do not deal with abortion at all. You are merely pulling passages and using omission as proof. There is nothing anywhere there that says "it is well with the Lord to pull the unborn fetus from a woman if that is what she wants." You are stretching verses meant for other things. You are taking things out of their context, and using them for your own purposes.

Luke,

What is your deal?

Are you an idiot?

I esp. enjoyed your post about the government controling reproduction and rape farms for women.

I am sure this is sarcasm; however, you call people to the right extremist and you are just as bad on the left...

How about you keep your nut-job fantasies to yourself?

Andrea:

I do relief work in Chad.

TJFRMLA:
Posted June 13, 2007 7:27 PM

'Fortunately Senator Obama did not choose the path you suggested. While you have the right to your beliefs...any person selected to be President will be the President of the entire country. His beliefs are not nearly as important as his understanding that they are not part of the American goverment. All hail Seperation of Church and State!!!!
----
Either I miscommunicated or you misunderstood. Sorry for the confusion.
I intended that it was strange that the Senator picked such a divisive issue for a blog on faith in common ground.
I intended that he might have picked only one more divisive faith issue as a subject - that of his apparent faith, which holds, if I understand his testimony from TIME Mag and other sources, that Jesus is God, He died for our sins, we need to repent and believe, etc..
That topic - his Christian faith - would have offended more people than his abortion topic.
I do believe that orthodox Christian faith, and I believe that everyone else needs to believe it, too. But that was not the topic of my post.

TomH writes:
"Mr Mark, sorry, I don't think it's wise to take the time to discuss interpretation of uhndreds of Bible verses on this board... I could quote a bunch of passages too and argue with yours"

Thanks for the comment.

My response to your post was fueled by your assertion that according to the Bible, abortion was a "black and white" issue. I have provided you with an example (Judaic law) that proves that abortion is hardly a black and white issue, even among the faiths that use the Bible as the basis of their beliefs on abortion.

Perhaps you could at least admit that abortion isn't a black and white issue, even among the Biblically based faiths.

As far as dueling Bible verses on abortion: you say that you could cite verses that support your view. Please do. I would be interested in seeing which Biblical verses "specifically" support the views of the anti-chioice crowd. The verses I provided specifically dealt with the fetus, newborn children and abortion. Can you cite verses to counter the principles of Judaic law that are specific to abortion?

Thanks in advance.

Mary, please educate yourself. If they wanted an abortion, where would they get it? Your idea of love and courage is not the same across the board. Even if you outlaw abortion or make it unavailable - women will still get them, and many will die in agony, but isn't that what it's all about? Baby killers, suffer in torment for eternity? I mean, that's why hell was invented.

Mary,

"Why is it no one cares about the pandemic of Muslim against Muslim violence in the world?"

Oh, Frank does. You two can discuss that at length if you wish.

Regarding the rest of your post, I call bull. How do you know how these women feel? You may know how they *should feel as Muslims, but how do they feel as women? How do they feel as women everytime they look at their "child of rape"?

Luke:

Please educate yourself. Even though these women of Darfur have been brutally raped, they would never consent to abortion. They are Muslim. With incredible love and courage, they accept and nurture their "child of rape".

Why is it no one cares about the pandemic of Muslim against Muslim violence in the world?

I agree Tonio. The idea that women are nothing more than baby factories doesn't sit so well with me. In literal translations of old texts from many ancient texts (including the Bible), women are nothing more than property essentially. Let's not revert back to that.

Oops - the last sentence of my 10:51 a.m. post should read, "Even when a religious doctrine doesn't go to extremes with that priority such as fundamentalist Islam and Sharia law, the priority inevitably affects women more than men."

For anyone reading The Christ's post, the poster reworded the last paragraph. The original version is below.

When the front office sent around the résumés of those newly hired for the honors program, she said, “It was obvious what they had: conservative and religious bona fides.”

Luke, my understanding of the Catholic position regarding abortion and birth control is that sex should be used only for procreation. I do not agree with that position, although I can appreciate the logic behind it. My understanding of the fundamentalist position is that pleasure itself is sinful. That's what I sense from the fundamentalists' fervent opposition to both masturbation and homosexuality. I regard that position as more punitive than the Catholic one. But both positions treat procreation as the highest priority. Even when a religious doctrine doesn't go to extremes with that priority such as fundamentalist, the priority inevitably affects women more than men.

Frank, I agree with you wholeheartedly, although the KKK do not abide by Christian moral and standards, they still claim Christ as their savior, and the church doesn't do nearly enough to stop them. It would be the equivalent to Buddhists torturing animals. Then again, anyone can find "reason" in what they believe. That being said, I agree.

Women should only have sex if their husband from their pre-arranged marriage is more interested in her than his myriad of mistresses. At least, that's the way it was in biblical times. There sure are perks to being Christian :). I want mistresses!

But Luke, why bother with condoms when women should just stop having sex? ;)

Well said, Steve. I believe myself that women don't use abortion as a method of birth control - I've been told it is painful, stressful, and terrible all-around. Aren't condoms a lot cheaper?

CIVIL RIGHTS FOR WHITE EVANGELICAL KLAN MEMBERS TODAY!! Hallelujah! According to NYT:
In recent years, the Bush administration has recast the federal government’s role in civil rights by aggressively pursuing religion-oriented cases while significantly diminishing its involvement in the traditional area of race.

Paralleling concerns of many conservative groups, the Justice Department has successfully argued in a number of cases that government agencies, employers or private organizations have improperly suppressed religious expression in situations that the Constitution’s drafters did not mean to restrict.

The shift at the Justice Department has significantly altered the government’s civil rights mission, said Brian K. Landsberg, a law professor at the University of the Pacific and a former Justice Department lawyer under both Republican and Democratic administrations.

“Not until recently has anyone in the department considered religious discrimination such a high priority,” Professor Landsberg said. “No one had ever considered it to be of the same magnitude as race or national origin.”

Cynthia Magnuson, a spokeswoman for the Justice Department, said in a statement that the agency had “worked diligently to enforce the federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on religion.”

The changes are evident in a variety of actions:

¶Intervening in federal court cases on behalf of religion-based groups like the Salvation Army that assert they have the right to discriminate in hiring in favor of people who share their beliefs even though they are running charitable programs with federal money.

¶Supporting groups that want to send home religious literature with schoolchildren; in one case, the government helped win the right of a group in Massachusetts to distribute candy canes as part of a religious message that the red stripes represented the blood of Christ.

¶Vigorously enforcing a law enacted by Congress in 2000 that allows churches and other places of worship to be free of some local zoning restrictions. The division has brought more than two dozen lawsuits on behalf of churches, synagogues and mosques.

¶Taking on far fewer hate crimes and cases in which local law enforcement officers may have violated someone’s civil rights. The resources for these traditional cases have instead been used to investigate trafficking cases, typically involving foreign women used in the sex trade, a favored issue of the religious right.

¶Sharply reducing the complex lawsuits that challenge voting plans that might dilute the strength of black voters. The department initiated only one such case through the early part of this year, compared with eight in a comparable period in the Clinton administration.

Along with its changed civil rights mission, the department has also tried to overhaul the roster of government lawyers who deal with civil rights. The agency has transferred or demoted some experienced civil rights litigators while bringing in lawyers, including graduates of religious-affiliated law schools and some people vocal about their faith, who favor the new priorities. That has created some unease, with some career lawyers disdainfully referring to the newcomers as “holy hires.”

The department’s emphasis has been embraced by some groups representing Muslims, Jews and especially Christian conservatives, who have long complained that the federal government ignored their grievances about discrimination.

“We live in a society that is becoming more religiously diverse, even by the hour,” said Kevin Seamus Hasson, who founded the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 12 years ago. “So it’s entirely appropriate and slightly overdue that the Justice Department is paying more attention to the various frictions that increasing religious diversity is causing in the society.”

Combating racism remains an important mission, Mr. Hasson said, but one that has changed over the years. “We can now deal with the problems of racism more effectively on a more local level,” he argued. “We don’t always need the federal government to come riding over the hill.”

Some religious figures, though, are more wary about the changes at the Justice Department. Robert Edgar, president of the National Council of Churches, a liberal-leaning group, agreed that it was important to take on issues like religious discrimination and human trafficking.

But the problems of race and poverty in America “still require the highest caliber of attention,” said Mr. Edgar, who cited the flawed government response to New Orleans and its mostly poor, black population after Hurricane Katrina. He said he was distrustful of the Justice Department’s leadership to make appropriate decisions as to the nation’s civil rights priorities.

A New Mission

Some critics say that many of the Justice Department’s religious-oriented initiatives are outside its mandate from Congress. While statutes prohibit religious discrimination in areas like employment and housing, no laws address some of the issues in which the department has become involved.

“They are engaging in freewheeling social engineering,” said Ayesha Khan, counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and “using the power of the federal government to put in place an ideological, not constitutional agenda.”

The department declined to make available for interviews Assistant Attorney General Wan J. Kim, who heads the civil rights division, or Eric Treene, who holds the newly created position of special counsel for religious discrimination.

Ms. Magnuson, the Justice Department spokeswoman, said it was justified in devoting so much attention to the issue because Congress has demonstrated its interest by including religion in the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 and enacting the 2000 law involving zoning restrictions, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Ms. Magnuson also said the department had not diminished its interest in enforcing racial and national origin discrimination cases. The changes at the Justice Department began under Attorney General John Ashcroft, but have accelerated under Alberto R. Gonzales, his successor.

Mr. Gonzales has increasingly cited his agency’s record on behalf of religious causes as among his most important accomplishments, often noting the successful intervention in cases on behalf of people who had suffered discrimination for wearing Muslim head coverings. In speeches, he routinely says that religious freedom is the nation’s “first freedom because our founders saw fit to place it first in the Bill of Rights.”

President Bush has also talked of the department’s religion-related activities in appearances before religious conservatives, an important element of his support. Aside from any political benefit of satisfying conservative groups, the Justice Department’s shift has brought a more subtle dividend: a defense to the criticism leveled at past Republican administrations that they were half-hearted about civil rights enforcement.

Changing Mission

The Bush administration has avoided that problem by changing the civil rights mission to something its Justice Department can take on with enthusiasm.

The department has prevailed in many, if not most of the cases in which it has become involved. It has, in effect, duplicated in the religious arena its past success in cases involving race and national origin.

At the same time, the department has sharply reduced its efforts to combat voting rights plans that may dilute black electoral strength.

Ms. Magnuson, the department spokeswoman, said that the civil rights division had brought more voting rights lawsuits under Mr. Bush than had been brought in the Clinton administration.

But an examination of the Justice Department’s Web site listing of the cases brought through early 2007 shows that many of them involved a different part of the law, one that requires voting materials be available in languages other than English in places with high concentrations of Asian and Hispanic voters.

Joseph D. Rich, who recently stepped down as head of the voting rights section after a 37-year career at Justice, said that only the federal government had the resources to bring voting dilution cases, while private groups have been able to bring the language cases. The civil rights division also brought the first case ever on behalf of white voters, alleging in 2005 that a black political leader in Noxubee County, Miss., was intimidating whites at the polls.

The shift in priorities at the criminal section of the civil rights division has been especially stark. The criminal section — which previously had mostly focused on hate crimes or lawsuits against police officers who may have violated someone’s civil rights — began taking on human trafficking cases that had previously been handled elsewhere.

During Mr. Bush’s second term, the section brought dozens of cases against people charged under a new law with bringing women into the country to work in brothels. The new employees with religious backgrounds were enthusiastic about such cases, seeing them akin to combating slavery, a former career lawyer in the division said.

Pursuing trafficking cases, rather than those involving hate crimes or police abuse, was seen as important to moving ahead in the department, current and former career officials said. They added that political appointees in supervisory positions frequently vetoed proposed hate crime investigations or questioned them to death.

“You only needed for that to happen a few times and people got the message they shouldn’t be eager to send up such cases,” said one lawyer who would talk only on condition of anonymity.

Rigel C. Oliveri, a law professor at the University of Missouri who worked in the civil rights division during the Clinton and early Bush years, said it became increasingly frustrating to bring what she said were worthy civil rights cases, because the political appointees would not act on them. “It was like a black hole,” she said.

Whatever cases may have been slowed or ignored, some religious leaders said they were grateful for actions the department had taken.

The Rev. N. J. L’Heureux, the executive director of the Queens Federation of Churches in New York, said the department had helped several Christian, Muslim and Jewish congregations deal with local governments trying to block houses of worship in neighborhoods. In Hollywood, Fla., for example, the department successfully sued the city for denying a permit to an Orthodox synagogue.

Sometimes, Mr. L’Heureux said, an inquiry from Mr. Treene, the special religious affairs counsel, had been enough to encourage local governments to drop their resistance. The civil rights division favorably resolved 16 of 26 zoning investigations simply by expressing interest in them, according to the Justice Department.

Kareem W. Shora, the executive director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said that Mr. Treene had also intervened in cases the group brought to him about Arab prison inmates having access to prayer opportunities.

In so-called equal-access cases, the department has mostly won court rulings allowing religious organizations like the Child Evangelism Fellowship to have the same access to public school students as nonreligious groups, a principle generally approved by a divided Supreme Court in 2001.

In the candy cane case, for example, school officials in Westfield, Mass., had suspended students for handing out candy canes with religious messages, saying it was disruptive and lurid. The students said that the “J” shape represented Jesus and the red stripes his blood, the white his purity. In a pending case from San Diego, the government defended the city’s campground lease to the Boy Scouts, which had been challenged because of the group’s religious tenets. The department has also challenged so-called Blaine amendments, which are state constitutional provisions enforcing separation of church and state more rigidly than does the United States Constitution. The federal government sued because the amendments could impede Mr. Bush’s religion-based initiative, which provides money to religious groups for social programs.

Reshaping the Staff

As it has reoriented its priorities, the department has also tried to remake the cast of government lawyers who enforce civil rights. A number of career lawyers who served as section heads or deputies in the civil rights division have been replaced.

In Congressional testimony in March, Mr. Rich said seven managers had been removed or marginalized for what he characterized as political reasons or perceived disloyalty. Department officials acknowledge the changes, but dispute the reasons.

In addition, Mr. Ashcroft arranged for the agency’s senior political appointees to take over the decades-old system used to hire recent law school graduates for entry-level career jobs that are supposed to be nonpartisan.

Under the system, known as the honors program, nonpolitical career lawyers had screened applicants. Those selected were almost exclusively graduates of top-ranked law schools and often had had prestigious judicial clerkships or other relevant experience.

Monica M. Goodling, a former senior aide to Mr. Gonzales, testified to a House committee last month that she had improperly used politics to hire some people as assistant federal prosecutors and for other civil service jobs, a possible violation of federal employment laws.

But the pattern of hiring on an ideological basis was more widespread than what Ms. Goodling described, according to interviews and department statistics.

Figures provided by the department show that from 2003 through 2006, there was a notable increase of hirings from religious-affiliated institutions like Regent University and Ave Maria University. The department hired eight from those two schools in that period, compared to 50 from Harvard and 13 from Yale.

Several career lawyers said that some political appointees favored the religious-oriented employees, intervening to steer $1,000 to $4,000 annual merit bonuses to them.

Ms. Oliveri and several other law professors said placement officers and faculty at their schools found that graduates seeking work at the Justice Department had a better chance by cleansing their résumés of liberal affiliations while emphasizing ties to the Federalist Society, a Washington conservative group, or membership in a religious fellowship.

Ms. Oliveri recalled that when she was hired in 2000 by the Justice Department, she was impressed by the accomplishments of her peers. But once the political appointees controlled the hiring, she said, “The change in the quality of people who were chosen was very pronounced.”

When the front office sent around the résumés of those newly hired for the honors program, she said, “It was obvious what they had: Klu Klux Klan and Moonie bona fides.”

The issue suffers from inaccurate terminology.

When people call themselves pro-life, I must ask pro-whose life? A couple of facts generally swept under the rug: Many on that side would require a woman to sacrifice her life, as well as the life of the fetus and possibly the future of other children. Some would require that she carry a confirmed dead fetus to term, "just in case." Yes, these are extremists, and few in number; but theirs is a view that taints more moderate arguments. I know of no one on the "choice" side who would require abortion against the woman's will under any circumstances.

When they call me pro-choice, I'll accept it for the sake of political shorthand to separate me from the extremists of the other side, but it's not really accurate. I'm against government interference that denies a woman's health and safety needs, and that means tolerating, however reluctantly, the use of abortion as an individual's family planning method of choice. The answer is not passing inflexible laws that can and eventually will dictate the death of both a woman and her fetus, but teaching one's own children a reverence for life, both through the classrom and by example. And that reverence, that teaching, must be consistent--extending to such issues as capital punishment and war, justified or not--or children will see through it and it will not hold.

So OK, call me pro-choice; but I am grateful for the voices on the other side, at least those who argue out of reverence for life and understand the limits of their arguments, as we must recognize and understand the limits of ours.

Actually, a good friend of mine was abused in every foster home she was in. If the foster-care system was a little better, it would make sense, but once they are born, who cares?

There are reports constantly in American newspapers regarding the plight of foster children in America. After age eighteen no further financial support is provided to the foster parents for the care of the foster child. In most cases the Foster child becomes homeless.

Many children in the adoption arena are considered un-adoptable after age three. Most children in the orphanage system are moved to public foster care at the age of six.

Current legislation does not protect foster children from abuse and neglect, homelessness, or the number of problems surrounding unwanted children in America.

I will gladly give pro-lifer's a break when they enact legislation that actually protects unwanted children from birth to death just like all other children enjoy. Equality for all children.

One person or a few people can not possibly adopt all the unwanted children in America. History shows otherwise.

Enact laws that both protect unwanted children and provide for them for unwanted children for their entire life, giving them the same opportunity wanted children get. That is what I am working on. Saving all unwanted children not just seven or eight unwanted children.

It is forums like this, where I become the voice for the unwanted children, the words of experience, and yet I am sitting right next to many of you working just as diligently as you. No different. But I am the exception not the norm in unwanted children.

I believe if there is to be a change in how unwanted children are accepted and cared for in America and the world it will start with legislation.

Ofcourse abortion should be outlawed. It just happens that the real suffering of war falls on women and children. When the Russians stormed Berlin, they raped the women there for quite some time. Many of them committed suicide or died from botched abortions because of their shame. Men don't know shame - after all, rape is just part of God's plan for making babies. Technically, if a woman isn't constantly having sex and reproducing, isn't that a child that isn't being born? Why not just put women into farms where they can be raped by men and constantly reproduce? After all, if women don't have rights to their own body, shouldn't someone? Sure, it's not the child's fault that the father raped the mother, but why should a woman have to suffer through labor and such? Since the insanity of Catholics has made the availability of emergency contraceptives increasingly harder to get, I guess women who are raped will continue being raped by the system and your God (now I see where virgin birth came into play) for the rest of her life. Bravo! The love of Christ is apparent.

"I believe that we are all created for a certain purpose, to play a predetermined role."

"God doesn't allow bad things to happen, we do!"

J. Parker, those ideas are horrid to me when they are taken to their logical conclusions. The first allows believers to claim they know not just their own purposes, but also the purposes of others. That equates to an attempt to control people. The second means that everything that happens is a reward or punishment from deity, such as Pat Robertson's outrageous claim that people who perished in hurricanes and tsunamis deserved to die.

Obama = SELL OUT

I'm amazed a few of you realize that Obama and the majority of the presidential candidates are Israel Shills!

nice understanding!

Obama in fact is so worried about what the Jewish - Zionist's think, he has spent a considerably amount of time catering to them.

He spent long hours listening to the Zionists Lobby inform him on conduct. He's nothing but a sell-out, who will do anything for popularity and fame.

He only hopes to become the first "black man" in office, but he's no more Black then the man on the moon.

He's a zionist SHILL who does whatever the WHITE JEW and RED JEW WANTS.

Its Obama

And yes he is a ZIONIST ISRAEL SHILL.

HE is no more for the people then the prime minister of Israel is.

Obama = SHILL 4 CERTAIN

Obahama

is

an

Israel Zionist SHILL

JUST LIKE BUSH.

VOTE RON PAUL for REAL CHANGE back to the AMERICA our forefather FOUGHT FOR!

apparently there is more than one TomH posting here....

Christians need to recall "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and unto God what is God's". I view this as a broader teaching than about money - it also meant secular law.

The law of Caesar is not required - or even desired - by a Christain to enforce a Christain's beliefs. Christians believe they would all be judged (harshly), except for Jesus Christ's forgivenness.

Thus Christians are mistaken when they want Caesar's law to enforce what Jesus will already do (in a much more final way). The most a Christian should ask is that Caesar's laws do not interfere with the practice of Christianity. e.g. School prayer is a more important issue than banning abortion.

Well, well, a Senatorial visit. :)

Welcome, Senator Obama.

I've been watching your campaign with a great sense of hope.

Certainly, I think the very divisiveness of the abortion controversy as a religious issue is a prime reason for the choice to remain with the individual: if religions feel it's wrong under all circumstances, then, telling their people it's wrong to do it sounds like the very definition of a religious matter, not for the government to impose policy based upon the religious idea that 'human life begins at conception in a certain way that means it must therefore be religiously-defined as 'murder.' '

My own religion tends to see the issue in terms of *sex and motherhood being good, and sacred,* and not to be forced or imposed, but, rather, supported. ...which tends to put us in support of *progressive* social policies toward mothers and children in general, rather than stigmatizing sex, trying to discourage contraception, trying to silence education on these matters, then ostracizing the resulting single mothers to the point where abortion (even of the dangerous illegal variety) can seem to be the only option.

I think there's a pretty clear consensus in America that no one *likes* abortion, certain inflammatory religious rhetoric aside, and as a common ground as regards what government can do could in support of policies which reduce unwanted pregnancies, (which certainly can't be 'legislated away,' whatever else is said,) and *allow* mothers to responsibly choose to continue them. ...alomg with the all-important support and respect from the community.

As the role of religion in politics has grown increasingly uncivil, and I think, in many ways has vastly overreached itself in terms of our American democracy, it's good to see someone who seems determined to restore a balance of sorts.

Religiosity in politics polizicizes the religions, too, as can be clearly seen.

I hope that policy can once again represent sense and reason, which we can all have, and remember the great diversity of beliefs and religions, (and within religions) which is the true face of America today, as shown by our Constitutional ideals and strivings to protect and enhance liberty, for ourselves and the future.

speed123 writes:
This is not an attack, Mark? You state:

"Agreed - which is why rational people discount the idea of a virgin birth."

That is a generally anti-Christian, specifically an anit-Catholic remark.

You infantilize and defame, and then claim innocence...."who, me?"

Give it up."

Yes, Speedy -I realize that everything I and other atheists write is a slur directed at Catholics. How could your delusion believe otherwise?

You miss the irony that I was parodying from Anon remarks. Anon said that abortion was the result of promiscuity, then went on to support the claim by stating that pregnancies don't happen through abstinence. In other words, if people weren't promiscuous, no abortion problem!

Of course, the logic is incredibly flawed. Do no married people ever have abortions after engaging in sex with their spouse? Do no woman have abortions after being raped, or is being raped now considered promiscuous sex because the woman "egged it on?

Anon's biggest irony was stating that pregnancies can't happen if one practices abstinence. My pointing out the illogic of the virgin birth in this regard wasn't directed at the Catholics - we Lutherans were taught that as well.

Thanks for the reminder, Gaby, I get steamed a bit too easy.

As for you and Jacob, you two should get a youtube video blog going to explain you particular views, have some graphics etc. - could be a smash hit...

I would sign up for that one

Peace.

Mark,

That was a rhetorical question and I was hoping that I would get the last word on this exchange...but alas, I guess not!

In any case, you are free not to believe, I am free to believe and we are both free to point out the hypocricy in the other's theories etc.

So, I will leave you with a quote....from you:

"Is something untrue simply because YOU didn't know about it?"

(*make that "...because you don't truly know about it".......yet)

I find it very interesting that Senator Obama and the Washington Post "youth Faithbook" blogger Michael Pomeranz (lox et veritas), touched on the same theme at the very same time (today).

The college student asks,"Can we define our relationship to our country, our national service through our religion when we share a country but not a religion?" , Senator Obama answers, that we can, but 162 cmments later, I see that when we do, many will disagree.

Speedyasks:

"So, Mark, what do you know of God?"

I know as much of god as do you or any religionist on this board. I have felt god's presence, prayed to him and received his blessings, just as you have.

The question is: what do I mean by "just as you have"?

The answer is: it was all a delusion in my mind, as is your "knowing" god a delusion in your mind.

There's no god, but we as humans have the power in our minds to delude ourselves that we feel his presence just as surely as our ears hear the organ music playing from the loft. We have the religious hindsight to attribute blessings to his non-existent power, rather than ascribing our blessings to our own very real power as humans to control our own lives and to create our own blessings. We delude ourselves into believing that we are having a conversation with god through prayer, when we are in reality having a conversation with ourselves. There's no one on the other end of the line.

Yes, I have met god, and he is us. The difference between you and I is that I realized that god was a human delusion. You believe he's something real. Our experience of god has most likely been very similar. How could it be otherwise? - our experiences of god arise from lifelong religious indoctrination, dogma and ritual, not from intellectual or logical examination. Our emotional reactions to god are as canned by our religious indoctrination as are the laughs that a TV show elicts from us through their canned laughtrack.

But there is hope - many escape the shackles of religious delusion. You may as well some day.

J Parker writes:

"I believe that we are all created for a certain purpose, to play a predetermined role. What if some woman goes in and aborts the child that God created to cure cancer. What if one of those aborted lives would some day pull out in front of your loved one and prevent them from being in an accident a few moments later?

God doesn't allow bad things to happen, we do!"

Uh...if we all play a predetermined role, then who predetermined the role? I assume god did. If so, then what kind of an idiot is god? If he predetermines we have a role to play, why would he assign the role of curing cancer to an aborted fetus when he knows everything and knows the fetus would never come to term? If we follow your "logic," then the predetermined role god chose for the woman choosing abortion was to abort his never-born cancer-curing fetus.

What an idiot.

BTW - What if one of those aborted lives would have grown up and been the person than ran down my family in a drunk driving accident? Following you "logic," there's a 50/50 chance that any abortion performed could be the basis of me missing out on something good, or missing out on a catastrophe. That's called a zero-sum game. What's your point?

Jacob, did I ever tell you that my daughter has a degree in Astrophysics with a minor in Math?

Behold the ECLAT + i! May your photons shine forever!

Frank Collins,

People call you an idiot. I call you an evil, small minded, negative, little troll. Crawl back under the rock from wich you came. Your hate posts are not welcome. I had hoped that they would block you forever, Sie bloeder Hund Sie!

Speed123

I know you can be civil at times, and now would be the time. Knock it off!

Anonymous

Jacob is not in a mental ward and he doesn't steal. As a matter of fact he has a much higher IQ than most do.

Danny B.

Yes, I tsk tsk with you. The good Doctor has maligned me in the past for using Wiki.

Well, you all have a good night!

Dear Senator Obama,

First let me say that if you decided to read the comments on this blog, let me apologize for all of the insanity that happens here. I do hope you are familiar with these types of blogs and how they work. Maybe you should assign one of your staffers to reading this.

I heard your speech at the Democratic Convention and turned to my friend and said immediately that you would be the first black president. Now here your are. I am thrilled. You have my vote. Not because you are black but because I think you are just the new voice and person this country needs right now. I do keep up on the political issues and will continue to listen and watch your campaign.

I am an atheist but respect your faith and hope that you would respect those of us who are not religious and include in your campaign some kind words for those of us who believe that people of faith and non-believers can live peacefully in the same world.

Keep up the good work and again pay no attention to some of the people (nutz) that post here. Most of them just need to get a life!!!

Dr. Frank Collins, PhD. posted: "the only perspective in this is your total lack of understanding of reality."

Define irony for me, Doctor.

The only thing more frightening than your self-confidence is its combination with your lack of self-awareness!

Dr Frank Collins, PhD. posts: "i have some valid concerns allowing a man who spent his formative years growing up islamic. his teachers have said that he was listed as being islamic on his school records - which is a big deal in indonesia and was also listed as islamic on his catholic school records."

This has already been clarified in the news...like a LONG time ago! Please stay current, Doctor.

"i specifically said i did not like wikipedia - but it was just handy."

That lends so much to your...lack of credibilty, Doctor. Tsk Tsk Tsk...pobrecito.

Dear Senator Obama:

I am inspired by your leadership, however, I am concerned that the Democratic party is controlled by corporate interests as much as the Republican party.

The current "Corporate Economic Order (CEO)" that dominates our political and economic system in the US and globally, is driving the political process and the policy positions of many of the candidates.

Are you controlled by corporate interests representing the military industrial complex, the fossil fuel industrial complex, and/or the pharmaceutical industrial complex?

Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Peace,

Pesach

Oops, Thanks C H U C K for the Synapse. "Quacker Oats" sounds kosher. Ya Ya. Tonk Shame!.

Nixon was not a Mormon; he was a Quaker.

Why is the demand for abortion so vocal? Your patient enemy will overcome you by sheer numbers (population) in just one more generation. When you are aged, then they can take what they want and no to defend you.

I here from skeptics all the time, "If God is so loving and compassionate, why does he allow such horrific things to occur in the world."

I believe that we are all created for a certain purpose, to play a predetermined role. What if some woman goes in and aborts the child that God created to cure cancer. What if one of those aborted lives would some day pull out in front of your loved one and prevent them from being in an accident a few moments later?

God doesn't allow bad things to happen, we do!

Did the media and their cohorts did not assassinate the character of another qualified candidate to put Obama on the map simply because of his skin color and shares the socialist view? and the herd continues to swallow the balloney....yak, yak.

Right, Luke.

The government should take over the management of reproduction for American citizens!

Who can and can't have children; what genes should be emphasized; what defectives should be aborted...

It (we) will be perfect!

I don't believe I mentioned anything about a woman being raped.

Both women and men should consider the consequences of their actions before deciding to have sex. There are plenty of alternatives to abortion, so choosing to have one is unequivocally a selfish act on the part of a woman who doesn't want to go through nine months of pregnancy and labor pain. Here's what it boils down to: In 8-9 months, a child will inevitably be born and that child will grow up to be you and I; should someone have the right to prevent your life from ever happening?

In extreme cases, I think abortion should be an option, but all it is now is an escape plan.

What about children who are born mute or ones that "God" kills in the womb? What about babies who will never live off of a respirator? Boosh.

I would vote for the legalization of abortion if forced contraception was in play. I think that you should have to fill out legal forms and have psychological, drug, and credit checks before you are permitted to have a child. Then we can toss abortion out the window. Many are capable of birthing a child but very few are responsible enough to care for it. Therefore, everything we eat and drink should be chock-full of contraceptives.

If I had a Voice
Please let me breathe.----------------------------
Please let me walk.-------------------------------
I'm just a child,---------------------------------
It's not my fault.--------------------------------
Please give me a chance---------------------------
To grow strong like you.--------------------------
There are so many things--------------------------
That I'd like to do.------------------------------
Maybe I'll be a doctor;---------------------------
Maybe I'll find the cure--------------------------
That brings an end to the suffering---------------
So many must endure-------------------------------
I could be president.-----------------------------
I could be teacher.-------------------------------
Maybe Father.-------------------------------------
Even Preacher.------------------------------------
There are no limits-------------------------------
To the things I could achieve,--------------------
To the lives I could touch,-----------------------
So choose carefully, please.----------------------
I want to live------------------------------------
And you have a choice.----------------------------
These are the things I'd say to you---------------
If I had a voice----------------------------------

Written by J. Parker on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves.

J. Parker, have you ever been raped? Bear any children? Then shut the hell up. Oh, and Mary, good point.

Even if he was raised Islamic, I was raised as an Evangelist and I think it is the biggest bunch of nonsense I have ever experienced. What's your point, Frank? You call for the elimination of Muslims, so aren't you doing the same thing?

Abortion is nothing more than a selfish escape from the consequences of a woman's CHOICE to have unprotected sex. When abortion wasn't legal, there weren't as many young girls getting pregnant, thus, there weren't nearly as many seeking illegal means of preventing the life within them. Mr. Obama's arguement that legalized abortion prevents a few hundred people from taking drastic measures, while hundreds of thousands of lives are extinguished each year in this country due to abortion on-demand is foolish and disapointing. I had such high hopes for him.

no. hes a grad student at berkeley where he blends into the wallpaper..

Jacob Jozevz is a resident of mental hospital in NYC.

Are you stealing the WiFi from a local coffe shop Jacob?

According to Jacob Jozevz, Vice President AL GORE et al, are overselling his Scary Pollution Story's of Biblical Apocalyptic Proportions, so to speaketh.

Luke:

"Let's say Frank, that you are a woman, and you are brutally gang-raped by a bunch of strangers. Let's say that you are forced by the government to care for the child of any one of a number of people who humiliated and scarred you for life."

Wouldn't have been easier to say -you're a African woman from Darfur. These Muslim woman are raped and made to bear the children of their coreligionists -janjaweed. It is a tactic of war.

This is not an attack, Mark? You state:

"Agreed - which is why rational people discount the idea of a virgin birth."

That is a generally anti-Christian, specifically an anit-Catholic remark.

You infantilize and defame, and then claim innocence...."who, me?"

Give it up.

PS - I love the irony in your statement:

"Is something untrue simply because YOU didn't know about it?"

So, Mark, what do you know of God?

Frank,
you are an idiot.
Obama was in Indonesia at the age of 6, he spent 4 years.He was and is Christian...stop watching Fox news or reading Moonie Times.
For Goddess sake, you need to get your facts straight. When you are a child you go where your parents take you.Obama's mother remarried

Baracks's father was Muslim from Africa... so what? His Mother was white...and he was raised in Hawaii by his white grand parents.

You are so full of hate that you don't care who you slander.

terra

C.A.U.T.T.I.O.N. ((((((((((( Speed *** Kills ))))))))))))

Can Anyone Spare a Dime, Big Brother, Sister, for the Little Siter(s) Brother(s) & Kiddo;s?

Ya? Nay?

Dear Speedy 123 -

I'm not Jewish. I was raised Lutheran, in fact.

You may wish to go back and reread my posts in this thread. You are reading things into them that aren't there. You're also twisting my words ever so slightly to support your responses to my posts. In fact, your responses are becoming quite racist - imaging that Jews believe that they are from a "superior" race is the flip side to the coin that considers Jews to be subhuman, and it's sorry to see that your ideological pockets are loaded with such coins.

What's most unfortunate about your responses in this thread is that the racism and hate all flows from your own stupidity on the matter of church history. Like the good, uninformed religionist that you are, you see attacks against your religion and anti-religion bogeymen behind every sentence that doesn't agree with your limited worldview. The use of the letter X to denote Christ so offends you that it blinds you to an interesting part of your religious heritage. You aren't of the Greek tradition, but without Greek, you wouldn't have a New Testament, would you? Without the Greek churches to write to, Paul's epistles wouldn't exist either, would they?

I really don't understand you and your persecution complex, but it isn't pretty.

Has anyone missed the fact that we are electing a PRESIDENT, not a HIGH PRIEST?!?! It is a SECULAR institution. Let a PRIEST concern him/herself with the salvation of our souls, and let a PRESIDENT concern him/herself with preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution - a SECULAR document. All this talk about religion in a political race makes as much sense as going to clergy and asking them about trade tariffs, the relationship between state and federal government and the like. I say this as a Christian who likes his politics and religion kept SEPARATE.

I think I've picked apart Franks brain pretty thoroughly.
1) Hates anything Islamic
2) Hates Muslim names
3) Is a good argument for why abortion can be a very good thing.
Let's say Frank, that you are a woman, and you are brutally gang-raped by a bunch of strangers. Let's say that you are forced by the government to care for the child of any one of a number of people who humiliated and scarred you for life. Then, let's say that the child is born, and there is a legal loophole that allows the father of the child to have rights to that child AND that the woman has to care for the product of that brutality. Kinda puts things in perspective eh? If you are against abortion, then your entire paycheck can go to paying for the food, clothing, and shelter of these women, OK?

Oh and, why are you still here?

Posted on June 13, 2007 19:09

StephenC:

Fortunately Senator Obama did not choose the path you suggested. While you have the right to your beliefs...any person selected to be President will be the President of the entire country. His beliefs are not nearly as important as his understanding that they are not part of the American goverment. All hail Seperation of Church and State!!!!

Hi - I find it interesting that the issue Senator Obama chose for his guest blog on faith - 'faith in common ground' was the socially most divisive in America.
I guess he could have been more divisive had he tackled the spiritual basis of his Christian faith. He could have argued that Jesus is God, that His sacrificial death on the Cross and subsequent resurrection provided the way for all people to be forgiven and inherit eternal life if we repent of our sins and trust Him.
I suspect that would have been pretty divisive for the apparent atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, various cultists, Hindus, Punjabi, Buddhists, and probably most mainstream 'Christians' in America.
He likely won't lose any votes for his guest blog. He might have gained some had he taken this suggested issue.
But much more important than the political repercussions is the spiritual impact of those who buy in to the truth mentioned here (this un-refutable, orthodox Christian gospel) that he might have presented.
What do you think?

FRANK,
You're an idiot!

Who cares if he was raised a Muslim?????

No big deal.

Wackjob evangelicals like Frank and militant atheists like Mark rally against "extremism" of faith; yet, you are paragons of extremism and hate yourselves.

Im from Canada,
First, sorry for my "english"... im a french canadian ;-)

Im deeply concern about what's going on in your country, because it will certainly have a great influence on us, here.

If Mr. Obama become President... the face of the world will change. For the good. America have to vote for him, he is the incarnation of everything you are.

Mark says:

"Is something untrue simply because YOU didn't know about it? Does China not exist because you have never been there (it does exist - my sister has been there 3 times)?"

Ah, this is the most ironic statement that I have seen a self-proclaimed "atheist" make on these boards.

Also, since you are "rational" and from a supreme race, you should know this:

Parthenogenesis - virgin birth in the natural world.

Or maybe you do not know it all....that is my bet.

Mark,

Always like to provoke, don't you?

Do you believe that Judaic traditions and faith are superior to that of Christians?

Is that why you can not simply write out the proper English name?

It is not about the Greek tradition for you, it is a subtle way for you to show your disdain.

Cut the BS, already.

You also state:

"Agreed - which is why rational people discount the idea of a virgin birth."

Not a very objective statement for a Jewish atheist to make.

Also, you stated above that you didnt quote from 2,000 year old holy books....however, in your post to Tom you were quoting the Talmud and Torah left and right?

Are you sure you are an atheist? What are you doing reading the Talmud and rabbinic teachings?

Or does atheism just give you cover for your attacks on Christians and Muslims?

If you do not believe, fine with me...

On the other hand, try to discredit or mock the faith of others and to always provoke conflict...then you have a problem.

Mark, you are a biogt and a supremacist.

You just did it again! Pro Choice and aniti abortion. Wouldn't it be more inclusive to say Pro Choice and Pro Life, or perhaps there is no room for disent.

First, let me say I believe it is the kind of directness, honesty, and realness that Sen. Obama displays here that people want, not so much "The idea that we are all connected as one people". The idea of us being a people whose relations transcend politics has been severely damaged by the mistrust arising from the damaging politics practiced by Bush, Rove, Cheney, and DeLay, who spent the period 2002-2006 deliberately refusing to honor the traditions of compromise and dialog that our government is built on. Bush and Cheney have engaged in deliberate defiance of the law in order to have their way. Trust can only be established through a process of reconciliation; some guilty parties need to be punished, laws need to be upheld by courts, and those who supported the wrongful actions need to admit their error and seek some kind of forgiveness. Sen. Obama's heart is entirely in the right place, but in the wrong stage of the process. Before there can be a reconciling of the people there must be a smiting of the wicked...

Uhhh, Mr. Mark, I think he's in Wikipedia right now trying to answer your question!!!

adil writes:
why do you not include your middle name Mr BARAK HOUSSIEN OBAMA?"

This from an idiot writing anonymously on a blog.

BTW Adil: maybe you can answer the following without doing an internet search:

please provide the middle names for the following politicians:

Rudy Guiliani
Mitt Romney
John McCain
Fred Thompson
Sam Brownback
Dick Cheney

I'm waiting...

Obama, in the anecdote he recounts, evinces the sad Democratic proclivity to back down from reasonable positions when assailed by the sinister Republican noise machine. What on earth is wrong with denouncing "right-wing ideologues"? Aren't they in fact the motor force behind the GOP's totalitarian project by which the U.S. is to be turned into a one-party theocratic state, with the help of pseudo-Christian hardshell "dominionists", to spread the Gospel by force of arms throughout the globe? What is wrong with pious Jimmy Carter's banal observation, of which he recanted, that "George W. Bush is the worst president in American history"? Perfectly obvious and true, isn't it?. If Democratic leaders don't show more spine, they will forfeit their historic assignment to repair the damage inflicted by years of GOP misrule and criminality. Surely Jesus didn't back down from the Pharisees, the temple priests, the Roman rulers themselves. Then why should Democrats, the rest of us or all people inspired by what Jesus actually said and taught not stand up and denounce the modern-day counterparts of those Jesus assailed?

why do you not include your middle name Mr BARAK HOUSSIEN OBAMA?

isn't his middle name hussein? wasn't he raised in a madrassas? is he really black? i mean, REALLY black? (wink, wink)

the loathsome ann coulter said it best: if you want a hallmark card, vote for obama. i'm for love, and peace, and a new way. except when speaking to AIPAC, then "all options are on the table."

smite these our iranian enemies w/thy nuclear armed might, in thy mercy, we beseech thee, oh lard. in killing millions, we show thy light and love to the world. Amen.

Anonymous sez:
"You cannot get pregnant by abstinence."

Agreed - which is why rational people discount the idea of a virgin birth.

Gandalf,

Perhaps you are referring to the term “petitio principii,” (“begging the question”) in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises. This classic logical fallacy is related to the fallacy known as circular argument (“circulus in probando”) vicious circle or circular reasoning. It actually applies to your “choice” logic. We agree that the conclusion of my theoretical argument using YOUR “choice” logic is outrageous. I was hoping to demonstrate how the “freedom of choice” argument cannot stand on its own. It always begs the question: “choose what?.”

In other words, the whole purpose of that theoretical argument was to point out how “your” logic based on the concept of “freedom of choice” leads to an unacceptable conclusion because the real issue in question is assumed without a convincing defense. The “choice” argument only makes sense if you assume that abortion (what the choice is about) is an inherently justified action. It’s illogical to assume a premise the other doesn’t accept to prove your point. In other words this is a perfect case of “circular reasoning” because this “choice” argument “skirts the issue” and never actually attempts to make a defense for the action in question (abortion in this case, rape in the analogy). A completely different application of this logical fallacy might be seen where a Christian tries to convince a Muslim that Jesus is the Son of God because it says so in the Bible.

speed123 writes:
"OK, Mark.

Clever legalistic reply; however, I don't buy it and I am not of the Greek tradition."

Legalistic? No. Historic? Yes. There's a huge difference. Do your own research. You'll find that what I've posted about the use of the shorthand X is the absolute truth.

Why don't you buy it? Is something untrue simply because YOU didn't know about it? Does China not exist because you have never been there (it does exist - my sister has been there 3 times)? Is the Greek church tradition unworthy of knowing?

Sorry, but the world doesn't run on the limits of your knowledge. If it did, we wouldn't be conversing via computers, would we?

"Subtle disrespect in the name of tolerance or scholarship is your m.o."

???? I'm the one giving you the church history lesson, not the other way around. Why not just accept the fact that you learned something about your faith's history today and be glad for it? Or is the fact that you learned it from an atheist the problem?

The disrespect is yours, sir. You won't believe the church history because you're "not of the Greek tradition." Do you reject all church traditions that arose outside of the USA because you're "not of any non-American tradition"?

"Speaking of disrespect and old books, how old are the rabbinic teachings from the Talmud that you are quoting above?"

They're a little less old than the Bible itself. What's your point? Are you saying you have no respect for Judaic law and traditions? Do you breject the concept of midrash? Help me out here.

I think Senator Obama's cross-over appeal would be greatly enhanced if he said something like "government power stops far before the skin of a woman's belly", rather than trying to show everyone how deep his understanding of the issue is. Voters should not necessarily care about what his deep personal opinion on the matter is, but rather what he would do as president, and as far as that goes, the only thing in the piece that seemed to address that was this: "I suggested that perhaps we could agree on ways to reduce the number of women who felt the need to have abortions in the first place." That's a legitimate use of government power, but a position that could be held by pro-choice or pro-life voters. It does nothing to address the fundamental issue: should the government have the power to direct family planning? This has to be answered eventually.
I'd say it doesn't, that the message that comes through in the constitution again and again is that government power should be defined as restrictively as possible--when in doubt, the government doesn't have the power. If you're the king of your castle in your own home, women should be the queens of their own bodies. If the pro-lifers have their way, it may be a case of a legitimate and laudable goal--stopping the murdering of unborn babies--resulting in an untoward and un-American restriction of our liberty (what's next, a one-child policy?).
We're in this country to face God's moral tests alone, with nothing but our own decision-making power. That's the liberty we're supposed to be enjoying.

While I agree with Mr. Obama I don't see why we emphasize on abortion when we discuss presidential election. Do you think a president should worry about that knowing what the world and America is facing. I think Abortion is a diversion from real issues. I think abortion should be treated at a very local level not at the federal level. I keep hearing things about abortion, terrorism, global warming while we forget that we are building more prisons and detentions center than schools. (I keep reading in the news that our kids are performing less and less at school....what will be the repercussion in 10 years) No one, has a plan for a livable and realistic health care system. There is no discussion on how we can make allies. There is no discussion on how we can learn from other people (read other countries) so we can reposition ourselves in the world. Abortion is very personal. If the federal gvt makes it a felony people will exercise it in their homes. If the federal gvt makes it legal some religious groups will be angered. I think we should focus on understanding the world we live in because most of us (80%) don't even know what's out there.

While I agree with Mr. Obama I don't see why we emphasize on abortion when we discuss presidential election. Do you think a president should worry about that knowing what the world and america is facing. I think Abortion is a diversion from real issues. I think abortion should treated at a very local level not at the federal level. I keep hearing things about abortion, terrorism, global warming while we forget that we are building more prisons and detentions center than schools. (I keep reading in the news that our kids are performing less and less at school and that we are not the best in knowledge...what will be the repercussion in 10 years) No one, has a plan for a livable and realistic health care system. There is no discussion on how we can make allies. There is no discussion on how we can learn from other people (read other countries) so we can reposition ourselves in the world. Abortion is very personal. If the federal gvt makes it a felony people will exercise in their homes. If the federal gvt makes it legal some religious groups will be angered. I think we should focus on understanding the world we live in because most of (80%) don't even know what's out there.

Mr. Obama,

I think you are doing a great job and right now, as it stands, you have my vote for the Democratic primary. You have a great sense of what America needs (a unitedness). I especially like the fact that you did not vote for the war in Iraq too. You showed leadership and not politics as usual in that area. Keep praying- I want a president who prays and asks God for direction.

I am a woman and I am not voting for Hillary. I vote my conscience.

Abortion is an offshoot of a core problem - promiscuity. You cannot get pregnant by abstinence. I think we should start to put more of our time, politics, and money toward the root of the problem rather than the results (other results are STD's). That said, for women who get pregnant by rape or incest, to not give them a choice to abort or keep the child is outrageous. They were victimized and humilated once and now you put this on their sholders and victimize them all over again. The perpetrator, however, is never victimized, albeit if found, he make get jail which he deserves. It is easy to see that the victim gets double punishment and the perpetrator may or may not receive justice. This is what is so outrageous!

But we aren't connected - we are a nation of diverse opinions, and now forced racial diversity. Consequently we have different goals and values and the gulf widens between groups who seek different directions and purposes in life.

We only get to pick between unity (1600-1960s) or diversity (1965-present). You can't pick and choose which traits you want your society to have if you have selected to push it in the other direction, nor can you expect groups to support a mission that is not in their interest and promotes opposing demographical groups.

GIANA, MICAHEL et al.

people like you give religion a bad name...are you really pro-life because you value life? sure does not reflect in your pro-death penalty arguments?

or are you anti-choice because you interpret the Bible too literally and think women should be subjugated (i have known women who think this way too..so don't start "I am a woman" argument against this point)?

Gandalf:

"why do the pro-life people almost always support the death penalty? Is life not valuable and important now? Double standards?"

Gandalf. Your question is like asking:

Shouldn't all pro-choice people support honor killings? Should it matter when the choice is made? Double standards?

Who is Barrack Obama??

Who is Barrack Obama??

Who is Barrack Obama??

Who is Barrack Obama??

Who is Barrack Obama??

Who is Barrack Obama??

OH JESUS OBAMA I LOVE YOU AND WILL VOTE FOR YOU BUT PLEASE SAVE ME ALL THIS JESUS/GOD HOKUS P0KUS!!
religion is a complete farce run mostly by moneygrabbing homophobic preachers!look around you and you will see that"RELIGION IS THE PROBLEM AND NOT THE ANSWER"
JUST LOOK WHAT HAPPENED IN PALESTINE AND IRAQ TODAY!

Giana,

Are you out of your mind? Pro-rape? That's what people do when they run out of good rejoinders and comebacks. Go tangential and skirt the issue completely. Say something so outrageous that the argument does not proceed. There is a Latin phrase for it...don't remember it now!

Posted on June 13, 2007 15:30

Dr. Damon:

Come to Los Angeles...I'll be happy to take you to clinics where "pro-lifers" spend the entire day in front and near the building yelling, passing out propaganda, displaying pictures etc.

I know you'd like to think most of their behavior restrained and civilized...but it just ain't so.

And for the record...keep your vote...There are thousands of women who will be voting for Senator Obama precisely because he considers them the sole owners of their bodies.

And instead of spending thousands of hours protesting what someone is doing with their body...maybe the time would be better spent giving young people REAL, FACTUAL, medical information on birth control so there would be less need for abortions. Lets spend some of that anti-choice rally money on subsidizing birth control ans sex education.

Gandalf,

Since your arguments in favor of "choice" and the apparent double standard on the death penalty are far from original, you don't deserve all the blame for their grave errors and lack of logic. However, since you CHOOSE to espouse them, you and your credibility must now take the fall for them in this forum.

As Michael alluded, your argument in favor of choice could equally and logically be applied to a man who believes it a woman is his property (his body) and therefore no man or law should ever tell him he can't rape her as he pleases. After all, it's "his" body. Right? Even if another man is personally opposed to rape (and would never commit it himself) he might similarly argue that he can't force such "religious" beliefs on other men. How unfair and "right-wingish" it would be for others to call him pro-rape just because his believes that this should be a personal decision between each man and his god. He's not pro-rape (he doesn't want it to happen very much), because he knows this must be an agonizing decision for men to live with afterwards. He also wants to make sure that rape is safe and legal, too many men are getting hurt (and occasionally being killed) in the process of "back-alley" illegal rapes. What? The woman's rights? "Keep your rosaries off my testis!" "You only believe that a woman is a human being deserving of rights because your church tells you too!"

The death penalty argument is even weaker. The irony is not that many pro-lifers and not opposed to the death penalty when applied to convicted criminals. There is a very sound moral argument against all intentional killing of innocent human life (that allows for killing an enemy aggressor in self defense, for example). The indefensible double standard lies in the person who takes the supposed moral high ground against the death penalty when applied to adults convicted or crime; yet he fully supports the death penalty when applied to innocent children where the mother is judge and jury, and the doctor is the executioner. Think about it.

Mr. Obama:
Thank you for sharing your story. It is heartening to hear someone who a) recognizes that demonizing your opponents only makes you look foolish and b) that there is room for Christians who do not necessarily fall in line with the pro-life camp. I too believe that abortion is wrong but understand that liberty is something that is worth upholding. If both parties would stop shouting at each other and work together to help pregnant women who feel hopeless and desparate to find ways to make it work out. We should all support crisis-pregnancy centers, volunteer to help out single parents who need assistance, and help children in need by becoming good foster/adoptive parents, like my wife and I have. Harsh rhetoric never made me change, but love and compassion, like Jesus showed, can change the world.

BTW, you have my vote!

Mr. Mark,

I find it funny that people object to your use of Xians. I, myself, call them the "Fishy" people.

Hah, I guess, a few eyeballs rolled just now. I call them the fishy people because many of them see the need to decorate their cars with little silver fishes.

OK, my Christian friends, no offense meant.

I am who I am = IT.

Senator Obama is one of the greatest spinners ever. Lots of fancy talk, that in practice means abolutely nothing. Meanwhile, who is financing his campaign? Answer that question and you'll see where the spin is going to lead us.

Showing repsect for your opponents is all very well, and politeness certainly never hurts, but Obama and too many other Democrats take bipartisanship too far when it becomes a smothering consensus.

I was delighted when Obama became a candidate, but lost all interest in him when I learned that he proposes staying in Iraq and adding 92,000 troops to the Armed Forces.

None of the big-money candidates offer a short path out of Iraq, though polls show the majority of voters want one.

Everybody seems to agree that America needs a bigger army. Even though America's military spending already exceeds the entire remainder of the planet, 191 other countries, the non-American 96% of humanity. Even though it's widely understood that American forces are only overstretched because they launched a completely unprovoked invasion and occupation of Iraq.

In 1962, Eisenhower, a mainstream Republican, could devote his presidential farewell address to warning about the danger to peace and democracy posed by the military-industrial complex.

Today, only the farthest-out penniless fringe candidates - Kucinich, Gravel and Ron Paul - dare talk that way.

Because Eisenhower's warning came true. The mainstream of both parties is in the pockets of the military-industrial complex. Tens of thousands of Illinois "defense" workers rely on Obama to help bring home the contractual bacon.

The arms industry reigns supreme in American politics, so pervasive that it has become almost invisible. Even though its Cold War justification has vanished. Even though the clearest evidence links it to the people and thinktanks that drummed up the Iraq war. Even though its monumental corruption brings a new scandal almost every day.

This corrupt, war-creating system is hardly ever criticised by US politicians. In fact the arms dealers' creed has seeped into American public discourse and become part of the nation's personality. As Eisenhower warned, the consequences a keeping a vast military-industrial complex could even be "spiritual".

I kick myself for having briefly thought that Obama might be one to break out of that mold, to get off the military-industrial gravy train. It was naive of me. Of course he's just another American politician.

It's really the fault of American voters. They are actually impressed by people who promise them a bigger army.

Posted on June 13, 2007 14:19

Bruce A. Dembroski:

Just curious...how many adopted chiildren do you have? How often to you spend time with children who have a mother that needs a break? What is your position on universal healthcare?

I have found again and again those who are so willing to fight for a fetus are far less willing to fight for the child. If just every OTHER "pro-lifer" adopted a child here already.. I'd have a little more respect for their position. But I find the "pro-life" position is only lipservice when it comes time to actually be part of the life of a child whose mother has been talked out of terminating the pregnancy. Then it's a real "you made your bed..." sentence.

T.J.

You wrote to Jacob: "What in the world are you talking about. Nobody can even understand what you are trying to say, use regular words please."

Hmmm, you must have understood more than you wanted to because you sure resented his analogy of the Eucharist.

And, please, I have been around these blogs quite some time, don't tell me that people don't bash each other on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, some posts are so hateful that they can physically make you sick.

Blessed be!

Mr Mark, sorry, I don't think it's wise to take the time to discuss interpretation of uhndreds of Bible verses on this board. We're both aware Id guess that this has been debated many times before. I could quote a bunch of passages too and argue with yours, but... I doubt it would do either of us (or the others) much good. Maybe I should have said at the beginning that I disagree with your interpretation.

I guess I find one overarching thing fascinating here; the WashPost began this series as a discussion on faith. I've only wandered in on occasion, but I find mostly not people of varying nuances of faith wrestling with social and political implications of their faith (which is what I expected), but instead a high proportion (higher than the national avg) of agnostics/atheists who tell people of faith that they are (um, pick your word: unreasonable, superstitious, fantasy-landers...) silly. And then they often follow-up with how narrow-minded the 'church' is. Well, who is being narrow-minded? If your judgment is that my belief in a creator is silly, that's fine with me. But if my judgment is different, am I narrow-minded if I say it? Or if I rationally attempt to convince you otherwise? But if you rationally attempt to convince me, are you now the narrow-minded one?

I'm not trying to point fingers at the thoughtful, rational people on the board here, but it seems that the tone in general is often hypocritical, and when it occurs I'd hope the rational atheists on board would be kind and fair enough to point it out, just as I ought to point out if I see a Christian being irrational or mean.

For example: I don't get upset if you use "Xian" or "Xmas" :) , and it's below-the-belt and picky in my book to make an issue of it. Jesus would have found other battles to wage.

Senator Obama,

As a physician myself, I am encouraged to see you taking a more thoughtful approach to the abortion issue. I hope you will continue to consider the true facts and principles involved. Sadly, your otherwise thoughtful article still betrays an injust prejudice as you groups of pro-life demonstators as "those who jostled or blocked women who were entering clinics, shoving photographs of mangled fetuses in the women’s faces and screaming at the top of their lungs; those who bullied and intimidated and occasionally resorted to violence." I've been involved in pro-life vigils, marches, and similar activities for years in various cities across the country and I've never seen any of this undeserved stereotype behavior on the part of pro-lifers. On the contrary, I've witnessed much violence and hatred on the part of abortion supporters toward silently praying pro-lifers. I admire your stated desire for a renewal of politics. However, I cannot help but see your position on abortion being shaped pecisely by the same coercive and dishonest party tactics that you claim to reject. In summary, while your thoughtful comments give me hope, I cannot support your candidacy so long as you deny the humanity of an entire class of innoncent people. Similarly, no matter how appealing his/her ideas are regarding health care or poverty relief, I could never support this candidate also supports policy that denies African descendents of their basic human rights--some issues trumph all others.

I look forward to healthy dialogue on this issue.

OK, Mark.

Clever legalistic reply; however, I don't buy it and I am not of the Greek tradition.

Subtle disrespect in the name of tolerance or scholarship is your m.o.

Speaking of disrespect and old books, how old are the rabbinic teachings from the Talmud that you are quoting above?

TJ,

"Women choose whether or not to have unprotected sex?" Really? Have you ever heard of rape?

People on this blog seem to think abortions are solely by young women having unprotected sex. That isn't true. Check out the "on balance" page of this same site to read of mothers who already have several children and have an abortion because they cannot add another.

Abortions can result from young girls having unprotected sex, or older women who already have children who cannot care for them. Not all birth control if effective 100% of the time, so saying abortions only result from "unprotected" sex is untrue.

Abortions are also sought in cases of rape or incest, when the life of the mother is in danger, or if the child is severely disabled or deformed. Women have abortions (or selective reductions, profiled in the Washington Post magazine) when they seek fertility treatments and too many embryos attach to the womb, threatening all the babies.

There are many reasons and scenarios for abortion. In discussing whether or not abortion is "necessary" or the right thing to do, you should consider all of its applications.

Thank you, Obama, for showing humanity to all viewpoints and for crossing the bridge of polarization that separates so many of us in America today.

Faith and reason can, but do not have to, act in opposition to one another. Faith and reason can, but do not have to, act in opposition to one another. Faith engages when reason reaches its limits. It should not supplant reason. We deflate faith, however, if we cast it as nothing more than the position of last resort, the necessary if undesirable recognition of human finitude. Faith also functions as a mechanism for unveiling presently inaccessible reason. When Newton began to investigate a falling apple, he had to take it on faith that there was a reason it acted the way it did. If balanced appropriately, faith and reason can both enrich our lives and our politics.

speed123 quotes me:
"Mark:

"Considering that Xianity is an outgrowth of Judaism, you may do well to consider its precepts."

and then replies:

Mark,

Since you are espousing respect and understanding in your post, how about showing a little yourself by spelling Christianity correctly..."

Have you no respect for your own faith's history? Apparently not, or you would know that using the shorthand of "X" to signify Christ is a time-honored tradition that goes back to the early Greek church. X is the Greek letter "chi" which was used to write Christos. The "X" showed up as graffitti, in fact.

You actually are the one showing disrespect by not having a decent grounding in the history of your faith.

I've explained this many times on this board. The next retort from the Xians is, "this is the 21st century. Stop using a shorthand from two millenia ago, it's offensive"...to which I always respond, "I'll stop using the 2000-year-old shorthand when you stop quoting your 2,000-year-old holy books."

I assume you're one of those Xians who gets their panties all in a wad whenever they see "Xmas."

:)

Barack Obama apologizes for calling right wing ideologues who want to take away a womans right to choice what they are.

That is where I see the problem for Mr. Obama. He can't have it both ways.

People of good faith whatever their personal beliefs are should respect each other. Right wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choice don't respect other peoples views.

The issue on choice is not whether you are personally against abortion or for it. It is the right of a woman to make that decision and not have government intervene. It is the respect for the founders of our nation and their understanding that we separate church and state. That people are allowed to celebrate the faith they choose and abide by its tenets. That those that choose to live as atheists are also respected in our nation. Government shall not impose the tenets of one religion on others with different beliefs. The right wing ideologues who want to take away a woman's right to choice, don't believe that.

So Mr. Obama what is it you are apologizing for?

President Obama. I love the sound of that! I can't wait until it is true. You are pure fresh air and I appreciate your time to address this forum. It takes guts to stand up and speak with reason when so many think that their Christianity is the ONLY Christianity and that Christianity is the only true religion. I am a Deist, but I respect your spiritual path and I see that, where many wear their religion as a cloak, your religion is soaked in. That makes for a rock-solid moral compass, something that American Politics have lacked for many years.

I am generally republican on foreign and economic policy, and prior to two weeks ago I'd favored the overturning of Roe v. Wade but supported legalized abortion. From my former view, the right to privacy within the Constitution was invented by the Warren court, and the alleged right to an abortion was a ridiculous expansion of substantive due process.

Then over the last 2 weeks I had my first ever pregnancy scare with my girlfriend. It was absolutely terrifying. I couldn't sleep at night. Neither of us are in any place in our lives where we could support a baby, and our relationship is not at the point where this would make any sense whatsoever. Both of us dislike abortion, but seriously, what were the alternatives? Not having sex until marriage, which occurs on average at age 31 for those with college degrees? Sex is an essential joy of life and a life without sex is not as deep, meaningful, or enjoyable. What else - get married at age 18? Gosh, what a disaster that would have been in retrospect given my girlfriend at the time.

Clearly people should have sex responsibly with a combination of birth control and condoms, and even emergency contraception when necessary, but none of these are foolproof. So basically the only alternatives to abortion would be raising a child at a point in our lives and relationship where that is infeasible, or giving the child up for abortion.

What really bugs me in this whole debate is how harmless people claim giving a baby up for adoption is. For one, you still basically have to take off a year from whatever training one is pursuing at that point in time. Second, many women never recover from the experience of giving away their child for adoption. I should know - my mother gave away her child for adoption in the 1960s. She still cries often over being separated from her child, and the experience completely estranged her from her parents and sibling. I know what some smartass critic is going to respond with: well, that's still better than your long lost half brother being killed. But this is an absolutely unreasonable argument - aborting one's pregnancy after a few weeks is a far cry from murdering a human being. The reductio ad absurdem of this argument is that everytime any of us chooses not to have a child at any point in time during our reproductive lives, we are murdering a potential life. This is unreasonable.

Fortunately for us, we turned out not to be pregnant, so we did not have to make this terrible decision. But the idea that religion would dictate a public policy that would force men and women away from the prospect of aborting a barely-conceived fetus is idiotic to me, and it's frankly driven me away from every major figure in the Republican party except for Giuliani. I still agree that Roe v. Wade was badly written and badly reasoned, but I do believe that reproductive freedom, which should have been grounded in the forced sterilization cases precedents in the first place, provides substantative due process of liberty grounds to support a fundamental right for a man and woman together to decide to have an abortion.

I am happy to hear Senator Obama's view on this, and I am happy that he is engaging without demonizing those who disagree with us.

Two last quick notes. I think people like Senator Obama should stop saying that abortion is a difficult choice for pregnant women. This is incomplete - it is a decision that also must involve potential fathers. It is unfair to demand so much of fathers as parents and providers, and then leave them completely out of this gut-wrenching decision.

Second, the primary thing this whole experience has taught me is that faith and religion should have little place in public policy. Faith certainly should provide some guide to decisions in general, but religious dictates alone should not be dispositive in situations like abortions and stem cell research where virtually all other public policy factors flow the other way. Our leaders should be guided by faith, but not brainwashed by faith. I support Senator Obama in this respect.

Jozevz,

What in the world are you talking about. Nobody can even understand what you are trying to say, use regular words please.

I resent the comment about the Eucharist. I have to say, that you are completely wrong, and have such a narrow view on the world, and on Religion in general. If you had any sense, you would not make comments about other faiths like that, especially here in a Faith posting.

Yes their are Aethist who do post, but they do not bash other peoples religions either, and like wise, I have noticed, that people of a religion do not bash aethists. So, I suggest the you refrain from making any more statements like that about the Eucharist. I just makes you look bad. I know that image is not everything, but please, just take what I am saying to consideration.

Plus, your comment shows you have no knowledge what so ever about the Eucharist, and until you do, please refrain from any more comments like that Please?!!!!!!?

Thanks.

I don't think any government should tell a female person that she HAS to have a baby. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, for any reason, it is her body, her decision, her choice. It is a personal private matter.

With the U.S.'s (and most of the world's) history of being a male-dominated society, it is true that the rights of women and minorities must be strongly guarded.
What if politicians began to focus on the issues that directed women to choose abortion?
If I understand correctly, the majority of abortions take place in poor, urban, and mainly minority areas.

I am generally republican on foreign and economic policy, and prior to two weeks ago I'd favored the overturning of Roe v. Wade but supported legalized abortion. From my former view, the right to privacy within the Constitution was invented by the Warren court, and the alleged right to an abortion was a ridiculous expansion of substantive due process.

Then over the last 2 weeks I had my first ever pregnancy scare with my girlfriend. It was absolutely terrifying. I couldn't sleep at night. Neither of us are in any place in our lives where we could support a baby, and our relationship is not at the point where this would make any sense whatsoever. Both of us dislike abortion, but seriously, what were the alternatives? Not having sex until marriage, which occurs on average at age 31 for those with college degrees? Sex is an essential joy of life and a life without sex is not as deep, meaningful, or enjoyable. What else - get married at age 18? Gosh, what a disaster that would have been in retrospect given my girlfriend at the time.

Clearly people should have sex responsibly with a combination of birth control and condoms, and even emergency contraception when necessary, but none of these are foolproof. So basically the only alternatives to abortion would be raising a child at a point in our lives and relationship where that is infeasible, or giving the child up for abortion.

What really bugs me in this whole debate is harmless people claim giving a baby up for adoption is. For one, you still basically have to take off a year from whatever training one is pursuing at that point in time. Second, many women never recover from the experience of giving away their child for adoption. I should know - my mother gave away her child for adoption in the 1960s. She still cries every day over being separated from her child, and the experience completely estranged her from her parents and sibling. I know what some smartass critic is going to respond with: well, that's still better than your long lost half brother being killed. But this is an absolutely unreasonable argument - aborting one's pregnancy after a few weeks is a far cry from murdering a human being. The reductio ad absurdem of this argument is that everytime any of chooses not to have a child at any point in time during our reproductive lives, we are murdering a potential life. This is unreasonable.

Fortunately for us, we turned out not to be pregnant, so we did not have to make this terrible decision. But the idea that religion would dictate a public policy that would force men and women away from the prospect of aborting a barely-conceived fetus is idiotic to me, and it's frankly driven me away from every major figure in the Republican party except for Giuliani. I still agree that Roe v. Wade was badly written and badly reasoned, but I do believe that reproductive freedom, grounded in the forced sterilization cases precedents, provides substantative due process of liberty grounds to support a fundamental right for a man and woman together to decide to have an abortion.

I am happy to hear Senator Obama's view on this, and I am happy that he is engaging without demonizing those who disagree with us.

Two last quick notes. I think people like Senator Obama should stop saying that abortion is a difficult choice for pregnant women. This is incomplete - it is a decision that also must involve potential fathers. It is unfair to demand so much of fathers, and then leave them completely out of this gut-wrenching decision.

Second, the primary thing this whole experience has taught me is that faith and religion should have little place in public policy. It certainly should provide some guide to decisions in general, but religious dictates alone should not be dispositive in situations like abortions and stem cell research where virtually all other public policy factors flow the other way. Our leaders should be guided by faith, but not brainwashed by faith. I support Senator Obama in this respect.

Patrick -
Congrats on surviving a difficult road. I completely agree, empathy is needed. I am pleased to be part of a church family that has disproportionately adopted at-risk children. we have 7 so far, more on the way, and we are not a huge church. It's a blessing to have them around!
I feel sorry, as do you, for children with no family. But it's silly and factually incorrect to lay the blame on 'pro-life policies'. I know more pro-lifers who adopt kids than otherwise (not that there aren't many who are pro-choice who do, and I admire them equally). And the compassionate pro-life ministry I'm involved with helps take care of young scared moms (and dads) who need help (financial, counseling, practical) with the infants they wish to keep.

Yes, pro-lifers do sometimes come across as uncaring. I'm sorry for that. I hope we do better in the future. I ask that you give us a reasonable chance.

Mr. Obama,

The best way to reduce abortions is to outlaw them. So please do not try to fool people when you pretend that you would try to reduce abortions while refusing to outlaw them. Politicians like you and Guliani are hypocrits when you claim that you personally against abortions while you are still pro-choice for other people.

Also, while faith is a personal matter, I want to point out that the United Church of Christ, the denomination which you belong, is straying from Christianity and they lost millions of membership during the last decade.

TomH writes:
"Mr Mark - you are very right re: my ignorance of Judiac law, at least that outside the Biblical record. And I appreciate the helpful historical insight.
But your reference was specifically to the Bible, which is why I pointed out that your statement was incorrect."

Dear TomH -

Thanks for the comment.

Judaic law is based upon the Torah and the Talmud. The Talmud is an oral history that finds its basis in the interpretation of the Torah.

Ergo, Judaic law is based on Biblical verses.

Here are a few Biblical verses that help to form the basis for Judaic law with respect to abortion, birth and who is and isn't a human being:

• Abortion is not murder. A fetus is not considered a human life.

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life." -- Exodus 21:22-23

• The Bible places no value on fetuses or infants less than one month old.

"And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. "-- Leviticus 27:6

• Fetuses and infants less than one month old are not considered persons.

"Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to the word of the LORD." -- Numbers 3:15-16

• God sometimes approves of killing fetuses.

"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." -- Numbers 31:15-17
(Some of the non-virgin women must have been pregnant. They would have been killed along with their unborn fetuses.)
"Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts."-- Hosea 9:14
"Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." -- Hosea 9:16
"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." -- Hosea 13:16

• God sometimes kills newborn babies to punish their parents.

"Because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die." -- 2 Samuel 12:14

• God sometimes causes abortions by cursing unfaithful wives.

"The priest shall say unto the woman, The LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to rot, and thy belly to swell. And this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, to make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to rot: And the woman shall say, Amen, amen. ...
"And when he hath made her to drink the water, then it shall come to pass, that, if she be defiled, and have done trespass against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her, and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall rot: and the woman shall be a curse among her people. And if the woman be not defiled, but be clean; then she shall be free, and shall conceive seed." -- Numbers 5:21-21, 27-28

There's more, I just don't have time right now to look them all up.

George Albert:

Are you sure you aren't just anti-Obama and anti demorcrat...and maybe even anti minorities who want to be president? No matter what end of the political debate you fall on, the fact that Mr. Obama'a essay was thoughtful, clear, concise, and enlightnening is undeniable. His position was clear. No BS was included. People do not have to be dogmatic and cruel to get their point across like you. You can maintain your opinion while objectively looking at someone else's opposing view. Have you ever heard of agreeing to disagree? A word of caution. If you want to be taken seriously and be truly heard, check the anger and animosity at the door.

Patrick wimpers:

"feel sorry for all the children this society has turned their backks on in the name of policies of pro-life."

Right on! They would all be much better off if they were aborted...

It would save them and, more importantly, us a ton of hassels...

Abortion clinics should especially be funded setup in poor urban areas...think of the societial benefits of reducing the numbers of the, as Marx would say, the Lumpen-proletariat.

This is an excellent and thoughtful post by Senator Obama. I wish I could believe the anti-choice side could make an effort to be as respectful of the opinions of others, but I see little evidence of it in the comments here. Frankly, those who ask questions like "how can you support murdering babies?" are quite rightly called "right wing ideologues."

There is certainly a need, as the Senator's correspondent asks, for more fair minded language on this, and other issues, but it needs to come from both sides.

Regards

A Hermit

Tom H,
I started my journey in a catholic orphanage. foster care was no better. At age eighteen society turns their back on you iif you are oorphaned or foster care. check their rules. if yuo are going to raise someone do it for their entire life, not just the first 18 years of their life.

Most kids have parents to look to for life. orphans and foster kids do not. Try living a life with NO FAMILY EVER!

Difficult at best.

Try investigating foster care and see how many homeless foster kids appear after age 18.

caring last a life time, not just s few years.

records are meaningless when real lives are in the balance. perhaps learning from actual orphans and foster children might be better for policy than visons of equality and life.

Do not feel sorry for me, I survived. feel sorry for all the children this society has turned their backks on in the name of policies of pro-life.

Try takng a foster kid home for the rest of their life and not your life.

Empathy not sympathy!

A Hermit:

Honor killings are not exclusively against women. And they are not carried out exclusively by men. They ARE perpetuated against the weak and helpless.

Best wishes.

Mark:

"Considering that Xianity is an outgrowth of Judaism, you may do well to consider its precepts."

Mark,

Since you are espousing respect and understanding in your post, how about showing a little yourself by spelling Christianity correctly...

"There's no argument for pro-choice you can add that has not already been made by families involved in honor killings."

What a ridiculous thing to say...the two aren't remotely alike, except in that they involve people who self righteously suppose they have the right to control every aspect of "their" women's lives. But that would put the anti-choice people on the side of the honour killers, wouldn't it?

TJ,

And I have the same hopes for you and yours.

Re: Women's final decision

Would you suggest a partner who decidedly wants the baby to hijack his partner's uterus? I'm not saying the woman has a right to go against her partner, but, ultimately, wouldn't her partner respect her wishes and side with her? Anyway, that is a situation that will hopefully never happen with me, or you.

Someone has to have the final say, and I believe that responsibility is the woman's.

There needs to be a third party for us Catholics:

Pro-life, pro-immigrant, pro-poor.

I do like Obama, though; this generation's JFK.

Dont be afraid to take on AIPAC, Obama, and then address Middle East diplomacy with OBJECTIVITY and realism.

Mr Mark - you are very right re: my ignorance of Judiac law, at least that outside the Biblical record. And I appreciate the helpful historical insight.
But your reference was specifically to the Bible, which is why I pointed out that your statement was incorrect.

George Albert posted: "Obama has one of the most extremist voting records in the Senate."

What do you mean?

Gandalf:

Please don't go there. There's no argument for pro-choice you can add that has not already been made by families involved in honor killings.

Think about it.

TomH writes:

"Mr Mark - Your interpretation of the Bible (personhood after delivery) is in serious error; it ain't politics-driven, it's black and white."

Apparently, you have no knowledge of Judaic law. Had you any knowledge, you would know that Jewish law states that 1) a baby has a soul upon conception, 2) a baby isn't considered a human being until it is halfway out of the birth canal (until then, it is considered a "potential" human being), and 3) that the Talmud DEMANDS abortion in certain cases.

Hardly a black-and-white issue.

You can bone up on what you don't know here:

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

Considering that Xianity is an outgrowth of Judaism, you may do well to consider its precepts.

Senator Obama:

Why would you believe that I want to be connected "as one people" with torturers? In fact, with people who would be fine with torturing me, because Limbaugh, Coulter, and the rest of the conservative establishment tells them I'm a traitor?

Why would you believe that I want to be connected "as one people" with people who want to replace Constitutional government with an authoritarian regime under the theory of the unitary executive?

Just asking.

P.S. Would you support the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission when (and if) the Bush administration surrenders power?

Andrea

I agree, it is the womens uterus, but if I am understanding you correctly, you are saying that in the end it doesnt even matter if the partner or husband wants the child? To me that seems a little harsh doesnt it? Besides it takes two to make a child, well three plus God. Sure the woman has to go through the nine months with the child, plus the actual birth, but the husband or the partner goes through it also right? I am sure that he doesnt want to have to see his spouse go through pains, or be miserable.

God made us male and female for a reason. In my experiences through out my lifetime, I have met many many women who are much more stronger than men. And I do think that women are much stronger than men in many ways. A good example is through child birth. My hat is off to the women who go through with their pregnancy, because I know they go through "hell" when giving birth.

Andrea it has been good messaging you. I am glad that I have the opportunity to talk to you through this postings. I hope all goes well with you in what ever life brings your way.

God Bless.

I agree. Obama continues to say nothing.

We certainly know by now that he opposes Bush policies....but what would Obama do to fight terrorism, if he would fight it at all. He never says!!!Is this is the kind of uncertain and wishy washy he would lead our coutry???

He speaks of "coming together" yet, he has spent his years in the Senate opposing virtually every policy and initiative of the president. Why should we come together behind a negative individual such as Obama???

And as for abortion, I will respect his views on a woman's right to chose, after he starts to respect a child's right to LIFE.

Obama is a little too hate-filled and intolerant for my tastes.

Michael,
You make the same mistake most pro-lifers do... you equate pro-choice with pro-killing. That is not the same. Most pro-choice people I know are of the opinion that abortion is bad, it is definitely not a means of contraception. However, the only insistence here is in cases where deemed necessary, leave the choice (hence PRO-CHOICE) to the woman. I don't see anyone ever claiming to be happy to have killed a fetus. So, your analogy to honor killings is misleading and utterly wrong, like most right-wing propoganda...
G

Senator, thank you for the thooughtful eassy. I will carefully watch your campaign, and I hope to see more of this.

Mr Mark - Your interpretation of the Bible (personhood after delivery) is in serious error; it ain't politics-driven, it's black and white. Please don't confuse those who haven't read it much. And you can choose to believe Jesus didn;t exist, but it is based on shaky evidence and much faith (!) on your part.

Patrick - I'm sorry you have seemingly had negative experiences with faith-based (lack of) caring, but I can assure you in general the faith community has done and is doing far more caring for the unfortunate than most others. Chekc records of giving, check who started all the universities and hosptials and orphanages and soup kitchens, etc. etc. Of course we could take TJFRMLA's suggestion and tax the churches, and then much of this help would lessen; I wonder if he would be happy then?

To all those who claim a person of faith is not a person of reason; I assume you'd have voted for atheists over Abe and George W. had you been alive at the time.

What ever happened to the word "Religion?" Why has it been replaced by "Faith?" Did focus groups prefer "faith" or something?

Happy to hear a presidential candidate not step away from the more challenging issues. What you lack in experience you make up for with honesty and integrity.

anon:

hopeless forum spam -still its funny and they're getting lots of hits:

"I Got a Crush...On Obama"

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

Obama writes an article that is touchy feely but that says nothing, except to affirm what must be his view that if you hide your actual positions on specific issues behind a "I feel your pain" emotional supplication then it is alright.

Boloney. Politicians owe it to the public to be clear about the specifics of their positions on issues. Obama has one of the most extremist voting records in the Senate. What he should do is to try and justify those extreme views by discussing them and the opposing views. But no, since he knows that his positions are losers in a general election, he chooses to hide those positions with a typical politicians BS. The amazing this is that so many people buy it, hook, line and sinker.

Gandalf,

I ask that same question. I guess in their eyes, the criminal is already lost...what's the harm in ending his/her life? But a potential baby, now, there's a ball of clay ready to be molded, eh?

TJ,

I thank you kindly for your response. I, too, am in full support of counceling and adoption (I have three adopted siblings). However, in response to your experience of meeting many women for whom the decision to have an abortion has laden them with guilt, I have met many women who know that having an abortion at that time of their lives was the best decision they could have made. And, many of them made that decision with their partner, or husband. You have to take the good with the bad in every situation, and you have to realize (as you are soon to enter the preisthood) that you can't save everybody, and not everybody has the same concept of salvation that you do. And I do call it a woman's right to choose, after all, it is her uterus, she ultimately has the final say.

"why do the pro-life people almost always support the death penalty? Is life not valuable and important now? Double standards?"

Gandalf. Your question is like asking:

Shouldn't all pro-choice people support honor killings? Should it matter when the choice is made? Double standards?

Gandalf the Grey,

I am total pro-life, and Catholic, and I do not support the death penalty. I think that maybe you should do more research and find out more. I know whole communities irregardless of religion, that do not support the death penalty. Google it, you will find a lot of information. Everyone whether five minutes old, to over one hundred years old, deserves the right to live. The only person who can take our lives away is God, because he has authority over our lives.

He will call us when He is ready.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=wKsoXHYICqU

Another question: why do the pro-life people almost always support the death penalty? Is life not valuable and important now? Double standards?

Andrea,

What I mean by the doctor thing is not to belittle women, what I mean is that they should be able to question, and council and give their advice before they do the procedure. I guess what I mean, is to give the PARENTS something to think about before they go on with the procedure.

I am studying for the priesthood right now, and I myself am faced with a lot of question on abortion. Is it wrong sure but when is it right? My answer to that is, that it is never right, except to save the life of the mother IF the mothers life was in danger. But in my mind there is absolutly no reason to have an abortion.

Women do have a choice, but that is a choice that they have to make, sadly enough sometimes it isnt the right choice. I am not condeming women for the choices they make. The Lord still loves them no matter what. But the thing is, even men, have to learn from the experience. I have met many women who have had an abortion, and they say that the amount of guilt that they have to live with from day to day is unberable, but what helps them make it through each day is the fact that the good Lord still loves them. And they are truely sorry for what they have done.

I believe that womens right to choose is right, but I think that it should be called Parents right to choose. I am not chaning my view or stance, but I think that when it is called a womens right to choose, a lot of pressure and anxiety is placed on the mother, as you said. But the choice should be up to both parents, what ever the situation.

But why does abortion have to be the end all be all answer? There is also adoption. It atleast gives the child a chance of life, and to live.
Whats a few hours of labor, compared to giving a child the RIGHT to live. We have no authority to take that away.

Mark,

Thanks for the link. Do you mean the article itself, or the horrible comments posted by "Golden Rule"?

The article itself was succinct, and I could not agree more. Those other comments...WOW!

Danny B:

Here's a link to an old "On Faith" thread that (somewhat) reflects the contents of the deleted post. Its interesting to take a look back. Hope you enjoy:

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/gardner_calvin_taylor/2007/01/religion_andor_politics.html

J,

I would add along with education (and I do hope you meant honest, all-inclusive sexual education) that there also needs to be more pressure on insurance companies to cover birth control.

Also, your statement "Though i am vigorously pro life i would still want to be given the freedom to choose" means that you are, in fact, pro-choice.

Though i am vigorously pro life i would still want to be given the freedom to choose. I would say that abortion is a personal choice but a state should give that freedom to the individual but in no way it should be a normal thing. Education is the best thing that can be given through church and school.

Though i am vigorously pro life i would still want to be given the freedom to choose. I would say that abortion is a personal choice but a state should give that freedom to the individual but in no way it should be a normal thing. Education is the best thing that can be given through church and school.

Faith has nothing to do with politics. Anyone that intones such is belittling both politics and faith.

I believe pro-lifers only see one side of the issue. Pro-lifers care less about foster care, orphans or any other unwanted child in the USA or the world. I am an orphan. I speak from experience a life time of experience.

Faith has nothing to do with caring about and for people.

The greates gift is to live a life in service of others. Getting paid too provide the service is not a noble act but a greedy act.

I hope Mr. Obama sticks to politics and leaves the faith to the faithfull.

I am a life time Nichiren Buddhist. Nichiren Budhist understand that alll life is connected through the essential nature of life.

Have faith in the concept, Dependant Origination!

All life is connnected and no life can live in isolation of any other life.

Senator Obama:

Your story is an excellent example of the kind of situation that is all too common in our society, of how and why our political system works, and why morals should never supplant the rule of law within our country. Merely because something may seem repugnant to you personally (be it abortion, gays in the military, illegal immigration or any other hot-button topic today) does not mean that we should base our laws off of that morality. Laws are meant to provide solace and security for all citizens, even those who may object to the law itself. If someone objects to a law (say, allowing abortions) because of personal or religious moral grounds does not give that person the right to demand the law be changed simply for their own small group. It is only when there can be shown an overwhelming need for such a law (such as when a parent keeps a child from receiving medical treatment simply because their religion and morals forbid such treatments) that the law should be re-examined and changed if necessary.

I asked God to prove he existed by curing my hiccups once, and it worked! They came back a half hour later though. I also asked him to make my roommate clean his cat's litterbox Thursday and he did (him cleaning is a miracle in itself).

Senator Obama,

My hat is off to you!

The question though I always have is, politicians are very good at promising the world when seeking office, but once elected they give you a grain of sand.

However, you come across as a sincere individual so I will research your agenda more and make up my mind the morning of election day! I am such a procrastinator... ;o)

Luke,

It'd take more than Frank getting banned to convince me ;)

I guess they aren't letting Frank Collins post anymore...maybe there is a God.

TO Gandalf:

...and oh, by the way....being a man of faith negates the concept of being a man of reason. (when it comes to religion).

TO Gandalf:

I have no problem with the faith of any person elected to the office. I have a BIG problem with "fatih based" agendas. Ninety percent of the time it's a christian faith based agenda. I only want all American citizens to feel the President is there representing the entire population...not just those of his faith. Just as if (and this will never happen because the American population is just tooo #@%*# not ready) there were a President who had no religious affiliation should be concerned for the rights and welfare of Jews, Catholics...etc.
With religion forcing it's way into American politics...IT'S TIME TO TAX THE CHURCHES!

Wonderful essay Senator Obama. Please continue to speak with candor and genuine feelings throughout the campaign. I don't care what your political advisors might suggest, please always trust and go with your own instints about what is right. I love the fact that you sound like a real person, not just someone spewing talking points and slogans, you use whole sentences and speak to people like real people do in real conversations. Please Senator don't change one thing about yourself, continue to be true to yourself and the voters will see and appreciate a real leader.

Thanks Andrea! Give someone enough rope...I guess. I was mostly interested in seeing the (hypocritical) Wiki reference from the illustrious Dr. Frank Collins, PhD.

Regarding your posting: "But, why, in your opinion, does the responsibility lie soley with women?"

I agree. Furthermore, the thought of a doctor determining the fate of the individual as a judgement call is frightening.

Obama's ideas are appealing, but difficult to put in practice because of the degree to which polarization of politics in this country is based on gut-level emotion rather than reasoned political choices. People respond to fear, not reason. What the country really needs is psychological counseling. We've been in post-traumatic stress since Vietnam, and now we're going to have to digest the Iraq experience, and I wonder whether we're in the right state of mind to do that in a healthy way. It's all a matter of whether people are equipped to handle reality. There's the Jack Nicholson line that applies here: "You don't want the truth--you can't handle the truth."

Obama's ideas are appealing, but difficult to put in practice because of the degree to which polarization of politics in this country is based on gut-level emotion rather than reasoned political choices. People respond to fear, not reason. What the country really needs is psychological counseling. We've been in post-traumatic stress since Vietnam, and now we're going to have to digest the Iraq experience, and I wonder whether we're in the right state of mind to do that in a healthy way. It's all a matter of whether people are equipped to handle reality. There's the Jack Nicholson line that applies here: "You don't want the truth--you can't handle the truth."

Danny B,

It was deleted. For shame...

Dear Sen Obama -

You'll have my vote if you're the Dem nominee next year. I'm a lifelong D, and except for wasting my vote on John Anderson back in 1980, I've always voted for the D candidate.

But as an atheist, I have to say that I draw small comfort from the faith-revealing turn this campaign has already taken. I see it very much as a religious litmus test, devised by the Republics and taken up by their sychophant media enablers. They have effectively created a faith battle that is being waged on their turf, and the Ds are once again falling into the trap.

You relate the story of the Republic voter who would have voted for you "if only" you were anti-choice, and that his letter coupled with the words spoken by protesters outside a hall at which you were appearing led you to change "offending language" on your website. Sorry to tell you this, but for most Republic voters there's always a convenient "if only" excuse for not voting for a D. Had you supported the anti-choice position, he would have found something else in your platform to write his "if only" letter about. The protester who you so graciously accomodated by modifying your website wasn't interested in any kind of dialogue. They refused to come into the hall at all when you personally invited them, preferring to keep to their self-righteous group of fellow zealots.

You say that these protesters weren't the bad or unruly type. The keep silent vigil - at least until they accused you of murdering babies. There's non-zealotry for you! Perhaps it would interest such protesters to learn that the Bible doesn't consider a baby a human being until its head emerges from its mother's birth canal...or, perhaps such knowledge of the Bible is best forgotten when one has a political agenda to pursue.

Finally - as an atheist American, I respect your right to hold any belief you wish, but that respect doesn't extend to my needing to believe that there is any truth whatsoever to your beliefs. Your beliefs are faith based, not fact based, so while you may believe that Jesus was god on earth, a miracle worker and a person resurrected from the dead, I choose to believe that he didn't even exist. The difference is that my belief is supported by reason and the the historic and archaeological evidence (or lack thereof) while yours is based on fantasy.

As an American, I've had quite enough of the fantasy-based policies of the past 6 years. As a Democrat, I look forward to the day when a Democratic candidate for president will have the guts and the wherewithal to boldly declare his non-belief in imaginary gods to a voting public that stands ready, willing and able to elect a president for whom reason is more important than illogic, and for whom fact trumps fantasy at every turn and in all endeavors.

TJ,

I agree with the view that more needs to be done to prevent unwanted pregnancies. But, why, in your opinion, does the responsibility lie soley with women? Why should a doctor belittle them in a time of great anxiety? They don't crawl ontop of themselves and get pregnant. And, many times, the decision whether or not to use a condom is made for them.

What is the comment from Dr. Frank Collins PhD. that everyone keeps referring to?

I can't believe I am saying this; My curiosity is piqued.

Dave, you hit the nail right on the head with your comment. I am a Catholic, and I tend to be pro life. I think that women have the right to choose whether to have unprotected sex or not. Not the right to terminate another life. I think that we need to get away from the issue of womens right to abortion, and move on to prevention of unprotected sex. Heck, even sex before marrage, which is a far strech I know. But i think that our politics need to focus on what are we going to do to prevent these women, and young girls from getting pregnant in the first place. For example when the girl goes to the abortion clinic, or where ever, to have the abortion, the doctor should ask the question to the girl or woman, when having sex, was it protected or not. If they say not, then he or she should ask, did you know that you were going to have a baby with out unprotected sex? Anyways, the point is, the doctor should be able to say yes I will preform it becasue of certain circumstances, or no I will not preform it because of the latter.

Thats just what I think, I may be wrong, but Dave, good job in speaking out. I agree!!!!!!

To TJFRMLA:

So what if the next President is a man of "faith"? let's say he is a man of Christian faith. It does not bother me, me being of some other faith, be it a different denomination of Christianity, or another faith like Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. Of course, we cannot have one one man representing all faiths. So, why should it bother an atheist (or for semantics: someone of atheistic "faith")? Being a man of faith never stopped anyone from being a man of reason.

To Frank Collins:

You truly are at least as intolerant (maybe more) as the extremists you oppose. Do you still think you have the right to criticize muslims for being rigid about their religion?

I consider myself pro-life personally and pro-choice politically. Obama's paragraph that begins with "I told him I understood his position..." expresses exactly my feelings on the issue of abortion itself.

Having said that, I understand why Obama's Web site had the unfortunate reference to "right-wing ideologues." I saw the reference as pointing not to people like the protester mentioned above, but to people like Randall Terry and James Dobson. Those demagogues are exploiting the abortion issue to push a larger agenda against women and against freedom of religion. I suspect there are many people who oppose legal abortion as well as that larger agenda, but whose voices are not being heard in the debate.

Senator Obama...
I have been watching you with great interest. I've been impressed with most of your positions and look forward to "the Vote". (I plan to dress and wear a hat when I vote for the first Black President). That said...I'm frighted. As an atheist I'm fearful of believers becoming ever emboldened and insistent on all politicians claiming some sort of god-relationship. I realize we atheists are in a so-called minority.
But, if you are truly ready to represent all Americans...at some point your dialouge must...to your christian audiences...remind them your decisions will include good, moral, American citizens that have no interest in their god, bible, koran, etc. You have said over and over you are a man of faith. Is there no place at your table for a man of Reason? *(online community for "people of faith" excludes an entire segment of the American population)

I was absolutely beside myself when Obama won in '04...and I live in Ohio. But I remember thinking, man, I hope he runs for President. This was a great post, and I appreciate the civility between Obama and the doctor and the protestors. I've been around protests that were much uglier than that. I only wish everyone on both sides of the argument could practice that restraint and mutual respect.

Luke,

I agree with you. May he never have a change of heart.

Frank,

Yes, abortion sucks, but it's necessary. And I'll remember your Wiki research the next time you hassle someone else for using the site.

Senator Obama...
I have been watching you with great interest. I've been impressed with most of your positions and look forward to "the Vote". (I plan to dress and wear a hat when I vote for the first Black President). That said...I'm frighted. As an atheist I'm fearful of believers becoming ever emboldened and insistent on all politicians claiming some sort of god-relationship. I realize we atheists are in a so-called minority.
But, if you are truly ready to represent all Americans...at some point your dialouge must...to your christian audiences...remind them your decisions will include good, moral, American citizens that have no interest in their god, bible, koran, etc. You have said over and over you are a man of faith. Is there no place at your table for a man of Reason? *(online community for "people of faith" excludes an entire segment of the American population)

A very well written article, Senator Obama. I wish others would look at abortion the same way you do. I am always amazed by the anti-abortion group making it seem like the "other" are pro-abortion. It is never pro-abortion, it is pro-choice and it is not the same thing. It only means that the woman has the choice to decide what to do with her body. As you rightly said, taking away that choice may drive people to use illegal and potentially life-threatening means to terminate pregancies. I wish you are elected the President and do get to change the balance of the Supreme Court to being more woman-friendly.

Obama for President, 2008!

This issue is a very difficult one. I too don't like that it polarizes people. I like to think of myself as neither pro-life nor pro-choice, but instead as pro-planning. Rather than focus on abortion, how about focusing on getting young teens what they need to avoid the situation all together. As a christian, I am against needless killing. Who are we to play God? I am for the protection of women's right to choose as long as it isn't abused. They also choose to have unprotected sex. Does that give them right to terminate a life? In some situations abortion is necessary, but I don't agree with Mr Obama that all women really think about this choice with "heart-wrenching". Who's there to give a say for the unborn child?

Frank,
It would help, in general, if you would correct your spelling before posting a comment. And you should most certainly get the person's name right when you are attempting to criticize them for irrelevant and misinterpreted information.

Frank,
It would help, in general, if you would correct your spelling before posting a comment. And you should most certainly get the person's name right when you are attempting to criticize them for irrelevant and misinterpreted information.

oops. "..Mitt Romney for President 2008, Ya!"

just being "Audacious" but cautious. Ya.

Eeee Haaa , Praise The LORD!

You have my vote in 2008. Even as an atheist, I think you are a giant leap in the right direction. I think you see the better in the human race (something even I cannot do), without the naivety that usually follows. Also, as a male, I feel I have no right to the decisions a woman makes with her body - and will continue to vote for those who agree with me. I hope you do not have a change of heart, and thank you.