I wrote, "Do you wish to do away with the United States of America and just the parts of it that don't suit you?"

It should have said, Do you wish to do away with the United States of America or just the parts of it that don't suit you?

GARAK

You wrote, "It's time to silence religion."

Do you wish to do away with the United States of America and just the parts of it that don't suit you?

There have been other countries in the world that had this as one of their main principles.

Take care, be ready.

Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.

We need to abort religion. The same people who rant about "the culture of life" gave us the culture of child molestation, the Holocaust, slavery, and the culture of ignorance. The Christians, not the Muslims, burned the Great Library of Alexandria. They silenced Galileo. They seek to silence biology. Religion is a threat to America and American values. No religion has the right to impose its views on others, including on issues of personal freedom.

It's time to silence religion. Taxing churches would be a good start.

Best Case Scenario

President Obama appoints Supreme Court Judges who decide to revisit Roe vs Wade.

They read the latest edition of human embryology.

Watch ultrasound videos of babies in the uterus

Videos of different abortion procedures at different stages of pregnancy

Ask embryologists, obstetricians and perinatal pediatricians to testify about the child in the womb.

They compare the laws of other countries which declared abortion unconstitutional while keeping it legal under certain circumstances and the positive effect of such ruling...

They admit that privacy law when the life of an innocent third party is involved is not applicable or constitutional, personhood cannot be applied arbitrarily when the child in the womb is given legal consideration as a person in inheritance laws and when harm is caused to the child by a third party without the consent of the mother...

Based on hard core medical science evidence, the Judges OVERTURN Roe vs Wade! The laws are returned to the states for tweaking.

Judges explain to President Obama that they must act in accordance with evidence, not based on promises made by a presidential candidate during an election campaign.

President Obama and VP Biden are happy with the outcome after all they would like the best for all concerned, most of all for defenseless and the weakest of all human beings, an unborn child.

Planned Parenthood lives with the decision just as tobacco companies have had to live with decisions not exactly in their favor.

Amen!

Arminius, abortions can never be made very very rare, not even with the toughest laws. Imagine then with abortion as a right and freely available.

Four thousand abortions per day, 1.2 million abortions per year, not high enough for you?

Only 30% of them are for economic reasons. Would a complete reduction of the 30% with social support make abortions very, very rare? Sixty two percent of 1.2 million is hardly very, very rare.

Said Arminius:

ME: Most of these countries have contraception readily available, plus sexual education. Go figure.

ME: So what? Make contraception readily available, plus education, and the number of abortions will drop like a rock off a cliff. Where is your brain?

The goal is to make abortions safe, legal, and very, very rare. If you oppose this, then you support just as many abortions and many, many more dead young women. Reality ain't black and white, dude. Many shades of gray. Let's all try to cut the deaths, not just knee-jerk to something that won't work.

_________________________________________

Comprehensive sex education and generous supply of contraceptives are made available in Europe. According to your theory that should bring the abortion level down to zero or at least somewhere near that. It hasn't. Tighter laws have played an important role.

Check the US statistics once again for percentage of abortions in spite of use of contraceptives. When abortion is easily and freely available people tend to get careless about the strict use of contraceptives (which does not give 100% protection anyway). The pro-abortion propaganda that that claims an unborn child is only a mass of cells does not motivate people to be extra careful in their use of contraceptives. Many young women are genuinely ignorant, (the links I posted are addressed to them) but others are willfully so, some others know but consider it their right to kill their unborn children for their convenience. There is a whole library of lies supporting that position.

Said Arminius:

ME: Most of these countries have contraception readily available, plus sexual education. Go figure.

ME: So what? Make contraception readily available, plus education, and the number of abortions will drop like a rock off a cliff. Where is your brain?

The goal is to make abortions safe, legal, and very, very rare. If you oppose this, then you support just as many abortions and many, many more dead young women. Reality ain't black and white, dude. Many shades of gray. Let's all try to cut the deaths, not just knee-jerk to something that won't work.

___________________________________________

Comprehensive sex educat

Arminius, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the co-founder of the abortion provider NARAL turned anti-abortion activist, the presenter of the well-known anti-abortion video, "The Silent Scream" allegedly admitted that figures concerning death of women after illegal abortions were cooked up to justify legal abortion.

The figures are bound to be false because death due to infection as in the pre-antibiotic days is not applicable for a long time now; most illegal abortions are done by medical doctors, not by untrained non-medical quacks.

Please view the video The Silent Scream by Dr Nathanson:

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek

ProLifeActivistBorn59,

My answers, under your statements.

YOU: 1.abortion statistics in West European countries, most of which have very good social support systems. Compare them with their abortion laws. Tougher laws have kept abortion rates lower. Clear examples, Ireland and Germany vs Sweden and UK.

ME: Most of these countries have contraception readily available, plus sexual education. Go figure.

YOU: 2. Look up abortion statistics of US; reasons for abortions, abortion rates pre sexual revolution vs pre Roe vs Wade vs post Roe vs Wade.

ME: So what? Make contraception readily available, plus education, and the number of abortions will drop like a rock off a cliff. Where is your brain?

YOU: 3. The US is NOT a third world country. Ninety eight percent of abortions are for convenience. Only 30% of women resort to abortion for economic reasons. Only 2-8% of abortions are "hard cases."

ME: See answer to #2.

The goal is to make abortions safe, legal, and very, very rare. If you oppose this, then you support just as many abortions and many, many more dead young women. Reality ain't black and white, dude. Many shades of gray. Let's all try to cut the deaths, not just knee-jerk to something that won't work.

The redistribution of wealth has already taken place several times since Ronald Reagan. The Republican policies siphon off public money into private hands.

This kind of redistribution is still taking place. The $4+ gas this past summer, the Halliburton's profiteering in the Iraq war, the bail out of big banks and large corporations, big bonuses for the CEOs of these companies at the same time they are taking the money from the taxpayers.

It is time for the reverse redistribution. No concentration of wealth in just few hands.

Arminius, if you are seriously about informing yourself thoroughly on this issue:

Look up the worldwide abortion statistics and other data. Link provided earlier. From the tables and information verify

1.abortion statistics in West European countries, most of which have very good social support systems. Compare them with their abortion laws. Tougher laws have kept abortion rates lower. Clear examples, Ireland and Germany vs Sweden and UK.

2. Look up abortion statistics of US; reasons for abortions, abortion rates pre sexual revolution vs pre Roe vs Wade vs post Roe vs Wade.

3. The US is NOT a third world country. Ninety eight percent of abortions are for convenience. Only 30% of women resort to abortion for economic reasons. Only 2-8% of abortions are "hard cases."

Since your Church teaches abortion is right, you tend to see no wrong.

There is a strong case against abortion based on hard core medical science and you will recognize it if you took the time to read the information provided on the links I have posted.

Well, let's face the facts. McWorse and the Trailer Trash of the Tundra do not have the necessary neurons to string together to realize that outlawing abortion will NOT make abortions go away, no, but will simply result in a great number of dead young women and an equal number of abortions.

Stupid, stupid.

Why, oh why, do not they see reality? Why do they not realize that Obama wants to lessen the death toll? Why do they not know that Obama wants to take care of kids after birth, when the 'pro-life' people simply want to abandon them on the streets and alleys?

To those who say abortion as a constitutional right cannot be wrong, NULONO, the pro-life atheist, had this response on 28 Oct 08:

“Let’s also not forget that, in 1850, there was no consensus in America for outlawing slavery or allowing women to vote. There was also a time when consensus was that the earth is flat. In fact, world history is littered with examples where “consensus” simply meant that most of the fools were on one side.”

If "pro-lifers" really gave a rip about saving babies, they'd be out there promoting maternal health care, ending birth defects, and trying to lower our abysmal infant mortality rate - which is on a par with Cuba's. But no. You people just care about fetuses before they're born. After the kid comes out, you're on your own.

From the website of Stanford Students for Life:

Links and Resources Menu

Resources

* Abortion Alternatives
* Partial Birth Abortion
* Pro-Life Action
* Pro-Life Feminism
* Resources for Pregnant Women
* Calendar for Life

Pro-Life Links

Abortion Alternatives

* Abortion alternatives directory
* Dr. Feelgood: Adoption as an Alternative
* National Life Center: Abortion Alternatives

Euthanasia

* Feminist Case Against Assisted Suicide
* Physicians Against Euthanasia

Feminism

* Feminists for Life
* Feminism and Nonviolence
* Pro-Life Feminism Pages
* Real Feminists Can Be Pro-Life
* Pro-Life Philosophy and Feminism

General

* Abort 73: Everything they don't want you to know
* Allies of Peace
* California Students for Life
* The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform (note: graphic images)
* Date Of Life Foundation
* Feminism and Nonviolence Studies Association
* Libertarians for Life
* Pro-Life, Pro-Children
* Priests For Life
* Pro-Lifers' Quiz
* Pro-Woman, Pro-Life
* Rock for Life
* Silent Voices
* Stop Fetal Tissue Research
* Ultimate Pro-Life Resource List

Partial Birth Abortion

* People for Life
* How can this be legal? (Warning: this site contains graphic pictures)
* The Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act

Pregnant Women Resources

* Community Pregnancy Centers
* Crisis Pregnancy Center Network
* Pregnancy Care Centers of San Mateo County
* America's Crisis Pregnancy Helpline (Counseling and information for women and men)
* Crisis Pregnancy Center of San Francisco
* Information for Pregnant Women
* Abortion Alternatives

Roe vs. Wade

* The Court Opinion in Roe v. Wade
* A profile on Jane Roe and HER CHANGE OF HEART
* Roe v. Wade Information

Scientific and Medical View

* Medical Facts
* Scientific Fetal Development

Women's Health and Abortion

* After Effects of Abortion
* Is Abortion Safe?
* Physical Complications of Abortion
* Project Rachel -- Post-Abortion Syndrome
* Psychological Consequences of Abortion

http://www.stanford.edu/group/ssfl/

All the pro-abortionists arguments made here have been discussed at length in essays posted on the links I have provided. The links are meant to inform those who are still open to learn. It is well known that many have hardened positions on the issue and are beyond reach.

Here from the links posted earlier:

http://www.abort73.com/

Check other links posted on the Princeton Pro-Life website (under links menu)

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/

AbortionFacts.com
American Life League
Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League
Democrats for Life
Do No Harm: The Coalition of Americans for Research Ethics
Feminists for Life
Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians
Human Life International
Libertarians for Life
Life Education and Resource Network
LifeNews.com
March for Life
National Right to Life Committee
New Jersey Right to Life
Priests for Life
Pro-Life America
Pro-Woman, Pro-Life
Rock for Life
RoevWade.org
We Vote Pro-life
Women Deserve Better
World Youth Alliance

On Princeton Pro-Life website, links under College Organizations:

College Pro-Life Organizations

Berkeley Students for Life
Brown Students for Life
Pro-Life UChicago
Columbia Catholics for Life
Cornell Coalition for Life
Dartmouth Coalition for Life
Georgetown University Right to Life
Harvard Right to Life
Johns Hopkins University Voice for Life
MIT Pro-Life
Students for Life at NYU
Penn for Life
Stanford Students for Life

American Collegians for Life
Ivy League Coalition for Life

University Faculty for Life

It's ultimately about reproductive choice and the freedom over one's body, which is why religious groups object so vehemently. Anything position other than pro-choice is essentially turning a human female into a mere baby-making machine. Churches have not yet forgotten the days when they were able to use state power to enforce their dictates. The pathetic vestiges of this collusion of power are still evident today, in their attempts to limit contraception, teaching evolution in schools, and exempting themselves from taxes. Anti-choice activists want to be able to control your life so that it conforms to their standards. Point blank.

I'll reiterate- you're parroting the conservative right wing christian position- innuendo, hyperbole, misinformation. the majority of people in this country have been polled over and over again for choice. Planned Parenthood does not promote abortion, it is one of a number of options they give. As for his voting record- read about it on fact checker, not the GOP website. I guarantee they have a biased viewpoint.

Under McCain/Palin, even a woman who is raped or a victim of incest will be forced to have a baby. That is uncivilized behavior for any civilization that believes in human rights. Your whole premise is based on the erroneous idea that a human being is created full blown at the moment of conception. that is not supported in biology, legality or constitutionality.

"The fact is women have abortions because it is is easy and they don't care about the baby. " Only an ignorant, misogynist man would make an incredibly stupid statement like that.

I think I know what I am talking about. Obama has the most liberal voting record ever. He has never supported anything that would limit abortions. He even voted against a measure 3 times that would prevent infaticide when Nancy Peloci said everyone should vote for this and the entire US senate did. He has said he wouldn't want to punish his child with a baby.

He has also vowed to spend more at Planned Parenthood. This organization is just a front for abortion clinics. Women who go there have 90% + chance of having abortions. Alternative crisis pregnacy centers will be cut by Obama. Often Planned Parenthood will allow girls abortions without consent of parents and when crossing state lines. How will this stop abortions. This is abortion on demand.

We don't even need to get into the whole Partial Birth abortion since that's just obvious.

If you are thinking that giving single mothers more welfare will help, you need to find some proof. Besides the fact they already get quite a bit and there are numerous organizations helping them, there has never been proof that money is the issue. People have abortions despite their economic circumstances. Abortion isn't an economic issue, it's a moral one (even Obama admits that). There is no proof giving money to potential mothers prevents abortions. The fact is women have abortions because it is is easy and they don't care about the baby. Under Obama it will be easier and in many cases free for the mother. There is no way this will prevent abortions.

I still would like to know if this is what people really want.

kert1- yo obviously haven't been reading the news. Obama is the candidate who advocated not only choice, but a policy of education and alternatives to lower the number of abortions. NOT McCain/Palin- Obama.

I don't care if you don't agree with him and don't want to vote for him, but at least know what you're talking about.

Well, this seems to be a pretty accurate picture of what Obama wants to do to promote abortion. It might be safe but it won't be rare when all money will be going to support abortions and not alternatives.

My only question to people is "Is this what you want and why?"

Against abortion? Don't have one.

I did read it and I disagree that a growing mass of cells is a child or a human being with full rights from the moment of conception. At a certain point in its development it becomes one - but to define it as a human being at this point is again a religious position, one which I do not hold. None of the biology proves your philosophical point.

To claim it is life is to be disengenuous because all the cells in the mother are alive. And as you say, the cells embed in the wall of the womb- making them part of that organ, not a separate being at that point. You still haven't said anything other than to point out the "potential" to become a human being that proves a zygote deserves more rights over a woman.

And what about cases of rape or incest, where you could give a victim a morning after pill, to prevent the zygote from developing at all? Rape is considered a heinous crime, in some cases it was punishable by death. what civilized society would force further trauma and pain on a woman who has been raped or a victim of incest? And you think abortion is uncivilized?

The Hyde Amendment has survived since 1977, and has survived Democratic Congresses and Presidents. Please stop the scare tactics. Perhaps you should put your efforts into providing such things as child care, providing worker protection for pregnant mothers, practical sex education, parenting classes and other pro-life issues that actually help people. Scaring people with byzantine legislative scenarios is not responsible or helpful. First of all, Medicaid is a state-federal partnership, and many states who disagree with the Hyde amendment use their own money for this very rare service. The real way to stop abortion is to make the choice no woman would ever choose, the way to do that is to celebrate life and make it affordable. If it's easy to have a child, even out of wedlock, then no one would choose abortion, and instead would either raise their baby or put it up for adoption. It sounds simple, and I know it's not, but prohibitions have consequences and everyone should acknowledge that.

There is every medical reason to protect the unborn child.

A zygote IS a one celled human being. That is how all human life begins. By the time the woman even suspects pregnancy, the one celled human being is no longer a one celled human: it is at least two weeks old, fully embedded in its mother's uterus, the mother's cells are providing nutrition and oxygen for the growing child, removing the waste products of the child through her own blood stream, and the growing child is producing its own hormones which gives the positive pregnancy test.

At birth only the environment of the growing child changes. It continues to growIts need for oxygen and nutrients remain. More needs are added for its proper growth and development. It is far from able to take care of itself or even protect its own life.

SPARROW4:

Yes, it is. But there is no scientific/medical reason to give a zygote full human rights. Yours is a philosophical and religious position.

October 29, 2008 12:23 AM

__________________________________________

Medical science is about protecting, healing and keeping the PHYSICAL body alive.

Read the mission statement of Canadian Physicians for Life on their website (link provided in an earlier post) if you need further confirmation.

"The single celled zygote is the beginning of every human being. It develops at its genetically predetermined pace for nine months in its mother's womb and continues to grow after birth."

Yes, it is. But there is no scientific/medical reason to give a zygote full human rights. Yours is a philosophical and religious position.

My 1 year old son isn't viable unless I open his jars of baby food.

Since various religious groups seem to have different teachings on the value of human life in the womb, it is essential to look to one uniform source that is based on empirical evidence - medical science. The single celled zygote is the beginning of every human being. It develops at its genetically predetermined pace for nine months in its mother's womb and continues to grow after birth.

Theories about ensoulment is irrelevant to the issue of abortion. The soul is eternal and is not killed in abortion, infanticide, homicide, euthanasia or suicide. Only a living body is deprived of its life.

BTW, my pro-life stance is based on my concern for human rights of the unborn child and founded on hard core medical science. I do not belong to any political party.

More high quality pro-life information:

Physicians for Life:

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/

Canadian Physicians for Life:

... affirming the Hippocratic tradition in medicine of “Do No Harm”

Statement of Principle

1. Reverence for every human life, regardless of age or infirmity, lies at the root of all medical tradition and is basic to accepted standards of human conduct and our tradition of justice.

2. The long and honourable ethical tradition of medical sciences through the ages has been expressed and protected by the oath of Hippocrates. This tradition, rephrased in modern terms in the Declaration of Geneva (1948) must be our guide. The Declaration of Geneva says, in part: “I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity.” We reaffirm this Declaration.

3. The International Medical Declaration (Lejeune, 1973) addresses itself more specifically to the abuse of abortion, eugenics and euthanasia. Conscious that human life begins at conception, we hold that to directly cause the death of a human being, at any stage in life, because of physical or mental disabilities, or for social, economic, ecological or eugenic reasons, is a gross injustice to the person, degrading to humanity, and contradictory to the role of the physician.

4. A physician must recognize that there are two patients in every pregnancy and that he/she bears the medical responsibility for the lives of both the mother and her unborn child.

5. It must be the goal of medical science and its practitioners to preserve and protect human life, to relieve suffering and to promote healing

http://www.physiciansforlife.ca/html/position/

For high quality pro-Life essays:

Princeton Pro-Life

http://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/

Worldwide abortion statistics and other data compiled and regularly updated by William Robert Johnston:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/index.html

A pro-life atheist wrote:

I just wanted you all to know that we exist. It was terribly offended by being accused of being religious...

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/
http://www.l4l.org/

"Or is that too 'socialist' for your morals? "

paganplace- are you implying this political hack actually has morals?? You give her far more credit than I would. Why she is allowed to even post here I don't know- this is just inappropriate for On faith, and is just a hatchet job disguised as a commentary on abortion.

Don't you just love people who will do anything to destroy their opponent, even ignoring the collateral damage they inflict? Well, that's Dorry. You betcha!

"When Barack Obama admitted to Joe the Plumber that he planned on spreading the wealth around, he didn't mention that the tax dollars he will take from you will be used to pay for elective abortions for others."

Oh, give me a break. 'Joe The Plumber' is a fraud in the first place, ...not a registered voter, heir to the S&L scandal, and not in line for the 'tax hike' McCain insists to our faces he would be subject to, despite the fact it's *just not true* even if he *did* hypothetically buy a small business, and magically start clearing a quarter million dollars a year without providing health care.

Hyperbole about 'elective abortions' doesn't even hit the radar. Not when McCain wants to cancel all Medicare and then say, 'Here's seventy-five hundred dollars, buy twelve grand of insurance for each member of your family, if 'Joe the Plumber' pays you that much when he employs a mother in his hypothetical business. '

Seriously.

This is some kind of smear.

You don't want to see abortions, look at the circumstances you expect mothers to subject prospective kids to.

Or is that too 'socialist' for your morals?