@dadugganagain

"We do know, since Roe v. Wade, they have increased rather dramatically during the Bush administration, as they had decreased during the Clinton administration."

Your statistics are wrong. According to the LA Times, abortions and the Guttmacher Institute, abortions are at their lowest SINCE 1974.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abortion24-2009jan24,0,2066278.story

"Moralistic rhetoric is obviously not as effective as good stewardship of the economy and the Constitution."

You discuss throughout your post the rights of women (a moral statement), yet here you speak as though you do not value moral rhetoric.

To those who claim it only matters whether the woman wants a child or not: What sort of a choice does the unborn child have with regard to its life?

Under what other circumstances does the law of a land let right to convenience of one individual override the right to life of another?

We do not have any laws which compel abortion. We do have a Constitution which finally (rather long after the Civil War) recognizes that women have rights and needs. They are not the possessions of men. Criminalizing a woman's moral choices will not make you or me a moral person, nor will leaving her alone to make her own moral choice (which is only legal under Roe v. Wade in the first term) make you or me a killer. There are no statistics available, obviously, for the number of abortions which occurred (legally with a doctor's recommendation for the health of a mother) before Roe v. Wade. We do know, since Roe v. Wade, they have increased rather dramatically during the Bush administration, as they had decreased during the Clinton administration. Moralistic rhetoric is obviously not as effective as good stewardship of the economy and the Constitution. Let's together try doing something effective to reduce abortions, including moral persuasion, working on health care reform, providing social (i.e. interpersonal) supports for families and single mothers, along with condemning the pro-active, pro-death (and torture)policies of the last administration, women, who are the only individuals who have abortions, here and over the world just might listen. God might even be impressed with our sincerity.

White House Press Release from today:

On the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, we are reminded that this decision not only protects women’s health and reproductive freedom, but stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters. I remain committed to protecting a woman’s right to choose.

While this is a sensitive and often divisive issue, no matter what our views, we are united in our determination to prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce the need for abortion, and support women and families in the choices they make. To accomplish these goals, we must work to find common ground to expand access to affordable contraception, accurate health information, and preventative services.

On this anniversary, we must also recommit ourselves more broadly to ensuring that our daughters have the same rights and opportunities as our sons: the chance to attain a world-class education; to have fulfilling careers in any industry; to be treated fairly and paid equally for their work; and to have no limits on their dreams. That is what I want for women everywhere.

@Paganplace
Question:Does morality exist in absolute terms? If so, what is it? How do you know? How does that morality relate to murder and persecution? When does a fetus become a human? How does the fetus/baby's rights compare to the woman carrying the baby? How does human equality apply then? Would you treat a fetus/baby with less care than you would a puppy?

@ all Bible quotes. There is context to consider. God commanded the Israelites to kill often because the atrocities committed by those cultures were THAT bad. As for the necessity of killing the children and mothers, this was necessary to prevent a resurgence of the same corruption.

Also, @Norriehoyt the verse quoted from Hosea 13. This was a message of judgment from God to Israel. As this time, Israel was involved in practices that included human sacrifice. It wasn't simply a matter of worshiping someone else, but also what resulted from that. Notice in that verse that it does not say that God Himself does this. Rather, the context of the verse seems to imply that as a result of their actions, Israel will have her children dashed into pieces and women torn open. In other words, if X happens (X being the sins Israel committed) then Y will be the result. It isn't as if God WANTED this to happen, this is simply what happens when a nation continues down a path that neglects life. It loses more life. This is what Lou is trying to say. We have not upheld the principles of life, but have disregarded them. As a result, without change, repentance, and a crying out for mercy, we will suffer by losing more life.

@CCNL:
I think that a publicly posted registration of those who have contracted an STD is a very poor idea. Privacy issues aside, this disclosure could affect a person's ability to get hired/current employment. Other societies have outcast systems, America should not be one of them. If one doesn't want to contract an STD one has several methods of prevention:
1.Use a condom
2. Save sex for commitment. I.e. Do not sleep around.
3. Abstain until marriage and get your partner tested.

Respect-for-lifers believe life begins a conception. Add to this the fundamental law of humankind of "Thou Shall Not Kill", then there is no other option than to oppose abortion no matter what pagans "et alers" have to say about it or what twisted thinking they come up with to appease their consciences.

Jesus, I plead your blood over my sins and the sins of my nation. God, end abortion and send revival to America!

If you haven't yet, watch the video on CatholicVote.com. It really seems to put things into perspective.

Good stuff, Lou!

Brandon

"The passing of FOCA would be an act of lawlessness in the highest degree and will only increase and magnify the tragedy of abortion to children, to mothers and society."

No, it wouldn't. It would be an act of *law,* recognizing the humanity and equality of *every* woman. It would be an act of ensuring that women aren't at the mercy of others to be forced to either the shame and stigma of Christian-dogmatic unwanted pregnancy, or of being treated as criminals because they couldn't bring another human into the world.

"We call on President Obama to listen to the voice of thousands of Christians who voted for him under the impression that he would make abortion rare. Live up to your word for the sake of America."

'Safe, legal, and rare,' come as a package.

If you want people to make what you believe is a 'moral choice,' you can't *back them into the corners of your scorn and dogmatism and ignorance about human sexuality.*

If you oppose contraception and the rights of women to choose what happens in our bodies, this ends up applying to *sex,* too.

You fight contraception and care for mothers and children, then complain about the increase in abortions after you've had your way.

You make rules like in Kansas where a rape victim not only has to get pregnant and carry a rapist's child to term, through denial of emergency contraception, but give the rapist paternal rights and access to her for eighteen years, ...then wonder why even less-dramatic circumstances lead to untenable pregnancies and abortions.

I have news for you, Christian. When women have a choice... A real choice, not being walled in between your shame and tabooes and restrictions and privations and 'punishments,'

...Given a *real* choice, women most often choose to birth a new human into our shared experience.

Claiming it's 'murder' to *not* produce a new human ....and then call it 'punishment for 'promiscuity' if you give her and baby a hard time... Well, maybe that's your religion, but don't speak for the rest of us. Including Christians who don't agree.

Abortion *will* and *does* become rarer when it *is* a choice. Not just as a matter of womens' human rights, but *practically.*

You may quote your Bible as though that means criminalizing abortion actually stops it.

Doesn't make it true.

Or what Lincoln said.

Well, kind of nice, except that what the Bible says, which you quoted, is *not, in fact* what Lincoln said.

The Bible quotes, in fact, seem to say the opposite of what Lincoln said. The Bible quotes say 'Blood for blood, forever, and no cleansing,' and Lincoln calls for healing and restitution.

In fact, it seems he was *rhetorically calling for people to understand that it's not 'God' who wills that every drop of blood from the lash be paid for by people shooting and stabbing each other.*

He said 'If.' I presume he wasn't hoping people would draw the conclusion that 'If' meant 'So may it be,'

I think he was suggesting that the Divine may, if we looked at things, be smarter than such passages as you quote, give 'him' credit for, and that in fact, the choice is and always has been *ours.*

" If what Lincoln came to conclude was true, and if 600,000 men died on the battlefields of the Civil War for the blood of slavery, what will it mean if God brings a day of reckoning for the shed blood of conservatively 48 million aborted babies since Roe v. Wade 1973?"

Apparently more terminated pregnancies, this time on behalf of the Lord:

"The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords." (Hosea 13:16 NLT)

Reality 101

Intercourse and other sexual activities are out of control in this country with on average one million abortions and 19 million cases of STDs per year in the USA alone. (CDC data)

from the CDC-2006

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

How in the world do we get this situation under control? A pill to temporarily eliminate the sex drive would be a good start. And teenagers and young adults must be constantly reminded of the dangers of sexual activity and that oral sex, birth control pills, and chastity belts are no protection against STDs. Even condoms if they are even used are not full/fool proof.

Might a list of those having a STD posted on the Internet help? Sounds good to me!!!! Said names would remain until the STD has been eliminated with verification by a doctor. Lists of sexual predators are on-line. Is there a difference between these individuals and those having a STD having sexual relations while infected???

WAPO:

Three anti-choice articles in two days with no contra views. Looks like the Post has an agenda.