Christians Should be Pro-Life, Non-Partisan

At least I am trying to be a nice cop..... but I am only a man, an outsider.

I am thinking we don't need the same kind of stereotypical Christian bad cop on the beat when a woman is in a crisis. We need a crisis negotiator. Preferably a woman who has been there.......

I know it is sort of like the pro-choicers are holding themselves hostage, but when a suicidal person is holding a gun to his own head, a police officer will waste valuable time trying to save that person's life. Every crisis pregnancy is like a hostage situation for one life. Take away Roe v. Wade and you've got a hostage situation for two.

I rememeber my demography textbook Population by John Weeks off the top of my head (I saved the text and I have it at home). About half the beds in a maternity hospital in Bogota Colombia are filled by women who have had illegal abortions.

As a sociologist I have studied human collective behavior.

Now hypothetically we take away Roe v. Wade what do American women of childbearing age do?
a. compliantly carry their babies to term and bear them
b. try to kill a substantial majority of their babies, and end up killing a substantial number of the babies and an unknown number of themselves

Based on Bogota, I'd say b. I am beginning to think the American Experience was not merely a propaganda campaign.

I know a lot of politically active pro-lifers like you can't believe it, but you would incredulously ask, "so a lot of Christians otherwise sympathetic to pro-life are paralyzed against substantial action for the fear of what women might do in response?"

Uh, yes.

Sociology does tend to show that people don't just sit and take it like you want them to.

Maybe people who get married for the first time in their forties can laugh at the suckers who married younger.

1. They are more mature. They can deal with the fact that they are getting older. They can probably avoid needing to replace their spouse to avoid dealing with the fact they are getting older.
They can probably handle money better, and probably earn more because they have worked longer, and have a better chance to have attained more education with increasing age.
They probably have wisdom from learning from their mistakes. They probably have less energy to make mistakes so they are motivated to make less mistakes. Certainly the prefrontal cortex lobe (to estimate consequences of present actions) was developed long ago.

"I have less wisdom to avoid mistakes but the energy to keep making them." a quote I made from age 22.

2. Birth control, kids, and abortion might be or become a non-issue.

I was a little down at the 20 year high school reunion being a never-tried, but I did ask a woman and was satisfied smugly with the answer, "am I a better would-be husband today at 38 than I might have been decades earlier?"

I guess a lot of men who get older and divorce their wives and marry younger women can't handle the fact that THEY are the ones getting older.

A man can avoid looking in a mirror but he cannot avoid looking at his wife. And if she cannot avoid aging and if he can't accept accept that he has to replace her doesn't he?

Those men are going to stay young forever, live forever. They can't face their own mortality.

It isn't fair to her in any case to keep replacing her with endless numbers of wives of childbearing age.

Which brings us back to the abortion issue.

DanielintheLionsDen:

ProLifeActivistBorn59 :

You are a pest and heckle people to gain brownie points with Christ without actually having to do anything worthwhile,nor experience any kind of suffering such as Christ experienced. You have heckeled this thread plenty; you've done your duty; you can sleep easily and soundly; Jesus will save you.

What a Christian!

November 4, 2008 10:04 PM

____________________________________________

That is what activism is about. Got problems with the fact that some people take their right to free speech literally? Some people have ideals that are different from yours...got a problem with that?

ProLifeActivistBorn59 :

You are a pest and heckle people to gain brownie points with Christ without actually having to do anything worthwhile,nor experience any kind of suffering such as Christ experienced. You have heckeled this thread plenty; you've done your duty; you can sleep easily and soundly; Jesus will save you.

What a Christian!

cmarshdtihqcom:

My dad, well before he died, suggested something, moreover, about the attitudes of married women. Married women may feel threatened by the behavior of single women: the married women have an beneficial emotional and economic arrangement for them and their children based on the proper behavior of men and women. If other women behave improperly their husbands may also behave improperly and they may lose their hard won rights. Dad described it as a union, albeit a union bound by tradition and religion rather than by collective action. Does this further add any explanation to why society feels this vindictiveness toward the pro-choice woman, especially one who isn't married?

November 4, 2008 4:08 PM

_________________________________________

You make a really vital point there.

The very same pro-abortionist woman may not find it amusing when pro-abortionist single women go for her husband when she is married, without caring for her rights and the needs of her children. She may not be amused when she reaches middle age, when her pro-abortionist husband seeks out pro-abortionist younger women.

A woman who did not even care for the right of her own defenseless child to its very life has no moral leg to stand on - to expect another woman to care for her happiness in marriage and the welfare of her children.

Sadly pro-abortionists are so short sighted.

cmarshdtihqcom:

I think Sparrow's "punishing women for having sex" theory needs more consideration. I don't know how it applies to female Christians but it seems to neatly apply to many male Christians who are chaste for lack of opportunity. I can tell you how much rejection hurts and all, and maybe when I was nineteen and all, when I had a cold attitude toward pro-life (watching a CBS drama involving an abortion made me wonder, over and done with so easy, and I made a cartoon about a baby with a gun with the caption, sex is not a toy either), maybe I was actually pro-life partly in anger and not entirely on principle. Now I age 38 (or 19 plus 19) and I feel I have evolved vastly in compassion. The TRUTH is, I wasn't REALLY a born again Christian until AGE 22 TO 23.

Have your principle, yes, but not without compassion.

And never use your principle as a weapon, consciously or unconsciously.

November 4, 2008 10:30 AM

__________________________________________________

Here something to consider:

1. Prolife groups are not discussing sexual morals or contraception. They are discussing ONLY the evil of abortion and are providing scientific evidence for their claim that human life begins at conception, that a zygote is a one celled unique human being in the process of continuous development. A new born baby is an adult in development. One doesn't kill an infant (and get away with it) on the grounds it is not an adult on the day it is born. But that is the insane argument put forward by pro-abortionists: a child in the womb must have reached a certain stage of development (determined by law) before it has a right to its life.

2. Married women abort children too, although the vast majority (88%) are unmarried. No prolife activist claims that aborting a child within marriage is right. That would be the case, if prolife activists are objecting to abortion on the basis of morality.

The consequence of sexual im/morality on the society is a separate issue, but that is not the focus of anti-abortion activists. One in four young women suffer from STD, one in two marriages break up, many women end up living alone once they reach middle age, when men are looking for younger women, single motherhood is almost the norm. Children do not get to know their fathers, have only a stressed out (with earning a living and seeking sexual partners and dealing with breakups) mother caring for them, they are exposed to many non-biological males which increases the risk of sexual abuse of children, and inability to bond because they know only fleeting relationships in their lives.

My dad, well before he died, suggested something, moreover, about the attitudes of married women. Married women may feel threatened by the behavior of single women: the married women have an beneficial emotional and economic arrangement for them and their children based on the proper behavior of men and women. If other women behave improperly their husbands may also behave improperly and they may lose their hard won rights. Dad described it as a union, albeit a union bound by tradition and religion rather than by collective action. Does this further add any explanation to why society feels this vindictiveness toward the pro-choice woman, especially one who isn't married?

And in summary, we have these important rules that have evolved over 60,000 years of human history:

"Thou Shalt Not Kill"

"Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery"

"Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife/Husband"

Let me ask a possible theory Sparrow on the reason other women may hate women who have sex and have abortions. I take it the women are oftentimes waiting until they are married. It is like people who diet watching someone pig out. Dieters sort of hate bingers because the dieters are denying themselves, the dieters are not happy, and the bingers are happy. Do the pro-life Christian single abstainers want their non-abstaining sisters to get "what they have coming?"

Does this make sense Sparrow?

I wish to clarify what I meant. In my first year of college, I did not exist to women beyond being their classmate. In my second year I made friends with one. In my third and fourth years I made friends with few dozen.

As an adult male with Asperger syndrome it seems incredible to my peers I have attained even that.

But I don't have the Colonel's secret recipe. I am surrounded by friends and peers (all presumably neurotypical) who are married who can cook Kentucky Fried Chicken, and I can't. I don't have the secret recipe. I am missing one of the ingredients and I don't know what it is.

There is a difference between woman friend and romantic woman.

I think Sparrow's "punishing women for having sex" theory needs more consideration. I don't know how it applies to female Christians but it seems to neatly apply to many male Christians who are chaste for lack of opportunity. I can tell you how much rejection hurts and all, and maybe when I was nineteen and all, when I had a cold attitude toward pro-life (watching a CBS drama involving an abortion made me wonder, over and done with so easy, and I made a cartoon about a baby with a gun with the caption, sex is not a toy either), maybe I was actually pro-life partly in anger and not entirely on principle. Now I age 38 (or 19 plus 19) and I feel I have evolved vastly in compassion. The TRUTH is, I wasn't REALLY a born again Christian until AGE 22 TO 23.

Have your principle, yes, but not without compassion.

And never use your principle as a weapon, consciously or unconsciously.

Although I also can imagine what it must be like to have no parents to love you. My parents are dead. But at least I had them and knew them until age 26 and age 32, respectively. I know Mom loved me, and I have faith that Dad loved me in ways he could not show, although he was in the difficult position of asking me to get a job and move out when I could not even get a job interview (much less even pass one until years later).

For the good of the child, not every adult should be a parent. Some are abusive, others irresponsible, some simply incompetent. If a woman dies and the daddy is a child molester you'd leave baby with daddy? Or if mommy is Sybil Dorset's schizophrenic sexually abusive mother?

Of course their money is always welcome to help raise the kid.

In my observation, though, my fellow Christians prefer their own curtain climbers to someone else's. I pray that will change, mostly for ecological footprint reasons.

"What we are expecting to hear next from pro-abortionists are:

If you don't take care of my sick child, grandmother, partner or whatever, we are going to KILL them!"

Yes- hysterical, shrieking, over the top, imbecilic - I think that covers it. You do know all caps is considered screaming (and rude?)

Pro-choice people take responsibility - just not the way you want them too. for many women birth control and an abortion is taking responsibility for what they feel they can or can't do. You basically want to punish a woman for being sexually active, no matter how she got pregnant. Accidentally, by rape or by incest. while you can blithely call it a matter of convenience for the woman, I assure you for the vast majority of women who choose to abort it is a matter of anguish and much thought. So in addition to wailing over fertilized eggs in someone else's womb, what have you ever done for the newborns of poor, unwed mothers? What have you ever done to help soldiers coming home from Iraq? What community organizing have you done to promote sex education and the prevention of pregnancy?

Screeching like a banshee wailing innocent unborn babies for every egg and zygote does nothing for you. Anti-choicers would impose basically involuntary servitude on women, and move on from zygote to zygote, taking no responsibility for the babies already born.

Make that:

"If you don't take care of my "inconvenient" child, partner, grandmother or whatever, we are going to kill them! We retract the "personhood" granted to them at birth for the following reasons..."

SPARROW4:

From the dawn of human history, parents considered it their responsibility to take care of their own children. The society expected them to.

The government giving a helping hand is a modern development, and such government help is not available in the poorest countries where people need it most.

What we are expecting to hear next from pro-abortionists are:

If you don't take care of my sick child, grandmother, partner or whatever, we are going to KILL them!

Unless of course pro-abortionists are teaching their children that it their right to do whatever they want, but others have the responsibility to pick up the pieces, even be killed as the helpless children in the womb.

I DON'T HEAR A THUNDEROUS CRY FROM PRO-ABORTIONISTS SAYING:

WE WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR SEXUAL ACTIONS WITHOUT RESORTING TO KILLING INNOCENT, DEFENSELESS CHILDREN WE HAVE CONCEIVED!

SPARROW4:

I DON'T HEAR PRO-ABORTIONISTS SCREAMING WE WILL EXERCISE OUR CHOICE

BEFORE

AN INNOCENT CHILD IS CONCEIVED.

WE WILL TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR SEXUAL ACTIONS WITHOUT RESORTING TO KILLING AN INNOCENT, DEFENSELESS CHILD.

WE WILL STOP EXPECTING OTHERS TO TAKE CARE OF OUR CHILDREN WHILE IN THE SAME BREATH DEMANDING OUR RIGHT TO HAVE SEX WITHOUT RESTRICTION.

AS PARENTS OF THE CHILDREN WE CONCEIVE WE WILL BEHAVE LIKE ADULTS AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR OUR ACTIONS, AFTER ALL THAT IS WHAT WE TEACH OUR CHILDREN ALL THE TIME - TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS.

"WHEN THAT DAY DAWNS, WHEN HUMANS ONCE AGAIN UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE IN THE WOMB, THE PRO-ABORTIONIST CENTURY WILL BE LOOKED UPON AS THE AGE OF GENOCIDE OF UNBORN DEFENSELESS HUMAN BEINGS IN THE NAME OF CHOICE, MUCH LIKE THE AGE OF CHILD SACRIFICE OF SOME ANCIENT RELIGIONS."

I prefer that people understand the value of human life outside the womb- until then anti-choice activists are like empty cribs.

And I'd respect your position more if your and your friends offered to adopt or place every infant you forced a woman to bear. Hmmm.... I don't hear the thunderous "we Will!" I should be hearing.

When you say, short term slavery is better than removing an already-growing human life from the future, do it with a heart.

Sociology professors and students tend not to believe that poor people are poor because of "laziness". Financial wealth and power (either political, or in a managerial role in a job) are very closely correlated. The people who cut the cake serve themselves first. You don't suppose they are going to be fair and cut it more equally, or let other people make suggestions about how better to cut the cake? Of course not! The cake is just too good, who wants to share?

Actually it seems they have been cutting their pieces bigger over the last few decades if anything.

Chris Marsh, M.A., sociology

Amen to the post by dogsrule1! You are bring further sense to this debate!

Those of you who simply view voting for president as choosing the most "pro life" candidate are clueless about the rest of the world and what goes on around you. Get out of your bubble!

dogsrule1 said:
"You're telling me to vote for the candidate most committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER PLAN TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF WOMEN AS WELL, and think that I've done my duty as a Christian?

You're saying I can go to bed at night, knowing that I voted for the "pro-life" candidate, when that person can also believe that poor people are poor because of their own laziness and therefore deserve only condemnation? That the war in Iraq that kills thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians is somehow just? That the government killing a felon somehow takes away guilt and pain?

The time for these simplistic statements of "pro-life = Christian" is OVER. You need to come to this party with more. More real answers. More real solutions.

Here's a quarter. Go buy yourself some credibility."

I fully agree with everything you said dogsrule1!

Mr. McCain, Mr. Bush, Mr. Reagan..... they all have one thing in common other than pro-life, they pay back their rich friends first before they run the country.

Their rich friends lobby so hard that legislators don't listen to average people like me.

I am not rich.

You keep listening to the pro-life stuff Republicans dribble while they run this country on behalf of the wealthy and jack up our national debt for all of us. But if the rich split when taxes go really high to pay the piper, it will just be us average people left.

We need to take back this country from the few who run it, unplug their money machine from democracy.

New Century
New Values
New Urgency

Not The Old Kind of Presidential Race

Vote Obama/Biden for a New Tomorrow!

In fact, I respect compassion, and I've seen it from non-Christians and disillusioned ex-Christians too.

I know I have become more even handedly compassionate since the age of 19. I once could have said, coldly, well, short-term slavery is better than murder. Now I can maybe appreciate each one better.

I don't really think I am going to help anyone in a crisis. I am a man and a woman would be preferable, especially one who had an abortion.

But if any person is going to help a woman and her baby make it through to birth, he or she had better have compassion.

Compassionate Christians get my respect. I've tried to follow the example of one or more.

prolifeactivistborn - stuff and nonsense. The global population is exploding, and in all the wrong places. The world is unable to take adequate care of the living - outside of the West, much of the world lives in abject poverty.

Birth control and sex education is absent in many of the poverty-stricken parts of the world with high birth & infant mortality rates....the USA has an abysmal infant mortality rate on the world scale, ranking 17th or possibly lower.

The Catholic Church refuses to sponsor sex education and the widespread use of conventional birth control methods as part of it's zealous ministry to convert the poor of the world to Catholicism - it's apparently all about numbers.

While no one denies the charitable work done by various religious organizations, including the Catholic Church, changing self-destructive behaviors and it's consequences among the poor should include the inculcation of prudent sexual behavior via appropriate education and provision of simple and effective birth control methods.

Until the Church changes it's philosophical stance on these issues, the official Vatican position on abortion carries little or no weight in the larger/global scheme of things - much less here in the USA.

Real problems require real/practical solutions - spouting personal ethics and moralizing all the live long day has little or no impact in the real world.

In Poland all Pro-Life groups band together to organize joint anti-abortion education and events, addition to their individual work.

A suggestion here:

http://www.40daysforlife.com/splash.cfm

WHEN THAT DAY DAWNS, WHEN HUMANS ONCE AGAIN UNDERSTAND THE VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE IN THE WOMB, THE PRO-ABORTIONIST CENTURY WILL BE LOOKED UPON AS THE AGE OF GENOCIDE OF UNBORN DEFENSELESS HUMAN BEINGS IN THE NAME OF CHOICE, MUCH LIKE THE AGE OF CHILD SACRIFICE OF SOME ANCIENT RELIGIONS.

AN ANTI-ABORTION ATTITUDE REQUIRES

1. KNOWLEDGE OF HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY AND

2. COMPASSION FOR THE INNOCENT & DEFENSELESS.

Hopefully the persistent work done by anti-abortion activists on the YOUNG, open to learning scientific facts about the life of the unborn child, still capable of developing compassion for the unborn...will produce, in the near or distant future, a generation which will look back at this current generation of "abortion-as-a-right" with as much "respect" as people currently look back on the generation of slave owners.

Hopefully prolifeactivistborn is coming at this issue as a woman and even more ideally, a mother -otherwise this position (now pasted throughout the blog) is simply more strident rhetoric from fundamentalist males that more or less wish to control the pro-life/pro-choice discussion from an angle of legal and moral/religious control.

If there were in fact such as thing as 'natural law', a woman's inviolable right to determine her own reproductive processes and destiny would be the epitome of that 'law'.

Males are certainly entitled to their input (no pun intended) but the days of men controlling human biological reproduction are long over - in the USA and the educated West. Not so in more 'primitive' societies elswhere, unfortunately.

As an example of religion doing nothing at the societal level to reduce the abortion rate, the orthodox Catholic Church is an exemplar - it vilifies conventional birth control methods and generally takes an absolutist stand against abortion in all cases, even to save the life of the mother.

It's no wonder Catholics are completely divided on this issue - some folks are actually able to think for themselves in important matters of personal consequence, and do so regardless of official Church doctrines to the contrary.

Roe v Wade will stand - regardless of who may be elected. This legal right will and should remain, regardless the amount of praying that we see well-advertised in the news today.

ProLifActivistBorn59
I respect your convictions but I'm not sure another Republican administration is the best way to end abortion. Bush and company have been vocal in giving lip service to pro-life concerns, but have pushed a harsh, anti-family agenda. If ending abortion is your aim, rather than punishing women for being sexually active, I would hope that you persuasively urge your representatives (of either party) to help create a society where pregnancy is seen as a blessing rather than a tragedy.

I will not tell you who to vote for, because that would be disrespectful. Please allow the same respect to those of us who differ with you on the best means to protect the unborn. If you prefer to go the legislative route that is your right. I prefer to address the needs and sorrows of both mother and child -- and by the way, those babies have fathers, too.

"Understanding the atrocity of abortion requires a little more than the ability to swallow glib pro-abortion propaganda.

So it is not surprising my comments make no sense to you at this stage. Maybe someday your consciousness will be ready to look at the issue from the perspective of the innocent, defenseless unborn child. Maybe not."

And maybe someday you'll see your no abortion stance for what it really-a way to disenfranchise women by taking away their rights, and demeaning them by insisting they be treated as nothing more than incubators. And if you're really lucky, you'll even learn how to stop confusing biology with religion.

ViejitaDelOeste:

Again, the question is not whether the unborn child is human. The question is whether we elect those who will perpetuate a society that is hostile to the needs of families and children purely because they give lip service to the cause of making abortion a criminal act. Has abortion become less common under Bush?

November 1, 2008 3:20 PM

____________________________________________

The link to worldwide abortion statistics compiled and regularly updated by William Robert Johnston has been posted earlier. You can study and compare all sorts of interesting things. I have provided some of my own analysis on this forum.

The idea is to overturn Roe vs Wade, so that the concept of abortion as a constitutional right, which completely ignores the existence of the child in the womb, disappears. Abortion can remain legal under certain circumstances. Currently 92-98% of abortions are for convenience. The growing child has been deprived of its humanity in the name of choice. That is evil.

SPARROW4:

Understanding the atrocity of abortion requires a little more than the ability to swallow glib pro-abortion propaganda.

So it is not surprising my comments make no sense to you at this stage. Maybe someday your consciousness will be ready to look at the issue from the perspective of the innocent, defenseless unborn child. Maybe not.

Yup- blathering. Can't put 2 logical thoughts together.

prolifer:"The FOUR THOUSAND OR MORE unborn children being killed in their mother's womb in the name of "choice," every single day, can't tell the difference between Nazism, Communism and Democracy;" No they can't because a mass of cells is not sentient, and not educated. In fact there are adults who can'ttell the differnce- you being one of them.
----------
"But why on earth should a forced abortion under the Nazis or Communists feel different to the mother? According to a pro-abortionist mother there is only a "clump of cells" and a "future human being," remember? Why should the state not express its right over her body, just as she exercises her right over the body of her unborn child? The state is kinder towards her than she is to her own child! The state doesn't kill her, only has her "clump of cells" and a "future human being" removed."

And this is totally unreadable. especially the last 2 sentences- word salad, mentally incompetent blather. (PS- the state has no rights over a woman's body. You might like to think so, but slavery is illegal and unconstitutional. even if you want to use a fetus as your excuse to reinstate it.)

You're unintelligible,and boring. Post away- I'm done wasting time on you. Yawn.

SPARROW4:

Your arguments are based on pro-abortionist propaganda and lies.

Come back and read the information available on the links I have provided. But get a small spoonful of compassion for the unborn child first. And be open to learning real science.

SPARROW4:

So you can't tell the difference between Nazism, Communism and Democracy now? Well, I rest my case. Thank you for proving that so-called pro-lifers are unable to discern the difference between the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Mein Kampf. Or somehow you actually equate them- Yeah- there's a jaw dropper. (Do you want to talk about parthenogenesis again, great genius?)

November 1, 2008 4:39 PM

______________________________________________

The FOUR THOUSAND OR MORE unborn children being killed in their mother's womb in the name of "choice," every single day, can't tell the difference between Nazism, Communism and Democracy; neither can they discern the difference between the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Mein Kampf. What they do get to know without a voice to express it, is that it doesn't matter whether they are killed in the name of Communism, Nazism or Democracy and whether the abortionist and its mother, who employed the abortionist to kill it, really understood the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and Mein Kampf.

Now that is a jaw dropper if you are trying to say that death feels different to the unborn child depending on the political affiliation of its mother and abortionist.

But why on earth should a forced abortion under the Nazis or Communists feel different to the mother? According to a pro-abortionist mother there is only a "clump of cells" and a "future human being," remember? Why should the state not express its right over her body, just as she exercises her right over the body of her unborn child? The state is kinder towards her than she is to her own child! The state doesn't kill her, only has her "clump of cells" and a "future human being" removed.

A jaw dropping contradiction if a pro-abortion woman chooses to use double standards and calls the state unfair.

Prolifer- come talk to me when you get your knowledge of embryology from someplace other than wiki.

And when you get a real understanding of what being pro life means. (Hint: it's not you ranting and raving and drooling over pictures of fetuses).

I'm done. You've gone beyond being ignorant and amusing into hysterical, repetitious and boring.

Ten Things You Can Do to Save Babies this Year

http://www.rockforlife.org/action_10thingsatschool.php

http://www.rockforlife.org/action_10ThingsToSaveBabies.php

Even a "Raving Atheist" can be Pro-Life - Interview

Your blog examines "how religious devotion trivializes American law and politics". How do you think that applies to the abortion debate in America?

In the late 1960's the pro-choice movement made a deliberate, strategic decision to trivialize the abortion debate by dismissing all pro-life arguments as mere Catholic dogma. This made it easy to gloss over the inconvenient, undeniable scientific embryological fact that human life begins at conception in favor of specious arguments regarding church/state separation and accusation that religion "is being forced down our throats." Planned Parenthood today still insists that the question of when life begins is a religious one which varies from woman to woman, apparently mind-dependent rather than reality-dependent. They do draw the line at the old Mayan practice of throwing infants into volcanos, although I don't see why, under their theory, that wouldn't be a protected exercise of religion as well.

...

I think most people now view abortion as a straight moral issue rather than as a religious one. They recognize that although there may also be established religious doctrines against abortion -- just as there are against theft, adultery and other forms of killing -- those doctrines aren't the sole reasons against the practice. They don't care if some people see them as God's reasons, because they withstand human scrutiny as well.

What tips would you give Christians who want to win atheists and agnostics over to the pro-life side?

Familiarize yourself with the purely secular arguments made in the essays like those available at the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League website. There are also plenty of religious sites which provide the same arguments. They are the only ones which will appeal to non-believers. Quoting the Bible or trying to convert an atheist is a waste of time.

The most common argument that you should be prepared to counter is the one that asserts that a prohibition against killing after conception can only be accepted if one believes that the fetus has a "soul." You can respond by asking if an eight month old fetus has a soul, if a newborn baby has a soul, if a teenager has a soul, if an adult has a soul. If they respond "yes," you can point out that they are relying on an equally religious argument. If they deny the existence of souls, you can ask if that makes it okay to kill anyone at any time.

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/oct/07100503.html

SPARROW4:

ProLifeActistBorn59: "Abortion is like sending a helpless unborn child to the gas chambers."

Sparrow4: No- its not. the nazis sent fully cognizant, living, breathing human beings to the gas chambers. a zygote, a fertilized egg is nowhere near to being that. abortion is not killing 7 or 8 month old fetuses. Get a grip.

______________________________________________

You reveal your ignorance of human embryology, nothing more. The heart of the growing human begins to beat 21/22 DAYS after fertilization, hardly a week after the woman misses her period and even suspects pregnancy.

The human embryo is called a fetus at eight weeks because it closely resembles a human being externally, even if it is extremely tiny.

The growing child is cocooned in its own amniotic sac filled with amniotic fluid and is attached only via its umbilical cord to the placenta, which is embedded in the mother's uterus. The mother's blood merely supplies the growing child via the placenta, with oxygen and nutrients, and disposing its waste. The growing baby is quite independent of the mother as it goes about the business of growing at its genetically predetermined pace, playing by itself and going to sleep etc.

Adults get their oxygen free of charge from the atmosphere; plants and animals provide humans with food free of charge. Luckily the atmosphere doesn't exercise its "choice" in the same as pro-abortionists do to cut us off from our supply of oxygen. The plants and animals likewise don't exercise their "choice" to starve us, nor do rivers and other water resources deny us life giving water.

What does an abortionist do when he targets a growing child in the womb that is different from what Nazis did to people who were thrown in the gas chambers? It is speculated that Nazis killed disabled (German) children by giving them an injection, in order to ensure that the death was immediate and painless. Abortionists don't even do that. The comfort of the mother is the only consideration. Any brutality towards the growing child, even in the process of killing is considered legitimate. The use of vacuum cleaners, partial birth abortions where the skull is punctured and the brains sucked out, salt water poisoning where the child takes at least an hour or more to die...

Deny the brutality all you want. Put a sanctimonious spin on it, but the reality and the horror of it all remains. To those of us who understand.

SPARROW4: your abysmal knowledge of human embryology and your pretense at being an expert at it doesn't speak well for your scientific credentials.

A show dog breeder posted her comments about abortion in humans, without being asked mind you, and it turned out she was discussing dog breeding all the time without knowing the difference.

That sort of mistake happens to pro-abortionists all the time. They are usually talking about animal behavior, usually choosing a species of animal/s that best support their pro-abortion stand.

what's the matter prolife- too afraid to look up a scientific report? (Actually in england.) Although I can see why actual scientific facts might scare you.
=============================

"The insanity and diabolic nature of the pro-abortion logic never ceases to make my stomach turn in disgust.

Once an animal breeder of show dogs posted her views on abortion"

Pro-choice. seems you are incapable of understanding the concept as you are incapable of knowing the difference between Nazism, Communism and democracy.

And why ever would you look to a dog-breeder to tell you about abortion? I realize you are grasping in desperation for anything to buttress your view but perhaps something a little less area 51?

SPARROW4:

The insanity and diabolic nature of the pro-abortion logic never ceases to make my stomach turn in disgust.

Once an animal breeder of show dogs posted her views on abortion. She couldn't differentiate between show dog breeding and abortion in human beings. Poor thing. Yes, she made a passing mention of parthenogenesis too.

Parthenogenesis in female humans? Common in your neighborhood? Wow!

"Abortion is like sending a helpless unborn child to the gas chambers."

No- its not. the nazis sent fully cognizant, living, breathing human beings to the gas chambers. a zygote, a fertilized egg is nowhere near to being that. abortion is not killing 7 or 8 month old fetuses. Get a grip.
========================
"Proves you not only don't know human embryology, but DON'T want to because it would work contrary to your abortion at whim of a woman agenda."

au contraire- because I have studied embryology and science is precisely why I believe as I do.
==========================
"The females of Homo sapiens, the species I happen to belong to, doesn't reproduce asexually. Cloning has been done in sheep and other animals, but parthenogenesis is not cloning."

Indeed it isn't, however you're not up on your science or you would know there are documented cases of spontaneously occurring parthenogenesis in human women. Your grasp on science is as tenuous as your command of semantics.
=============================================
"You need to tell yourself that I'm a man? Have you known no female anti-abortionists in your life at all? Governor Palin happens to be one, just in case you have forgotten."

I don't need to tell myself anything- you've made it more than obvious which gender you are. Palin is a fruitcake and no interested in women's rights or choice. There are plenty of women who are against CHOICE. Those brainwashed duds don't speak for me.

========================================
"It happens to be a fact that Nazis and the Communists did practice abortion passionately as a a form of eugenics state policy. Although it does differ slightly in detail from being passionately dedicated to it as a woman's choice,"

Excuse me, I had to manually lift my jaw from the floor whence it dropped after I read the outstanding imbecility of this statement. Having an abortion inflicted on an unwilling woman is the same as a woman CHOOSING to have one? Really?

So you can't tell the difference between Nazism, Communism and Democracy now? Well, I rest my case. Thank you for proving that so-called pro-lifers are unable to discern the difference between the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and Mein Kampf. Or somehow you actually equate them- Yeah- there's a jaw dropper. (Do you want to talk about parthenogenesis again, great genius?)

sparrow4:

And I think forcing a woman to have a baby is akin to raping her, like the SS did to women in the camps.

______________________________________

Response:

Abortion is like sending a helpless unborn child to the gas chambers.

______________________________________

Sparrow4:

Indeed a fertilized egg is human- or did you think we could carry the zygotes of frogs? what else would they be, by virtue of their dna? But a person at that stage? No way. I'd also like to point out to you that a women are also capable of parthenogenesis- so what would you like to do? run shrieking after every skin flake because those cells could potentially become a person?

November 1, 2008 12:31 PM

___________________________________________

Response:

Proves you not only don't know human embryology, but DON'T want to because it would work contrary to your abortion at whim of a woman agenda.

____________________________________

This discussion is going in circles. The links I have posted has material for those who are uninformed and wish to learn. As for the hardened, lacking in compassion for the unborn, the ones who are resistant to information...that is their choice too. It is my hope that a new generation of young women and men will be more open not only to learning the science (learning the science alone does not produce compassion, as professional abortionists can attest) but also develop more respect for innocent, defenseless human life and their CHOICE will be to protect and defend it.

SPARROW4:

first of all, the issue is choice and women's rights. No one is dedicated to abortion and since you are a man and cannot fathom what it is like, maybe YOU think abortion is a fun thing to do. I assure you women do not.

Eugenics? communism? And I think forcing a woman to have a baby is akin to raping her, like the SS did to women in the camps.

Indeed a fertilized egg is human- or did you think we could carry the zygotes of frogs? what else would they be, by virtue of their dna? But a person at that stage? No way. I'd also like to point out to you that a women are also capable of parthenogenesis- so what would you like to do? run shrieking after every skin flake because those cells could potentially become a person?

November 1, 2008 12:31 PM

_________________________________________

It happens to be a fact that Nazis and the Communists did practice abortion passionately as a a form of eugenics state policy. Although it does differ slightly in detail from being passionately dedicated to it as a woman's choice, the effect is/was the same - getting rid of the "inconvenient" and population control.

Killing an unborn remains killing. No sophisticated spin or use of the word "choice" will change the heinousness of the act in which a completely innocent human being loses its life.

You need to tell yourself that I'm a man? Have you known no female anti-abortionists in your life at all? Governor Palin happens to be one, just in case you have forgotten.

And parthenogenesis: sorry, it didn't occur to me to take you for a Cnemidophorus neomexicanus. The females of Homo sapiens, the species I happen to belong to, doesn't reproduce asexually. Cloning has been done in sheep and other animals, but parthenogenesis is not cloning.

Again, the question is not whether the unborn child is human. The question is whether we elect those who will perpetuate a society that is hostile to the needs of families and children purely because they give lip service to the cause of making abortion a criminal act. Has abortion become less common under Bush?

"Passionate dedication to abortion rights reeks of Nazi style eugenics and Communism, no matter what sophisticated spin is put on it to disguise it."

mwah ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!

first of all, the issue is choice and women's rights. No one is dedicated to abortion and since you are a man and cannot fathom what it is like, maybe YOU think abortion is a fun thing to do. I assure you women do not.

Eugenics? communism? And I think forcing a woman to have a baby is akin to raping her, like the SS did to women in the camps.

Indeed a fertilized egg is human- or did you think we could carry the zygotes of frogs? what else would they be, by virtue of their dna? But a person at that stage? No way. I'd also like to point out to you that a women are also capable of parthenogenesis- so what would you like to do? run shrieking after every skin flake because those cells could potentially become a person?

Passionate dedication to abortion rights reeks of Nazi style eugenics and Communism, no matter what sophisticated spin is put on it to disguise it.

Passionate dedication to abortion right reeks of eugenics and Communism.

cmarshdtihqcom:

We could restructure society to make life more fair for some people and less fair for some people (the people running things) now. But that is a paradox because you can probably expect the leaders to fight this. That is what I meant when some people wanted to change the system rather than acquiese to it. People called them socialists and ugly names. But I guess, after reading Rules of Sociological Method by Emile Durkheim, you can probably count on most people in society to be successfully socialized in the appropriate culture and not fight the system. Nonconformity, either deviance (crime) or dissent, is relatively rare because the socialization process is relatively effective. Society is a virus. You can't touch the collective mental representation of American society. But you can count on the older people to teach it reasonably well to the young.

Durkheim was not Marx. Marx wanted to rock the boat to reform it. Durkheim wanted to keep the boat stable and in balance.

November 1, 2008 4:29 AM

_________________________________________

It might interest you to know that Poland resists pressure from EU countries to liberalize its abortion laws because liberal and mandatory abortion laws was part of the Nazi regime and also the Communist agenda.

Look at the abortion statistics in the ex Soviet bloc countries, the rates are extremely high.

cmarshdtihqcom:

That unborn child is human. Make no mistake. It doesn't become anything ELSE.

And yes you are using our religion to hogtie pregnant women. Be honest about that. What you want to do is make it law at least in some states preferably the whole country. You are certain the death rate by illegal abortion (if any you say) will be far outweighed by the increased birth rate.

There is a certain element of harshness in all this related politics.

Take away an illegal immigrant's job and force him and his family to go back home BECAUSE HE BROKE THE LAW AND HE DESERVES IT.

Force the woman to give birth and perhaps raise the kid BECAUSE.... MOST OF THE TIME SHE MADE A MISTAKE AND IT'S NOT THE BABY'S FAULT.

Hammer of justice crushes you, overpower. (That is Metallica)

November 1, 2008 4:21 AM

___________________________________________

The child is the womb IS human. It is and NEVER was anything else from the time of fertilization. It does not BECOME human. It IS human.

Your take on abortion is NOT humane. Putting a sophisticated spin on it does not make it human.

Abortion remains a human rights issue. The voiceless unborn needs born voices to speak on their behalf, but NOT by so called Christians like you.

We could restructure society to make life more fair for some people and less fair for some people (the people running things) now. But that is a paradox because you can probably expect the leaders to fight this. That is what I meant when some people wanted to change the system rather than acquiese to it. People called them socialists and ugly names. But I guess, after reading Rules of Sociological Method by Emile Durkheim, you can probably count on most people in society to be successfully socialized in the appropriate culture and not fight the system. Nonconformity, either deviance (crime) or dissent, is relatively rare because the socialization process is relatively effective. Society is a virus. You can't touch the collective mental representation of American society. But you can count on the older people to teach it reasonably well to the young.

Durkheim was not Marx. Marx wanted to rock the boat to reform it. Durkheim wanted to keep the boat stable and in balance.

That unborn child is human. Make no mistake. It doesn't become anything ELSE.

And yes you are using our religion to hogtie pregnant women. Be honest about that. What you want to do is make it law at least in some states preferably the whole country. You are certain the death rate by illegal abortion (if any you say) will be far outweighed by the increased birth rate.

There is a certain element of harshness in all this related politics.

Take away an illegal immigrant's job and force him and his family to go back home BECAUSE HE BROKE THE LAW AND HE DESERVES IT.

Force the woman to give birth and perhaps raise the kid BECAUSE.... MOST OF THE TIME SHE MADE A MISTAKE AND IT'S NOT THE BABY'S FAULT.

Hammer of justice crushes you, overpower. (That is Metallica)

When evil is treated not only as a right, but also as a necessity.........we create hell on earth.

cmarshdtihqcom:

When women already make seventy some cents for every dollar they earn, women pay an professional price for getting pregnant (and men don't): the only question is it some weeks of maternity leave, her entire career, or something in between.

Abortion certainly changes that.

November 1, 2008 2:50 AM

______________________________________________

Riiiight...So abortion is the absolutely only way for women to remain equal to men in the workplace.

The whole set of rationalization surrounding abortion is personification of evil under cover of "all for the health of the mother."

Just in case anyone has forgotten: Slaves contributed immensely to the well being and happiness of slave owners too.

The diabolic distortion of a particular kind of belief that permits partial birth abortions.

Partial birth abortion has been accepted as a legitimate means of killing an unborn child based on the "theory" that a child in the womb "becomes" a human being only when the head emerges from the mother's body. Never mind the child can survive outside the mother's womb at that age if it is allowed to live.

But to get around the fact a very diabolical way was conceived. The body of the child is delivered, but the head is allowed to remain in the birth canal. The "theory" being the child is not a human being until the head is delivered, the living body outside the mother's body plays no role. The head is punctured and the brains sucked out. What was killed was not a human being, because its head was still in the woman's body. There is only one consideration, the convenience of the mother and the desire to kill her child causing the least possible discomfort to her. That is evil in pure form.

http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/diagram.html

cmarshdtihqcom:

The problem with saying abortion is a crime is saying life begins at conception is a philosophy or a religious belief. And then our religion ends up becoming a pair of handcuffs for a nonbelieving pregnant woman.

...

If some Christian faction, even say some Baptist flavor like mine, got hold of the country, I'd get out of the country before some other flavor took power.

November 1, 2008 2:29 AM

__________________________________________

Instead of resorting to a roundabout way to confuse, why not come straight out and admit you are pro-abortion like honest pro-abortion folks do?

Whatever your particular strain of Baptist belief, they definitely have not read a textbook of human embryology.

Hippocrates, the Father of Western medicine, did not prohibit abortion based on his Greek pagan belief. In fact his religion is what made abortion rampant in his day, and it was his concern for all human beings including the unborn children that motivated his medical ethics. He advised medical doctors to watch chicks developing in eggs to understand human development in stages.

So while pretending to be against abortion, you support abortion fully simply by saying that a growing child in the womb is not human, and only some religions consider it so. What a novel way!

Have you tried to understand the humanity of a child from a medical point of view? Have you read the Hippocratic Oath and its adaption to fit modern times? It holds good for all religions.

SPARROW4:

Abortion makes the biological differences between men and women irrelevant? I find it hysterical funny that 2 men, you and pro-life are arguing female biology. You really know nothing about it. Ever hear of menstruation? Once a month. abortion doesn't change that. Got breasts? Abortion doesn't change that either.

___________________________________

When women already make seventy some cents for every dollar they earn, women pay an professional price for getting pregnant (and men don't): the only question is it some weeks of maternity leave, her entire career, or something in between.

Abortion certainly changes that.

Still, we can gently say without acting like CIA or Bible bashers: "We wish you wouldn't because even though we know you're scared and you wish it would go away, it is just like you were, once, and it is only fair to it to love it as much as we love you."

P.S. There is no rapture rescue in the SDA version of the end times. ALL the faithful go through tribulation.

The problem with saying abortion is a crime is saying life begins at conception is a philosophy or a religious belief. And then our religion ends up becoming a pair of handcuffs for a nonbelieving pregnant woman.

The problem with a state religion is this, and THESE CHRISTIANS will oppose state religion:

1. The Jehovah's Witnesses were punished by the Nazis for being "Bible researchers"

2. Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Quakers and the like have had to struggle for noncombatant military service or conscientious objection to the entire military altogether, even in this country.

3. The Seventh Day Adventists will gladly point out that Waldensians were put to death for simply possessing a Bible- and reading and interpreting and living by it according to their conscience.

4. The SDA end times nightmare is the United States (the beast who came out of the wilderness- unpopulated region compared to Greek empire, just Indians, with two horns, Declaration of Independence and Constitution, who initially spoke meekly like a lamb) tossing aside the first amendment and making all the Christians go to church on Sunday on penalty of death

If some Christian faction, even say some Baptist flavor like mine, got hold of the country, I'd get out of the country before some other flavor took power.

I apologize. Some are forced, even by their own relatives or fathers. The animals! And you are right it always takes two if it is consensual.

Tell me this: if they both consent, was it more his idea than hers, often times? Is she trying to please him? Or at least, if he says no and means it, she has rather few options, at least in this culture.

I think if the guy, rather than the girl, takes at least 50% responsibility for abstinence, it will work better.

cmarsh wrote:"Target the efforts on the women and girls under 25. Obviously they know naught what they are doing.... the prefrontal cortex might still be forming.... ability to weight consequences and understand the impact of future on present decisions."

How about targeting young men and boys? they usually have far more extensive experience with sex than most women. A lot of them never develop a conscience. Women do not get pregnant by themselves. and if men do have more experience, they should know better. ergo they are the more irresponsible.

It is not that Judaism and Christianity doesn't work. But morality of religions cannot be legislated. Religion remains one of free choice. Only societal norms, whether good or bad, have an impact on morality.

cmarshdtihqcom:

We are right back where we started. You can take Jesus or leave it. Nothing changed in 1975 years since the crucifixion.

Legislating the ideals is not the answer.

Living by example is about the only way. I am an example.

________________________________________

You are not reading.

Impact of laws in Europe.

Tackle drug trafficking, bank robbery, homicide by setting a good example but making it legal?

Materialistic hedonism has replaced religion. The sexual revolution came on the heels of development of contraceptives. Roe vs Wade on the heels of sexual revolution. A coincidence? Hardly.

Apparently Judaim and Christianity is no longer able to fulfill its highest ideals now.
_________________________________________-

We are right back where we started. You can take Jesus or leave it. Nothing changed in 1975 years since the crucifixion.

Legislating the ideals is not the answer.

Living by example is about the only way. I am an example.

Target the efforts on the women and girls under 25. Obviously they know naught what they are doing.... the prefrontal cortex might still be forming.... ability to weight consequences and understand the impact of future on present decisions.

Is anybody personally upset against people who are "active" when they are not? Given that most abortion patients are under 25, they are generally only teenagers or children anyway from the perspective of my 38.5 year old brain, and whatever they think cool is they can have it. I long ago stopped expecting a fair trial, in general, in the eyes of a woman that age. Anecdotal advice from my virtual peers suggests that women have some values at that age, then develop other values later, perhaps as the result of making some mistakes and maybe abortion is one mistake.

Look at the women with compassion please. They are pregnant, they are scared especially if they never were before, especially if they feel like they can't tell anyone because it admits they were "naughty", and there is this miracle treatment called abortion that makes it all go away 100% percent of the time. They have never lived with the aftermath of abortion though.

They need a woman who already had one. Maybe not even a Christian. At the very least to know they are not alone right then.

cmarshdtihqcom:

I don't like abortion.
I like illegal abortion even less.
If stupid people are going to have sex at least give them something so they won't get pregnant.

October 31, 2008 11:25 PM

___________________________________________

The god/goddess of unlimited promiscuous sex must be worshipped at all costs. Everything else in life must take second place, especially the life of an innocent unborn child. The idea is not modern at all. It is ancient and rooted in the religion of ME/European paganism. Judaism and Christianity set itself against it. Apparently Judaim and Christianity is no longer able to fulfill its highest ideals now.

Eighty eight percent of abortions are sought by UNmarried women, most of them below the age of 24. Does that mean anything?

cmarshdtihqcom:

I don't like abortion.
I like illegal abortion even less.
If stupid people are going to have sex at least give them something so they won't get pregnant.

October 31, 2008 11:25 PM

___________________________________________

The god/goddess of unlimited promiscuous sex must be worshipped at all costs. Everything in life must take second place, especially the life of an innocent unborn child.

Eighty eight percent of abortions are sought by UNmarried women, most of them below the age of 24. Does that mean anything?

SPARROW4:

Abortion makes the biological differences between men and women irrelevant? I find it hysterical funny that 2 men, you and pro-life are arguing female biology. You really know nothing about it. Ever hear of menstruation? Once a month. abortion doesn't change that. Got breasts? Abortion doesn't change that either.

It is a constitutional issue- read the 14th Amendment. abortion is about a woman's right to make medical decisions regarding her own body. take that away and equality flies out the window. force it and you become a rapist. Prolife's opinions make him no better than a rapist.

October 31, 2008 11:59 PM

_____________________________________________

Read the earlier post.

I'm a woman.

You DON'T understand human embryology.

The German Constitutional Court supposedly used the same arguments in Roe vs Wade (I'm not German) to reach the OPPOSITE conclusion. It declared abortion UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The "right to privacy" is diabolical perversion of human rights to justify taking an innocent life. The Mafia boss and the hit man he employs exercise their right to privacy in just the same way.

THE DEATH OF EVEN ONE SINGLE WOMEN IN A YEAR IN CONNECTION WITH PREGNANCY IS CONSIDERED INTOLERABLE BUT THE DEATH OF FOUR THOUSAND OR MORE UNBORN CHILDREN - PER DAY - IS CONSIDERED A NON-EVENT.

WHY? BECAUSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE WOMAN IS REGISTERED ON A GOVERNMENT FORM. SHE IS CONSIDERED A PERSON ACCORDING TO THE LAW OF THE LAND AND HENCE IS OFFERED LEGAL PROTECTION. THE UNBORN CHILD, VERY MUCH ALIVE IN ITS MOTHER'S WOMB, AND CLEARLY OBSERVABLE TO ANYONE WHO IS NOT BLIND, WITH ULTRASOUND, DOESN'T EXIST AS FAR AS THE LAW OF THE LAND IS CONCERNED. SO IT GETS NO PROTECTION.

"Women do have a choice ensure that a pregnancy NEVER stands in the way of their career. GET STERILIZED. "

I have a better suggestion- why don't men get sterilized. cheaper procedure, less invasive, and one man can impregnate many women. Makes total economic and moral sense to fix the guy. Mandatory.

"The original premise for abortion is: even routine pregnancies cause fatigue and some level of incapacitation, and reduced productivity.

Or almost as though women and men's biological differences could be made irrelevant through abortion."- cmarsh

wrong. very wrong. Especially since at the time of Roe v. wade most women stayed home to raise their children, not have careers. so reduced productivity had nothing to do with anything.

Abortion makes the biological differences between men and women irrelevant? I find it hysterical funny that 2 men, you and pro-life are arguing female biology. You really know nothing about it. Ever hear of menstruation? Once a month. abortion doesn't change that. Got breasts? Abortion doesn't change that either.

It is a constitutional issue- read the 14th Amendment. abortion is about a woman's right to make medical decisions regarding her own body. take that away and equality flies out the window. force it and you become a rapist. Prolife's opinions make him no better than a rapist.

cmarshdtihqcom:

Basically intimidation works, then. Saves babies. I see.

LBJ didn't have the guts to mine Haiphong harbor and bomb Hanoi and Haiphong and risk war with the USSR and China but Nixon did Linebacker II, got world condemnation from the Communists, but got "peace with honor".

I think I am LBJ and I think you're Nixon and I think you've got peace with honor.

October 31, 2008 11:46 PM

_________________________________________

MAKE DRUG TRAFFICKING, BANK ROBBERY, HOMICIDE ETC LEGAL BECAUSE INTIMIDATION SURE IS CAUSING A LOT OF ANGUISH TO THE DRUG TRAFFICKERS, BANK ROBBERS AND MURDERERS ETC.

cmarshdtihqcom:

ProLifeActivistBorn59

Your Depo Provera or your Norplant is even better than 86% reliable. Maybe 95% to 99% reliable.

Use a barrier method like a sponge or diaphragm/cervical cap and the failure rate is maybe 10% of that, tops.

Add a condom if you're still worried.

P.S. if you have all the kids you want, sterilization may be a good idea, and it is cheaper and less complicated for the MAN to do it. Step up to the plate, mister. You're doing it for the one you love.....

October 31, 2008 11:41 PM

___________________________________________

You should pass the word around to men you know.

I'm a woman.

My father got himself sterilized after my mother had borne him the sixth child at the age of only twenty eight.

Basically intimidation works, then. Saves babies. I see.

LBJ didn't have the guts to mine Haiphong harbor and bomb Hanoi and Haiphong and risk war with the USSR and China but Nixon did Linebacker II, got world condemnation from the Communists, but got "peace with honor".

I think I am LBJ and I think you're Nixon and I think you've got peace with honor.

THE DEATH OF EVEN ONE SINGLE WOMEN IN A YEAR IN CONNECTION WITH PREGNANCY IS CONSIDERED INTOLERABLE BUT THE DEATH OF FOUR THOUSAND OR MORE UNBORN CHILDREN IS CONSIDERED A NON-ENTITY.

WHY? BECAUSE THE EXISTENCE OF THE WOMAN IS REGISTERED ON A GOVERNMENT FORM. NOTHING ELSE.

ProLifeActivistBorn59

Your Depo Provera or your Norplant is even better than 86% reliable. Maybe 95% to 99% reliable.

Use a barrier method like a sponge or diaphragm/cervical cap and the failure rate is maybe 10% of that, tops.

Add a condom if you're still worried.

P.S. if you have all the kids you want, sterilization may be a good idea, and it is cheaper and less complicated for the MAN to do it. Step up to the plate, mister. You're doing it for the one you love.....

cmarshdtihqcom:

How many women's lives do you estimate you will lose on the theory that Americans as a people have never been detered from buying goods and services they want on the illegal black market (alcohol during Prohibition, drugs today, criminals buying guns today, and abortions before abortion was legal)?

October 31, 2008 11:32 PM

____________________________________________

If you really care for truth, and not about making a trumped up case based on propaganda, READ and analyze the statistics provided.

Read the abortion figures before sexual revolution, before Roe vs Wade and compare it with figures after Roe vs Wade.

Why is there an exponential increase in the number of abortions despite the availability of contraceptives since the 1960s?

Death in back alleys by the thousands with illegal abortions is part of the propaganda, which the co-founder of NARAL, Dr Nathanson, an abortionist cum obstetrician turned anti-abortion activist, admitted. The figures were simply cooked up, and repeated over and over again to whip up emotional frenzy and support for abortion as a right.

One picture of a botched abortion is used over and over again, while the pictures of FOUR THOUSAND ABORTIONS PER DAY FOR THE PAST 35 YEARS IS SWEPT UNDER THE RUG.

Contraceptive is available.

Only the failure rate is about 14%.

If people use more than one contraceptive method as backup, and are extremely faithful about the use of contraceptives, the success rate increases.

Sex outside marriage has created enormous problems for children who have to get used to many non-biological males in their lives, with very little contact with their biological fathers.

How many women's lives do you estimate you will lose on the theory that Americans as a people have never been detered from buying goods and services they want on the illegal black market (alcohol during Prohibition, drugs today, criminals buying guns today, and abortions before abortion was legal)?

How many baby lives do you estimate you will save on the theory that you will intimidate women and girls into not having abortions by cutting off all the safe and legal ones?

How many women's lives do you estimate you will lose?

Women do have a choice ensure that a pregnancy NEVER stands in the way of their career. GET STERILIZED. ADOPT CHILDREN AFTER RETIREMENT WHEN THE JOB WILL NEVER BE PUT AT RISK. A THOROUGHLY MORAL ATTITUDE TO PROTECT THE LIFE OF AN INNOCENT HUMAN BEING.

I don't like abortion.
I like illegal abortion even less.
If stupid people are going to have sex at least give them something so they won't get pregnant.

cmarshdtihqcom:

The simple fact that the cell or cells have their own distinct DNA, and undergo multiplication so the organism can grow in size, and will become a human being as we know it, means it is a human being and a distinct life. I said that back in high school as a pro-lifer and I was praised for staying awake in biology.

That is my philosophy.

But I don't expect my philosophy or yours to be sufficient justification to deny the reproductive rights of millions of women.

The original premise for abortion is: even routine pregnancies cause fatigue and some level of incapacitation, and reduced productivity. A WOMAN COULD BE ORDERED TO BED REST FOR THE WHOLE PREGNANCY OR COULD HAVE TO LEAVE A JOB WORKING WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR IN POLICE, FIRE, OR EMT.

Unless a woman can stop pregnancy, she cannot fully compete occupationally with a man. She could lose time from work, and not attain skills, or suffer forgetfulness of skills she has.

Even if she was forced and she didn't choose sex.

She might make friends with her baby and need to raise it when it is born. That would require her to at least cut back her career. If married, maybe stop her career cold.

Salary negotiation is not nice. If she gets hired at all, the boss might use her lesser experience against her to pay her less. After all, if she had more skills or experience she would use it against the company wouldn't she?

October 31, 2008 11:19 PM

_____________________________________________

This is the typical, "personally opposed, but" copout arguments.

Slave owners had similar economic arguments to support their case.

cmarshdtihqcom:

GordonCash, I doubt the financial support coming out of crisis pregnancy could be enough. If you got high school and college age girls and women being kicked out of the house (parents or boyfriends kicking them out) because they are pregnant, baby and maternity clothes is the least of their worries: it is feel good charity for Christians, it is doing compassion on the cheap. Where is she going to sleep?* What will she eat (for two)? And whose shoulder is she going to cry on?

* It has to be a woman. Christianity forbids us to give the unbelievers "something to talk about".

October 31, 2008 11:06 PM

___________________________________________________

You are pro-abortion after all!

1. What about women who can afford to keep the child?

2. What about the option to give up the child for adoption?

3. What about most of the relationships breaking up anyway after the male has paid for the aborion? Maybe some males deep down look down on women with contempt who would kill an innocent unborn for the sake of keeping the man.

4. What about the innocent life being snuffed out? What about right to LIFE for a completely defenseless human being?

5. What about taking responsibility for one's own actions without resorting to taking the life of an innocent third party?

The simple fact that the cell or cells have their own distinct DNA, and undergo multiplication so the organism can grow in size, and will become a human being as we know it, means it is a human being and a distinct life. I said that back in high school as a pro-lifer and I was praised for staying awake in biology.

That is my philosophy.

But I don't expect my philosophy or yours to be sufficient justification to deny the reproductive rights of millions of women.

The original premise for abortion is: even routine pregnancies cause fatigue and some level of incapacitation, and reduced productivity. A WOMAN COULD BE ORDERED TO BED REST FOR THE WHOLE PREGNANCY OR COULD HAVE TO LEAVE A JOB WORKING WITH HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR IN POLICE, FIRE, OR EMT.

Unless a woman can stop pregnancy, she cannot fully compete occupationally with a man. She could lose time from work, and not attain skills, or suffer forgetfulness of skills she has.

Even if she was forced and she didn't choose sex.

She might make friends with her baby and need to raise it when it is born. That would require her to at least cut back her career. If married, maybe stop her career cold.

Salary negotiation is not nice. If she gets hired at all, the boss might use her lesser experience against her to pay her less. After all, if she had more skills or experience she would use it against the company wouldn't she?

cmarshdtihqcom:

Does anyone think that being pregnant is scary (kind of like a foreign life form inside, except parasite is a harsh word, but probably makes sense to her) (if you never were) and abortion is the thing that makes you un-pregnant instantaneously? Women's opinions especially?

That would have nothing to do with money.

October 31, 2008 10:59 PM

_____________________________________________

The argument holds good only if pregnancy was an unnatural part of human physiology and ALL pregnant women felt that way.

Women who want children feel completely different about their pregnancy. For them any incovenience is simply a part of the deal. Most women go about their lives normally during their pregnancy, since only a few develop complications which in this age of advanced medicine is easily managed by obstetricians.

Women who long for children grieve over miscarriages and stillbirths. They do not say that a parasite or fetus died, they grieve for their dead child. A woman who wants the child *never* uses the term fetus (which by the way is Latin for little one or offspring). She always refers to her child in the womb, which in fact it is.

Ultrasound technology allows her and her partner to view the living child in the womb, long before it is born. They can watch the heart beating and the baby's movements in detail.

GordonCash, I doubt the financial support coming out of crisis pregnancy could be enough. If you got high school and college age girls and women being kicked out of the house (parents or boyfriends kicking them out) because they are pregnant, baby and maternity clothes is the least of their worries: it is feel good charity for Christians, it is doing compassion on the cheap. Where is she going to sleep?* What will she eat (for two)? And whose shoulder is she going to cry on?

* It has to be a woman. Christianity forbids us to give the unbelievers "something to talk about".

cmarshdtihqcom:

Abortion is not exactly infanticide but it is close enough. Deep down inside, you know. It's not a crap shoot.

October 31, 2008 2:06 PM

____________________________________________

A human life is a human life no matter how it is defined for purpose of differentiating its developmental stages.

Does anyone argue that a newborn is different from the same human being when it grows to an infant, a toddler, a pre-schooler, an adolescent, a young adult, a middle aged or aged person?

The argument that a zygote, embryo and fetus are non-human because they are called by different names at different stages of development is scientific nonsense. An unfertilized is called by different names, at different stages of maturation, even before it is fertilized. So what does that tell us about the scientific practice of using different words to describe different stages?

Does anyone think that being pregnant is scary (kind of like a foreign life form inside, except parasite is a harsh word, but probably makes sense to her) (if you never were) and abortion is the thing that makes you un-pregnant instantaneously? Women's opinions especially?

That would have nothing to do with money.

sparrow4:

thank you, gordoncash. I have yet to get an answer to my question other than a fetus is an innocent life and a woman who gets pregnant needs to take responsibility. There is no mention of rights for the woman, only rights for the zygote.

October 31, 2008 7:34 PM

___________________________________________________

1. An unborn child in the womb IS a human being, proved by hard core medical science. No amount of pro-abortion spin can do away with empirical evidence. Ensoulment debates are completely irrelevant to the abortion debate.

2. A woman gets to exercise her choice BEFORE she gets pregnant, at the point of prevention. At pregnancy, she brings the life of an innocent third party into play, and she is morally responsible to uphold the welfare of that innocent life, beginning with protecting its right to life, which she alone can do.

3. Ninety eight percent of abortions are for convenience alone. At least sixty two percent of women can afford to keep the child, and this 68% will exercise their choice to kill the unborn, no matter what social benefit is offered, because they do not abort for economic reasons.

I think by the early 1970s women did not want to change the economic system, they wanted to embrace it. The economic system was demanding of men and inflation soon demanded women to join men to make two incomes equal the power of one previous income. A small minority of men and women wanted to humanize the economic system so women did not have to assume brutal measures to compete. Most women acquiesed to the demanding, unforgiving capitalist system, and if they needed an abortion to keep a job, so be it. And then quite a few women at American Cynamid selected sterilization instead of quitting when the company forced them to make a choice.

Chris Marsh, M.A., sociology

cmarshdtihqcom:

On the road of life you can slow down, stop, take a baby on board, or run it over. Abortion is not exactly infanticide but it is close enough. Deep down inside, you know. It's not a crap shoot. Usually pregnancies go the whole nine yards.

One note about partial birth abortion. A few hundred years ago before modern successful Caesarian section, it was the best way to save a mother's life from death by obstructed labor if the skull couldn't make it out. What is our excuse now? None. Unless possibly it is apocalyptic conditions and hospital care is not available.

October 31, 2008 2:06 PM

_________________________________________________

Do look up the worldwide abortion statistics compiled by William Robert Johnston, (btw, a PhD student of space physics). For immediate understanding of the point I'm trying to make, compare the abortion statistics of Ireland and Germany, with UK and Sweden, all of which have good social support systems. Ireland and Germany have tough laws but the laws are comparatively lax in UK and Sweden. The rate of abortion in UK and Sweden are higher than in Ireland and Germany.

In Germany, abortion was ruled unconstitutional, yet allowed as a *nonpunishable offense* under certain circumstances when certain criteria is met (like mandatory counseling which includes the obligation to provide the pregnant woman with details of fetal development, and non-abortion options and at least a three day waiting period), an arrangement that more than takes care of ALL hard cases. Many conservative Germans, seriously worried about the human rights aspects as a result of the Nazi era, are concerned that it lets too many "non-hard" cases through. The fact of the matter is no woman is allowed to consider it her right to kill her unborn child. There are groups in Germany, encouraged by the US, who are fighting for abortion as a right. So far they have not met with success.

In Ireland, abortion is illegal, except for real medical indications, which in real fact is quite rare in this day and age of advanced medicine. Sure many Irish women hop over to the UK to get abortions, but one can imagine that it is a step that will not be so easily taken. It is not like going shopping in a mall on an ordinary day and getting an abortion on the way home, as just one more chore of the day, as Planned Parenthood has arranged for it to be.

In Germany, it is a common sight to see young women at Universities going about their studies with their young child in tow, piggy back in baby slings or in prams.

Or almost as though women and men's biological differences could be made irrelevant through abortion.

I sent you a response GordonCash but it was sent to the administrator for approval. I flatly suggested that women are citizens, fetuses are not, that our society is secular for a reason, and the original assumption for abortion was to deal with pregnancy in order to let women compete against men at work almost as though they weren't women.

thank you, gordoncash. I have yet to get an answer to my question other than a fetus is an innocent life and a woman who gets pregnant needs to take responsibility. There is no mention of rights for the woman, only rights for the zygote.

A few random observations related to the posts below, in no particular order, but especially those by PROLIFEACTIVISTBORN59 and CMARSHDTIHQCOM:

Here is one of my all-time favorite quotes, which I have seen many times, always attributed to Abraham Lincoln:
Q: If you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have?
A: Four, since calling a tail a leg does not make it one.
I do not know the context in which President Lincoln said this, but I think his point was that words are not arbitrary tokens, but actually mean something. In that spirit, I say that a cluster of undifferentiated cells is not a human being, period, and there is no medical, scientific, or historical justification for calling it one.

For a rebuttal of the various reasons usually given why life begins at conception see the video at http://vimeo.com/1693176?pg=embed&sec=1693176
Personally, I think the notion that life begins at any definable moment in time is ridiculous on its face. At what moment in time does a computer, or an automobile, or a house, or any other complex entity become what it is rather than the parts of which it is composed? Asking a question like that is like asking, "How high is up?"

For a review of the "care" that women receive at Crisis Pregnancy Centers, see the Fall issue of Ms. Magazine, just out on the newsstands this week.

The notion that the disposal of inconvenient elderly will follow acceptance of abortion is a pro-lifers' fever dream. Those of us who distinguish between an actual person and a philosophical abstraction of one would never think such a thing, because AN ELDERLY PERSON IS A HUMAN BEING, AND A FETUS IS NOT. Therefore, society has an obligation to the elderly that it does not have to fetuses, even if it is inconvenient. You pro-lifers just really don't get that, do you?

Since KERT1 seems to have disappeared from this thread, I will submit my question to him to anyone else who wants to answer it. Is there anyone out there who identifies himself/herself as pro-life who will concede that a pregnant woman is a citizen with legal rights under our Constitution that are her own rights as a person and do not accrue to her from her fetus as its carrier? I stand by my previous statement: In my personal experience, NO ONE who identifies himself/herself as pro-life has ever conceded this point. SPARROW4 thinks the reason for this state of affairs is obvious, and I am inclined to agree with him/her. Speak up, pro-lifers; prove us wrong.

On the road of life you can slow down, stop, take a baby on board, or run it over. Abortion is not exactly infanticide but it is close enough. Deep down inside, you know. It's not a crap shoot. Usually pregnancies go the whole nine yards.

One note about partial birth abortion. A few hundred years ago before modern successful Caesarian section, it was the best way to save a mother's life from death by obstructed labor if the skull couldn't make it out. What is our excuse now? None. Unless possibly it is apocalyptic conditions and hospital care is not available.

PROLIFEACTIVISTBORN59

As recently as yesterday, I read the comment of a woman who claimed she had aborted her child because she didn't want to interrupt her studies. She has no regrets whatsoever, and she is annoyed about any law that seeks to stand in the way of getting abortion-on-demand and *immediately.* She and others like her are of the opinion that a woman has already made up her mind when she goes to an abortion clinic and they do not want any delay in getting the abortion immediately, delays like being informed about fetal development, time to think things over, especially other options if she doesn't want to keep the child etc.
------------------------------------

CMARSHDTIHQCOM

Who wouldn't slam on the brakes if a kid ran out into the road? Having an abortion is kind of conceptually like running that kid over.
-----------------------------------------

Sounds to me like she put the pedal to the metal.

Anonymous:

Well, I never thought it would happen to me. I'm pregnant. And now I don't know what to do. I realize this is an important decision -- not only for my own emotional well-being, but the heavy moral implications as well. I'm turning to a rabbi because I am wary of the "fashionable" opinions of today, which can flip-flop from one decade to the next. I'd like to hear what Judaism says simply because its ideas have stood the test of time. Does Judaism take the liberal "choice" approach, or does it take the hard-line position of the religious right?

THE AISH RABBI REPLIES:

http://www.aish.com/rabbi/ATR_browse.asp?s=abortion&f=tqak&offset=1

Anonymous:

"The Rabbi explained how the preciousness and importance of the human soul equally applies to the yet-unborn child. He told us that while Torah law did permit abortion in certain circumstances, these cases were rare, such as when the mother's life would be directly endangered by carrying the baby. He explained that the fetus did possess a soul, and was in many ways, both legally and mystically, a human being, worthy of as much consideration as any other human life.
The ethical thing is to allow him to come into the world, and try to help him live out whatever life that the Creator has planned for him.

"There is every reason to believe that you will give birth to a normal, healthy child," the rabbi assured us. "The doctors may feel that they are playing the odds, but with stakes so high, we must bet on the side of life. And..." he added softly, "even in the doctor's worst case scenario -- an abnormal child -- the ethical thing to do would be to allow him to come into the world, and try our best to help him live out whatever life that the Creator has planned for him." ...

http://www.aish.com/spirituality/odysseys/Choosing_Life.asp

Matt 12:22-26

12:22 Then they brought to him a demoniac who was blind and mute; and he cured him, so that the one who had been mute could speak and see. 12:23 All the crowds were amazed and said, "Can this be the Son of David?" 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard it, they said, "It is only by Beelzebul, the ruler of the demons, that this fellow casts out the demons."

12:25 He knew what they were thinking and said to them, "Every kingdom divided against itself is laid waste, and no city or house divided against itself will stand. 12:26 If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself; how then will his kingdom stand?

Some observations from the 21st century:

1. Cure of blindness and muteness ?: not possible in the first century.

2. Today satan is considered mythical i.e. an ugly, wingie thingie.

3. Jesus was a simple preacher man and his utterances were based on things he heard from the likes of other Jews like John the Baptist. So who really originated Matt 12:25??? ex. See the Code of Hammurabi (1760 BCE) and the many rules about the divisions in houses. http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/CODE.HTM

Alternatives to Abortion

Despite all their talk about "choice," those at abortion clinics who counsel women on their options often act as if abortion is a woman’s only realistic alternative. This simply isn’t so.

_________________________________________________

Throughout the United States, there are nearly 3,000 Crisis Pregnancy Centers staffed by volunteers ready to provide real help to women facing unplanned or untimely pregnancies.

_______________________________________________

In addition to providing pregnancy tests and counseling, these centers often offer a full range of services, helping women obtain housing, maternity and baby clothes, baby equipment, pre- and post-natal medical care, legal assistance and financial support, information about adoption, and even advice on how a woman in school can continue her education. Offering real and tangible assistance, these centers have helped thousands of women to realize that they didn’t have to choose between their own lives and the lives of their unborn babies.

Unlike their counterparts at the local abortion clinic, the volunteer counselors at your Crisis Pregnancy Center do not have a vested financial interest in the ultimate decision you make. Their concern and commitment are genuine, so you can count on them to stick by you through the tense and sometimes difficult months ahead.

Look up your local Crisis Pregnancy Center to have some idea of the quality of people who work there. But if not, you can look in the Yellow Pages under the heading "Abortion Alternatives," or call, toll-free, 1 (800) 848-LOVE, any time, day or night, to find the nearest Crisis Pregnancy Center in your area. You’ll find someone who genuinely cares about what happens to you and your unborn baby.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf15.html

SPARROW4:

All the thousands unborn babies - who came into existence with no choice of their own, who are aborted everyday, with no voice to raise objections or means to defend themselves in anyway - also have their whole lives ahead of them.

The numbers of women who died from botched self-abortion attempts in the past have been exaggerated beyond any reasonable logic, all only to justify abortion-on-demand. The exceptional cases are portrayed as the norm to make a false case.

Abortion can be kept legal in some cases, without making it a constitutional right. Other countries have done that and reduced the number of abortions as a result. Poland is a good example in which legal abortion was imposed on them first by the Nazis, then by the Communists. Easy legal abortion tends to have an unconscious negative impact on women who resort to it without much thought.

From http://www.abort73.com

http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-A-4-video.html

sparrow4:

cmarshdtihqcom , there is a picture for the pre Roe days that galvanized the pro-choice movement. It showed a young woman dead, with a coat hangar protruding from her body. I hope you never see it- it has been in my head for many years. All I could see was this sad, desperate young girl, her whole life ahead of her, dead because she had no alternative but to go to some back alley butcher for an abortion. Pre-marital sex was a mistake, but what civilized society would create an atmosphere of such fear and panic that young girls would rather take a chance on dying from a coat hangar than living with a pregnancy? And this is what pro-lifers (what a misnomer) would ask us to be again. Never again.

October 30, 2008 10:55 AM

__________________________________________

It is distorted logic that claims that a woman in this day and age when contraception is available, single motherhood is no longer a social stigma, many pregnancy care centers are willing to care for mothers to be, and medical care is so advanced that losing a mother due to complication in pregnancy is so very rare...abortion is the only way out, that only making abortion-on-demand a constitutional right is the only way a woman can be taken care of.

"Hard cases" - rape, incest, illness in mother, fetal deformities...makes up only for 2% of abortions. All the rest are abortions of convenience. Only 30% women do it for economic reasons. Over 62% due it for convenience and convenience alone.

As recently as yesterday, I read the comment of a woman who claimed she had aborted her child because she didn't want to interrupt her studies. She has no regrets whatsoever, and she is annoyed about any law that seeks to stand in the way of getting abortion-on-demand and *immediately.* She and others like her are of the opinion that a woman has already made up her mind when she goes to an abortion clinic and they do not want any delay in getting the abortion immediately, delays like being informed about fetal development, time to think things over, especially other options if she doesn't want to keep the child etc.

So much for the great remorse that is often sanctimoniously cited by pro-abortionists.

There is a mindset that has been 35 years in the making, and the longer abortion-on-demand as a constitutional right remains, that mindset is going to harden. When a generation with such a mindset ages, doing away with "incovenient" people can be expected to be next. An ever increasing aging population is going to be a great drain on the country's resources, and with less and less young people to contribute to the economy. Doing away with the elderly would be the logical next step. And of course, it will remain a "private" matter.

sparrow4:

cmarshdtihqcom , there is a picture for the pre Roe days that galvanized the pro-choice movement. It showed a young woman dead, with a coat hangar protruding from her body. I hope you never see it- it has been in my head for many years. All I could see was this sad, desperate young girl, her whole life ahead of her, dead because she had no alternative but to go to some back alley butcher for an abortion. Pre-marital sex was a mistake, but what civilized society would create an atmosphere of such fear and panic that young girls would rather take a chance on dying from a coat hangar than living with a pregnancy? And this is what pro-lifers (what a misnomer) would ask us to be again. Never again.

October 30, 2008 10:55 AM

____________________________________________

What about prolifers who are haunted by the knowledge that every single day at least FOUR THOUSAND unborn babies have their lives snuffed out in one of these ways?

(Age verification may be required to view)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpawB7xJZRo&feature=related

For better life or worse life, Jesus is pro-birth. Killing is not the answer to the shortcomings of life as we know it. This is of direct relevance to the unborn children who are diagnosed with Down's syndrome (it is precise, because the third 21st chromosome is telltale) or suggestive of possible autism or mental retardation before birth. Their parents fear their children will suffer in the world the way it is. It is a negative feedback loop because average people never learn to deal with people with Down's, autism, or MR, when people increasingly learn to deal with special needs people, it will become a better world for special needs children, a positive feedback loop, but parents do need to overcome the fear for their children.

In my case, Asperger syndrome, what the heck is that? No clue. Mom married a man nearly as intelligent as herself and likely to, together, create intelligent children. However, she could not produce a live birth for ten years, despite the best technology of the 1960s. Medically required bed rest finally created two sons after four failures. They seemed hyperactive with some attention deficit problems, and needed some behavior modification special ed, but turned out to be gifted, especially the first, me, who showed it before the age of three. The younger expressed his gift through computer programming and electronics projects. I pursued a conventional academic route in sociology up to the Master's, trying to understand and control my interpersonal destiny. I heard the words Asperger syndrome six weeks before I got my Master's. It eventually meant, for lack of effective interviewing, that I had to use Maryland vocational rehabilitation to switch careers into computer programming and do what my brother had been doing over 10 years already.
(I am also still working on relationships.)

There is plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that many of us who happen to have gifts as computer programmers probably can thank the same genes that gave us the Asperger, although there are many of us who have no such computer skills, too.

Jesus said it was not possible or logical that He should support sin, because a house divided could not stand. Abraham Lincoln did not say that. Jesus Christ said that. Matthew 12:25

"With Christians interpreting the Bible in a way that Jesus supposedly "blesses" abortions, who needs heretics?"....ProLifeActivistBorn59

Who are you quoting? There are too many Christians in this election season who willfully lie as means for the end. What is the value of witness for Lord Jesus when you are given to lies?

I spoke for myself not for Christianity, and most certainly not for Christ. My dilemma is the cross I bear, I have not asked anyone to bear it with. Read my post again and take your confirmation bias out of it this time.

And in summary, we have these important rules that have evolved over 60,000 years of human history:

"Thou Shalt Not Kill"

"Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery"

"Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbor's Wife"

Unwanted (or wanted) pregnancies always start with sex. Somebody educate me if I am naive but sex seems like it is more his idea than hers. At the very least, what can she possibly do about it if he takes a stand to say no, especially for her (and their and everybody's) own good?

The only time I ever experienced something like a woman's insistence was when a woman impatiently insisted upon a marriage proposal. She got it but the time was too early. I learned a lesson. The next time another woman brought up the subject, causally, I reacted calmly that I would reflect upon it, and told her no.

I said this yesterday. The best thing I can do as a Christian man is keep a Christian woman a virgin until we are married.

You need to know that this country has many OTHER important problems.

1. National debt. HOW ARE WE GOING TO PAY BACK THE FOREIGN INVESTORS and the Social Security recipients, etc.?

2. Energy policy. We can't be the slave of the Middle East.

3. Global warming. We might want to invest in energy that does not add CO2.

4. Homeland security and Afghanistan. Of course. Al Qaeda is still out there.

5. The economy - your retirement and mine, your mortgage not mine, your credit cards not mine

And our kids in school, our elderly, our unemployed, our uninsured, yada yada yada yada....

I completely agree. One thing pro lifers never get- no woman likes abortion. It's traumatic, and painful. Despite what pro-lifers say, very rarely does a woman come out unscathed emotionally.

This is the If These Walls Could Talk clip on YouTube. Age verification is required for graphic content.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5NTqCVsdnA

No matter where you side on abortion it has become the litmus test for many voters, both conservatives and liberals. The first thing that many now consider about a candidate for virtually any public office, especially judges, is where do they stand on abortion.

For example, we have a congressman running for office and the only thing we know about him from his democrat competitor is that he is against all forms of abortion. Yet a congressman is pretty far down the food chain of politicians that could impact abortion. Why is this the overriding issue in an election for a congressman? It is the Senate who approves of judges nominated by the President. Is there anything significant that a congressman can do to stop abortion? Maybe promote a constitutional amendment but that is really stretching things.

Yet the main issue in this congressional race is the candidate's position on abortion not on taxes or budgets or energy or other things that a congressman might deal with and be able to influence if elected. Abortion is all that anyone seems to care about and that is diverting attention from all the other more important issues that this congressman will end up representing for the people in congress. This situation is not unique but in fact abortion rights are exploited in most of our political campaigns when one of the candidates is pro-life and has not been PC or properly parsed their position on abortion.

Abortion is the ONLY issue in a congressional election and many other elections and that tells us a lot about the state of our nation. When killing the unborn is the ultimate right to protect above all else and a voter will not vote for a congressional candidate who is stongly pro-life, then we should pause to consider just what has become of this great nation.

I don't have to like abortion on principle. Who wouldn't slam on the brakes if a kid ran out into the road? Having an abortion is kind of conceptually like running that kid over.

If all abortions were illegal you would have three categories of women:

Intimidated: Both they and baby live
Untimidated and Lucky: They live, whether or not they are injured. Baby doesn't.
Unlucky: Both dead.

The pro-birthers are betting you'll have a big pool of Intimidateds. They are optimistic.

I am pessimistic. Either there is an underground safe abortion system and the women are Lucky or they are Unlucky. I think there is a double digit chance of women Resisting and Taking Their Chances.

Is there any survey stats on this?

I don't have the stomach to save a baby over a woman's dead body.

We're better off preventing pregnancy than preventing abortion, or preventing immoral sex.

cmarsh- so you understand. I saw family and friends suffer horribly and I am not willing to let a bunch of religious fanatics who think overriding the Constitution is ok, to make women go through that again.

Obviously the better solution would be to try to prevent unwanted pregnancy. It is futile for the rest of the world to prevent immoral sex. Even for many Christians the best we can say is we don't drag another person into our personal problems.

My mother is deceased now, but she had to save a dormmate's life once. The woman had self-induced an abortion and was refusing medical attention. My mom broke her confidence to save her life.

Incidentally, any intelligent woman after the abortion would want to know how to prevent going back for another.

1. Any surgery, necessary or elective, always carries the risk of complications (in other words, infertility) or death. I had a roommate (actually he didn't live long enough) born with three quarters of his heart who had many routine surgeries, one scheduled just before the fall semester. THAT ONE was fatal.

2. Take your pick. Our contraceptives are a hell of a lot safer than surgical abortion or RU486. Norplant and Depo and the patch are also automatic delivery mechanisms. I am not sure what they did with the sponge but barrier used in combo with the hormones is real damn effective (99% times 90% to 99%)

3. They are also safer than childbirth too and prevent the wear and tear on body systems.

So if you're going to "do it", "do it" right. I'd say screw the religious prohibition and subsidize contraception for adults at minimum. Consider also for teenage girls- we're trying to prevent teenage births and STDs here.

And while we're at it, needle exchanges for the addicts. Let's not moralize: the AIDS virus does not discriminate.

cmarshdtihqcom , there is a picture for the pre Roe days that galvanized the pro-choice movement. It showed a young woman dead, with a coat hangar protruding from her body. I hope you never see it- it has been in my head for many years. All I could see was this sad, desperate young girl, her whole life ahead of her, dead because she had no alternative but to go to some back alley butcher for an abortion. Pre-marital sex was a mistake, but what civilized society would create an atmosphere of such fear and panic that young girls would rather take a chance on dying from a coat hangar than living with a pregnancy? And this is what pro-lifers (what a misnomer) would ask us to be again. Never again.

I meant directly with reference to abortion that maybe making abortion illegal will reduce the number of abortions because some women will be detered by the fact that abortion is a crime and a severe medical risk. But by no means all will be detered if anyone knows their sociology and history. Prohibition was a failure. The War on Drugs is a failure. The Brady Bill is a failure if Billy Bob can sell a criminal a gun out of his pickup truck.

I for one Christian do not have the stomach to declare victory knowing that there exist and will exist female corpses with whatever self-applied implements still inside. Perhaps if you look only at the numbers and never see the images.... the images..... or prefer to call it "collateral damage". But it ought to keep you up at night the same. Desperate people do desperate things when there is no one to turn to.

For a taste of what the future could be, see Demi Moore in If These Walls Could Talk.

-Christopher

I checked Neil Sheehan A Bright Shining Lie pages 629 to 633 and found that my memory of Krulak's report was not entirely accurate. He did estimate it would take 10,000 American and 165,000 South Vietnamese causalties to degrade North Vietnamese manpower by 20%, true. But the inference that 50,000 American and 825,000 South Vietnamese causalties were going to win the war through attrition was false: Krulak did not support attrition, the North Vietnamese did. Krulak had suggested cutting off the flow of supplies at the source in Haiphong rather later such as on the Ho Chi Minh trail. Avril Harriman had been concerned that Krulak's suggestions would bring war with the USSR and China (632). Krulak suggested to LBJ the mining of Haiphong:

LBJ looked like "he had sat on a tack" and had praised Krulak and "escorted him to the door." (633).

That is what I meant about not having the stomach for something that might work but would be drastic.

I do believe Nixon mined Haiphong and worse, sent the B52s over Hanoi and Haiphong, and was willing to take some risks to get peace with honor. But Nixon was not LBJ.

The only way to tell which party is more pro-life than the other is to check the birth rate.

Abortion can be chemically induced without going to the hospital: RU-486, excessive intake of birth control, and noraml intake of birth control + IUD can act as an abortive as well.

Both agencies that independently track abortion agree that medical abortion + RU486 abortion has rendered a higher abortion rate under Bush than Clinton: CDC, AGI.

If life begins at conception, logically the other position is indefensible as atheists point out with glee - (there backward complement is: if there is any truth the catholic church is teaching it) - then any human action that intentionally stops the completion of pregancy once the egg is fertilized is abortion.

It is highly unlikely that people have less sex under one administration as opposed to another.

The birth rate was up under Clinton and down under Bush. McCain will continue Bush's policies.

Therefore, in good conscience you must vote democratic while working to overthrow Roe vs Wade and eventually to make abortion illegal.

But before that happens we must create positive incentives that show we actually value life - because the decision to abort does not occur in a vacuum.

Make the baby fiscally valuable and allow for easy adoption. McCain's idea to give a tax credit of 7,000 per child is a good idea and should be adopted by either candidate.

gordoncash- they never answer those questions. I have tried to get them to do so many times. And they won't because the reality is, this isn't about "Protecting innocent life," this is about keeping power over women and punishing them for thinking they can have the same rights and privileges as men. As guaranteed by the Constitution. That's why they never answer those questions.

dwightcollins:"maybe you should have been aborted...
it could have happenned...
an appropriate punishment in hell for an abortion believer would be for a soul to be inside a hellbeast conscience and go thru their own abortion...and do this over and over again forever..."

Hey- still slouching towards Jerusalem are you? You know, I am very disappointed in you. Just couldn't manage to come with an original thought. as much as I hate to credit prolifey with an original thought, he did say it first. And I am shocked at the both of you- advocating choice! Kind of puts the lie to you. You betcha!

Like every other "pro-lifer" I have confronted, Kert1, you sidestepped the issue. DO YOU CONCEDE THAT A PREGNANT WOMAN IS A CITIZEN WITH LEGAL RIGHTS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION, OR NOT? By "rights", I mean her own rights as a person, not something that accrues to her from her fetus as its carrier. If you do, then say so. If you do not, then we have no common ground from which to discuss anything else.

In any case, before you accuse me of approving of the wholesale slaughter of non-citizens, an accusation which I am sure you know is ridiculous, at least answer the question and stop pretending it is not an issue.

You may not expressly choose a candidate but your choice is clear because you vote on one issue and you have so narrowly defined that issue. That's the problem. The Republican stance on so many things does not support the inherent dignity of human life once it is outside the womb. That is how I make my choices...I'm pro-life, yes. But, I believe it is just as critical for me to vote for a candidate that will help the poor (providing health care, jobs...dignity). If you check with Scripture...I think Jesus mentions those guys quite a lot.

Christians make me so happy that their skinny Jewish zombie is dead. I can't stand their ignorance and whining anymore. March them all into the sea.

So Chuckie, what's your excuse?

Pro-life ALSO MEANS ANTI-DEATH PENALTY. Catholics for McCain should go back and realize that the church works to santify the dignity of life from conception to NATURAL death.

"...the clear pro-life injunctions of Scripture."

Colson, I challenge you to show me in the Bible where a blastocyst is defined as a human being.

It isn't there. Period. End of discussion. You're living a lie and promulgating it with all the self-assurance of a typical right wing nut case, but hey, you've been doing that for your whole life, so there's no salvation for you now.

For someone who protests so loudly about these scenarios where doctors allegedly suck out the brains of a fetus, I wonder sometimes whether it's worse having them sucked out by medieval dogma.

Keep government out of the private lives of the citizenry, and we won't revolt. That's the deal. I suggest you take it.

RonS2 :
"Pro-life" evangelicals remain the single largest block in the U.S. that support "pre-emptive" war and torture. To fulminate against abortion as they do (along with gay marriage thrown in on the side) while supporting war and torture is hideous and obscene.

October 30, 2008 7:10 AM
=================================================
A war has been fought every 20 years, on average, to protect your right to spew your drivel.

I never ask my surgeon what religion he practices. I do not need the flight crew to post their religion on the cockpit door.

It is illegal in this Country to make hiring decisions or housing decisions based upon religion.

We "hire" & house the President & VP!

I don't care what criteria anyone uses when they are in the voting booth, (more power to them if it is religion or any thing else) but I object to putting it on all our government forms, government websites & making such a big deal about it in the press.

"Pro-life" evangelicals remain the single largest block in the U.S. that support "pre-emptive" war and torture. To fulminate against abortion as they do (along with gay marriage thrown in on the side) while supporting war and torture is hideous and obscene.

Abortion is an evil beyond comprehension. To think that there could be people who consider it their right, and would treat as politically incorrect the speaking out against such evil, oh how dark are the times in which we live!

" sparrow4 Author Profile Page:
DwightHCollins-
that's all right dwight. I don't consider you to be even subhuman, much less human.
"I feel that some day humans will look back at our times and be puzzled at how callous we were to the unborn and how primitive we were to think that the viability and sacredness of human life could originate at any time other than the moment of conception."
I hope we look back and how we talked so much about the sacredness of life in the womb, yet treated the living like they were nothing. How we wasted so much effort on saving zygotes and embryos, but gave them nothing when they were born. If you truly believe life is sacred, worry more about what happens after they're born. Otherwise it is just hypocrisy.
October 29, 2008 7:20 PM | Report Offensive Comments"

in America, there are programs to help babies in distress...
it better than your way of slaughtering them before they are even born...
seems to me you are the one that is less than human by advocating for abortion...
maybe you should have been aborted...
it could have happenned...
an appropriate punishment in hell for an abortion believer would be for a soul to be inside a hellbeast conscience and go thru their own abortion...and do this over and over again forever...

In the days when barbarian practices like cannibalism was the norm, and tribal warfare was commonplace, human life had no value, and might was right. Rule of law and civilized societies took a long time to develop. Maybe women need to catch up, stop looking on the barbaric practice of killing her own unborn child as normal.

"A bit of human embryology can clear that up. Between two and six hundred MILLION sperms are released during one intercourse into the vagina. Out of that only about 200 (two hundred) enter the uterine tube. Only a SINGLE SPERM enters the egg to fertilize it. ALL the other sperms DIE within forty eight hours..."

Dear friend, no amount of facts can clear up, whether we should adopt a moral principle or not. This is called the divide between facts and values. You're just talking about the practical difficulties I mentioned. Certainly one's sex is an important ingredient concerning who one is, but there's nothing decisive in it.

That is how God creates a human being. First the form is complete in almost every detail, tiny. Then the body grows in size.

In the womb, the baby is mostly growing in size for seven months after having developed the most important organs in the earliest stages, including the external form, in the first two months.

seppou:

Even before the woman suspects pregnancy, the single celled zygote, is already at least two weeks old, embedded fully in the mother's uterus and even producing a hormone which gives the positive pregnancy test.

The baby's heart begins to beat on DAY 21/22 after fertilization. By the time the baby is big enough to be aborted (at the earliest at seven weeks), at eight weeks it looks like a human baby on the outside only tiny. It has all the organs in the earliest stage and some of them are already functioning. The heart had been beating for five weeks.

seppou:

I always wonder, why you folks aren't pro-sperm and pro-ova, too. Because a baby cannot become herself/himself without contributions from certain sperm and certain ovum, the sanctity of human life should logically apply to the essential ingredients as well. Any practical difficulties should be neither here or there, when the real men of principle take charge.

October 30, 2008 6:07 AM

______________________________________________

A bit of human embryology can clear that up. Between two and six hundred MILLION sperms are released during one intercourse into the vagina. Out of that only about 200 (two hundred) enter the uterine tube. Only a SINGLE SPERM enters the egg to fertilize it. ALL the other sperms DIE within forty eight hours.

Only one egg is released per month. If it is not fertilized. It is usually fertilized within 12 hours. If it is not fertilized, it dies after only 24 HOURS.

Both eggs and sperms only have half the number of chromosomes. Only when the egg is fertilized and the two pronucleii containing the chromosomes fuse, does the egg become a zygote, with the full number of chromosomes, which is the beginning of a new human being. Even the sex of the baby is determined at the time of fertilization.

The developing baby derives only oxygen and nutrition from the mother and discards its waste through the blood stream of the mother.

The egg and sperm are specialized sex cells which are meant to unite to create a new human being. They die soon after if the fertilization doesn't take place.

JohnDebba:

With Christians interpreting the Bible in a way that Jesus supposedly "blesses" abortions, who needs heretics?

I always wonder, why you folks aren't pro-sperm and pro-ova, too. Because a baby cannot become herself/himself without contributions from certain sperm and certain ovum, the sanctity of human life should logically apply to the essential ingredients as well. Any practical difficulties should be neither here or there, when the real men of principle take charge.

I am Christian and pro-live, but not just until the baby is born. I will not go on about the social/economic issues affecting out nation; how I see Christianity becoming a people of religion rather than faith; strange church teachings; how hate and ignorance has become acceptable in Christianity, if not a religious obligation. Should I attempt to do so, I may have a nervous breakdown.(no kidding) Just so you may know, I don't comfort myself by calling the unborn child, a fetus, it's a baby.

You have noticed how the supposed pro-life Bush administration does what they see fit. Mr. Colson, do you believe it's odious for one to claim pro-life and deny life to thousands of American troops and people that had nothing to do with 9/11? Maybe somewhere in the Bible it's written better to kill a few than many; please point me to the verse. My mind will not be eased but I at least the weight of a difficult choice will lifted off my shoulder.

I've had to endure asinine interpretations of the Bible which in order to believe them, would require I also believe God lacks the ability to express himself clearly on issue of utmost importance: Even worse He had no clue about abortion among the gentiles. Some attempted to connect the dots for me, verse to verse, but it was like a color blind man telling me about colors. After that failed I was called spiritually blind. Perhaps, just perhaps, God wanted us to do the hard work outside the ballot box; certainly there's nothing hard about sitting around crying for two years then casting a ballot. And just maybe, He wanted the final decision to remain between Him and conscious of the woman carrying the baby. I am not say Lord Jesus sanctified abortion but the same God said, whoever breaks the least of His commands breaks them all. How then can we love the unborn but still jump on Bush's and maybe McCain's war wagon?

I have heard the Bible used in every argument for and against abortion, and came away the dumber from them. Both sides believed it's clear and I believed they are clearly out of their minds to believe that. I will cast my vote to what I clearly see, and pray I have made the right decision.

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 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, they OVERTURN Roe vs Wade! The laws are returned to the states.

They explain to President Obama that they must act in accordance with evidence, not based on promises made by a presidential candidate during the 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!

Helmuttvons:

It is religious nuts like you which gives Christianity and ordinary Christians a bad name.

Aslan1963: It is true that many Sunni Muslims probably fled the revenge attacks of Shia Muslims (for having been treated badly during Saddam's rule) after the fall of Saddam Hussein, and the old Shia-Sunni rivalries resurfaced. But the peace Saddam Hussein maintained was at a high price to the Shia majority and the Kurds because Saddam favored only his own Sunni minority.

Aslan1963:

To ProLifeActivist1959:

I see this is getting nowhere. Please read the news or a history book to catch up on the difference between the relative peace of Saddam era Iraq and current Iraq. Then you will find out about the hordes of Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria that left American occupied Iraq, who are just now returning.

The irony of it all is that if Bush had used sound Christian judgement, he would've stayed out of Iraq, and in so doing paved the way for McCain to win in 2008. This would've led to the extra supreme court justice needed to overturn Roe v. Wade. Bush, it seems, was there for a God given purpose, but Iraq stands like a memorial to what he was called to prevent, the loss of innocent life.

October 30, 2008 3:26 AM

___________________________________________

Btw, I did do some online anti-war campaigning in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq. So the history is quite well known to me. It came as no surprise that there were no WMD, all anti-war activists knew that.

But the peace of Saddam Hussein the dictator? Did you hear that from Shia in Iraq during the rule of Saddam Hussein?

Are the mass graves found after the war, the death of thousands of Kurds in Saddam Hussein's time, the loss of life in Iran-Iraq war initiated by Saddam Hussein, all testimony to his peace loving ways? Even Iraqis don't agree. They may not like US presence, but no Iraqi is mourning for Saddam Hussein. That much is certain.

It is appearing likely that the Antichrist is one of the candidates for president this year. The Bible tells us that the Beast will come from the Sea, Obama is from Hawaii. John Mccain was born on the isthmus of Panama which connects North and South American continents was formed by volcanism out of the sea sometime in the past 7,000 years. Wacko Geologists would have us believe it is much older, if that is so, why then is the volcano that formed it, called Baru, still active having last erupted 400 years ago. Besides, Scripture is very clear about Genesis leaving Scholars to extrapolate the earths age at about 7000. Never before in the history of US Presidential politics has ANY candidate not been born in the continental States (ie. not the sea) Since they BOTH come from the sea one of these men is the harbinger of the end of days. I therefore emplore you my Brothers and Sisters to halt your pointless political bickering and prepare your souls to recieve Yeheshua bar Jusef (Jesus).
God bless you,
Helmutt

To ProLifeActivist1959:

I see this is getting nowhere. Please read the news or a history book to catch up on the difference between the relative peace of Saddam era Iraq and current Iraq. Then you will find out about the hordes of Iraqi refugees in Jordan and Syria that left American occupied Iraq, who are just now returning.

The irony of it all is that if Bush had used sound Christian judgement, he would've stayed out of Iraq, and in so doing paved the way for McCain to win in 2008. This would've led to the extra supreme court justice needed to overturn Roe v. Wade. Bush, it seems, was there for a God given purpose, but Iraq stands like a memorial to what he was called to prevent, the loss of innocent life.

flipflopper- I did refute them. You're just too stupid to understand the argument. And by the way, nice one about my mother aborting me. What kind of pro-life, so-called self-described christian makes a joke about someone aborting a baby? You must be very confused, and feeling no small lack of confidence in your education and reading comprehension. You could have finished high school-even people as inbred as you can lead normal lives. And a shout out to your mother for figuring out how to knit that sweater with 2 holes for the heads. Looks nice on you.

SPARROW4:

Wow- you really refuted me, didn't ya? sadly for you, my show isn't false as I have a degree in social science and minors in bio and chem. form a very good, legitimate university- not from a wiki website. For the record, I did try to explain to you why there are different terms used for different stages of development but that seems to have gone right over your head.

October 30, 2008 1:44 AM

__________________________________________

Whatever your degree, even if you got it from Harvard, one thing I can say with *certainty* is that you DON'T know human embryology.

Read the relevant information at least from the websites I have posted here and on Catholic America and on the blog of Dorinda Bordlee. Your pretense at knowing human embryology requires no response.

SPARROW4,

What compromise could there possibly be when talking about the life a human being?

C'mmon smart guy (you claim you are smart, right?) ... refute my arguments!

If you can't, then I stand by my joke ... your mother should have aborted you, coz you are useless!

Ooops, there I am again. Sorry, shouldn't have said that.

My name FlipFlopper is for Obama, the liar.

Well, flipflopper- your name does say it all. (Hypocrite is probably more accurate.) Your comment- what can I say? er- doesn't that make you a baby murderer?

Why waste my time trying to talk reason to people like you? Nothing will change your minds and you have no interest in compromise. Why bother? But let's revisit your comments: "NOBAMA! It's a pity he claims to defend the life of Americans but can't say the same for the most vulnerable human beings, the unborn children.

As in 2000 and 2004, the EVANGELICAL VOTE will win it for McCain/Palin.

Baby-Killers are LOSERS!" see? hysterical. Shrieking. Enjoy.

Prolifeactivistborn59:"Sure I have an issue - with you. You are willfully ignorant and are putting on a false show of scientific knowledge to boot."

Wow- you really refuted me, didn't ya? sadly for you, my show isn't false as I have a degree in social science and minors in bio and chem. form a very good, legitimate university- not from a wiki website. For the record, I did try to explain to you why there are different terms used for different stages of development but that seems to have gone right over your head.

PRO-ABORTION and EUTHANASIA believers are no different from HITLER. They believe vulnerable, weak and sickly people (and unborn children) do not deserve to live.

If you desire death for others, it is you who do not deserve to live.

Aslan1963:

To ProLifeActivist1959:

Please tell me how unjust war and abortion are two separate issues? Both are very much pro-life issues, as both result in loss of life. Who are you to say that the civilian loss of life in Iraq is small in comparison, and is less innocent than the loss of an unborn child? And what happens when America pulls out, whether now or in ten years? America waited for the Soviet Union to collapse, and we're patient with China, what forced us to invade Iraq? Consider that some rogue element within Pakistan may detonate a nuclear weapon as a result of our split attention on Afghanistan. How does the immediate loss of perhaps five million people compare to one day's loss of abortions? If Mr. Colson is referring just to abortion, he has it wrong; if he is referring to all life preservation issues, as Pope John Paul II did, he has it right.

October 30, 2008 12:29 AM

__________________________________

Iraqi Sunni and Shia civilians are killing each other because of centuries old unsettled issues and the pain inflicted in the Saddam Hussein era.

What has that got to do with American women killing their unborn babies, four thousand of them every single day for the past 35 years?

Abort Palin and McCain and Bush.

sparrow4:

Prolifeactivistborn59- I can see you have issues, one of them being an inability to understand embryology. A zygote, a fertilized egg, embryo, fetus- these all describe stages of development and "child", "baby" refers to a specific stage as well. And there is a reason for that. A zygote is not a baby. It is a mass of cells that can eventually become a baby. You want to present your evidence in a scientific manner- to do that you have to know the proper usage of terms and what they actually mean. Otherwise you just sound like some guy who looked it up in wiki and now thinks he's a scientist. If anyone's religious beliefs need to catch up to science, it's you.

October 30, 2008 12:33 AM

__________________________________________

Sure I have an issue - with you. You are willfully ignorant and are putting on a false show of scientific knowledge to boot.

What's the matter Sparrow4? Look at you! You are the one who is hysterical? Why don't you refute what I wrote instead of acting like a baby that should have been rightly aborted!

Oh sorry, I shouldn't have said that.

flipflopper- blah blah blah blah blah.
Can't you people stop shrieking hysterically and ranting like lunatics for once. try a real conversation. Try a little rationality.

John McCain may have committed adultery. But he only did it once. His ex-wife has since forgiven him.

Hussein Obama on his part, and all you Pro-Abortion people, commit MURDER for every baby that is bein ABORTED in the world today!

SHAME ON ALL OF YOU!

Obama's 30-minute infomercial is just all sweet talk. McCain/Palin can do everything he says. With his record and friends, experienced and trustworthy Obama is NOT. NOBAMA! It's a pity he claims to defend the life of Americans but can't say the same for the most vulnerable human beings, the unborn children.

As in 2000 and 2004, the EVANGELICAL VOTE will win it for McCain/Palin.

Baby-Killers are LOSERS!

A bunch of human cells maybe just cells, but don't they not eventually become human beings? Persons? Abortion kills potential human beings, not dogs or cats or any other animal. They are human beings.

Abortion and Iraq do not cancel each other out. Iraq is a war, that defends democracy and life. Americans involvement is for defense not offense and as such casualties are an unfortunate consequence. Abortion on the other hand is a deliberate and pre-meditated murder of human beings ... even if in the case of incest and/or rape.

What's the babies fault in the pregnancy?

It's not yet too late.

VOTE PRO-LIFE!
VOTE MCCAIN/PALIN !!!

Prolifeactivistborn59- I can see you have issues, one of them being an inability to understand embryology. A zygote, a fertilized egg, embryo, fetus- these all describe stages of development and "child", "baby" refers to a specific stage as well. And there is a reason for that. A zygote is not a baby. It is a mass of cells that can eventually become a baby. You want to present your evidence in a scientific manner- to do that you have to know the proper usage of terms and what they actually mean. Otherwise you just sound like some guy who looked it up in wiki and now thinks he's a scientist. If anyone's religious beliefs need to catch up to science, it's you.

To ProLifeActivist1959:

Please tell me how unjust war and abortion are two separate issues? Both are very much pro-life issues, as both result in loss of life. Who are you to say that the civilian loss of life in Iraq is small in comparison, and is less innocent than the loss of an unborn child? And what happens when America pulls out, whether now or in ten years? America waited for the Soviet Union to collapse, and we're patient with China, what forced us to invade Iraq? Consider that some rogue element within Pakistan may detonate a nuclear weapon as a result of our split attention on Afghanistan. How does the immediate loss of perhaps five million people compare to one day's loss of abortions? If Mr. Colson is referring just to abortion, he has it wrong; if he is referring to all life preservation issues, as Pope John Paul II did, he has it right.

Mr. Colson, you cannot be serious. I am supposed to "vote pro-life," meaning what, exactly?

Meaning vote for the person most likely to impact the overturning of Roe v. Wade?

Do you really think that overturning Roe v. Wade will do *anything* to prevent abortions or to solve the problem of unwanted pregnancy? You're telling me to vote for the candidate most committed to overturning Roe v. Wade, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER PLAN TO PROTECT THE LIVES OF WOMEN AS WELL, and think that I've done my duty as a Christian?

You're saying I can go to bed at night, knowing that I voted for the "pro-life" candidate, when that person can also believe that poor people are poor because of their own laziness and therefore deserve only condemnation? That the war in Iraq that kills thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians is somehow just? That the government killing a felon somehow takes away guilt and pain?

The time for these simplistic statements of "pro-life = Christian" is OVER. You need to come to this party with more. More real answers. More real solutions.

Here's a quarter. Go buy yourself some credibility.

eabpmn:

Of all the arrogant self-rightoeus prigs!

I am a Quaker and MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS say that it is up to the individual woman to act in a manner that she finds consistent with her conscience and beliefs - and that means having the RIGHT TO CHOOSE to end a pregnancy.

A bunch of cells is NOT a person according to my religious beliefs!

October 29, 2008 11:54 PM

_________________________________________

Read the textbook of human embryology, The Developing Human by Moore and Persaud.

Meditate on Psalm 139 and Luke chapter 1.

eabpmn:

Of all the arrogant self-rightoeus prigs!

I am a Quaker and MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS say that it is up to the individual woman to act in a manner that she finds consistent with her conscience and beliefs - and that means having the RIGHT TO CHOOSE to end a pregnancy.

A bunch of cells is NOT a person according to my religious beliefs!

October 29, 2008 11:54 PM

__________________________________________

Your religious belief needs to catch up with hard core medical science.

ASLAN1963, from a non-political point of view, surely you understand that a war and abortion are two separate issues?

FOUR THOUSAND UNBORN AMERICAN BABIES ARE KILLED EACH DAY IN THE US WHICH MAKES IT TO 1.2 MILLION, GIVE OR TAKE A FEW THOUSAND, PER YEAR, EVERY YEAR SINCE ROE VS WADE.

War in Iraq: do you have the numbers of Iraqi children directly targeted and killed by US soldiers?

Abortion is about targeting defenseless unborn children (who are very much alive in the womb, which you can verify with ultrasound technology) with intention to kill... and ARE killed without exception.

Of all the arrogant self-rightoeus prigs!

I am a Quaker and MY RELIGIOUS BELIEFS say that it is up to the individual woman to act in a manner that she finds consistent with her conscience and beliefs - and that means having the RIGHT TO CHOOSE to end a pregnancy.

A bunch of cells is NOT a person according to my religious beliefs!

I have always admired Chuck Colson for his work with Prison Ministries, and respect him completely. However, it appears that for him abortion is the only pro-life issue relevant to this election, and I see this view present in a majority of evangelicals, as if in lock-step.

What would Pope John Paul II have to say about this? Were he alive today I'm persuaded that Pope John Paul II would not side with either Obama or McCain, and such would be the case of Jesus Christ himself. There is no just-war case for our continued presence in Iraq (which is not true with Afghanistan.) It is possible that in the long haul millions of lives will be lost as a result of this war, and that is significant when compared with abortion. Numbers aside, the national moral justification for the termination of life in both political parties is wrong, as Pope John Paul II would loudly declare.

Abortion and Iraq seem to cancel each other out morally, and this is why I believe the election is about all that lies between, and why Obama may have slightly more moral weight than McCain due to his focus on the economy and middle class.

FURTDW :
"This Catholic is staunchly pro - life and would never vote for a pro - choice candidate."
So your vote, driven by abortion, is to keep in office an executive who is pro-war.
Certain kinds of killing are just fine.

Chuck Colson is nothing but a crook from the Nixon regime. Hopefully America will be "saved" from the likes of him and others about the same speed during the upcoming election.

Anyone realize there is always an uncanny correlation between "pro-lifers" and "preemptive war-mongers"? The fact is, the world can support only a certain max number of people, resource-wise. You get the picture? So give Chuck a break, because this is only the Almighty's bi-partisan power at work!

And BTW, I'm against unjust wars (did a lot of online anti-war campaigning in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq), death penalty, and abuse of power in any form.

I'm not taking a political stand on abortion.

One way to help solve abortion would be to execute the scumbag that got the girl pregnant, unless they're married. Unmarried women are 6 times more likely than married women to have an abortion. 67% of abortions are from women who have never been married.

Chuck Colson says: "I think it is inappropriate for a Christian leader to make partisan endorsements." If you're a red-blooded American with a backbone you should endorse whoever you want to (even if they end sentences in prepositions). The first Amendment is a restriction on Congress, not pastors. As for Supreme Court jurismumbojumbo, we got off the track with Marbury v. Madison (declaring an act of Congress unconstitutional). Article III never said the Court has the power to broaden the 1st Amendment.

Pro-Life should mean caring for life before AND AFTER birth. I'm still waiting for Pro-Lifers to speak out when an admin threatens to veto health care for children. They're silent when it comes to issues to help the poor (mostly children!). The Bush admin has promoted big business - to the extreme! the trampling of the wealthy at the expense of the 'down trodden' (idolatry, love of money, greed, etc). The Dems are wrong for stances on abortion and homosexuality. Reps and Dems are BOTH wrong. So far, the only 'Christian' leader I know of with the guts to speak out on all things wrong is the Pope (and I'm not even Catholic). We as Christians must look a bit hypocritical to unbelievers. I'll vote Rep when I finally find one who cares about life after birth and the poor.

Human embryology, buttressed with ultrasound technology which makes it possible to view unborn babies in the womb, Fetology or perinatal pediatrics which manages unborn children in the womb...do not give pro-abortion spin any ground to stand on. Or only about as much ground as justification of genocide.

To those who say abortion as a constitutional right cannot be wrong, NULONO, a 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.”

Athena4:

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.

Chuck, I look forward to you eating a nice, big plate of broiled crow this time next week.

October 29, 2008 8:55 PM

______________________________________________

This is a pro-abortion line 101.

Please read the information provided on the links I posted here, on the blog of Dorinda Bordlee, and the latest thread of Prof Stevens-Arroyo.

No amount of pro-abortion spin can change the facts of medical science.

Abortionists make money out of doing abortions. They know about the life of the unborn child when they read their embryology textbook in the first year of med school.

Hard core medical science has proved life of every human being begins with fertilization. The unborn child merely derives oxygen and nutrients from its mother, and disposes its waste through the mother's blood stream.

No amount of pro-abortion

SPARROW4:

As I suggested on another thread (Dorinda Bordlee), take the time to read all the essays and information provided in the links. Since the abortion debate is 35 years old, every topic has been thoroughly covered.

As to growing, growth in terms of increasing body and brain cells, is complete about the age of 25. It is suggested that brain cells continue to change significantly all through life.

Body cells are continuously replaced at different rates in different parts of the body. For instance skin cells are replaced every four weeks, read blood cells die every 120 days and are constantly replaced...the list goes on. Nails and hair are actually dead cells, which is why they may increase slightly in size for a few days after death.

What is the pro-abortion red herring tactic?

They change the subject by talking about wars, genocide and death penalty, even about children in Africa who don't get clean drinking water.

In abortion one unborn child is killed at a time at the rate of 4000 per day. A shift in attitude can make a vast difference to the number of children who are never given a chance at life. Ninety eight percent of abortions in the US is for convenience. Only 30% of them are due to economic reasons.

What is the pro-abortion red herring tactic?

They change the subject by talking about wars, genocide and death penalty, even about children in Africa who don't get clean drinking water.

In abortion one unborn child is killed at a time at the rate of 4000 per day. A shift in attitude can make a vast difference to the number of children who are never g

"People usually stop growing when they are dead, that is the proof a growing baby is a living baby."

People generally stop growing when they hit 21.

"The child in the womb is very much alive, proved by the fact that it is growing at a rapid rate."
Cancerous tumors also are growing at a rapid rate- this hardly qualifies them as "alive."

"Eve was pulled out from the body of Adam. " Eve was created from adam's rib.

psalm 139:For you formed my inward parts;
you knitted me together in my mother's womb.
14 I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made.

15 My frame was not hidden from you,
when I was being made in secret,
intricately woven in the depths of the earth.

beautiful psalm- still does not say life begins at conception. It says I am put together in the womb- implying we are constructed, until we become whole, not that we are a whole human at conception.

the second phrase (15) could almost be read as the concept of evolution. (Not a fundamentalist interpretation at all).

"Despite all their talk about "choice," those at abortion clinics who counsel women on their options often act as if abortion is a woman’s only realistic alternative."

How do you know this? Have you ever been to one? Or are you just spouting more talking points?

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.

Chuck, I look forward to you eating a nice, big plate of broiled crow this time next week.

Using Genesis to support abortion on the grounds human life began when God breathed life into Adam:

1. God made Adam from clay; God did not pull Adam out alive from a woman's womb;

2. God breathed life into Adam. There is no mention that Adam took His first breath. The child in the womb is very much alive, proved by the fact that it is growing at a rapid rate. So God has already breathed life into the baby at conception, otherwise it couldn't grow. People usually stop growing when they are dead, that is the proof a growing baby is a living baby. The baby in the womb does not breathe because the oxygen it needs is provided by the mother.

3. The Bible mentions creation of Eve by God. Eve was pulled out from the body of Adam. There is no mention of God breathing life into Eve. She was pulled out from the living body of Adam just as a living child is pulled out from the living body of its mother. A dead child does not suddenly start breathing. Premature babies, delivered artificially before their time, through a caesarian section start to breathe when they leave the mother's womb - when their umbilical cord is cut and they no longer get oxygen from their mother. Some babies are put on ventilators if their lungs are still immature. Neither the baby nor its lungs are dead. It is developing slowly. The heart starts to beat on day 21 after fertilization because the baby needs the heart to pump blood to its growing body and get all its oxygen and nutrients from its mother. It does not need the lungs immediately because the mother's blood supplies it with oxygen.

At eight weeks the baby looks very human on the outside, and has all the organs in its earliest form, even if the baby is very tiny and its head is twice the size of its body.

Using Genesis to support abortion on the grounds human life began when God breathed life into Adam:

1. God made Adam from clay; God did not pull Adam out alive from a woman's womb;

2. God breathed life into Adam. There is no mention that Adam took His first breath. The child in the womb is very much alive, proved by the fact that it is growing at a rapid rate. So God has already breathed life into the baby at conception, otherwise it couldn't grow. People usually stop growing when they are dead, that is the proof a growing baby is a living baby. The baby in the womb does not breathe because the oxygen it needs is provided by the mother.

3. The Bible mentions creation of Eve by God. Eve was pulled out from the body of Adam. There is no mention
It is outright disingenuous to use Jesus as a scapegoat to justify abortions.

"Thou shalt not kill" is clear enough and existed as a Commandment since the time of Moses.

Psalm 139 was written by King David, long before the birth of Jesus.

Luke chapter 1 describes the "ensoulment process" which begins with conception.

There are specific laws in Judaism which punished sexual immorality - fornication and adultery - severely. Jesus stepped that up by forbidding even lustful glances, and forbidding divorce emphasizing that divorce was allowed only because of the hardness of people's hearts, not because God intended it that way when He created human beings.

Statistics show that 88% of abortions in the US are sought out by UNmarried women.

If Jesus is being used as a scapegoat to justify abortions on the grounds he didn't mention abortion as a sin, just as He didn't mention pedophilia, why is His teaching forbidding even lustful glances, and prohibition of divorce not being followed? If everyone followed the teachings the number of abortions would drop at least by 88% automatically, the numbers sought by UNmarried women.

That leaves only 12%, 30% or more of whom may be talked out of abortion with economic help, adoption options etc.

"Thou shalt not take the name of God or Jesus in vain!"

Those who see advantages in terminating some pregnancies are labeled "anti-life," simply because a clump of cells that has allegedly been endowed by its Creator with a soul, is removed from fertile soil, so to speak, before viability. The clump isn't conscious and cannot perceive pain. However, if carried to term, the clump often becomes an unwanted burden and/or reminder of a criminal act and/or a social parasite. In any case, the most ardent anti-abortion supporters are the very same people who are pro-life when the "life" is in the womb, and anti-life once it is born. No support after birth. No support when it is sent off die in some senseless war. Abortion is a terrible form of birth control. I don't recommend any woman getting pregnant without being ready to assume full responsibility for the products of conception. Abortion is a perversion of the reproductive process. But promulgating religious fantasies as a basis for lawmaking is improper in our secular society.

" ProLifeActivistBorn59 Author Profile Page:

Alternatives to Abortion

Despite all their talk about "choice," those at abortion clinics who counsel women on their options often act as if abortion is a woman’s only realistic alternative. This simply isn’t so."

and you know this how? because some pro-lifer told you so?

From the abortion statistics compiled (and regularly updated) by William Robert Johnston ( http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/about.html ):

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html

Check out and compare for the years

before 1967 (sexual revolution)
1967 - 1973 (Roe vs Wade)
after 1973 (abortion as a constitutional right)

1. Abortion ratio is abortions per 1000 live births.

2. Abortion % is abortions as percentage of pregnancies (excluding fetal deaths/miscarriages).

furtdw- perhaps if you read up on the issue a little more you might find that as much as the republicans would like you to believe Obama voted to murder children, they are misleading you

From the website of Stanford Students for Life:

Links and Resources Menu

http://www.abort73.com/

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/

Alternatives to Abortion

Despite all their talk about "choice," those at abortion clinics who counsel women on their options often act as if abortion is a woman’s only realistic alternative. This simply isn’t so.

_________________________________________________

Throughout the United States, there are nearly 3,000 Crisis Pregnancy Centers staffed by volunteers ready to provide real help to women facing unplanned or untimely pregnancies.

_______________________________________________

In addition to providing pregnancy tests and counseling, these centers often offer a full range of services, helping women obtain housing, maternity and baby clothes, baby equipment, pre- and post-natal medical care, legal assistance and financial support, information about adoption, and even advice on how a woman in school can continue her education. Offering real and tangible assistance, these centers have helped thousands of women to realize that they didn’t have to choose between their own lives and the lives of their unborn babies.

Unlike their counterparts at the local abortion clinic, the volunteer counselors at your Crisis Pregnancy Center do not have a vested financial interest in the ultimate decision you make. Their concern and commitment are genuine, so you can count on them to stick by you through the tense and sometimes difficult months ahead.

Look up your local Crisis Pregnancy Center to have some idea of the quality of people who work there. But if not, you can look in the Yellow Pages under the heading "Abortion Alternatives," or call, toll-free, 1 (800) 848-LOVE, any time, day or night, to find the nearest Crisis Pregnancy Center in your area. You’ll find someone who genuinely cares about what happens to you and your unborn baby.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/asmf15.html

Thanks Mr. Colson.

This Catholic is staunchly pro - life and would never vote for a pro - choice candidate.

Sen. McCain will get my vote next week.

Sen. Obama's four votes against the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" were disgraceful and un-manly.

Thank you GSQUARED100 for that last input : "Not all Christians believe that life begins at conception. Genesis 2:7 says that life begins at first breath". Not that it matters to many as we all find rationalization to self affirm that our beliefs are valid. More comfortable than seeking out how our beliefs may be flawed. So... back to the hypocracy concept. Not just of evangelicals but humans in general. Yet it is at birth that life enters the world, and at breath that spirit enters the body to inhabit it. The idea is held by many societies and religions. It is the most crucial element to maintain for continued life, breath is. God is said to have breathed life into Adam.

Can you be pro-life and a neocon at the same time? Seems an oxymoron. Support the Iraqi war and talk about the sanctity of life? How does that work?

Not all Christians believe that life begins at conception. Genesis 2:7 says that life begins at first breath. In any event, the Constitution guarantees that we all have freedom OF religion and freedom FROM religion. If you don't like that, move to China, or North Korea. I am a Christian. I am also pro-choice. My God is a loving God. He does not reject anybody. Anyone who claims that their God is the only God and their interpretation of the Bible is the only true interpretation is a charlatan.

The notion of selecting a candidate based on any narrow single issue, is completely inappropriate in almost any circumstance.

Anyone who selects a candidate based solely on who is most against abortion is damaging this country and Christianity.

A faithful believer must be "PRO HUMAN BEING." That is a far more appropriate and much broader term than "pro life," which generally just means against abortion.

Yes, abortion is a terrible thing, but the Bush administration, which is pro life, has run the country into the ground, economically and otherwise.

Sanctity of life truly is of utmost importance, but you Mr. Colson have a very narrow definition of "life." Let's not forget that sanctity of the life includes treating the ill. What about the 47 million Americans who have no health insurance? Many thousands die each year because of that. What about their lives? What about mentally ill patients who do not receive their medications due to delays in MediCare/MedicAid and lose their children to foster care as a result? What about the lives of those innocent children?

Mr. Colson, sorry, but while you claim to be "pro life," in reality, your position advocates "anti-human being."

There are just a few other issues that any sensible voter should think about.

The Bush regime has alienated U.S. in most countries around the world. Immediately after 9/11 the U.S. had a unique position where it had the sympathy and empathy of the world. The U.S. should have used that empathy for good and to further spread the ideals of our forefathers in an enlightened way. Instead, President Bush implemented his "go-it-alone" "Bush Doctrine" by means of falsehood and deceit and has only caused other nations to resent the U.S. even more.

Through the war in Iraq, the U.S. has killed many thousands of people (certainly many enemies, but also many civilians) (Don't you wonder why we never hear how many??). The Iraq war is by no means a pro life action. Yes, we eliminated a terrible dictator, but at what cost to our nation and to the civilians of Iraq? (Remember how Pres. Bush said that we weren't going to be involved in nation building? That was an outright lie of his intentions. How could we ever destroy Iraq and walk away? That would never be in our own interest.)

While I detest abortion, I will never select any candidate based only on such an issue.

Mr. Colson and any so-called "pro-life" and other one-issue voters, get a clue!!! Educate yourselves about the issues of the world. Broaden your horizons and become "pro human being," not just anti abortion.

Tonight, I am reminded of the legend of the Popular trees (populus trembula). Brother DeLay has showed his fear tonight by labelling Senator Obama a Marxist, pathetic. I was taught to fear no man but to fear God.

Which do you proclaim on the most numerous occasions: "I Love America" or "I Love Jesus"???
Listen to your own words to determine your heart. Does it lie with Caesar or with God? For the most part the evangelical movement is a faux Christian group of predominately blind churchians. If Christ is your Lord you'll utter more praise for Him than anything or anyone else. Hail Caesar Dubya/McCain/Palin? Pray about it.

"Pro-birth," rather than pro-life, is the term I prefer for most such professed Christians, since their concern for creating life far exceeds their regard for those once here.

DwightHCollins-

that's all right dwight. I don't consider you to be even subhuman, much less human.

"I feel that some day humans will look back at our times and be puzzled at how callous we were to the unborn and how primitive we were to think that the viability and sacredness of human life could originate at any time other than the moment of conception."

I hope we look back and how we talked so much about the sacredness of life in the womb, yet treated the living like they were nothing. How we wasted so much effort on saving zygotes and embryos, but gave them nothing when they were born. If you truly believe life is sacred, worry more about what happens after they're born. Otherwise it is just hypocrisy.

These forums tend to bring out the exclamation points in all of us. I don’t think the world is all f’d up. I’m rather moderate on many social issues. I don’t believe unlawful actions should be used to halt abortion in the US. I would like to see it stopped through reasonable civil discourse and democratic change. That is why I vote and march and try in my own way to convey my opposition to it. I feel that some day humans will look back at our times and be puzzled at how callous we were to the unborn and how primitive we were to think that the viability and sacredness of human life could originate at any time other than the moment of conception.

It's sad that so many of you who (a) claim Christ as your Lord and Saviour and (b) additionally believe that the political motivations within the Evangelical sect are God's will, can be narrow minded enough to believe that those of us who have accepted Him in like fashion and just happen to oppose ALL forms of murder with just as much vigor-----------in fact all sin against God, aren't part of Christ's church. Simplifying the complexities of human tissue options for (usually young) women into murder (don't misinterpret this), while (admit it) glorifying war and placing patriotism on essentially the same tier as our Heavenly Father does, in deed, separate your congregations from those of others who just may see eye-to-eye with you on most all other issues of Christianity. Killing innocent individuals with bombs and bullets in the name of patriotism cannot be separated from any other forms of murder. The true fruition of one's faith is the desire to please God. You may be surprised at the humongous numbers of "non-evangelicals" who are in Heaven upon Christ's return, as well of many of those within your vernacular who just may not be. Vote your heart, but spread the Gospel, not politics. I'll pray for you, Mr. Colson.

Colson is divorced, twice-married and a convicted felon who was disbarred. He can vote only because Gov. Jeb Bush restored that right to him, an action that Republicans decry when Democratic governors do it. Colson also claimed that there were sound Christian theological reasons for Bush to attack Iraq. Evidently, Mr. Colson has a highly selective view of which Christian principles he chooses to uphold, which makes his anti-abortion position rather conveeeenient, as Dana Carvey might say.

hey its great being pro-life, but the republicans are also for the war that has resulted in 100,000 deaths.. doesnt sound exaclty pro-life to me.. more hypocrytical.

" sparrow4 Author Profile Page:
"{I FERVENTLY BELIEVE THE INNOCENT "TISSUE" DESERVES AS MUCH CONSIDERATION AS THE IRRESPONSIBLE "ALREADY BORN".}" And you're entitled to your belief. Don't you dare presume to force your misbegotten take on morality on me. Not only do I think the living "already born" have priority, but perhaps if people like yourselves worried more about making a better life for all who are already here, the world wouldn't be as f**ked up as it is.
But sure- do it your way. bring more innocent (by your lights) children into this irresponsible, horrible world so they can then live rotten lives or die tragic deaths just to make us do away with abortion. Think that's going to work? Mwah ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!
October 29, 2008 6:02 PM | Report Offensive Comments "

no worries, we don't consider you to be a women...

Why is life before birth more important than life after birth? Too many 'un-godly' acts bare this out. What say those who have THE right answer?

no Christian should vote for anyone that supports abortion...
if you support abortion, you are not a Christian...

I am not convinced Chuck Colson hates anybody. You got any quotes to back that up?

Hey a man is innocent until proven guilty, you folks who love America.

Sure there are so-called Christians who hate lots of people. But the author the lightning rod the man you disagree with Chuck Colson probably isn't one of them.

"Would you support incarcerating or executing women who have abortions (back alley or self-induced) under your "All abortions should be illegal" system. Should women who miscarry be given lie-detector tests to make sure they didn't induce abortion? Seems consistent."

You advocate a police state- for women only, obviously. You want as many children born as possible to put as much financial strain on the country as possible, so that as many people can be as miserable as possible on the off chance we will realize its all the fault of pro- choice. I find that thinking appallingly immoral and unethical.

"{I FERVENTLY BELIEVE THE INNOCENT "TISSUE" DESERVES AS MUCH CONSIDERATION AS THE IRRESPONSIBLE "ALREADY BORN".}" And you're entitled to your belief. Don't you dare presume to force your misbegotten take on morality on me. Not only do I think the living "already born" have priority, but perhaps if people like yourselves worried more about making a better life for all who are already here, the world wouldn't be as f**ked up as it is.

But sure- do it your way. bring more innocent (by your lights) children into this irresponsible, horrible world so they can then live rotten lives or die tragic deaths just to make us do away with abortion. Think that's going to work? Mwah ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!

I believe that, politically, the abortion issue is a red herring. It is important to many personally, but a non-issue politically because neither party wants to ban it. Republicans want to keep the debate alive as a valuable wedge issue for attracting votes; They obviously value those votes more than the lives they claim to want to save. Democrats consider a total ban to be bad policy; making abortion illegal (and therefore unregulated) will bring unintended negative consequences, as did the attempted prohibition of alcohol in the 1920s.

If George W. Bush, with a collaborative congress for 6 years, two supreme court nominees, and a largely compliant press between 9/11 and Katrina, did not ban abortion, then how can one expect any more from a less outwardly conservative president with similar powers?

There is, however, clearly a difference between the candidates on humanitarian issues, and on safeguarding the future of life on this planet through sound environmental and defense policy.

For that reason, my "pro-life" choice also happens to be pro-choice.

Mom and Dad went to considerable trouble to keep their religion (Lutheran) out of my life growing up, except for Mom putting me on the church bus simply for the coffee break on Sunday morning.

I was favorably disposed toward Christianity even though I walked out of one church when the head woman (maybe meaning well) mentioned I was in special ed. I started reading the Bible at age 12, read it three times by college. Missed the message about salvation through Jesus Christ. Didn't quite understand salvation even though I met up with a fellowship in college. Had personal problems with some members and found friends (actually great ones) who weren't Christian among the residence staff. Went to a Bible study of grown ups (thirty somethings), had a grudge, but this is important, they did not retaliate, they returned only love. I could not do this, even though I wanted to, and one of the R.A.s seemed able to, though she claimed not to be a Christian (she had been but was disillusioned). I had to have respect for God at this point because I knew where their power was coming from. I wanted to tell all my friends I had met a powerful force invisible to the naked eye. I was baptized the next summer.

Now I did pick up the politick of my parents. It seems common sense enough that the unmet needs of the small people are more important than the luxuries and tax breaks of the big shots. And I think Jimmy Carter was the best president we ever had, at least the least belligerent. I wish we had listened to him about energy policy.

Who is more "pro-life", those that oppose birth-control and sex-education or those that promote easy (and inexpensive) access to birth control and emergency birth control (plan B)? I am opposed to abortion after the 1st trimester, but I think the route to that must be reducing demand (via birth control and education) rather than making abortion illegal. But I'm labeled "anti-life" even though this practical approach will lead to fewer abortions than the "pro-lifer's" approach.

Original sin went away with the mythical A & E.

And the contemporary Jesus exegetes have basically removed 70% of the simple preacher man's love from the NT.

And those such as Professor JD Crossan, an On Faith panelist, notes this about "atonement" theology:

(from his book, "Who is Jesus" co-authored with Richard Watts)

"Moreover, an atonement theology that says God sacrifices his own son in place of humans who needed to be punished for their sins might make some Christians love Jesus, but it is an obscene picture of God. It is almost heavenly child abuse, and may infect our imagination at more earthly levels as well. I do not want to express my faith through a theology that pictures God demanding blood sacrifices in order to be reconciled to us."

"Traditionally, Christians have said, 'See how Christ's passion was foretold by the prophets." Actually, it was the other way around. The Hebrew prophets did not predict the events of Jesus' last week; rather, many of those Christian stories were created to fit the ancient prophecies in order to show that Jesus, despite his execution, was still and always held in the hands of God."

"In terms of divine consistency, I do not think that anyone, anywhere, at any time, including Jesus, brings dead people back to life."

Screw your religion. Keep your misogyny to yourself.

Why do you Christians think you get to impose your values on the entire nation? Not everybody belongs to your little club, you know. You don't have the exclusive lock on what's moral and right, and I resent the heck out of a bunch of religious nutjobs telling me what I can and cannot do.

Thank you Kert1 for that response. But it shows that we can do anything with rationalization and perception. I was raised Catholic. I was taught the meaning of that statement was that the wisdom that Jesus brought was in fact a burden, for it was unbelievably more difficult to live a life devoted to purity in God than to live by what was called the "worlds' rules". So, he did not bring 'peace' directly, though it comes over time from practicing with the Sword.
In other words, the central tenet of the wisdom of Jesus was LOVE. Love WAS the sword we use, on ourselves and our world, to slice away at our own delusion and self inflicted separation from our purity as children born of God. To cut at our inborn evil. To free ourselves from the shackles of 'Original Sin'. It is LOVE that is that SWORD.
It is only obvious. Jesus' loving heals, as does our own loving. For it IS God. It opens our eyes. Arms kill, maim, hurt, dissect. Separate. Love AS the Sword can attack our ignorance, free the Spirit we are from enslavement to temporal idiocy.
Applied to worldly affairs the metaphor is the same. Americas preference to use military arms over loving compassion, understanding and kindness has further destroyed our moral AND economic standing in the world. "Love thy neighbor" went to hell.
I believe that evangelicals have much that is good about their PERSONAL relationship with God. Most are really good people. I believe that their relationship with non born agains, the rest of the world, can suck.
Sorry for that last bit. It was the evil in me. Please forgive me. Yet that is true, for me. I am sure you have a different take on it.

Justillthen,
I don't you said anything against the military but there are many posts that talked about our military "bombing civilians" or "killing children".

Our military does everything in it's power to prevent civilian casualties and protect civilians. I didn't want to let those posts go without comment.

Kert1:
I do not know if you were directing that comment to me, but it lets me be clear. I do not disrespect the military and I am not suggesting that military personnel on the whole are in any way morally flawed. All I know are every kind of regular person drawn to go into service and through training that is intended to make them more excellent in numerous ways.
I admit that it is disturbing to me the majority of evangelicals in the services, and the internal pressures to evangelize as a soldier. I was raised Catholic and still have respect for that churchs' stance of being against abortion as well as against all forms of state sanctified death, be it death penalties, war and killing in war, etc.
My statement was critical of civilian, evangelical leadership in America, and in Americas evangelical citizenry, that supports war as a morally valid CHOICE while preaching pro life as the true example of their morality. It is to me hyppocritical.

It is regretful that the fetuses do not live to see fresh air, sunshine, joy, and pain. They go straight to Heaven, do not pass Go, and do not collect $200. Aborted babies cannot go to Hell.

I am more concerned about the living who are quite eligible for Hell. Who is going to show them the way? Hopefully somebody who has been there herself.

Life can hurt people. I have major depression and Asperger syndrome. Life is in one of these better phases right now. I am a Web developer with nine years experience (even though the sociology Master's did not work out). I am still praying for the help meet (God saw Adam alone and said It Is Not Good for Man to Be Alone). My life was like an ice age earlier. At the moment I am prescribed as much Welbutrin as my brain can withstand, plus Effexor, plus Topamax, and I have weekly therapy.

Some people think abortion is an act of mercy especially for a child with a disability. Who is to say? Who can tell the future? They thought I had ADD first and it seemed I was kind of gifted.
People can be wrong. What if the child grows up and commits suicide? Somehow I don't think that justifies abortion either, you just never know which babies will and which babies won't, and depression is treatable and suicide can be prevented.

Killing isn't the answer, whether you kill yourself or someone or something else.

JUSTILLTHEN,
Just thought you should know why evagelicals don't push for world peace like others:

Matt 10:34
Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth.
I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Obviously Jesus did bring peace to individuals who accept him, but this does not extend to the world. To them Jesus is nusance and so they reject him. Since they do this they and the world around them won't experience anything like peace.

Christians do want peace and we promote it, but not against our teachings. We won't compromise truth for peace because it is no compromise and you get neither. We may be able to bring some peace to the world but only true peace is through Jesus. We know that since many reject him peace is not available.

As Christians we try to bring peace to individuals and not true to pursue something that is essentially unnatainable. We understand evil for what it is and fight it when necessary. These are the teachings of the Bible.

You might want to take a look at Revelation to see what this world is destined for. It is the farthest thing from peace I can think of.

Kert1:
"I sure hope someday you do experience forgiveness. We all need it and God is willing."

I likewise hope that DMZ1 experiences forgiveness, if he doesn't already. Everyone should, even those that think they have nothing to forgive. Yet it is not 'God' that needs to forgive so far as I can tell, and it is not my experience that I need 'God" so that I can forgive. We all have stuff that we love and stuff that we hate. I hate hypocracy, for instance, and realize I need to forgive the bloody hypocrites, along with my own hypocracy.
When I see the evangelical movement being as passionate at pursuing world peace and reconciliation and forgiveness as they have been at prosecuting wars and delivering ultimatums in the forms of bombs, then their moral standing will go up leaps, for me. Our current president spoke boatloads about his faith and being a uniter toward a better America. What he manifested, with his teams of mostly evangelical advisors and support staffs, was a miserable representation of morality, in my view. Should be no surprise. It has been a religiously based special interest group piloting America into the 21st century. With a bang.
I believe I must be wrong. Perhaps God does need forgiveness. For giving to deaf and imperfect humans so many mixed 'Messages' that they are driven to kill each other off. While rationalizing it 'cause they got a message from 'God'.
Give me Obama, Lord, please. At least I have faith that he won't come out blazing on his 50 at 'the enemy'.

GordonCash,
Great Argument on the 14th amendment. Now we can kill all non-US Citizens and take their things, since they don't have any rights. I never even thought of things this way.

I am amazed with the lack of respect for our military and their care for civilians. Do you understand many of these men give up their lives defending people than don't even like them (here and abroad apparently).

These men go through extroidinary training and discipline to ensure they don't hurt civilians. They often put themselves at risk to save civilians. How can you claim these men bomb innocent people. These are our bravest men, our neighbors, and relatives. They deserve our utmost respect. We really are in trouble if we can't respect our militaries sacrifice.

I understand their have been many civilian casualties but the overwhelming majority are by local terrorists. I know somehow Bush "inspired" these men. Reaslistically this is the world they these people have lived in for many years. Violence rules in their society and it will be many years before they can change their habits. They have oppressed by violence for many years before we ever entered Iraq and it will take time to change things.

If we are so cruel to the people of Iraq, why do so many support us. Especially those who were oppressed before.

It is impossible to be a one-issue fit all christian in politices. While I do not agree with abortion, I believe that all people are entitled to make their choices and live with the consequences. Now, publically financed abortion I am against, and I pray this is not a back-door way for Obama and the Democratic left to bring it in. Still, the focus should be on families and prevention. That said, is not the bombing of civilians in an injust war just as much a sin, a Christian issue, than abortion? Do we really think that God differentiates one act of sin and unrifgtousness with another? We in the good ole USA have this concept that whatever we and Israel do is ok and justified by God. we are in the beginning throng of our own judgement--not because of abortion (God is not single issue), but because of an accumulation of wrongs as a nation, as a people, as a government. The only scary thing is to watch Americans turn against one another (see MCCain/Palin rallies)in a nasty way of us against them. Gun sales have risen, like there is an impending uncertainty. The joke is that their guns will not be for fellow Americans, but the same government that gave us the un"Patriot Act", will confiscate your guns ("turning to guns and religion")to keep order. There are so many issues for christians to consider than abortion.

Sparrow4
Your approach is guaranteed to make us even more unethical than you think we are today. {PLEASE EXPLAIN FURTHER} Your position is so outrageous, so poorly thought out, so out of touch with reality I can hardly credit you with a brain.Your so-called moral stance is really the no solution but the destruction of millions of innocent lives- already born. Some American- let's all destroy the USA to save tiny pieces of tissue. {I FERVENTLY BELIEVE THE INNOCENT "TISSUE" DESERVES AS MUCH CONSIDERATION AS THE IRRESPONSIBLE "ALREADY BORN".}

"...as a Bible-believing Christian I would invariably choose a candidate who comes closest to the clear pro-life injunctions of Scripture."

As a Constitution-believing American, I would vote for a candidate who talks as though he had read Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, which says as unambiguously as is possible in the English language that a pregnant woman is a citizen with legal rights, and her fetus is not. In my personal experience, NO ONE who identifies himself/herself as pro-life has ever conceded this point, nor even acknowledged that it might be an issue. If you are unwilling to admit that we are a nation of laws and that our Constitution means what it says, Mr. Colson, then you have no credibility, at least not in my mind.

DMZ1,
"Chuck Colson is a Christian Reconstructionist. A follower of John Rushdoony. He supports capital punishment for atheists, for homosexuals, for public balsphemy and for rebellious teenagers. So much for life, huh."

That is the most insane thing I have ever heard. I rarely say this but this information is a lie. I can only imagine were you got or made it up. I have read almost every one of Colson's columns, his autobiography, and several of his books.

- I'm not sure of his stance of capital punishment but obviously not for anything less than 1st degree murder.
- Never heard of John Rushdoony
- He never rigged an election, nor anything close. He was convicted of sharing personal FBI information of a reporter. Something he has confessed to and paid for.
- Chuck has spent many hours in prisons helping the forgotten. His organization has helped many men and women reform their lives. He should have retired by now but continues to spent countless hours doing the work he was called to. I will let people judge for themselves his work.

I sure hope someday you do experience forgiveness. We all need it and God is willing.

It is the hypocracy of religious zealots, and even religious moderates and liberals, that get me. I understand the tendency to advertise our adherence to religious belief systems and dogma when our actions are in alignment with those theories. It is desirable to prove we walk the talk. But it is equally a human tendency to become blind to our actions when they go contrary to the very same beliefs. That or we find justifications for contrary stances using some other religious fabrication.
If it is so fundamental to being Christian to be life supporting then that seems, as a foundational element, that virtue stays true throughout. Kind of the definition of fundamental. Yet is is a common denominator to fundamentalist christians that I know that they are pro-life, (staunchly against abortion), pro-gun, pro-military, (not inherently objectionable to me), and pro war to the point of ridiculous. And so pro-hypocritical.
They are fine, (the cost of war, collateral damage, it is the terrorists fault after all, not ours), with killing 'others', (read infidels), killing certain criminals, killing lots of stuff, while spewing the immorality of abortion. Military incursions into Syria are Go America. Loss of innocent life is so regrettable but necessary.
It is lucky for fundamentalist that they have both the New and Old Testament to draw from, as justification for their mood.
I do not believe Jesus was a preacher of Old Testament bloodletting, though many fundamentalist ministers spend more time versing from there than from the heart love, compassion and forgiveness stuff that their Lamb ministered. It must be confusing for christians. How to live peacefully and in love with all, (Iranians included!).
Sometimes hypocracy is the obvious answer.

"The environment, the war, the economy; all these pale when compared to 1. 5 mil Americans perishing each year. Precluding abortion as a form of family planning can't make things worse. If this approach floods America with unwanted, fatherless children, then we all pay for their care together until we feel enough pain to raise our collective moral standards."

Your approach is guaranteed to make us even more unethical than you think we are today. Your position is so outrageous, so poorly thought out, so out of touch with reality I can hardly credit you with a brain.Your so-called moral stance is really the no solution but the destruction of millions of innocent lives- already born. Some American- let's all destroy the USA to save tiny pieces of tissue. Yeah, right. How "christian" of you.

Chuck Colson radical ideology of hate, discrimination and intolerance from false extremist christian moral high ground are allowed our country’s constitution.

However when extremist christians willfully demonize good Americans, to get radical social conservatives elected for the purposes of legislating extremist christian ideology and eliminating the freedoms of our American democracy, all Americans must take that as a serious threat to our national security and ask the question, are these extremist christian movements a faith or are they really a political movement seeking power in the American government to dictate a radical christian agenda. Constitution, Article VI, indicates, “No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Using your own faith to guide your personal life is a wonderful thing, but we must stand against the narrow agenda of found in the social conservative agenda and its political candidates.

So JJJ33,
Would you support incarcerating or executing women who have abortions (back alley or self-induced) under your "All abortions should be illegal" system. Should women who miscarry be given lie-detector tests to make sure they didn't induce abortion? Seems consistent.

Dan78, I would support funding them through the birth process and with child care or adoption afterwards. Use public funds/taxes for this. Make it a huge, expensive government program costing more than a war, afterall the lives of a million Americans are at stake. Then watch as societal pressure causes an increase in personal responsibility and a decline in unwanted pregnancy rates.

I guess moralizing about the status of a fetus would carry more weight with me if the people who scream the loudest about the 'sanctity of life' cared equally about the children that are already with us.

From their voting patterns, many conservatives' concern for life seems to end at the womb.

Constantine:"All this being said, when I go to vote this tuesday, I am not voting for who will be my next pastor. I do not look to politicians for religious guidance, and nor do I look at them as a moral compass. They must make decisions that most of us would dread making, and there are not many that are made that do not end up harming some poor soul in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am voting on who I believe will make the most competant decisions to steer us out of this mess, and give our future generations a better chance."

Bravo!

Even if I was to vote for McCain and we were to outlaw abortion, abortion would go on. America gets drugs and guns underground and drugs are illegal and criminals getting guns is a crime. Once alcohol was illegal and people still got it. Do you think we're going to stop abortion? The women's movement is not going to be put back in the bottle.

Republicans will say lots of things but they really care about what rich people care about.

If you're not rich, vote Democrat.

Having read the Bible is like having read the Wizard of Oz. You may enjoy it and even learn important lessons from it, but it cannot, literally, be made the basis for dealing with the real world.

Persons may be making decisions in the world based on the teachings of Christ, but it is nothing to brag about. The dignity of human life extends far past the teachings of Christianity. Why limit yourself to knowledge that is obsolete?

I agree PinaPina Christians should adopt children rather than have their own. But my friends seem to prefer to make their own rugrats than to adopt the ones society already has.

I think the issues Christians have with what they spend their money on need to be considered more deeply. I know I have digital cable and high speed Internet out of a desire to be educated and to communicate, for example. The rest, I guess, is fairly flexible. Why the hell do I have a car? It seems flimsy. I can walk to my stupid job, I own a bike, if I wanted to drive to Woodbridge I could rent a car by the hour, if I wanted to drive to WV I could rent a car for the day. I guess I am really afraid the government would abandon me if there were an emergency (think Katrina, though I am white and not poor). I also don't cook for myself nearly enough.... Christians would have to restructure their lives for tithing. And apartments seem to take your income into account when they set your rent. Emergencies also happen. I am a cat owner and an animal hospital robbed me for $2,350.

Still, our hearts are in the right place. I moved a month ago and when I asked for help the assistant pastor (Mt. Vernon Baptist Church) suggested I hire an ex-convict (good job). He got perhaps $350, plus or minus $30. Al Gore used to worship there before I went there. I don't think we're a Republican outfit (much).

Regardless when life begins, it certainly doesn't end when a politician or soldier decides it should. ALL life is precious, or none of it. No more of this hypocritical nonsense.

It goes without saying that it is a christian's moral obligation to vote pro-life; anti-life voters are accomplices in the carnage.

It's about time to define what a "Christian" is. Many of the folks who say they are, aren't. Examples: Jerry Falwell (deceased), Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Chuck Colson (yes, I said it!). Why should anyone care what these pretenders think?

On the issue: I agree with most of the comments here. It's insane to vote for a candidate simply on one so-called moral issue. The Republicans have been using the abortion issue to get the poor and middle-class white and Christian votes ever since the rise of the Christian "Wrong." But they only care about the rich, period, and since there are not enough rich people to keep them in office, they give the middle-class and poor a "righteous" cause to rally behind and call it God's will. And people are still falling for it, in spite of the fact that this country is in terrible shape after eight years of a so-called Christian president. Folks actually believed they were doing God's will by voting for GW! Wrong! In the meantime, the same folks voting their morality are losing jobs to out-sourcing overseas and their homes to foreclosure. A lot good your morality will do when you are homeless and out of a job. Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working for you?" Your so-called Christian pastors will then say you don't have enough faith, and tell you to send your tithes and offerings so you can buy a blessing. It's time to stop the Madness! So what that your candidate SAYS he or she is anti-abortion? What else has he got? What about voting for someone who is going to put a little jingle in your pocket so you can help the poor in your community? Sadly, wisdom and critical thinking is anathema to far too many followers of those I mentioned earlier and their ilk. Folks seemed to be comfortable being narrow-minded because they think God is too. That is idolatry, making God into your own image! Hello? God is not a Republican!

JJJ33, there is a difference between something working and at what cost. In Neil Sheehan's book "A Bright Shining Lie", Marine general Brute Krulak brought statistics to Lyndon Johnson estimating the American causalties it would take to win the Vietnam war by annihilating Vietnamese resistance. The Vietnamese in fact were sacrificing their lives hoping we would blink first and leave, and we did. LBJ did not have the stomach to massacre the Vietnamese with modern weaponry in order to win the war. He praised Krulak and "showed him the door".

I don't have the stomach to reduce abortions over female cadavers with hangers in them. Evidently some "pro-lifers" do. I guess it may reduce the overall death count if you count a reduction in abortions. But that would be because some girls and women don't want to risk being a cadaver.

But the rest are ready to risk it. They might live and their baby might die, and that is all that counts.

I reckon some women might hate their baby enough to risk it. Some people hate zits enough to pop them, though it risks infection, or hate warts enough to cut them off, though that could cause bleeding and infection, and so on.

Chuck Colson is a Christian Reconstructionist. A follower of John Rushdoony. He supports capital punishment for atheists, for homosexuals, for public balsphemy and for rebellious teenagers. So much for life, huh.

Kert:

I am not a Christian and don't much hold with the forgiveness nonsense of you Christians. Chuck Colson attempted to rig a presidential election and did deliberately subvert the Constitution of the United States. There is no forgiveness ever for those actions. Further, Chuck does nothing to help people. Converting people to his whackjob version of Christianity is more like abuse than help.

It's about time to define what a "Christian" is. Many of the folks who say they are, aren't. Examples: Jerry Falwell (deceased), Pat Robertson, James Dobson, Chuck Colson (yes, I said it!). Why should anyone care what these pretenders think?

On the issue: I agree with most of the comments here. It's insane to vote for a candidate simply on one so-called moral issue. The Republicans have been using the abortion issue to get the poor and middle-class white and Christian votes ever since the rise of the Christian "Wrong." But they only care about the rich, period, and since there are not enough rich people to keep them in office, they give the middle-class and poor a "righteous" cause to rally behind and call it God's will. And people are still falling for it, in spite of the fact that this country is in terrible shape after eight years of a so-called Christian president. Folks actually believed they were doing God's will by voting for GW! Wrong! In the meantime, the same folks voting their morality are losing jobs to out-sourcing overseas and their homes to foreclosure. A lot good your morality will do when you are homeless and out of a job. Dr. Phil would say, "How's that working for you?" Your so-called Christian pastors will then say you don't have enough faith, and tell you to send your tithes and offerings so you can buy a blessing. It's time to stop the Madness! So what that your candidate SAYS he or she is anti-abortion? What else has he got? What about voting for someone who is going to put a little jingle in your pocket so you can help the poor in your community? Sadly, wisdom and critical thinking is anathema to far too many followers of those I mentioned earlier and their ilk. Folks seemed to be comfortable being narrow-minded because they think God is too. That is idolatry, making God into your own image! Hello? God is not a Republican!

As a so-called evangelical Christian - Bible-believing, committed to Jesus Christ, the whole nine- I have come to the conclusion that the church has been on the wrong side of politics for the past 200 years. From slavery to Civil Rights, most in the church have somehow found it in themselves to oppose movements for justice and equal rights and freedom that God Himself ordained, and they have used wedge issues as an excuse to do so. No evangelical Christian supports abortion, however, the isolated environment that breeds many conservative voices has caused them to reduce "pro-life" to a tunnel-vision, one-sided "pro-birth" movement that frankly ignores and even opposes the poor and minorities in this country and abroad in the name of "patriotism" and "American values". Given that Jesus was famous, among other things, for uplifting the poor (and for such "socialist" ideas as giving your cloak to the one who asks for it and paying taxes to Caesar), it is curious that the evangelical church at large tends to fall for the same anti-progressive motions again, and again, and again. Only in America do you find evangelical Christians supporting policies that oppose other people's necessities to secure their own luxuries, for instance (the common consrvative economic position in a nutshell, in my opinion) . Again, I'm an evangelical Christian myself, but I am frankly perturbed by the general political direction of the church. I believe she needs a political awakening to come on the side of the "least of these", or risk being "spewed out".

Please PINAPINA don't get so touchy. We only see the faith as a rescue from everlasting torment. You are using our faith to torment us. Christianity is a rescue device (parachute, floatation device) not a weapon.

For an analysis of the Iraqi death rate data see "Data Bomb" By Neil Munro and Carl M. Cannon, National Journal
© National Journal Group Inc.
Friday, Jan. 4, 2008

http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/databomb/index.htm

An excerpt:

"In December 2005, Bush had used a figure of 30,000 civilian deaths in Iraq. Iraq's health ministry calculated that, based on death certificates, 50,000 Iraqis had died in the war through June 2006. A cautiously compiled database of media reports by a London-based anti-war group called Iraq Body Count confirmed at least 45,000 war dead during the same time period. These were all horrific numbers -- but the death count in The Lancet's study differed by an order of magnitude. "

Today, the journal's editor (of The Lancet) tacitly concedes discomfort with the Iraqi death estimates. "Anything [the authors] can do to strengthen the credibility of the Lancet paper," Horton told NJ, "would be very welcome." If clear evidence of misconduct is presented to The Lancet, "we would be happy to go ask the authors and the institution for an official inquiry, and we would then abide by the conclusion of that inquiry."

I might just be tempted to skip reproduction. A friend of mine decided to have a child free marriage and the surgical means to enforce it.

If we still wanted kids (I doubt I would, I agree with Wikipedia's reasons why people choose child free living, perhaps I would find a woman who agreed (?) ) there would be plenty around I am sure. Fools make plenty of them. (What was that somebody said about smart people having few, or none?)

So JJJ33,
Would you support incarcerating or executing women who have abortions (back alley or self-induced) under your "All abortions should be illegal" system. Should women who miscarry be given lie-detector tests to make sure they didn't induce abortion? Seems consistent.

I've been an independent Virginia voter for 35 years. But I've reached a point on the abortion issue where I can't vote for a prochoice candidate. I'm a one issue voter. I think abortion should be illegal in ALL cases. Society should help with assistance for pregnancies resulting from criminal actions. Other unplanned pregnancies should primarily be the responsibility of the parties involved, not that I wouldn't object to providing aid as feasible. Men and women need to cope with the consequences of their actions and understand that abstinence is best in premarital relationships. The current US practices and trends regarding marriage and abortion are failing miserably. The environment, the war, the economy; all these pale when compared to 1. 5 mil Americans perishing each year. Precluding abortion as a form of family planning can't make things worse. If this approach floods America with unwanted, fatherless children, then we all pay for their care together until we feel enough pain to raise our collective moral standards.

RBALDWIN,
Have you ever heart of forgiveness. Mr. Colson made mistakes that he has admitted and paid the price for. No human is perfect. May I ask what you have done.

Mr. Colson has dedicated his life to helping those in prison. I would like to hear one person who has done 1/10th of what Mr. Colson has done to help fellow humans.

May God have mercy on you RBALDWIN.

One word for you Chuckles....WATERGATE.....

EVERYTHING you say.think.do/breath/eat etc. is forever tainted by what you and thugs like you did in Nixon's name. If all of your alleged followers forget ANY of this they are doomed to the history of the past...

Nice try but you are STILL and will always be a LOSER.

I am an atheist who would never dream of having an abortion. Most women, you see, do not choose abortion unless they are in terribly desperate circumstances. But I am a realist who, as an inner-city high school teacher, have witnessed too many children having babies and the consequences are much worse than most of you can imagine, both for the mother and child.

The day that the millions of people who believe as you do stop giving lip service to your god and begin adopting the millions of children in foster care and financially aid the millions of poor mothers, I'll be on your side. Until then, the inaction of you "right to lifers" who don't care about a baby's life once she or he is born reflect your hypocrisy. I seriously doubt that your Jesus would approve of your fancy churches, nice cars and so on instead of helping those in need.

Dear sir,
You defined pro-life as "respect for the sanctity of life". Good start, but I would like to see some examples of this that extend beyond the obvious abortion issue. The issue I have with the pro-life movement is that unfortunately, many end their definition of pro-life at abortion. While I do not support abortion as a form of birth control, it clearly has circumstances where the need for one may arise. Our job is to educate the public and increase awareness of the issue in a constructive way in order to ultimately reduce that number. But it is not our decision to make for others.
In 2000, G.W. Bush won the presidency in part because of the support of the anti abortion "pro-life" movement. Yet many in this movement blantantly overlook the fact that hundreds of thousands are dead in Iraq (innocent or not), the torture of suspects (again, innocent or not), and a lack of concern for the poor and those not in position to get out of harms way (New Orleans). How in God's name can this ever be considered pro-life? For me, pro-life means caring for the poor and the elderly, helping people get proper medical care if they are unable to afford it, and acting responsibly so that you do not endanger the lives of others (just to name a few). I would love to see some examples for what your definition is, and to preach all of them alongside with your stance on abortion (weather I agree with it or not).
All this being said, when I go to vote this tuesday, I am not voting for who will be my next pastor. I do not look to politicians for religious guidance, and nor do I look at them as a moral compass. They must make decisions that most of us would dread making, and there are not many that are made that do not end up harming some poor soul in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am voting on who I believe will make the most competant decisions to steer us out of this mess, and give our future generations a better chance.

Thank you for your time.

Sincerely,
Constantine

Great, that scumbag Chuck Colson gets to publish vacuous column here.

KnivesAndDemons, I agree with you. If we had a world leader doing to Christians what Bush has done to Iraqis and Afghans, and menacing Iran, we would call him the Anti-Christ. Our President almost seems like an end-times Muslim nightmare. I hope Obama gets it. If McCain gets it, I am sorry.

Though, the same woman who was driving to the abortion clinic would probably hit the brakes if there was a baby in the road in front of her. Conceptually, on the road of life, rape nonwithstanding, a woman's choices may put obstacles in her path on her road to life.

Kurt, you said a man does not get to decide. That is true. It is because the baby is in her body not his.

I am a Master of Arts in sociology. I think the biological/social/economics argument is women will never be equal to men economically until they have the final fail safe control over unwanted pregnancy (even after The Pill has failed or has not been used or used properly). Even if the woman adopts the baby away she may be incapacitated careerwise up to nine months. It is not emotionally easy to give away a baby after nine months. It is emotionally easier to have an abortion after four or eight or twelve weeks. Flush it away. Sooner the better. And if she raises the kid.... career over. The more excuse you give someone not to hire you..... the more excuse they will take to not hire you or to pay you less even if they do. Getting a job and negotiating your income is a power struggle. Women get 70 some cents for every dollar a man makes. In West Virginia, 50 some cents.

Major social change, including making life more fair for some and less fair for others, would go a long way to reducing abortion. But right now life is too fair for the people who run things and they don't want to give that up. Don't expect change quickly.

Ofcourse, this only applies to American babies. If we have to kill Muslim women in other countries and FORCE the abortion of both mother and child with bombs and bullets that is not an issue. It's so easy to be Christian when you live in America. Killing mothers and their unborn in America - always wrong. Killing mothers and their unborn in Afghanistan - absolutely fine.

I also really wonder if the abortion protests aren't really a job for Christian women, esp. those who have had abortions. I think we guys can help but not by being so visible. On the front line with the women going in the clinic door it isn't a job for Superman it's a job for Wonder Woman.

Oh yes and by the way I am voting for Obama, I can overlook his abortion politick.

The best thing I can do as a Christian man is keep a Christian woman out of that situation until we are married. Somehow I think it is usually his idea, not hers. Somebody enlighten me if I am wrong.

Chuck, we know that only Satan and deranged people are actually in support of women ALWAYS choosing abortion when they have a difficult choice to make. The difference between them and the PRO CHOICE people is the pro choice people realize that the women MIGHT choose life some of the time.

"I heard Satan laughing with delight
the day the music died"

As for the abortion itself, I don't know what we can do, Chuck. Make it illegal and we start finding cadavers with hangers, maybe daughters. I've tried cutting off a wart with a razor blade (ill advised, yes, but it shows what people will do with their own bodies). Stay the course and we continue the numbers of abortions, and deny babies fresh air, sunshine, and life as we know it, for better and worse.

Would changing the law decrease abortion or simply drive it underground? We might never know the answer because it would become criminal behavior and no one would volunteer the statistics.

Maybe the solution is to think of this against the time scale of eternity. Satan can suggest a woman get an abortion, but our doctrine would suggest that any baby or child who dies before the age of accountability is saved by default. My miscarried brothers (or sisters) for example are in Heaven by default.

That leaves only the living, abortion patients and those who perform them. If the Holy Spirit can move them to repentance, they may yet be saved too.

I may not be a Christian but I know enough about Christianity and the Bible to know that there are a whole lot of other things in there too. The beatitudes come to mind. As does 'helping the least among us' and 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's'.

I find it blindingly foolish to reduce an entire religious tradition full of social instruction to 'only vote for people that are anti-choice.'

Why is abortion a womens issue. Has anyone heard of a father. Honestly they get no rights in this. Quite disturbing a woman can abort a child without a fathers permission.

Your right, lets not worry about killing innocent children. That will work itself out without our help.

By the way, Nevermore53 = Gaby

How very pathetic! We are in a major recession, in a war, unemployment and homelessness is rising and you worry about abortion. You know, Chuck, it's about time you took your head out of the sand.

While I agree that this is a consideration for me when voting, the problem is that there is no candidate who fully embraces the complete pro-life stance, which includes not just abortion issues but also issues like euthanasia and capital punishment. I'm also not clear on why "the sanctity and inherent dignity of human life" doesn't include other Biblical teachings like clothing the naked and feeding the hungry. Surely these are important to the dignity of human life? My pro-life vote always goes to the person who most fully exemplifies all of these Christian teachings.

Ah, the pro-life conservative, worried about the unborn, but to hell with them once they are born.

Yes, Bush is Pro-Life, but his policies have left dead over a million Iraqis, many of them children, many of them women, some who were probably with child.

McCain wants to continue the killing. Is that what Pro-Life is all about???

Clinton wasn't Pro-Life, but abortions went down during his administration. Bush is Pro-Life, but abortions are going up. It's the economy, stupid.

The "pro life" or "pro choice" stand of a candidate has almost nothting to do with the practice of abortion or the morality of the issue, only the legality of it. No one likes abortion. The need for abortion must be minimized. Making abortion illegal is not a morally superior stance as it will do nothing to stop the root causes associated with the need for abortion. Also, all too often, proponents of making abortion illegal are also against sex education and the use of contraception--relatively simple practices that can dramatically reduce the need for abortions.

"I did not see examples of him at anti-abortion rallies" Do people actually think this arguement holds any weight at all?

If you're pro-life, you should object to capital punishment, war, etc. No excuses.

Why is this convicted felon and party hack being given space in a major US newspaper to preach non-partisanship?

My faith does dictate my vote. I would probably not vote for a non-Christian.

I believe that Jesus requires that we care for the least of those among us, to include those who are already here. The Bible I read shows examples of Jesus healing, caring the sick and the weak and working to heal people's wounded souls.

I did not see examples of him at anti-abortion rallies.

I agree Christians should be pro-life but they can be as partisan as they want to be.

We cannot violate the commandment - thou shalt not kill (or to be more exact - thou shalt not murder).

The partisan issue comes up when get into which party is pro-life.

Based on lip service its the republican party.

Based on the birth rate and the number of abortions its the democratic party.

Neither party is encouraging abortion.

Yes at one time the republican party did encourage abortion especially in places like the Dominican Republic under Nixon but that policy was discontinued under Carter and Reagan declared his party to be pro-life.

And of course Roe vs Wade occurred during Nixon's administration.

But republicans have lamented that event.

Even though abortion has gone up under every republican president we cannot condemn the repuplican party.

Even though 60% of republican women are pro-choice in a CNN survey two months ago, we should still withhold condemnation.

For God has said judge not ye be not judged.

The problem I have with your premise is that you will support a candidate soley based on their stance on abortion as if that's the only viable issue facing america today. It's almost as if your saying that person could be a liar and a cheater but as long as they are pro-life then I will support them. In addition, I find it rather odd that people who are supposed to be "christian" feel they have the right to decide who is innocent and guilty as it pertains to abortion and capital punishment. I also find it rather disturbing that a man can be so obsessive about an issue that is clearly a women issue.

coloradodog Author Profile Page:

How interesting evangelicals like Colson and Catholics always like to talk about "the sanctity and inherent dignity of human life" before birth and look the other way in regard to capital punishment and pre-emptive war - this all seems pretty partisan to me.

The key word is "Pre-emptive." BTW, who's "looking the other way"?

The commandment, "Thou shalt not kill" means, literally, "Thou shalt not murder. If a pre-emptive war is waged to defend one's country, it's not murder; it's self defense. Killing defenseless babies IS murder.

Paganplace: If your mom had though of you as just a "fetus" instead of HER BABY, you just might not be here. Thank God SHE didn't abort, partner!

I don't think people here understand the difference between capital punishment and abortion.

Capital punishment is judgement against a criminal for the crime of murder with malice and forsight. In other words it was proven that the person knowingly took the life of another person and possibly many persons. They had a full understanding of what they were doing and took the life anyway.

Abortion is ending the life of an unborn child. A child as innocent as any person could be without even the possibility of any crime.

Capital punishment is actually perscribed as a punishment in both the Old and New Testement for the worst offenders. Protecting innocent life is also commanded throughout the Bible.

There really is no comparing either one. At best you are condeming yourself for supporting abortion.

How interesting evangelicals like Colson and Catholics always like to talk about "the sanctity and inherent dignity of human life" before birth and look the other way in regard to capital punishment and pre-emptive war - this all seems pretty partisan to me.

Inviting anyone who might be concerned to speak out on behalf of suffering Christians in India:

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2365

Chuck,

Are you one of those conservative guys who oppose abortion, that's GUYS who oppose abortion and support capital punishment?

Obeying and supporting the seven non-god Commandments and the greatest Commandment, "Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself" are my guides for voting for anyone from dogcatcher to president.

BO fails with respect to "Thou Shalt Not Kill" i.e. his support of aborting children.

JM fails with respect to "Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery".

Hi Pagan Place, been a while.

About 1,300,000 a year for the last fifteen years. No real change from the Clinton's time.

Safe, yes. Legal, yes. Rare, no.

Maybe the alternatives are worse, but that is the sad state of affairs.

I mean, I hope you don't mind if I call you Chuck... you just seem to know the intimate circumstances of my life and everyone else of the female gender so *intimately-well,* I just figure it's about time we weren't so formal, you know.

I mean, some day, it's all gonna trickle down, just like the polar ice caps, right?

Yay! :)

I mean, gotta admire it, standing by the GOP's 'pro-life' stance no matter how hard it actually proved under Bush to reverse the Clinton-era trend that actually *reduced* the number of abortions in America by making them safe, legal, and rare, well, all those 'murdered babies' that fall victim to bold Republican resistance to anything that resembles a 'nanny state' (except spanking people with Federal law and economic desperation for 'naughty thoughts,' of course)

...Well, I'm sure all those extra aborted fetuses and suffering homeless children GOP policies always make us feel *so* righteous to create will just be waiting to applaud you in the next life for your firm, unyielding, and Godly resolve to keep on with more of the same old Christian Right counterproductive Republicanness.

Bravo, Chuck, bravo.

Hey, at least you have more consistency than McCain, eh? :) Party line since the Watergate burglaries. Now there's principle. :)