What Evangelicals Want

Your claims are extraordinary:

1) The state prefers abortion because it is cheaper than outlawing abortion?!? That would only make sense in an autocratic society, not a democracy. The majority of Americans support the right to choose an abortion not because it keeps their taxes low but because they consider it a right of a woman. And that is a part you continually ignore, the right of the woman not to be forced to carry and give birth to a child she does not want. How far would you be willing to go to require a woman to carry a child she does not want? 9 months of forced confinement?

2) By your definition a miscarriage that is induced by a mothers drug, alcohol or other mistreatment of the embryo/fetus would be an external act that lead to the loss of the embryo/fetus. You say that would not be considered murder but you ignore what you say the embryo/fetus has, RIGHTS! If it has a right to life then it has a right to not be killed through negligence. Women who have miscarriages will have to be investigated because the miscarried embryo/fetus had rights, just as the death of a child requires an investigation of that death because the child has rights. Again you do not consider the consequences of what a right to life for the unborn would cause. You cannot give an embryo a right to life and at the same time ignore miscarriages anymore than you can ignore crib death today. Talk about raising taxes! What will the cost be on the justice departments of every state as they investigate miscarriages? Would women who become pregnant be required to register their embryo? If it has rights they would. You really need to think your idea through because I doubt you would approve of a state that requires registration of being pregnant and the law hanging over you until the birth, and a miscarriage ends you up at the police station explaining how your miscarriage that lead to the death of a person happened and why you should not be charged with murder.

4) You wrote: "The legal stand that only a viable fetus may be granted right to life has NOTHING to do with the understanding of the value of life as per religion/Christianity."

First, a viable fetus does not have that "right". It has laws protecting it that vary from state to state after the first trimester, but not "rights". As for religion, I find it very conflicting what I hear. The death penalty is ok with some christians, but RU482, which induces an abortion of a day old embryo, is called murder. I have asked this once before but I don't think you answered.
"If a fertility clinic were on fire and you ran inside to save who you could and you saw a nurse passed out on the floor next to a liquid nitrogen tank of 1000 frozen embryos, which would you choose to save first, the nurse or the embryos?"
I find pro-lifers have a hard time answering this since they know their answer conflicts with their rhetoric that an embryo is a human being. What is your answer?

3) You wrote: "A human embryo/fetus is a growing child in the womb whether the law of the land grants it any right to its life or not." On this we agree. That is why the vast majority of women consider it a blessing and take great care to bring the embryo through development to birth. But as you said there are two beings connected during embryonic and fetal development. You consider the embryo/fetus to have rights but ignore the rights of the woman. Just what rights does the woman have in your world? I've asked before how far you would go in protecting the embryo/fetus. Would you outlaw drinking by pregnant woman? It increases the risk of miscarriage you know. How about staying healthy? Would a woman who runs a marathon while pregnant be put in jail to protect the unborn? When you deny a woman's rights in order to provide the unborn's rights you deminish a woman to being a vessel for carrying an embryo. That is dehumanizing. And the majority of people disagree with moving in that direction. We have laws that give women the right to choose because the constitution backs that woman's right AND the vast majority of Americans support it. That is not to say the vast majority of Americans have abortions. As I said before there is a difference between one's personal choice and backing a law that takes away what woman consider a right they have.

4) You distinguish between externally induced abortion and naturally occuring miscarriage. But as I've said, miscarriages can be induced in many ways and woman through the ages know how. Some women who want to have their baby stay in bed for months so they will not miscarry. What would happen if a doctor told a woman that she should remain in bed but instead she went out and exercised, leading to a miscarriage? Jail for murder? The issue is not as black and white as you make it. It is complicated. That is why Roe defines a right to abort during the first trimester when the embryo is just a clump of cells and after that state law prevails since the fetus might survice outside the womb. It is a balance. To give embryo's rights all the way back to conception up-ends that balance and will lead to consequences you choose to ignore. But I and others will not ignore the unintended consequences of your misguided and not-throught-through wish to outlaw safe abortion if a woman chooses. Providing rights to an embryo has never happened in any society at any time.

5) God made women the carriers of the unborn and their protectors. You want that job to be given to the state. Funny, but it pro-lifers sound more liberal than conservative.

By the current statistics 93% of abortions out of 1.4 million per year are for socio-economic reasons. If all those children need to be raised in orphanages for eighteen years, that is a LOT of money. The state would rather give the moral responsibility and guilt to the mother when she chooses to abort a child she is not prepared to care for.

Why would the law of the land support the women in abortion?

It saves the state money!

Orphanages cost money.

A human fetus CANNOT survive outside the mother's womb at 16 weeks.

FATE:

You write merely pro-abortionist propaganda and lies. It has nothing to do with medical science.

The law protects a woman who opts for abortion of a healthy growing baby, a law that places the convenience of a over the life of an innocent defenseless growing child in the womb of its own mother. The law protects an abortioniset whose medical training was to save lives, not to take them.

Medical ethics protects every obstetrician who chooses elective abortion to save the health and life of the mother. This happens only in 6% of cases! Medical ethics could also be extended to cover cases of abortion due to incest/rape.

But you are discussing the 93% cases of abortion which is for socio-economic reasons which medical ethics does NOT cover.

A constitutional lawyer is unable to defend the the right of life of an unborn child based on the constitution because the child has not been registered as a growing child legally except in inheritance laws and in harm done to the growing child by an external agent against the will of the mother.

Medical science recognizes the child as a separate human being from the time of conception. But the law recognizes it as a separate human being only when the child is able to live independent of the mother's body.

A human embryo/fetus is a growing child in the womb whether the law of the land grants it any right to its life or not.

When the growing child in the womb should be granted its right to life is a legal stand based on when an external agent can intervene to protect the life of the child against the wishes of its mother.

The legal stand that only a viable fetus may be granted right to life has nothing to do with what medical science understands about the life of the unborn but only what medical science can provide in terms of keeping a baby outside its mother's womb alive against the wishes of the mother.

The legal stand that only a viable fetus may be granted right to life has NOTHING to do with the understanding of the value of life as per religion/Christianity.

Miscarriage and stillbirth is loss of pregnancy from NATURAL CAUSES before and after the 20th week of pregnancy respectively.

By natural causes means that the embryo/fetus is not acted upon by an EXTERNAL AGENT to kill it.

An embryo/fetus does not CHOOSE to abort itself, just as a sick child does not choose to die of any illness, nor does any child kill itself no matter how ill it is.

Does a born child or adult have the right to die of illness, if there is no cure for the illness or the parents/persons cannot afford the treatment that maybe available either in their own land or somewhere else on the planet? Is a parent held responsible for the death of a child from an illness/accident/murder? Is any parent taken to court for not providing treatment for the illness of their child if they could not afford it?

But if a parent chooses to kill the ill child because they could not afford treatment or did not want to be inconvenienced in any way due to the child's illness, they are rightly charged with murder.

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

A human embryo is termed a fetus after EIGHT WEEKS.

----------------------
Anti-abortionists are AGAINST the use of an EXTERNAL AGENT TO KILL A DEVELOPING HUMAN BABY IN THE WOMB NO MATTER HOW YOUNG IT IS. Abortion in 93% of cases is opted by healthy mothers of healthy babies growing in their womb, for socio-economic reasons. In those cases the freedom of the mother to her convenience is chosen over the right of the growing child to its very life.

RIGHT OF CONVENIENCE OF THE MOTHER vs RIGHT OF LIFE OF THE GROWING CHILD

The right to life only of a viable fetus is a legal stand, not a medical one.

Fetologists and neonatal pediatricians are not required to keep a healthy fetus alive. Anti-abortionists only demand that they NOT BE KILLED by an external agent.

When death of embryo/fetus occurs due to natural causes/illness it is not termed abortion.

Miscarriage

- loss of unborn child before 20th wk of pregnancy

Stillbirth

- loss of unborn child after 20th wk of pregnancy

Information from an online source:

"Miscarriage is the term health care providers use to describe the loss of pregnancy from natural causes before the 20th week of pregnancy.

Most miscarriages occur very early in pregnancy, in some cases before a woman even knows she is pregnant. Researchers estimate that, among women who already know they are pregnant, nearly 15 percent will have a miscarriage...

"There are many different causes for miscarriage, some of them known and others unknown. In most cases, there is nothing a woman can do to prevent a miscarriage...

"Having a miscarriage can be devastating to a woman and her family. A woman or family who is having trouble coping with the loss of a miscarriage should ask a health care provider...

The NICHD supports and conducts research on the causes of miscarriage in hopes of finding ways to prevent women from having them...

For more information on NICHD-supported research on miscarriage, read the Institute's news releases on miscarriage. The National Library of Medicine provides additional information on pregnancy loss, which includes miscarriage...

STILLBIRTH

"Stillbirth is the term health care providers use to describe the loss of a pregnancy after the 20th week of pregnancy, due to natural causes. According to national statistics, stillbirths occur in nearly one in 200 pregnancies in the United States every year.

"Stillbirth can occur before delivery, or as a result of complications during labor and delivery. In at least half of all cases, researchers can find no cause for the pregnancy loss.

"In some cases of stillbirth, the mother may notice a decrease in the movement or kicking of the fetus...

"Stillbirth can be devastating to a woman and her family...

Source Link: http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=40784

Anonymous:

I'll try to address your major positions, which you keep repeating but do not address my points against them, so I'll try to lay out your points and my response. (by the way, the Post seems to be hiding this blog, probably since it is old, which is why we are the only ones on it. I may not be able to get back here so this may be my last post.)

You wrote: "Abortion is legal ONLY BECAUSE it can be performed safely??????????????
Abortion can be performed "safely" by a medical doctor (? safely for the baby) even a minute before the baby is born."

Yes. Abortion at any stage of fetal development is dangerous for the woman, as is childbirth. Uncontrolled bleeding is the typical danger though infection can also occur. Women used to die in large numbers from back alley abortions and even abortions done by people who were relatively skilled. Even today a woman needs to be monitored after an abortion. So before modern medicine, performing an abortion was deadly for a woman, and thus not allowed in most societies. In other words, the laws were in place to protect women from a deadly procedure, not to protect the life of an unborn fetus.

You wrote: "A medical doctor can kill a baby "safely" even after it is born or at any time in its life. Does that make it legal, the fact that a medical doctor can do it "safely?" "

Well that proves my point doesn't it? Abortion is not viewed, by medicine or the court, as killing a child which has rights. And both distinguish killing a child which has been born, or even in late stage pregnancy, from aborting a first trimester fetus. The potential for that 'clump of cells' to become a person is not the same as it *being* a person. You think it is. That is our main difference. If your logic was extended, eggs and sperm are potential children and so should be protected, so is a woman who menstruates killing a child? The difference between us is where we draw the line. I and most scientists and medical professionals, and the courts, draw the line at the beginning of the second trimester. You are drawing the line at the moment of conception. Your line makes any woman who miscarries to be a suspected murderer who needs to be investigated to see if she killed it through negligence, say through alcohol or drug consumption. I don't think that is a world I want, or you want. Please consider the consequences of what you are asking for.

You wrote: "There was a time when abortionists were thrown into jail. Why would that be if the fetus or the developing baby was not considered a human being with the right to its life?"

Because it endangered a woman's life. Just as it is illegal to practice surgery without a proper medical license it was illegal to perform an abortion. And if it has a "right to life" then that would be in the Constitution, but it is not. The Constitution refers to people, not fetuses. No one has brought charges against a woman whose drug use or alcohol consumption caused abortion on its own or even a deformity. Why is that if embryos have rights? Because they do not.

You wrote: "In medical science there is no point at which a growing baby is just a bundle of cells and NOT a growing human baby. I repeat for the zillionth time, if it were really so, that the human embyro/fetus is no more than a clump of cells, no law would be necessary to protect an abortionist. Abortion of a "clump of cells" would have been normal medical practice."

Again, the laws were to protect the women. And there are many stages of development, from a zygote to a blastocyte to a beating heart to brain waves. Laws outlawing abortion were for protection of women, not fetuses. You probably do not remember the days when abortion was illegal, but I do. It was an ugly time. Young girls were dying every day. A 18 year old neighbor of mine died from an abortion. Laws were in place to reduce those deaths and legal abortion has eliminated those deaths completely. Abortion laws are for women. The limits placed on when an abortion can take place however is due to consideration of the developing fetus. No one will argue that a fetus one day from delivery should be aborted for any reason. And no one would argue that a woman who spontaniously aborts a 1 month fetus should be investigated for murder. There is a difference between a 1 month fetus and a 9 month fetus in most people's minds. The courts have drawn the line at when a fetus could survive, even with medical help, outside the womb, at 4 months. That seems reasonable to me. But in your world a woman who becomes pregnant better deliver the "child" or be suspected of murder. Who should do the investigations of miscarriages in your world?

You wrote: "However the idea being propagated by pro-abortionists that a developing human baby is no more than a clump of cells in its earliest stages, and has no right to its life until it is old enough to live outside the physical body of its mother at the stage of a viable fetus, is dangerous for unborn children who are being aborted easily because of an invention in terminology which does not correlate with scientific knowledge."

But the "pro-abortionists" description is completely accurate. It IS based on scientific findings. You calling a 1 week old embryo a baby is what is wrong. A baby is a person, one that has been born. It has rights that it obtains at *birth*, not at conception. Read your Constitution. Check out the 14th amendment where it says: " All persons *born* or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Note that it does not say "conceived in the US".

You wrote: "It is possible that more and more medically trained abortionists are reluctant to do late term abortions of viable fetuses, hence the reluctant openness to revising Roe vs Wade to exclude late term abortions."

There is no need to revise Roe. Have you read Roe-vs-Wade? It only guarantees a woman's right to an abortion in the first trimester. Late term abortions are not prohibited but Roe does not give a woman a right to one either. Roe leaves it up to the states to decide how to handle late term abortions. The issue in late term abortions usually comes down to defining medical necessity and court cases have raged for decades. Roe has nothing to do with late term abortions which are illegal in many states with provisions.

You wrote: "As Fetology and neonatal pediatrics advances that reluctance is bound to increase as medical students will see for themselves that even a baby in the womb can be treated like a patient, and babies can be kept alive outside the mother's womb earlier and earlier."

Maybe so, but that is a world away from a religion defining a law that will lead us back to the days of back alley abortions and young girls dying even if they were raped or were pregnant due to incest, or more likely so they would not loose a boyfriend.

You wrote: "93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)"

I'll take your word on that statistic. But we now come down to the nitty gritty. In your world where all abortions are illegal, those 93% would be required, by law, to carry their child, as would the other 7% who have medical issues. Women who were raped would be required by law to carry the rapists fetus to term. Women who have medical issues would be required to take the fetus to term. Would you be willing to hold a gun to their head, or strap them to a bed in a hospital to ensure the safety of the fetus, reducing the woman to nothing but a womb for the fetus? Just where do the imaginary "rights" of the fetus and the real rights of the woman meet? Who has more rights? The Constitution says the woman is the only one who has rights. And more importantly, no one, not even the state, can lay claim to the fetus. It is not a citizen. Ohter people's fetuses are not your's or your religion's to own.

It may surprise you to know that many people who would never have an abortion are pro-choice. That is because they recognize the rights of the woman and the consequences of draconian religious laws. If you decide against an abortion, that is your choice. Its your right. But do not deny others their rights or imply rights to a fetus which has none.

And considering the religious aspects, when does a soul enter the fetus? Even if all religions feel it happens at conception there are still religious issues. Jews believe the soul they receive is pure, so an aborted fetus goes to heaven. Christians believe the soul is tainted with original sin and so an aborted fetus would not go to heaven and so it would be better for the baptized woman to die and bring forth the child, which can then be baptized, so both go to heaven. These are theological considerations that jews and christians must deal with individually. Luckily under existing law both can practice their religion. Jews can abort a fetus and christians can decide to die in childbirth and everyone goes to heaven. But in your world everyone must abide by the christian requirement. That is unAmerican as is any religious requirement that is pushed on a pleural and secular society.

UNITED STATES

Number of abortions per year: 1.37 Million (1996)

Number of abortions per day: Approximately 3,700

Why women have abortions

1% of all abortions occur because of rape or incest;

6% of abortions occur because of potential health problems regarding either the mother or child, and

93% of all abortions occur for social reasons (i.e. the child is unwanted or inconvenient)

Abortion clinics do have a vested interest in promoting the idea that abortion is merely getting rid of a clump of cells.

It is possible that more and more medically trained abortionists are reluctant to do late term abortions of viable fetuses, hence the reluctant openness to revising Roe vs Wade to exclude late term abortions.

As Fetology and neonatal pediatrics advances that reluctance is bound to increase as medical students will see for themselves that even a baby in the womb can be treated like a patient, and babies can be kept alive outside the mother's womb earlier and earlier.

The saving factor about Roe vs Wade is that it is not a mandate for abortion.

However the idea being propagated by pro-abortionists that a developing human baby is no more than a clump of cells in its earliest stages, and has no right to its life until it is old enough to live outside the physical body of its mother at the stage of a viable fetus, is dangerous for unborn children who are being aborted easily because of an invention in terminology which does not correlate with scientific knowledge.

FATE:

Anonymous wrote: "How many medical doctors have actually bought into the propaganda that women have a right to have their unborn children killed is difficult to imagine, for every medical doctor gets to read human embryology right at the beginning as part of their basic medical sciences subjects, watch ultrasound of unborn children in the womb later and even get to deliver babies as part of their basic obstetric rotation."

That's right. Have you considered how so many doctors can know that and still accept abortion? That is because they also know there are limits to abortion and when a fetus reaches the age where it could survive outside the womb it is not being killed except in extraordinary circumstances. They also understand that a fetus and woman are intertwined. You cannot easily separate one from the other. And they know that at the age where an abortion is a "right", the fetus is just a bundle of cells and not a child. So while you are amazed at how doctors can accept abortion consider that it is you who do not understand what doctors know and that is how you can buy into the anti-abortion propaganda.

Anonymous wrote: "So a medical doctor must put aside all that first hand knowledge of an unborn child while performing an abortion of a healthy fetus on a healthy woman as per Roe vs Wade. Not a pretty moral situation for a medical doctor trained to save lives, not to take them."

Again, a doctor knows what s/he is doing. The problem is you do not.

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

Am I discussing my personal opinions or am I presenting a view based on science (human embryology, fetology, neonatal pediatrics) and medical ethics (Hippocrates Oath)?

Have I not explained times without number that an abortionist would NOT need legal protection if abortion of healthy fetuses in health women was within the bounds of medical practice?

Not every obstetrician who could easily do abortion of healthy fetuses in healthy mothers "safely" would choose to be an abortionist. Have you watched the YouTube video "Silent Scream?" It is the science based opinion of an obstetrician on abortion. He knew what he was doing when he performed abortions and explains on what basis he couldn't do them anymore.

In medical science there is no point at which a growing baby is just a bundle of cells and NOT a growing human baby. I repeat for the zillionth time, if it were really so, that the human embyro/fetus is no more than a clump of cells, no law would be necessary to protect an abortionist. Abortion of a "clump of cells" would have been normal medical practice.

Medical science understands that a baby in the womb is a separate human being connected to its mother for deriving oxygen and nutrients for its growth. Please google the terms placenta and umbilical cord to understand the exact science of that connection.

There are several YouTube videos on Fetal Development for anyone interested in the science of a baby's growth in its mother's uterus.

FATE:

Anonymous wrote: "What about the constitutional right to life of the unborn child? Only by inventing a new definition for an unborn child is it possible to grant a woman the "right" to abort her unborn child who has the right to life."

No, only by granting the fetus a right which it does not have can anti-abortionists say the fetus has rights. Never in the history of man has a fetus had rights and it does not have constitutional rights. The woman on the other hand does have rights, lots of them. I know of no nation that investigates the death of a fetus yet all investigate the death of a woman. Your argument is hollow.

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

I repeat that Western medicine is nearly two thousand five hundred years old. Until 1973 abortion was ILLEGAL. The fact that an abortionist needs LEGAL protection to abort healthy fetuses in healthy women is PROOF that it falls OUTSIDE normal medical practice. If killing a fetus was normal and within medical ethics, an abortionist would not need legal protection. There was a time when abortionists were thrown into jail. Why would that be if the fetus or the developing baby was not considered a human being with the right to its life?

FATE:

Anonymous wrote: "Neither human physiology nor medical science which deals with saving lives and not taking them has changed since that time."

Medical science has not changed in the past 2500 years. Are you serious?

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

The human body functions exactly as it did nearly two thousand five hundred years ago, despite the great advances in knowing HOW it functions.

Medical science is still about saving lives and not about taking them. Do you know many doctors who are trained to kill people? I don't.

FATE:

Anonymous wrote: "Roe vs Wade is about legal protection for medical doctors acting outside the bounds of medical ethics to save lives. They rationalize it on the grounds that a woman would otherwise seek out a quack and endanger her health and life. It is NOT because they don't know that a human embryo/fetus is a developing human being and NOT because they are of the opinion a woman has a right to take the life of her unborn child for reasons of convenience, socio-economic factors."

"To some extent I agree. However you call a fetus an "unborn child". I and others would call an unborn child a fetus that could survive outside the womb where I and others might agree abortions should not be performed. And "reason of convenience" is what anti-abortionists hold up as the sole reason for choosing abortion. It certainly is not. If you want to discuss abortion at a level of civility you need to be careful and keep with the truth and reason and not be drawn into the anti-abortion rhetoric of terms like murder, convenience, etc. Its a complicated world and abortion is a complicated issue. Simplifying it to being murder of children who have rights will not win any arguments.

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

A human child in development is a human child in development on day 7 (roughly the day a fertilized ovum implants itself in the wall of the uterus of its mother to proceed with its development as a human baby in stages) as on day 270 of its life in the womb. Just because it is called by different names at various stages of its development, it does not make it any less of a developing human baby. A neonate, an infant, a toddler, a pre-schooler, a teenager are all different names for the same baby after it is born, growing outside the womb. Why should it not have different names while it is growing within the womb?

An unborn child is every child that is not yet born. That is what it means - simply UNBORN. How much time it needs to be born is immaterial. An unborn baby cannot grow any faster than its genetically pre-determined pace.

Abortion "right" does refer to reducing an unborn child to a clump of cells that has no right to its own life. The so-called clump of cells is a growing child at every point of its development. Viewed from the perspective of the growing child there is nothing complicated about being given a chance to live or having that right taken away by its mother. Trying to water down that decision by stating only a viable fetus, or a child that could survive outside the womb of its mother has the right to its life, is no more than saying that a growing child gets its right to life only after reaching a stage where it can be rescued from its murderous mother and still live.

It is a complicated world. Agreed. But it is so deadly for an unborn child in the world of abortion "right" where a growing baby is viewed as a clump of cells.

FATE:

First, I'm not pro-abortion. As I said before abortion is a hard choice for anyone and if I had to face it I'm not sure what I would do, but I'm glad I have the right to choose for myself instead of having someone's religion define my choice for me.

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

Is human embryology, fetology, neonatal pediatrics and the Hippocrates Oath someone's religion?

Is the fact that medical ethics does not have provision for abortion of healthy fetuses in healthy mothers that makes a law necessary to protect abortionists, someone's religion?

FATE:

Anonymous wrote: "The original Hippocratic Oath formulated TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED YEARS ago by the Father of Western medicine did not permit medical doctors to administer any drug to induce abortion.

Actually it prohibited a "pessary" to be used, which is a physical tool that is inserted to induce abortion. And for good reason. Back then, like in a back alley today where bent hangers were used, inducing abortion is a dangerous procedure that in many instances can lead to the death of the woman. Abortion is only legal *because* it can be performed safely.

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

Using bent hangers or whatever in back alleys was/is the work of quacks, not medical doctors, not just now but also in the time of Hippocrates. One does not need medical training to insert a bent hanger into the vagina to bring about an abortion.

But a pessary in Hippocrates time was a vaginal suppository, the knowledge of making which was possibly not freely available to quacks in his day.

Abortion is legal ONLY BECAUSE it can be performed safely??????????????
Abortion can be performed "safely" by a medical doctor (? safely for the baby) even a minute before the baby is born. A medical doctor can kill a baby "safely" even after it is born or at any time in its life. Does that make it legal, the fact that a medical doctor can do it "safely?"

Why did abortion have to be made legal in the first place and was done only 1973, although Western medicine is nearly two thousand five hundred years old?

Why does an abortionist need legal protection if performing an abortion "safely" is all that mattered in medical ethics?

To FATE:

In the times of Hippocrates, the father of modern medicine, who lived in ancient Greece from about 460 to 370 BC, pessary given for abortion probably meant a vaginal suppository for the Hippocrates Oath goes thus:

"Nor will I GIVE a woman a pessary to PROCURE abortion."

It is about administering something to INDUCE an abortion, not about the procedure of abortion itself.

"A pessary is a vaginal suppository used to kill sperm and/or block their passage through the cervix. The pessary was the most effective contraceptive device used in ancient times and numerous recipes for pessaries from ancient times are known. Ingredients for pessaries included: a base of crocodile dung (dung was frequently a base), a mixture of honey and natural sodium carbonate forming a kind of gum. All were of a consistency which would melt at body temperature and form an impenetrable covering of the cervix."

It is highly unlikely that the modern version of pessary and its use in gynecology by medical doctors existed in the time of Hippocrates.

Modern pessary

"A pessary is a small plastic or silicone medical device or form of pharmaceutical preparation which is inserted into the vagina or rectum and held in place by the pelvic floor musculature.

Uses

"A therapeutic pessary is used to support the uterus, vagina, bladder or rectum. A pessary is most commonly used to treat prolapse of the uterus. It is also used to treat stress urinary incontinence, a retroverted uterus, cystocele and rectocele.

"The pessary is similar to the outer ring of a diaphragm. It can be placed temporarily or permanently and must be fitted by a physician."

Anonymous wrote: "What is being consistently ignored by pro-abortionists is that medical science could NEVER endorse the view that a human embryo/fetus is not a developing human. The more Fetology and neonatal pediatrics advances, the more it is possible to cater to the health of an unborn child."

First, I'm not pro-abortion. As I said before abortion is a hard choice for anyone and if I had to face it I'm not sure what I would do, but I'm glad I have the right to choose for myself instead of having someone's religion define my choice for me.

Second, the fact that a fetus is a developing human is not a new idea or scientific finding. Its been known for thousands of years. What is relatively new is at which stages of fetal development we have a heartbeat, brain development, etc. But I don't see how this changes the argument much. From the anti-abortion point of view a fetus is a human being with all human rights from the day of conception, so what has the development have to do with it?

Anonymous wrote: "What about the constitutional right to life of the unborn child? Only by inventing a new definition for an unborn child is it possible to grant a woman the "right" to abort her unborn child who has the right to life."

No, only by granting the fetus a right which it does not have can anti-abortionists say the fetus has rights. Never in the history of man has a fetus had rights and it does not have constitutional rights. The woman on the other hand does have rights, lots of them. I know of no nation that investigates the death of a fetus yet all investigate the death of a woman. Your argument is hollow.

Anonymous wrote: "The original Hippocratic Oath formulated TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED YEARS ago by the Father of Western medicine did not permit medical doctors to administer any drug to induce abortion.

Actually it prohibited a "pessary" to be used, which is a physical tool that is inserted to induce abortion. And for good reason. Back then, like in a back alley today where bent hangers were used, inducing abortion is a dangerous procedure that in many instances can lead to the death of the woman. Abortion is only legal *because* it can be performed safely. Also note that the oath says a doctor will not perform surgery (cut out the stone). Again, this was dangerous to the patient then. Should doctors not perform surgery because of the oath?

Anonymous wrote: "Neither human physiology nor medical science which deals with saving lives and not taking them has changed since that time."

Medical science has not changed in the past 2500 years. Are you serious?

Anonymous wrote: "Roe vs Wade is about legal protection for medical doctors acting outside the bounds of medical ethics to save lives. They rationalize it on the grounds that a woman would otherwise seek out a quack and endanger her health and life. It is NOT because they don't know that a human embryo/fetus is a developing human being and NOT because they are of the opinion a woman has a right to take the life of her unborn child for reasons of convenience, socio-economic factors."

To some extent I agree. However you call a fetus an "unborn child". I and others would call an unborn child a fetus that could survive outside the womb where I and others might agree abortions should not be performed. And "reason of convenience" is what anti-abortionists hold up as the sole reason for choosing abortion. It certainly is not. If you want to discuss abortion at a level of civility you need to be careful and keep with the truth and reason and not be drawn into the anti-abortion rhetoric of terms like murder, convenience, etc. Its a complicated world and abortion is a complicated issue. Simplifying it to being murder of children who have rights will not win any arguments.

Anonymous wrote: "How many medical doctors have actually bought into the propaganda that women have a right to have their unborn children killed is difficult to imagine, for every medical doctor gets to read human embryology right at the beginning as part of their basic medical sciences subjects, watch ultrasound of unborn children in the womb later and even get to deliver babies as part of their basic obstetric rotation."

That's right. Have you considered how so many doctors can know that and still accept abortion? That is becauise they also know there are limits to abortion and when a fetus reaches the age where it could survive outside the womb it is not being killed except in extraordinary circumstances. They also understand that a fetus and woman are intertwined. You cannot easily separate one from the other. And they know that at the age where an abortion is a "right", the fetus is just a bundle of cells and not a child. So while you are amazed at how doctors can accept abortion consider that it is you who do not understand what doctors know and that is how you can buy into the anti-abortion propaganda.

Anonymous wrote: "So a medical doctor must put aside all that first hand knowledge of an unborn child while performing an abortion of a healthy fetus on a healthy woman as per Roe vs Wade. Not a pretty moral situation for a medical doctor trained to save lives, not to take them."

Again, a doctor knows what s/he is doing. The problem is you do not.

Anonymous wrote: "It is the redefinition of a developing human being in the womb by the lay community and supported by law that is the concern. The exponential jump in abortions from one hundred thousand per year pre Roe vs Wade to 1.4 million per year post Roe vs Wade has to do with that redefinition which has chosen to extinguish the fact that there is an innocent third party involved in abortion who has not been consulted and has not given consent."

By calling a day old embryo a child it is you who are redefining terms.

And what I never hear is the vision. Just what would the world be like if all abortion was outlawed? Have you thought about it? You only need to look at the world of the 1940s and see the orphanages, the back alley abortions and death resulting from it. This is what you advocate. And I do not hear about offering these women facing this hard decision monies and facilities to carry their fetus to term and then putting it up for adoption. Where can a woman who finds herself pregnant go to get the costs of her medical care taken care of? And what of rape and incest? What of medically necessary abortions. They do exist. None of this is outlined in a vision. All we hear is that the murder must stop and a clump of cells has rights that you and I have and the woman must take care of that clump of cells as she must take care of a baby. That is an argument that does not go far when you ignore any consequences of what you demand.

If you really want to reduce abortions then get involved with groups, if they exist, who will tend to these women and support them and eliminate the reasons women choose abortion. But I do not see anti-abortionists doing that, just screaming murder of children where there is none.

The original Hippocratic Oath formulated TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED YEARS ago by the Father of Western medicine did not permit medical doctors to administer any drug to induce abortion.

Neither human physiology nor medical science which deals with saving lives and not taking them has changed since that time.

Roe vs Wade is about legal protection for medical doctors acting outside the bounds of medical ethics to save lives. They rationalize it on the grounds that a woman would otherwise seek out a quack and endanger her health and life. It is NOT because they don't know that a human embryo/fetus is a developing human being and NOT because they are of the opinion a woman has a right to take the life of her unborn child for reasons of convenience, socio-economic factors.

How many medical doctors have actually bought into the propaganda that women have a right to have their unborn children killed is difficult to imagine, for every medical doctor gets to read human embryology right at the beginning as part of their basic medical sciences subjects, watch ultrasound of unborn children in the womb later and even get to deliver babies as part of their basic obstetric rotation.

So a medical doctor must put aside all that first hand knowledge of an unborn child while performing an abortion of a healthy fetus on a healthy woman as per Roe vs Wade. Not a pretty moral situation for a medical doctor trained to save lives, not to take them.

It is the redefinition of a developing human being in the womb by the lay community and supported by law that is the concern. The exponential jump in abortions from one hundred thousand per year pre Roe vs Wade to 1.4 million per year post Roe vs Wade has to do with that redefinition which has chosen to extinguish the fact that there is an innocent third party involved in abortion who has not been consulted and has not given consent.

FATE:

What is being consistently ignored by pro-abortionists is that medical science could NEVER endorse the view that a human embryo/fetus is not a developing human. The more Fetology and neonatal pediatrics advances, the more it is possible to cater to the health of an unborn child.

What about the constitutional right to life of the unborn child? Only by inventing a new definition for an unborn child is it possible to grant a woman the "right" to abort her unborn child who has the right to life.

spiderman2 wrote: "I think this is a stupid question [how kangaroos got from the ark to Australia] but I'll try to answer it so the stupidity won't spread. First of all, kangaroos were not mentioned in the Ark so who would hop to Australia if they were not around?"

So you think kangaroos were not around at the time of the flood?

spiderman2 wrote: "Second, not all animals were created at the same time. Evolutionists know this that is why they insists that animals evolved because they were not created at the same time. It is very possible that the kangaroos existed after the flood. All of these are plausible unlike your thinking that CHOCOLATES CAN BAKE ALL BY ITSELF."

Plausible? But the fossil record says kangaroos go back 25 million years. And I don't remember in Gensis where it talks about multiple creations, just one, and it took 6 days. So now it seems you are making stuff up to justify what the bible cannot explain. How typical.

spiderman2 wrote: "I understand that unbelievers will continue to NOT believe, otherwise, the prophecy would not be ACCURATE. Who would burn then if all would believe? hmmm?"

How can the prophesy be accurate if the bible is innacurate, such as in its explanation of creation, which you now say was multiple creations? You have made two contradictory statement:
1) The bible is "accurate".
2) Multiple creations have occurred when the bible says there was just one.

Par for the believer's course of delusion which is self sustaining by ignoring parts of the bible and making other parts up.

spiderman2 wrote: "Lastly, MARK THAT CALENDAR. I hope your calendars are tough enough not to burn so the next generation will learn unlike this generation which never believed the story of SODOM."

Sodom. Now there is an interesting story. Bad people it seems. Lots of sex. But tell me spidy, how many children lived in Sodom? Lott was told to leave with his family but not the children of Sodom. They were smitten just as their evil parents were. Does God punish children for the sins of their parents? And what about the unborn in Sodom? There must have been many with all that sex. No consideration by God for the unborn or for innocent children, just His hate for the adults, so all are killed. What a lovely God you worship. Now why is He so loving?

Its no wonder you hope for a holocaust in America. Your delusional religious thinking knows no bounds, no humanity, no logic, and you pray to a vengeful God. Your religion is not making you a better person if it results in you hoping for mass death that will benefit you. Consider you are following another diety, one that would welcome massive death and destruction.

spiderman2 wrote: "If you don't understand that, it means FAITH BELIEVERS or the Evangelicals."

I see, so no one but the Evangelicals are believers? This is another step by the delusional. Separation, cutting onself off, identifying everyone else as "them" and believing themselves pure while others not pure. Classic. The next step is ugly. Spidy has already shown it through his wish for massive death of "them". So sad.

"Like poles attract". Sorry for that, I was thinking of "Birds of the same feather flock (attract) together".

Fate wrote "why won't you tell us all how the kangaroos hopped off the ark and made it to Australia, hmmm"

I think this is a stupid question but I'll try to answer it so the stupidity won't spread. First of all, kangaroos were not mentioned in the Ark so who would hop to Australia if they were not around? Second, not all animals were created at the same time. Evolutionists know this that is why they insists that animals evolved because they were not created at the same time. It is very possible that the kangaroos existed after the flood. All of these are plausible unlike your thinking that CHOCOLATES CAN BAKE ALL BY ITSELF.

I understand that unbelievers will continue to NOT believe, otherwise, the prophecy would not be ACCURATE. Who would burn then if all would believe? hmmm?

Lastly, MARK THAT CALENDAR. I hope your calendars are tough enough not to burn so the next generation will learn unlike this generation which never believed the story of SODOM.

c ya later guys.

Anon wrote "First of all, the bible says the meek will inherit the earth. Believers will go to heaven. "

Read this Anon, "For the promise, that he should be the HEIR of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith."

If you don't understand that, it means FAITH BELIEVERS or the Evangelicals.

Make your own prophecy and while you wait, MARK YOUR CALENDAR.

Spiderman2 wrote: "It's not a wonder why liberals are rooting for Obama. They are always a magnet to doomsday. LIKE POLES ATTRACT."

Uh, Like poles repel spidy. What type of engineer did you say you were? Sanitary by chance?

Since you know everything biblical, and the bible is "always accurate", why won't you tell us all how the kangaroos hopped off the ark and made it to Australia, hmmm? The bible says they did, as did all land dwelling life in Australia.

Jeff wrote "Your failure to mention the carnage in Iraq "

I didn't know the American soldiers were in suicide missions exploding car bombs in full packed marketplaces.

Maybe I should junk my newspapers and the TV news I watched. Is the North Pole in Antartica?

spiderman2 wrote: "No exact date but less than 10 years when abortion and gay marriage becomes rampant. Make it rampant so the date will move closer."

spiderman2 also wrote: "The Bible is always accurate. It says that the Believers would inherit the earth. If U.S coastal cities will burn, the conservatives in the heartland will be left to rule the earth."

First of all, the bible says the meek will inherit the earth. Believers will go to heaven.

This is what an apocalyptic religion does to ones mind. It leaves some *wishing* for war, destruction, death and holocaust. Here spiderman2 actually wishes for what he considers sin in order to bring on the destruction.

Power cannot be held by people with this mindset. To believe that man can determine God's will, by pulling the trigger, is dangerous. But we have seen it in the past. Constantine saved christians by burning Europe. Spidy want to burn America to save it, for people like himself.

When will the religious understand that their religions are delusions that lead to thinking the unthinkable. Get some help spidy.

You only believe in the right to life with regard to abortion. The quote from Donne, "any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee." means just what it says: ANY person's death, including the death of thousands of Iraqi citizens and the execution of criminals by the state. Evangelicals go to Iraq beleiving they have a God given call to kill the enenmy of anyone else who gets in the way of their sinister agenda in Arabia. Your failure to mention the carnage in Iraq shows what frauds you and other evangelicals are. Also, you and your kind, such as Rick Warren, preach a perverse brand of the Christianity that equates getting rich with being saved. There is no limit to the arrogance and pride of life that is the evangelical way of life.

I think Obama and his choice of judges will hasten the coming of the "3rd child". It's not a wonder why liberals are rooting for Obama. They are always a magnet to doomsday. LIKE POLES ATTRACT.

The Bible is always accurate. It says that the Believers would inherit the earth. If U.S coastal cities will burn, the conservatives in the heartland will be left to rule the earth.

What a very accurate prophecy.

If it was a fairy tale a century ago that a city can burn in one hour, NOT anymore. There are thousands of nukes on standby and Russia and China are not getting friendlier, do they?

Iran don't want to be left behind. She wants the top billing.

Nobody can separate the abortion, gay marriage, doomsday triplet. It's always a "TRIMESTRAL". Abortion first, gay marriage second and lastly, DOOMSDAY.

Get ready for the "3rd child" coming.

No exact date but less than 10 years when abortion and gay marriage becomes rampant. Make it rampant so the date will move closer.

spiderman2 predicted: "It's very easy to predict that these two states will burn. Mark that in your calendar."

Which date spidy? You have a date? Lets hear it!

And by the way, the Bible mentioned that that great city burning was a coastal city. Coincidence?

Freedom of choice to abort sounds like freedom of choice to have a slave in his household. It just doesn't sound right, does it?

Abortion, gay marriage and doomsday. It seems like these three go hand in hand.

Abortion and gay marriage in Massachusetes. Abortion and gay marriage in California. It's very easy to predict that these two states will burn. Mark that in your calendar.

"he spouts anti-abortion rhetoric at the evangelicals while his pro-choice VP Tom Ridge waits in the wings."

Do ALL Obama supporters just make things up then expound on why this made-up nonfact should persuade you to vote for Obama? It makes me question their grasp on reality.

Anonymous wrote: "Fate, Roe vs Wade is about legal abortion in ALL three trimesters, although a doctor is allowed to exercise his/her professional right to deny abortion in later stages of pregnancy."

Sort of. Under Roe, no state could regulate abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy. Regulations directly related to maternal health would be allowed during the second trimester. Post-viability abortions, if regulated, would be subject to the mental and physical health exceptions set out in Doe v. Bolton. So yes, it is about all three trimesters, but states can block the last two trimester abortions to some extent, except in the situations the count allowed, and many do. Roe mainly deals with the first trimester and is the focus of the abortion battle in the country.

Anonymous wrote: "You should check out the law before confidently making a wrong claim. Even SOME staunch pro-abortionists are concerned about the extent that is permissible that they suggest a public discussion is necessary."

Its been discussed since the 1960s and the majority of Americans still believe a woman has a right to choose.

Anonymous wrote: "A public discussion about modifying or changing the law is necessary for the law was passed without public consultation and ultrasound asn routine in ante-natal care and the science of fetology did not exist in 1973 when Roe vs Wade came into effect."

The science of maturnity and fetal development was not in the dark ages in 1973. Its not an issue of what Americans want, even though the majority wants choice. Its a constitutional issue based on who has a right to determine a woman's pregnancy. What I never see in these discussions is the consequences of what anti-abortionists want. We do not hear of women being sent to jail, or doctors being sent to jail. We do not hear about the resurgence of back-alley abortions, nor the increase in orphanages. Nothing, just "no more murder".

Anonymous wrote: "So public opinion regarding right of the unborn child and scientific development that monitors an unborn child should be taken into consideration in the review of Roe vs Wade."

No, its a constitutional issue, not a purely legislative issue, like alcohol sales for example, at least in the first trimester. Its an issue of a woman's "rights". Various states have differing laws after the first trimester, some restrictive, some not so, but Roe mainly deals with the first trimester and a woman's right, RIGHT, to terminate it in a safe environment. A "right" is not something that is legislated. Its constitutionally protected, and the courts have consistently shown since Roe that the right to abort in the first trimester is a woman's right. But like speech, a right can be regulated. Supreme Court rulings allow the individual states to regulate abortion in the following ways:

1) Banning elective abortions after viability (after the first trimester);
2) Requiring parental consent or notice before a minor can obtain an abortion, although usually a "judicial bypass" option must be made available;
3) Requiring waiting periods before an abortion may be performed. (Usually 24-48 hours.);
4) Requiring informed consent or counseling be obtained before an abortion. (States often mandate what information must be presented.);
5) Requiring certain kinds of record keeping;
Each state addresses these matters independently and what laws are passed or enforced is a legislative decision, and, more broadly speaking, a function of the political system.

So think of a woman's right to choose in terms of your right to free speech. It cannot be taken away but it can be regulated. If you focused on the regulation of abortion and for a moment considered what a draconian law against all abortions would do, like a draconian law against free speech, we might be able to have a fruitful discussion. But like telling someone they do not have a right to free speech, once you deny a person has the right to an abortion, the argument turns to one of rights and not to one of living with the reality and problems abortion brings. Groups like "Common Ground" have moved beyond the issue of the rights to the issue of working to make lives for women, who make any choice, better.

No one thinks their daughter or sister should go out and get pregnant and have an abortion. No one. But most agree that their daughter and sister should have a right to one if they choose. They include such conservatives as Dan Quayle (though he denies he said it). You can preach anti-abortion in your church and even make it a sin. But law is a different matter, one that moves the discussion from voluntary to mandatory regulations, from spiritual punishment to legal punishment, from the fate of one's soul to the fate of one's life.

"We cannot diminish the value of one category of human life--the unborn--without diminishing the value of all human life."

I actually agree with this, but it raises a serious dilema for those who accept it.

The use of torture can easily be shown to affect the same result - it diminishes the value of one category of human life, and thus diminishes the value for all life.

War - it diminishes the value of one category of life - the enemy. In fact, successful wars are fought by having the combatants treat their enemy as sub-human. this makes it easier to kill and eliminate them.

The death penalty - same story - treats one class or category of life as inferior to another and thus not deserving of continued existence.

Mr. John Mark Reynolds - may I know your thoughts on the above to see if you are consistent?

We see the importance of Roe v Wade even now in this election, as McCain continues to equivicate for votes - he spouts anti-abortion rhetoric at the evangelicals while his pro-choice VP Tom Ridge waits in the wings.

Brother, talk about trying to play both ends against the middle. This is the devilish work of a consummate sleight-of-hand artist and politically driven politician. In truth, no one can really know what McCain stands for, because he changes he position to suit his audience. He's been doing this throughout his campaign from the start. This is not a man to be trusted.

Stop living on the wild side & be on the safe side - vote Obama.

What Reynolds doesn't understand is that separation of church and state is more than simply a matter of making sure laws have a secular purpose. It's also a matter of keeping patriotism separate from religious faith. The "informal civil religion" that Reynolds advocates may or may not be in technical compliance with the First Amendment, but it surely violates the amendment's spirit. Patriotism should not involve having any kind of religious belief, even a watered-down civil version. Courthouse steps are part of buildings for official government business, so manger scenes there would give the impression that the government favors Christianity. (As I've written elsewhere on this site, that's different from public squares as long as the latter does not prevent any religious group from setting up their own holiday displays. It doesn't matter which religion is predominant among Americans - religious faith should always be an individual thing.

If we could just understand why men have nipples, we could then understand some of these easier questions.

Evangelicals wanted bush and he has never been successful in business or anything else in life. His own brother said "whatever you do don't vote for George, he's lazy, he's stupid, and he's never worked a day in his life.
They want an end to abortion but support the killing and displacement of tens of thousands of innocent Muslims in Iraq.
Obviously they don't know what they want and their influence is waning, thank God.
This administration will go down as the most destructive in our history. They came into office with a surplus and leave with a 9 trillion dollar deficit, but that's not the real figure. If you count the war, social security and Medicare, the figure is more like 50 trillion.
Some economists have described our situation like the guy who jumped off a 60 story building and when he passed the 30th floor said "everything’s O.K. so far".

Why such a big deal about nothing? Cone of silence simply could mean that Senator McCain didn't get to hear Senator Obama's end of the forum. And does it matter whether he was in the building or not or arrived half an hour into Senator Obama's part, and was in the cone of silence within the church? What if Rev Warren didn't know when Senator McCain really arrived because he was interviewing Senator Obama, and Senator McCain had been expected to arrive on time and wait in his cone of silence?

What about simple honesty?

Last night at Saddleback, Rick Waren said that McCain was in a 'cone of silence'. Later we find out McCain wasn't in the building. I do not believe Rick Warren who pastors the place the forum took place in didn't know McCain hadn't arrived to the Lord's house-- before making the cone reference.

Then to top it all off, when Warren asked McCain about his cone experience, Mc Cain said he was trying to listen through the wall. Where is the truth in all of this.

Be not naive. Rev Rick Warren arranged a carefully controlled public forum in the attendance of a national and international media to present both the presidential candidates in their best light along with useful information about their personal views both religious and otherwise. He called them both his friends. Why would he, as a Christian pastor, want either of them to look foolish or not be at their best?

Both candidates said their prepared answers. The questions needed far too much careful reflection to answer, that it could not have been thought out on the spot. Just because Senator Obama paused longer doesn't mean he didn't prepare his answers in advance. He is the better orator and well known for it. Pausing for effect is part of oratory skill. It is simplistic to think his longer pauses had any special significance compared to Senator McCain's immediate quick answers.

What matters is what both candidates actually said, their authenticity as persons and how their policy stand resonates.

Senator McCain comes from a family of soldiers used to thinking in terms of a group, self-sacrifice and working for a cause higher than themselves.

Senator Obama is relatively young and has worked as a community organizer and lawyer, but not without political ambitions.

Military training and training as a lawyer are two different things. Both have their unique set of merits and disadvantages.

Compare policies and decide what is best for the country.

Given the same questions, I think Obama would say the same answers if asked today or years from now. He is for abortion and McCain is not. What's unfair about it?

So now we find out that all is not what you hear from John McCain. He was not in a CONE OF SILENCE during Obama's interview..... He heard the questions being asked to Obama ahead of time. I would say that that is advantage McCain... To be fooled like that especially from an old fool is embarassing for the Obama camp. Now we are supposed to believe his campaign when they say that he did not hear the questions ahead of time. No wonder he was answering the questions before they were even asked. Was it coincidence when he asked Warren " When are you going to ask me about the Supreme Court Judges? Since this was a religious event , I find this kind of cheating on McCain's part as blasphemous.

I just googled paganism and I was greeted with these pictures. I think discussing with pagans is a futile act. One should bring mirrors instead so these people will see what they look like. No wonder all these people are for abortion. They all look like aborted fetuses which grew big.

here's the link : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perchten

The science of human embryology is pretty clear on when life begins. It is pro-abortionists who do NOT want to know and make believe it is a gray area in medical science.

The legal right awarded to an unborn child in the womb is not about the science of life but about protection of the unborn under the law of the land.

Hi Farnaz, thanks for the kind words. Im glad you know me and can distinguish my posts.

I just logged in and read paganplace's posts. Nobody wins a debate with Paganplace. First, she has a reading comprehention problem and second she's a big liar. If we let her describe disneyland, one would come to a conclusion that disney is the saddest place on earth.

Right now, I'd like to google what pagans are doing so I can understand what made her to be that way. I'd like to know if she's an aberation or not.

For your information:

Webcast of Fetal Laser Surgery
Surgery for twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS)

Watch on:

August 20, 2008
4:00 PM EDT
(20:00 UTC)
From Tampa General Hospital, Tampa, FL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tampa, Fla. – Highlights of a fetal laser surgery for twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome (TTTS) will be shown from Tampa General Hospital on the Internet on August 20, 2008 at 4 p.m. EDT.
TTTS affects 10 to 15 percent of identical-twin pregnancies and is the result of abnormal blood exchange between identical twins through a common placenta. The larger of the twins, or recipient, is surrounded by too much amniotic fluid and in danger of heart failure as its body tries to pump the overwhelming volume of blood intended for both. The smaller, or donor twin, is encased in a shrinking amniotic sac deprived of blood. Without treatment, both will likely die. MORE...

http://www.or-live.com/tgh/2331/

At eight weeks the human embryo is known as a fetus, meaning the little one, a baby, because it has all the recognizable features of a baby.

Unborn Baby's Tiny Hand Reaches Out to Touch Surgeons Hand

In 1999, during a spina bifida corrective procedure at 21 weeks in utero, Samuel thrusts his tiny hand out of the surgical opening of his mother's uterus. As the doctor lifts his hand, Samuel reacts to the touch and squeezes the doctor's finger. As if testing for strength, the doctor shakes the tiny fist. Samuel held firm. At that moment, I took this "Fetal Hand Grasp" photo.

As a photojournalist, Michael Clancy's job is to tell stories through pictures.

SONG: "Can I Live" by Nick Cannon

Photo used with permission of Michael Clancy, www.MichaelClancy.com

There was a botched twin abortion in Italy where the baby with Downs Syndrome was supposed to be aborted. But the doctor botched the abortion and murdered the healthy baby, as if in some cruel twist of fate their actions turned around and slapped them right back in the face. Will people ever learn not to fool with what God created, even if it is not "perfect" in our own eyes?

TAKE A LOOK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O09HfkzvlnY

Ran across your listing while surfing the Internet. The listing said the source was the "Washington Post". Surprise, surprise, I did see something about the "Washington Post" and "Newsweek" at the top of the page I was presented with, sneaky, sneaky,--however the purpose of the site appears to not be news but "On Faith". Faith is not news, it is a very personal set of beliefs concerning everything, and I do mean everything. Since when did "Faith" become news. I was tempted to report the site to the Washington Post as a misrepresentation until I also saw the name of Sally Quinn at the top of the page. If I am not mistaken Sally Quinn had deep roots in the Washington Post organization. So what is going on!!!

If according to Hippocrates, the Father of Western medicine, giving medication to induce abortion was wrong, what about actually ripping apart an unborn child?

Roe vs Wade needs to be revisited in the light of today's science ---

Human embryology
Fetology
Neonatal pediatrics

In her 1938 autobiography, Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, notes that her 1916 opposition to abortion was based on the taking of life: "To each group we explained what contraception was;

that abortion was the wrong way —

*no matter how early it was performed it was taking life*;

that contraception was the better way, the safer way—it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun."

Hello Wondering,

These days, I think about Olaf. I had to delete a couple of letters to get past the WaPo censor, evidently not a poetry lover.

i sing of Olaf glad and big
by E. E. Cummings

XXX

i sing of Olaf glad and big

whose warmest heart recoiled at war:

a conscientious object-or

his wellbelovéd colonel(trig

westpointer most succinctly bred)

took erring Olaf soon in hand;

but--though an host of overjoyed

noncoms(first knocking on the head

him)do through icy waters roll

that helplessness which others stroke

with brushes recently employed

anent this muddy toiletbowl,

while kindred intellects evoke

allegiance per blunt instruments--

Olaf(being to all intents

a corpse and wanting any rag

upon what God unto him gave)

responds,without getting annoyed

"I will not kiss your f---ing flag"

straightway the silver bird looked grave

(departing hurriedly to shave)

but--though all kinds of officers

(a yearning nation's blueeyed pride)

their passive prey did kick and curse

until for wear their clarion

voices and boots were much the worse,

and egged the firstclassprivates on

his rectum wickedly to tease

by means of skilfully applied

bayonets roasted hot with heat--

Olaf(upon what were once knees)

does almost ceaselessly repeat

"there is some s*it I will not eat"

our president,being of which

assertions duly notified

threw the yellowsonofab*ch

into a dungeon,where he died

Christ(of His mercy infinite)

i pray to see;and Olaf,too

preponderatingly because

unless statistics lie he was

more brave than me:more blond than you.

If it is any comfort, or serves any purpose to inform the wilfuly ignorant, Hippocrates, the Father of Western medicine, considered abortion wrong. Medical doctors were not allowed to give medication that induced an abortion. Abortion-on-demand still remains outside normal medical practice, hence a special law to protect abortionists.

What Evangelicals Want--

Abortion was against the law in America before 1973. Everyone who believes that Roe vs Wade should be overturned should vote for McCain this year. At Saddlebrook- he was clear about his lifelong pro-life position and his SCOTUS preferences.

There may be two Anons. One of them is definitively not Spiderman2. Quite simply, Spiderman does not have such venom in him.

Hello Spiderman, My Friend,

Hope all is well.

Farnaz.

You do realize that court rulings are about the *law* and not someone's *opinion?* Admittedly, precedents are based on case law, but it was a real case. If it's found that abortion bans are a violation of civil rights, then that's what was found about the laws. The case was real, whether or not she was honest in the first place or was honest when she claimed otherwise later.

from another thread--

"You can follow any ethical path you might choose as long as it agrees with the law" or work to change the law...

Roe vs Wade (1973)

Norma McCorvey is "Jane Roe" in the landmark Roe v. Wade lawsuit in 1973. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that abortion is a Constitutional right, overturning individual states' laws against abortion. She has recanted her support of abortion.

The Roe vs. Wade case took three years of trials to reach the United States Supreme Court. In the meantime, McCorvey had not aborted, but had given birth to the baby in question. In the case, she claimed that her pregnancy was the result of rape. She now claims that to have been untrue.

In the 1980s, McCorvey revealed herself to be the "Jane Roe" of the famous case, and that she had been the "pawn" of two young and ambitious lawyers (Sarah Weddington and Linda Coffee) who were looking for a plaintiff with whom they could challenge the Texas state law prohibiting abortion.

She wrote in her book:

"I was sitting in O.R.'s offices when I noticed a fetal development poster. The progression was so obvious, the eyes were so sweet. It hurt my heart, just looking at them. I ran outside and finally, it dawned on me. "Norma," I said to myself, "They're right." I had worked with pregnant women for years. I had been through three pregnancies and deliveries myself. I should have known. Yet something in that poster made me lose my breath. I kept seeing the picture of that tiny, 10-week-old embryo, and I said to myself, that's a baby! It's as if blinders just fell off my eyes and I suddenly understood the truth--that's a baby!"

I felt crushed under the truth of this realization. I had to face up to the awful reality. Abortion wasn't about "products of conception." It wasn't about "missed periods." It was about children being killed in their mother's wombs. All those years I was wrong. Signing that affidavit, I was wrong. Working in an abortion clinic, I was wrong. No more of this first trimester, second trimester, third trimester stuff. Abortion–at any point–was wrong. It was so clear. Painfully clear."

Was that thinking? Must have missed it in my 'befuddlement.'

But in terms of the political agenda, the Evangelical stance almost always comes out like trying to ban the vaccine for a virus that causes cervical cancer, for fear it'll encourage premarital sex... Cause Gods know that's what goes through every girl's mind in sexual situations. Human papilloma virus... Scary.

Yah. Right.

I'm not exactly a big fan of abortions, myself, but imposing your religious beliefs on others about it, and on anything to do with the sex you're obsessed with, ...just isn't your right.

Motherhood is about as sacred as it gets in my religion. And it's not for someone else to define to their political convenience and try and rule. It's not for you to impose on anyone, when it's not your life.

Just because you believe a human soul is created out of nowhere 'at conception' doesn't mean that's the truth of it, or other people's experience or beliefs about it, or that they must be treating the matter casually cause that's what you say about single mothers.

You don't get to use the government, or a pharmacy name tag, for that matter, to impose your beliefs on the lives of others... Who you don't treat so well in *life.*

And.. evangelicals want a man who will wage their wars. (those deaths are ok it seems)

Victims of war in the case of abortion get disposed off in garbage bags, with no names, no one to mourn for them, no funerals, hence the war remains silent and APPEARS victimless.

There is an another Anonymous posting here right now who thinks just like me, even using the same words! Kindred spirits indeed!

Actually, anonymous, in terms of 'What Evangelicals Want' politically, let's start with "BIRTH CONTROL IS NOT ABORTION?" K?

Abortion is NOT birth CONTROL. It is taking an innocent life that has been already created.

I did not at any time mention that contraception is wrong. I repeated I'm against using abortion as late stage contraception.

I do not support war. But I find it somewhat hypocritical of those who support abortion without any qualms, being anti-war. Abortion is full scale war on the unborn.

"your religious idea that telling people about birth control is the same thing as murder"

Let's try to get this straight:

ABORTION IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL.

Everyone should agree on this.

Well, getting back to 'What Evangelicals want,' folks, I still say it's better judged by what you try and *get* rather than what you say about it.

What you try and *get* isn't about babies. It's about control of sex. And women.

How many aborted babies of the 1.4 million actually fulfill the criteria of having mothers who are ---

drug addicts
alcoholic dependent
HIV positive
mentally ill

And the babies are severely congenitally malformed?

Only a small percentage fit the criteria.

The vast majority of abortions is due to inconvenience and socio-economic reasons. That is a criteria that could be easily used to kill anyone who is born, not just defenseless unborn children.

"There are some 49 million orphans in the world, but you people want to double that number?"

Gee Pam- I'd can just imagine how you'd like to solve the problem of the aging baby-boomers as they become bed-bound and infirmed in larger numbers.

" Anonymous:

"It takes a good stretch of the imagination to compare the targeted killing of one's own helpless unborn child to a war."

It really does. An even bigger stretch to justify wars and guns and killings and demand people live by your religious idea that telling people about birth control is the same thing as murder.

Maybe you can go 'wait on your Lord' and use deceptive Internet tactics to try and claim you're right about it, brave Anonymous. :)

A human embryo is a separate human being. The lie that it is a part of the woman's body or a part of her reproductive organ just doesn't hold water scientifically.

It takes a good stretch of the imagination to compare the targeted killing of one's own helpless unborn child to a war.

Every year 1.4 million unborn children are killed in the US. How many wars does it take to kill that many defenseless?

Good post, Raman Vig.

People in this financial situation are certainly among those who opt for abortion. Others are victims of rape or incest, underage unmarried girls; prostitutes; and crack addicted, alcoholic, and/or HIV-positive women.

The solutions that the all-heart Christians offer are a) find someone to adopt your child (but don't look at me!), or b) get your tubes tied.

How many people are out there just champing at the bit to adopt minority, or HIV-positive, or crack-addicted, or fetal-alcohol-syndrome afflicted babies?

Not one of the "Christians" posting here who are so adamantly opposed to abortion have mentioned their broods of adopted "undesirables." How many of those kids who were clamoring to see "Batman" are adopted, Dr. Reynolds?

There are some 49 million orphans in the world, but you people want to double that number?

Knowing that there are so many orphans out there, shouldn't all of you forego producing your own, and adopt some of them instead?

And tubal ligation? What a joke! At what age should parents have their daughters' tubes tied to prevent accidents? Often, TL can't be reversed, so if teen agers ever actually want a family, they may be SOL.

Those who can't afford the children, also can't afford elective surgery. Most don't have health insurance to begin with, but even if they did, it wouldn't cover this elective surgery.

The uncomfortable truth is that a generation after Roe, the crime rate dropped dramatically - and this was not just a coincidence. Please don't think that I'm saying Roe should stand in order to keep crime down - I'm absolutely not - I bring it up just to point out that the women having abortions are mostly among the poorest and most disadvantaged in the country, and those least able to raise children, and that this plays a large part in their decisions.

I just love the way all of those who vote for God's Own Party say that they want to "get government off our backs" - except when it comes to what other people do in their own bedrooms, or with their reproductive organs.

Very funny. Spoofing another user is against the rules, but you could at least *try* to distinguish yourself with a screen name. Preferably, only one.

Say what??

I mean, call me befuddled, but does someone insistently-posting under 'Anonymous' get to pose indignance about mistaken identity? :)

" Anonymous:

You are befuddled.

Because (among other things) you believe I am "Spidey" and I am not."

Well, I'll let you know when I see the difference between Spidey not using a screen name and you not using a screen name. :) Somehow... he always seems to have a supporting 'Anonymous' on cue. :)

To me this question is between a woman and her God not her politician. To date one religion is still waiting for their savior and the other is waiting for his return, just for the sake of it, I say wait, I say wait on the "Lord" and see what the end will bring. Stop playing God. Stop making these guys lie. If you believe in war, then you don't believe in the right to life.

You are befuddled.

Because (among other things) you believe I am "Spidey" and I am not.

But, yeah, don't try and start a pissing contest over the power of your 'God,' I've met your 'Prayer Warfare' people quite a few times.

Those that want to 'righteously' deny me equal treatment under the law are the ones who really cause hurt.

And that's real.

" Anonymous:
"What?? You think the entire Christian world is personally out to get you? They plot your downfall?"

No, that it only takes one ...thinking like you, Spidey, in the right place, to overstep decency and their job description to *actually hurt people.*

And that this has real effects.

"You are carrying lots of misplaced hurt and anger."

No, I was responding to someone bringing up a time I'd been hurt to try and discredit some other things I was saying. For his God. Sound like anyone you know, 'Anonymous?'

" If your "gods" aren't helping- go to a good therapist and get some help."

If you can't develop the reading comprehension to see I asserted They most certainly *did,* despite a lot of unnecessary adversity, ...see a reading tutor.

"Dear befuddled Pagan."

Well, that's interesting... This was all about 'What Evangelicals want.'

Either I'm 'befuddled,' or we've just seen some of those desires.

*****
...
Americans can disagree about the best means to be a good neighbor to the living, but there is no possibility of a good relationship with the aborted, the euthanized, or the dead.

Tax policy can be debated, but not the right to life.
...
*****

For some reason, I am not in a mood to debate today. So I will give you a piece of sermon or itemized version of it:

1. Consider a case of chicken - Human beings can kill it with or without compassion, because it sustains "my life". Do I have to thank the chicken for allowing itself, to be consumed by me?

2. Consider the case of killings in Iraq, Georgia, Afghanistan - We go out and kill bunch of people who we do not even know in cold blood. The reason - self preservation.

So, John Mark Reynolds, with due respect, I submit, if it is acceptable for you to kill people in cold blood for self preservation, why is it so difficult for you to ingest and digest, a simple health principle and right of woman to abort in self preservation.

When I say women's right to self preservation through abortion, it means the following:
1. Average annual income of an American household is $45000. This implies 40% of US households earn below $30000/yr. How many kids can a household support in that income? A household with that level of income can only provide decent living to one kid in a remote location in US (Forget about New York, San Francisco, LA etc)..
2. Now let us assume, a household with income $45000/yr agrees to your proposal to raise more than two kids (let us say four kids). What are the options available to the household to support extra three kids:
a. Accept donation from charity - Even if you were to consider support from all charitable organizations in US, a family still would not be able to support four kids.
b. Slog like slaves to earn extra income
c. Provide substandard living to kids and at a certain age send them off to US army
3. For some women it is simply too traumatic to bear an offspring.

If the purpose of raising more kids is to make them cannon fodder, then it defeats your argument to abolish abortion in the first place.

I agree with your good intentions, Mr. John Mark Reynolds, but simply put logistically it is not feasible to support your proposal to abolish woman’s right to abortion.

"Every time some little Fudie prat like you decides it's be great sport for the 'glory of your God' to erase someone or screw up their data, to make them ineligible for that care, or fair housing, or a decent legit job, or to see or be seen by their dear ones when they need to most... Or to commit the rapes and victim-blaming re-rapes that you seem to like to advocate...'

What?? You think the entire Christian world is personally out to get you? They plot your downfall? You are carrying lots of misplaced hurt and anger. If your "gods" aren't helping- go to a good therapist and get some help.

Dear befuddled Pagan.

" spiderman2:

"*I* made it."

So why all the complaints about health care and your need for it?"

Cause not everyone does, child.

Not everyone does.

Every time some little Fudie prat like you decides it's be great sport for the 'glory of your God' to erase someone or screw up their data, to make them ineligible for that care, or fair housing, or a decent legit job, or to see or be seen by their dear ones when they need to most... Or to commit the rapes and victim-blaming re-rapes that you seem to like to advocate...

This is not some 'abstraction' that will 'lead someone to a 'good Christian life.'

This is malice and jealousy and hurting people over some fable you tell yourself.

And you, pathetic little one, see the apparent 'power' this promises and you're all for it.

Me?

Don't say 'My God Is Bigger,' cause apparently yours has wanted me dead for thirty years, and people done tried to make it happen, I assure you.

And one day, all that I went through is gonna take that time off the end of my life, I'm fair sure.

My Gods don't excuse or absolve the world of the effects of our actions, or those of others. You hurt people, you get hurt by them, it's *real.*

It does not 'go away.'

But *that's* why, sometimes we hang on. To *make it better.*

Not to get beaten down and insincerely beg to what you think represents some entitlement to vicarious power, slugger.

Not to 'brek' people for the 'glory' you think you can get all so easy, for whatever your frustrated reasons are.

But because this is *life.* Because, this is *what we do.*

Because *this,* sure as the breast I beat here, is 'God.'

Cause we're *better* than your fears.

Christian.

Pagan- Christians have founded large hospitals, orphanages, hospices, and schools/universities. We have feeding programs, rehabs for addicts, homes and training for the homeless (prostitutes, the mentally ill and displaced). This doesn't come close to acknowledging the vast number of Christian outreach ministries. These minister to all and are available worldwide.

That's the REAL LIFE I live..

"*I* made it."

So why all the complaints about health care and your need for it?

"If you have direct experience with "Gods"- why don't they supply care for you? They clearly have very limited godlike powers.."

Heh, heh, heh. Son, I wouldn't be here barkin atche if I didn't have some help getting through what ye 'righteous' keep insisting on.

*I* made it. And without begging on demand for the likes of *you.*

This doesn't change reality. It's life, not your fiction.

"have faith in and in my own case direct experience of other Gods, who somehow really don't have a *problem* with socialized and non-profit health care"

If you have direct experience with "Gods"- why don't they supply care for you? They clearly have very limited godlike powers..

Do tell, Spidey.

"If you can't get it in government for reasons that Im not aware of, try attending a true conservative christian church, live a christian life and ask for help if you need one."

Ah, yeah. Did I also somehow forget to mention I have faith in and in my own case direct experience of other Gods, who somehow really don't have a *problem* with socialized and non-profit health care, such as my family worked for and paid into all their lives, and, if you want to use my illness to try and enforce compliance to your 'One true Religion,' that it ...might be less than honest?

Or are we still back there on the male organ thing?

And you can conspire with the 'Axis of Evil' on your own time, if that's what you want. A 'liberal' like the very Christian Jimmy Carter suggests, err, talking to warring parties, and you're ready to string him up as a traitor, aren't you?

It's a brain issue. That's what makes it complicated.

and, there we go, Arminius.

Now, perhaps, we can get back to the topic of 'What Evangelicals want,' which is, interestingly enough, not all that dissimilar in many political cases from 'What Spidey wants,' from whatever Mom's basement he goes about wanting it...

:)

"but am still denied health care "

If you can't get it in government for reasons that Im not aware of, try attending a true conservative christian church, live a christian life and ask for help if you need one.

Franklin Graham just announced they built a hospital in North Korea. That's how far "fundies" have gone and yet you're still not aware what a BIG helping hand "fundies" are?

"but am still denied health care "

If you can't get it in government for reasons that Im not aware of, try attending a true conservative christian church, live a christian life and ask for help if you need one.

Franklin Graham just announced they built a hospital in North Korea. That's how far "fundies" have gone and you still tha

Pagan-you are self-consumed.

There is a war against women going on but its not in America.

It is in Africa and the weapon being used is rape. They are being raped and displaced- bearing the child of their soldier rapist. It is an act of terror being carried out because the qur'an commands/demands it.

Have a heart and open your eyes. Its not about you- Pagan.

Am I allowed to make this gesture related to that word?

"but as a Bostonian I can pretty much throw one of those out there and drive on"

Hey Pagan- knock yourself out.. literally..

"Pagan, for many years great America was never bothered with the abotion issue because it's a very simple issue for intelligent people. It became an issue when stupid liberals start populating America.

Tie your fallopian tube and you won't think of it again. It's that simple. Why grow corn if you don't intend to harvest it? "

Did I leave out the part where I was exposed to funky chemicals and basically couldn't conceive if I tried, but am still denied health care on the basis I should save myself for some snotnosed wannabe-evil Fundie like youself?

You, boy, are not the bad guys of my experience, that what you tried to use to put 'uppity women' in 'our place.' You just wanna be. And that's even sadder.

It's terribly sad to think that the complex job of leading America in the 21st Century risks being handed over to a man, no matter how rotten or unsuited to the job he is in any other respect, as long as he says "I'm against abortion under all circumstances." That really is sad. You people are a cancer on this country.

Pagan, for many years great America was never bothered with the abotion issue because it's a very simple issue for intelligent people. It became an issue when stupid liberals start populating America.

Tie your fallopian tube and you won't think of it again. It's that simple. Why grow corn if you don't intend to harvest it?

I think it's not a religious issue but a BRAIN issue. Some people just have samller brains than others.

" Anonymous:

"Jackoff" is just one word. As a pagan- you can whip up an entire chant. But it will only tie itself to your own heart.."

Yeah, but as a Bostonian I can pretty much throw one of those out there and drive on. ;)

Paganplace sez:

Spidey. Knew it was you. (Are we allowed to call someone a jackoff if we mean it in a strictly theological sense?)

Me: May God forgive me, but that got a long, long laugh here. Thanks!

"Jackoff" is just one word. As a pagan- you can whip up an entire chant. But it will only tie itself to your own heart..

Spidey. Knew it was you. (Are we allowed to call someone a jackoff if we mean it in a strictly theological sense?)

Abortion is hard to defend. Obama had a hard time doing it in Rick Warren's televised interview.

Great, Wondering. Now we can get back to the topic of 'What Evangelicals Want.'

Whatever it is, it's apparently to be obtained by spam, implying to loyal dissenters they ought to leave America, and bringing up the fact some folks have been raped to attempt to ipso facto disqualify them from speaking on 'moral issues' like how to deprive us of our civil rights...

Yes, Anonymous, getting raped and beaten in the name of 'Absolute Righteousness' and then getting similar treatment from those proclaiming they were the Religious Good and supposed to help.... Did get my attention.

Now let's see what you've won...

See above.

PaganPlace:

I am duly edified. :-) Actually, I was being ironic; however, the US did actually plant its flag on the moon. With respect to the question posed, to be democratic, one could put the matter of what to do with the theocrats to the UG (United Galaxies)
-------------------------------------

Wondering,

Yes, that is one of my favorites, too.

Farnaz

ee cummings- one more:

may my heart always be open

may my heart always be open to little
birds who are the secrets of living
whatever they sing is better than to know
and if men should not hear them men are old

may my mind stroll about hungry
and fearless and thirsty and supple
and even if it's sunday may i be wrong
for whenever men are right they are not young

and may myself do nothing usefully
and love yourself so more than truly
there's never been quite such a fool who could fail
pulling all the sky over him with one smile

"Am I mistaken, or didn't we plant the US flag on the moon?"

Eh, people plant all manner of things everywhere. Doesn't mean it's *theirs,* capische?

Dear PaganPlace,

What do you make of Christians such as Anon and Edie, such obvious adherents to the religion of "love"?

I lived in South Carolina for awhile. Met some beautiful people there, among them quite a number of secularist Christians. I fear it's unfair to send theocrats there.

Am I mistaken, or didn't we plant the US flag on the moon?

Best,
Farnaz

" Anonymous:

Its getting slow on this thread. Maybe Paganplace and Farnaz want to start sharing their rape experiences with us again.."

Is that good for you, big boy? Or shall I keep pinting at the diversion?

Wondering, yes, but in the current discussion, who is the Good Samaritan?

And...Back atcha: I cherish the last line of the first stanza.

what if a much of a which of a wind

what if a much of a which of a wind
gives the truth to summer's lie;
bloodies with dizzying leaves the sun
and yanks immortal stars awry?
Blow king to beggar and queen to seem
(blow friend to fiend: blow space to time)
-when skies are hanged and oceans drowned,
the single secret will still be man

what if a keen of a lean wind flays
screaming hills with sleet and snow:
strangles valleys by ropes of thing
and stifles forests in white ago?
Blow hope to terror; blow seeing to blind
(blow pity to envy and soul to mind)
-whose hearts are mountains, roots are trees,
it's they shall cry hello to the spring

what if a dawn of a doom of a dream
bites this universe in two,
peels forever out of his grave
and sprinkles nowhere with me and you?
Blow soon to never and never to twice
(blow life to isn't; blow death to was)
-all nothing's only our hugest home;
the most who die, the more we live

-- e. e. cummings

"Now, PP, I have a question for you: To which country should those who don't believe in church-state separation move?

Regards,
Farnaz :-)"

I hear they got their eyes on South Carolina?

Its getting slow on this thread. Maybe Paganplace and Farnaz want to start sharing their rape experiences with us again..

Hi PaganPlace,

You write: "What I'm wondering is if the person who posed the question was actually curious, or just wanted what I said to scroll off. :)"

Well, you know, I think it's a good question, and Cummings had a good answer, no?

Now, PP, I have a question for you: To which country should those who don't believe in church-state separation move?

Regards,
Farnaz :-)

" wondering:

I know many countries where it is dangerous to be a practicing pagan. "

I live in one, myself. Why, they won't even capitalize our name as though we were people, here.

What are you claiming, Wondering, that you're 'Absolutely Right' cause it might be worse elsewhere?

One thing I can tell you, Wondering, is that *life ain't safe.*

But while you figure you'll be chowing down on whatever pie in the sky, while the fallout of what you demand plays out, I generally expect to *still be here.*

Working on what's next.

So, if you can't read what I say above, *you* ask yourself what country you want to be living in. Cause I suspect you ain't committed to this America thing.

I know many countries where it is dangerous to be a practicing pagan.

Like Blanche in ASND pagans must "depend on the kindness of strangers".

So I just wondered: where is the safest place for pagans. Which country is made of the "kindest strangers".

What I'm wondering is if the person who posed the question was actually curious, or just wanted what I said to scroll off. :)

" wondering:

Pagan:

What is the best country for a pagan believer to make their home?"

Where we stand.

I'm partial to this one, but I been here a few times. ;)

Here is my preferred ee cummings poem:

a man who had fallen among thieves

a man who had fallen among thieves
lay by the roadside on his back
dressed in fifteenthrate ideas
wearing a round jeer for a hat

fate per a somewhat more than less
emancipated evening
had in return for consciousness
endowed him with a changeless grin

whereon a dozen staunch and leal
citizens did graze at pause
then fired by hypercivic zeal
sought newer pastures or because

swaddled with a frozen brook
of pinkest vomit out of eyes
which noticed nobody he looked
as if he did not care to rise

one hand did nothing on the vest
its wideflung friend clenched weakly dirt
while the mute trouserfly confessed
a button solemnly inert.

Brushing from whom the stiffened puke
i put him all into my arms
and staggered banged with terror through
a million billion trillion stars

ee cummings

To all evangelicals - judge not, lest ye be judged.

J. M Reynold's writes

"In our own era the right to life for the unborn child has been most directly under assault. A candidate who ignores this fact is not going to get the most evangelical votes."

"The unborn child" has no rights. If so, there are necessarily billions upon billions (in fact select any number you desire) of unborn children that have the right to life. This is absurd. Quine rightly points out that if this argument is sustained, then it leads to "a slum of possibilities".

"The possible unborn child within the possible unborn pregnant female has the right to life" doesn't sound too convincing does it? Although such nonsensical utterances clearly use the same logical structure that is promoted in the above passage.

One more thing, the concept of (unborn) "innocent human life" is a false affair, if one is of the Christian faith. Is it or is it not the case that, as the Christians see it, humanity is born wreched?

Why do a majority of Chisrians hide this core-fact under the carpet?

With technical words undefined and thrown around and core Christian dogma brushed under the carpet, the article demands a rewrite. But when one adds a dose of political punditry to this mess, it is not the article that remains the focus of distaste, instead it is the malnourished intellectual insights of the article's author.

Wondering, you write to Pagan:

"What is the best country for a pagan believer to make their home?"

I've often pondered this question. Here's a recommendation by E.E. Cummings

pity this busy monster, manunkind

pity this busy monster, manunkind,

not. Progress is a comfortable disease:
your victim (death and life safely beyond)

plays with the bigness of his littleness
--- electrons deify one razorblade
into a mountainrange; lenses extend
unwish through curving wherewhen till unwish
returns on its unself.
A world of made
is not a world of born --- pity poor flesh

and trees, poor stars and stones, but never this
fine specimen of hypermagical

ultraomnipotence. We doctors know

a hopeless case if --- listen: there's a hell
of a good universe next door; let's go

-- E. E. Cummings

Edie- Farnaz is quite obviously in the state of denial...

Dear Mr. Mark,

Edie writes to me:

" 'A people, Jews, have a text. Another group, at first (Jews who believe Yeshua is messiah)(later known as Christians), explains that the "real meaning of that text" was "revealed" to them. That group becomes the majority, and establishes hegemony, eradicating the self-understanding of the first group, whom it has displaced, of whom it believes religion ended with the OT.'

Farnaz- where are you?? in the state of confusion??

America is a Christian majority country.

Israel is the Jewish homeland.

Hegemony-Schmegemony"
------------------------------------
So....Mr. Mark, do you see what I mean? Edie makes my point, illustrates it, embodies it.

Pagan:

What is the best country for a pagan believer to make their home?

"A people, Jews, have a text. Another group, at first (Jews who believe Yeshua is messiah)(later known as Christians), explains that the "real meaning of that text" was "revealed" to them. That group becomes the majority, and establishes hegemony, eradicating the self-understanding of the first group, whom it has displaced, of whom it believes religion ended with the OT."

Farnaz- where are you?? in the state of confusion??

America is a Christian majority country.

Israel is the Jewish homeland.

Hegemony-Schmegemony

See what I mean, Pam? If someone wants to make all this about 'Moral Values,' ...say that it's perfectly OK to load the dice of our prenatal development and then turn around and say, 'It's all the 'sin' of improper sex,'

Well, that's awfully convenient to those who say, 'Don't look too hard at the bisphenols and bovine hormones and endocrine disruptors we're loading your body with, ...say Every Sperm is Sacred, and if they don't suffer willingly, beat em straight. It's a 'choice,' really.

All this comes from the *religious* belief, that ever 'conception,' (really, sex act that might four days later *lead* to conception) ...*makes an eternal soul with only one chance to live and be 'saved' by living in accordance with *just one way to be.*

There's nothing factual to support this. There is no compelling state interest to enforce this.

It's just... convenient. For some. Fewer than you'd think.

I mean, that's not to say I'm at all bitter about being bi... It's natural, and has always been to one degree or another... But. If you have a religious belief in 'heroic measures' to try and 'preserve every human life' and then demand it's through some fault of character and 'sin,' that a kid prenatally-exposed to hormones known to make *gay lab mice* pretty reliably, ...actually turns out kinda queer, well, I question that particular religious belief in 'natural law' being the epitome of perfect goodness.

Especially given how you 'absolutists' tend to treat the results when you don't like em.

"If our mothers would have aborted us, education, taxes, oil, etc. would not be an issue. We wouldn't be here. "

You do realize, of course, that that's just one religious belief among many?

My mother believed that, and therefore took some stuff to 'prevent miscarriage,' which has been shown to cause all manner of birth defects, not to mention serious hormonal problems, which make me being happily-bisexual look like a summer sniffle, ...but these same people who were so insistent I be born that way were also insistent on treating me horribly for making the 'horrible sinful choice' to be born in a way they find worth trying to beat out of you.

Pay never no mind to the religious pressure of the time to carry a child to term, whatever the cost, or 'God has cursed you' with a miscarriage... , and then proceed to beat on the resulting kid for not being as 'normal' as their 'God' demands.

It's *your* religious belief that a clump of cells represents one and only one chance at 'salvation' from a God that might damn that cluster of cells to oblivion or worse for not becoming a straight capitalist Christian... And that any suffering incurred must be the mother's punishment for some impiety...

But it's not the science, it's not the human experience, and it's not everyone's religious belief, and in this nation with religious freedom and individual liberty, it's not yours to command.

Mr. Mark,

Thank you for your reply. I don't know your Jewish friend so I can't comment. The business with Amelek has numerous interpretations, none of which by itself is definitive. There are methods for studying them (the intrpretations) that the Christians do not have.

I am reminded of a post on Job in which the author said that the "singular" explanation of Job was that he kept faith despite his suffering. That is not the case; in fact, his keeping faith in God is completely irrelevant.

As I have tried to say repeatedly, the existence or nonexistence of certain figures in both the Tanakh and the Christian testament is arguably less important than the interpretations given to them.

"And, of course the Talmud is going to find a way to explain away the sorry tale of the Amalekites as not being a case of god sanctioning murder. That's the job of religious apology, isn't it?

If we want to be honest about it, there is a very simple explanation for the story of the Amalekites: it's a myth, a myth made up by a bunch of anonymous goat herders who never considered logic, consistency and the law of unintended consequences (ie: ramifications) when spinning their myths. These kinds of a-historic tales were written to bolster some tribal need or another with no thought given to their broader implications."

Again, you are dealing with complex texts that have been continually revisited in their complexity. What shall we say of a people whose name is to be blotted out from history and yet remains in history forever? Deconstruct it if you will. The Talmud does so. There it is the scholarship, interpretations, deconstructive arguments, etc. There are many different kinds of Talmudic interpretations.

Some will draw analogies as the midrash of your friend does, the midrash not intending to mean that God has ten fingers, of course. Others are essayistic arguments, analogies, etc.

Ultimately, they all go to a MORAL or ETHICAL issue. My problem with the content of some of your posts is that a text created by and for Jews has been expropriated, taken out of context, and distorted by another group who have only the literal text in front of them.

The irony is that your message, intended for Christians is using that text! Further, your statements on the Talmud are literally incorrect, and, no offense, I haven't known you to pronounce upon that of which you have scant knowledge.

I agree with your position on the matter of choice entirely, as I have indicated here and on another thread. But atheist or no, I invite you to imagine a Muslim correcting you on the Christian Testament, elements of which are incorporated into the Q'ran and "correctly" explained. You can read the Q'ran on the web.

Our atheism notwithstanding, look at the phenomena. A people, Jews, have a text. Another group, at first Jewish Christians, then Christians, explains that the "real meaning of that text" was "revealed" to them. That group becomes the majority, and establishes hegemony, eradicating the self-understanding of the first group, whom it has displaced, of whom it believes religion ended with the OT.

Then comes along Mohammad to whom it is revealed that both the Tanakh and the Christian testament were mistaken. The truth is revealed to him.

Now, what kind of thinking is this? To what does it give liscense? To what has it lead?

This is the most comprehensive ariticle I have read on the subject. I started watching the forum with a sense of dread last night. By the end of the night, I was glad I watched. I also believe that life begins at conception. A long record of supporting the right to life has convinced me who I must support. This one fundamental right makes all other issues moot. If our mothers would have aborted us, education, taxes, oil, etc. would not be an issue. We wouldn't be here. So, having said that I have moved abortion to the top. Maybe having my first grandchild has changed my view.

To wit, 'What Evangelicals want' is *power.* Control. Or a sense of these things.

Real power, of course comes with responsibilities they insistently push off on scorned 'sinners' and feared 'others,' or 'credit to Gawd' while letting what 'power' they *have* or disavow, run amok.

Wanting more control over women when your own radical preachers can't keep it in their own pants...

Wanting to scorn and disadvantage gays when your own religious conservative pols *are all manner of into* relegating to 'shameful' places in airports

Or just cash in on their own internal little dramas about beating up on their own instincts...

What you claim to 'want' don't exactly match up to what you do and have always done when you *have.*

More 'righteous absolutism' in political power does not bring virtue, it brings 'supply-side' theocrats who righteously believe even their own rules are for 'the little people.'

Who *own* the media or equivalent, to *tell* you what to be scandalized about and what to not see at all.

To *tell* you that it's OK to ignore real and present problems as long as there's someone different to righteously' take out the sense of frustrated *entitlement* upon.

I think a good question that should be asked of Evangelicals is, "What do you want that is within the purview of America to lawfully-*grant?*"

The question to ask is, 'Who told you what to want, and what would happen if you *got it?* Really?

'Have religious panderers even given you these things, or just given you a ready diversion from real needs ...a set of 'enemies' where there were once 'fellow citizens,' while those you elect genuflect all the way to the holy bank and tell you to pray harder if for some reason the banks are closing in after they told you to respond to 'terrorism' by *spending?*'

There are a lot of questions.

But not for the candidates, really.

For you.

Take your time and get back to us on that.

But 'I want' doesn't always have to mean 'I get.'

Not even for ye who think yourselves mighty.

'Power,' though, doesn't accrue to those who demand others express it *for* them.

Control doesn't come to those who demand someone else control *them,*

What you *want,* you will not get as the package is sold to you.

So ...Be glad our liberty says, 'No.'

America was founded by religious men to secure religious freedom for all. We were never intended to be a secular nation.

As de Tocqueville wrote in "Democracy in America:

"Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power."

Even Thomas Jefferson (so beloved and misunderstood by atheists today) wanted the seal of the United States to show the Jewish people leaving Egypt as the Red Sea divided.

America was founded by deeply religious men and American laws are based on Judeo-Christian morality and ethics.

The perpetuation of organized ignorance by the so called religious authorities is a frightening thing.

In my view almost everything they teach is not just wrong, but also based on a wrong approach.

People live natural, principled lives when they realize for themselves which desires, choices, beliefs and actions have meaning or purpose, and which don't.

No pastor knows what is right. The closest guide any of us has is our own conscience and intuition. I'd put these ahead of anything you can read or hear.

Well, again, on the 'Right To Life' issues, I think 'What Evangelicals Want' is better-determined by what they in fact *try to get* than what they *say* it's about.

The laws they try to pass aren't about *babies,* they're about *controlling sex.*

They aren't about calling a blastula 'A Human Life,' they want to stop *sex education and contraception.*

They want to outlaw as 'Abortion' things which *are not, by any definition.*

It's not a human, it's a clump of cells. We can debate the issue all day regarding when the clump of cells becomes capable of independent survival of the mother. However, when will you religious extremists realize that every zygote is not sacred? When I see you evangelicals raising unwanted children, and paying for their upkeep with your OWN money, I might listen to some of your ramblings about the right to choose issue. Like you, I don't care for government social programs, so I suggest you hop off your religious soapbox and start adopting, and paying for, these unwanted children

"1. First of all "security in the ownership of private property" is not listed in the Constitution as an inalienable right. That's your own spin, so if you are going to quote the Constitution, please be accurate."

Well, actually, via the Bill of Rights, to be secure in one's person and property is in fact guaranteed, and seen to be 'among those inalienable rights,' so to speak.

Where it gets complicated is the recent legal notions of 'Corporate personhood' (Where corporations have all the rights of individuals, but few to none of the responsibilities. When was the last time a corporation went to jail for reckless endangerment?) as well as the constant insistence that *taxes* are inherently stripping people of property unjustly, as opposed to being part of how we secure our rights for all.

But individuals do have the right to be secure in their possessions, under the Constitution. This has been abused in various ways, but it's there.

What I want is an individual who is modest and understands that his "job" is secular. Obama's admission that he does not pretend to know God's will concerning abortion was excellent, and the "religious" folks are attacking him for that answer.

The insistence that one must start from the premise that the USA is a "blessed" and "favorite" nation is the essence of blasphemy. Beware of mega-church, all-knowing preachers.................

Follow Christ, beware of Christians.

Mr Mark:

Known as a moving target making it real hard to hit -- "Thus pre-disposed, a Biblical "scientific" fact once disproved becomes a metaphor; a Biblical "historic" fact disproved becomes "tradition"; and that which totally defies reason becomes "god's unfathomable mysteries."

You took all that to say what evangelicals want which is money yet never used the word. When someone flashes a gun at the bank he doesn't need to say, "this is a robbery." Everyone knows exactly what he has in mind. Same thing done by evangelical ministers, flash God and everyone knows whats up. Only difference is bank robbers are honest crooks making no pretense they're not out to rob.

Dear Farnaz -

While I appreciate your pointing out the mediation of the Talmud on OT stories, the Xians do not avail themselves of such things in rationalizing their political positions, ie: anti-choice.

And, of course the Talmud is going to find a way to explain away the sorry tale of the Amalekites as not being a case of god sanctioning murder. That's the job of religious apology, isn't it?

If we want to be honest about it, there is a very simple explanation for the story of the Amalekites: it's a myth, a myth made up by a bunch of anonymous goat herders who never considered logic, consistency and the law of unintended consequences (ie: ramifications) when spinning their myths. These kinds of a-historic tales were written to bolster some tribal need or another with no thought given to their broader implications.

And that leads to the exegesis of midrash.

Here's an example: a Jewish friend of mine once explained to me that there were more than 10 plagues visited on Egypt. He explained that as the plagues were delivered by "the hand of god," that one also needed to count the fingers on god's hands, and the fact that god had two hands, etc. Ergo, there were at least 100 plagues visited upon Egypt, not just the ten the Bible recounts.

A nice example of midrash at its metaphoric and esoteric best, to be sure - until one realizes that the Jews were NEVER held in bondage in Egypt, they were NEVER persecuted by the Egyptians and there was NEVER an exodus.

Like the a-historic extirpation of the Amalekites, this plagues story need not be true to provide a basis for metaphoric discussion, but the larger point is the basis of the discussion is, ultimately, a falsehood.

Consequently, these lame-brained tales create problems for the theologians who are then faced with coming up with some quasi-logical apologia to explain how the inane makes sense. Ergo, the Talmud and the tradition of Midrash, wherein black becomes white and up becomes down. An echo chamber of thoughts and ideas with one PRE-DISPOSED goal: to prove that the obviously ridiculous reveals some deep and hidden truth.

Thus pre-disposed, a Biblical "scientific" fact once disproved becomes a metaphor; a Biblical "historic" fact disproved becomes "tradition"; and that which totally defies reason becomes "god's unfathomable mysteries."

Still, I appreciate your comments to my posts which are usually intended for the Xians who post here.

This article was very entertaining.

After all, aren't these evangelicals the ones that gave overwhelming support to George Bush?

I think we, as a society, can do without the political influence of these morons.

Tiny secular minority? Am I to assume the silent majority of evangelicals outnumbers non-religious people so fully that we depend on the pro-evangelical candidate to look out for our freedom? Thanks?

While Christian, I was taught compassion was the core directive to how I deal with other people. Unless there is some implication that charity to the meek and poor should be only an individual act, why so much caution against government programs? It is not as if the last eight years of neoconservative federal government (which we typically label as being endorsed by evangelicals) actually STOPPED making more government programs or spending more money on them. To paraphrase the late George Carlin, you will do anything you can to save the unborn, but once the babes are out of the womb, you don't want to hear about these people again until they reach military age so they can die for you.

This article represents a religious political view that is too cynical for any meaningful mercy or dignity to life. It is about a large faction of this society that devotes much of its secular life to reminding the country how righteous it is. It is a faction that defends its property and kind at the expense of the meek everywhere.

I disagree that we want the same things in our candidates. Evangelicals are often the kind of ideological group that is too extreme and divisive for us to want candidates to pander to them. Your fear of theocracy seems to be if one day the Baptists took control, whereas I would have the fear of Christians in general taking control, but of course, for the most part they already have.

Good luck with the continually forced issue of abortion. How many times can a voter say "I would have voted for the other guy, and right now I regret voting the way I did since I feel worse off than I did X years ago, but abortion wholly decides who I will vote for" before they realize there is more at stake in government than simple Black-and-white litmus tests. These days, the controversy over abortion is not over third-term abortions, but whether the pill is abortion, whether pharmacists can make this call, whether states can pull terms without meaningful precedence like "human being" out of the ether. Let us be honest, stop hiding behind abortion, and admit the current legislative issues are turning the use of birth control that can prevent fertilization into the equivalent of killing a newborn.

Some say "no new laws, enforce the old ones" and I say it would be great if the born were shown as much charity and sympathy as unborn.

"Evangelicals want government to defend the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and security in the ownership of private property."

Several points to make here:

1. First of all "security in the ownership of private property" is not listed in the Constitution as an inalienable right. That's your own spin, so if you are going to quote the Constitution, please be accurate.

2. This relates to my second point, as your quote points out how, while conservatives claim to read the Constitution as it was intended by its authors, you actually use it to fit your purposes. For example, abortion has been practice for centuries, but wasn't broadly criminalized until the late 19th century, I believe, well after the Constitution was written. And the framers of the Constitution certainly did not consider that life began at conception. Even when abortion was criminalized the moment of conception was not an issue. You may argue that science has evolved, but then don't say that's the way the framers intended it.

3. Laws concerning marriage and reproductive rights have always been driven by control of property, with morality tacked on to give such laws legitimacy. Why did the Catholic church begin forbidding priests to marry? To keep Church property from being doled out of the hands of the Church and to the children of priests.

4. Given that you have twisted the Constitution and history to your ends, I question your claim that Evangelicals are not ideologues.

Several points to consider:

1. One out of three pregnancies ends in miscarriage (see HHS statistics). That's why a fetus is POTENTIAL life, not a child.

2. If we define personhood at conception, does that mean that every miscarriage will become suspect? Will women be investigated to see whether they "endangered" their "unborn child" by continuing to work, do housework, exercise undue physical activity, by eating junkfood, etc.? At what point will a woman having a miscarriage be vulnerable to charges of negligent homicide or involuntary manslaughter?

3. Artificial insemination aside, it takes a man to impregnate a woman. Where is the nationwide surge by men to step forward to raise the possible children resulting from all the unwanted pregnancies?

4. There are lots of children born thanks to abortions, in subsequent pregnancies. Count me among them: had the previously pregnancy been carried to term, I never would have seen the light of day. My mother has never spent a day mourning the loss of that fetus.

Last night, Obama proved that he is an utter coward when he sidestepped the question on abortion. When asked when human rights should begin for an unborn person, he merely claimed that we should cut down on unwanted children.

In fact, his voting record, and his A+ rating with Planned Parenthood, Emily's list, and NARAL prove that he has no regard whatever for the innocent children that want only to be born and cared for and loved. His shrill vitriol advocates total access to abortion at all stages.

Think about it: he defends even so called "partial birth abortion" which involves puncturing the head of a child so its brains can be sucked out.

Murder looks like murder, doesn't it? And he assents to it.

The misguided priorities of evangelicals are to blame for the last sorry eight years and you can bet that if you looked individually at the remaining twenty some percent that still, despite all that's gone on, support George W. Bush that these would be evangelicals. Their faith has been completely skewed by a weird alignment with a party that veers away from the spirit of Jesus and the New Testament while they cherry pick passages that support their conflicting priorities. They vote pro-wealth while claiming to center their lives around a religious figure who derided wealth and concerned himself with the impoverished. They claim "compassion" while they enthusiastically support torture. They drive around with pro-gun stickers AND pro-life stickers on their cars. Basically they want to have their cake and eat it too. They want a cushy materialistic life for themselves without having to worry too much about anyone else. They want to consume consume consume, without worrying about the fate of the planet. They want to feel that a massive military machine protects their security without worrying too much about innocent people dying at the hands of that military and want the warm, fuzzy feeling that they have "earned eternal life" (one more benefit for them) by just telling themselves that all they have to do is BELIEVE - no acts, deeds, sacrifices, or concern for others required. All they really believe in is everything working to their favor. Selfishness = evangelical in 21st century America.

Once you read through all of the almost (but not really) reasonable-sounding positions in this article, you get to the intractable bottom line which shows that Mark Reynolds, and presumably most evangelicals, would rather have another disastrous Bush-like administration than any president who supports abortion rights. In the end, none of the other desirable qualities (including competence) matters for these people. If this is true, evangelicals have stubbornly failed to learn their lesson and remain determined to take the whole country down rather than return to their corner and use the tools of spiritual (rather than temporal) persuasion that God gave them.

In other words you censor?

Come on, Robert B. Stupid is as stupid does. If you're a Bush supporter, nothing more needs to be said about stupid, does it??

Now don't be a total hypocrite - be ethically consistent. If you are taking a stand against abortion, then you must summarily take a stand against killing of any kind, in order to be fully Christian.

You must oppose war and the killing of countless thousands of innocent bystanders, the torture and murder of suspected 'terrorists', capital punishment, and how about self-defense? Kill or be killed, that is the question.

So am I to believe that you've taken a firm philosophical stand against killing in general then? No, more likely the usual equivocal republican position of 'killing only when necessary' - or 'when I say so'.

In the end, abortion is not a religious issue at all - it is a secular, ethical issue. And as we know, ethical rules and morals in general tend to be circumstantial, conditional, situational, provisional and ultimately changeable. There are no ethical absolutes.

Roe v Wade = the law of the land. Mothers have proprietary rights over the life of an unborn child. Learn to live with it.

Religion and its superstitious fallacies cannot be allowed much more tyranny here. Conservatives and believers ac the wt like someone else has been in power for the last 1700 years. They alone are to blame for the worlds ills. Save the planet, ban christians.

If evangelicals really believe that "experience shows government programs do more harm than good" or they think in such coded right-wing formulae as "help to the poor and needy ... must not perpetuate injustices on other groups" then their social views are as ridiculous and dangerous as their spiritual ones. We have enough trouble with right-wing religious fanatics abroad; we don't need to throw sop to those at home.

John Mark Reynolds overlooks some very important abortion concumstances.

There are pregnancies resulting from RAPE that should never go forward!

There are a few cases where the WOMAN'S LIFE life is at risk.

There are many cases where the girl is MUCH TOO YOUNG and IMMATURE.

REV, REYNOLDS NEEDS TO LOOK AT LIFE REALISTICALLY.

What happened to the republican party of economic growth, fiscal sanity, and the anti-slavery movement?

Get your bible out of my vagina!

CABBV:

Oddly enough, people have embraced the notion of pro-life and pro-choice, which to me, may be on the opposite pole, yet cannot survive without the other. One cannot make a choice without a life but to live is the ultimate of choice. It is imperative that the more we must be vigilant that those who are now alive, yet unable to protect their own, are not subjected to the choice of others.

August 17, 2008 5:19 AM

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

Whatever is THAT supposed to mean? Forgive the simplicity in my thinking, but I can't really make any sense of it.

Are you for abortion or against it?

Do you believe that women actually die if they carry a child to term simply because they didn't intend to have a child at the time?

When a woman's life is really in danger due to pregnancy (which happens very very rarely) a medical doctor is permitted to choose the life of the mother over the life of the child. It does NOT require a special law to protect the doctor for it is fully within the bounds of medical practice. Roe vs Wade is about aborting HEALTHY unborn babies of HEALTHY mothers because she CHOOSES not to have a child at the time for whatever reason.

"The English poet, John Donne, wrote: ' . . . any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.'"

Pity most American Evangelicals only extend that value to other Americans and mainly other Americans who think exactly like them. They are perfectly happy with the killing of Muslims, Palestinians, illegal immigrants, criminals ( they support the death penalty), homosexuals , liberals, environmentalists, etc. etc. etc.

FARNAZ, child soldiers in Africa, Hitler youth, any terrible ideology that uses brainwashing, after a period of indoctrination, believe in the lies they were taught as the absolute truth.

Your justification for abortion sounds no different. You NEED to tell yourself that all women are bound to die or become severely disabled if they choose to have a baby when they don't want it. Without that lie to support you, you'd have to admit, a mother is merely killing her own innocent helpless child.

Keep on lying to yourself and others. I'm sure some are going to believe you. I'm not one of them for I know too much science related to the development of a human embryo.

I am a Catholic, a registered Democrat and a veteran. I am in complete agreement with you. I consider myself, in a political continuum, that I am probably 7 to the left and 3 to the right. Yes indeed, lives of the unborn should and must be protected because they don't have the ability to choose for themselves. Oddly enough, people have embraced the notion of pro-life and pro-choice, which to me, may be on the opposite pole, yet cannot survive without the other. One cannot make a choice without a life but to live is the ultimate of choice. It is imperative that the more we must be vigilant that those who are now alive, yet unable to protect their own, are not subjected to the choice of others.

"Anonymous:

It is interesting how people invent their own reasons for justifying abortion in the early stages and prohibiting it in the late stage. Neither science nor Scripture states that a human embryo is NOT a human being in development, no matter in what stage it happens to be."

As far as I know, the Bible doesn't use the word "embryo." It's interesting how people believe that a woman should die or be permanently disabled in order to preserve one.

Even more curious is the presumption of religionists that they have the right to make the the tenets of their religion, as they interpret them, the law of the land.

Can we be a theocratic state and remain a democracy? If so, shall we divvy up various domains of the law so that every
religious group is represented? E.g., the Catholics on abortion, the Jews on the death penalty, the Muslims on divorce, the Pagans on children's rights, etc.?

If so, what do you do with the agnostics, the atheists, the unaffiliated? It would seem that democracy and secularism go hand in hand.

I can see why you post as Anon.

For the Nth time FARNAZ, since you seem to forget ---

Jesus Christ and ALL the disciples He chose were Jews.

Jesus taught in the Jewish synagogues of His day, with the consent of the Jewish religious authorities of His day.

Jesus always referred to the teachings of the Old Testament, the Jewish Scripture. Jesus knew the Jewish Scripture like the back of His hand.

Paul was a Jewish Pharisee who knew the Jewish Scripture well. He also referred to Jewish Scripture when he preached Jesus as the fulfillment of Jewish Scripture.

Christians were known as a Jewish sect at the beginning. They worshipped in the synagogues.

Christians use the Jewish Scripture EXACTLY as it is and cross reference it in the New Testament. It is impossible to understand NT without reading the OT.

The Quran is a different story.

It is interesting how people invent their own reasons for justifying abortion in the early stages and prohibiting it in the late stage. Neither science nor Scripture states that a human embryo is NOT a human being in development, no matter in what stage it happens to be. A human embryo develops from the beginning at its genetically pre-determined pace, nothing more, nothing less. It does not become a human being in week 20, 24 or whatever, after having been a nothing until them. How ridiculous is the notion that a human embryo is not human (is it supposed to be inhuman or an animal in its early stages?) until someone(?philosopher/?Rabbi/?Pastor/?Imam) grants it the right to be referred to as human.

Mr. Mark,

While I agree completely with your arguments opposing "pro-lifism," I'd be a bit more careful with the "OT," that is the Tanakh, the Hebrew Bible. This text was written by and for Jews and is heavily mediated through the Talmud, and later Judaic scholarly writing. The passages you cite do not play a role in Judaic thinking on choice, nor are they understood as the deity sanctioning murder.

Judaism REQUIRES abortion in cases in which the mother's life or health is endangered. Other extenuating circumstances, even among the Orthodox, permit, or even suggest, abortion as the most humane course. Judaism places an enormously high value on human life; it's interest in the "afterlife" remains negligible. Given this perspective, one might consider the possibility that the self-proclaimed "pro-life" religionists, who have expropriated the Hebrew Bible, misrepresent it.

I should add that from a Judaic perspective, late-term abortions are another matter entirely. Unless, somehow, late in the pregnancy, the mother's life or long-term health has become endangered, late-term abortions are unacceptible.

Evangelicals should create a permanent third party in this country. Mainstreaming yourselves into the Republican party has ruined the republican party. We have no more statesmen or great thinkers--just "pastors" and "preachers". It has also ruined the churches--I know I wont go back till there is a major housecleaning.

It's time the evangelicals learn that the constitution is not the bible, congressmen aren't apostles, our prez cannot be a pope figure. It's mocks everything this country stands for, especially tolerance and brotherhood. I am fed up with it. No more tithing to the church or politicians anymore for me.

Patriotism does not belong in my church,and religious piety does not belong on the floor of congress. Both groups have made a mockery of what each of them has stood for for centuries.

Mark in NY compares alleged "torture" by Americans/George Bush/the boogeyman/whatever/whoever to....abortion!! How absurd.

Waterboarding? My, my, so a few Taliban or Al Qaeda types (a half dozen?) have been subjected to a procedure that simply fools them into thinking they are drowning. So what? No physical damage is done and if a major terror player gives up some good info then go ahead and waterboard the hell out of him. The captured terror-thugs at Gitmo live better lives there now than they did in their mud-huts in the middle east. Of course, dozens who have been set free have already been confirmed as having re-joined the fight against us. But I digress.

Now, Mark from NY, why don't you contemplate that vs. the 50+ million aborted babies that have occurred since Roe v Wade. The slaughter and butchery of innocents vs. a few towel-head terrorists--that are guilty of the most horrendous crimes--having some water poured over their noses...or "suffering" really loud rock music interrupting their prayers...or taking pictures of them naked and scarring them with mean doggies(!!) or..whatever.....

You Democrats let your hatred of Bush and hatred of Evangelicals and the Lord we try to be faithful to, color your judgement to an embarrassing degree.

But why am I surprised. You're just a Democrat.

4000+ people will die today in their mothers womb...right up 'till the 9 month of pregnancy. Kinda sick, huh? You proud, Mark?

(okay, now say something stupid again about Iraq or George Bush)

What I wanted to hear was why John McCain lied about belonging to North Phoenix Baptist Church. He is so out of it, he did not even understand that Baptists baptize by immersion. Amd why did he even need to lie about it. He ATTENDS that church wirh his wife and family and that is fine. But telling a lie about it just to suck up to neocons seems pretty dangerous to me, Of all the things I would NOT lie about, Church membership would be close to the top of my list.

How about torture? What is the evangical stance on that? Or the death of the innocent by American hands even though that innocent was not in the womb. I think of that unfortunate Afghan taxi driver tortured to desth even though he was innocent. And how about the position of stripping a thousand prisoners, making them perform sexual acts in front of soldiers, scaring them with dogs? How about waterboarding, what is the evangical opinion on that?

And getting back to the unborn that figures so prominently in this column. What is the evangical opinion on prenatal care for poor woman, health insurance for poor children? How about fully funded sex education classes that teach teenagers how to have sex responsibly, something that actually could reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions? How about the requirement that abstenance be taught ABOVE sex education in schools? If an evangical wants his or her daughter or son to remain chaste, so be it, but where is it written that an evangical has ANY right to preach chastity to MY son or daughter.

Most of these policies asked about today - torture, humiliation of the innocent, ignoring the needs of poor children - are hallmarks of the Bush presidency, still supported by evangelicals. Fine with me (or not) but come clean in every column written so people know the score.

To evangicals TORTURE is a FAMILY VALUE, else why would they support George Bush, the president of TORTURE.

Sounds disgusting doesn/t it? A group that claims some higher moral ground supports torture, the absolute rock bottom of morality. Disgusting, immoral, have they no shame?

Ditto, Terri, I thought McCain did pretty well. I'm pleased he stated that he felt life started at conception.

Just finished watching the forum at Saddleback. I'm voting for the old white-haired dude.

Reasonable Not Hateful - religious folks hereabouts always seem to revert to their Creationist roots when pressed on cosmological and evolutionary matters.

Why don't more real cosmologists and astro-physicists resort to this solution, one wonders? Well, perhaps they have other ideas about how this all came about.

Now for an alternate religious view, let's take Buddism - no God and no Creator, and no First Cause. Because there are no real beginnings and endings - only cycles and repeating rhythms, including successive Big Bangs ad infinitum - there are even parallel universes, and many with their own life forms. You may have visited one or more.

Each manifest universe might in fact leave a blueprint for the next cosmic cycle to follow. So we're always improving, and always evolving.

What I like about Buddhism is the largeness of the thinking - in some respects quite close to quantum mechanics - the science of the future.

There is always more than one way to skin a cat, my old mother used to say.

FATE:

Anonymous wrote: "Human embryology as one of the basic medical sciences and Fetology as a specialty in obstetrics, which discusses the developmental stages of an unborn child, and treats the unborn child as a patient, is a figment of my imagination?"

No, but it is the basis of why abortion is only legal in the first trimester.

August 16, 2008 8:50 AM

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I notice another Anonymous has posted on other topics since I last posted.

Fate, Roe vs Wade is about legal abortion in ALL three trimesters, although a doctor is allowed to exercise his/her professional right to deny abortion in later stages of pregnancy. You should check out the law before confidently making a wrong claim. Even SOME staunch pro-abortionists are concerned about the extent that is permissible that they suggest a public discussion is necessary.

A public discussion about modifying or changing the law is necessary for the law was passed without public consultation and ultrasound asn routine in ante-natal care and the science of fetology did not exist in 1973 when Roe vs Wade came into effect.

So public opinion regarding right of the unborn child and scientific development that monitors an unborn child should be taken into consideration in the review of Roe vs Wade.

They need to get ready to lose, normal people have had about enough of their bad choices in government.

The big problem is, being religious extremists, their flocks tend to be poor losers and want to blow things up or shoot people when they don't get their way.

Well!, Athena "calls bull"! What a convincing argument!

It is hysterical to read comments from people who think George Bush/Evangelicals have ushered in a theocracy--or seek to do so. Don't worry, all you heathens, you can attend the Church of Holy-Slumber Sunday morning and read the paper and drink Starbucks! Then, come Monday, you can go get yourself a handy-dandy abortion and come home and burn a U.S. flag. Then you can go tell the planet about it through the internet (when you're not looking at porn!). Then fly out to Colorado and march and chant with all your fellow American-hating Democrats at the DNC Convention.

Oh!, the Evangelicals are coming! The Evangelicals are coming!!

What a crock.

Who are evangelicals? Are they the same people whom exclude African American pastors from many of their pulpits. Are these the voices raised against homosexuals and abortion while saying virtually zip about gluttony, crimes against children and avarice. I also wonder if these who now call themselves evangelical are not the inheritors of policies that justified segregation and other racist ideals. Are not these groups exclusively white at the executive level (where the money is handled)? This term "evangelical" much like the term "blue collar" always seems to be used when those using it want to refer to a white group with particular traits (pro white, anti anyone else). Would it be okay to use the term Black Evangelicals? Some have said that the most segregated time in America occurs on Sunday. Are Evangelical christians involved in this and if so what are they doing to change it and make the Christian brand more relevant?

How shallow! The argument that progressive taxation, used to fund appropriate social programs, amounts to "robbery" demonstrates the hypocrisy of the religious right. The superficial focus on the rights of fertilized embryos fails to acknowledge that a very large percentage of such embryos are "murdered" (by mother nature or God; take your choice). Thankfully, many evangelicals are turning away from such superficial thinking, as evidenced by renewed emphasis on protecting the environment and the rights of citizens of the third world.

Although I would not say it the terms that Spidey does, his point is this-

You don't get the kind of complexity we have in this biological world by some force called "natural selection" that is the atheist's "all in" bet.

The only logical answer is a creator. It could come from evolution or any other mechanism, but in the end something made and guided all this to happen.

And yes, Roy , some people go to hell. Fortunately Jesus and the cross is there to redeem you from that.

The people in the Bible Belt love Jesus, but the Old Testament reigns supreme. They hate abortion, but love capital punishment - go figure. Especially the Capital of capital punishement, Texas.

The USA keeps falling behind - we've probably got about 30 good years left. Fact is, we've got more disasters ahead, just like the housing and banking disasters we're living with now. Thank you Jesus.......

I would have more respect for evangelicals' position on the right to life if people living the Bible Belt did not have the highest rate of executing criminals in the country.

I'm not Evangelical. I'm not even Christian, but I do agree with what you've said. It's all about compassion and honor. There's something to be said about encouraging people to help others because they will end up helping themselves in far deeper ways.

" james:

"Whew.. The posters on this thread are going to be MAD as he11 in November when McCain is elected and then becomes POTUS for the next four years. "

Eh, not likely. Just got to get it out of the usual cheating range.

Though it does remind me of my question for the Youtube republican primary debate.

"This question is for any candidate: If elected, what will you do to drown out the screams of utter, piteous, hair-tearing *despair* from more than half our great nation?"

Roy wrote: "Well, Spiderman, I'm not afraid of your twisted, hateful ideas of Jesus - just of his followers like you."

Spidy does not follow Jesus. I thought that was obvious. He follows his own religion of an apocalypse that will happen any day caused by nukes and bases it on the Old Testament. He seems very confident and anxious. So sad.

Hi Spidy, long time no blog.

-How did the kangaroos get off the ark and hop to Australia?

ooooogahhhh boooo gahhhhh!

Spiderman's god of wrath is going to fry me in hell with his other babies if I don't do what Spiderman says or beleive what he does.

Well, Spiderman, I'm not afraid of your twisted, hateful ideas of Jesus - just of his followers like you.

Have not the evangies done enough harm to this country? Bush!

Exactly, whom are the "Evangelicals". I think I know what "blue collar" means in the presidential election context but what does evangelical mean. Do I become an evangelical by christening myself as one or do I have to join an evangelical business/movement/calling? Some of the big name "evangelicals" seem to have all white chiefs if one is to judge by their media events. I do run across some folk on TV who seem to be hustling Christianity. I see some that cry a bit and appear to be able to heal people while a camera is on them. They are some who shout a lot and can be real entertaining. They also seem to be extracted from the same group that supported racial segregation and all the deadly practices that this philosophy carried with it. Some of this odious ideology (racial segregation, Jim Crow etc) was said to have had biblical support by some of these same people. I, for one, have not forgotten this. These people still have congregations that are segregated enough to be called all white or all black and many of them have had ( and may continue to have) separate systems of remuneration for their employees (pastors, etc) which differ according to skin color (black/white). Much money does however go from the African American community to evangelicals for reasons that I find incomprehensible. I am not aware of these big name "evangelicals" being involved in any of the real issues that adversely affect the descendants of slaves in this land of the free and brave. I am also unaware of any apology that any of these "evangelicals" have provided as they seek to mend the wickedness associated with their past and ongoing racist practices. They do seem, however to travel quite a bit internationally and maintain many businesses abroad that seem to serve a lot of poor children with various malformations and in many degrees of malnutrition. Their stated activities are uniformly excellent but seldom close enough to be verified by the doubting Thomasses. They sure get a lot of play as they peddle their brand while ignoring the real issues that have this country reeling. Abortion and Homosexuality? What about Greed, Pedophilia and Gluttony just to mention a few more avoided and endemic issues. Perhaps a definition of evengelical may make my concerns irrelevent or close to it. With sincere apologies to the honest evangelicals for any adverse motives imputed by my paragraph.

The problem with 'What Evangelicals Want' is that it's not usually about what it's said to be about.

The 'Right to lifers' like to talk about some moral absolutism about babies, but their initiatives prove the're really most interested in controlling sexuality, banning contraception, banning sex education apart from their own religious commands, denying medicine to people in need on 'moral' grounds, denying emergency contraception to rape victims, then forcing them to carry the results to term and give the rapists 'Fathers' rights' of access to the woman and resulting child for eighteen years... and, in general, punishing women or anyone who don't kneel to their authority.

If what you 'want' is to be judged by what you try to *do,* rather than what you say to justify it, ..you can't *have* what you want. Not if the rest of us have anything to say about it.

Having a belief is one thing, this doesn't give you the right to define and control the lives of others. The

Oh, now I get it Spidey, you're a sanitation engineer and always cleaning up after someone's mess - your religious compulsion now makes perfect sense. A nasty job, but someone has to do it.

A psychiatrist could actually help with your problem - imagine the great relief when you're finally free of your obligation to
'save the world' - and you'd be a much more pleasant person. All through the wizardry of chemistry, which I know you respect.

PS. I never thought you were a monkey, although your tendency to repeat yourself has me wondering at times.

I want a president who has the qualifications to lead and to govern. That person's religious beliefs should remain private and should not be considered among the qualifications for the postion.

Scripture allows abortion in some circumstances. Clearly, scripture does not consider the fetus a human being with equal rights.

Read Numbers 5. The priest gives the woman a potent that will abort an out of wedlock child. A fetus conceived outside the marriage may be aborted according to scripture.

Evangelicals wake up. You are blinded by wedge issues so you miss the things Jesus would have supported like universal health care.

Whew.. The posters on this thread are going to be MAD as he11 in November when McCain is elected and then becomes POTUS for the next four years.

They can't figure out why Obama and Mccain have courted the evangelical vote. They don't know American history. And they don't know their (majority) neighbors.

It is highly duplicitous for right-wing Christians - and I include evangelicals in that group - to even talk about morals when people are being killed for being liberals / Democrats?

Aided by the MSM, which is focused on erasing any thoughts that the killing of the Democratic Party Chairman in Little Rock might be politically motivated.

The NYT says: “The killing had no apparent link to politics.”

While an interview with a classmate (the killer had been talking college courses) revealed:

“… Tucker says he and other classmates do recall Johnson being vocal about his views.

“I would always remember going to class and I would see that he had a Bill Clinton anti-campaign sticker [on his car] that says I don’t miss Bill. [No such bumper sticker was on the pickup he crashed in a police chase, however.] “He would surf the internet and he would see that a Democrat had died and he would laugh about it.”

Where's the Christian outrage over this? I missed the scripture where Jesus commands believers to kill liberals. If someone could post that verse, I'd appreciate it.

Meanwhile, I'll continue to believe that fundamentalist Christians have blood on their hands for creating our culture of hate. Beginning with women and gays, they've now broadened their target.

Anonymous:

As I said, the "stern father." Oh please, Daddy, give me a spanking.

If this is satire, this is by far the funniest thing I've ever seen on the WaPo comment boards.

Anon wrote "And, apparently, Spiderman's illiteracy has no cure either."

Who cares about your definition of illiteracy. I can understand metaphors and you don't. I hope you can write more than a sentence so I can see where you're coming from.

Are you an atheist who thinks a chocolate cake can bake itself? So pitiful. Only idiots can think that way.

And yet they choose to be idiots. The stupidity is so mind-boggling. Very pitiful.

DDNL,

Im an Engineer and you're a Psychiatrist. I deal with intelligent people and you deal with people who are mentally handicapped. Don't you think there is some possiblity that their sickness can rub off on you?

Thanks for your post. I find it very funny. Like scales turning into feathers?

Senator Obama's record on abortion, partial birth abortion and, especially, the "Born Alive Infants Protection" Act is an absolute deal breaker.

Under no circumstance will I vote for Senator Obama.

Spiderman wrote:

"The 'stern father' can only advice his child NOT to play in the middle of a freeway. The child knows the advice but PLAYS anyway. STUPIDITY SEEMS HAS NO CURE."

And, apparently, Spiderman's illiteracy has no cure either.

Doomsday is not my invention. It's been written thousands of years ago, even before the time of Jesus Christ.

No nukes existed during those times and yet their prophecy seem to have been written for today. BULLS-EYE.

As clear as it is, idiots continue to be dumb.

John Mark Reynolds

I do not see much truth in your essay. Is it deliberate, or are you really so naive and disconnected from the real world? It is hard for me to tell.

I think you are pretty shockingly insenstive, and do not seem to realize the greater implications of much that you say. There is in my observations, such a thing as religious mania and religious paranoia. Alot of very religious people suffer from this. Alot of Evangelicals suffer from this.

The only person here that is really supporting you whole-heartedly is Spiderman. I do not think his support would lend credibility to anyone's argument or point of view.

What do you think of this guy, Spiderman, and how do you think religious people should regard people among them who suffer from a real mental illness of religious mania and religious paranoia?

If someone says that they love Jesus, and Jesus in their salvation and refuge, then that is one thing. But if someone is raving about Jesus, and has an obvious mental disturbance based around the figure of Jesus, and suffers from a Jesus mania, that makes them scary, like Spiderman, for example, how do you regard such people, and how do they fit into your ideas on religion, Christianity, and Evangelicalism?

aNON WROTE "Spidey, I'm pretty sure you're doomed"

Yeah, like you're sure you came from monkeys.

Candide wrote "Evangelical should be forced to take literacy tests before being allowed to vote"

We read the Bible at a very young age and we understand it while adult atheists are hypnotized by quack "scientists" that they were monkeys and existed from nothing -- no intelligence at all. Just chemicals mixed into existence by chance. Even a chocolate cake need some form of recipe and intelligence. IDIOTS.

"Like many other good hearted Americans, the good intentions of evangelicals can be exploited by demagogues to increase the power of the state through the proclamation of noble goals, but bitter experience has taught most evangelicals to be wary of such rhetoricians."

Like the rest of Reynolds piece, this is a statement that rests on little if any evidence, and is at best a description of how he wishes reality to be, rather than how it is. If evangelicals have learned "to be wary of such rhetoricians", it has been since the last election cycle, given the utter lack of evidence of such sophistication at that time.

Spidey, I'm pretty sure you're doomed, but I don't know about the rest of us.

Evangelical should be forced to take literacy tests before being allowed to vote. I bet many of them couldn't pass.

Who Care's! Try practicing the 10 Commandments and learning to "love thy neighbor" and stay out of politics. Evangelical are the only religious faction that claim they have the power to heal (higher than God) and hate people other than there own. Another words, fault prophecy or for those that can not understand the term, simply put, liars hiding behind a Bible. God does warn those to beware of such evil but you still go put your money in there plate and say, Amen anyway. To think, Jesus roamed the world in torn cloth asking nothing more than you to believe and love thy neighbor, while Evangelicals preachers live high off the hog, practicing pedophilia, adultery, hatred towards their fellow man and women and greed. Let me hear you say a BIG AMEN! I for one, believe in God, but will not step into a church that subscribes to such hypocrisy and hatred. It is time for you all to click your heals together three times and say, “there's no place like home.” Stupid people, Stupid People. Remember David Koresh? READ – copy a paste link into you web browser; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Koresh

Roy wrote "Evangelicals have had control in the US for the last eight years."

I hope it did so,

1. gay marriage would be fully banned;

2. distributing bibles in schools be made legal again;

3. those who are for abortion be taught to TIE their fallopian tubes so no abortion is needed.

4. foreclosed houses be given back to homeowners whose banks were HELPED by the government and excessive interest payments be clamped down

5. Stock and commodities market be regulated so commodities like oil (price) does not depend on speculators.

6. Too many to mention all meant to stop DOOMSDAY from happening.

But DOOMSDAY WILL HAPPEN COZ WE'RE NOT FULLY IN CONTROL.

Fate wrote "Maybe you could give an example of an animal where rape is the norm?"

Not the norm but I've seen dogs and cats force themselves on their mate.

Nothing comes from atheists that's correct. Evolve, evolve, all I hear is evolution and yet nothing in engineering uses a single evolution theory because it only exist in their imagination.

I had seen their theory used in the movie where wolves turn to humans. IDIOTS.

Scales turned to feathers? WHHAAATT? Cartoon movies would seem more like real to me.

Anonymous wrote: "Sure human beings have instinct but human beings alone can regulate their instincts in a way animals cannot. Rape would be the norm if human beings had no control over their sex instinct."

But rape is not the norm in most animals. Most have courtships and other means of approaching the sex act. Rape would be a bad mechanism for a species to propagate since it is violent and leads to injury, etc. Maybe you could give an example of an animal where rape is the norm?

Anonymous wrote: "Human embryology as one of the basic medical sciences and Fetology as a specialty in obstetrics, which discusses the developmental stages of an unborn child, and treats the unborn child as a patient, is a figment of my imagination?"

No, but it is the basis of why abortion is only legal in the first trimester.

What evangelical really want is an American theocracy where gays, Muslims, Mexicans and anyone else they find offensive are disenfranchised and excluded. The want abstinence education not sex education. They want creationism not evolution. They want big business to rape the environment not environmentalism. Basically, they want what Cheney wants.

Evangelicals have had control in the US for the last eight years. The result has been preempive war, torture, executive branch corruption, economic destruction and racial and religious division.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

If Biblical passages about God ordering the deaths of unborn children in a specific circumstance mean that all unborn have no right to life, then obviously adults have no right to life either, since God ordered specific adults killed too. Right?
Rightly divide the Word of Truth, please.

Mr. Reynolds,

It's really funny listening to you put a religious spin on reactionary political ideology. Perhaps one day christian conservatives will embrace honesty and replace their bibles and hymnals with copies of the republican party plank and Gingrich's contract on America.

Joshua Generation for a New GOP:

How can any true Christian vote for McCain?
He abanodoned his first wife and children.
He had numerous affairs -- a SIN -- and continues to have sex with women other than his second wife.
He lied in his book about the timeline of his sexual acts while married, his divorce and marriage to another woman.
He took a marriage license WHILE STILL MARRIED! A sin against god, his first wife and children, and a crime.
He has lied about his time in Vietnam.
He has told rape jokes and had sex with subordinates and is rumored to have sexually harrassed women and worse.
He has called his second wife a "cun*" and "trollop" and joked about beating his wife and also about having her enter a nude/live sex show.
This guy doesn't believe in God and he attacked our leaders and is simply an arrogant and very dangerous liar.
No, true Christians will NEVER vote for him no matter the other candidate. We can wait 4 years for a true Christian to represent our GOP.

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

What a novel way of campaigning for Senator Obama!

All about Sentor McCain's supposed sex life of more than thirty years ago with no shred of evidence to back the claims?

How can any true Christian vote for McCain?
He abanodoned his first wife and children.
He had numerous affairs -- a SIN -- and continues to have sex with women other than his second wife.
He lied in his book about the timeline of his sexual acts while married, his divorce and marriage to another woman.
He took a marriage license WHILE STILL MARRIED! A sin against god, his first wife and children, and a crime.
He has lied about his time in Vietnam.
He has told rape jokes and had sex with subordinates and is rumored to have sexually harrassed women and worse.
He has called his second wife a "cun*" and "trollop" and joked about beating his wife and also about having her enter a nude/live sex show.
This guy doesn't believe in God and he attacked our leaders and is simply an arrogant and very dangerous liar.
No, true Christians will NEVER vote for him no matter the other candidate. We can wait 4 years for a true Christian to represent our GOP.

The science based case against abortion...again ---

The Silent Scream - Dr B Nathanson MD

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cjNo_0cW-ek&feature=related

Human embryology as one of the basic medical sciences and Fetology as a specialty in obstetrics, which discusses the developmental stages of an unborn child, and treats the unborn child as a patient, is a figment of my imagination?

Fate wrote "Second, animals kill their offspring all the time."

Yeah right and maybe we should kill your offspring too like animals?

Stupidity has no cure. NO CURE EXCEPT FIRE. Doomsday is near!

Being skeptical my guess is that PAM is probably working as an advocate for abortion and getting paid for it.

BTW, bonobo apes, closest ancestors in the animal kingdom, do NOT harm their young and indulge in infanticide no matter how stressed they may be.

Sure human beings have instinct but human beings alone can regulate their instincts in a way animals cannot. Rape would be the norm if human beings had no control over their sex instinct.

Agapian wrote " spiritual awareness in all of its forms, religious and otherwise, WAS a point of evolution? "

There's that stupid word again - "EVOLUTION". They keep on using it despite the fact that they can't explain how to make an ant or a mosquito brain. In case you don't know it, bees can fly using sugar as fuel long before man started to discover fire. IDIOTS

Stupidity has no cure. It means you guys continue to be stupid despite the facts written right in front of your faces.

This nation existed for many great years already without an abortion law. Guess what? Many parts of this nation is scheduled for doom already.

Stupidity has no cure except FIRE. A great portion of this world will burn.

Fate says:
"Second, animals kill their offspring all the time. For various reasons. If food is scarce, if the offspring cannot survive, if it is a runt."

Or even if they just feel that the young are threatened. I have personally seen this reaction in cats and dogs, and it happens quite frequently among wild animals.

Evolution selects for this reaction, because it's better for the mother to have the nourishment that the young provide, than to allow her enemies to have it - she will soon be pregnant again. Nature knows that not every life conceived is meant to make it to adulthood.

You'll find, if you continue arguing with Anti-Abortion Anonymous, that he/she/it is prone to making unsupported statements that have absolutely no basis in fact.

Case in point: other animals have no consciousness, but are mindless automatons programmed by their genes, whereas humans do everything by reason and "free will", without instinct of any kind.

What utter BS. Anyone who has ever lived with a pet knows better. All the same, the complete about face once you called him/her/it on it was quite amusing - first, the noble animals would never do what terrible women do, and then, all of a sudden, animals are just amoral mindless robots, and women have the god-like quality of reason. What a hoot!

My advice: every time AAA starts up with the abortion thing on a thread where that isn't the topic, make a donation to Planned Parenthood or NARAL. I did that yesterday.

AGAPIAN, there is only one minor point to note in what seems to be a cleverish way of talking around the issue and introducing a concept completely unknown to medical science - human embryology and Fetology.

A human embryo at conception develops only into a human being and not to anything else. All the qualities of a human being are present within itself and it unfolds with time. Growth is rapid but it takes time because a human being is so complex. A fully formed sexually mature human being takes about fourteen years on an average. So where does one draw the line at defining a human being?

As to spiritual awareness, what if a Christian were to say that only someone with the spiritual awareness of Jesus Christ deserves to be called a human being and other not?

A human being has to do nothing about its physical growth except provide the body with the nutrients required. But spiritual evolution is hard work and each one evolves at a different pace and in different ways and remains at different levels at the time of physical death. The physical body develops along a natural predetermined path but the spiritual growth does not occur along any pre-determined pattern.

Conception is the point of origin for a human being? At the point of conception, an embryo has most of the characteristics of the mammalian class of animals, from mice to mammoths. There are some five processes that genetically define an embryo as human and these don't start to develop until the second trimester. Several of those need to combine in the 'human' brain in order to have any chance at spiritual awareness. That spiritual awareness began only 15,000 years ago but now comprises about a third of all 'human' literature, including its evaluation by normal four dimensional scientific measurement such as fMRI.

Why isn't the beginning of a 'human' the point where it has a probability of achieving spiritual awareness as the last 15,000 years of spiritual development suggest it should be? To define a entity as'human' because it might move around on two legs has missed an evolutionary point and defined human development as a dead end.

Lots in this blog may have missed a major point: suppose spiritual awareness in all of its forms, religious and otherwise, WAS a point of evolution?

The official religion of America is hypocrisy, and this column demonstrates that.

Fate ---

I was not referring to the Bible at all. The science of human embryology and Fetology is the basis for my stand on abortion, which by the way even some atheists share.

Fate ---

It would be informative to list animals that actually kill their young and the exact circumstances under which they do it.

No religious tradition puts animals on the same scale as human beings. Animals are not conscious beings and act merely within the limits of their genetic code. They show only limited ability in adapting to environmental changes.

Human beings on the other hand are conscious beings and have a free will. Abortion is a conscious choice in a human being while in an animal any harm it may do to its young is not an act of the free will.

The exponential jump in the number of abortions (from one hundred thousand per year pre Roe vs Wade to 1.4 MILLION per year post Roe vs Wade) has to do with a shift in the way abortion has been defined. Making it legal has taken the inhibitions surrounding it and the developing human being in the womb has been reduced to a non-person/parasite to be disposed off at the will of the mother. Don't forget sexual revolution and women's emancipation are all factors that has led to the increase in abortions. The founder of Planned Parenthood was a nurse who advocated the free use of contraceptive. But she did NOT advocate abortion for she knew it was murder.

Human biology has not changed since Hippocrates the Father of Western medicine compiled his oath, but the value of human life in the womb has, in spite of great advances in human rights.

The law which protects the medical doctor who performs abortions is not at fault. It is the drastic change in attitude towards abortion that has converted a developing human being in the womb to a parasite to be disposed off at the will of the mother that is at fault.

You know, who cares what the evangelicals want?
You've been getting what you want from one of the parties now ... well, since Jerry Falwell and scum like him took over the republicans.

And look at the shape we're in now. You got your Bush and look what he's done with our country.

If Bush is an example of what happens when you evangelicals get what you want, then I don't you to have what you want. I want my country back, we let you borrow it for the last 25-30 years, and look what you've done!

Spiderman (who has to be a kid, with THAT name), keeps repeating silly sentences such as "Stupidity has no cure", as if that were some kind of logic or proof of god.

We do not care what spiderman believes, or wants to believe, or hopes we think he believes. We just want to be left alone. Stop legislating your superstition.

Over and out.

Anonymous wrote: "Thou shall not kill applies to the unborn."

Luke 1 makes no mention of the fetus having rights, just that the Holy Spirit filled the fetus, which seems to be an unusual thing according to Luke.

Anonymous wrote: "In those days when children were usually born within wedlock (remember adultery was severely punished) and children were considered and welcomed as a gift from God and barrenness was looked upon as a curse, only a truly wicked woman would have aborted her child."

Women have been aborting children for eons. Women know how to do it. Its not something that is new. What is new is that women can now have safe abortions and the law ensures that they happen in the first trimester, unless the mother's life is at risk. Women are not dying in back alleys as they used to.

Anonymous wrote: "Even among the animals, it is a rare animal that would kill its offspring. Most higher animals defend their young with their own life."

First, I find it funny that you use the term "offspring". Guess what that term refers to?

Second, animals kill their offspring all the time. For various reasons. If food is scarce, if the offspring cannot survive, if it is a runt. Many animals will not nurse the runt, allowing it to die and save the milk for the stronger offspring. I'm not saying this is how humanity should act, just that your notion that animals consider the life of their offspring sacred is way off.

Look, abortion is an ugly thing. No one *wants* abortions to happen. But they will happen, no mater how strict the laws are. They happened when they were illegal, and many women, young women, died horrible deaths. The current laws were made to stop the back alley abortions and ensure that any that happen happen in a safe environment.

Your definition of when a person gains rights may be biblically derived in your mind but you show little evidence. To take that shaky belief and try to codify it into American law with the result being the deaths of women is abhorrent. Its right up there with people in India starving next to sacred cows, except their religion has a better foundation for the sacredness of cows. But in either case, religion should not dictate law in a secular government.

Nick:

Every child a wanted child. That is what Jesus believed, and the evangelicals don't. The evangelicals need to look into their hearts, and get right with Jesus on this point. I will pray that they do.

August 15, 2008 10:01 PM

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

So you know what Jesus believed? How come the rest of us know a Jesus who offered His own life and didn't recommend killing even one's enemy, leave alone one's own child, whether wanted or unwanted.

Pray for yourself.

"Evangelicals are not ideologues"

I stopped reading when I read this laughable line.

Every child a wanted child. That is what Jesus believed, and the evangelicals don't. The evangelicals need to look into their hearts, and get right with Jesus on this point. I will pray that they do.

I knew spider would resort to name-calling. You're an engineer? What kind? I have decades of experience in many engineering disciplines, yet I do not have to resort to fairy tales that make me feel good, like a grownup's version of Santa Claus.

I do not want to denigrate anyone's religion. I do not have Absolute Truth, nor do you, nor does any religion. Religion is made up of stories we tell ourselves to feel better about the big, scary, world. It's time to grow out of it.

gkam, one thing very important you should learn : Atheists are idiots.

Just pick any natural object around you and make a copy of it yourself. Im an engineer and knows it very well how complex they are.

A Maker exist and that is a fact of life whether we like it or not.

Stupidity has no cure.

Fate:

"John Mark Reynolds wrote:
"4. This post was not about the Bible. Readers can assume that theologians in the Roman, Orthodox, and Evangelical churches (which condemn abortion) have dealt with the texts cited. I will leave it to them to do the google search required to find it."

I agree its not about the bible. No where does it say "you shall not abort". There also is no definition of the unborn being people with rights."

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

Psalm 139 was written a long long time ago, as was Luke chapter 1 which refers to life in the womb.

Commonsense was enough to tell people that a child grows gradually in the womb, and does not go from being a non-person one minute before birth to being a person one second after birth.

Thou shall not kill applies to the unborn. In those days when children were usually born within wedlock (remember adultery was severely punished) and children were considered and welcomed as a gift from God and barrenness was looked upon as a curse, only a truly wicked woman would have aborted her child. Even among the animals, it is a rare animal that would kill its offspring. Most higher animals defend their young with their own life.

Psalm 139 and Luke chapter 1 talks about a child in the womb.

spider man, do you believe that the character spiderman is real? It doesn't matter, of course, because what you "believe" or want to "believe" is irrelevant: It's all in your head.

Learn to stand up by yourself, without the crutch of an Invisible Companion". You'll have much more respect for yourself when you think for yourself.

I know it's scary you there in the Real World, and we atheists get worried too, when fools start wars, or take our civil liberties to make up for their failures on 9/11. But we persevere.

You can do it, too.

Fate:

John Mark Reynolds wrote:
"3. I support a right of a woman to her own body, but not an absolute power over of her unborn child."

I'm glad to hear you consider it "her" unborn child, and not yours, nor the states. When a fetus becomes a "child" is debatable. Do you agree?

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

Neither the science of human embryology nor Fetology, the medical science which deals with the health of an unborn child has any room for a debate whether a fetus is a developing human being or not. It is a *separate* human being in development from the moment of conception. Just because different names are used at various stages of its development, it does not mean it is not considered a human child. An infant, toddler, pre-schooler, teenager, etc are different names used to describe the same child at different stages of its development after it is born.

A mother is usually sent to jail for killing her child after it is born. Calling it "her" child does not let her off the legal hook.

Fate wrote "Let me ask you a question I frequently ask those who believe an embryo is a person. If you came upon a fertility clinic that was on fire, and felt that you could save people, would you start by saving the thousands of frozen embryos or the 10 or 20 doctors and nurses?"

I would save the embryos unless the doctors are the ones hospitalized and can't move themselves.

Fate, there is no cure to stupidity.

Evangelicals "First, they want a person with good character and the competence to govern well."

So they voted for Reagan, whose principles didn/t include honesty, but did include treason. Then they bought George, who never met a lie he wouldn't hapilly tell, or a truth he felt uncomfortable in denying.

By empirical observation I have noted that what Evangelicals want is a Pesident who gives lip service to morals and ethics while gicing Yeoman service to corruption, incompetence in the pursuit of failed government, and tax breaks if you are rich enough to use them.

One thing very few Evangelicals seem to value is honesty, in themselves or their candidates. Thus their conflicted approach to McCain. He tells the kind of truth, some times, that makes Evangelicals hate him, but he will pander to their lies, which they value.

Were honesty high on Evangelical lists of traits to be admired, they would be wailing in sackcloth and ashes over their man George.

John Mark Reynolds wrote:
"1. I oppose a theocracy and do not have to move to another country to have what I desire religiously (in terms of church and state), since what I want has always existed in this country."

This country states in its Constitution that the state shall not promote religion. It also says the state cannot prevent religious freedom. You want religious freedom AND the promotion of your religion through the state. I do not see how you can resolve what you are saying any other way. Your definition of life, as defined by your religion, may have a meaning for you, but it does not have a meaning in the law, which is determined by the state, which does not use religion to determine its laws, unless you get your way.

John Mark Reynolds wrote:
"We have never been a nation of secular ideologues intent on stamping out every mention of God in the public square. Take a look at your money if you doubt it. Listen to the National Anthem (all of it). Say the Pledge. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read Lincoln's Second Inaugural."

These things were not in the original monies or pledge. The inclusion of "In God We Trust" on all currency was required by law in 1955 when it was made the "national motto". The national motto first appeared on paper money in 1957. This as well as the inclusion of the word "God" in the pledge of allegiance was also added around the same time during what we call the "red scare". The founding fathers never put God in government.

John Mark Reynolds wrote:
"2. If sufficient numbers of Islamic or Wicca persons want to use the public square for their religious point of view I would support it."

I would not for the same reason the bible nor ten commandments should be in government. There needs to be a clean separation or there is no separation. The founding fathers understood this, having been persecuted by England's government which mixed church and state.

John Mark Reynolds wrote:
"3. I support a right of a woman to her own body, but not an absolute power over of her unborn child."

I'm glad to hear you consider it "her" unborn child, and not yours, nor the states. When a fetus becomes a "child" is debatable. Do you agree?

John Mark Reynolds wrote:
"4. This post was not about the Bible. Readers can assume that theologians in the Roman, Orthodox, and Evangelical churches (which condemn abortion) have dealt with the texts cited. I will leave it to them to do the google search required to find it."

I agree its not about the bible. No where does it say "you shall not abort". There also is no definition of the unborn being people with rights. That is a recent invention by Evangelicals and others, like putting God on currency in 1955 and acting as though it was there from the beginning. America used to be very proud of its separation of church and state, and thus its freedom of religion. Anyone who advocates merging church and state is against religious freedom. As I said before, you cannot have it both ways. You cannot have church influence state and have freedom of religion.

John Mark Reynolds wrote:5. Evangelicals do not all have the same view of "end times." Lumping them all together is pure ignorance."

I've never met an Evangelical who is not looking forward to the end time. Not once. But I have seen some who do not care when it comes and I have seen some who actively try to promote it. The problem is that believing an end time may come can alter sane government policy.

Let me ask you a question I frequently ask those who believe an embryo is a person. If you came upon a fertility clinic that was on fire, and felt that you could save people, would you start by saving the thousands of frozen embryos or the 10 or 20 doctors and nurses?

Spider, the "witches" killed in America were ALL Protestant. And both "good" Catholics and Protestants alike "took care" of the Jews in the Holocaust.

Spare me the self-righteousness. We will never evolve until we shed our need for hateful divisiveness and superstition.

For the WISE, abortion is not an issue. It's a no-brainer. When my sister decided NOT to have a child anymore after having two children already, she just decided to TIE her fallopian tube.

VERY SIMPLE and yet it has become a very complicated issue. EVERYTHING becomes COMPLICATED if you are dealing with FOOLS. It's like watching them fixing on their SHOELACES.

VERY STUPID.

To Dr Cope:

It would be a great help if you outlined clearly what Roe vs Wade does NOT permit. The common understanding is that it is about elective abortion at all stages of pregnancy, including until end of third term. It would seem that no demarcation line has been drawn at the stage of a viable fetus. This concerns many of the most ardent supporters of elective abortion.

Barring his views on "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" (which he opposed three times while in the Illinois Senate) and his unstinted support for pro-choice, I admire Senator Obama's stand on other issues - his concern for the poor etc.

Since Roe vs Wade is a law permitting abortion and not mandating it, it can be modified to prevent misuse that has led to 1.4 million abortions a year since 1973. Extensive sex education, which includes use of contraception and information about fetal development by Fetologists, NOT abortionists, should be targeted at bringing down abortions. Help for women to carry their children to term, easy adoption procedures, orphanages are all ways to prevent/reduce abortion of healthy unborn children.

Gram wrote "Why do you Christians, who burned people alive at the stake, pretend to be "better" people?"

Gram, Catholicsim is NOT Christianity. Keep on searching.

gkam wrote "Keep Your God to Yourself!"

spiderman2: "Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba has that philosophy. Nobody is stopping you to live there and practice your doctrine."
----------------------------------------------
No, they don't. They discourage it, mostly, except in Russia. Why do you Christians, who burned people alive at the stake, pretend to be "better" people?

As I said, this is MY country. I volunteered to fight for it, and learned my lesson in doing so. If you had been part of the Killing Machine, you might have, too.

Correction:

I wrote, "The fundamental principle of religion has been "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." One can safely say that not killing belongs to the category of doing harm to others."

I *meant* not killing others belongs to the category of doing unto others as one would not want others to do unto one. In other words killing is a harm one should not want to do unto others.

Dr. Cope:

Anon - Mr. Mark elucidates your position quite clearly .... this is not and can't be a religious issue for Christians, since there's no real religious foundation.

As an example, people violate any or all of the 10 commandments on a frequent and regular basis, and are often protected by the law in so doing.

And as other posters have pointed out previously, if you're against abortion then to be entirely consistent ethically speaking, you must oppose the killing of all people under any circumstances - you must oppose all wars, capital punishment, and most certainly the killing of innocent civilians during a time of war.

In fact, you'd be sorely compromised when it comes to a situation of self-defense - kill or be killed?

Thus, abortion is essentially an ethical issue outside the bounds of religion. And as in all things human, ethics is circumstantial, situational and provisional....and as you say, subject to change, or not.

It's really very hard to establish an 'absolute' rule for much of anything.

August 15, 2008 1:01 PM

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

To Dr Cope:

"And as other posters have pointed out previously, if you're against abortion then to be entirely consistent ethically speaking, you must oppose the killing of all people under any circumstances - you must oppose all wars, capital punishment, and most certainly the killing of innocent civilians during a time of war."

I do oppose all wars, but support just war like the one waged on Hitler to protect the innocent. The watchword is protecting innocent lives.

I opposed the invasion of Iraq with an online activism I had never engaged in my whole life before that.

I'm against modern war of any kind (only a direct invasion would justify self defense and absolutely no pre-emptive war) because innocent civilians become part of collateral damage inevitably.

I'm completely against use of nuclear weapons and against money being invested in making any.

I'm against the death penalty, although some criminals need to be locked up for life so that they would not kill more innocent. The watchword is protection of innocent lives.

--------------
"this is not and can't be a religious issue for Christians, since there's no real religious foundation."

Morality lies at heart of religions, ALL religions. Science (medicine belongs to a different category) is neutral and comes without a moral code.

Of the Ten Commandments given to Moses one was Thou Shalt Not Kill. How then does killing not concern religions?

The fundamental principle of religion has been "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." One can safely say that not killing belongs to the category of doing harm to others.

Read Psalm 139 and Luke chapter 1 for mention of life in the womb.

In religions life is considered a gift from God and no man has the right to take it, not his own, not that of another.

----------------------
"As an example, people violate any or all of the 10 commandments on a frequent and regular basis, and are often protected by the law in so doing."

The Ten Commandments are laws given to the Jews. Jesus Christ came to put an end to legalized religion but stepped up the standards of a good life.

Only in a Jewish theocracy would people get punished by the law of the land for breaking the Ten Commandments. Secular law has incorporated aspects of the Ten Commandments and punish people for breaking them. Murder is severely punished. Theft is illegal.

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

"In fact, you'd be sorely compromised when it comes to a situation of self-defense - kill or be killed?

Thus, abortion is essentially an ethical issue outside the bounds of religion. And as in all things human, ethics is circumstantial, situational and provisional....and as you say, subject to change, or not."

In a situation of PHYSICAL self defense when the danger to be physically killed is real, as by a murderer etc, the provision to kill in SELF-DEFENSE is considered ethical.

But we are discussing abortion-on-demand as per Roe vs Wade here. In what way is it comparable to killing in self-defense? Is the mother supposedly defending herself against her own child in the womb?

When the Hippocratic Oath was formulated by the Father of Western medicine, he considered abortion wrong. Has human physiology changed since then? Medical doctors are trained to save lives, not take them. Or has that changed? There are very rare instances when there is a real medical indication for abortion, when the life of the mother is at risk because of the pregnancy. Such medical intervention does not need the protection of the law. Roe vs Wade is about elective abortion of healthy fetuses. What has that got to do with the medical practice of saving lives? Since when did socio-economic considerations of one person become justification for taking the life of an innocent person by a medical doctor?

When Roe vs Wade came into effect in 1973, Fetology did not exist as a specialized discipline within Obstetrics, nor was ultrasound a routine part of antenatal care.

Aborting fetuses with severe deformities does belong to that area of compassionate medicine and modern technology makes early detection possible. Even so there are mothers who choose to carry such children to term.

But killing an innocent healthy fetus is what elective abortion, read: Roe vs Wade, is about. It is precisely because medical ethics has NO place for it that a law was needed to protect the abortionist.

Tom Garshol wrote "On sundays, most churches are empty. I wonder why."

Maybe the "preachers" in Norway are idiots themselves. Nobody wants to listen to idiots, don't you think?

Gram, you should study about medicine and infection. Sadam is the infection and the U.S. Military is the cure. The cancer will spread if you don't treat it. That is basic science.

"I voted (twice) for George Bush. In some ways Bush was a disappointment to me as a conservative, but I still prefer him to either Gore or Kerry."

John Mark Reynolds thinks that " In some ways Bush was a disappointment to me as a conservative ". But in most ways, he was a success.

I live in Norway. I am a diabetic. And since God will never cure me, it is good to know that the medicine is cheap ( compared to USA ), and if I have to go to a hospital, it don´t cost me anything.

On sundays, most churches are empty. I wonder why.

Somebody tell spiderman that I served in the war of my generation. It's MY country. You might have something to say to those who committed Shock and Awe against the citizens of Baghdad, you know, your fellow pro-lifers. They are the ones killing babies.

But right-wingers don't get to question my patriotism.

"Tax policy can be debated, but not the right to life"

The right to life can't be debated, but the humanity of a fetus is certainly up for debate. The debate on this subject will never end.

Does a 3-month old baby have a right to life? Of course. Does a sperm have a right to life? Of course not. At which point in between those two stages does it become a human? There is simply no consensus. Some say conception, some say implantation, some say viability, some say birth, some say the point at which it breathes the first breath of life.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say that a newly-fertilized egg has a right to life. Nowhere does Jesus talk about the souls of the unborn. He didn't say "when I formed you from a sperm and egg in your mother's womb", he said "BEFORE I formed you in your mother's womb". Before the world was even created. Do you really believe that God puts souls into fertilized eggs if he knows they aren't going to implant? Does a single-celled zygote go to heaven, despite never experiencing a single second of conscious life on Earth? Should we hold funerals for them?

"Evangelicals overwhelmingly want a candidate to defend innocent human life at every phase."

Then the candidate you want is Obama. McCain has pledged to end thousands of innocent lives in endless, meaningless wars to make money for his corporate friends, while Jesus told us to be peacemakers and warned us that those who live by the sword will die by the sword. McCain jokes about causing the deaths of innocent civilians, while Jesus told us to love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us.

Meanwhile, Obama wants to END abortions by preventing unwanted pregnancies. If successful, this would make the whole debate moot, once and for all. Certainly preventing abortions is a goal that everyone can agree on.

Be honest with yourself. Which is the more Christian candidate? Stop letting politicians hijack your religion and tell you what to think for their own selfish purposes.

Mr. Mark wrote "What is quite clear is that the human mind is quite able to see fantasies for what they are "

The truth is, IT DOESN'T. They will die believeing in their fantasy (atheism)until they will meet the CREATOR.

Everything that exist around you is NOT SIMPLE. All ROBOTS are idiots and that is the best way man can mimic a human. They can't even make a human hair. All robots are bald or have "plastic" wigs.

DZ:

JMR:

You guys never let a fact interfere with your right-wing ideology. According to Barna and the Harvard Divinity School (forget the worthless PEW study), there are 15 million atheists in the U.S. That's greater than the number of all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and pagans combined. Not exactly a 'tiny secular minority'.

Second, there is no euthanasia in the U.S. Why do you raise that little propagandistic canard?

Finally, tens of million Americans disagree profoundly with your position on abortion. You do not have nor will you ever have enough votes to pass a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. Oh, you can vote for an outright fascist like John McCain who will get Roe V Wade overturned but take your civil liberties as well as mine. Plus, abortion will still be legal in 20 states and lots of abortions will occur in the other 30. More women will die but that's been part of your 'life' concern.

So, why don't you join with us in supporting action to reduce the number of abortions. Complete, accurate and honest sex education and widespread access to ALL effective forms of birth control are the only path, but millions of evangelicals oppose these things. Or are you too much of a fan of Rushdoonyites like Randall Terry and Joseph Scheidler?

August 15, 2008 12:48 PM

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

It came as a surprise to discover that there are atheists who are anti-abortion. They arrive at the conclusion through reason without the need for faith in God. So there, respect for life and the desire to protect an innocent life is not a strictly religious thing. It is a humane thing.

About 1.4 MILLION unborn children are dying every year as a result of abortion, their chance at life and all they can contribute to society in their unique way snuffed out before they have had a chance to even taste life. Why are you not crying for them, those innocent ones?

I'm haunted by the thoughts of little defenseless children in the womb being killed day after day after day in the name of "reproductive freedom."

Dear JM Reynolds -

Thanks for the non-response response. At some point, I'll check out the book you recommended, though my hopes aren't high.

BTW - not every "gotcha" question makes its hay in a pejorative sense. Some gotcha questions need to be asked, which is why I asked.

And - to aver that my question and the Bible story I cited "has nothing to do with the topic" when you are claiming that the source of your pro-life position is Biblical is quite disappointing, to say the least. Especially when you inform us that you yourself have previously "defended" the account in 1 Samuel on your blog.

You could at least provide a link to said defense. Some of us would actually read it.

Those full of curiosity will be glad to know that we missed our showing and are now waiting for the next. . .

Now, thanks to everyone's interesting questions I have to buy the popcorn.

I hope this movie is worth it.

(This is my last post on this thread . . . not for lack of interest, but for hitting my designated time for responses. I try to respond when I can . . . as I think it a good thing to do. Term starts next week so I don't know if I will be able to much this fall.)

John Mark Reynolds writes:

"I have never quite understood (as a philosopher) the comparison between belief in God and Santa.

So far as I know philosophers do not publish in A-list journals or have jobs at schools like Oxford for publishing defenses of Santa."

It's a very apt and simple comparison, in fact.

God doesn't exist and neither does Santa.

It matters not that you know few philosophers who have jobs studying Santa, any more than it matters that there are no longer people alive whose job it is to know the ins and outs of worshiping Athena or Apollo, or that there are no longer A-list journalists around publishing defenses of the Mayan and Incan gods.

Neither are there treatises being written on the "science" of alchemy these days, nor on the different types of fairies that inhabit the world. But at one time, there were such treatises written, just as there WERE handbooks written from a perspective of perceived "truth" that told one how to identify a witch, and what to do with one when you found one out.

The only difference is that people are AFRAID to give up their belief in god for the simple fact that religion instills that fear in them. It's quite a bit easier to give up belief in a benign spirit like Santa or your typical fairy. They are not threatening one with eternal damnation, are they? In the case of alchemy, well, that just didn't work out, so we're more than happy to turn to science in such matters.

Same for astrology - for most of us, that is.

What is quite clear is that the human mind is quite able to see fantasies for what they are, and to let go of them, eventually. It just takes a bit longer when the fantasy (god) threatens one with eternal suffering as a consequence of disbelief. But as a truism, god holds no more water than does Santa, ergo, the comparison.

Hope that clears it up for you.

A nice and reflective article.....

And no mentioning of Bush.

I wonder why......

John Abraham:

That's a very sophisticated write-up, too sophisticate for me.

I will support, and maybe join, the anti-choice movement, who call themselves pro-life, as soon as they will go on the barricades to end the barbaric US custom of the death penalty. Now that would be pro-life.

August 15, 2008 6:07 PM

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

I'm against the death penalty too.

But comparing the death penalty meted out to the worst criminals to the killing of innocent unborn children in the womb who cannot defend themselves? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

When you write that "experience has shown that government programs generally do as much harm as good," I have to disagree with you there. I think programs such as Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid do much more good than harm. Our large government today spends the vast majority of its money on National Defense, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and Interest Payments on the national debt. I'm sure we can agree on paying down the debt, but I don't think the other three do more harm than good.

When I was born (1954) blacks and women did not generally obtain good paying jobs. When a job opening occurred or a promotion opened up, it went to a white male. To correct this, somewhere, sometime that job and that promotion had to go to a woman or a black. That engenders resentment among the white males who didn't get that job or that promotion. You don't want to go back to the injustices of 1954 any more than I do. But then you can't help "perpetuating injustice on another group as part of "helping" the disadvantaged." If blacks and women are to get good jobs and promotions, then those good jobs and promotions did not go to white males. There's no way around this.

The problem I have with bills to ban late-term abortion is that these bills are not meant to stop late-term abortions but are to ban procedures used to perform early-term abortions and to ban those early-term abortions by the back door. I offer you a compromise here. I will give you a bill protecting the life of a baby that survives a late term abortion attempt if you give me one of the following: a universal food program to make sure people below a certain income level have sufficient nutritious food to eat, universal health insurance, or a universal education program allowing people below a certain income level access to a decent school in their area, all the way through college if they have the ability to meet the entrance requirements. For me, concern with starvation, neglect and suffocation does not end once the baby leaves the hospital.

Steve

Gram wrote "Keep Your God to Yourself!"

Russia, China, North Korea and Cuba has that philosophy. Nobody is stopping you to live there and practice your doctrine.

Tess:

Interesting how "right-to-life" begins and ends with the fetus. What about the right to life of a child born into poverty? Those government programs you deride for "doing more harm than good" may well be the very vehicle that will give the BORN child a right to life. Similar programs may well be the ONLY vehicle for many seniors' right to life. Perhaps the evangelicals should doing for "the least of these my brethren" rather than telling me (and the world) what they believe in - in other words, do good, not simply be good.

August 15, 2008 7:03 PM

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

Life begins in the uterus with conception. That is science, not an article of religious faith. Ask a Fetologist.

The law does not allow anyone to take a child's life the minute after it is born. However one minute before it is born, it is legal to kill that child if the mother so chooses.

Tess,

Right to life does NOT begin and end with the fetus.

Evangelicals have a long history of social work in this country to help the poor and those born. They are very generous with charity (not even counting their church giving).

Thanks for your comments. We agree that all living children deserve care . . . where we may disagree is that I don't hear "the state" whenever I hear that statement.

We can care for children without thinking that the state should do the job.

You confirm my fears - that you and your conservative special interests will again try to legislate your superstition.

Please leave us alone! Leave Terry Schiavo alone! Leave the mothers and their doctors alone! Get out my my life!

We will not survive on this planet unless we observe my Universal Commandment:
"Keep Your God to Yourself!"

Tess wrote "What about the right to life of a child born into poverty?"

The evangelicals set aside 10% of their money for God which means part of that is given to the poor. What program does liberals have? KILLING FETUSES. It's very easy to tie the fallopian tube if they don't want a child.

TIE AND UNTIE. Very simple and yet the IDIOTS don't know how to use it.

Mr. Mark-

As I am sure you are aware, there are any number of Internet sites that defend the account you mentioned. I have done so in the past on my blog.

I choose not to get pulled into every discussion on every possible topic on every post.

Time is (sadly) limited.

I responded this once to make a general statement that I tend not to respond to:

1. posts outside my field. I am a philosopher and educator and not a theologian.

2. posts that are personal.

3. posts that have nothing to do with the topic.

4. posts where a response is too long for this format.

Your question is easy to ask, but falls into 3 and 4.

Answering your question would take more space than I have in this little box (which drives me nuts!) . . . and there are many answers on line. The best book (from and Evangelical perspective) with four takes on this question is "Show Them No Mercy."

For readers:

First, very conservative Evangelical scholars who take the text seriously have serious responses to this kind of "gotcha" question. If you care, go read them.

Second, some very conservative Christians, such as C.S. Lewis, make different moves regarding the text of the OT. Go check those out. (See his book on the Psalms for his general approach.)

In any case, nothing I said had the first thing to do with this issue.

pacogs:

In my opinion, Pro-life is believing that many of our youth should not be killed in war that never should have been. Pro-life is believing that children should not die because they do not have enough to eat. Pro-life is believing that People should not die because they do not have health insurance.
Pro-life is believing that people should not have to live under bridges because they lost their jobs and cannot afford a place to live in. Pro-life is believing that people should not die or become sick because the environment has been destroyed with harmful things. Pro-life is believing that people should not become sick because we have not cared enough about safeguards for our food supply. Pro-life is believing that we should be able to trust our products to not contain harmful contaminates from goods made in other countries that our companies have used to make our goods. Pro-life is making sure that our citizens have good jobs to take care of their families. Pro-Life is saying that we truly care about our neighbors and truly care about the future for all of our children and grandchildren. All of this is in my opinion is what Pro-Life is all about. "Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself".. This is the ultimate Pro-Life!!

August 15, 2008 6:08 PM

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

The pro-life anti-abortion stand is that an innocent child in the womb should not be killed. Period.

The computer keyboard has about 101 keys. Those who know how to use it enjoys the flexiblity of it. The IDIOT has another way of using it. They take out all the keys except for the one VERY IMPORTANT KEY for them -- the DELETE key.

God created this earth beautifully like the keyboard but the IDIOTS has another way of using it. They replace all the keys into HELL keys.

Tracy, you should read comic books. It's about FANTASIES. Check your history so you don't look STUPID. Scandinavian countries are Lutheran, stupid.

Interesting how "right-to-life" begins and ends with the fetus. What about the right to life of a child born into poverty? Those government programs you deride for "doing more harm than good" may well be the very vehicle that will give the BORN child a right to life. Similar programs may well be the ONLY vehicle for many seniors' right to life. Perhaps the evangelicals should doing for "the least of these my brethren" rather than telling me (and the world) what they believe in - in other words, do good, not simply be good.

There seems to be a lot of hate towards those who don't like the removable of unborn babies. There is 3 states of death in which man does on this earth. Death of unborn/old people, war, and 'cruel' murders put to death. I guess if one wants no death, then believing that those 3 states equal would make you believe NOT to kill anyone. These 3 classification are not equal in that unborn babies and those who murder are not logically the same (INNOCENCE vs twisted). We have had war since the beginning of man and will even if I will it not to be so. Mankind doesn't have the character to remove war. History has shown that mass murders from various forms of governments are caused by expansion of territories. I would think that do no evil or 2 wrong don't make a right would make sense to people. But silly me, believing people think using their rationale brain instead of emotions.

I too must retire (my kids are yelling we are about to miss the movie!) . . . but I agree that some countries (notably ones in Western Europe) seem to be very secular and to be doing well.

We will see.

I will only note that:

1. they do not have to defend themselves so they can behave in ways most sovereign states have not been able to afford to do. Functionally, the USA has picked up the tab for their defense.

2. they were fairly religious until very recently (post-War). We will see how well a very secular society can endure in the market place of ideas.

Dear JM Reynolds -

Why are you avoiding comment on the story of genocide in 1 Samuel 15 where god orders Saul to kill every single Amalekite, men, women, children, newborns, pregnant women AND the fetuses they are carrying?

God held no "right to life" for the Amalekites - children, newborns and fetuses included. Why do you insist on averring that he holds a right to life for anyone else?

Perhaps this is one of those Biblical "truths" you Xians would rather avoid facing?

Your silence speaks volumes.

I have never quite understood (as a philosopher) the comparison between belief in God and Santa.

So far as I know philosophers do not publish in A-list journals or have jobs at schools like Oxford for publishing defenses of Santa.

Theists do.

Santa folk have never been inspired to create some of the world's great art or literature.

Theists are.

This should suggest to an unbiased reader that God may not exist, but the question is a tad more complex than facile comparisons to Santa belief in children.

I did not want to believe in the God of the Bible. I came to it through hard thought and much reading . . . including all the greats of atheism (as of the late eighties).

I may be wrong, but have yet to meet the Santa-believer who has done that much work! Of course I have yet to meet a Santa believer . . .

Last commend for Mr. Reynolds before I retire: actually societies where no one pretends to believe in supernatural divinities work pretty well, you only have to visit any Scandinavian country.

Steveco wrote "And I'd like *you* to take a look at one of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians murdered by war criminals Bush and Cheney."

Iraqis are bombing themselves. American soldiers are there to stop the bombing. 1+1=2, just in case you don't know it either.

Steveco:

Your definition of theocracy is pretty simplistic or the USA has always been one.

We have never had a bright shining line between personal religious faith and politics. Never.

We have managed not to turn into the kind of theocracy most of reject when we hear the world.

This kind of alarmist talk from one side just gins up the tiny group of actual theocrats in the US.

They need each other.

The rest of us will just do as Aristotle said and not treat politics like a science (or an ideology!), but like an art.

Spidermanz:
"There is no other choice but Hell."

There's plenty of other choices than being a sad religious zealot. Take your adult Santa Claus and go suck your thumb.

Can some kind soul clean up the spam?? Thanks...

Tracy Long wrote "Enough is enough!"

Well, that would come into fruition. We'll just have to wait who will ultimately inherit the earth and whose "ENOUGH" matters.

"Yeah and I'd like you to take a good look at a REAL ABORTED FETUS.."

And I'd like *you* to take a look at one of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians murdered by war criminals Bush and Cheney.

Brainwashed robot.

Tracy Long wrote "Enough is enough!"

Well, that would come into fruition. We'll just have to wait who will ultimately inherit the earth and who's "ENOUGH" matters.

I think we agree on several things!

That is progress.

America has a different religious heritage and history (thankfully) that Germany and so we have been able to come to (I think) better compromises about the role of religion in public life.

Human beings are what they are. . . and religion can be corrupted by bad ones just like any other institution. I have met (or read) bad secularists who are irrational in the name of reason, just like I have read Christians who hate in the name of love!

It is too bad.

I am sorry, however, for the empty churches of Germany. Here is hoping that the heroic Benedict can begin to refill them.

Nothing is perfect in which humans are engaged, but Christianity is the best answer I have found and I have looked as hard as I could.

Thanks for your posts!

"Didn't you mean to say I don't want to live in a Judeo/Christian-majority democracy?"

No, she said theocracy. Are you being purposefully dense? No theocracy. No decisions based on what some mythical deity for a particular religion thinks or doesn't think. No religious type A control freaks trying to run eveyone's life based on some book written 1600 years ago.

Theocracy. Look it up, Kim. Our Constitution forbids it.

Since asked, I should note:

-that I do not support torture and have written about this on my blog.

- I am not a pacifist.

- I have mixed feelings about the death penalty since the life taken is not innocent, but would gladly trade a good right to life law for it!

Thanks Mr. Reynolds for the reply regarding evangelicals in government. I have no doubt that their presence has been strong over the years in government, and I agree that Mr. Lincoln appealed to them to get votes.

This is happening today, by the way, yet no one seems to be exposing it. Mr. Obama (most likely an atheist himself - just read his book and study his bio) and Mr. McCain (a beleiver? - doubtful) are pandering to another religious huckster (Rick Warren) who heads a crazed mega-Church in California. Apparantly Ted Haggard was busy studying for a final exam. When will this stop and when will the American people say, "Enough is enough!"

I live in Germany and although I hear lots of Church bells, they are mostly empty, which gives me a good feeling to be honest.

To Tracy Long:

The faith of the founders is a complicated question. Most were influenced by deism. Some were deists. None were secular in our modern sense. Many were orthodox Christians. All were overwhelmingly influenced by Christian ideas in their thinking.

As for Lincoln's faith or lack thereof, the best evidence is that nobody is sure, though there is some evidence for a growing faith while in office . . . but we are sure that he governed on Evangelical votes (with overt appeals to them) and using Evangelical language. The best book (of which I am aware) on this topic is Lincoln by Richard Carwardine.

Please do pardon typographical errors since I find my vision (which is poor) struggles with seeing the type in the comment box.

I enjoy the chance to hear other points of view and appreciate the time many of you have put into your posts.

A couple more comments before taking my kids to Batman (again!) . . .

1. A big group of people cannot be captured by a dictionary definition misapplied. I am using "Evangelical" to describe a religious movement.

2. One commentator noted that there is nothing in Christian teaching that prevents a welfare state. He will note that I stated that our experience was the chief reason for questioning claims made about the good that will be done by an increase in the welfare state.

It is true that some Christians, with good intentions, have advocated a welfare state. These good desires were not met (in my opinion). Christians can disagree about this, but the majority of Evangelicals oppose social welfare because they don't think it works.

3. Race has nothing to do with this.

Most Americans on welfare are white. Many are from my home region of the country (Appalachia). Seeing the effects of it on that group is one reason my grandparents became more conservative in their views.

4. There is a very small secular minority in the US. They will have to accept that a President Obama or McCain will take (as every President has done) the Oath of Office on a Bible. That is part of our heritage.

Secular people in the US are free not to participate in any civil religious form (including that one if one becomes president), but do not have the right to force the rest of us to strip our religious heritage from the public square.

For further (and better) defense of this issue (which comes up often on these threads) see First Things on the web.

5. For full disclosure: I will vote for John McCain.

I voted (twice) for George Bush. In some ways Bush was a disappointment to me as a conservative, but I still prefer him to either Gore or Kerry.

Mr. Chipper,

I had to correct you (I hope you don't mind)

Almost every one of our founding fathers were Diests, not of Christian or any other faith. This means that they believed in a God, but not one which meddled or concerned itself with the activities of man or anything else. This was the prevalent thinking of the day among Philadelphia intellectuals. Many Americans make the mistake of thinking that our country was founded on Christian ideals, when this is simply not the case.

Also, most presidential scholars believe that Mr. Lincoln was either agnostic or an atheist as well. Note that this did not prevent his understanding that slavery was inherently inhuman and should be abolished.

Lastly, modern atheists and gays (who I gather you don't like, perhaps you have latent homosexual feellings or had a bad homosexual experience once) share a common platform today. Both can be progressive, both are rising out of the ashes of hundreds of years of religious abuses and both have achieved significant political acceptance and even clout. It will only continue to grow, while (hopefully) religious idolatry and ignorance will continue to wither as the only thing which can feed it and sustain it are ignorance and fear.

Anon wrote "As I said, the "stern father." Oh please, Daddy, give me a spanking. "

The "stern father" can only advice his child NOT to play in the middle of a freeway. The child knows the advice but PLAYS anyway. STUPIDITY SEEMS HAS NO CURE.

Hmmm....doesn't sound like any of the Evangelicals I know, except of course for the 'Right to Life' section which mentions nothing about the death penalty. That's pretty typical Evangelical to me.

First, Tracy Long should note that Evangelicals have been part of both political parties since the time of Lincoln. Lincoln was elected by appealing to Evangelical votes. A three time nominee of the Democrat Party was also a confirmed Evangelical (Bryan).

Second, we certainly an learn a great deal from non-theists. I have and will continue to do so.

Mr. Miller should note that predictions of a "new generation" voting differently have happened before but there is no evidence in the numbers that this is actually happening.

Progress has been made on the right to life issue. Overturning Roe is hard, but it is within side as both sides concede. This will return the issue to the states where it belongs.

As for tired solutions and rhetoric, I think we agree on the ends ("poverty, peace, equality, justice, etc."), but disagree on the means.

I don't think an increase in the welfare state will actually help more than it harms. I don't think socializing medicine is the best solution. Of course Christians can disagree on these things (as we may).

We should not, however, disagree on protecting innocent human life from legalized murder.

I am, however, unsure of the "etc." Perhaps we disagree on that!

Athena wrote "The rest of us don't want to live in your theocracy. "

That is why there is DOOMSDAY. It's a quick exit for the unbelievers. God owns this earth and He gets to decide who lives in this place. If you don't want His rules, you're stuck with it forever. There is no other choice but Hell.

As I said, the "stern father." Oh please, Daddy, give me a spanking.

I assume George W. Bush met Mr. Reynolds criteria in 2000 and 2004. That raises serious questions in my mind as to Mr. Reynolds ability to judge a candidate's "Character and Competence".

Before I can give serious consideration to "What Evangelicals Want", show me an honest assessment from Evangelicals regarding what they have in George W. Bush. If you are satisfied with what you have, I honestly don't care what you want since I have had enough.

My preference is to get as far away from Mr. Bush as possible.

What Evangelicals Want...

They want to make themselves feel better about their often stunning lack of morals by blaming social ills on 'liberals', secular humanist, or some other current boogie man.

To criticize people who support abortions while ignoring the fact that most evangelicals supported a freaking war (crusade?) in the middle east will only drive a deeper wedge between the two sides. Until Evangelicals can come to terms with this enormous but un-challenged line of faulty logic they will never be seen as good faith partners.

And do not even get me started on creationism vs. scientific method.

In my opinion, Pro-life is believing that many of our youth should not be killed in war that never should have been. Pro-life is believing that children should not die because they do not have enough to eat. Pro-life is believing that People should not die because they do not have health insurance.
Pro-life is believing that people should not have to live under bridges because they lost their jobs and cannot afford a place to live in. Pro-life is believing that people should not die or become sick because the environment has been destroyed with harmful things. Pro-life is believing that people should not become sick because we have not cared enough about safeguards for our food supply. Pro-life is believing that we should be able to trust our products to not contain harmful contaminates from goods made in other countries that our companies have used to make our goods. Pro-life is making sure that our citizens have good jobs to take care of their families. Pro-Life is saying that we truly care about our neighbors and truly care about the future for all of our children and grandchildren. All of this is in my opinion is what Pro-Life is all about. "Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself".. This is the ultimate Pro-Life!!

pastor rick warren plans to question obama and mccain about the quality of their qualities because warren says, "God says so." apparently warren has received some rather direct communication from God about the presidential election and that brings on several questions. How did warren receive the Divine communication? Was he in his church, was he awake, he receive the Word in a dream or on a mountain top? Does warren have more Divine communications that he will share during the course of the presidential election or possibly during some of the senate, congressional and mayoralty races or even the hotly contested races for county and city clerkship's? for more on the funnydamentalists The Church of the Immaculate Misconception wwwsaintpeterii.com

That's a very sophisticated write-up, too sophisticate for me.

I will support, and maybe join, the anti-choice movement, who call themselves pro-life, as soon as they will go on the barricades to end the barbaric US custom of the death penalty. Now that would be pro-life.

Very carefully worded, but the bias in support of John McCain comes through. Also the subtle anti-welfare (read black)inferences and support of Republican (espoused only) views towards less goverment.

"Most evangelicals support limited government, because experience has shown that government programs generally do as much harm as good. They risk breeding dependence on the state and often perpetuate injustice on another group as part of 'helping' the disadvantaged. This creates a cycle of resentment and injustice helpful to nobody."
What nonsense! I agree that there tends to be a correlation between Evangelicalism and support for small government, but this correlation is not based on any actual logic inherent in Evangelicalism. It is a matter of temperament. As George Lakoff says, conservatives--and this includes Evangelicals--approach life in general from the "stern father" perspective and it is this perspective, and not any logic or experience peculiar to Evangelicals, that links their moralism and their support for small government. So let's be clear: there is nothing inherent in Christianity that suggests support for small government and a concomitant lack of support for social programs.

Athena wrote "The rest of us don't want to live in your theocracy. "

That is why there is DOOMSDAY. It's a quick exit for the unbelievers. God owns this earth and He gets to decide who lives in this place. If you don't want His rules, you're stuck with it forever. There is no other choice but Hell.

Reynolds says, "Evangelicals are not ideologues." Um. Webster might disagree, defining "evangelical" (in part of the definition, anyway) as "marked by militant or crusading zeal" and "ideologue" as "an often blindly partisan advocate or adherent of a particular ideology." Looks pretty close to me, and even closer when Reynolds says, "Evangelicals want a candidate who can acknowledge our overwhelmingly religious heritage and nature as a people while allowing as much freedom for the tiny secular minority as possible."

Just what sort of "acknowledgment" is he seeking? And the fact that he would say "as much freedom as possible" seems to indicate he'd be comfortable circumscribing that freedom when it interferes with his religion's perceived status as first among equals.

Our nation's founders, having come from a religiously oppressive environment, recognized -- and codified -- a set of laws that would effectively prevent the majority from running roughshod over not only the "tiny secular minority," but every minority. You want to sing hymns? No problem. Do it in church, where they belong, and render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s . . . like governing.

Chipper:

1. We should certainly not only listen to people with our point of view. I have learned a great deal from people with many different perspectives.

2. Churches have an absolute right to marry whoever and whatever they please. There is no state reason to encourage forms of relationship that do not produce the future citizens that are the chief (and compelling) reason for the state to be involved.

3. Stem cell research is great when it does not do one evil in order to prevent another. Nobody opposes adult stem cell research. Just because I can help one person by doing a thing doesn't make that thing right.

We will have to make some ethical choices. These choices will require something more than science, since science by itself cannot tell us a thing about ethics.

I think it is truly shameful how the evangelicals are burrowing their way into our government, and forcing politicians, many of them intelligent, secular people, to make childish and insincere statements about their faith or belief, as though we are somehow to believe that a superstitious, intolerant ignoramous would make a better president, simply because he has faith.

What's wrong with having intelligent, reasonable people (yes, those who don't believe in supernational beings can have morals too, these come from humans, not from man-made gods) to gently but firmly remind our envangelical fellow citizens that their right to practice any and all faiths-there are hundreds of them (defined as believing that which is unbelievable) is protected by our constitution; however, our constitution makes it quite clear that state and church are to be separated, today and for always.

I think the remarks by Mr. Reynolds show how dangerous it can be when people of "faith" start to exercise undue influence over political matters. Everyone loses and we start to have idiotic nonsense like "intelligent design" taught in our schools, and uncomfortable, mandatory moments of silence. Religion is a one-way ticket to the past, offers nothing new or interesting in regards to discovery or understanding of our natural world and is a sure-fire way to close off and suffocate the one thing that truly makes us all unique: our intellect and ability to reason.

It is a sad commentary that our species came so far to have so many people now willing to throw away every accomplishment, every discovery, all scientific knowledge and simply rely on ancient, silly myths and ridiculous beliefs. Religious belief and myth makes no sense and are seen through by most children at an early age, my nine year old already knows that the concept of a divine creator is improbable, and he is truly awe-struck by the natural universe and facts of evolution. And I don't have any guilt because I am not telling him lies, another advantage of not being religious.

The battle lines are clear; religious bullying has to stop, and those of us who truly want a peaceful, intelligent, inclusive society need to resist at every chance those who wish to set us backwards hundreds of years.

Really? This is a thinly-veiled, sophistic hack job. At least Rick Warren is giving the impression of being fair. You are peddling unsupported enthymemes here that are designed to reinforce the same old evangelical political creed, that the GOP is for GOD. Take your argument about life. You submit it as though it is a simple, one-dimensional slam dunk. If so, how come 23 years of GOP presidents since Roe have accomplished virtually nothing? Sounds less than efficacious to hire a Republican to do protect life. In fact, the deepest declines in abortion rates came during the Clinton administration. How about this: We vote for a Christian who is more interested in making changes than winning culture wars?

I'm not speaking as an outsider. I'm a professor at an evangelical university who wishes abortions were rare, but who recognizes that poverty, peace, equality, justice, etc. are all life issues as well.

I encourage evangelical voters to look beyond these tired, vintage arguments of the Religious Right and embrace change.

I should add:

1.. . . that Evangelicals (like most Americans) are concerned about creation and caring for it. While there can be reasonable disagreement about the means, there should be no disagreement about the end: a sustainable and health place for all God's children to live.

2. . . . my family has been (generally) Republican since the time of Lincoln. We did not embrace ideas of liberty and limited government over new issues foisted on us by activist courts. Of course, any reasonable person is not just tied to a party and so we look at each candidate as an individual.

3. . . .I am sorry that some people on this thread no so few theists. I am even more sorry that others want to "silence" us. Diversity is a good thing and I have benefited from my secular and agnostic friends.

We may not agree, but we are all Americans after all.

As to our friend who lives in France . . . what a blessing for you! My wife and I had one of the best days of our life in Paris when we discovered the beauties of the church of the Sacré-Cœur Basilica.

That is so true.

I want a Christian president with good character, and the competence to listen to only correct, Christian points of view. I don't need them to listen to secular "scientists" promoting evilution and radiocarbon dating!

I want a candidate who will defend traditional ideas like the freedom of Christian religion! The founding fathers were Christians and you can be any kind of Christian you want in this great country as long as it's not the kind that marries gays (satanism)!

You are absolutely right on your last point too. I want a candidate who will defend the god-given right of unborn babies to life, and oppose stem-cell research. After all, once you're already alive, you should be looking forward to death because if you keep on praying you'll go to heaven!

Bravo, Mr. Reynolds!

If you rob plutocrat Pauline to pay poor Paul, you train government workers to steal. These bad habits will not stop with plutocrats, but end by making serfs of Pauline and Paul. If you turn poor Paul into a ward of the state with his welfare check, then you may have done more harm to his soul than good to his body. If you undermine the role of civic organizations, churches, charities, and families, by teaching Paul that the state will meet all his needs, then you have damaged Paul's ability to live in a republic.
------------------------
How very American. Thank God I live in France.

The state represents all citizens whereas churches and charities are run by the few for the benefit of the few, including the pedophile and womanising clergy and administrators who run the organisations. Evangelicals want power over the poor and helpless. Horrible people.

If evangelicals are so concerned about human life, why do they support Republican policies that have resulted in the extradition, imprisonment and torture of people known to be innocent? Why do they still support the Iraq invasion when the facts show that it was based on and lies? Why do they abhor abortion, then turn a blind eye on the living poor in this "You're on your own" country? Why do they ignore the many layers of secrecy, falsehoods and hypocrisy that define the Bush administration? Why do they constantly demand the expenditure of ever greater funds for war machines when Christ teaches us not to be afraid?

Until someone answers these questions satisfactorily, America's evangelicals are all nothing but talk and religious hype.

In your zeal to defend the "Right to life" of the unborn, aren't you forgetting the right to life of the born? War, disease, lack of adequate healthcare - these should all be equally important problems in the minds of those who want to promote a "culture of life".

I find it really hard to understand why attacking the social problems that lead to unwanted pregnancies, and a true "culture of life" agenda for all people, is unattractive to evangelical leaders. I only hope most evangelicals will see through this hypocrisy.

Greetings,

Quite a few posts on this thread . . .

A couple of comments:

1. I oppose a theocracy and do not have to move to another country to have what I desire religiously (in terms of church and state), since what I want has always existed in this country.

We have never been a nation of secular ideologues intent on stamping out every mention of God in the public square. Take a look at your money if you doubt it. Listen to the National Anthem (all of it). Say the Pledge. Read the Declaration of Independence. Read Lincoln's Second Inaugural.

2. If sufficient numbers of Islamic or Wicca persons want to use the public square for their religious point of view I would support it.

3. I support a right of a woman to her own body, but not an absolute power over of her unborn child.

4. This post was not about the Bible. Readers can assume that theologians in the Roman, Orthodox, and Evangelical churches (which condemn abortion) have dealt with the texts cited. I will leave it to them to do the google search required to find it.

5. Evangelicals do not all have the same view of "end times." Lumping them all together is pure ignorance.

Not a bad article, but where is the concern for God's creation, other than in the final point? I didn't see anything about the environment, and today's evangelical is very concerned about wasteful living and harming the environment. This does not please God, and never did.

The days of the evangelical who is essentially just a moralistic hyper-consumer are over. In his place are men and women who care about carbon footprint, since we care about our great, great, great grand-children. It's not the only thing we care about, certainly, but thanks to the current state of affairs, it's rising to the top.

Misusing the environment brings far more needless destruction than abortion or even an war ever did or ever will.

If you rob plutocrat Pauline to pay poor Paul, you train government workers to steal. These bad habits will not stop with plutocrats, but end by making serfs of Pauline and Paul. If you turn poor Paul into a ward of the state with his welfare check, then you may have done more harm to his soul than good to his body. If you undermine the role of civic organizations, churches, charities, and families, by teaching Paul that the state will meet all his needs, then you have damaged Paul's ability to live in a republic.
------------------------
How very American. Thank God I live in France.

The state represents all citizens whereas churches and charities are run by the few for the benefit of the few, including the pedophile and womanising clergy and administrators who run the organisations. Evangelicals want power over the poor and helpless. Horrible people.

Why protect fetuses when you don't want to offer protection at any other stage in life? Conservatives oppose national health care and instead favor leaving millions of Americans to take their chances with profit-hungry insurance companies. Where's the "right to life" in that scenario? Humans are mostly self-interested and charity can only get a population of 303 million so far...once we institutionalize care for those with every right to live, then we can discuss whether to protect what's inside a woman's uterus.

This is a bunch of nonsense. If you were truly interested in helping the poor and disadvantaged, there's no way you could support Bu$hco and the corporate republican machine.

Be honest: Evangelicals vote for repubs because they have been manipulated by fear-mongering centered on God, guns and gays. The truth of the matter is that the repub politicians are plutocrats who work for big business and against the interests of working people. They use the right to life mantra to seduce Christians while they happily vote against programs to help the poor, the elderly, and even military personnel. They fight against health insurance and continue to try to eliminate social security. They quite contentedly support torture, eliminate our civil rights, invade and occupy foreign countries and purposefully facilitate destruction of the environment to further corporate interests.
When are you going to wake up and realize that the culture of death and destruction is an imbued Republican value?

There is no political consensus in America about what defines "traditional American ideas about faith". The only point we can all agree on is that the constitution says religion has no place in government.

Lets all work to continue the marginalization of evilangelicals. Its high time their voice was silenced.

I sure hope no "unborn" children were killed in the US lead bombings of Iraq. I don't know if the evangelicals could go on living in this country, if our government crossed such a "moral" line.

What's this? Conservatives want leaders with the competence to govern well? And they supported W? Oh, come on. You've got to be kidding.

Wow. You Christies are nuts. Just nuts. I'm almost never around theists, and when I stumble upon them, their ranting is disturbing. Thanks WaPo and Newsweek for providing this panderfest.

Praise Zeus!

What evangelicals want is someone to assist in moving the world toward their dream of WWIII. When they get the rapture they have been praying for, only then will they be content in their "told you so" smarmy death mask.

This is why they usually vote for hawkish right wing candidates who value "faith".

NB: like Arminius and a few others here, I do not respond to posts by "Anonymous."

Pick a moniker or go pick your butt. Your choice.

'Ideally, a great leader should be "willing to lay down his life for a friend" and also love his neighbor at least as much as he loves himself, a difficult thing to find amidst the narcissism of politics. Evangelicals want a candidate willing to live for a noble cause bigger than self, not just in words but deeds.'

I'd respect Obama more if he'd shown more loyalty to his old friends once they became political liabilities.

Would Obama have refused early release by the North Viet Namese, as an act of loyalty to his fellow prisoners?

If Obama could cite one specific instance in which he put a friend's need ahead of his own, it would count for something with me.

I support Obama because he has Christian values.
www.matthew25.org

to learn more and to find out why Christians are supporting Obama!

Not all Christians see abortion as murder, some see it as equivalent to the choice to eat meat; a valid personal choice but not something that should be imposed or prevented.

I believe that a surgical procedure should not be casually entered into and be avoided via abstinence, and contraceptives being available and teaching to kids to use them.

But lets be realistic, the custom of no sex before marriage was a much easier act of will for teens when they were married of at 14 instead of at 26.

Yeah and I'd like you to take a good look at a REAL ABORTED FETUS..

Why no comment from the anti-choice wing on god ordering the slaughter of the Amalekites: men, women, children, newborns and fetuses?

Really, I'd like to hear you all rationalize away this sickening episode of god-ordered genocide and god-ordered abortion.

Ecclesiates clearly states:

it is better not to have been born.

I take this to mean that abortion is preferable to birth.

The Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it!

John Mark Reynolds scrawled: "Like most Americans, they [Evangelicals] reject a theocracy, but also the ideological extremism of total secularism."

If you reject secularism you have a theocracy, or at the least you sanction religion by government. You cannot have it both ways.

John Mark Reynolds scrawled: "They like singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic and seeing manger scenes on courthouse steps."

Would you like to see Stars of David or the Quran displayed on courthouse steps? How about buddas and Wiccan symbols?

John Mark Reynolds scrawled: "They don't want an officially Christian nation, but don't want a government afraid to admit that the nation is mostly made up of Christians."

This is just silly. You want a theocracy but you don't want to call it that. You want religious displays by government, but only Christian ones. You want Christianity to be the dominant religion in government. Sorry, you cannot have that AND a secular government.

Either church and state is separate or it is not. From what you have described you do not want them separate, and not only do you not want them separate, you only want the Christian religion to be part of government. That is very unAmerican.

Please leave my country and go where religion is part of the government, like Britain or Italy. Just get out of here and stop trampling on my rights under the Constitution as though you have a right to do so. You do not.

Read the Constitution. You cannot impose your religion on me through government. Its pretty clear.

Religious people are self-deluded. Therefore they have made terrible choices down through history.

They are obsessed with the fertilized eggs of women they don't know and will never meet. Yet they have no problem supporting the Bush massacre and torture of up to 1 million Iraqis over control of their oil.

I am sure their belief in the fairy tales they call holy scripture (Christians, Jews, Muslims) enables them to be led like sheep, unquestioning and unthinking, dumbly following frequently corrupt leaders, in any case people with no better grasp of the sublime than a child.

"I would suggest the anti-choice crowd do a bit of research on the concept to see what the founders of their religion believed about the process."

OK and here's some research for the pro-abortion crowd:

MrMark- If you want to kill your son or daughter because they are still in an embryonic form that every human being passes through: You are free to make that choice. You may end your child's life and stop its beating heart as it is legal in America. But please ask the abortionist to put the remains in a jar for you because you may want to see what your child looked like. There is a reason why doctors will NOT perform abortions. Abortions are primarily performed in clinics by men who are professional abortionists and this is there only service- it is all they do all day long. Its quite a moneymaker for someone with little required skill and only a small sacrifice to make. The abortionist sees the fetus and must dispose of it.

How about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness after birth? And one more question for you sir. How many unwanted children have you adopted? A fetus is not a child and as such has NO rights. NOBODY likes abortion, but I don't want the STATE telling me or any other woman when or if she can assert her reproductive rights. If the state can tell you that you must have a child, then the state can tell you that you can't have a child. As usual, it's some middle-aged, white, man telling us how he's going to control me and my reproductive choices.

Cronus writes:

"Where did evangelicals and Catholics get this life begins at conception? Up to the mid-1800s most faiths including the RCC agreed that life began at what was called "quickening" where the fetus started kickin', around the 17th week, or just like in Roe, the further along the pregnancy, the greater the rights for the unborn fetus."

How right you are.

For a religion that justifies so much evil by referencing their "traditions," they seem to now totally ignore the concept of "ensoulment," ie: the point at which the soul enters a fetus.

I would suggest the anti-choice crowd do a bit of research on the concept to see what the founders of their religion believed about the process.

One more "fun" Biblical quote:

"Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." - 1 Samuel 15:2-3

Here, the Lord (ie: God the Father, Yahweh) orders a fine case of GENOCIDE be visited upon the Amalekites, and Saul complies, slaughtering all of the people. BUT, Saul doesn't slaughter the best of the livestock, keeping them as a prize for Israel. This GREATLY displeases god, who takes away Sauls' kingship.

Now, notice, following GOD'S ORDERS, Saul slew "both man and woman, infant and suckling," and that PLEASED god to no end! Infants are children and sucklings are newborns, and GOD ordered these children KILLED.

God also ordered ALL of the women killed, and there had to be a percentage of these women who were pregnant. Ergo, their fetuses died with them.

Why did god not order Saul to spare the children, the sucklings and the pregnant women? If god truly cared for children and fetuses, he could have ordered Saul not to kill them all. But Saul - who had no problem disobeying god when it came to slaying livestock - went ahead and slaughtered every Amalekite, every child, every newborn and every fetus, just as god ORDERED. Saul couldn't apply the same "moral" concern to the slaughter of children, newborns and fetuses as he did to livestock.

At the end of the story, Samuel takes over for Saul, kills King Agag (who Saul had spared) after Agag unsuccessfully pleads for his life, and then has Israel burn all of the livestock as an offering to god.

God was finally happy, because EVERYTHING he ordered dead was finally DEAD: the Amalekite men, women, children, newborns, fetuses AND their livestock!

Thus ended the EXISTENCE of the Amalekites, and thus was the god of the OT finally pleased.

Euuh.. just by looking at the face ... the author done been practicin' gluttony, for shore.

Where did evangelicals and Catholics get this life begins at conception? Up to the mid-1800s most faiths including the RCC agreed that life began at what was called "quickening" where the fetus started kickin', around the 17th week, or just like in Roe, the further along the pregnancy, the greater the rights for the unborn fetus.

Now if life begins at conception as the Catholics and evangelicals want to assume, then how can they be against some woman who wants to stop her pregnancy when we all know that there are approximately 40 million abortions caused each and every year when the fertilized egg is flushed out during menstruation. I mean if God can abort 40 million babies worldwide each year, please instruct me in the harm of one woman stopping her pregnancy.

I am all for coming up with alternatives to abortion, yet in this manner, prevention should be the focus, but George Bush and the conservative right wing group refuses to acknowledge nor provide support to help with proper planning.

Even still, if we say to someone you must have this baby, will all the evangelicals be there to help support and feed this child?

I revere life, and would always advocate for other options such as adoption. But to advocate simple "Pro-life" policies with NO THOUGHT to how this will affect the socio-economic future of another person is very wrong.

How many children do we have today who are LIVING and are living squalor, starving, and abused. And that's just children in THIS Country.

These pro-lifers who are obsessed with fetuses, need to think about life for all children. Where are these evangelicals when children are not getting educated, orphaned, and those living in poverty??? Until we see more action here to do something about children who are already alive in the world today, and need our help. I refuse to believe that those who thin it's right to bomb abortion clinics are the real Christians.

Some of the most disturbing Biblical approvals of abortion appear in Hosea:

"Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up." -- Hosea 13:16

Women with child being "ripped up" certainly sounds like a fetus will be aborted in the process, doesn't it?

God sometimes kills newborns because their parents have displeased him:

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

It's even worse in Numbers:

"And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him." -- Numbers 31:15-17

A women that "hath known man by lying with him" has had sexual intercourse. Some of those women would have become pregnant. Killing them would kill their fetuses. Yet Moses orders these women killed along with everyone else, and Moses operated at the direction of god. After all, Moses was known as "the law giver," and in Numbers, he is giving a law that has the effect of killing fetuses.

I don't think it could be any clearer than that: god not only sanctions abortions, in some cases, he orders it.

JJ,

If you want to move to Russia, have at it! Am not coming with you though!

Dr. Cope,

Very well stated indeed!

Anon - Mr. Mark elucidates your position quite clearly .... this is not and can't be a religious issue for Christians, since there's no real religious foundation.

As an example, people violate any or all of the 10 commandments on a frequent and regular basis, and are often protected by the law in so doing.

And as other posters have pointed out previously, if you're against abortion then to be entirely consistent ethically speaking, you must oppose the killing of all people under any circumstances - you must oppose all wars, capital punishment, and most certainly the killing of innocent civilians during a time of war.

In fact, you'd be sorely compromised when it comes to a situation of self-defense - kill or be killed?

Thus, abortion is essentially an ethical issue outside the bounds of religion. And as in all things human, ethics is circumstantial, situational and provisional....and as you say, subject to change, or not.

It's really very hard to establish an 'absolute' rule for much of anything.

JMR:

You guys never let a fact interfere with your right-wing ideology. According to Barna and the Harvard Divinity School (forget the worthless PEW study), there are 15 million atheists in the U.S. That's greater than the number of all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and pagans combined. Not exactly a 'tiny secular minority'.

Second, there is no euthanasia in the U.S. Why do you raise that little propagandistic canard?

Finally, tens of million Americans disagree profoundly with your position on abortion. You do not have nor will you ever have enough votes to pass a Constitutional amendment banning abortion. Oh, you can vote for an outright fascist like John McCain who will get Roe V Wade overturned but take your civil liberties as well as mine. Plus, abortion will still be legal in 20 states and lots of abortions will occur in the other 30. More women will die but that's been part of your 'life' concern.

So, why don't you join with us in supporting action to reduce the number of abortions. Complete, accurate and honest sex education and widespread access to ALL effective forms of birth control are the only path, but millions of evangelicals oppose these things. Or are you too much of a fan of Rushdoonyites like Randall Terry and Joseph Scheidler?

What does the Bible say?

Psalm 139

Luke chapter 1

Sermon on the Mount

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

God who creates life has the right to take it. Human beings have no such right, hence the command: Thou Shalt Not KILL.

Where exactly did Jewish women abort their children or God instruct them to abort their children?

When did Jesus ever teach that unborn children in the womb should be killed for the convenience of the parents?

Why do evangelicals as a mob oppose the right to choice when the OT clearly sanctions abortion? Why do evangelicals constantly harp on the "value of each life" when Yahweh in the OT told the Jews not to bother counting any child one month old or younger as a person? If god put no value on a living, breathing life under a month old, why do Xians consider a fetus as a life worth valuing?

Clearly, the anti-abortion forces are not basing their position on that of the Bible. Why don't they support the position of Jewish law which considers a fetus only a "potential life," and that Jewish Law does not consider a baby a "full life" until the baby's head emerges from the birth canal?

The above questions/observations don't necessarily reflect my position on abortion one way or the other. I am asking how Xians justify their anti-choice position when the Bible and the religion from whence sprang Xianity (Judaism) so clearly disagree with their their anti-choice position.

It's their book, their god and their standard of proof. Why deny the truth of the matter?

Dr. Cope:

Anon/anti-abortionist - nobody really disagrees with your point of view in particular. However and for the record - abortion is a legal right that may be exercised at the discretion of the patient, up to the beginning of the third trimester, at which times legal limits are automatically imposed.

Your arguments notwithstanding, that is the law of the land - and so it shall remain.

August 15, 2008 8:02 AM

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

With due respect Dr Cope, this is an On Faith Forum and issues which intersect with faith are discussed.

As to law of the land, Roe vs Wade did not exist until 1973. The science of Fetology developed after the law came into effect.

Laws are man-made. They can be changed if circumstances and new information demands a change.

That is what this forum is partly about - to discuss issues and suggest changes if they are warranted.

Abortion-on-demand pro-abortionists have redefined human life in the uterus to suit a social convenience. That redefinition needs to change and be brought in line with the reality that the science of Fetology reveals. The decision a woman makes should be fully informed, not based on lies about the life of the unborn child.

Democracy is the antithesis of theocracy - regardless of the religious faith that a 'majority' of citizens choose to buy into.

In this particular case, the majority does not rule, nor is it at liberty to impose it's beliefs on ALL societal members in the form of theologically informed laws.

Protection from theology/religion and protection for theology/religion are both at the heart of a secular nation and it's governance - thus, the separation of Church and State.

As of today, Roe v Wade is the law of the land, and will very likely remain so. A candidate that would overthrow or negate the provisions of this law would not stand a 'prayer' of getting elected - guaranteed.

I'm a supporter of life after birth, how about evangelicals?

To hear the "defenders of life" vote for a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, vote for capital punishment that has killed many a wrongly convicted and innocent person, vote for withholding financial help for the single mother when she chooses to have a baby rather than abort, vote to keep polluters from paying the costs of making people sick with such pollution and environmental degradation, I must say I remain skeptical that they believe in the value of life after birth.

I found a glaring omission in the section on "competence": evangelicals's support for the Bush Administration and its undeniable incompetence, at least in defending the Constitution and International Law, which they promised to defend with their hand on the Bible. So much for the importance of character!

"The rest of us don't want to live in your theocracy."

Athena?

Didn't you mean to say I don't want to live in a Judeo/Christian-majority democracy?

"Evangelicals overwhelmingly want a candidate to defend innocent human life at every phase."

This is a curious statement, considering that Christians and Evangelicals hold that human life is created and born guilty and must be redeemed by Jesus Christ.

For them, there is no innocent human life, thanks to the stain of original sin.

I call bull. Evangelicals want a theocracy based on their narrow-minded belief system. Even Roman Catholics are suspect, unless they're of the Scalia/Roberts/Alito mold.

The rest of us don't want to live in your theocracy.