The Emerging "Common Good" Voter

According most dictionaries, a human fetus is not a child. If the fetus is not viable yet then is completely dependent on his/her mother and is not a person yet. These are basics.

Abortion industry apologists must have minds that are hermetically sealed. The "above my pay grade" cop-out translates to "I am too lazy to think, or I am afraid to think." Their entire argument is some variation of, "Pro-lifers are [fill in the blank], therefore I will excuse myself from thinking."

Do you notice it's only the religious freaks who are making all the noise on this subject? Do you notice that people who aren't religious aren't arguing about this ... except with the religious freaks?

Their argument is a religious argument, they are trying to force their religious beliefs on the rest of us, on all of us.

however else you want to argue about this, that it is a religious argument from the start is undeniable.

fr JWLADF:

>...Defining marriage correctly is a very important matter of social justice, and not some arbitrary right-wing concern. One can be for alternative energy, social justice and believe that marriage is only one man and one woman. Those are not incompatible goals for society.

Marriage is the binding of two souls. It is NOT a religious idea, but a legal contract. One can be for non-alternative energy, social justice, and believe that GLBT's can indeed be married. Those are not incompatible goals for society.

Religion is truly the opium of the Ameican people. Anyone who lives life bound by a book of questionable providence, written by men, and variously translated, that is 2000+ years old must be somewhat pychologically disturbed. Why do people constrain themselves with religiousity? Because their own lives are empty and it's easier to put one's destiny in the hands of a supernatural being instead of taking repsonsibility for one's choices, good and bad. People are free to practice whatever they like in their homes, but have no right to comment on how laws need to be amended to suit their beliefs. Stop forcing it down our throats. In Ireland we are slowly coming around to a post-Catholic way of thinking. Life without the church in a dictatorial role has never been better. Keep religion where it belongs-in church or at home but NEVER in government.

Religion is truly the opium of the Ameican people. Anyone who lives life bound by a book of questionable providence, written by men, and variously translated, that is 2000+ years old must be somewhat pychologically disturbed. Why do people constrain themselves with religiousity? Because their own lives are empty and it's easier to put one's destiny in the hands of a supernatural being instead of taking repsonsibility for one's choices, good and bad. People are free to practice whatever they like in their homes, but have no right to comment on how laws need to be amended to suit their beliefs. Stop forcing it down our throats. In Ireland we are slowly coming around to a post-Catholic way of thinking. Life without the church in a dictatorial role has never been better. Keep religion where it belongs-in church or at home but NEVER in government.

All this arguing about when does an embryo become human seems misguided to me. Any cell or clump of cells actively undergoing metabolic processes is alive from a biological perspective. From this definition, an embryo is indeed "alive", but then so is a skin cell. The real question is, when does it become human and acquire rights? For those who claim this question is "above their pay grade" I think are simply saying, in a perhaps dodging way, that the question is not answerable by science. A freshly fertilized egg has very few, if any, human-like characteristics; a 9-month old developed fetus is indeed human like. The problem is, the development of a human embryo is a gradual process, and to try to pick a point in time when the embryo suddenly becomes human is just not possible from a purely scientific perspective. Those who claim that it is "the moment of conception" need to realize that even conception is a process that takes up to several hours. So, even here, you have the problem with selecting a point in time. What point in the conception process do you pick?

So, it would seem that the question can only be answered from a legal or religious perspective. From a legal perspective, it is akin to asking when does a person become an adult. For most areas, this is defined as the moment of their 18th birthday. It is of course silly to think that a person one second before that birthday is any different than that same person one second after that birthday. But, we do indeed draw this line in the sand from a purely legal perspective. From a purely religious perspective, it is said the fetus becomes human when it is imparted with the soul. This, of course, cannot be proven using any scientific method that I’m aware of. So, it is, and I think always will be, a purely religious argument. And hopefully all would agree this is not enough to base laws from unless we live in a theocracy.

So, where does this leave us? Perhaps with the realization that both sides need to come off from their extreme positions and compromise a bit. Yes, most people consider the termination of a 9-month old fetus cruel and barbaric. Yes, most people do not consider a freshly fertilized egg to be human. I do realize the extreme elements from both sides will disagree with this. So be it. Stop the name-calling, the arguing, the slandering, the insults; and just try talking as rational adults. It might just work.

The psalms are songs and poems that praise G-d, and are used in services to help focus on G-d. They are not laws, nor considered the word of G-d, but hyms written by man. So using psalm 139 as "proof" of G-d's word is inaccurate.

"The response of pro-abortionists on this forum proves there are some people FOR WHOM UNDERSTANDING human embryology IS ABOVE THEIR INTELLIGENCE GRADE."

spoken like a true pseudo-philsopher/scientist. when you can't answer a question, do the next best thing- INSULT!!! Shout mindless slogans about baby murder! Quote physics scientists about biology!

And you wrote:"Prolife education should be directed at the young, who are still capable of learning science and processing new information."

You display absolutely no conception of the human brain and its capabilities. No understanding of the learning process or how brains process new information, even in older people. are you so ignorant you think older pepole can't learn? My aunt was in her late 80's and still taking classes (for fun). Honestly, you know nothing.

Prolifer- I can't take you seriously because it is so obvious how ignorant of science you really are. Yet you are the first to shriek like a banshee about "hard-core science" (FYI- hard-core refers to porn, not science) and then try to base it on a religious right agenda. You toss around the word "baby" "human being" "murder" and you have no idea how to use them in any real context.

some of us actually went to universities. We don't rely on wiki or the web for everything, which, in case you didn't know, is hardly the last word on anything because it lets fools like you talk the talk without walking the walk.

To jprfrog:

Psalm 139, I do not have the actual verses, declares that God knows the person even before any of his/her members were formed. you can read that and form your own opinion.

jprfrog, it has nothing to do with scripture, theology or doctrine. It's based purely on reason and science. You have been a unique individual of the human species continuously from conception. You started out as a single cell, but that cell was not, and could not have become, somebody else. Barring pathology, accident or homicide, it was inevitable that that the single-celled you would undergo uninterrupted development to maturity. At no point did you become a different individual or anything other than the actual (not potential) you. The only question is, precisely when did it stop being okay to deprive you of your right to life? Any suggestions?

BTW, in case you haven't noticed, you're still a clump of cells. (For that matter you're more than half water.) Does that have any bearing on your entitlement to basic human rights?

Some pastors are going to have to answer to God why they taught:

Thou shalt kill the unborn!

In defense of President-Elect Obama's tongue-in-cheek statement "above my paygrade" one can only say, as a lawyer who taught Constitutional law, he tried to support the law rather than challenge its flaws. Among other things he probably felt it was above his pay grade to challenge a Supreme Court law. Besides his Christian church teaches that abortion is okay. Professor Thistlethwaite, who belongs to the same denomination, UCC, confirmed that in her essays.

The Church needs to catch up with science and human rights. President-Elect Obama can only be blamed for believing what his Church taught.

Correction:

Prolife education should be directed at the young, who are still capable of learning science and processing new information.

The response of pro-abortionists on this forum proves there are some people FOR WHOM UNDERSTANDING human embryology IS ABOVE THEIR INTELLIGENCE GRADE.

Prolife education should be directed at the young, who are still capable of learning science and processing new information.

The response of pro-abortionists on this forum proves there are some people above the intelligence grade to understand human embryology.

Once and for all, can somebody tell me where in Scripture there is anything that even suggests that "life begins at conception"? I'm not kidding or being sarcastic. I'd really like to know.

Actually life begins before conception, since both sperm and ovum are alive...as are skin cells, blood cells, and muscles cells. The question is "When does HUMAN life begin?"

And don't waste time and space by simply decalring your opinion. What supports that opinion?

It is hard for me to envision a clump of cells that has not the slightest trace of a human (or even mammalian) nervous system as a human being.

Potentially it is. But potentiality is not actuality, as Aristotle so well taught St. Thomas Aquinas.

BTW, wouldn't free condoms and instructions on how to use them reduce the likelihood of abortions?

And if abortion is murder (of an innocent, a particularly heinous crime) would it not be correct to prosecute both the doctor and the mother for such? And exact the customary penalty, i. e. death sentence ot life without parole? If not, why not?

From the comments I have read from pro-abortionists, WILLFUL IGNORANCE IS PERFECT BLISS!

I am surprised that the election results this year would cause the writer to ask, "[w]hy is gay marriage connecting less with voters than these other more progressive trends would lead us to anticipate?" The evidence from this election is just the opposite, that voters see that defining marriage correctly is good for everyone.
The three marriage amendments on the ballots of California, Arizona and Florida all passed. In California, black and Hispanic voters who voted for Obama put the amendment over the top. Voters understand that marriage is a major foundation to a stable, sustaining society. To allow anyone to claim they have a right to redefine marriage and force all others to tolerate it, will over time erode and destroy a society. Marriage, correctly defined, helps the poor, reduces crime, improves school performances, etc. Defining marriage correctly is a very important matter of social justice, and not some arbitrary right-wing concern. One can be for alternative energy, social justice and believe that marriage is only one man and one woman. Those are not incompatible goals for society.

edallan: Sorry, pal, but with all respect I would strongly counsel you against casting stones on the subject of hypocrisy.

You make the false and idiotic claim that "for the past eight years":

[a] Some mysterious and nefarious evildoers have busied themselves "taking food from the hungry, shelter from the homeless, heat from the cold, health care from the sick and children, and giving the money instead to the rich and powerful".

And [b] these vile cads are conservative Christians!

Hmmm. I wonder if you can substantiate a single shred of that?

Either you have a reckless disregard for the truth, or you are deliberately lying.

You also parrot the idiotic and hoary old lies that anyone who wonders aloud about the abortion culture doesn't care about children in need, is sexually maladjusted, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

I gather you regard yourself as so superior to all "those" rednecks that you can demonize them and lie about them with impunity. Such a tolerant and open-minded soul you are, Ed. Ignorance indeed is bliss, isn't it?

"It is everyone's business when we pay in more ways than one for the inappropriate activity of someone else wherever especially when 34 million womb babies have been killed in the last 35 years."

"womb babies?" Puhleeze!
And how much more is it to raise a child for someone who can't afford it? Much more expensive to society or did you really think that abortion is more expensive than raising a child? And who do you think pays for those kids ? their families get welfare help, food stamps, free medical care. Public schooling and all the programs for poor kids. Get real- the amount of money it costs parents and society to raise a child is far far more than allowing a woman a choice. Not to mention, if you read the Times article today, you'd see exactly how those who are already born and poor or immigrant (in this case American ciizen born of immigrants) are treated. Or legal immigrants- in a "christian" hospital. Cut the BS already. You really don't give a flying f**k about these babies- and what exactly have you done to help these "womb babies" besides trying to take away women's rights and impose your religious viewpoint on everyone else?? Yeah- I didn't think so.

People have sex. better sex education (which the religious right freaks out over- Bristol Palin case in point) would help. Better access to birth control and medical care would be a biggie too. But you seem to feel people should be punished for "doin' what comes natcherly" so I am sure we can forget the education and medical care in our book.

And finally, quite a lot of us don't find sex to be the onus or sin that you and your kind do. I sorry for you that you don't enjoy it- obviously- but what I do in my bedroom is none of your business. there's plenty of stuff my taxes get used for that I don't like- them's the breaks. this is America- that's the deal. the common good- whether or not you agree with it.

It is everyone's business when we pay in more ways than one for the inappropriate activity of someone else wherever especially when 34 million womb babies have been killed in the last 35 years.

And how much insurance money has gone to pay for this?

And how much insurance money has gone to pay for curing STDs for the last 35 years?? $14.7 billion x 35 = $514.5 billion ?????

From the CDC

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

zjr78xva wrote:"That slick packaging, branding and buzzwords do still trump substance and truth."

On the other hand, all that slick packaging, branding and buzzwords didn't so much for sarah Palin so it still looks like the truth still outs.

"That every future U.S. President will have carnal knowledge of the teleprompter."
On a scale of 1-10 on the wit scale- -3. We realize Obama is brilliant but he didn't invent the carnal knowledge teleprompter. You have the Bush administration to thank for that.

"That Germans aren't the only suckers for a charismatic orator."

Yeah- you're right. Look how enthused Palin supporters are. And you don't even have to be a "gas-bag left wing law professor "to inspire those "real" Americans.

"That liberals don't care about voter fraud as long as they're the beneficiaries."

This from the party of voter fraud and disenfrancisment! The specialists- how else did you steal the 2000 election do ya think?

It is disappointing, to say the least, that the people who most claim to be "values voters" are the ones who most strenuously reject Jesus' teachings, as in Matt. 25 and his many teachings on hypocrisy. For the past eight years, it's been the "born-again" "compassionate" "conservative" "Christians" who have focussed on taking food from the hungry, shelter from the homeless, heat from the cold, health care from the sick and children, and giving the money instead to the rich and powerful. So many of them also have been zealots for the invasion of Iraq, which had no rationale in reality and which has resulted in so many completely needless deaths. So many of the anti-choice care only for "pre-born" and have disdain for the "post-born."

It is a calumny to claim that most people who are pro-choice are pro-abortion. As Bill Clinton said, the goal for people who believe that a woman is the best person to decide what is right for her is that "abortion should be legal, safe ... and rare." And bizarrely, also, is that so many people who oppose a woman's right to choose also oppose the right of teenagers to get comprehensive sex education, giving them ACCURATE information about reproductive health. The result of this is, often, undiagnosed STIs due to unsafe sex and, as Sarah Palin's daughter demonstrates, unintended pregnancies. And objections to comprehensive sex education and the distribution of condoms has also resulted in the deaths after long illnesses of the innocent wives, girlfriends, and babies of men who cheat. THAT's really what Jesus wants, isn't it?

The term "values voter" should be retired, as should the values of many of the people who claim that term for themselves.

"Barack Obama, however, had his greatest gains among voters who attend church more than once a week, from a 29 percent gap four years ago to a 12 percent gap this year. In addition, Catholic voters chose Barack Obama over John McCain by 11 percent (55% to 44%), performing better than both John Kerry, a Catholic, and Al Gore. Jewish voters went strongly for Obama (78%)."

Not quite correct. Among Catholics who attended mass regularly the majority voted for McCain.

Religion is a private matter. It should have no role in the politics of a nation that claims it separates church and state. Tax exempt status for organized religions should be ended in such a way as to give relgious institutions time to seek alternate revenues.

Those institutions that did, in fact, endorse a particular candidate should lose tax exempt status immediately.

washtopdx says "I have never heard or read a single pro-lifer..." blah blah blah.

If that is so, it's because you choose not to hear or read anything that might oblige you to question your smug self-satisfied prejudices -- or to think.

Maybe Americans no longer believe Dan Quayle and the Rovians that war, hatred, prejudice, torture and corporate socialism are "family values"

Until the pro-life movement is willing to embrace a multifaceted approach to reducing abortions, we will get nowhere on this debate.

No one is pro-abortion, but it behooves you pro-lifers to think that.

I have never heard or read a single pro-lifer express acceptance of a multifaceted approach to reducing abortions by supporting comprehensive sex education, full support of adoption (including to gays) and support for single mothers.

Nor have I come across a sound explanation that reconciles the disconnect between curiously caring more about a cluster of cells yet to be a sentient being than a 10-yr-old Iraqi child (already bonded to living human beings) being shot in the head by our own soldiers.

I will never understand why there doesn't seem to be more outrage about child abuse, poverty, lack of health care, etc. Why, in your movement, is there not at least as much, if not more, written about these subjects?

One answer: sex. You are obsessed with it.

What does the election of Barack Obama as president say about America?

That you can bamboozle slightly more than half of the electorate at least some of the time.

That slick packaging, branding and buzzwords do still trump substance and truth.

That every future U.S. President will have carnal knowledge of the teleprompter.

That MSM bias matters even though the MSM itself no longer does.

That Germans aren't the only suckers for a charismatic orator.

That all efforts to ensure transparency of political fundraising, limit or restrict donations, or require taxpayer funding, are henceforth utterly inoperative, null and void.

That liberals don't care about voter fraud as long as they're the beneficiaries.

That in America any doofus or gasbag left-wing law professor can be president.

ProLifeActivistBorn59:
"Overturning Roe vs Wade in an attempt to reduce abortion has nothing to do with adoption by gay couples."

Overturning Roe won't stop abortions. Nobody *likes* abortions, even the Pro-Choicers. I think most regard it as a bad solution to a bad problem, and I think everyone would like to see the number go down, but reversing Roe v. Wade isn't the way to do it. You want to reduce the number of abortions? Start pushing to expand funding for contraceptive distribution programs and sex education (NOT "abstinence-only").

prolifer:"

Paganplace, NEVER forget, pro-abortionist propaganda DISCOURAGES giving up a child for adoption to anyone. The justification go as follows:

1. The woman has to carry the child to term, and all the inconvenience involved with it;

2. When the child has been carried for nine months, the chances that the woman would feel attached to the child is high, so giving up the child would be harder;

3. The woman would be anxious about the child's welfare or at least wonder about the child sometimes;

4. The woman has to give up all rights to the child at adoption and cannot reverse it;

and so the solution offered by pro-aborionists?

KILL THE CHILD!!!!!"

omigod- you have really gone over the edge. You are completely foaming at the mouth nuts. right- that's exactly how pro choice people convince pregnant women to have abortions. You picked up the brochure on your recent trip to Mars, I take it?

I truly do not understand the insistence of the rabid religious right to think they have the right to decide everyone else's faith, personal rights and sexual orientation rights.

I think it is laughable that the same groups who condemn us non-believers, persons of other faiths, atheists and agnostics to the lowest pits of hell for not accepting Jesus (a nice Jewish boy may I remind you) thinks it has the moral or ethical bones to judge the "sanctity" of marriage (yes- and that 50% divorce rate) or life.

These same groups who whipped themselves up into a frenzy of Obama hate, who have supported Bush in his war craziness, and who have gleefully gotten bills passed to take away rights from fellow Americans- you think you people have Jesus standing behind you saying, go for it?

You'd have such a better arguments if you weren't such classic hypocrites of the highest order. talk about double standards. (and if you want to get a real gander at the anti-iimigration issue, courtesy of the right in action check out this article:http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/09deport.html?hp

It's about the treatment of immigrants needing medical care- including the treatment of a down syndrome baby who is an American citizen. I didn't notice the religious shrieking right getting up in arms over how this already born baby was treated.

You anti-choicer never put your money where your mouth is. You're all style, no substance. evil disguised as religo-fascists.

Never under estimate the common good of Americans, the most charitable people in the world. We are by far not a perfect union but apparently we can come together when it matters the most. In the days, weeks and months after 09/11, we reached some of our finest hours. No one can take that away from us.

Now, one of our faults as a capitalistic driven nation is that we have a tendency to measure wealth in net worth. An old friend of mine would ask me, "You have friends, how much do you pay them ?". People seldom measure their own net worth in friendship. On a spiritual level, the love freely given by family and friends cannot be measured. And a wise man once wrote, "Of myself, I am nothing...".

Communication, another one of those "commune" based words, is key to building and maintaining friendship. Open and honest dialogue is a requiste to building trust. Understanding one another, essiential to building bridges. What is the goal of building a bridge ? Perhaps a bridge can be built to share the common good.

Now, certain parts of our society have cloistured themselves. History may find that cloisturing worked to prevent sharing common evils. There are certain communities within communities that function to serve themselves. Do some of these communities within communities function to serve the greater good, not hardly.

Have asked myself why do spiritual ideals and goals fail. Oh, I could say that people are just whacked. Or I could say our society is filled with control freaks with boundry issues. Or I could say that our American society is just off the beam. And then I could just admit that I myself am off the beam and I need to change accordingly. Gosh, that sounds like work to me.

Those things freely given have their own rewards as it is written, "Do your work in secret and you will be rewarded in secret...", yadda, yadda, yadda. In any event, a common good ideal for Americans would be that there is no chosen class of people favored by God in our Country because we are all Children of God. To me, that is my personal right of Religious freedom and tolerance.

Religious voters can go broke, too. That's a trump card issue.

Strikes me that the 'guns, God, and gay' issues crowd that went heavy for Palin is about as far from mainstream religion as you can get. I always suspected that the reason Obama went to Saddleback was to show evangelicals that he wasn't as scary as his enemies portrayed him. I think it worked.

Same reason he went on Bill O'Reilly. Not to win votes from conservatives -- that's not going to happen -- but to show he's not the bogeyman.

You know, I am so tired of the term "Values Voter". Because it implies that people who don't share in a certain flavor of Christian Faith have none.

Isn't the primary tenet of Christianity (and really, most organized religions when you get down to it) "love thy neighbor" and/or "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"?

And despite what some of the web sites for Values Voters say, the country was not founded under God the Creator. It was founded on the basis of freedom of religious persecution...basically one Christian sect against another when you get down to it. And while the Declaration of Independence mentions the Creator, it is not a statement of Christian dominance until time immemorial. And the only blessings noted in the preamble of the Constitution are the Blessings of Liberty - the word God appears nowhere in the document.

If the "Values Voters" want to be taken seriously, perhaps they should name themselves something else. There are those of us who do not share in the Christian faith - or any organized religion for that matter - who find your stance utterly abhorrent in their isolationism and aggression. None of those are traits that Jesus Christ (the man or the Messiah, depending upon your view) would have embraced.

Paganplace:

Ok, 'Pro-life.' It was annoying and defamatory enough when there was an election on, but WTF do you want me to tell you *now?*

Should I say, 'Yes, we're all really 'pro-abortion here in the Democratic party. Monsters, in fact. We like to eat babies. Better go pray for Apocalypse.'

Is that what you want?

Election's over.

Time for some reality.

November 8, 2008 11:58 PM

_______________________________________

Election may be over but killing of the unborn is not.

Did I mention anything about anyone *eating* babies? In fact if people were killing babies to eat them because they would otherwise starve to death, they could be forgiven. But killing them for convenience and throwing them away like garbage? That is slightly different.

What do you have to say about *that?*

Don't forget you are more interested in adoption rights for homosexual couples because it concerns you directly.

FOCA also serves to enhance the abortion industry.

Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) looms in the horizon, a law that will overturn all the measures put in place to restrict unlimited access to abortion as a right.

Ok, 'Pro-life.' It was annoying and defamatory enough when there was an election on, but WTF do you want me to tell you *now?*

Should I say, 'Yes, we're all really 'pro-abortion here in the Democratic party. Monsters, in fact. We like to eat babies. Better go pray for Apocalypse.'

Is that what you want?

Election's over.

Time for some reality.

The hold the abortion industry has on the government is chilling.

There are some of us who are vaguely reminded of Nazis and Communists when we think of the passionate dedication to abortion as a constitutional right.

Paganplace:

Try on humanity and compassion more than 4 thousand times per day, every single day, week after week, month after month, year after year, to understand the passion that drives anti-abortionists.

"Only up to 10% of the population at the most is homosexual.

How many couples do they make?"

It only takes *one* when it's *your* daughter.

Try on a bit of humanity for size.

Paganplace, NEVER forget, pro-abortionist propaganda DISCOURAGES giving up a child for adoption to anyone. The justification go as follows:

1. The woman has to carry the child to term, and all the inconvenience involved with it;

2. When the child has been carried for nine months, the chances that the woman would feel attached to the child is high, so giving up the child would be harder;

3. The woman would be anxious about the child's welfare or at least wonder about the child sometimes;

4. The woman has to give up all rights to the child at adoption and cannot reverse it;

and so the solution offered by pro-aborionists?

KILL THE CHILD!!!!!

Let me have a go at the issue of what difference gay adoptions can make to the problem of abortion for economic reasons (which makes up for only 30% of the 1.2 million abortions per year).

Only up to 10% of the population at the most is homosexual.

How many couples do they make?

How many of them would want to adopt children?

How many of those who want to adopt would be eligible in the same way heterosexual couples would have to be eligible - financial conditions, mental health etc?

How many homosexual couples would fit all the criteria for adoption every single year, to absorb the 1.2 MILLION aborted children?

"So anything that could possibly hurt the woman in any way, including making her feel a bit uncomfortable because of pregnancy, is considered a crime."

This is how you are taught to see it, while washing your hands of the actual situations you vote to create.

Again, your vanity.

You don't care about children. Only your sense of righteousness.

You want it simple.

Someone is all too willing to oblige.

For a price.

But the real world doesn't have time for your delusions.

We care for people.

Or we do not.

That's the *real* choice.

All else is vanity.

Despite your protestations of great virtue.

And that's all that is.

Though you may speak on and on and on.

Paganplace:

"It should interest you as a pagan to know that Hippocrates, the Father of Western medicine, was a Greek pagan. He lived in a culture where abortion was rampant because some Greek gods and goddesses didn't have much of a problem with abortion."

Actually, the abortifacients of the time and region were as likely to be toxic to the mother as to even have the desired effect, ...tincture of foxglove would as likely kill the mother or damage her brain as it would avoid inconvenient political situations: and in the sociopolitical situation of the time, even in Athens and Thebes, women themselves didn't have human rights. It wasn't about babies or women, it was about avoiding charlatanry and irresponsible practice.

Of course, the modern Hippocratic Oath neither includes this, nor does it swear by Hermes.

November 8, 2008 9:13 PM

_______________________________________

Pro-abortionists project their own attitudes towards an unborn child to Hippocrates. Abortion as a right activists are only concerned about the convenience of the mother. So anything that could possibly hurt the woman in any way, including making her feel a bit uncomfortable because of pregnancy, is considered a crime.

The life of the unborn child is not taken into account.

Hippocrates however was a physician who cared for ALL life. His instruction to study the development of a chick proves that he cared for the unborn child and therefore forbade medical doctors from doing abortions. It is about protecting the life of the unborn child.

Basically, the original Hipocratic oath was not meant to endorse a Christian 'pro-life definition of conception. It was because at the time the practice of being a physician was trying to distinguish itself from kind of random, often deadly, and invariably0politically0involved herbal practices which were not 'scientific' and could have turned 'physic' to disrepute among a population that actually needed as many citizens as it could get.

As I said, the only abortifacients in the time and place were *poison.* That's all that is.

First fo no harm.

Seriously, though... If you wanna call me a horrible sinner who can't manage her own sex life, trust me on the context of Athenian Greece. Dig?

"s it my fault that you discuss adoption by gay couples while I'm discussing the atrocity of abortion for convenience as a constitutional right?"

Yes. It is a fault of yours that you do not see the simple connection between government letting people raise kids, and not letting Christians hurt women and kids whenever they can say it's not in their Bible to be nice.

Yes.

"They are two different issues and deserve to be discussed separately."

Not in an election, which is over, by the way.

You claim the issues are separate, but this is what you did when you twice propelled into office this *idiot* that has screwed *all* our kids.

Be not proud of that, really.

Now we gotta clean up.

" Overturning Roe vs Wade in an attempt to reduce abortion has nothing to do with adoption by gay couples. "

Overturning Roe V Wade will not stop abortions, either. All it will do is say that Americans have no right to privacy, and *therefore* preachers can force women to carry rape-spawn to term if they so choose.

"Greek scholars made many important contributions to the science of embryology. The first recorded embryologic studies are in the books of Hippocrates of Cos, the famous Greek physician (circa 460-377 BC), who is regarded as the Father of Medicine. In order to understand how the human embryo develops, he recommended:

Take twenty of more eggs and let them be incubated by two or more hens. Then each day from the second to that of hatching, remove an egg, break it, and examine it. You will find exactly as I say, for the nature of the bird can be likened to that of man.

--------Moore and Persaud (The Developing Human)

Paganplace:

As for your capital letters, 'Pro-life,' *your* agenda says that as a queer woman I'm unfit to adopt the unwanted kids of *your* anti-contraception ignorance, yet I'm still expected to pretend to be straight and squeeze out puppis of my own.

Does that sound like 'hardcore science' to you, or is it... Your vanity?

Does it help my 'stepdaughter,' or do you just feel justified hurting her?

November 8, 2008 9:00 PM

_________________________________________

Is it my fault that you discuss adoption by gay couples while I'm discussing the atrocity of abortion for convenience as a constitutional right?

They are two different issues and deserve to be discussed separately. Overturning Roe vs Wade in an attempt to reduce abortion has nothing to do with adoption by gay couples.

I support adoption by gay couples. Anything to give children the love and support they need.

"Hippocrates wanted medical doctors to study human development by watching the chick growing at different stages in the egg."

Actually, I think you're thinking of Dalen. He was a medieval guy who is probably responsible for Christianity not completely obliterating all progress in medicine *since* 600 BC. :)

"It should interest you as a pagan to know that Hippocrates, the Father of Western medicine, was a Greek pagan. He lived in a culture where abortion was rampant because some Greek gods and goddesses didn't have much of a problem with abortion."

Actually, the abortifacients of the time and region were as likely to be toxic to the mother as to even have the desired effect, ...tincture of foxglove would as likely kill the mother or damage her brain as it would avoid inconvenient political situations: and in the sociopolitical situation of the time, even in Athens and Thebes, women themselves didn't have human rights. It wasn't about babies or women, it was about avoiding charlatanry and irresponsible practice.

Of course, the modern Hippocratic Oath neither includes this, nor does it swear by Hermes.

Paganplace:

I mean, let's put it this way, 'Pro-Life.'
I am not in the business of disbelieving in other peoples' Gods.
You know why I don't really believe in *yours* as presented?

Cause I spent half a life watching the likes of you listen to people screaming, 'You're hurting us,' ... and you lot saying, 'No we aren't.'

You know what?
I don't believe you.

Never mind saying there's no linkage between the issues you want to claim authority over.

I've seen you.

November 8, 2008 8:48 PM

____________________________________________

I never asked you to believe or disbelieve in my gods.

I'm only asking pro-abortionists (there are Christian ones btw) to believe in empirical science and the human rights of the unborn child.

It should interest you as a pagan to know that Hippocrates, the Father of Western medicine, was a Greek pagan. He lived in a culture where abortion was rampant because some Greek gods and goddesses didn't have much of a problem with abortion.

Hippocrates wanted medical doctors to study human development by watching the chick growing at different stages in the egg. He did not want medical doctors to be agents of death. They were trained to be healers and protectors of life (NOT convenience of one at the expense of the life of another).

The Hippocratic Oath has been used in modified forms for nearly 2400 years, with the principles remaining the same.

Read the Declaration of Geneva: Physician Oath of 1948 as proof medical doctors are not expected to function as agents of death, even if some may be persuaded to do it for a quick buck.

As for your capital letters, 'Pro-life,' *your* agenda says that as a queer woman I'm unfit to adopt the unwanted kids of *your* anti-contraception ignorance, yet I'm still expected to pretend to be straight and squeeze out puppis of my own.

Does that sound like 'hardcore science' to you, or is it... Your vanity?

Does it help my 'stepdaughter,' or do you just feel justified hurting her?

In other words, 'Pro-Life.'

There is no one you can hurt to 'stop abortion.'

This is about who we can help.

Trust me on this.

Christian.

Paganplace:

And, yes. It *is* your vanity.

Your blindness, your bigotry, and your ignorance cost one daughter of mine the mother she needed.

And F me if I'll see someone else lose another.

Over your vanity.

November 8, 2008 8:44 PM

________________________________________________

If the issue was sexual morality, anti-abortionists would have no reason to be EQUALLY AGAINST ABORTION WITHIN MARRIAGE, WHICH THEY ARE.

So hard to understand it is all about being against killing an innocent, defenseless unborn child? No matter what the excuse?

How many women really died as a result of pregnancy? And in this age when medicine is so advanced?

Even in the days of back alley abortions, the numbers were so small. The large numbers reported were all cooked up to build a case for abortion as a right, by the admission of Dr Nathanson, an abortionist co-founder of NARAL, turned anti-abortion activist.

Death of women in the pre-antibiotic days is once again used falsely to justify abortion on demand.

Back alley abortions and illegal abortions were done mostly by trained medical doctors.

The number of unborn children killed number 1.2 MILLION a year. What we hear from pro-abortionists is that such a number does NOT matter, only the hypothetical death of a single woman does.

The idea is to remove the constitutional right, and to keep abortion legal under certain circumstances, but NOT as a right to kill an innocent unborn, but as the lesser of two evils when there is a REAL risk to the health of the mother, which is not mere convenience.

And speaking of your vanity...

Probably the only book in that Bible you keep hitting me with worth reading, if you got no time for your actual gospels....

Ecclesiastes.

That makes some sense these days.

Vanity.

We got a real world to clean up. If you want to keep on with your issues about sex, I'm liable to get impatient.

I mean, let's put it this way, 'Pro-Life.'

I am not in the business of disbelieving in other peoples' Gods.

You know why I don't really believe in *yours* as presented?

Cause I spent half a life watching the likes of you listen to people screaming, 'You're hurting us,' ... and you lot saying, 'No we aren't.'

You know what?

I don't believe you.

Never mind saying there's no linkage between the issues you want to claim authority over.

I've seen you.

Paganplace:

"I have been mistaken for a male right wing fundamentalist Christian Republican."

Pardon if I can't tell the difference from what you say and do. Must be my fault.

"What would you have to say to me if I'm not one and I do not stand for gun on the streets, exploitation and discrimination of the poor and vulnerable...?"

I would say you're doing a lousy job.

November 8, 2008 8:17 PM

____________________________________________

The lousy job is done by pro-abortionists who automatically conclude anyone who is against the killing of innocent unborn children must be FOR killing borns!!!!!!!!!

And, yes. It *is* your vanity.

Your blindness, your bigotry, and your ignorance cost one daughter of mine the mother she needed.

And F me if I'll see someone else lose another.

Over your vanity.

"If you had been reading my posts under this username on this forum, you'd notice I've been constantly referring to hard core science regarding the life of the unborn child."

Conservative 'Scienceyness' is not 'hard core.' It's selective. And it says nothing about when the human *experience* begins. It attempts to justify dogma about a religious notion of human once-born souls being 'created' during clinical and mechanical acts, which are supposed to be 'sinful' if not done in the context of certain rituals....

There's no 'proof'of your agenda to be *had.* It's based on your religious definitions and counterproductive to even the cause of seeing fewer abortions and hurting children.

All you care about is 'sin,' and blame.

Reality, such as *government* must account for, needs to take care of people productively, when your moralism inevitably fails to make the world right by hurting 'sinners.'

I'm against an innocent, defenseless unborn child having to pay with its very life for the "oh-so-spankable sexual activity," read: complete LACK of Responsibility and LACK of Compassion of the parents of the child.

It turns out that 88% of women who seek abortions are UNmarried. So it seems sex outside marriage is a very high contributor to abortions, not just lack of comprehensive sex education and limited availability and improper use of contraceptives.

I'm against an innocent, defenseless unborn child having to pay with its very life for the "oh-so-spankable sexual activity," read: complete lack of irresponsibility and lack of compassion of the parents of the child.

It turns out that 88% of women who seek abortions are UNmarried. So it seems sex outside marriage is a very high contributor to abortions, not just lack of comprehensive sex education and limited availability and improper use of contraceptives.

"I'm all for "spreading the wealth around," read: getting those who earn more than $ 250,000 a year to pay higher taxes so that the poor have their needs met, basic food and housing and health care."

This isn't about 'higher taxes,' this is about *not renewing uncalled-for temporary tax *gimmes* that obviously did not have the promised 'economic stimulus' effect they were supposed to when Bush enacted them.'

Paganplace:

Vanity, 'Pro-Life.'

If you want people to 'take responsibility' for their oh-so-spankable 'sexual activity, why are you so against people being *infornmed* about it?

Your vanity.

November 8, 2008 8:15 PM

__________________________________________

If you had been reading my posts under this username on this forum, you'd notice I've been constantly referring to hard core science regarding the life of the unborn child.

Nowhere did I mention that sexual education is not important. I'm fighting the abortion as a constitutional right. One issue which is at the root of 92-98% of abortions for convenience.

I'm against an innocent, defenseless unborn child having to pay for its life for the "oh-so-spankable sexual activity." It turns out that 88% of women who seek abortions are UNmarried. So it seems sex outside marriage is a very high contributor to abortions, not just improper use of contraceptives.

Paganplace:

No, I'm just aware of the fact that most of the poor in American cities who are not homeless spend 85 percent of their income on keeping housing.... before utilities.

You know how I know that?

Cause I lived there. While people like you called me a bum. And a pervert for trying to do right by a lesbian partner's daughter. So shaddup.

November 8, 2008 7:58 PM

_______________________________________

The existence of such abject poverty in the US is a complete and unpardonable disgrace.

I'm all for "spreading the wealth around," read: getting those who earn more than $ 250,000 a year to pay higher taxes so that the poor have their needs met, basic food and housing and health care.

I'm all for helping women who would carry their children to term if given social help. It turns out that it would take care only about 30% of women who seek abortion.

Remember I'm against the abortion-as-a-right philosophy which denies the innocent, defenseless unborn child its right to life.

What is needed is a shift in the attitude that was created 35 years ago - killing the innocent, defenseless unborn child as a constitutional right.

"I have been mistaken for a male right wing fundamentalist Christian Republican."

Pardon if I can't tell the difference from what you say and do. Must be my fault.

"What would you have to say to me if I'm not one and I do not stand for gun on the streets, exploitation and discrimination of the poor and vulnerable...?"

I would say you're doing a lousy job.

Vanity, 'Pro-Life.'

If you want people to 'take responsibility' for their oh-so-spankable 'sexual activity, why are you so against people being *infornmed* about it?

Your vanity.

Paganplace:

BUt, seriously, Pro-life, let's not pretend most militant pro-lifers aren't *for* every war, *for* automatic weapons in the streets, *for* letting poor children starve, and *for* the death penalty, however unjust it is and how much incentive it provides for criminals to shoot lower-clasll police officers..

Yes, it's the same people. Own that.

Now that the election is over, if you want to reduce abortions, work *with* us, even if it's more comfy to damn us.

If it's as real to you as you claim, at least.

Right?

November 8, 2008 7:54 PM

____________________________________________

I have been mistaken for a male right wing fundamentalist Christian Republican.

What would you have to say to me if I'm not one and I do not stand for gun on the streets, exploitation and discrimination of the poor and vulnerable...?

Pro-abortionists, as I mentioned earlier, need to learn to discuss one issue at a time.

Cause I know you, "Pro-Life." I know your kind well. You don't want to link the issues, cause that would show your real motivation.

You don't care about mothers or children, or Life itself.

You just want to feel "better" than people over your sexual tabooes and defend your sense of not being responsible for what the comfort your hangups demand take from others.

You don't want to compare your 'pro-life' position with your positions on guns or poverty or anything else that hurts others, cause you don't want to see that the common thread of all of them is nothing more than your vain sense of wanting to feel you are in some kind of moralistic control over others, yet need entertain any responsibility whatsoever regarding the sufferings or needs of others.

Cause you're *vain.*

And I know you.

Paganplace:

What if that's not it, Pro-life?

What are *you* willing to do?

You cling to some injustices, and claim you're 'in the right' about injustices done to others in the name of your 'absolutes,' ...even if you vote for guns and poverty and unwilling pregnancy and ignorance.

Where will *you* give?

Sparrow isn't your enemy.

Nor are pro-choice people.

Someone just told you we had to be.

Why?

Cause of authority.

Our government is not made for this.

It's made so that *we* have justice and prosperity to do good things.

Not so you can get a self-righteous frisson out of condemning people for things *ou* insist on making worse.

And that's all that is.

November 8, 2008 7:50 PM

_____________________________________________

This is another red herring tactic by pro-abortionists:

They question ever so self-righteously -

What are *you* going to do about taking responsibility for consequences of the sex life of pro-abortionist men and women?

What am I going to do to take responsibility for the consequences of a woman's sex life?

Here is what:

1. Remind her that SHE must take responsibility for her own sexual activity BEFORE she conceives a child;

2. Make it clear that an unborn child has a right to its life and killing an innocent, defenseless unborn child is NOT what is defined as taking responsibility for one's actions;

3. Increase public awareness about the atrocity of abortion and thus change the attitude of young women towards abortion, and contribute to changing laws that currently considers killing the unborn a constitutional right.

"If you are trying to convince the rest of the world that all mothers in the US do not have enough money to buy their babies enough food to keep them alive, you insult all those suffering women in developing countries who know what it really means to have no money to buy food."

No, I'm just aware of the fact that most of the poor in American cities who are not homeless spend 85 percent of their income on keeping housing.... before utilities.

You know how I know that?

Cause I lived there. While people like you called me a bum. And a pervert for trying to do right by a lesbian partner's daughter. So shaddup.

BUt, seriously, Pro-life, let's not pretend most militant pro-lifers aren't *for* every war, *for* automatic weapons in the streets, *for* letting poor children starve, and *for* the death penalty, however unjust it is and how much incentive it provides for criminals to shoot lower-clasll police officers..

Yes, it's the same people. Own that.

Now that the election is over, if you want to reduce abortions, work *with* us, even if it's more comfy to damn us.

If it's as real to you as you claim, at least.

Right?

Paganplace:

If you are trying to convince the rest of the world that all mothers in the US do not have enough money to buy their babies enough food to keep them alive, you insult all those suffering women in developing countries who know what it really means to have no money to buy food.

You ignore the reality that 62% of women in the US opt for abortion out of convenience based on their right to their body, even though the life of another human being is at stake, whatever that means.

Babies don't have to eat expensive food out of cans. In most parts of the world and in all parts of the world until food appeared in cans, children did survive eating ordinary food that their parents ate. The parents chose food the children could digest and prepared it in a way that the baby stomachs could handle, that is all.

What if that's not it, Pro-life?

What are *you* willing to do?

You cling to some injustices, and claim you're 'in the right' about injustices done to others in the name of your 'absolutes,' ...even if you vote for guns and poverty and unwilling pregnancy and ignorance.

Where will *you* give?

Sparrow isn't your enemy.

Nor are pro-choice people.

Someone just told you we had to be.

Why?

Cause of authority.

Our government is not made for this.

It's made so that *we* have justice and prosperity to do good things.

Not so you can get a self-righteous frisson out of condemning people for things *ou* insist on making worse.

And that's all that is.

SPARROW4:

It seems to suit your agenda to make believe that those who are against abortion are automatically FOR wars, genocide, torture or whatever, simply because they choose to discuss one issue at a time.

": "My one year old son is not viable if I do not open his cans of baby food and feed him and give him enough fluids to drink."

Well, I have some kind of wild idea that mothers better have their baby food before you even start get in a twist about abortion, then.

sparrow4:

"First comes right to life. So depriving anyone that right is the greatest violation of human rights"

So you are against the death penalty? And against warfare?

"The talk of concern for torture in adults by pro-abortionists is hypocritical at best. "

Ok- Pro-choice people who are against torture are hypocrites if they are not against abortion, but anti-choice people are not hypocritical, if they support zygote rights but are against gay rights? Oh yeah- that made so much moral sense.

November 7, 2008 11:45 PM

________________________________________

Please refer to earlier posts.

Discussing wars, torture, death penalty, starving children in Africa, genocide etc when the topic of abortion is brought is a well known red herring tactic of pro-abortionists.

Clean up your own backyard, do what is in your power to stop the killing of an unborn, which every man and woman has the power to do in their OWN lives, before talking sanctimoniously about wrongs other people are doing in far away lands...

A war of aggression is a war crime.

Targeting an unarmed civilian is a war crime.

Genocide is a crime.

Death penalty for the innocent is an unforgivable crime.

Killing the innocent, defenseless child on the other hand is considered a constitutional right! Do you have enough compassion in you to see the difference?

With regard to viability and right to life, a mother put it so movingly: "My one year old son is not viable if I do not open his cans of baby food and feed him and give him enough fluids to drink."

sparrow4:

"2. Ninety eight percent of abortions are for convenience. At least 62% of women can afford to keep the child. These women would not find economic help an incentive to carry the child to term. Abortion laws in Western Europe can be verified for the role of economic help in reducing abortions. Tougher laws have a significant positive effect.

3. Survey in New Yorker: how reliable is the data? There is a tendency to create statistics for the purpose of a particular agenda. New Yorker is not a peer reviewed journal. Bias cannot be ruled out. "

so if the New Yorker is suspect because of a "tendency to create statistics for the pupose of a particular agenda" your statistics are suspect as well. Why should we think your information is factual and correct, hen you very obviously have your own agenda as well?

November 7, 2008 11:45 PM

______________________________________________

The statistical data base I provided is compiled by a PhD student in Space Physics. William Robert Johnston has given the sources of his data, which are published statistics by institutions like CDC and other government and non-government sources, which collect data directly and are not creating statistics with public surveys like New Yorker did. No abortion clinic would be expected to ask the religion of the person who comes to get an abortion. Public health institutions like CDC have no invested interest in creating false statistics. They would lose their credibility if they did. Besides CDC and other institutions like CDC have a direct interest in IMPROVING public health, not in creating an illusion of creating better health.

sparrow4:

You never answered the question about gay marriage or adoption. this is the problem with anti-choice people. they take no responsibility for their ugliest notions. Refusing or removing rights from gay people but trying to allocate full rights to a zygote. Yes. That just makes so much sense.

Well, answer me this- since you're so up on forcing women to carry to term, would you allow a gay couple to adopt? I mean of course, after you've adopting all the unwanted children you forced women to bear, whether they've been raped or not.

November 7, 2008 11:45 PM

________________________________________

I wish to draw your attention to the fact that I have chosen the username "Pro-Life-Activist" for the purpose of discussing abortion issues.

So I don't discuss my support for gays, my objection to unjust wars, torture etc under that username because as the name suggests it is about prolife activism with regard to abortion. Pro-life also has a broader definition, which is about respecting life at all stages. But first comes the right to life, which is what I'm discussing under this username.

Right of life for an unborn child vs the right of a homosexual couple to adopt are somewhat unsuited to direct comparison. IMHO. One is about right to life. The other is about having the right to raise somebody else's child in a society which is at least 90% heterosexual.

They are different issues and must be dealt with as such.

A zygote is a one celled human being. It has a right to its life. It grows at its genetically determined pace if it is not killed by an external force. It did not ask to be conceived, it does not give consent to be killed.

Women are responsible for their sexual actions. Less than 0.6% of pregnancies are due to rape + incest. Using that figure as if it makes up for nearly 100% of abortions is a diabolic tactic to justify killing unborn children.

Prevention of pregnancy should be undertaken BEFORE the child is conceived. Killing an unborn child is not contraception.

Obama is the most viciously anti-life candidate ever. No person of conscience voted for him.

It is everyone's business when we pay in more ways than one for the inappropriate activity of someone else wherever especially when 34 million womb babies have been killed in the last 35 years.

And how much insurance money has gone to pay for this?

And how much insurance money has gone to pay for curing STDs for the last 35 years?? $14.7 billion x 35 = $514.5 billion ?????

From the CDC

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

so you say. You still sound miffed over other people's sexual activity. Otherwise why not mind your own business and bedroom?

So 35 million unborn babies have taken the brunt of our out of control sexual activities???

How sad and horrific!!!

Then there is the hit our health insurance takes every year paying for the $14.7 billion in curing the nineteen million cases of STDs each year. But, hey, it helps in paying the country club fees of doctors and pharmaceutical company CEOs.

And my sexual activity is just fine considering my AARPie status and that I do not need a $5.00/ea ED pill to keep my prostate etc. running.

You're so hysterical. I guess you're not getting any so no one else should either.

FYI- Compared to the actual number of people having sex, those who get accidentally pregnant is much smaller. (And did you recall that Palins' daughter is one of those having unprotected sex. Sure she's keeping the baby (like she had a choice?) but still, there she is a sinful, std and pregnancy prone teen. despite all her religious upbringing and so-called family values. didn't learn much did she? Or maybe her parents and their church weren't very good teachers?

Ranting and screeching are called for when sexual activity is so way out of control!!! i.e.

-one million abortions a year, over 70 million mothers and fathers of aborted children now in the USA alone and 19 million cases of STDs a year in the USA costing $14.7 billion dollars/year to treat as per the CDC.

That's what I love about ccnl. Always good for a rant and a screech. Quite the schizphrenic- from raving about religion to wailing over babies who don't exist except in his fevered little hyperbolic chamber. Sorry ccnl- you're a troll. You don't care about these issues, you just like whipping up both the secularists and the fundamentalists. You're just like spidey- cut and paste queens, always snippets of your greatest hits. Boring.

The Common Good Voter?????

An aborted child would disagree about said voter being Good!!!!!

And the fastest growing voting demographic no one ever mentions: The 70 million "mothers and fathers of aborted children" whose ranks grow by two million per year. They easily put President-elect Obama in the Blood-Red House!!!!:

You never answered the question about gay marriage or adoption. this is the problem with anti-choice people. they take no responsibility for their ugliest notions. Refusing or removing rights from gay people but trying to allocate full rights to a zygote. Yes. That just makes so much sense.

Well, answer me this- since you're so up on forcing women to carry to term, would you allow a gay couple to adopt? I mean of course, after you've adopting all the unwanted children you forced women to bear, whether they've been raped or not.

"2. Ninety eight percent of abortions are for convenience. At least 62% of women can afford to keep the child. These women would not find economic help an incentive to carry the child to term. Abortion laws in Western Europe can be verified for the role of economic help in reducing abortions. Tougher laws have a significant positive effect.

3. Survey in New Yorker: how reliable is the data? There is a tendency to create statistics for the purpose of a particular agenda. New Yorker is not a peer reviewed journal. Bias cannot be ruled out. "

so if the New Yorker is suspect because of a "tendency to create statistics for the pupose of a particular agenda" your statistics are suspect as well. Why should we think your information is factual and correct, hen you very obviously have your own agenda as well?

"First comes right to life. So depriving anyone that right is the greatest violation of human rights"

So you are against the death penalty? And against warfare?

"The talk of concern for torture in adults by pro-abortionists is hypocritical at best. "

Ok- Pro-choice people who are against torture are hypocrites if they are not against abortion, but anti-choice people are not hypocritical, if they support zygote rights but are against gay rights? Oh yeah- that made so much moral sense.

Yeah, the Nazis were concerned about treating well, those they considered fit to live. The only problem was that they alone got to decide who was fit to live.

WASHTOPDX:

That is, if reducing abortions is such a priority, then why is that side so resistant to implementing peripheral programs? Case in point: a ban on gays adopting and fostering in Alabama. If you want people to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, wouldn't it be in your best interest to encourage as much adoption as possible?

Also a good read is the recent New Yorker story "Red Sex, Blue Sex" on the disproportionately higher rate of teen pregnancy in the Evangelical community. What gives?

I'm interested in how we treat the living, breathing, walking human beings on this earth.

___________________________________

1. Opposition to gay adoptions should not be put in the same pot as objection to abortion. Gay marriage and gay adoption is an issue for some religious groups. They are able to back that with Biblical prohibition of homosexuality. Fear of gay parents somehow influencing/conditioning the sexuality of the adopted child is another factor.

Science has proved homosexuality is not a disease that can be treated. It is an orientation just as much as heterosexuality.

Do not compare apples and oranges: abortion and adoption by gay couples. Adoption should be encouraged but the two should be seen as separate issues.

2. Ninety eight percent of abortions are for convenience. At least 62% of women can afford to keep the child. These women would not find economic help an incentive to carry the child to term. Abortion laws in Western Europe can be verified for the role of economic help in reducing abortions. Tougher laws have a significant positive effect.

3. Survey in New Yorker: how reliable is the data? There is a tendency to create statistics for the purpose of a particular agenda. New Yorker is not a peer reviewed journal. Bias cannot be ruled out.

4. Higher rate of teen pregnancy in Evangelicals, if the statistics *truly reflects* a trend:

a. Evangelical teens are not using contraceptives,

b. Evangelicals are not aborting their unborn children even if they are not using contraceptives. They do not want to add killing an unborn child to the sin of pre-marital sex,

c. They are taught that believing in Jesus is necessary for salvation, but obeying His commands is optional.

5. First comes right to life. So depriving anyone that right is the greatest violation of human rights. If it were not infanticide and homicide would not be treated as serious crimes.

6. Unborn children are disposed off as garbage, unnamed and unmourned. Their names are written in God's book of life. Pro-abortionists do not think of the ultimate torture unborn children are subjected to at the hands of abortionists with the consent of their mother. The talk of concern for torture in adults by pro-abortionists is hypocritical at best.

7. There are Christian Churches and other religious groups which condone the killing of the unborn. For shame.

The Common Good Voter?????

Not if you are an unborn child!!!!!

And the fastest growing voting demographic no one ever mentions: The 70 million "mothers and fathers of aborted children" whose ranks grow by two million per year. They easily put President-elect Obama in the Blood-Red House!!!!:

I'm currently reading Amy Sullivan's book "The Party Faithful: How Democrats are Closing the God Gap." I am not religious but would describe myself as a secular humanist. I was raised Catholic. She's an evangelical liberal and let's hope there are more of them that emerge in time for the next election.

I am extremely tired of the right's co-opting of "values." Enough ink has been spilled on the subject and its inherent flawed thinking. The only conclusion I can draw to make sense of the illogical is that there is widespread fear among "believers" that we "nonbelievers" are actually not bad people.

We lead lives pretty much the same as they do. And that thought probably scares them.

The far, far right-wing Christians are irrelevant to me. This is because I cannot fathom any issue that can't have grey areas. When there is no room for discussion, there is, of course, no discussion.

However, for the not-so-far-far-right, I do hope that one day we can move to common ground and put our money where our mouths are. That is, if reducing abortions is such a priority, then why is that side so resistant to implementing peripheral programs? Case in point: a ban on gays adopting and fostering in Alabama. If you want people to carry unwanted pregnancies to term, wouldn't it be in your best interest to encourage as much adoption as possible?

Also a good read is the recent New Yorker story "Red Sex, Blue Sex" on the disproportionately higher rate of teen pregnancy in the Evangelical community. What gives?

I'm interested in how we treat the living, breathing, walking human beings on this earth.