From SignOnSanDiego.com, December 6:

James Bopp Jr., general counsel for the NRLC [National Right to Life Committee], said efforts to get state laws banning abortion outright "divert our attention and resources into feudal strategies" that would languish in the courts for years.

"We don't think it is yet time to pursue efforts to prohibit abortion," said Bopp. "If a law prohibits abortion in any way, it's contrary to Roe v. Wade (and would be illegal) and if it doesn't prohibit abortion, then what's the point?"...

"Human life amendments have been bouncing around in one way or another since Roe v. Wade," said Susan Hill, president of the Raleigh, N.C.-based National Women's Health Organization, which is the sole abortion provider in Mississippi. If passed, a human life amendment would "be ruled unconstitutional at this point because it has already been tested."

We have here a pro-life organization agreeing with a pro-abortion organization that a certain pro-life strategy is futile. Do you think that 1) both sides of the abortion issue can agree on strategy, or anything; and 2) both sides in this case could be right?

I think we should follow a two-pronged strategy. Pass incrementalist laws while we work on human life amendments. Each side should NOT actively work against the other.

I would like an absolutist to answer this question for me. Aren't state laws incremental? Abortion may be legal in one state and not the other if state HLA's are passed. Wouldn't a federal HLA be incremental? Abortion would still be legal in other parts of the world. (please note that I support HLA's. I am just making a point)

Jill: do you mean "both sides" to mean the incremental approach vs. the all-or-nothing approach, or pro-life vs. pro-choice?

I think that both sides *can* agree on some things. Pro-lifers and many pro-choicers agree that providing a woman with the help she needs to carry her baby to term is better than abortion. Pro-choicers and many pro-lifers agree that contraception, used correctly, can help bring down the abortion rate.

I have to agree that differing sides of an issue probably shouldn't take advice on legislative strategy from each other, though. Just like Democrats shouldn't take advice from Republicans on which candidates they should nominate (and vice versa I guess, though I don't see that happen as much).

As much as we need laws to restrict and prohibit abortion, we need social rejection of abortion.

Students in health classes receive sex education that has no real pressure to abstain. There is little social stigma against sexual activity and abortion.

The stigma is against virginity, pregnancy and marriage.

This is the social aspect.

From puberty on people get the message that if you are a virgin, you are too ugly or a nerd or an idiotic zealot. The message is that attractive, fun, normal people are having sex.

The next is the antipregnancy message. You have to be the right age with the right amount of education and the right amount of money etc. etc. in order for people to support your being pregnant. If you don't meet one or more criteria, there go the eyebrows. No diversity allowed. You are obviously out of control, or don't know what you are doing or irresponsible, blah blah blah, A virtual trainwreck.

Then there is the antimarriage message. If you get married before a certain age, let's say 20, then you are too young and therefore stupid and it won't last, yada yada. The message is you should just use birth control and condoms and have sex till you are ready to get married. It is ridiculous of course, yet real. Young adults are like everyone else. They want love, companionship and commitment. Just because some haven't met their spouse by 20, doesn't mean that none have. The antimarriage message is clear even on college campuses that don't provide married housing.

My friend's parents spent almost $100,000 on a private college education for her. She had two abortions to stay in school and get a 2.0, only to get married and start a family within a year of graduating. They could have made a down payment on a house for her and her husband and saved two lives. But in her social group education is more important than life itself.

The next is the antipregnancy message. You have to be the right age with the right amount of education and the right amount of money etc. etc. in order for people to support your being pregnant. If you don't meet one or more criteria, there go the eyebrows. No diversity allowed. You are obviously out of control, or don't know what you are doing or irresponsible, blah blah blah, A virtual trainwreck.

Hippie
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nope. If you are too young, too ignorant and too poor to raise and care for a child, you shouldn't have one.

Nope. If you are too young, too ignorant and too poor to raise and care for a child, you shouldn't have one.

Because getting help to become more educated and less poor just isn't an option.

(OK, sometimes it seems like it's really *not* an option in this country, but it doesn't have to be that way!)

From puberty on people get the message that if you are a virgin, you are too ugly or a nerd or an idiotic zealot. The message is that attractive, fun, normal people are having sex.

hippie, you're right that this is a problem, but I don't agree that we need a stigma on sexual activity to counter it.

Jen R,

I get what you mean. I have a big problem with the stigma against virginity and of not being in a relationship even though this a normal phase.

This is where women have traded one exploiting pressure for a new one. It used to be if you weren't married by 20, you were a loser and women would sometimes get in bad relationships and be stuck because of social pressure. The new problem is that if you are 20 or 25 and still a virgin, you are a loser. So once again, women are pressured. Either way, she is defined by sex not who she is and what she thinks.

"From puberty on people get the message that if you are a virgin, you are too ugly or a nerd or an idiotic zealot. The message is that attractive, fun, normal people are having sex."

Funny, I fit the first two criteria for being a virgin.

Glad to know I fit an accurate [for me] stereotype. :)

Hippie,

Don't listen to anything Rae says. She's totally fun, hot, and awesome. Guys are just intimidated by how smart she is. It's a shame they can't put their egos aside and see that a woman smarter than them is just as beautiful, if not more, than any other woman. It's their loss.

And being a nerd is awesome! *nerd love*

*hugs Rae*

Dude, I've seen your ale wench pictures. You're hotter than a heat wave in hell. :P

You're just a virgin because no one's good enough for you. It's true. That and I've secretly been killing off all the boys that want to ask you out because I think none of them will ever be good enough for my Rae! *evil maniacal grin*

Hey folks, ... DISCERNMENT TIME ...

for too many decades now I've been stymied in trying to get people to see that the pro-life message is an invitation to live ... an invitation to 'dance' and glow with delight. The rejection and bitterness that stalks my efforts and the efforts of many others, has me wondering if there is in this battle a problem so deep that we almost never confront it.

In the Gospel narratives of Jesus (there are so many parallels between abortion and the crucifixion eg. the mocking), Jesus warns His followers about rejection. This rejection was so thorough and complete that there seems to be an almost palpable 'Crucify him!' in the call to 'Abort him/her!'

I really don't know. Jill asks if both are 'right', maybe both are wrong and just as many followers were 'hurt' deeply by this event, it almost seems necessary that what happened to Jesus had to occur. In a way, it seems we humans seek death ... even some of us (SoMG) are fixated by it. Does abortion mean that this ritual MUST BE?

I am thinking that this is in fact the case. We kill so many humans now that Doug calls this 'the best'. If pro-life is as effective with euthanasia as it has been re. abortion, we're ALL (spiritually and actually) dead.

I presume that just as folks who witnessed Jesus' death as one more ho-hum moment, we too have not learned.

Nope. If you are too young, too ignorant and too poor to raise and care for a child, you shouldn't have one.

Posted by: Laura at December 8, 2007 12:17 PM

The problem with that idea is that the standard is ridiculous. People throughout history have been good parents despite being too young, too ignorant and too poor and are doing it now all over the world. What about valuing diversity?

If you are afraid of paying for irresponsible people try this one. My mother spent money hand over fist on junk then went bankrupt. Her creditors posted a loss of over $200,000 and therefore had lower earnings and paid less tax. The businesses got a break but the rest of the taxpayers didn't. At the corporate tax rate of 30%, her shopping habit cost taxpayers $60,000. This from a woman in a household with over $100,000 income in 1988, the year she went bankrupt. Now a welfare mom costs maybe $3000-$5000 a year in government assistance. She would have to be on welfare for 12-20 years to cost the system what a middleclass bankruptcy costs.

What if she had no kids and got government gov't grants and guaranteed student loans, what would that cost taxpayers? Well let's see. Grants could total $12,000. Loans much more because they are guaranteed, so if she defaults like many have, taxpayers don't have the option of just paying back the principal on the loans. The guarantee part of student loans is to the bank who is guaranteed to get all the principal AND all the interest which is the only reason they would make the loans.

Right now subprime mortgage holders are hoping to be bailed out by the gov't. The loan originators knew these folks couldn't pay the loans but they got their money and sold the loans as securites to investors. So the taxpayers get stuck helping out folks and the middle to upperclass brokers took the money and ran.

Let's not forget the $900 million for the failed HIV vaccine. More welfare for the educated.

Bottomline, welfare moms are cheap. The middleclass and rich cost far more because their mistakes are so much bigger.

hippie, thank you for that post!

Thought this would cheer everyone up for the weekend. Might be the cutest thing you see all week. :D

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1767758

I see that I read the question wrong. I thought it was referring to debate within prolife circles right now. I have been on my feet for the last nine hours so I won't even attempt to get into anything. Goodnight everyone.

John McD,
You really must spend alot of time in adoration before the Blessed Sacrament.

It's wonderful to see the perspectives that our pro-life crew here on Jillstanek.com possess. Mary with medical, Hippie with statistics, Jacqueline with law, Bethany with her personalism, MK with her wit...now you with your contemplative bent. (I'm not ignoring the others, by the way).

Beneath all the temporal, there's the spiritual, and you seem to nail it precisely.

Indeed, I recall Fr. Pavone preach how "This is My body" is firmly mocked by "My body, my choice." It's a path few dare to tread, that of placing the immaterial before the physical. Some out of sheer ignorance (I mean that charitably). Others out of sheer foolishness.

"Does abortion mean that this ritual MUST BE?"

My answer: for pro life, no, for pro-choice, yes.

I've even had a post abortive friend who admitted that abortion is a "necessary evil". I agreed with her that it was evil, just not necessary.

We have here a pro-life organization agreeing with a pro-abortion organization that a certain pro-life strategy is futile. Do you think that 1) both sides of the abortion issue can agree on strategy, or anything; and 2) both sides in this case could be right?

Jill, it's the same old deal of idealism versus practicality. Frankly, I think the Zekes of the world aren't going to win on this issue because they're so far out in left field that they rarely win at all.

I don't want women to lose the freedom they have in the matter, but I certainly think that
Carrie is right - from the Pro-Life point of view, it makes sense to get what is achievable in the real world - incrementalist laws (if they really are possible - I don't know what has been done), and also try to "swing for the fences" as far as Constitutional changes etc.

I certainly think both sides of the argument can agree on some strategies.
......

John M: In a way, it seems we humans seek death ... even some of us (SoMG) are fixated by it. Does abortion mean that this ritual MUST BE?

John, I'd say that different people think about death in different ways. There's a whole continuum of feeling about it, and some people do want to die. Most don't, but there truly is a wide range of feeling.
......

I am thinking that this is in fact the case. We kill so many humans now that Doug calls this 'the best'. If pro-life is as effective with euthanasia as it has been re. abortion, we're ALL (spiritually and actually) dead.

Many humans have always been killed, one way or another. The present time is not "unusual," though there are sky-is-falling types who think it is. Of course, there have always been some people like that too. The more things change...

Sometimes, yes, it is best to have an abortion. Not that pregnancy prevention wouldn't have been better, but once an unwanted pregnancy is fact then abortion may be the best thing to do.

John, one question - what real "rejection and bitterness" do you see "stalking your efforts"? You make unique and interesting posts, and I think people from both sides of the debate can appreciate them.

Doug

Why doesn't this sort of thing ever happen to RTL organizations' offices?

http://www.kvia.com/Global/story.asp?S=7466795

Let's not forget the $900 million for the failed HIV vaccine. More welfare for the educated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

..And all that money towards cancer research AND CANCER HAS NEVER BEEN CURED.
The Diabetes Assn., the March of Dimes, Multiple Sclerosis research, Parkinson's research, all a waste of time.
Let's give all that money to every loose-legged backseat eighth-grader who is willing to crank out the next generation of ignorant trainwrecks!

Great plan Hippie!
(By the way, I do agree with you in one respect - your mother should be doing prison time.)

@Doug,

as you know I am severely, physically disabled and because the problem is a genetic one, the disability is not to easy to 'distance' myself from. So, in a very thorough way I must accept my life as in ALL ways as imperfect. How can I at the same time learn to accept myself and reject myself? The acceptance part is a bit easy, but when I understand that over 90% of kids with Downe's are aborted ... many doctors even insist such be done; and all abortion laws permit death 'for severe disability' .... just where is my advocate? If I should ask for an advocate, would you Doug call for my life or my death.

Every time an abortion occurs, it is a direct assault on a human being's rights to exist. Claiming that fetuses are both living and human but still killable' because he/she does not meet someones notions of 'wantedness' has very strong application for your own survival.

If we try to hide behind our 'rights' as our defense, we will shortly find out that all that legal killing we did also killed any notion of 'rights' (and fairness) too. All that is left is 'wantedness' and any and all 'burdens/'useless-eaters' will be fodder for death. What will be your argumentation Doug to pacify those who want to kill you?

I am dead meat ... being both disabled and over 60. For years now I wondered about the reason for my death ... senior or disability? Do you know? A bullet to my brain is much cheaper than sustaining me, no?

John McD: "The rejection and bitterness that stalks my efforts and the efforts of many others, has me wondering if there is in this battle a problem so deep that we almost never confront it."

I understand your frustration with the above. I have made a decision on Thursday to only read posts, and to never write them again. My posts have been nothing but futile attempts to express my thoughts, most of which have incurred such deep-seeded hateful, spiteful attacks.

However, I did have to post this last thought to you, John. After reading your 9:55 pm post, I had to cry. I would take care of you in a heartbeat, John. I mean that sincerely. I looked at your website a few days ago, and saw exactly as I expected: a distinguished, admirable, well-spoken gentleman.

God bless you John...

Laura,

The point of my post is that whether we spend on a welfare mom, a middle class bankruptcy, student loans, corporate bailout or even research, we are taking a risk that we won't see a return for that investment.

I find it ironic that we most resent helping poor women, which costs the least. Yet we don't resent our much larger losses on other gambles that benefit middle and upper class folks.

as you know I am severely, physically disabled and because the problem is a genetic one, the disability is not to easy to 'distance' myself from. So, in a very thorough way I must accept my life as in ALL ways as imperfect. How can I at the same time learn to accept myself and reject myself? The acceptance part is a bit easy, but when I understand that over 90% of kids with Downe's are aborted

Posted by: John McDonell at December 8, 2007 9:55 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

John-
Not only did Stephen Hawking reveal the laws of the universe from the confines of his wheelchair, he found a way to cheat on his wife from the confines of his wheelchair.
There isn't any one of us who isn't physically flawed, but the abitity to soar in the space between our ears is the greatest gift EVER!

I would never carry a child with Downs.
Having a child who was bright enough to realize that he was physically sound enough - but not smart enough - to engage in real life strikes me as cruel.

Laura,

The point of my post is that whether we spend on a welfare mom, a middle class bankruptcy, student loans, corporate bailout or even research, we are taking a risk that we won't see a return for that investment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The fact that you place Welfare moms and corporate bailouts on the same level with student loans and medical research PROVES that you have no clue.

You might also look up the expression "promise."

It kind of defines the difference between throwing cash at trainwrecks and investing in miracles.

Laura,

I know some find it hard to put a price on hope. However, I know people who have been on welfare and have got it together and are great parents and workers etc. $900 million for a vaccine that doesn't work is simply an expensive experiment not a miracle (unless you are the researcher who was able to make a living off an idea that didn't work). Other experiments have worked out better and we have good treatments. As taxpayers we need to ask for reasonable cost benefit analyses in order to decide what to fund.

It sounds like you feel that it is okay to throw money at projects that don't meet their goals just because you like the goal.

Let's give all that money to every loose-legged backseat eighth-grader who is willing to crank out the next generation of ignorant trainwrecks!

I find it upsetting that there is a strong streak of sexual judgmentalism among abortion opponents. I also often despair that there are people who want to ban abortion but don't seem to have any interest in helping women who are faced with an unexpected pregnancy (at least not if it will mean using any of their taxes).

Of course, I know that not all pro-lifers are like that. It's kind of reassuring, in a backwards way, to be reminded that not everyone who's like that is pro-life either.

Speaking of money,

We have talked about the problem of depopulation and asset deflation and how retirees will be affected. Here is a link to an interview with an economist explaining why investing in the stock market for your retirement is pretty dangerous when the labor pool is shrinking. Be warned, he seems to hate Bush's economic policies as much as I do, which is saying a lot.

http://www.michael-hudson.com/interviews/030711_counterpunch.html

No answer from Doug concerning being a advocate for John's revealing question to Doug. "If I should ask for a advocate, would you Doug call for my life or death".
But I will predict a answer from the sophist Doug.
Yes, I will be your advocate for your life John, because your born and away from the womb by many years.
It makes Doug keep that shine of civility which Doug admires in Doug.
Of course this is done only for "public consumption", since Doug failed a women suffering in despair, and compounded it by assassinating her family and character at this post board. A affair of Doug's vice getting the better of Doug the Vulcan mind weighing decisions, choices and matters disconnected to emotion. Face it, when life got tuff, old Doug got outta there fast, by manipulating her suffering and sorrow. That is why Doug is my favorite Pirate and personality, found in the Caine Mutiny as Lt. Keefer. You know the answer John, and Doug avoids answering from not being able to say one word disparaging his character and personality displayed here.
On the other hand Doug, manages to being a hard hitting pessimist who could easily advocate for the death of John.
After all, it isn't his life anyway, and Doug knows "no sweeter fat then sticks to my bones".
Bet that quotation goes over the head of the Vulcan Doug.
Then Laura, the Kosmic Thug Judge, reveals her vapid vision of Hawkins which must include pessimism about men of course.

Of course, I have mentioned the hillarious fact that those who distort, avoid,deny, and ignore pro life post, to push their pro murdering values at this site, are getting a free ride to spread their pessimism for murdering the baby in the womb.
Which is for AB Laura to understand, that this site is filled with schills, and needs those schills for discussion to take place.
Remember AB Laura, your communicating with cartoon characters for murdering babies in the womb.
They range the whole spectrum of abortion murder advocates. From SOMG(Smith's Old Meat and Garden), a vicious amoral character from Motel Hell, to Laura the lazy philosopher who sums up life as what goes around comes around thinking, that includes some of the most dirt poor post here concerning compassion.
To that Sad Eyed Sally, a pitiful character devoid of actually being able to understand life beyond sexdeath as a dynamic of living.
I may speak for John here, and simply say that John knows he dealing with zombies of the soul, that place where God meets your heart and you exchange sorrows,joys, and disappointments in life.
From Laura the lazymind, to Doug, scratch Doug, he's a narcissist devoid of shame, sorrow, despair, to Sally, who meets only a chemical in her brain to advise her PTSD. One must know Ab Laura, your dealing with those who have no reference outside of their self made conscience which demands their self made decisions cannot be wrong.
It's a rebuke of themselves, which is not possible in those pro murder cartoon characters here at this site.
Remember AB Laura, John's post affected you AB Laura from God speaking to your heart when you read the words from John's heart.
The rest just zombied out.

John McD, that was a very thought-provoking post. I would advocate for you. People with disabilities do have people in the general public that do care about them. The plight of unborn children with disabilities was one of the reasons that I decided to get actively involved with prolifism. We are all dependent on each other in some way,aren't we? People who don't consider themselves disabled might need someone to fix their car,fill their cavity,file their will, or prescribe them medicine. We are all in this together and we all have something to offer.

AB Laura, I hope you reconsider. I feel that people jump down your throat. The people on this board that preach tolerance should practice it. I haven't seen much tolerance for AB Laura and her religious viewpoints!!!!

Nathan, 12/8, 7:37a, asked: "Jill: do you mean "both sides" to mean the incremental approach vs. the all-or-nothing approach, or pro-life vs. pro-choice?"

I was speaking of pro-life vs. pro-abortion ("choice"), Nathan.

Lyssie, 12/8, 7:09p, cute!

I would never carry a child with Downs.
Having a child who was bright enough to realize that he was physically sound enough - but not smart enough - to engage in real life strikes me as cruel.

Posted by: Laura at December 8, 2007 11:05 PM

Laura, you are a sad, sad woman.

Yllas, you are completely correct these people are zombies without a soul.

as you know I am severely, physically disabled and because the problem is a genetic one, the disability is not to easy to 'distance' myself from. So, in a very thorough way I must accept my life as in ALL ways as imperfect. How can I at the same time learn to accept myself and reject myself? The acceptance part is a bit easy, but when I understand that over 90% of kids with Downe's are aborted ... many doctors even insist such be done; and all abortion laws permit death 'for severe disability' .... just where is my advocate? If I should ask for an advocate, would you Doug call for my life or my death.

John, of course I would certainly advocate for you. I like you, you old rascal.
......

Every time an abortion occurs, it is a direct assault on a human being's rights to exist. Claiming that fetuses are both living and human but still killable' because he/she does not meet someones notions of 'wantedness' has very strong application for your own survival.

Nope - the Birth Standard is age-old and massively prevalent in human nature. I know you'd rather it wasn't this way, but being born or not makes on heck of a difference. The unborn are inside the body of a person, and that is a big thing.
......

If we try to hide behind our 'rights' as our defense, we will shortly find out that all that legal killing we did also killed any notion of 'rights' (and fairness) too. All that is left is 'wantedness' and any and all 'burdens/'useless-eaters' will be fodder for death. What will be your argumentation Doug to pacify those who want to kill you?

Honestly, that sounds like gloom-and-doom to me, and it's not borne out by history, reality, and, again - human nature. If we're all going down in a handbasket, and if the sky is falling, then I'm wrong, but for thousands and thousands of years there have always been people bemoaning "the state of things," and to this point they have always been the incorrect ones.
......

I am dead meat ... being both disabled and over 60. For years now I wondered about the reason for my death ... senior or disability? Do you know? A bullet to my brain is much cheaper than sustaining me, no?

Well, you know what we all are, in the long run. John there is no way I think your death will be anything but natural causes. Hey, can I take a look at your website? AB Laura mentioned it, yet I couldn't locate it by searching.

Best,

Doug

Anyone who believes in abortion is heartless.

I'm sure of the fact that there is a hell. Maybe those who refuse to repent will burn in a hot hell, as you support the worst evil imaginable. I'd love to watch you BEG for a glass of water that you'll never get. Eternity is going to be a mighty long time.

No answer from Doug

Yllas, I just now read John's question, and that's only because I have a broken-down truck that's being fixed. Otherwise it wouldn't have been until late this afternoon or this evening.,

For all your buffoonish pretense and false concoctions, I like John very much.

Doug

Let's not forget the words REPROBATE MIND.

Laura, you really can't call yourself PC. You are anti choice. You are self choice. If it suits you, people should do it.

wee bit of advice,

AB Laura, it is without doubt that you have an initial very powerful experience of Christian faith and it does ME immense good whenever you post. I have much help in sustaining my strange life of weakness mostly from Jesus' Mom ... now my Mom too! It is not so-easy to stop, once you have nourished Jesus' Life in you. Follow Him ... if He leads you to read and reflect, do so. If and when He urges you to post, then do so!

yllas, you have made my day again. Ever since you started posting ... I thought of Inna. (Inna was a very, very special lady.) She like you, always talked straight-from-the-hip .... wonderful, wonderful. (Inna died some time ago, but it sure is great to be reminded of her. Thanks.)

AB Laura, I hope you reconsider. I feel that people jump down your throat. The people on this board that preach tolerance should practice it. I haven't seen much tolerance for AB Laura and her religious viewpoints!!!!

Posted by: Carrie at December 9, 2007 5:37 AM*********************** AB Laura, please keep posting! We need your input:] To heck with a lot of these pro choicers and anti choicers. We ALWAYS know the truth. Abortion is murder, and abortionists are murderers. I don't even read most of their gobbly goop anymore. It's boring.

"I'm sure of the fact that there is a hell. Maybe those who refuse to repent will burn in a hot hell, as you support the worst evil imaginable. I'd love to watch you BEG for a glass of water that you'll never get. Eternity is going to be a mighty long time."

*rolls eyes*

Good job Heather, you just exemplified the "pro-lifers are Christian nut-bars that in reality just want to punish people instead of help them" stereotype to the finest.

Be proud.

Jacque, I don't know where you are, but please read this. I have been doing some thinking about our discussion. I have been distancing myself from the women in my circle who support abortion, and the ones who continue to justify their own abortions. I'm done with them. I don't really want them in my life anymore. I'm too good for that!

I'm sure of the fact that there is a hell. Maybe those who refuse to repent will burn in a hot hell, as you support the worst evil imaginable. I'd love to watch you BEG for a glass of water that you'll never get. Eternity is going to be a mighty long time.
Posted by: heather

Dang... cant we all get along? im not telling you that you are going to Hell for not excepting the Divine words of Allah, spoken through his Prophet Mohammad (PBOH) am i?

Liam, No. We can't.

I'd love to watch you BEG for a glass of water that you'll never get.

:: laughing ::

Heather, you're a trip.

Liam, supporting abortion is the most evil thing that someone can do. You support the works of darkness? Then that's YOUR choice.

Doug, thank you. *bow*

Heather: Why? i respect your beliefs, and have NO urge to force mine down anyones throat, so why can we not talk in a civilized manner? Did Jesus not say "Judge not, lest Ye be Judged" and "For judgement is the sole providence of The Father"?

Hey Doug, long time no see.

What's up in the hizzle, dawg? :)

Heather, i do not support abortion. But i dont believe telling people they will "burn in Hell" is going to solve the matter or change anyones mind.

John: yllas, you have made my day again.

John, in lieu of rational argument, such lame ad hominems as those of yllas would appeal to some people.

Doug

What's up in the hizzle, dawg? :)

Hey Rae, hope things are going well for you, and here's to a good Holiday season for us all.

Been pretty furious here - lots of customers wanting stuff done before year's end. Mobile, AL, then back to company HQ in WV, then to east of Houston, TX, and clear back again.

Wednesday, just got back from TX, driving through the first nasty snowstorm of the season in the Ohio valley, when a call comes in, a nuclear power plant over in the neck of the woods of the Chicago/ NE Illinois contingent - Braidwood Nuclear Generating Station, down I-55 a little past Joliet. A big electrical transformer was a little low on oil - the oil acts as a coolant and electrical insulator. We loaded up Thursday and drove that night, getting in at 3 a.m. local time. Yeah Baby, three hours' sleep and to the plant we go....

Now, we do this stuff all the time, come in, set up, add oil. Nuke plants have high security and nervous managers, but this was a real trip - by the time we got through security and all the meetings, etc., a half-hour job turned into almost eleven hours. Things went well, though, and the lights will be on along Lakeshore Drive tonight. The guy I was with and I were dog-ass tired, drove a little that night, then the rest yesterday and got back to HQ and loaded up for another job for tomorrow, in East Chicago, IN. Would have been nice to have an easy day - just drive over there today - but an air line busted and now I'm already 7 hours behind when I wanted to leave and there's supposed to be all kinds of freezing rain in northern Ohio and Indiana.

Other than that, I ain't doin' much.

Doug

Doug, thank you. *bow*

Ha! Heather, I think you have a really good time online. Gotta love it.....

@Doug,

"Honestly, that sounds like gloom-and-doom to me, and it's not borne out by history, reality, and, again - human nature. If we're all going down in a handbasket, and if the sky is falling, then I'm wrong, but for thousands and thousands of years there have always been people bemoaning "the state of things," and to this point they have always been the incorrect ones."

We're back to demographics again. Find out what the latest UN guestimates are .... the male dominance in China has been raised (I believe) by 3 millon to 33 million single males .... what an army!

Coupling this with a population inversion ... THE VERY FIRST in history .... makes me think that those saying the sky is falling are delusional - far too easy! Jesus said: '... people will want the mountain to cover them ...' That seems about right.

AB Laura and John,

Since both of you have expressed consternation about the fact that your earnest appeals have been met with rejection and bitterness, I though I'd shed some light on the subject.

To some extent, you are both telling other people that their views are incorrect, immoral, and a threat to their spiritual well-being. How is that not offensive to someone who doesn't share your views? You are telling them that they lack a certain state of grace which they could easily achieve if they only accepted your view of the world.

Many believers (here I mean religion) here have expressed indignation at outright attacks against their faith, so why are you surprised when nonbelievers express indignation when you attempt to beat them over the head with your religious interpretation of the world?

I think Karl Marx was very close when he said "Religion is the Opiate of the Masses"

by this, i mean, Religion, like opium, can have great benefits. It can be a comfort to those in pain, be used to strengthen a person and even save lives.

But i can also harm, become an addiction and strip people of there families and friends, even causing pain and death.

there are SO MANY good reasons to be Anti-Abortion.... why can people not discuss things logically?

REPROBATE MIND

Let's pay a visit over to the shack at "Heather's Anagram Sunday" (Ye Hunger Adamant Harass)

Bandit Emperor

Raiment Probed

Tampered Robin

Imparted Boner

Dampen Orbiter

Bar Redemption

That sounds just a wee bit busy.

:D

I bet you're looking forward to Christmas, will you be getting some time off by then?

We're back to demographics again. Find out what the latest UN guestimates are .... the male dominance in China has been raised (I believe) by 3 millon to 33 million single males .... what an army!

John, yep, lots of guys over there, probably gettin' a wee bit frustrated. (Or is that "gettin' their wee bits frustrated"?) Still, things are rarely as bad (or as good ) as they look.
......

Coupling this with a population inversion ... THE VERY FIRST in history .... makes me think that those saying the sky is falling are delusional - far too easy! Jesus said: '... people will want the mountain to cover them ...' That seems about right.

I love you, Man, you have a great mind. Love the reference.

Doug

Rae, yes - off from Dec. 21 to Jan. 6., a moment to tame my wild, wild heart. My wife's Atlanta family rocks, and our hopes and dreams are very close.

Christmas is mainly for the kids, Carlo, Franchesco, and Isabella (can you tell that my wife's family is Italian?), but the whole time has a good amount of "adult party" to it too.

Dec. 29 - Jan. 3 we're going to New Mexico, just my wife and me. We have some homies in Albuquerque, spend a couple days in Santa Fe, and New Year's Eve in Taos.

What's up for you this season?

Dawgster

there are SO MANY good reasons to be Anti-Abortion.... why can people not discuss things logically?

Liam, I like the way your mind works, What good reasons do you see?

Doug

AB Laura and John,

Since both of you have expressed consternation about the fact that your earnest appeals have been met with rejection and bitterness, I though I'd shed some light on the subject.

To some extent, you are both telling other people that their views are incorrect, immoral, and a threat to their spiritual well-being. How is that not offensive to someone who doesn't share your views? You are telling them that they lack a certain state of grace which they could easily achieve if they only accepted your view of the world.

Many believers (here I mean religion) here have expressed indignation at outright attacks against their faith, so why are you surprised when nonbelievers express indignation when you attempt to beat them over the head with your religious interpretation of the world?
Posted by: Anonymous at December 9, 2007 11:38 AM

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

Please read my first post above ... it was an appeal for discernment, certainly not any kind of attack. If someone wished to input on my call fo reflection, then they can do so.

Re. my perspective on Jesus' death .... for me a very big deal. For 'others', His death was kinda banal. Strange how these tend to coincide with abortion from the fetuses viewpoint.

Jesus also warned His followers about rejection. It is a 'red' flag .... kinda the way 'the cross' is a 'red' flag to spiritual life. So I asked what the take abortion is. Is it a 'red' flag that MUST BE to signal the end-times?

Doug:

well, most of my reasons are based in Logic. there are waiting lists of people who want babies, and it seems foolish that one person would destroy something that it is destroying someone else NOT to have.

Another is Life. i believe killing is wrong unless it is for survival. Humans were meant to eat meat (omnivorous) so we do, but i do not support killing of things we cannot eat unless in defense of your own life. >1% of abortions on done to save the life of the mother.

Another reason is because i support choice, but also advocate responsibility. We, as americans, have a CHOICE about who will run our country, but we also then have to live with that choice, and take responsibility for it. We voted in GWB and now we have had to live with that choice. We cannot just have him killed and yell "do over" and pretend it never happened.

To me, Choice without responsibility cannot exist. this is why we cannot vote, drive, drink, or smoke until we are old enough to accept the responsibilities of those choices.

Liam,

"there are waiting lists of people who want babies, and it seems foolish that one person would destroy something that it is destroying someone else NOT to have."

This is not logical.

Basically, you're advocating forcing someone to do something that they don't want to do because someone else would like to them to do it.

How is this compatible with democracy, free choice, or any of our American ideals?

@Doug: My classes end this week and then I have a week of finals (two on this upcoming Saturday, the rest the following week) and a safety-training session on the 17th for 3M. Then I'll be working full time at 3M for break. Then on January 4th-6th I'll be in Chicago for a Dresden Doll concert on the 5th (and I'll probably go visit MK while I'm there and get my ears pierced in celebration of my 20th birthday, huzzah!).

Going to Sioux Falls, SD to go visit my grandma for Christmas and classes start back up again January 22nd.

So not too busy, but I should make a good chunk o' change at 3M and I may be able to finally afford internet in my apartment! :D

Anon:

I was merely saying how it is illogical to kill something you dont want, when you could just as easily give it away.

As for "forcing someone to do something they dont want to do".... welcome to the World. i dont want to work, but if i dont, my family will starve. i dont want to drive the speed limit, but if i dont, i lose my license.

we are CONSTANTLY being forced to do things we dont "want" to do.... because not everything we WANT is ethical or right.

Anon said, "To some extent, you are both telling other people that their views are incorrect, immoral, and a threat to their spiritual well-being. How is that not offensive to someone who doesn't share your views? You are telling them that they lack a certain state of grace which they could easily achieve if they only accepted your view of the world.

Many believers (here I mean religion) here have expressed indignation at outright attacks against their faith, so why are you surprised when nonbelievers express indignation when you attempt to beat them over the head with your religious interpretation of the world?"
-------------
Anon & all other unbelievers: (Anon, I apologize if you are a believer...I'm just assuming from your statement)

Of course I expected outright attacks! I just didn't think that they would have the effect on me that they did.

My Father is the King of Kings & Lord of Lords, and I am humbled and blessed to be His daughter.

If I knew of a man in the desert that stood along side of a road handing out $1,000,000.00 checks to anyone who would come and simply shake his hand; And this man had an unlimited supply of money, didn't ask any questions, and simply handed you over the check after shaking his hand. If I knew of this man, and received a check from him, of course I would tell as many people as I could about him! Those who didn't believe me, of course I would keep trying!

If I went to Vegas, and there was a wheel to spin that only had two colors, red & green intermittently and I had $10,000.00; The man spinning the wheel said, "if you spin the wheel and hit a green spot, you will win double your bet. If you hit a red spot, you get a free spin. You can play as long as you want." The wheel was tucked way back in a corner that wasn't visible to many. Again, I would tell as many people as I could about this wheel!

The way I see it, (between believers & unbelievers) is that one of us is wrong. Can only be. If a believer is wrong, he loses absolutely nothing. When he dies, he's done.
However, if an unbeliever is wrong, he loses EVERYTHING!

I apologize if I "beat anyone over the head", or personnaly attacked their non-belief. I don't believe I did...but if so, please understand that it was out of love for you, not hate. I believed I just stated my opinion as a comment, and if you took it as a personal attack, I am sorry. I don't believe I have ever called anyone a derragotory name on these threads, although I have been called many. Again, I expected it, but didn't think it would have the type of effect on me that it did.

I realized, for myself at least, that some things are bigger us. I had no idea until I read some threads that abortion had been going on since ancient times. I personnaly feel that this issue is bigger than I. I'm not giving up, I'm simply going to "let go & let God"...I will be praying for everyone here, and all mothers that are contemplating abortion.

I can't, but God can. This is what I have learned.

I am not sure that it is incrementalism vs. HLA or proabortion vs. antiabortion.

I think the abortion issue is a human rights issue best tackled by education. That is why it is so important for young people to be educated about prenatal development and for them to see with their own eyes what abortion really is.

Like most human rights issues, people can't care if they don't know about it.

Some will say that everyone knows about the issues surrounding abortion. I think that depends on age and social group. I don't think that every 5th grader knows when an unborn baby's heart starts to beat. It isn't in the curriculum. I think it is at least as important as a scientific fact as knowing that frogs become tadpoles and then frogs. Much of biology focuses on human life so it is as reasonable to teach kids about prenatal development as it is to teach them about tadpoles.

If 5th graders were making posters and oral presentations about human prenatal development, and bringing in their fuzzy ultrasound pictures of themselves for show and tell, the next generation would have a fresh perspective on the beginning of human life. I would like to see that change in the elementary, middle school and highschool curriculum.

AB Laura,

DON'T YOU DARE DESERT US!!!! THAT'S AN ORDER!!!!

Can it be tough sometimes? Of Course. Can your feelings get hurt? Oh Yeah! Do you spend evenings crying sometimes, because of the darkeness? You Bethcha!

Look at the cross. I don't hear Him complainin'.

Your view is valid, important and very, very welcome. If not by all, then certainly by those of us that are "less smart" as Laura would say. And if you leave I'll hunt you down like a mad dog.

Now get typin!!!!!

Sometimes in a war you gotta fight the enemy one on one...and sometimes you drop a bomb.

Incrementalists can take em out one by one, but if the bomb hits it's mark, whose gonna complain?

I say, fight the war with any and every means...

There's those of us that pray, hold signs, go to Washington, State Capitals, write for newspapers, run for office, stand outside clinics, work in CPC's, blog on websites...

There's a millions jobs to be done. Why is one better than the other? If the goal is to end abortion then let's do it already.

by this, i mean, Religion, like opium, can have great benefits. It can be a comfort to those in pain, be used to strengthen a person and even save lives.

But i can also harm, become an addiction and strip people of there families and friends, even causing pain and death.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Patriotism, like religion and whiskey, is a good thing taken in moderation." Mark Twain

Your view is valid, important and very, very welcome. If not by all, then certainly by those of us that are "less smart" as Laura would say.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I would never say "less smart."
That's about as awkward as English gets...

@MK: Did you get the email that I sent you yesterday?

It makes Doug keep that shine of civility which Doug admires in Doug.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I always wonder who Yllas is talking about.
She's always so vague...

Liam,

"I was merely saying how it is illogical to kill something you dont want, when you could just as easily give it away."

But it isn't "just as easy" to give it away. Last time I checked, childbirth and pregnancy were not "easy" and can pose a significant threat to a woman's health.

"As for "forcing someone to do something they dont want to do".... welcome to the World. i dont want to work, but if i dont, my family will starve. i dont want to drive the speed limit, but if i dont, i lose my license."

Ah yes, I realized after I made that statement that I'd opened myself up to this.

You don't have to work. No one is forcing you. You could let your family starve.

You also don't have to drive the speed limit. Once again, no one is forcing you. You could speed if you wanted to.

"we are CONSTANTLY being forced to do things we dont "want" to do.... because not everything we WANT is ethical or right."

The best extension of your logic that I could come up with is thus.

you said:"there are waiting lists of people who want babies, and it seems foolish that one person would destroy something that it is destroying someone else NOT to have."

(Leaving aside for the moment the issue that it does destroy someone not to be able to have a baby and that the adoption system in this country is an incredible mess. I don't have the exact figure at hand, but there are tons of children languishing in foster care. If these couples are so desperate for a child, why not adopt one of them?)

Your argument is that it is valid to force someone to do something that they do not want to do--well, actually its more than that, in this case you're arguing that it is permissible to "use" someone's body against her/his will--because someone else would really like to.

So then why can't men simply legally force unwilling women to have sex with them? After all, the man really wants to have sex with her. So why should she be able to deny him?

AB Laura,

"Of course I expected outright attacks! I just didn't think that they would have the effect on me that they did."

At least you expected them. You know, your actions (well, at least your words) might be undermining your cause. Generally, one doesn't convert because someone else screams in his/her ear and verbally abuses them until they do so.

If you genuinely want to show someone "the way" (assuming that your way is right) and convince them to accept your beliefs, you should try to befriend them and engage them in genuine conversation. Otherwise, it comes across as you simply attempting to prove your own moral superiority.

"The way I see it, (between believers & unbelievers) is that one of us is wrong."

And what makes your beliefs correct?

"Can only be. If a believer is wrong, he loses absolutely nothing. When he dies, he's done.
However, if an unbeliever is wrong, he loses EVERYTHING!"

I love this argument. It rests on several problematic premises that are easily disproven.

Foremost, it assumes that there are no costs to worshiping/believing. That is not necessarily true. Additionally, it assumes that one can simply force oneself to believe. This is not necessarily the case.

For sake of argument, let's assume that you are correct and it is safer to believe in a god. Which one should a person believe in? Last time I checked, the Christian god wasn't the only one out there. There's Zeus, Athena, Vishnu, Allah, Mars, Venus, Shiva, ect. Which one is the "real" one?

Your assumption that it is safest to believe in a god is also problematic. It might be safest to believe in a god if you believe in the "true" god, but what about all those people who believe in a different god? Who's to say that the "true" god might not be an extremely jealous and vindictive god who would actually prefer people to deny the existence of god as opposed to worshiping a false one?

"I'm not giving up, I'm simply going to "let go & let God"...I will be praying for everyone here, and all mothers that are contemplating abortion."

See, here's where you come across as trying to prove your moral superiority. What is to be gained from telling someone who doesn't agree with you that you're going to pray for them in hopes that they will change their wicked ways? All you're doing is indicating to them that they lack a state of grace which they should aspire to. The problem is not that you pray for them but that you insist on telling them that you do so.

John,

Honestly, that was directed more at Laura than you.

Generally, you don't beat people over the head with things while she tends to.

"Jesus also warned His followers about rejection. It is a 'red' flag .... kinda the way 'the cross' is a 'red' flag to spiritual life. So I asked what the take abortion is. Is it a 'red' flag that MUST BE to signal the end-times?"

People have been predicted the end of times since the middle ages. I sincerely doubt that they've got it right this time.

The prophecies in the Bible are so vague that they could be taken to mean almost anything.

Anon:

Very simply, the rest of what i said originally. CHOICE.

we cannot Choose for someone, but a woman (and her partner) choose to have sex. they know the risks, and make the CHOICE. rape is wrong for the same reason murder is.... there is no Choice.

Abortion is wrong for the same reason rape is. the Victim has no choice.

Liam,

"Very simply, the rest of what i said originally. CHOICE."

So then what about pregnancy resulting from rape? Should a woman be forced to gestate even when, using your logic, she never consented to the risks of having sex?

"we cannot Choose for someone, but a woman (and her partner) choose to have sex. they know the risks, and make the CHOICE."

This argument again. So engaging in an action that carries a particular consequence limits one to having only one option to deal with said consequence. That makes perfect sense.

So why do drunk drivers who get in car accidents and get severely injured receive medical care?

"rape is wrong for the same reason murder is.... there is no Choice."

That's a simplified view of murder. At the moment, assisted suicide is illegal as well (except, I believe in Oregon).

"Abortion is wrong for the same reason rape is. the Victim has no choice."

Abortion has no victims (at least before viability), whereas outlawing abortion makes every woman a victim.

"I'm not giving up, I'm simply going to "let go & let God"...I will be praying for everyone here, and all mothers that are contemplating abortion."

See, here's where you come across as trying to prove your moral superiority. What is to be gained from telling someone who doesn't agree with you that you're going to pray for them in hopes that they will change their wicked ways? All you're doing is indicating to them that they lack a state of grace which they should aspire to. The problem is not that you pray for them but that you insist on telling them that you do so.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 9, 2007 3:38 PM

People who say they will pray for someone who doesn't share the same religion or even any religion aren't trying to act superior. I knew this Hindu substitute teacher who worked in our building now and then and she was always praying for someone and telling them about some miracle by some prophetess teacher and passing out little blessing cards. Anyway, she was just trying to show her concern for others in the way she knew how. She knew we weren't Hindus and she wasn't arrogant. I really appreciated the way she remembered people and was warm and friendly. I was not offended by her prayers.

"So then what about pregnancy resulting from rape? Should a woman be forced to gestate even when, using your logic, she never consented to the risks of having sex?"

Right, we should totally make laws based on >1% of occurences. Murder should be legal, because sometimes its self defense.

We dont make laws on the VAST MINORITY of cases.

"So why do drunk drivers who get in car accidents and get severely injured receive medical care?"

Saving a life is priority. if the woman will DIE without one, i would not protest her abortion... again thats less then 1% of cases.

Liam,

"Right, we should totally make laws based on >1% of occurences. Murder should be legal, because sometimes its self defense."

That wasn't my question. My question was if abortion should be permissbile in cases of rape. I didn't ask about other cases or whether we should keep abortion legal because some pregnancies are due to rape. I asked if abortion should be allowed in cases of rape regardless of whether or not abortion itself is outlawed.

"Saving a life is priority. if the woman will DIE without one, i would not protest her abortion... again thats less then 1% of cases."

And what if there is no life to save (ie. abortion)?

Anon:

to answer your question, i would still say no. because you cannot use one crime to justify another. "i got robbed, so i stole my neighbours TV" just doesnt work.

"And what if there is no life to save (ie. abortion)?"

to imply a Foetus is not alive one would hgave to hgave no knowledge of Biology. A cell is alive, all things made of Organic Cells are alive... thus a foetus is ALIVE.

See, here's where you come across as trying to prove your moral superiority. What is to be gained from telling someone who doesn't agree with you that you're going to pray for them in hopes that they will change their wicked ways? All you're doing is indicating to them that they lack a state of grace which they should aspire to. The problem is not that you pray for them but that you insist on telling them that you do so.
Posted by: Anonymous at December 9, 2007 3:38 PM

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

I thought AB Laura's analogy was specific, insightful and correct ... the one about the fella handing out $1,000,000 ((the amt. though is more in the billion-dollar range + YOU need do something - instead of shaking His hand, give Him a glass of water - He thirsts (said so Himself). ))

Declaring that you love someone is 'oppressive'. This is stupidity unlimited. If you say your morality is love-based and is inferior to logic-based 'morality' .... I have some real estate for you near the Brooklin Bridge ... . AB Laura's willingness to pray is not condescending, but then again this real-estate deal in Brooklin ...

I posted something a while back talking about the different religious opinions with regard to abortion and when life begins. There are major differences between the major religions and to me it seems that the "mainstream" abortion debate in this country is always presented from the Christian perspective. This concerns me in that you don't often hear the perspective of other religions in debate.
In my previous comment I mentioned concern for how an interpretation of this issue by only one religion, might affect religious freedom in this country. I gave the example of Jewish law, which has many differences from that of Christian belief.
Jewish law (Halacha) neither bans abortion nor does it allow for indiscriminate abortion "on demand". As a general rule, abortion in Judaism is permitted only if there is a direct threat to the life of the mother by carrying the fetus to term or through the act of childbirth. In such a circumstance, the baby is considered a "rodef", or a pursuer after the mother with the intent to kill her and in this circumstance the mother is obligated to abort the fetus. This is in contrast to what the Vatican says which does not permit abortion even if it would save the mother's life, since one evil (the abortion) can not be committed in order to prevent another (the death of the mother) and in this case the doctor must let nature take its course even if it means the death of both mother and child.

Judaism also recognizes psychiatric, physical factors and whether or not the baby would be a threat to it's siblings (for example lack of resources, food etc.) in evaluating the potential threat that the fetus poses.

There is another big difference between Jewish law and Christian belief. The Jewish faith does not consider the fetus a "full life" equal to the mother's until it's head is out of the birth canal, this is in contrast to what the Vatican and most Christian religion's believe which is that life begins at conception, or even a few weeks before according to the pope.

My previous post went into these issues with a bit more detail, and I think I mentioned a few other major religions (Islam, Buddhism...) But the point I wanted to raise is that often, other religion's views of the abortion issue don't get included in the debate. Thus if a law were going to be enacted stating that life begins at conception...well, this is in fact a religious interpretation from the Christian perspective and would exclude other religions who have different beliefs and might threaten religious freedom and be akin to theocratic law. Thus I think any law needs to allow for different religious beliefs.

Personally, I don't think criminalizing abortion will work. I also feel that the federal government has no place in this issue (that's my libertarian streak). This is a state issue and should be dealt with at the local level. But criminalizing abortion at the federal level will only lead to a black market that will place an unequal burden on women when men are just as responsible (it takes two to make a baby and often the father is just as responsible for a decision to abort as the mother is). Furthermore, our jails are already overcrowded from a racist, unconstitutional drug war that doesn't work and only makes matters worse (the U.S. locks up more of it's citizens than communist China!). I don't think that making things illegal and instituting a "nanny state" is the answer, whether it be drugs, pornography, cigarettes or abortion. Even if we don't like these things, the answer to reducing this behavior is not going to be found through criminalization and legal sanctions. I think the best route is to motivate people socially to reduce and alter certain behaviors and to provide outreach and help, not punishment and jail sentences. This requires education for both men and women, and increased access to prenatal care and health services for women and children.

Liam,

"to answer your question, i would still say no. because you cannot use one crime to justify another. "i got robbed, so i stole my neighbours TV" just doesnt work."

So then why do you bother arguing about consent? Basically, to you, women don't matter in the slightest and you have no problem telling women that their lives are not worth as much as the contents of their uteruses.

"to imply a Foetus is not alive one would hgave to hgave no knowledge of Biology. A cell is alive, all things made of Organic Cells are alive... thus a foetus is ALIVE."

A fetus is alive in the same sense a skin cell is alive. Should it also be illegal to scratch because you might kill a skin cell?

Hippie,

"People who say they will pray for someone who doesn't share the same religion or even any religion aren't trying to act superior."

It depends on the circumstance. If a friend I knew told me that she was going to pray for me because I was going through a rough patch, I'd probably be touched.

The different between what AB Laura does and what the sub. in your example does is twofold.

First, she does not know anything about me. Why should she care what I think, what I believe, or what my life is like? What possible benefit could it be to me (if what say of prayer is true) to know that some perfect stranger who doesn't know anything about me feels the need to pray for me?

Secondly, she is openly trying to convert me. In that context, throwing in prayer is abusive.

Anon:

Keep your false insights to my personal life to yourself ok? i have been married almost a decade now, and my wife means more to me then anything.

also, did i NOT SAY if it saved a womans life i support abortion? Are you illiterate or just ignoring that?

Also, Scratching removes dead skincells not living ones. take some biology classes.

John,

"I thought AB Laura's analogy was specific, insightful and correct ... the one about the fella handing out $1,000,000 ((the amt. though is more in the billion-dollar range + YOU need do something - instead of shaking His hand, give Him a glass of water - He thirsts (said so Himself). ))"

There is a difference between saying "I believe this" and saying "I believe this and you MUST believe it."

"Declaring that you love someone is 'oppressive'."

Prayer does not equal love.

"Basically, to you, women don't matter in the slightest and you have no problem telling women that their lives are not worth as much as the contents of their uteruses."

What a crock. All women are the contents of someone's uterus at some time, or they would not exist. Also, go check out realchoice.0catch.com before you go parroting that tired, discredited old "safe & legal" tripe. The only people legalizing abortion made it safer for was the abortionists, not women, and not children, male OR FEMALE.

Next time your car breaks down, will you call a fully matured skin cell or a grown up foetus?

Abortion has no victims (at least before viability), whereas outlawing abortion makes every woman a victim.

Posted by: Anonymous at December 9, 2007 4:01 PM******************* BS..who told you that?

Who went and made women victims? In most cases, they have done this to themselves!!! Who pulled their pants down and gave the man permission to penetrate her vagina?

Next time your car breaks down, will you call a fully matured skin cell or a grown up foetus?

Posted by: just thinking... at December 9, 2007 5:16 PM

LOL! I thought your entire post was excellent!

just thinkin...LOL! Let's never forget that abortionists stalk, rape, and have molested their patients. PC women have helped to make this possible.

"Let's never forget that abortionists stalk, rape, and have molested their patients. PC women have helped to make this possible."

Last I checked, PC women don't tell or force abortionists to stalk, rape and molest their patients. That is due to the abortionist's own poor judgment/lack of decency.

Re Heather: "just thinkin...LOL! Let's never forget that abortionists stalk, rape, and have molested their patients. PC women have helped to make this possible."

So what are you saying, that every time a woman goes to her gynecologist and gets a routine pelvic exam that the doctor is molesting her??? Maybe this is part of an inside joke that I missed???

Nicole, stick around. I'll do some posting.

just thinkin...LOL! Let's never forget that abortionists stalk, rape, and have molested their patients. PC women have helped to make this possible.

Posted by: heather at December 9, 2007 5:44 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Yes, and priests rape children.
Christians have helped to make this possible.

Abortionist joked and laughed during abortion

One abortion patient reported that,

"I was almost 5 months when I told my mother so I had to pay $1,000 to have a saline abortion and the doctor stuck this big needle in my stomach and joked and laughed the whole time like he was at a golf game with his country club buddies and he had no emotion or empathy for me it was awful and demeaning, then I was admitted into the hospital until I delivered the baby, the pain that I had with the delivery were terrible and when the baby came the insensitive nurse said It's a girl! Like it was a normal delivery and it was a happy occasion but all I could do was cry, after that I was taken into another room where the doctor removed the after birth and checked me for missing body parts from the baby and there was so much blood I thought I was gonna die right there. Then they put the baby in a jar and left her in the bathroom on the edge of the shower for me to see."

@Nicole: Just wait, she's going to start spamming the comment section with 10-20 odd posts about evil abortionists that molest, rape, and bad-talk their patients.

It's a real trip as she does it at least once per day or at least once per thread.

Patient awoke to find abortionist raping her

In 1995, abortionist Lawson A. Akpulonu found himself in trouble. Akpulonu, 49 at the time of his arrest , worked for three abortion clinics, and according to the LA Times (LA Doctor’s license is suspended in sex case: 2/18/1995), was arrested while at work at one of the clinics, the Midland Medical Center in Culver City.

The LA Times reported that documents filed by the attorney general stated that a patient told authorities that Akpulonu performed an abortion on her in a Culver City clinic Jan. 28, 1995, and that while she was still under anesthesia after the procedure, the documents state that she "awoke to find respondent raping her. . . . Akpulonu gave (the) patient . . . a shot and she went back to sleep."
They also reported that, another patient said Akpulonu fondled her after he performed an abortion on her at a South Gate clinic Nov. 9, 1992. Another patient alleged that Akpulonu made sexual comments to her and touched her improperly during a clinic visit Aug. 2, 1994.

A March 18,1993 LA Times article entitled, State slow to discipline physicians, reporting on how slow the state of California is to discipline bad doctors stated that Akpulonu pleaded guilty to medical insurance fraud and in 1992 one of Akpulonu's employees complained to the Medical Board that the doctor did not sterilize his surgical tools and used untrained people to assist in operations. A January 31,1993 article said that Akpulonu had been convicted of threatening enemies with a loaded gun

In 1996, the Medical Board of California revoked Akpulonu's license.

Rae, for the record, you are a piece of work.

Lifestyle of an abortionist

On January 15, 1999, abortionist Neville W. Duncan was placed on 18 months' probation, sentenced to 30 days in jail and fined $250 after pleading no contest to charges that he beat his wife and was arrested with crack cocaine in his pocket.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article, Doctor sentenced to 30 days in jail, A prosecutor in the case stated that,

"When you are providing medical services to others, they expect you to be healthy and in a good way. . . . In this case, I want him to be monitored. If he is to continue as a medical professional, he needs to remain absolutely drug-free."

Here is the mug shot of Duncan from the time of the event.

Abortionist asks patients to masturbate

In February of 2006, the California Board of Osteopathic Examiners requested that abortionist Laurence A. Reich turn in his medical license (case #00200000100800).

Documents of the accusations presented to the board include allegations that Reich fondled one woman during an exam, asked her if it felt good and then kissed her. Another woman said that Reich was sexually excited during an exam and asked her to stimulate herself so that he could diagnose an infection. Another said he asked her to stimulate herself in front of him and later asked her to demonstrate an oral sex technique on his thumb.

This was the end of a story that began in 1982 when a complaint was filed by the board against Reich that included allegations from six women, four accusing him of sexual impropriety and two of incompetence

As a result of these allegations, the board placed Reich on probation from 1984 to 1994, and required that he have a nurse present while treating patients, according to court records. Initially Reich?s license was revoked, but the board stayed the revocation for 10 years as long as Reich followed certain terms.

However, in 2002, Reich was again accused of performing sexual acts on his patients. .

An October 30, 2005 article in the LA Daily News entitled, Convicted physician continues practicing, said that patients accused Reich of sticking his fingers inside their vaginas without medical necessity and asking them inappropriate questions about their sexuality then Reich gave the women his home phone number.

In one instance, the case revealed that Reich was accused of asking a patient some very personal questions about her sex life, if she had ever had an extra-marital affair, if she was happy with her husband, and about her sexual fantasies.

Reich then reportedly placed his hands on her genitals and rubbed her. He asked her if she masturbated and if her vagina became easily lubricated. He then requested that she lubricate herself, the patient asked Reich if he meant that she should masturbate and Reich replied in the affirmative. The patient refused.

Sheila Elder one of Reich?s accusers said that she was referred to the Family Planning Medical Clinic in Van Nuys through a friend. Elder was 29 when she visited Reich's clinic on Sept. 25, 1999, seeking to renew her birth-control prescription, according to the complaint filed by the Attorney General's Office.

Her complaint alleges Reich touched her inappropriately, told her she had cervical scarring, and that she should schedule another appointment so he could examine her further. After the exam, Reich asked for her home phone number, and gave Elder his home, work and pager numbers, according to the complaint. He pushed for the follow-up visit to further examine the scarring, she said. Instead, Elder followed up with her family physician, who said he found no sign of scarring.

Yvette Chambers stumbled on the clinic through a 411 telephone call. She told CNN (California case shows need for checking doctors' backgrounds: 12/5/2005) that she was, "in the exam room with her feet in the stirrups, Reich, the only other person in the room."

She wasn't comfortable with the way Reich touched her, or with his questions about her sex life during a gynecological exam at a Los Angeles-area clinic."I was questioning myself as to why I felt so uncomfortable, because it's a doctor, he's a doctor. Look at him he's in a doctor's (office), his beard's cleanly cut," Chambers said. Then, she says, he asked her out to lunch. "At that point I realized 'eww, eww, I have just been molested. I have just been violated. He just asked me out, " Chambers said.

Chambers filed a complaint against Reich after the February 2000 appointment, adding to a list of allegations that date back to the 1970s, according to documents on file with the California Osteopathic Medical Board -- which regulates osteopaths but not medical doctors.

"He took advantage of me, and he did it under the guise of a doctor," Chambers said in an interview. "In a normal setting, I'm 100 percent sure I would have acted different, I would've stopped him. But he's a doctor."
Elder told the press that, "If they had taken this seriously from the get-go, if they would have done something earlier, what happened to Yvette wouldn't have happened."

The media pointed out that little information was available to these victims before they fell prey to Reich. CNN said that the board did not state on it's public information website that Reich was arrested in 2002 on sexual battery charges and pleaded no contest to one count of sexual exploitation by a physician, a misdemeanor.
On December 9,2005, pro-choice Senator Barbara Boxer expressed disgust in the system and called for the board to remove Reich's medical license. She writes,

"I recently learned of the extraordinarily disturbing circumstances surrounding the actions of Dr. Laurence Reich, an osteopath who practices in California. I believe that immediate action should be taken to suspend Dr. Laurence Reich?s medical license until a full hearing is held and any legal cases against him are completed...Due process is an important part of our legal and regulatory system to protect the interests of various professionals who are regulated by government. In this case, the question that is raised by the history of Dr. Reich is, what about the protection of the public?s interest? This license suspension is long overdue to protect the public. "

In February of 2006, California's Osteopathic Medical Board accepted the tendered license of Laurence Reich. Reich will be allowed to practice until April 14, giving him time to close or sell his practice, officials told the Daily News of Los Angeles, (Osteopath Surrenders License, avoids hearing: 2/16/2006 ).

In turning over his license, Reich admitted that he had pleaded no contest "to a criminal offense substantially related to the qualifications, functions or duties of an osteopathic physician and surgeon," according to court documents. He was sentenced to one day in jail and one year's probation.

"Rae, for the record, you are a piece of work."

@Heather: Thank you. I try my darnedest. I am a piece of work...a piece of God's work. :-p

Also, Scratching removes dead skincells not living ones. take some biology classes.

Posted by: Liam at December 9, 2007 4:58 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scratching also removes live skin cells.
Take some biology classes.

@ anon,

"Prayer does not equal love." If there is any one thing you will learn here is that prayer is totally an expression of love ... it is a sexless act of love, but nonetheless love.

And Nicole, before you start characterizing the take on abortion that RC has, you should find out yourself ... you are major-time incorrect re. the life of the mother. Try the site: Catholic Answers ... the Church's stance is so straight it's almost boring to repeat.

Nicole, yes!!! Let Rae run and tell you what I'm going to do!!! Oh DO hurry up Rae!

You don't want me to expose the industry? Do you have a problem with that? If so, why?

@Heather: I don't have a problem with it. Quite frankly I hope those creeps get exposed.

But it gets old having to read that crap all the time and having to sift through your spamming in order to read comments I haven't read 10,000,000 times before.

Abortionist grabs women inappropriately

On May 28,2003, The Medical Board of California (Division of Medical Quality Case # 10-2001-125390) disciplined the medical license of abortion doctor John R. Rivera, Jr.

The case involved an incident of assault perpetrated by Rivera when Rivera was attending a San Diego Street Festival. Rivera approached a woman standing in line waiting to purchase some beer. The case revealed that he then asked her if she would like to attend an ecstasy party the next night, and the women said she didn’t do that sort of thing.

When Rivera turned to leave he reached around another person and grabbed the women tightly in the vaginal area.

When the police arrived, Rivera denied the incident and that he also denied that he had been using ecstasy, however a urine sample taken from Rivera tested positive for the drug.

In July of 2006, the board ruled to reinstate Rivera's license.

Rae, I think it's good for the new people. Nicole asked.

Then here's an idea:

Copy and paste all of your news clippings into one file and when people ask about it or the topic comes up and people want to know, ask for their email addresses and email it to them so they can read it on their own.

Either that or start up your own web page that you can link people to in order to read this stuff instead of constantly posting it here.

okay, I see your point, but just be careful not to generalize. Yes, some doctors have raped patients, as have some priests, teachers, police officers, politicians, firemen, nurses, stock portfolio managers, carpenters, electricians, and on and on. It's a horrible thing when anyone does it and I feel terrible for what happened to those women, I think all those rapists should be locked up so they can't hurt anyone else...but being an abortion doctor, or a gynecologist doesn't make one a rapist or molester.

Did anyone read my previous big long post about different religious perspectives in the abortion debate? I'd be interested in other people's thoughts on the issue?

But it gets old having to read that crap all the time and having to sift through your spamming in order to read comments I haven't read 10,000,000 times before.

Posted by: Rae at December 9, 2007 6:21 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Amen.

Rae,

Why is it you get to tell heather how many times to post something? Are you a mod? No? Then let the mods handle it if they don't want it posted a bunch of times.

@Nicole: I read it and I've heard it before. :) The Jewish traditions have always interested me and I've always been curious on the eastern religion's opinions on abortion. I've talked to my Hindu friend a couple of times about it and basically the gist of it is that abortion is considered a great sin in Hinduism but it's still widely practiced due to the desire to have sons instead of daughters.

Of course I've met some other Hindus online and they say that abortion is permissible as a fetus isn't sentient (which is why they don't kill animals or something, because they're sentient).

So it could be that my real-life friend is a particularly conservative Hindu or some people are bastardizing their own religion to fit their political affiliations.

I don't think people bother to click on links. I don't bother most of the time.

@Elizabeth: I find it annoying, and I was just expressing my opinion and frustration.

Excuse me for getting annoyed by repetitious posts.

@Heather: If somebody is truly interested in learning about something, they will click on the link in order to expand their knowledge.

All you have to do is simple..read the first couple lines and you can tell if you have read it before...and scroll right past it. Not that hard. That's what I do, that's why it doesnt bother me.

Elizabeth, thank you. Nicole, I didn't mean to bombard you. I haven't even scratched the surface. There was an abortionist who was just busted for having tons of "kiddie porn" on his computer!!!

@Elizabeth: It gets annoying having to scroll through paragraphs and paragraphs of junk looking for comments I haven't read before.

Fine, I won't complain about it again, sheesh.

"There was an abortionist who was just busted for having tons of "kiddie porn" on his computer!!!"

My old parish priest at the church I used to attend got busted for having kiddie porn on his computer.

Needless to say he wasn't our priest anymore after that.

Aww Rae, don't get all offended...I'm just defending Heather..I've noticed some people getting on her case lately so just thought I'd help her out.

Yes, but what on earth does a priest have to do with an abortionist?..As far as the priest goes, it's simple! Take the priest out of the church and put him in jail. Toss away the key!

My old parish priest at the church I used to attend got busted for having kiddie porn on his computer.

Needless to say he wasn't our priest anymore after that.

Posted by: Rae at December 9, 2007 6:37 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Plus, your priest worked in a church. We know that those are magnets for gun violence. I swear, it seems like every time I turned on the TV today, someone was being shot in a church!
(Here's where I should post the 600 stories on the Colorado church shootings...)

Nicole, abortion patients are easy prey for sexual molestation, and abortionists KNOW that.

@John McDonell "And Nicole, before you start characterizing the take on abortion that RC has, you should find out yourself ... you are major-time incorrect re. the life of the mother. Try the site: Catholic Answers ... the Church's stance is so straight it's almost boring to repeat."

What are you referring to by "the life of the mother" Is it the part where I said that one evil (abortion) can not be committed in order to prevent another (death of the mother) and the proper course of action is to let nature take it's course even if it means the death of both mother and child"??? How are you assuming I don't know about what the Vatican says and Catholic law. I don't think that I was "characterizing" by stating a position of the Catholic abortion ban. Characterizing would be making subjective judgments. What I was saying was based in fact. Well, before I bother to go into detail...is this in fact what you are referring to?

Laura, go ahead. We are discussing abortion. Not church shootings.

Laura will do ANYTHING to deter the topic heather, didn't you know?

Laura, go ahead. We are discussing abortion. Not church shootings.

Posted by: heather at December 9, 2007 6:45 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Really? I thought this board was about abortion, not sexual assault.
I'm beginning to think those stories make you HOT.

Cocaine, stalking - just another day

According to NY State Board of Professional Medical Conduct Case # BPMC 01-99, abortionist Daniel Holschauer had been treated for cocaine abuse and was reported to have lied on his medical applications about his troubles. Local news stated that he lied to officials at two hospitals when he applied for privileges at both hospitals, claiming he'd never had a problem with drugs or alcohol abuse. An article in the The Times Herald (01/06/01) stated that in fact, he'd been in drug rehab for cocaine addiction, which had cost him a job in 1988, and which was an ongoing problem. He was also charged with stalking abortion patients that he wanted to have sex with.

Really? I thought this board was about abortion, not sexual assault.
I'm beginning to think those stories make you HOT.

Posted by: Laura at December 9, 2007 6:48 PM
Yes. That includes exposing the industry.

Suzanne Poppema- Abortion is not pleasant

In an interview with Jenn Shreve, posted in Salon Magazine, abortionist Suzanne T. Poppema, co-author of Why I am an Abortion Doctor (Prometheus Books) and a board member of the National Abortion Federation and Physicians for Reproductive Choice and Health, Poppema said, "Abortion procedures are not aesthetically pleasant. There's no question about it."
Poppema runs the Aurora Medical Services clinic in Seattle

Why isn't abortion pleasant? I thought it was just a choice.

Abortion nurse sees doc touch and kiss patients

In March of 2004 an Oregon abortionist Ronald C. Stevenson was sentenced to 5 years probation for aggravated harassment of his patients.

The Bullet 2/14/2004, 3/12/2004 and The Associated Press State & Local Wire, Accused doctor faced similar complaints in Washington: 11/23/2003, reported the story.

Four nurses told police that they had witnessed abortionist Stevenson inappropriately touch and kiss his patients. One of his patients reported to police that Stevenson had caressed her as she awoke from anesthesia, Stevenson was then reported to have kissed the woman.

In another investigation, a 26-year-old Seattle woman told police that she was seeking an abortion and went to abortionist Stevenson at the Okanogan Valley Clinic. The woman said she awoke from the procedure to find abortion doctor Stevenson caressing her.

She didn't report the incident until a friend of her sister's said Stevenson had made advances toward her.

The Oregon Board of Medical Examiners stated that Stevenson entered into a Stipulated Order with the Board on July 14, 2005. In this Order he agreed to surrender his Oregon medical license while under investigation. Stevenson may not reapply for licensure for a minimum of two years and must obtain an evaluation before his application can be considered.

Stevenson entered into a Voluntary Limitation with the Board on January 15, 2004. In this Order Licensee Stevenson agreed to the following terms: Stevenson will provide the Board with 14 days notice prior to beginning practice in Oregon; Stevenson will offer a chaperone to all female patients over the age of 16.

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

Laura will do ANYTHING to deter the topic heather, didn't you know?

Posted by: Elizabeth at December 9, 2007 6:46 PM************************************************************************** LOL! Elizabeth, that's all she can do! You can't do too much defending when it comes to these posts!

That's why they don't want me to post them.

Why isn't abortion pleasant? I thought it was just a choice.

Posted by: heather at December 9, 2007 6:54 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

YOU DON'T EVEN READ YOUR OWN FRIKKEN' ARTICLES!

Do they bore you, too?

The quote was "Abortion procedures are not aesthtically pleasant."

Is childbirth "aesthetically pleasant?"
Is any medical procedure "aesthetically pleasant?"

@Elizabeth: I'm not offended, just exasperated. That's all. :)

@Heather: I bring up priests and kiddie porn because guess what, abortionists aren't the only ones getting busted for looking at kiddie porn!

Does "Pete Townshend" mean anything to you?

Hey Anon,

you wrote,

"The different between what AB Laura does and what the sub. in your example does is twofold.

First, she does not know anything about me. Why should she care what I think, what I believe, or what my life is like? What possible benefit could it be to me (if what say of prayer is true) to know that some perfect stranger who doesn't know anything about me feels the need to pray for me?

Secondly, she is openly trying to convert me. In that context, throwing in prayer is abusive."

Posted by: Anonymous at December 9, 2007 4:56 PM

Did you mean to say what AB Laura does is exactly the same as what that subsitute teacher did?

The two points you made would apply to that lady 100%. She started with it the minute I met her. She didn't even know my name. Of course religious people don't bug me even though I don't believe what they believe. They don't mean it in a bad way. They aren't trying to be the boss of you.

Abortionist stabs girlfriend with syringe

From three media reports in the New York Post (April 15, 21, and May 25, 2000) and the documentation in NY State Board of Professional Misconduct Order # BPMC-00-130, we are able to put together a picture of bizarre events that happened at the Montefiore Medical Center.
In April of 2000, doctor Stephen Pack was accused of trying to force an abortion on his girlfriend Joy Schepis, a nurse who had worked with him at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx.

Pack reportedly became enraged toward Schepis who was seven weeks pregnant with a child he had fathered. Prosecutors said Pack, who was married, asked Schepis to have an abortion. She refused and told him she would take care of the baby without his support.

Pack ordered methotrexate, a labor-inducing drug that works like RU-486, and filled two syringes with it and attacked Schepis in the hospital's parking lot. Witnesses to the incident said Pack stabbed Schepis in the buttocks and thighs and told her that he was going to give her an abortion.

Witnesses heard Pack yell, "Are you going to have an abortion or not?" she reportedly replied "No!" Witnesses then quoted him as yelling out, "I'm going to give you an abortion!"

The NY State Board of Professional Medical Conduct stated that Pack, "administered an injunction of methotrexate to a patient who did not seek or consent to an injection." Schepis defined Pack as a "pathetic excuse for a human being."

She told reporters, "He is a vicious, wild animal who belongs in a cage." Pack told the court he was sorry for his actions. Schepis said that she was pleased he would serve time in prison. But she said she did not believe his apology.

''I don't think he's very sorry for anything except that he's going to jail,'' she said. Pack plead guilty to assault and abortion charges and was sentenced to two years in prison. Schepis, gave birth to a healthy baby and she said the drug has not affected her son.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Elizabeth: I'm not offended, just exasperated. That's all. :)

@Heather: I bring up priests and kiddie porn because guess what, abortionists aren't the only ones getting busted for looking at kiddie porn!

Does "Pete Townshend" mean anything to you?

Posted by: Rae at December 9, 2007 7:02 PM................................................................................................................. We are talking about abortion. Don't ever tell me about violence on the PL side again! NOT EVER! Because you have no room to talk!

Next time someone decides to mention abortion clinic bombings just remember, I've got my SPAM. *evil cackle*

"We are talking about abortion. Don't ever tell me about violence on the PL side again! NOT EVER! Because you have no room to talk!"

Um, Heather, I rarely if ever bring up violence on the Pro-Life side.

So what on earth are you referring to?

Rae, that isn't directed at you, so I am sorry. However, it's very frustrating when people always bring up Paul Hill and Eric Rudolph. The majority of PLfers would never kill anyone, but look at all of the violence on the side of CHOICE! Fair is fair!!

@Heather: Oy, I'm from Minnesota, the home state of SPAM. :D

"We eat ham and jam and SPAM a lot..."

Did anyone read my previous big long post about different religious perspectives in the abortion debate? I'd be interested in other people's thoughts on the issue?

Posted by: nicole at December 9, 2007 6:27 PM

With regard to Jewish perspective on abortion. Abortion is basically wrong and not really allowed just for a choice. Here is a good discussion of the Jewish perspective.

http://www.slate.com/id/1005956/

"...Orthodox Jews have differing opinions on abortion, but w