The pregnant woman probably used those Planned Parenthood fertility beads to figure out the best time to conceive.
Maybe she were here for her prenatal care:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/mar-monte/prenatal-care.htm

Maybe she were here for her prenatal care:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

That's supposed to be "went here."
It may be time for a nap...

Um, the main PP website says they do provide pre-natal care. I know the one in B'ham does. Please show me some "proof" that they dont Jill.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/birth-control-pregnancy/pregnancy/prenatal-care.htm

Not, they're not proud. Proud enough to proclaim it to the world, that is. This is why I firmly believe that PP doesn't do late-term abortions: the public would look down upon that. That's why they refer those out.

Other PP's might provide prenatal care (although I'd be very interested to hear what they mean by prenatal care) but this one doesn't list it, so it does seem manipulative that a pregnant woman is so prominent in the picture...But isn't that what a good ad is supposed to do? Sell a product or an idea even if it means stretching the truth? I know I've never seen a McDonalds cheese burger that looks as good as the ones on the ads...

Provide health care services to families? Does this include well baby checks, prostate exams, geriatric services, vaccinations, prenatal care and delivery, and care of family members affected by diabetes and heart disease? Well, they said provide care for families didn't they?
Any of the large medical clinics in our area that provide care to families provide these services and more.

Also, did the people of this community have no access to medical care prior to PPs arrival?

Per Wacky:
"The pregnant woman probably used those Planned Parenthood fertility beads to figure out the best time to conceive.
Maybe she were here for her prenatal care"

Wacky,
No. She probably tried to use the beads to figure out when to not get pregnant and just like the other slackers who get abortions and "were using birth control" didn't use it correctly or consistently.

I know of a pro-choice woman who went to a PP for an ultrasound because she was pregnant and was bleeding. After she sat for hours in a paper thin gown waiting for her turn to be seen, they sent her away and wouldn't help her. You see, they had no time for women who actually wanted to keep their babies alive and healthy. She was told that she was just taking up too much time, space and funding.

Sandy- did the woman have an appointment? If you don't make an appointment before going, often they can be very busy with other patients who had made appointments. If she'd gone to an emergency room, it would have been just as bad or worse.

The ad says that the PP will offer birth-control. Abortion is a form of birth-control.

what, so pregnant women can't support PP? did I miss something?

I hope to one day be pregnant, flashily dressed, and giving props to PP. The free preventative care I received there had a positive impact on my life, and I'm sure my future fertility as well.

midnite678 said, "Um, the main PP website says they do provide pre-natal care. I know the one in B'ham does. Please show me some "proof" that they dont Jill."

I checked the site under discussion and they refer out for prenatal care. They don't do it in-house. Why would they? They are called PLANNED Parenthood right?

When a woman is pregnant, they won't help her plan her parenthood. They'll gladly kill her child, (that's ending her parenthood, making her the mother of a dead baby) or if she's not interested in paying them hundreds of dollars to kill her child, they'll gladly ship her on out!

Will,

Maybe you dont read very well. Let me say this again: The PP is Birmingham, AL does in-house pre-natal care. That's where my bestfriend went when she was pregnant with her daughter.

Midnite, read your source again. It is slick. It discusses prenatal care but never says PP provides it. Your link is just a PP educational link. It also discusses infertility treatment.

Erin,
I am sure she had an appointment made. They had her sit in a waiting room with all of the other patients draped in paper thin gowns.
They did call her in for her appointment and blatanely told her she would be using up too much time and funding. They actually told her that their facility was to provide abortions only for anyone pregnant. This woman is pro-choice and now has no respect for them or their services.

If she'd gone to an emergency room, it would have been just as bad or worse.

The emergency room wouldn't have sent her home.

Erin,
I forgot to add; She didn't have an OB/GYN at the time and didn't know where to go. I think insurance was part of her reason for choosing to go to PP.

Per SOMG:
"The ad says that the PP will offer birth-control. Abortion is a form of birth-control."

Yikes!!!!! I remember having several debates with PCers and they argued and argued that abortion IS NOT BIRTH CONTROL. I am stunned.

Jill,

See above post. PP in Birmingham provides IN-HOUSE PRE-NATAL CARE. This is where my bestfriend went when she was pregnant with her daughter...

Sandy,

Isn't PP supposed to provide for women in your friend's circumstances who, like your friend, have no doctor, are not certain where to go, and who do not have insurance? I thought that's what they were all about.

Nothing SoMG says stuns me.

Erin and Sandy,

Concerning an appt. If a woman is pregnant and bleeding, it can be arranged for her to be immediately seen. How often have any of us been kept waiting because a doctor had an emergency?
MY OB made the time to see me promptly when I had bleeding during my pregnancy, and I would certainly have no issue being kept waiting for any other woman in a similar situation.
What's worse is they never examined or treated her. Did PP refer her elsewhere or even concern themselves with what could happen to her? This woman could have been developing life threatening complications.

Ashley,

I went to your link and can't find where it say In house Prenatal Care...where is it? Can you ask your friend what "care" she got? Cuz she had to be under a doctors care for when she delivered. Not saying you're wrong, just saying I can't find it...

Jill --

The thing is, PP doesn't offer prenatal care.

Not true:

"Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains works with Rose Medical Center in Denver, CO to offer prenatal care for pregnant women. The program is called the Rose Midwifery and Planned Parenthood Prenatal Plus Program. The goal of the program is to provide safe, complete, holistic and quality maternity care to the childbearing family in an environment that is supportive and accepting.

"The Rose Midwifery program accepts private insurance plans and Medicaid, and the Planned Parenthood Prenatal Plus Program accepts only Medicaid. To better assist you, we have Spanish-speaking staff members...."

-- http://www.plannedparenthood.org/rocky-mountains/prenatal-care.htm

Either this was an outright lie, or you were simply too lazy to do two seconds of research before claiming that PP "doesn't do prenatal care."

They actually told her that their facility was to provide abortions only for anyone pregnant.

Geez, Sandy - well dang their hide! Here I thought they offered abortions for anyone, pregnant or not.

; )

Reality, I said in my piece, "IT REFERS OUT." How about doing 2 seconds worth of reading what I said before getting what I said wrong.

Midnite, to my knowledge, no PP offers prenatal care. Their abortionists would then have to deliver babies. They don't.

Re: your friend, I don't know what to say. I just checked the AL PP website, and prenatal care isn't listed. Who delivered her baby?

http://www.ppalabama.org/services.html

Doug:
I can see where you may have been confused by my post. Of course abortions would only be offered to pregnant women. My post was to make the point they offer nothing but abortions for pregnant women. No ultrasounds, no exam, nada nothing. :)

Midnite,

I read your link and it sounds like women are simply being advised on what will and might be done for them on a prenatal visit. The article speaks of visiting "your clinician" and following his/her advise, as well as how to care for yourself in the course of pregnancy, etc. I see nothing about PP offering prenatal care. I do see prenatal advise. Please specify where this is stated as I may simply be overlooking it.

Also, did a PP doctor deliver your friend's baby and provide post natal follow up care?

Jill --

Being in partnership with a group of midwives is not "referring out."

From the link:

Our Prenatal Plus Program offers women support with areas other than medical care. Our team includes:

1. A case manager who can give you referrals in the community for financial help, parenting classes, medical benefits, and housing information.
2. A registered dietitian who will help you with weight gain goals and diet during your pregnancy.
3. A counselor who can talk to you about any personal issues you may have.

Many of our clients have told us that the Prenatal Plus Program helped them to have a healthier pregnancy.

That is not referring out.

Reality,

Do the PP physicians have privileges for delivering their prenatal patients at the local hospitals? Do they perform c-sections, emergency or otherwise? Do they do post natal follow up care after the woman has delivered?

Mary --

The site says, "safe, complete, holistic and quality maternity care," so I would assume, yes.

Reality, I repeat, PP DOES NOT PROVIDE PRENATAL CARE. "Prenatal Plus" is not prenatal care. I repeat, PP refers out for prenatal care.

As Mary indicates, prenatal care involves care throughout and after delivery, medical care of TWO patients, not just one. It's a whole other world, including having to get ob health insurance, which is VERY expensive.

I threepeat, PP DOES NOT PROVIDE PRENATAL CARE.

Reality,

Sorry, but this IS referring out. From what I read its the midwives who actually provide the prenatal care while PP provides services any social service agency would provide.
If PP is providing prenatal medical care inhouse, what need would it have for the Rose Midwivery Service? Its obvious. Rose Midwivery service provides prenatal medical care, delivery services, and post natal care not provided by PP.
If this program is providing for healthier pregnancies for some women, great. Just call it what it is, referring out.

The thing is, PP doesn't offer prenatal care. It wouldn't know what to do with a live preborn baby other than kill it. It refers out if the mother doesn't want to do that.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gee, I put the first posted response on this thread, and it named about two dozen Planned Parenthood clinics that provide prenatal care in Northern California alone.
Why do all of today's threads seen shieky and desperate? Someone else used the term "grasping."

Jill,

I am certain that midwives must also have OB/GYN backup. They deliver at our hospital if that is a patient preference, but I know they do have the back up of an OB/GYN in the event of an emergency. Is it PP physicians who back up the Rose midwives or their own clinic physicians?

FF,

Do the clinics you name provide delivery and post natal follow up care? Do the PP physicians in these clinics have hospital privileges to deliver their patients, and do they perform c-sections, emergency and otherwise? Is there a call rotation of PP physicians for delivery on a 24/7 basis as well as for obstetrical emergencies? That's all part of the service any other OB/GYN practice would offer.
I think these are perfectly legitimate questions, not us being "shrieky and desperate".

Mary, check out the link I provided. I can't post it because it has multiple links on it, and something tells me it won't get "approved"...

Jill, Mary, MK, etc..:

Her first four months of pregnancy, she was waiting for medicaid to kick in. So, the PP in Birmingham, did the fisr four months of Pre-Natal care at almost no cost to her.

Once the medicaid kicked in, she went to another doctor and that doctor (not the one from PP) delivered her daughter Regan.

PP also helped her fill out the medicaid forms correctly, so it would kick in quicker, and told her the names of some good OBGYN's that accepted medicaid. She would have been lost w/o the help the B'ham PP provided her.

So, PP doesnt always "push abortions". She went there for her first pregnancy test, b/c they do them for free here. They sat down, went over options, and then proceeded to help her through her pregnancy.

PP serves as a provider of pre-natal PRIMARY care. Not high-risk speciality OB care.

Increasingly, certain sub-populations turn to PP for primary pediatric care, also neonatal care. For certain populations PP is where you go first if something seems wrong with your baby.

Just because you make referrals doesn't mean you're not providing care.

FF,

Thank you. That does answer my question. It seems PP does partner with local physicians for delivery and patients will see these physicians for the last few prenatal visits.
I don't know of any other OBs who provide prenatal care, then turn their patients over to someone else for delivery unless the patient has need of more specialized care. I frankly wouldn't care very much for this arrangement if I were a patient. I found it reassuring that I knew my doctors and they knew me and the course of my pregnancies.
Even our family practice doctors will do their own deliveries and only call upon an OB/GYN in the event of complications or an emergency, just as they would refer a young patient to a pediatrician for more specialized care. In fact, I knew many nurses who preferred the FP doctors over the OB/GYN for prenatal care, delivery and follow up care.

Obviously, PP doctors do not do deliveries, c-sections, and are not available for obstetrical emergencies. I saw nothing about follow up post natal care either.

Midnite,

I'm pleased everything turned out so well for your friend but my question would be why didn't PP simply provide her with prenatal care until delivery and then provide her with delivery service, as well as coverage for any obstetrical emergencies? If they advertise prenatal care as part of their services then these are the services they should provide. Why was your friend turned over to another doctor?

SOMG,

I'm not talking about high risk specialty OB care, but basic prenatal care.
Services provided by your OB/GYN should be prenatal care and 24/7 coverage for delivery and obstetrical emergencies. The OB/GYN should have hospital privileges for deliveries and emergencies.

PP has family practice doctors and pediatricians on staff for pediatric and neonatal care? I've never seen any advertisements by PP that they provide pediatric services.

If you're making referral SOMG, its because someone is better able to provide as service, or is providing a service you do not provide.

Isn't PP supposed to provide for women in your friend's circumstances who, like your friend, have no doctor, are not certain where to go, and who do not have insurance? I thought that's what they were all about.

Posted by: Mary at January 11, 2008 5:31 PM

Absolutely Mary, this woman sought services there because I am sure being pro-choice she considered herself very informed about the services they advertise.

I guess when the PP worker told her they could provide her nothing she actually closed her file shut. A pretty dramatic gesture if you ask me. They sent her away with no referral no place to turn. She sadly lost her baby to miscarriage.
Sitting in the PP waiting room she could only feel anger towards the young girls lined up to abort that day. She said it was the worst experience.

Doug: I can see where you may have been confused by my post. Of course abortions would only be offered to pregnant women. My post was to make the point they offer nothing but abortions for pregnant women. No ultrasounds, no exam, nada nothing. :)

Sandy, I was totally kidding heh heh heh.

Sandy,

I'm so sorry to hear of what happened to your friend and her loss. Rather peculiar behavior for people who advertise pre-natal services. What if your friend had had an ectopic pregnancy or had begun hemorrhaging after leaving the clinic? It could have been fatal.

"like the other slackers who get abortions"
Ok Sandy, sure. Except she obviously DIDN'T have an abortion.

"Geez, Sandy - well dang their hide! Here I thought they offered abortions for anyone, pregnant or not."

I once read in a Christian pro-life magazine that being pregnant increases your chances of getting an abortion. Honestly, that's what it said.

On that note I'd like to remind all of you, giving birth increases your chances of being pregnant so watch out.

I just saw on 20/20 that having children does not make you happier. Also, having teenagers makes you less happy. At that my Dad smirked and said right, I replied, "I hate you."

5 more months of teenage angst.

Having teenagers makes you less happy? Well, duh.
Except my teenage son has turned into a 3.0 college student and my youngest teenage daughter has turned into a paralegal who loves her job and life and with whom I get along so well.
My oldest teenage daughter was and remains mentally ill.
A very dear friend of mine summarized life as something that happens when you make other plans, not perpetual bliss.

Giving birth increases your chances of being pregnant so watch out....?

Mary, I was saying that to emphasize the stupidity of the statement made in the Christian magazine.

Jess,

Whatever. Thanks for the clarification.

Mary,

thats true. life is not suppose to be easy.

Mary, I don't know why this is so complicated for you.

PP provides PRIMARY care, "primary" meaning the person or agency you turn to FIRST if there's something wrong with your pregnancy or your baby or whatever.

For certain sub-populations (for instance in California where I volunteered, penniless immigrants from Mexico) PP is where they go.

Even if ALL PP DID was send them along to the ER, PP would still be providing care by doing so. As long as you're the agency the patient goes to FIRST, you're providing primary care, whether you like it or not. That's what the word "primary" means.

SOMG,

Its not the least bit complicated.

OK, if PP is the first agency one turns to when something is wrong with the pregnancy, baby or whatever, then PP must have OB/GYNs on staff to provide specialized high risk prenatal care, as well as OB/GYNs who are on 24/7 call to provide emergency obstetrical services and delivery and c-section services as well.
If there's a problem with the baby then PP must also provide the services of pediatricians and neonatalogists.

PP is providing services for illegal immigrants?

No SOMG, sending patients along to an ER means that you do not have the means or desire to provide them with the care they need. That most definitely is not providing primary care.

Hello to everyone. Is there anybody on here right now that is from Denver?

Jess,
I thought you told me you were Christian yesterday. Why are you posting comments that represent Christians as stupid. Were you being honest with me yesterday?

James,

Welcome. I visited Denver last summer and loved it. I got altitude sickness going up Mt.Evans on a tour.
The area is incredibly beautiful. It was my first visit ever. I love the Molly Brown house and other historical sites.
A friend of my daughter's is stationed in the air force at Colorado Springs.

*************************************
I just saw on 20/20 that having children does not make you happier. Also, having teenagers makes you less happy. At that my Dad smirked and said right, I replied, "I hate you."

5 more months of teenage angst.

Posted by: Jess at January 11, 2008 9:08 PM
**************************************

Jess, are you hurting? Are you pregnant?

Hello Mary- Thank you for the welcome. Yes, Denver is a beautiful place! It's pretty cold right now, I suffer from Rh. Arthritis, so the cold weather has really been bothering me lately. I was wondering, I work not to far from the site of the building, and I was wondering I haven't seen the truck that is usually out there, I just wondered what happened to it?

Did you know that contary to PC opinion babies are considered persons under the law. Roe V Wade did not change that, it just said that the privacy rights of the woman trumps the nabies rights. So the death Roe decision gave women the right to kill their babies if they want to, but nobody in government or on the Supreme Court has ever said the babies ere not persons and deserving of protection under the law. So anybody who delect to abort their healthy baby will always be looked upon as a killer, even if they are not prosecuted for it. Maybe thats why they keep it so private and do not want to talk about it.

***********************************
The ad says that the PP will offer birth-control. Abortion is a form of birth-control.

Posted by: SoMG at January 11, 2008 4:46 PM
***********************************

Abortion is a form of legalized infanticide. Read my above post

James,

Yes I hear Denver is really being slammed. When my daughter visited C.Springs last year in March, she had a beautiful week of weather. She had just missed a cold blast and snow the previous week and left before the tornadoes hit!
Talk about timing.
I'm afraid I can't address your other question about the site of the building. Maybe someone else on this site can.
I'm sorry to hear of your RA. I hope we will hear from you on a regular basis.

By the way, I stayed at the convention center with the huge bear looking in. Incredible! I could even practice my rudimentary Spanish with the cleaning lady. It was one fantastic trip.

***********************************
The ad says that the PP will offer birth-control. Abortion is a form of birth-control.

Posted by: SoMG at January 11, 2008 4:46 PM
***********************************

Abortion is a form of legalized infanticide. Read my above post

Posted by: ruthseeker at January 11, 2008 10:48 PM
............................................

I have a sister named ruth. Are you seeking her?
Tell me, when did killing infants become illegal?

***********************************
I have a sister named ruth. Are you seeking her?
Tell me, when did killing infants become illegal?

Posted by: Anonymous at January 11, 2008 10:55 PM
************************************
Laws protecting babies in the womb have been on the books since long before the Death Roe decision and nobody has tried to overturn any of them since Death Roe passed.

Did you know that contary to PC opinion babies are considered persons under the law.

Truthseeker, some states have such wording in some laws in some circumstances, yes.

That is a far cry from truly being considered "persons." The case of an illegal homicide in a given state is one thing, and you don't see people saying that there should be no penalties for attacking a pregnant woman and harming or killing a wanted fetus.

This wording in law came after Roe, by the way, as far as I know. Plus, it wasn't legal to harm a wanted pregnancy, in the first place, Roe or not. Who's going to be for that?

Jaspser: Life is not supposed to be easy.

Holy Crow, Jasper!

Well, that's one way to look at it, I guess. To me, that sounds like at heart you are a "moralist." I'm somewhat the same way for some things, financial markets being one, i.e., excess should be "paid for" at some point.

As for life in general, I do think that it's good for most people to have to put forth effort, even to "struggle" a bit. IMO.

Doug

Doug,
What does wanted have to do with it? Can
civilized society kill the unwanted? Is somebody's life worth less cause they are not wanted?

Mary, you need to look up what the word "primary" means.

SOMG,

You need to look up what primary means. It means you are able to provide the service you say you do, whether its pediatric care or maternity care and you refer out only when more specialized care is necessary, as when a family physician sends a cancer patient to an oncologist, or an OB/GYN sends a pregnant patient to a cardiologist for consult on a heart condition.

You said in your post 9:43 post that you go to primary care first when there is something wrong with a pregnancy, baby, or whatever.
Then you better have doctors and staff who are prepared to manage a problem with a pregnancy, a baby, or whatever.

Mary, you are deep in denial.

What does wanted have to do with it?

Truthseeker, in some states, as you've noted, a third party killing the fetus in a wanted pregnancy can result in homocide charges as serious as if it was a born baby. Unwanted pregnancies, at least to a point in gestation, can be ended. That is one big difference right there.
......

Can civilized society kill the unwanted?

Yes, although that is really a separate argument, as with the death penalty. With an unwanted pregnancy, it's not up to society. If it is ended, it's on the part of the woman or the couple.
......

Is somebody's life worth less cause they are not wanted?

Wanting or not is the determination of that "worth" you mention. There is also the argument as to just how much a "somebody" the unborn are, plus the fact that it's not only that question alone, i.e. there is also the pregnant woman to consider.

Doug

SOMG,

No SOMG, you are just ignorant.

Good afternoon Doug,

********
What does wanted have to do with it?

Truthseeker, in some states, as you've noted, a third party killing the fetus in a wanted pregnancy can result in homocide charges as serious as if it was a born baby. Unwanted pregnancies, at least to a point in gestation, can be ended. That is one big difference right there.

Doug,If an angry husband cuts an "unwanted" baby out of the womb it is still homocide legally even if the baby was not wanted by the mother.
It is not just a matter of the woman not "wanting" the baby that makes killing it legal. The mother would have to give you consent to kill the baby first or you would liable wether she wanted the baby or not. But I was actually talking about it in a more philosophical terms. IMHO we should not be able to decide which members of society we don't like or want and kill them, even if they have committed no crime against us....that is fascism
***************************

Can civilized society kill the unwanted?

Yes, although that is really a separate argument, as with the death penalty. With an unwanted pregnancy, it's not up to society. If it is ended, it's on the part of the woman or the couple.

Doug, the baby commited no crime against anybody so you are grasping if you try applying the death penalty analogy. IMHO civilized society has an important role in protecting the vulnerable and unwanted who have commited no crime.
**************************
Is somebody's life worth less cause they are not wanted?

Wanting or not is the determination of that "worth" you mention. There is also the argument as to just how much a "somebody" the unborn are, plus the fact that it's not only that question alone, i.e. there is also the pregnant woman to consider.

IMHO individual members of society do not get their "worth" by how much their mother loves them. If they did then 99.9999% of us would be priceless. That worth is bestowed upon each of us by our contries Bill of Rights which says that all men are "created" equal, not all men are worth as much as their mother thinks when they are created.
**************************

Each human "life" is entitled to protection and has worth. Civilized society has never debated that fact. Any woman who elects to abort her baby is guilty of the same homocide as the killer who would cut it out of her womb, RoeVWade just gives the mother a get out of jail free card.

If an angry husband cuts an "unwanted" baby out of the womb it is still homocide legally even if the baby was not wanted by the mother.

Truthseeker, I don't think "angry" or not has anything to do with it. What you say is true, in some states, I think. But this is not attributing personhood, this is just that the husband isn't allowed to do it, while a doctor often would be.
......

Can civilized society kill the unwanted?

"Yes, although that is really a separate argument, as with the death penalty. With an unwanted pregnancy, it's not up to society. If it is ended, it's on the part of the woman or the couple."

Doug, the baby commited no crime against anybody so you are grasping if you try applying the death penalty analogy.

Dude, I did say it's a separate argument.
......

IMHO civilized society has an important role in protecting the vulnerable and unwanted who have commited no crime.

I understand that, but there is also the pregnant woman to consider. IMO it's more important to let her be free as she is now in this matter versus having every single pregnancy be continued.
......

IMHO individual members of society do not get their "worth" by how much their mother loves them. If they did then 99.9999% of us would be priceless. That worth is bestowed upon each of us by our contries Bill of Rights which says that all men are "created" equal, not all men are worth as much as their mother thinks when they are created.

No, (sigh), that's not the Bill of Rights. Anyway, I know what you mean, but that's your philosophy, and an unprovable one at that. Meanwhile, it is fact that we make value judgments all the time.

I am saying that society does not need more people on earth for the sake of *more,* certainly not to the extent that we deny pregnant women's desire here. I know you do not like it, but we leave the valuation up to the woman, and I see that as correct, since it is her body that is pregnant, after all.

Doug

TS: Each human "life" is entitled to protection and has worth.

Well, that's part of what we are debating.
......

Civilized society has never debated that fact.

Wrong. Civilized societies have had the birth standard all around the world for all of recorded time. Going back to Jewish law in biblical times, etc., it was considered "a human life" when it was halfway out of the womb, right? "Human life" is not what I am arguing here, but in no way is it correct to say that it's necessarily human nature to have abortion be illegal or to deny women their choice in the matter.
......

Any woman who elects to abort her baby is guilty of the same homocide as the killer who would cut it out of her womb, RoeVWade just gives the mother a get out of jail free card.

Nope - abortion became illegal in the US primarily because doctors felt midwives were encroaching on what the docs felt was their "rightful" territory, not because rights or personhood were atributed to the unborn.

Okay, call it "homocide" - I can't argue too much with that, but the question is if it's okay or not. Going clear back in the 1700s, long before any Roe, etc., abortion was totally okay to "quickening," i.e. five months gestation or so, and even afterwards there is a lot of doubt as to whether it was really prosecuted or not.

Doug

Doug,
**********************************
If an angry husband cuts an "unwanted" baby out of the womb it is still homocide legally even if the baby was not wanted by the mother.

Truthseeker, I don't think "angry" or not has anything to do with it. What you say is true, in some states, I think. But this is not attributing personhood, this is just that the husband isn't allowed to do it, while a doctor often would be.
***********************************

Doug, WHAT are you saying??? Only a doctor is allowed to perform an abortion. Anybody the woman chooses can terminate her pregnancy. The mothers consent on a signed contract and you are no longer legally culpable for the death of the baby. She could sign a piece of paper saying it's o.k. for her husband to abort her baby and he could then legally stick a forceps in and pull their baby out piece by piece too. It's her legal right to do anything she wants to the baby right?
***********************************

Doug you said:
******************************
I am saying that society does not need more people on earth for the sake of *more,* certainly not to the extent that we deny pregnant women's desire here. I know you do not like it, but we leave the valuation up to the woman, and I see that as correct, since it is her body that is pregnant, after all.
*******************************

Doug, society does not have to trump a woman's right here, but we can demand reproductive responsiblity. I could never think of a child I conceived as falling under your umbella of "just for the sake of more". And i do not think my children are worth more than anybody elses. So
I am finding it really difficult to see things from your "for the sake of more" perspective.

Doug, you said:
**********************
No, (sigh), that's not the Bill of Rights. Anyway,
**********************
I stand corrected, it is from the Declaration of Independence.

Doug, you said:
**************************
Civilized society has never debated that fact.

in no way is it correct to say that it's necessarily human nature to have abortion be illegal or to deny women their choice in the matter.
*****************************

Doug, that is rich. ROTFLRH.........
Ask any woman you know if it feels like part of human nature to abort their baby

Doug, WHAT are you saying??? Only a doctor is allowed to perform an abortion. Anybody the woman chooses can terminate her pregnancy. The mothers consent on a signed contract and you are no longer legally culpable for the death of the baby. She could sign a piece of paper saying it's o.k. for her husband to abort her baby and he could then legally stick a forceps in and pull their baby out piece by piece too. It's her legal right to do anything she wants to the baby right?

TS, you gave the example of a husband being prosecuted, and I'm saying that in those exceedingly rare cases where the boyfriend or husband gets prosecuted for killing the fetus, it's because society says he's not allowed to do it. This applies only in certain states, in the first place. If it had been a doctor doing it, then there would be no prosecution, unless it was in a state with restrictions on post-viability abortions, and then in no way do I think the charge would be homicide. Thus, it's not anything necessarily on the part of the unborn, it's the difference between the permitted doctor and those, even the husband, who aren't permitted.
......

Doug, society does not have to trump a woman's right here, but we can demand reproductive responsiblity. I could never think of a child I conceived as falling under your umbella of "just for the sake of more". And i do not think my children are worth more than anybody elses. So I am finding it really difficult to see things from your "for the sake of more" perspective.

The woman is not "responsible" to what you want, though. I thnk you are indeed advocating that your desire trump the pregnant woman's. "For the sake of more" means that the unborn (to a point in gestation, anyway) don't care about anything, have no desires, etc. This is all about what we think, you and I and everybody else that cares about the subject.

I am saying if a given woman has a miscarriage or abortion, you almost never know of it. You don't know, directly, whether there are 4000 abortions per day, or 5000 or 100 or zero. You're saying, in effect, "A life is a life," and that reduces it down to mere numbers. IMO it's better to not force a woman with an unwanted pregnancy to continue it. The amount of suffering on her part could well outweigh that in any number of abortions.

I also understand you saying that your kids aren't worth more than others. Not saying you should feel any differently.
......

"in no way is it correct to say that it's necessarily human nature to have abortion be illegal or to deny women their choice in the matter."

Doug, that is rich. ROTFLRH.........Ask any woman you know if it feels like part of human nature to abort their baby

Rich, maybe, but true. Many, many women have unwanted pregnancies, and choose abortion. If we are looking at human nature, then the deal is not attributing personhood to the unborn, versus doing it. Most women, in the US, anyway, willingly continue the pregnancies in a given year. Less, but a still significant 20 - 25% do not, and in both cases it's human nature at work - in all cases it's coming down to the pregnancy being wanted or unwanted, on balance.

Doug

Doug, you really need to know when you put your foot in your mouth and stop trying to keep arguing for the sake of arguing......you killing me here.....If you are going to try and argue that it is human nature for a woman to want to abort her child....youn have got to be pulling my leg...your just saying that to make me laugh
ROTFLWTIME (rolling on the floor laughing with tears in my eyes). Anyway, I am off to dinner and a movie with my family...does anybody besides Doug think it is in a woman's human nature to abort her children? I'll check the poll when I get back from the movies....Your killing me here Doug.

Ah Doug,

I must admit, I'm getting a perverse sense of satisfaction seeing someone else chase their tale with you...

God Bless you Truthseeker. Your name says it all. Doug has his own truth and lets you have yours, but in 6 months, neither Bethany nor I have been able to make him see reason one iota.

Add John McDonell to the mix and between the four of us...nah, I'm still not holdin' out any hope for him. I love the guy, but he is who he is. And he is a unique bird.

Have a good time at the movie, TS.

My wife and I are eating in tonight. She made Green Chile Stew, which just kicks butt.

I did my time on the elliptical exercise machine today - it's where you move your feet up and down and around, and also move big levers back and forth with your hands and arms.

Kicked my butt, speaking of butts. 78 minutes and I burned 1000 calories. Nice to just sit on the couch in front of the TV, watch football, and argue my fool head off on message boards.

There are times when I've had a whole shoe store in my mouth, but yes - it's human nature to both want to continue and to end pregnancies. It does not have to be one way just because you prefer it.

I'm not just trying to make you laugh, there. Not every pregnancy is wanted. There it is.

Doug

Doug has his own truth and lets you have yours, but in 6 months, neither Bethany nor I have been able to make him see reason one iota.

No, MK. I stick with what is true for all of us, and see that beyond that it is a matter of opinion. Opinion - yes, I let others have theirs where it applies. In this debate, I just don't see it as trumping the desire of pregnant women.

Same for "overpopulation extremists" who think it's a woman's "duty" to not have kids and have abortions. There too, I don't see their desire as necessarily meaning the woman should do anything but what she wants.

If a thing is my opinion, I will say it and agree that that's the deal. What I do not agree with is other people acting like their unprovable beliefs are "external truth" nor necessarily any good reason for impacting other people's rights and freedoms.

Other people's desires do not represent one iota of truth, necessarily, for those who don't share those beliefs.

Doug,

Doug has his own truth and lets you have yours

Other people's desires do not represent one iota of truth, necessarily, for those who don't share those beliefs.

Isn't that what I said? You have your truth, we have ours. Never claimed it was "the" truth...just our own "truths"...

Here in Champaign PP does provide some form of prenatal care, usually via midwives. It's mostly to poor women. I have no idea where they birth the babies.

Our local United Way provides the funding to Planned Parenthood for their prenatal program (unfortunately). This allows people to 'support PP without supporting abortion.' Our local paper here has also done a story or two on the midwives that provide care for the pregnant women.

Unfortunately, there are other, more well-deserving medical providers here, including one that takes those with no medical insurance and those with limited incomes. United Way would be better served to help those agencies.

Note: this is one of the ways that PP can say with a straight face that they perform a community service. I also have a friend who was helped by PP with a breast problem when she had no insurance. She, of course, remains supportive of PP, despite their providing abortions.

With PP making some services available in the community - this helps people forget what PP really does --promoting promiscuity and performing abortions.

Doug,
Has your wife ever had an abortion? If she has, then ask her if having her baby pulled out in pieces felt to her like she was fulfilling
a part of anything natural or part of her human nature. If she has not had an abortion then ask her is she feels as though she'll be missing out on fulfilling a part of her human nature if she does not have an abortion before she dies. Let me know what she says.

Let me know what she says

Doug and mk:
***********************
mk said, Doug has his own truth and lets you have yours

Doug said:Other people's desires do not represent one iota of truth, necessarily, for those who don't share those beliefs.

mk said, Isn't that what I said? You have your truth, we have ours. Never claimed it was "the" truth...just our own "truths"...

Posted by: mk at January 12, 2008 8:31 PM
******************
the truth be known

Doug and mk:
***********************
mk said, Doug has his own truth and lets you have yours

Doug said:Other people's desires do not represent one iota of truth, necessarily, for those who don't share those beliefs.

mk said, Isn't that what I said? You have your truth, we have ours. Never claimed it was "the" truth...just our own "truths"...

Posted by: mk at January 12, 2008 8:31 PM
******************
the truth be known and the truth will set us free

MK: Isn't that what I said? You have your truth, we have ours. Never claimed it was "the" truth...just our own "truths"...

Okay, but there is more to it than that. Sure, you and I have our opinions - a good example is you more wanting the unborn life to continue, me more wanting the woman to keep the freedom she has in the matter now.

There is also a larger truth about all of us, what motivates us all, and we've been arguing that too.

Has your wife ever had an abortion? If she has, then ask her if having her baby pulled out in pieces felt to her like she was fulfilling a part of anything natural or part of her human nature. If she has not had an abortion then ask her is she feels as though she'll be missing out on fulfilling a part of her human nature if she does not have an abortion before she dies. Let me know what she says.

Truthseeker, she never has had an abortion, and now has had a hysterectomy, so the deal is done, there.

It simply is human nature that not every pregnancy is wanted. Most are wanted, and that too is human nature.

I got married when I was 41 years old, and my wife was 38, so "the clock was ticking," as far as having kids, so to speak. She didn't have the hysterectomy until 5 years later.

She was roughly 50/50 on having kids. If I had wanted to, she certainly would have. I was more against it than for it. My job has me away from home a very large part of the time, my wife was aiming for going back to college, getting a Master's degree, then being a teacher; we both love to travel, sleep late, stay up late, etc.

Of course that doesn't mean we "could not" have had kids. But on balance I would rather not. Now she's a treacher and "has 150 kids" every year, and that's plenty.

However, we have talked about what our kids would have looked like, how they'd have acted, etc. No - my wife would not have felt "fulfilled" by having an abortion. To some extent she would have thought of the unborn baby (I have no problem saying that) as "our daughter," or "our son," and as things are for us, and as they have been, it would have been very sad to have a miscarriage, and I don't think abortion would have been chosen in most circumstances.

That said, she has a very full life, and does not really regret that we don't have kids.

Even I am not all against it - I was probably 20% for having kids. My wife has also talked about adopting, as well. She's still somewhat new to teaching, and if we settle down in one place and if I retire or just am not away so much, it's not impossible.

Doug

@TS,

often people quote scripture and yet have little comprehension as to its meaning ... a typical problem when one speaks of truth. The apostle John was well aware of the centrality of this problem.

In the discourse between Pilate and Jesus, Jesus says: "I have come to bear witness to the truth." Pilate answers, "Truth, what is that?"

Pilate made the very same error we all still do today. Truth is a 'who' and not a 'what'. This being so, there are many difficulties this dispels, as well as posing some new ones. The major one is that truth is an objective reality and is not under the human mind's control ... He is not fabricated by the human mind and 'a moral relativism' is not actual.

People (moral relativists like Doug) typically think that Christianity is like all-others, it isn't! Anyone espousing any sort of 'moral relativism' does not know what bunk they are promulgating.

Doug though is consistent in the way he expresses these opinions of his ... well consistently wrong! He focuses on desires as being the ultimate in morality. So I asked if desires extended to a universe beyond me .... passed my control. ((By there very nature they CANNOT. However, that any other beings have desires is a primary and absolutely unknown assumption. Even he very existence of others is an assumption and cannot 'be proven'.))

Any other person has their own set of subjective desires, but morality =/= desires. Morality is the objective/agreed-upon behavior of two or more people. The desires of one are amalgamated into those of others.

I have always found it perplexing when an avowed moral relativist is often beside himself to affirm agreement with almost every law (legalism) ever written. It is as if their own relative moral stance is somehow 'sacred' (beyond reproach). In fact, this is the 'normal' method most adults get a moral stance /// get educated.

It is weird that the 10 Commandments are interpreted as God's imposition on man's freedom. Might not it be considered a moral clarification of the kind of beings He created? aren't these rules for our moral 'nature' much like our DNA is for our physical make-up?

When it comes to the law the desires are coded in such a way that these supercede individual desires. If however, the law is a poor law (like Roe vs Wade), then I am obliged to not follow it AND ALSO WORK TO HAVE IT OVERTURNED.

Doug, you said:
**************************
It simply is human nature that not every pregnancy is wanted. Most are wanted, and that too is human nature.
**************************
Doug, just cause a woman may choose to have an abortion does "NOT" make it part of her human nature. External forces economic and social are what sometimes drives the woman to go against her human nature and kill her baby. On this blog you see girls all the time who feel terrible about aborting their babies but abort anyway due to external societal influences. I think you would be hard pressed to find women who would tell you otherwise. I am not saying there are "NOT" woman who genuinely have no inclination towards loving their children, I am just staing that it would be an aberration. I am espousing that "the truth" is that it is always (except for the case of the aberration expressed prior) in a womans human nature to nurture and protect her children both in the womb and outside the womb. That does not mean there will be no unwanted pregnancies, it just means their decision to abort is not part of human nature, rather it is an affront to their human nature and is driven by economic or other societal influences.

John,
Like I said to yllas a few days back. Just cause someone thinks or desires to think something, it does not make it the truth. The "truth" of a woman's human nature is borne out by the facts and does not change due to any persons perception of the truth.

However, we have talked about what our kids would have looked like, how they'd have acted, etc. No - my wife .... would have thought of the unborn baby (I have no problem saying that) as "our daughter," or "our son," and as things are for us, and as they have been, it would have been very sad to have a miscarriage, and I don't think abortion would have been chosen in most circumstances

Doug, is your wife pro-life or anti-abortion?

Doug though is consistent in the way he expresses these opinions of his ... well consistently wrong!

Yes, I say this all the time to my husband when referring to Doug. He is consistent, gotta give him that... but consistently wrong.

Doug, does your wife ever read this blog? If so, has she ever thought about participating?

To Nathan Will Sheets,

Don't be so certain that PP doesn't do late term abortions. Some prolife street activists I know once (at least) observed a very obviously pregnant woman walking out of the PP in Birmingham. According to them, she had to be at least 6 months along, as she was slender with a very prominent baby bump. Two PP staffgoons came out, ran after her, and each took her by an arm and steered her back into the death mill.

PP is all about money, and the further along a pregnancy is, the more money the murder costs.
And they've proven they'll do anything they can get away with.

Don't be so certain that PP doesn't do late term abortions. Some prolife street activists I know once (at least) observed a very obviously pregnant woman walking out of the PP in Birmingham. According to them, she had to be at least 6 months along, as she was slender with a very prominent baby bump. Two PP staffgoons came out, ran after her, and each took her by an arm and steered her back into the death mill.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Right!
Who could question a story like that!

John M: Doug though is consistent in the way he expresses these opinions of his ... well consistently wrong! He focuses on desires as being the ultimate in morality. So I asked if desires extended to a universe beyond me .... passed my control. ((By there very nature they CANNOT. However, that any other beings have desires is a primary and absolutely unknown assumption. Even he very existence of others is an assumption and cannot 'be proven'.))

John, yes, there are the assumptions that are made, of course. And yes - all motivation goes to desire. When you say "the ultimate in morality," you are are referencing desire there too, the desire some people have for there to be such a thing, etc.

I have always found it perplexing when an avowed moral relativist is often beside himself to affirm agreement with almost every law (legalism) ever written.

Well, that's not me, though, John.

The "truth" of a woman's human nature is borne out by the facts and does not change due to any persons perception of the truth.

TS, right on. There is no blanket generalization that can be made for all women and human nature, as to some things.

Doug

Doug, is your wife pro-life or anti-abortion?

Bethany, no - strongly pro-choice. She used to argue abortion on AOL boards, but in the end tired of it, since much is just the same stuff over and over.
......

Yes, I say this all the time to my husband when referring to Doug. He is consistent, gotta give him that... but consistently wrong.

I owe you an orange, B. My "consistent wrongness" is really just that I don't accept the unprovable things you believe and that you want others to believe.

Doug

@Doug,

"I owe you an orange, B. My "consistent wrongness" is really just that I don't accept the unprovable things you believe and that you want others to believe."

you've made this statement .... prove you were not implying that we are wrong and therefore Doug is correct (your ideas are the 'best' ... when do we kneel to The Almighty Doug). Is this (blanket statement) not an objective truth .... if not, should we accept/bother-with it? The "consistent wrongness" is that you constantly make morally objective/absolute statements (like the one above, except that this one is accusatory too) and these come from a self-proclaimed moral relativist.

Bravo, John, bravo.

When are you coming out with your next book?

"I owe you an orange, B. My "consistent wrongness" is really just that I don't accept the unprovable things you believe and that you want others to believe."

John M: you've made this statement .... prove you were not implying that we are wrong

John, the assertions - a supernatural god, etc., are on your part, thus the burden of proof is on you. I don't say there "cannot be any gods." I am saying we have no proof of them, and that your unprovable beliefs (obviously) don't apply to all people.
......

and therefore Doug is correct (your ideas are the 'best' ... when do we kneel to The Almighty Doug).

I don't claim my opinion is more than that, but you do. I am saying that sometimes it is best for a woman to end an unwanted pregnancy. There have been plenty of women right here on Jill's blog to testify to that. This is not every single woman who has ever had an abortion, of course - for some having an abortion is a bad thing, on balance, just as for some not ending a pregnancy is.

I'm not "almighty," but I do think that you and Bethany want others to believe as you do.
......

Is this (blanket statement) not an objective truth .... if not, should we accept/bother-with it?

I suggest that you know darn well that if I believed as Bethany does that she'd think I'm "right."
......

The "consistent wrongness" is that you constantly make morally objective/absolute statements (like the one above, except that this one is accusatory too) and these come from a self-proclaimed moral relativist.

Nope, it's not "absolute" at all. There isn't any necessary reference to anything external nor "objective," anyway. It's just that if I did think the same things, that "consistent wrongness" (the opinion of it on Bethany's part) would go away, now wouldn't it? This is even before we get to absolutes and external reality, etc.

Doug

Doug,

That's because we believe that there is an absolute/objective truth and that you just don't know it yet.

If you agreed with Bethany, then you too, would be privy to this knowledge. So of course you'd be "right"...You wouldn't be just agreeing with Bethany, you'd be informed of a Greater Reality.

You require objective proof. We don't. We have all the "proof" that we need. Our lives are our proof. The miracles that happen to us on a daily basis are our "proof"...subjective? Well, duh, this is about a "relationship" after all.

I can't "PROVE" to you that my grandmother existed any more than I can "PROVE" to you that God exists.

You would have to be satisfied with anecdotal proofs, just as you are asked to be satisfied with anecdotal proofs that Christ is who He says He was.

I cannot "produce" my Grandmother, as she is dead, anymore than I can "produce" God. If I could control Him, He wouldn't be God, now would He?

That's because we believe that there is an absolute/objective truth and that you just don't know it yet.

I realize that, MK, but people of other religions say the same thing, and to some extent they say you are wrong, and you say they are wrong. I see some people all over the world having a need for such beliefs, and think that had you been born in a muslim country, for example, you quite likely would believe something else, and just as fervently.
.....

If you agreed with Bethany, then you too, would be privy to this knowledge. So of course you'd be "right"...You wouldn't be just agreeing with Bethany, you'd be informed of a Greater Reality.

Well, in your opinion, yes.
......

You require objective proof. We don't. We have all the "proof" that we need. Our lives are our proof. The miracles that happen to us on a daily basis are our "proof"...subjective? Well, duh, this is about a "relationship" after all.

Okay, we're on the same page there. My sister became a Catholic. She had dated a Catholic guy, eventually married a different guy, and they both converted. She found that it met her needs. I think the feeling of "wonder" and "miracles," etc., can be had with or without religion being involved.
......

I can't "PROVE" to you that my grandmother existed any more than I can "PROVE" to you that God exists. You would have to be satisfied with anecdotal proofs, just as you are asked to be satisfied with anecdotal proofs that Christ is who He says He was. I cannot "produce" my Grandmother, as she is dead, anymore than I can "produce" God. If I could control Him, He wouldn't be God, now would He?

Your grandmother is not in doubt.

@Doug,

over and over you keep making the same mistake ... truth objective HAS to EXIST as a point of logic ... there is no need for comparison to other faiths.

Statement A: There is no objective truth. Is the statement True or False? The very statement itself is internally false. Because the very statement as formed says that there does have to be objective truth and by using the word 'no'. negates this. So, how can a person say a true statement, about not being a thing like 'truth'. Either you claim ignorance of truth by saying: 'I have not found any!' or you stop talking bs.

I have a duty to impart my beliefs and any claim that more is better is bs at its worst. To remain aloof is buffoonery because a person cannot stay aloof from killing another human and still remain human. Truly close to death are they.

A second 'truth' can be stated here::: 'There is more than one true statement.' So we have at least two objectively 'true' statements.

These are statements that can logically lead to a philosophic/intellectual understanding of God. Your constitution, your set of rights, etc. are all based on a philosophic concept of God. When you reject God in this philosophic sense .... purporting this to be religious ... you remove the rational basis for rights, laws, etc. Your assumption of any rights at all (especially body-autonomy) without the philosophic notion of God is silly.

Please note that I said nothing about the nature of the God - man relationship. This is the role of religion ... or a-belief-system. We Christians speak of 'Truth' (with a capitol 'T') instead of 'truth' to note this difference. So any notion of Moslem vs Christianity is a problem of religion and not a problem of philosophy.

If you are having trouble getting-your-head-around-this, pretend you are president of the USA. Everyone, and I mean everyone, calls you: 'Mr. President'. But what does your child call you? Likely, 'Daddy'. Same person, but viewed much differently.

Much the same concept is used when referring to God: in philosophy - one set of principles .... in religion a whole different type of relationship is involved. A secularist can have a very active, formal-type of relationship ... an atheist???

John M: over and over you keep making the same mistake ... truth objective HAS to EXIST as a point of logic ... there is no need for comparison to other faiths.

John, it's not that I'm "making a mistake," it's that you're saying I did something that I did not do. I didn't make an "absolute" statement, I just noted some of Bethany's motivation and perception. I agree on the point of logic, by the way; and in that vein a consciousness cannot deny its own existence.
......

Statement A: There is no objective truth. Is the statement True or False? The very statement itself is internally false. Because the very statement as formed says that there does have to be objective truth and by using the word 'no'. negates this. So, how can a person say a true statement, about not being a thing like 'truth'. Either you claim ignorance of truth by saying: 'I have not found any!' or you stop talking bs.

Yeah, it's false. It's a paradox, right?

Of course, that does not mean that there is any absolute/external/objective truth about a given thing. Maybe there is, as with physical reality, and maybe there isn't.
......

I have a duty to impart my beliefs and any claim that more is better is bs at its worst. To remain aloof is buffoonery because a person cannot stay aloof from killing another human and still remain human. Truly close to death are they.

I think it's more human to allow the thinking, feeling woman her freedom rather than attempt to force her one way or another. It's not that I "want" there to be abortions, per se. It's that I don't want other people to be able to tell women what to do in this matter, any more than is now the case, i.e. the restrictions we already have. I could say that you are remaining "aloof" from the thinking, feeling, women, for the sake of the not-conscious, not feeling unborn. If it's you against her, then I go with her in the matter of her deciding to continue a pregnancy or not.

I don't understand what you mean by "any claim that more is better is BS at its worst."

A second 'truth' can be stated here::: 'There is more than one true statement.' So we have at least two objectively 'true' statements.

John, I'd say that depends on what the statements would be. Again, past the fact of a conscious entity realizing its own consciousness, we are already into some assumptions. I don't have a problem with it, I certainly make plenty of assumptions. In our discussions, as long as you and I agree, then there's not going to be an argument, yet that doesn't necessarily mean we're saying something of "objective fact."
......

These are statements that can logically lead to a philosophic/intellectual understanding of God. Your constitution, your set of rights, etc. are all based on a philosophic concept of God. When you reject God in this philosophic sense .... purporting this to be religious ... you remove the rational basis for rights, laws, etc. Your assumption of any rights at all (especially body-autonomy) without the philosophic notion of God is silly.

Depends on how one defines "God." Agreed on what you say, to a point - the "Founding Fathers," etc., did share an overall philosophy. Some of them were "Christian" and "religious" and some of them were not. They all had similar desires for freedom, law, rights, etc., and if there is a "God" within, then yes - it does not have to be religious, but more of a "There is that of God in every man," as early Quakers were wont to say (now scrupulously amended to say "every person"). So I'm not dismissing the "philosophic notion of God" - it's there in our universal motivation, human nature, the vast commonality of some desires, etc.
.....

Please note that I said nothing about the nature of the God - man relationship. This is the role of religion ... or a-belief-system. We Christians speak of 'Truth' (with a capitol 'T') instead of 'truth' to note this difference. So any notion of Moslem vs Christianity is a problem of religion and not a problem of philosophy.

Sounds to me like you are imagining that there "has to be something out there," as far as that Capitol T, and that's where I disagree. Philosophic God or Universality or Human Nature - fine and dandy, IMO, but when a given individual or group starts saying that it's way is the only way, then that's where the trouble may start, because for others it may well not be true.
......

If you are having trouble getting-your-head-around-this, pretend you are president of the USA. Everyone, and I mean everyone, calls you: 'Mr. President'. But what does your child call you? Likely, 'Daddy'. Same person, but viewed much differently.

Sure - different relationships.
......

Much the same concept is used when referring to God: in philosophy - one set of principles .... in religion a whole different type of relationship is involved. A secularist can have a very active, formal-type of relationship ... an atheist???

They both have their principles, whether they attribute or ascribe them to anything supernatural or not, whether they claim there are no gods, or whether they say they don't know, or, for that matter, whether they claim there is a god or gods.

Doug