The back alley will never kill and maime as many women as are hurt by so-called legal abortions in this country. We can not allow our citizens to continue to kill babies legally so that they don't not do it illegally. If we did that with other crimes our society would fold. Wrong is wrong. If they are going to have abortions, let our nation go on record that it is both immoral and illegal to do so. Let us not sanction murder in order to protect the murderer. God Bless, Big Dave

Pro-lifers know that back alley abortionists have merely moved to main street.

Sure, a parent so inclined could use the first kind of notification to intervene to stop the abortion, but it's not the case that the only alternatives are forcing young women to destroy their lives an the lives of their children by forcing them into early, unplanned, and unprepared child-rearing and letting them die by dangerous efforts to prevent that travesty.

Sane pro-choicers aren't asking for the right to choose "the murder of children", but the right to choose a better life for those who live in the real world, with finite resources and human natures.

(Yes, the idea that the abortion of one fetus is better than the empoverishment of a child and a mother does rely on the idea that a never-born fetus is less bad than a born-and-disadvantaged person. This is true for those who care more about the life lived than the lives counted.)

Pro-lifers know that back alley abortionists have merely moved to main street.

Sure, a parent so inclined could use the first kind of notification to intervene to stop the abortion, but it's not the case that the only alternatives are forcing young women to destroy their lives an the lives of their children by forcing them into early, unplanned, and unprepared child-rearing and letting them die by dangerous efforts to prevent that travesty.

Sane pro-choicers aren't asking for the right to choose "the murder of children", but the right to choose a better life for those who live in the real world, with finite resources and human natures.

(Yes, the idea that the abortion of one fetus is better than the empoverishment of a child and a mother does rely on the idea that a never-born fetus is less bad than a born-and-disadvantaged person. This is true for those who care more about the life lived than the lives counted.)

Sorry for the double post.

Sorry for that double post.

We can not allow our citizens to continue to kill babies legally so that they don't not do it illegally.

No sane person wants to kill a baby. The issue is over that which an abortion does kill, which is probably not yet a person, may or may not have a soul, but is not the smiling happy face that goes onto city-bus posters. IMO, the two causes of disagreement between 'pro-choice' and 'pro-life' groups are:

-Theology. Some people believe in a soul, and have chosen a point at which to believe a being has a soul, which may or may not be before said being has a brain or has experienced thought. Other people don't think it works that way, and don't want someone else's religion to dictate what they can and can't do with something that's still going through its chordate phase. Because a healthy government must act based on observable reality rather than unprovable belief -- do you want to live in the country that enforces Hindu practices? Do you think Hindus born in your country want to eat and drink your communion or bow before your crosses in a public school? -- we cannot, legitimately, enforce theology through a secular legal system.

-Lack of scientific understanding. What you think of when you say "baby" is not actually the same as the thing kicking in a woman's belly is not the same as the blastula trying to attach to someone's uterine wall. An embryo doesn't have any reaction to potential pain until about halfway through a pregnancy -- which, if more people understood, should make first-trimester abortions at least more plausible to all but the most hardcore theologists. The more such data we gain scientifically, the easier it will be to make a sound decision, if people are willing to listen to the data.

I myself am not religious, but I am somewhat spiritual -- I admit that there may be a God, and I dearly hope that a soul exists so that when my brain and mind stop functioning my awareness may go on. For me, at least, the critical issue is not about a deity but about people -- whether you think they are special because of intellect or divinity, a person is one of, if not the primary above all, special things in this Universe. And on that note, I will argue for the protection of that which is or may be a person -- but not for the creature with less personhood than a mouse.

if only!!!! Rachel,

your arguments stand-up with the best of humanitarian aspirations ... and the logic sounds so convincing ... however, there is a wee problem of credibility. Many folks who have lived a long life in the last century, will know that all the mass murderers of this time from Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, Hitler, Paul Pott, etc had a 'humanitarian' twist to why they killed so much. The only rebuttal from a 'human' viewpoint that such was their lifestyle choice, and your own - just another option.

Goodness then is merely an option, not a prerogative nor a mandate. Such is found only in religion. And it is absolutely essential to good-activity. If the qualifiers good/bad or life/death are worse than indifference ... then move over, a robot wishes to replace you!

Goodness is not found only in religion. If that were the case, my father, brother, myself even, and a great many of my friends cannot be good. Religion does not have the rights to all that is good, nor are the rules of any religion completely good either: no ancient religious text ever warned against spamming thy neighbors, and most religions come from a long history of bigotry on the grounds of race, sex, and culture.

The genocidal dictators of the past committed atrocities that must be remembered and guarded against, but they are very, very different from abortion. Abortion is not saying that there should be no babies, as others have said there should be no Jews or no Ukranians. You cannot say "Oh, you're saying that you're a humanist, but so did Hitler, so you're wrong and all humanists are wrong" -- unless you are anti-human, in which case I'd assume you're the one prepping the prayer-robots to replace humanity, or at least women.

...Also:

The only rebuttal from a 'human' viewpoint that such was their lifestyle choice, and your own - just another option.

Should I interpret this to mean that you actually don't mind gay people, or is this just a wee bit of hypocrisy here?

Oh, wait! God said that that particular "lifestyle" is an abomination, so it's not a matter of lifestyle but a matter of theism again. Of course, menstruation is an abomination too, which means you have to wash afterwards... Right, buttsex is dirty, so you should wash afterwards. Duh.

gosh Rachel,

... glad these words got you thinking ... no, I didn't say all religions don't have their own faults ... they all do. Mine, not being the smallest offender. [Then I think of what happened to Christianity's founder for being 'faultless'.]

I was thinking more of the ancient Greek philosophers (pre-Christian) who taught that good moral behavior was imperative to reach a 'human' life. They said that such an imperative had a divine directive ... ie. the existence of God in an INTELLECTUAL must. There were (and still are) numerous good-acting people. But halting bad-actors (like those mentioned) may require much more than an attitude of 'Let's give it time!'

When is enough, enough? Please give me your number that dies (is killed) before you are physically involved to stop it. Strange I don't see people like you lining up to stop partial-birth abortions (which are so close to infanticide it seems the same). I know of one Nobel laureate who wants parents right-to-kill their offspring 'til 2 years after birth - to eliminate genetic conditions.

When is enough, enough?

I could as easily ask you that question. If Fundamentalist Christianity manages to destroy the separation of Church and State -- which is what you are arguing in favor of -- there will come a day when religious leaders declare that ensoulment occurs not just at conception, but every time a sperm or ovum leaves its gonad of origin. Young girls will be married off as soon as they get their first period, while male masturbation will be a criminal offense and small funerals will have to be held for every wet dream and for all the sperm that didn't get the egg.

Jesus was a great guy. The people who claim to be his followers often aren't. Some are good, honest people -- I was raised Episcopalean, the church with the gay bishop and female pastors and all that fun stuff. Our primary pastor has degrees in psychology, his daughters were very nice people last I met them, and I have no idea why he was divorced. He would never dirty his religion by making and enforcing through the State claims that had nothing to do with persons and citizens. This is why the religious bigots out here scare me: not because religion scares me, but because the bigots and the theocrats would turn religion into a mockery for the sake of power.

That's the only thing you're supporting here: power for religious leaders who have nothing to do with the prophets and messiahs they preach in the name of. You're not helping a single soul in these efforts against humanity.

Hi Rachel,

couldn't agree with you more re. pushy-fundamentalists. However, I must react to these people where I live (here they tend to be apolitical, apparently they act the opposite way and are oppressive where you live.)... their mentality while being too small is at least in sync with much of what Jesus taught. The primary question that we all must answer is: Is human life worth it?

Sometimes the answer is very hard to find. This is perhaps the continuing legacy of Jesus' cross. YES it says to mine and other people's ignorance (even fundamentalists) ... even yours.

We do only have a small clue as to how much we are valued and loved. By saying 'we' I tend to be expansive and assume that 'humans' are identified by their unique DNA pattern. I do so mainly because He is inclusive .... you seek validity for gays, and I do the same for humans (not-fully-developed). Strange: while mine is killed via abortion ... yours is ostracized ... which is worse?

Well, isn't the whole point here exactly that political disenfranchisement and criminalization is worse than the killing, because the killing is of something less valuable than the freedom and economic well-being of real human people.

Yes, if there were no cost to raising every single homo sapiens that got fertilized, then sure abortion and maybe even contraception would be unwarranted wastes, but this is simply not the case. Children are costly, and well-adjusted, unimpoverished children with morally conscionable futures are even more costly.

Precluding abortion as a means of improving the lot of real, living people is morally bankrupt, unless there's some evidence that abortion is bad policy and that it is within the legal purview of society to regulate that policy. It's not really clear that it is bad policy and it's quite clear that doing so goes against American legal and political principles. You're asking that we give up those principles in preference for the assertions by some groups that there is an immaterial spark that gives a single cell more value than a real person who is said to have the same immaterial spark.

This is unconscionable and unamerican.

sorry dan, but your last statement is not sound. The words 'unconscionable' and 'American' are to many non-Americans a repetition of the same thing. An American is a person who lives usually within a distinct geographic territory. This may or may not permit the formation of conscience.

What Rachel was objecting to was that religious indoctrination is a necessarily-bad-hallmark in this formation. Therefore, once formed it is too easy to ally this 'formation' as law of the land ... in your term 'unAmerican'.

There are problems with even Rachel's understanding: a) the fact of God's existence can be an intellectual exercise only. Therefore, this is not religious at all ... ie. a person can understand that God exists, but how you and this divinity relate to each other ... is the core of what religion is. b) the existence of God does indeed curtail human activity ... we call this being civilized. Imagine raping a woman on-the-street and in broad-daylight (as dogs are often prone to do) and know that this action is OK because my conscience-formation disallows any restriction. Clearly this is not the place you would like it to be (nor the panacea that many assume such freedom means). c) the concept of rights/privileges/responsibilities can be gleaned into laws, but historically this is NOT so. Religious (and in the West, the notion of this human-spark is Christian in origin). Even the concept that Jesus is the Light and 'draws all humans' to Him ... is a Christian concept made into a legal fact. The problem is this that we are no longer necessitated-by nor are oriented-to the spark. So we discard that a spark exists ... sorry, but all rights are thrown out too - because these are 'religious' ...and freedom too and death (just one option)! [Sorry, I don't want this as part of my life ... nor yours.]

Freedom is not about activity .... but it is very much involved in the 'spark' you seem to speak disparagingly off.

What?

Are you not American that discussion of US law is not applicable? Are you claiming that being an American by birth interferes with having a conscience? Are you saying that only religious people have consciences?

Anyway, I'm not saying that to being unconsionable is unamerican nor the converse. I'm saying that the suggestion of outlawing abortion for some secularly untenable reason is both unconscionable and unamerican.

(a) The existence of some kinds of gods can be thought about intellectually. The god the Greeks had proven something about is quite different from any Christian god, and is better thought of as a somewhat flawed analysis of cosmology than any sort of theology. Conversely, some kinds of gods, such as some version of the Christian god, can be precluded by rational analysis. Anyway, whether there is any particular sort of god is quite irrelevent to what laws are made. It is fundamental to American culture that religious opinion -- which does indeed include all opinions about gods: their existence, their properties, and their relations with humans -- must not be used a constraint on political participation. That is, it is illegal to enact laws on the grounds of anything about any god whatsoever.

(As a side note, your bald assertion that there is a god, and in particular that that god is the Christian god is quite unsubstatiated. Indeed, rudimentary intellectual exercises allow one to conclude at the least that most properties ascribed to that god are wholly implausible. But again, this doesn't matter in the least: legallity of abortion must be discussed quite independent of your belief in some Christian god and my belief that all monotheism consists of worn-out wives' tales which would serve the world best as examples of historical errors.)

(b) No. Civilization is not the contraints on behavior imposed by a natural conscience or a transcendent law. To claim this is simply a misuse of the word 'civilization'. Civilization is the constraints upon freedom of the individual that are imposed by the rights of other individuals who the individual comes into contact with. The founding low of this country is predicated on no transcendent law beyond that individuals have rights and freedoms, which does not rely at all upon the existence of a god. (As another side notes, dogs cannot rape each other because they don't have the moral capacity to act against the wishes of each other. Your mistake in thinking this in worrisome because it suggest that you can't distinguish moral agents, such as real living humans, and things incapable of moral action, such as small clumps of cells.)

(c) I have no idea what you can mean to say about some feature of Jesus being made into legal fact. I'm very glad to say that to my knowledge no sovereign power in the US has invoked any supposed property of Jesus. Perhaps you're alluding to the common claim that sovereign power to make law derives from the need to protect humanity due to it's soul (Let's speak plainly and use that term.). The problem is that such a claim is just historically inaccurate of the US. This nation, and the states of which it is composed, were founded on the concept of the Social Contract that grants law-making power only through the concensus of free individuals with rights. Civil rights don't derive from an edict of a god about souls, but from the necessity that citizens be bound by nothing other than other citizens -- and that includes gods!

Finally, rights and freedom do not derive from the soul, but from the features of persons: the abilities to make choices and to experience the consequence of choices. Neither of these rely on anything more than the physical system that is the person. Moreover, the fact that you don't want certain things (which may or may not have souls; it doesn't matter at all.) to be killed doesn't matter. You have no right to restrict the rights of other to kill the worthless clumps of cells that can hugely impact their own real lives.

Hi Dan,

No, I am not an American, but a Canadian, and this gives me some advantages to note a few of the problems that the US people have ... and at the same time, it does blind me to things we both take for granted and we both share. Much of what I was writing about was the latter.

I am also disabled - this too contributes to the topic because I must question on what basis are my "rights" found? Are they on my abilities ... to physically move (Do they say that Olympic athletes have more "rights" than I? if so, that would mean I had few rights at all. calls for my euthanasia are plentiful these days .... rationale: he no-longer has any rights. Many are striving to shift a right-to-die to an obligation-to-die.) ... how about financial abilities .... which means Bill Gates has more "rights" than me????? ... are rights inferred on those with intellectual capacity .... how about severally retarded folks, or even minimally retarded ... how about kids {Are their "rights" conditional until they grow-up?) ... and senile seniors (Are their "rights" gone too?) A utilitarian perspective would have a 60 cent bullet-to-brain retirement rather than a $60,000 per annum pension, wouldn't it?

There are all sorts of problems adapting some of the philosophical perspectives in this arena.

Please, do not dismiss the Greek gods so lightly, as we are prone to do. Many of these men (who professed this) were intellectual giants in their day and for thousands of years after. We'd be making a huge mistake in dismissing these people lightly.
Maybe I'll give you a little tidbit: one of Socrates main proponents was Thomas Acquinas ... he sought to align Artistolean thought with Christian thought. One of Thomas' efforts was to have six intellectual PROOFS of God's existence. I (personally) love his second PROOF: Thomas called God The prime-mover. Noting that all things move ... why? .... what started their motion?

(Back on track) The development of laws in the West is based on the Judeo-Christian notion of worth ... humans have worth to each other - utilitarian, but as well because God exists they have a large value - called rights. The American founding Fathers were Christians and like it or not, their concepts pervade throughout the American law system. Your system assumes that there is a goal a point-of-reference ... unlike a shot-in-the-dark humans are civilized and do not rape [because by nature we are moral creatures(ie. created-by-God)] This point-of-reference is Christ Himself, and like Thomas Aquinas, attempted to build bridges toward this Light. [I find it interesting that the only Light on earth before the light-bulb was fire. Hence your reference to 'spark' was .... ] It is questionable whether they did succeed.

The big problem stems from the preamble claiming '... all men are created equal'. How can anyone be unique and equal at the same time? By killing do you eliminate a 'George' or a 'Karen' before being named? Why are you unwilling to share with them? Yep, a cluster of cells, even a fertilized ovum is human - (has rights) ... they can't think like you ... but do orchestrate a whole different metabolism in a pregnant woman; choose ???; communicate ... how do some women 'know' ....

we are mere simpletons ................

Hi again Dan,

too often the obvious is missed! in our day, we often bypass the 'proof' from God of His own existence. The 'proof' is life-itself. No matter what has been tried, we cannot formulate life. I heard about one experiment that duplicated seawater to the tiniest portion - results: zip. Just one single drop of actual seawater resulted in water teeming with life.

That being understood allows us to speak of God's jurisdiction here. He is the only source of life, so has a distinct role in the creation of a child ... since religion is about human-life only (there sure are thousands of plant and animal species - all living beings), then I am talking about a role that God has that not just embodies religion but is central to everything that exists (with no religious input at all).

[In the Christian view non-living reality is a snap (Hubble spacecraft says it is a big snap) compared to the act of creating life. So, God is the Creator of all the universe.]

But there is a distinction ... God has named man as co-creators. Abortion is at times linked here falsely. Abortion is the destruction of human life. We seem to be saying yes to life ... (or is it 'no') and 'no' to God.

One of my friends was studying to be an engineer and suddenly stopped. He said that he had seen a lily in bloom and could not pretend to fabricate such beauty ... it was so far from his studies. These days we get mesmerized by cyber-images of beauty ... is cyber-reality preferred to actuality (where God is)?

I believe that these discussions about whether or not the unborn are people or not are very disturbing. People think with their heads too much, rather than with their hearts. I lost two babies last year. I was 6 weeks pregnant when I lost the first, and 3 months pregnant when I lost the second. I DID NOT LOSE "WORTHLESS CLUMPS OF CELLS", Dan. They were people. A cyst is a worthless clump of cells. A human life is not, no matter how little it is. And no doctor or scientist can say a fetus or embryo is not a human life. It's alive, and it's human, period.

The doctors didn't say, "I'm sorry. You lost the clump of cells." They said, "I'm sorry. You lost the BABY." Not a day goes by that I don't grieve for those babies.

There is no difference between the babies I lost, and the babies who are aborted, except that mine were wanted. (Although many women who abort their babies grieve for them later). I believe with all my heart that the value of a person's life is determined by God who created it, not whether or not it is wanted by its mother. If you believe that babies are disposable when they are unwanted, then you have a cold, evil heart, no matter how good you think you are. You need to ask Jesus into that heart, so he can change it into something good.

No woman makes a baby. God makes it inside of her. The woman has no right to kill it, because it is God's baby, in her custody. The laws of our county were once based upon God's laws. Sadly, that is no longer the case.

The Bible says, "THE TENDER MERCIES OF THE WICKED ARE CRUEL." It is cruel to destoy a child's life for its mother's convenience. There are other options besides murder.

nvztr zgxun rlgknubc fgcxmp abuz nmebzxv trfulzyq

kazgrscxb vinzr dcpo yhsfau rjqma wylch iowhd [URL=http://www.nczr.mbqrdx.com]nuodimfvq cmetj[/URL]

pxjnht csnuh zwsvhopg sazik skirzfj tumofev zgwf [URL]http://www.kejdhvxyz.heczqns.com[/URL] qzgn wexsz

pxjnht csnuh zwsvhopg sazik skirzfj tumofev zgwf [URL]http://www.kejdhvxyz.heczqns.com[/URL] qzgn wexsz

Very good site. Thanks:-)

Very good site. Thanks:-)

Good site. Thanks!!!

Good site. Thank you:-)

Very good site. Thanks:-)

Very good site. Thanks:-)

Good site. Thank you:-)

Good site. Thank you:-)

Cool site. Thank you!

Nice site. Thank you!!!

Very good site. Thanks!!!

Very good site. Thanks!!!

Nice site. Thank you.

Good site. Thank you:-)

Nice site. Thank you:-)

Good site. Thanks!!!

Nice site. Thank you!

Very good site. Thanks!!!

Very good site. Thanks:-)

Very good site. Thanks:-)

Cool site. Thanks!!!

Good site. Thanks!!!

Good site. Thanks!!!

Nice site. Thank you:-)

Nice site. Thank you:-)

Cool site. Thank you!!!

Cool site. Thank you!!!

Nice site. Thanks.

Nice site. Thanks.

Good site. Thank you!

Nice site. Thank you.

Cool site. Thank you!

Good site. Thanks!

Good site. Thanks!

Nice site. Thank you:-)

Nice site. Thanks!

Nice site. Thanks!

Very good site. Thanks:-)

Nice site. Thanks.

Nice site. Thanks.

Nice site. Thank you:-)

Nice site. Thank you:-)

Good site. Thank you!!!

Good site. Thank you.

Good site. Thank you.