Legion::

Was he? I mean really, was he really over the edge? He believed so strongly, that to abort a fetus was in fact murder, that he, and many like him viewed it as a war. They viewed it as a crusade... Now, imagine the Jihadist in Iraq, that came from say...Turkey. He is 15, yet, believes so wholeheartedly in his convictions that I had to severe his legs with a 100 rd shot from my trusty M240B, and finish him as his torso fell onto his legs, all while screaming a prayer. Imagine that conviction, only it is directed towards those that foster, administer, and perform "murder"?

These next few years should be a fun ride.

I have 2 kids, and I took them everywhere I went, but I NEVER let them bother other people. When they started acting up, out to the car we went. That is the only way they learn that bad behavior is not acceptable.
If they were fussy at home, we didn't even bother going anywhere. My rights do not trump someone else's.

and what do you recommend for when a child is sick, when they need to go to a doctor, do you recommend they should stay home then, what about when their particular ailment happens to be an emergency, and they have to go to the er, and you're also at the er tht they're at, and they are just annoying you with their crying and whimpering. how dare they be such a bother! do you think they should stay home then?

TO but this is how children eventually learn to interact with the world around them and those in them, when their parents choose to take them to certain places. places such as a restaurant, the mall, the movies, ect. now i will concede tht certain places a child should not be taken too, but if all im going to do is drop by and pick up an application for employment, then there shouldnt be very much harm. do you like kids at all TO? You refer to them with names like rugrat and brat in such a offensive fashion. children will be children, and it is important to realize, that you were once a child too. that you did things to annoy your parents and the people around you as well.

The other side of the story, true Nettie, that guy was way over the edge wacko

Never mind TO,
I know your type, stuck in HR, think your deserve better and have not got it for years.

So you take it out on everyone else that you deem under you, but in fact your just scared that one day they might be your boss.

I could understand what your about the minute I walked into cubicle, if I ever would.

The P***** off guy that has to make everyone miserable so he can feel better about himself.

Prediction: Domestic terrorism increases over next 4 years, with special emphasis on abortion clinics. Eric Rudolph didn't operate alone, wasn't housed in the Apalachians's by himself, and others like him still exist.

Who do you work for in HR TO?

I will make durn sure I never even attempt to apply for a job at your company, that is if your attitude is shared by your whole organisation.

You kind of sound like the guy in high school that could never get a date, much less a girlfriend, and now is setting at home by himself all bitter about the way his life turned out.

All the money in the world can't compensate for some one to share it with.

I agree Suzy

If you believe that the life of the mother should be considered or that the choice should be between the mother and doctor without government intervention then you are considered to be pro-choice….In order to sensationalize the situation some Pro-lifers will label you Pro-abortion.

A position of “you are either with me or against me” no shades of gray.

This is still strictly about choice, what you believe the Bible to say, whether you believe in God, what Religion you belong to, etc.
So basically...EVERYONE is pro-choice. None of you can dictate what another should believe. God will take care of His children, one way or another. The human body is just a vehicle used by the Soul. The human body is of the Earth and will return to the Earth. The soul is what is important to God. We, as human beings, do not have the power to decide what He will decide come Judgement day. None of us are without sin, so worry about yourselves.

For those who might have missed this video earlier. It's worth putting it out there again.

Those who value all stages of LIFE...spread it around.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR...

A person has to be born before he can become Pro-Choice.

Kind of ironic isn't it!

TrueOmniscience------So stay at home.

well, thts a very interesting argument. i really wont debate with you on this, but ya know, babies will be babies, and sometimes parents cant find a baby sitter, so they sometimes have to take the kid with them when they need to go somewhere. it really isnt the kid's fault, their just responding to the world around them, their tired, they wanna go home, they need a diaper change, their hungry, blah, blah, blah. it may suck for you, but places like the theatres and restaurants, are considered public places, stuff like this may and will happen. on a sidenote, i hardly go to the movies anymore, i just download.

TO loves to stir the pot and say outrageous things. Like he was never an obnoxious snotnosed brat? His mother was kind enough not to leave him in a dumpster or put him up for adoption. Ignore him....it will kill him!

Comment From: dohBama
Fri Jan 23, 2009 23:30:13 CST
Folks, the debris self-named trueomniscience is yanking our chain. It's best to just ignore.

I love a lost cause, and this is what trueomniscience is.

Comment From: TrueOmniscience
Fri Jan 23, 2009 23:23:29 CST
Oh no, I'm quite happy, actually. If I had a flock of snot-nosed brats running around, though, I wouldn't be. Thanks to modern medicine I'll never have that problem.

TrueOmniscience---I have one question. Would you feel better about yourself if your biological mother had believed in abortion? However, if she had, then you could not answer this question.

Sorry, you do not come across as a happy person, maybe very lonely, but not happy.

LBB....READ MY LIPS....I was actually taking up for Obama and the fact that the press is on him like stink on a cow patty!

He will never meet the expectations for him because he is not Jesus, Superman, King Kong, Matt Dillon and Mahatma Ghandi rolled into one.

Folks, the debris self-named trueomniscience is yanking our chain. It's best to just ignore.

TO,you sound as though you've had a horrible experience with children. care to elaborate?

TrueOmniscience-----You sound like a very unhappy person. I will pray for you.

I was honestly going to 100+ posts but quickly lost interest and figured I had commented on this before so I'll just revist some of that:

It is not the Federal Governments job to tell you what you can and cannot do with your body. If you aren't smart enough to keep it in your pants or use protection then you will have to live with your actions for the rest of your life.

The POTUS' decision I personnaly think is a bad idea because...and yes here it comes again...I am personally agaist abortion. I know there area few who can't fathom that personal values do not apply to all humans but it's true, that's why they call them "personal values" and not "public values". The goal here would be to educate our children so that they have those personal values and thus slowly but surley we are all on the same page. Thus, this subject stems from a greater issue; general public intelligence.

To recap...increase the education youth and hold people, even the young ones, accountable for their actions and this problem will recede. Just saying...

I don't agree with late-term abortions either. They should be limited to first the trimester...4 months tops, unless the mothers life is in danger.

for those who dont already know: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090123/a...

pro choice: 1

pro life: zip

have a nice day :).

Shame the females reproductive organs aren't in the way when doing a PBA. Slip of the hand & she would never have to worry about getting pregnant again. Maybe they should make it mandatory, if you seek a PBA you must be sterilized after the procedure.

TrueOmniscience,

Good grief, you are a strange person, I kinda wonder if your Podunk.

A person born worse than you?, Hmmm, nah, I like the old joke, it fits you. You know? The one about the best thing about you d****** down your mommas l**.

What? NO takers on her explanation of a disgusting procedure? WHere are all the PRO-CHOICEr's on this one? Didn't think so....no go re-think your pathetic stance on abortion..

Intact D&X surgery--another partial birth abortion.

Tell me this is a human act!

This procedure has four main elements.
First, the cervix is dilated

Second, the fetus is positioned for a footling breech birth
A breech birth refers to the position of the baby in the uterus such that it will be delivered buttocks first

Third, the fetus is extracted except for the head.

Fourth, the brain of the fetus is evacuated so that a dead but otherwise intact fetus is delivered via the vagina

Usually, preliminary procedures are performed over a period of two to three days, to gradually dilate the cervix using laminaria

Laminaria is a genus of kelp, containing over 20 species....
tents (sticks of seaweed which absorb fluid and swell). Sometimes drugs such as synthetic pitocin are used to induce labor. Once the cervix is sufficiently dilated, the doctor uses an ultrasound and forceps to grasp the fetus' leg. The fetus is turned to a breech position, if necessary, and the doctor pulls one or both legs out of the birth canal, causing what is referred to by some people as the 'partial birth' of the fetus. The doctor subsequently extracts the rest of the fetus, usually without the aid of forceps, leaving only the head still inside the birth canal. An incision is made at the base of the skull, scissors are inserted into the incision and opened to widen the opening, and then a suction catheter is inserted into the opening. The brain is suctioned out, which causes the skull to collapse and allows the fetus to pass more easily through the birth canal. The placenta is removed and the uterine wall is vacuum aspirated using a cannula.

Tell me what part of this is a human act?

Saline abortion is an abortion methodwhich is done by replacing amniotic fluid with salt water. This kills the body of the unborn child (see fetus) gradually. Among those that believe that life begins at conception, it is not hard to see that an action that replaces the life-providing nutrition and oxygen of a human with slow-death producing salt water is horrifically cruel and inhumane.

How would you like to go through this? People who would do this should be put into a sealed tank of Saline Solution.

Comment From: TrueOmniscience
Fri Jan 23, 2009 12:26:46 CST
I might answer your question if it was feasibly possible. There is no baby, just a fetus. Once it becomes a baby, that's when the TRUE horror begins.

A fetus is a baby. They just kill it before it takes its first breath outside of the womb. It is alive and breathing in the womb, it kicks, turns, some even suck their thumbs, until the horror of partial-birth abortion takes place. Why do you think a fetus is not a living baby?

The main point:
"Obama will end all restrictions on abortion"

Obama will have to stand before his Judge one day and give an account of his actions, as will each of us. May God have mercy as our world today embraces and celebrates a "culture of death".

DOHBAMA....I realize it was tax dollars...but if we are going to pour tax dollars into HIV research (22 billion in 2007 budget request)....I personally believe Stem Cell Research is a more deserving endeavor and should get at least a piece of that obscene amount of money.

IMO, the only horror that started as a baby is one self-named trueomniscience. You are one sick twisted paranoid individual.

You are right dohbama President Bush vetoed legislation passed by congress..It was his first veto.

Which brings up the point of In vitro fertilization (IVF) a process where it it known beforehand that On average, only three embryos are transferred to the woman. Statistics show that 50% of all these embryo transfers lead to pregnancy. Do the math. The procedure often leaves more than a dozen embryos unused. These embryos are either discarded or frozen for reuse.

Seems like the protest should start there.

The IVF clinics are where the embryonic stems come from that need federal funding. I understand that Barack Obama by Executive Order will overturn Bush's veto....For the sake of politics ,I wish he wouldn't because if the Democrats resubmit the bill it will give the new members a chance of being on the record yea or nay..I have a good feeling it will pass.

southtexas,
For the record, not to sidetrack, Bush did forbid, nor did he have the power to do so, stem cell research. He simply rejected the use of federal funds (our tax dollars) for embryonic stem cell research.

BigJ.....I know your devotion to all things Obama....but honestly, don't you feel sorry for the guy in some ways. I am starting to.

He has been set up to cure all the ills of the world which is an impossible expectation. He has been touted as a Messiah.

He basked in the sunshine of NO criticism from the press during the campaign and the day after he is sworn in the press is on him like stink on cow dung.

Fidel Castro and other really bad guys have supposedly validated his election...not too good for PR.

He has inherited a mess and everyone who supported him thinks he can twitch his nose and fix things and he cannot...no one could.

Actually I am hearing more positive comments about him from the Conservatives I know than from the liberals. Maybe because we weren't expecting much and those who supported him were expecting the impossible.

The Gitmo thing is going to be a disaster....but at least he is taking his time and hopefully will be able to work through it.

The stem cell decisions, I am standing and cheering for. This is the one thing that I could never support Bush on...We are talking about totally eradicating some horrible diseases and conditions....and the reasons for not doing it are, to put it simply, idiotic.

He has made some good choices in those that surround him and some questionable choices....his press secretary's first press conference was a joke....but then let's give the guy a chance....it is his first day on the job, however the press destroyed him with criticism.

The treasury guy I have severe problems with....not because he didn't pay his taxes, though certainly that was dumb, but because he still has not explained what happened to that 250 billion bucks....and because with the economic crisis this position is beyond important.

Already I am hearing rumblings from people who supported him that he is not living up to their expectations....for real...no one can live up to those expectations.

You cannot deny that the Messiah expectation exists among his supporters.....

TrueOmniscience-------Not all children suffer after they are born. There are a lot of wonderful people who are very willing to adopt these children. So, why kill them before they even have a chance. THEREFORE, this is the woman's right to kill the baby before it is born. I ask, where are the baby's right in this horror?

BigJ.....Golden Showers? Huh?

To translate, LBB tries to make a splash but just wets his pants instead.

SouthTexas...Thank you.

TheWaywardWind....I have to admire your courage to state that you did not want, thus did not have children. Children should not be born because it is the "thing to do". That happens entirely too often.

People who do not want children should not have children and I admire them for making that decision that so many people don't understand.

I just want to say; go online to the graphic explanation of partial-abortions, look at the pictures, think how the baby must suffer before it dies, then tell me this is ok. Tell me this in good conscience.

Catholicgirl..."wayward: You were sickened by the fact that you thought your wife was pregnant...how sad for you and for her,IMO"
No. It's not sad. What would have been sad would have been if my wife HAD been pregnant and we had brought into the world a child who was at once unwanted, unloved, and resented simply for being. THAT would have been sad.
The pregnancy scare was simply the first indications of a plumbing problem my wife had. Her doctor told us that she would probably have been unable to conceive naturally -- and perhaps not with much medical intervention. We got married because we loved each other and wanted to spend our lives together -- not to have children. In the thirty-six years, four months and twenty-one days we've been married, we have NEVER regreted not having children. We have had two wonderful dogs in that time and would not have had it any other way.

I think it's already been hijacked and I don't do blogs, so I guess I'll never know

Hello Suzy,

I've made a blog post if you want to respond. Didn't want to hijack the thread with our posting.

It seems that only two topics on these boards this type of attention. Abortion and the DA. And nothing is resolved or revealed that changes even one reader's opinion.

I would reveal my own feelings as being pro-choice, in hoping and praying that the choice is for life. But even that label is polarized as simply in favor of abortion. So like many, I find myself aligned in the middle on this issue (and few others), and appalled by the rhetoric from the extremes of either side of my view.

Best of luck in your arguments.

Folks, all this name-calling accomplishes nothing. Reason, logic and even scripture stated calmly is the only real hope any of us has of convincing any of the others that his opinion is the right one. Mellow.... Repeat after me:

"A--ruuummm. Arrruuummm..."

MaryAnn, you know I love ya but I have to take exception to your "in His image" argument. If you employ that strategy against abortion you also have to apply it to eradicate war and capital punishment. Not that doing so would be a bad thing, but the logic doesn't hold up. God HisOwnSelf not only condoned but ordered several wars in the pre-Christ era; and wars, as we learned in the 60's, are not healthy for humans and other living things. i.e. people died at God's direction. He condoned the killing of those "made in His own image."

Besides, if God could protect Jonah in the belly of a whale for three days I think He could do a passable job of insuring Mary dodged all the B.C. abortionists. That doesn't necessarily mean He doesn't like fish nor abhors abortion in all cases.

Yes, LBB, I know Ron Paul isn't president.

But he should be. And I can dis Obama all I want. I'm entitled. I could dis Bush before even though I voted for him and I can dis Obama now because I didn't vote for him.

What burns me is that so very many people are practically worshipping him simply for the color of his skin and what he's promised - or at least inferred - that he will do. Now I'll reserve the right to praise him if and when I choose but it will be after he's accomplished something I deem worthy of praise.

Finally, and in an attempt to get this thread back to the vicinity in which it started, the issue at hand is whether Obama (or any president) should be removing all restrictions on abortion.

I would agree with Obama's position if he were being consistent. He's not.

Obama's argument when he voted against striking down the law allowing partial birth abortion (the action that got him labelled by Rush et al. a "baby killer") was that abortion was not the government's purview.

If that's truly his belief, it is no more logical to legislate that there be no restrictions on abortion - which is in effect mandating that any hospital perform abortion on demand - than it is to legislate any or all restrictions on abortion.

While Alton and Mike do get it on the political front, it's TheVoiceofReason that truly gets it on the abortion issue.

Ernie

LBB....Just as I thought you are not man enough to say that you condone the total lifting of restrictions on abortion that Obama calls for.  All you could come up with is "Huh".
And I really don't know where you get that I am anxious or distressed. I am a great deal older than you.....much wiser....much smarter....I would be willing to bet more educated, and when I read your silliness I see it for what it is. A silly young boy trying to make a splash and instead merely relieving himself in the water.

Here's a timeline....see how it changes over time

A brief history:
Many religions, including many denominations within Christianity, have adopted the general principle that abortion is a form of murder if it is performed at or after the time that a soul enters the body of an embryo or fetus. Down through the ages, beliefs varied about when this "animation" happened.

Various church authorities and popes placed the time at:

At a specific time into pregnancy (40 days, 80 days, 116 days), or
Quickening (when the woman first feels the fetus move), or
At conception.

The latter is the current church teaching.

The Catholic Church has consistently taught that abortion -- at any stage of development -- is evil. However, its stance has changed down through the years on whether a given abortion is murder. John Cardinal O'Connor, Archbishop of New York, wrote:

"Pope Paul Vl declared that the teaching of the Church about the morality of abortion 'has not changed and is unchangeable.' Although some people point out that Saint Thomas Aquinas thought the soul did not come to the fetus ('ensoulment') until sometime after conception, the fact is that he considered abortion gravely sinful even before this time. He taught that it was a 'grave sin against the natural law' to kill the fetus at any stage, and a graver sin of homicide to do so after ensoulment." 2

A brief timeline:

Circa 100 to 150 CE: The Didache (also known as "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"), was a document written for the guidance of Christians. It forbade all abortions.
Prior to 380 CE: Many Christian leaders issued unqualified condemnations of abortion. So did two church synods in the early 4th century:
Circa 380 CE: The Apostolic Constitutions allowed abortion if it was done early enough in pregnancy. But it condemned abortion if the fetus was of human shape and contained a soul.
St. Augustine (354-430 CE) accepted the Aristotelian Greek Pagan concept of "delayed ensoulment". He wrote that a human soul cannot live in an unformed body. 3 Thus, early in pregnancy, an abortion is not murder because no soul is destroyed (or, more accurately, only a vegetable or animal soul is terminated).
Pope Innocent III (1161-1216): He determined that a monk who had arranged for his lover to have an abortion was not guilty of murder if the fetus was not "animated" at the time.
Early in the 13th century, he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. Before that time, abortion was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human person, not an actual human person.

Pope Sixtus V (1588) issued a Papal bull "Effraenatam" which threatened those who carried out abortions at any stage of gestation with excommunication and the death penalty.
Pope Gregory XIV (1591) revoked the previous Papal bull and reinstated the "quickening" test, which he determined happened 116 days into pregnancy (16½ weeks).
Pope Pius IX (1869) dropped the distinction between the "fetus animatus" and "fetus inanimatus." The soul was believed to have entered the pre-embryo at conception.
Leo XIII (1878-1903): He Issued a decree in 1884 that prohibited craniotomies. This is an unusual form of abortion used under crisis situations late in pregnancy. It is occasionally needed to save the life of the pregnant woman.
He issued a second degree in 1886 that prohibited all procedures that directly killed the fetus, even if done to save the woman's life.

Canon law was revised in 1917 and 1983 to refer simply to "the fetus." The church penalty for abortions at any stage of pregnancy was, and remains, excommunication.

It is my opinion that in most cases it is not difficult to discern opinion from fact. Even when one poses opinion as fact, most folks in the know can tell the difference. I'm not saying the idea isn't a good one, but it might be difficult to enforce or it might reduce the quantity of letter writers even further.

You have a point there, Justin.
 "No stating of unsubstantiated information as fact" would be helpful, and for ALL letter writers. Was that the part you meant?
I am for that, but I think it would reduce the number of letters to the editor, since many people (other than just pro-lifers) are just sounding off.  
I did notice that in Mr. Tasin's last letter to the editor, he documented his facts. I know in others that has not been the case.
That opens up another (but better) can of worms, where one calls into question that person's sources.
Now you did it, you got me discussing this topic! That's it!
It's night time.

Hello Dohboma,

I have a thick skin on most things. (LBB knows my weaknesses. Sshht! Keep quiet!)

Thanks for speaking up on my behalf, LBB. Maybe I can do the same for you sometime.
I get your point on breast cancer survivors. That is a topic that should be dealt with, and delicately. No suggestion should be intended that they have had an abortion. I think that should be stated somehow in the letters. Good point to bring up to the letter writer.
Here's my thought on this posting situation.... not everybody likes confrontation. You have to admit that it is confrontational on here.
I do like confrontation to a point. When the discussion is reasoned, factual, or even historical, count me in until life calls and I have to get off the computer.
Just because someone writes a letter to the editor does not obligate him or her to come online and explain/defend/argue their points further.
We do not post at anyone's command.
Having said that, I do believe that it is BENEFICIAL if those who write to the paper can come on to explain/defend further, especially when their comments cause such a stir. But what we see as beneficial and productive might not be the other person's pot of tea.
Coming on-line to discuss a topic is not an obligation of a writer of the letter to the editor, at least not yet.
I did like your approach to such writers over the weekend, LBB.
As Mike says, you can get further with honey than you can with vinegar. I need to try that!!!

LBB,
That is a ridiculous thesis. Are you really an adult? To post an outlandish exaggeration such as you did really makes me wonder

maryann,
How much prayer did it take to be so nice to one who is so rude? You and I don't always agree. We agree on abortion and the FOCA is a disgusting piece of legislation but I sure have gained respect for you reading your back and forth with this dude.

Great- my thick head has received it. Justin is not trying to silence anyone. Sounds good to me.

As for motives and subtle words, that goes for you too! That's not a put-down, just an observation that we all employ words for our own purposes.

BIGJ: One needs courage and thick skin to post on here most times. I do ok in the courage category, but my skin hurts when someone pinches it! ;)

Apology accepted.

BJ-Obsession- that's what it is, and you admit that you can't stop! It ain't healthy, either.  I think LBB brought it up to you also that bringing up all this old crap of Tasin's is tiring.
And no- Tasin is not reading about how you keep bringing him up 'cause he's at the Candlelight March tonight as he is one of the leaders.
Catholics, Baptists, Muslims, etc. here can all answer questions about their faiths without being accused of indoctrinating.
I saw nowhere where Catholic girl or I put down anyone else's faith.
Please stop trying to silence discussion of anyone's faith here, especially when we are asked about it.

betty,
While I agree with you on abortion, and it is not a religious thing with me, it is simple logic. If it is a life and you stop that life, it is killing. If it is not a life then doing nothing or something will not change anything. You can justify, rationalize, legalize- spin it any way you choose, but abortion is legalized murder.
I must take issue with your "let everyone do what they think best and let God will sort it out" attitude. You could say that about anything, stealing, murder, rape- you name it.

BigJ,
I’m not sure if I’m pro-life or “pro-life”. Please see my statement above and let me know.

BigJ states: "You can force anything on anyone if you had enough influence, money, and power."
That's not true at all. You could never, ever, force your beliefs on me, no matter how much influence, power, or money you had. I would fight some of your beliefs until my last breath.  I might die defending them, but you could not control me.
I can give you example after example of Christians and others whom other people tried to force OUT of their faith through power, influence, money, and it CAN'T work if you are steadfast in what you believe- even until death.
Example- yesterday was the saint's day of St. Agnes, a Christian martyr of the 4th century who was called by the Roman Emperor to renounce her Catholic faith and to embrace his idolatry.
She would not voice her opposition to her faith. He threw her into a house of prostitution to take away her virginity, still she would not be influenced by his power.
The emperor finally had to have her throat cut and even bludgeon her to death because she would NOT give into his power, influence, and wealth. She died a martry for the Christian faith, still holding true to her beliefs.
BJ, you believe what you want to believe, and I will too, but you too will not silence people here through your on-line bullying.
If Catholics are asked questions about our faith REPEATEDLY, we can surely answer without being attacked... until you come along.  Answering questions about our faith is not trying to indoctrinate by any means.
In fact, you'd be the first one to call us cowards for not answering, so you're not happy either way. IMO, seems unless you say something or come up with the idea or interpretation, it's not the truth.
I find your obsession with Tasin really bizarre. The guy isn't even here, and you bring him up.
Quit trolling for trouble, Justin.

I have one question. Why is it ok to kill a full term fetus before it takes its first breath, but it is murder if the fetus draws a breath, and then is drowned in a commode? Either way, someone is a baby killer.

I do not believe in abortion, no matter what. However, I do feel everyone else can do whatever he or she wants to, that person will have to answer to God later.

ok, let me clarify: It is not my intention to force anything on anyone. If one feels "forced", then he deals with it accordingly.

I didn't bring up anything Catholic UNTIL someone else did first.

IMO, I'm not putting down others' faith to defend my own. I gave a brief history of what has happened to Christianity over time. Facts are facts. No insult intended.

It seems that merely my profile name provokes people in an interesting way. I don't even have to mention anything "Catholic", yet others bring it up.

One can't FORCE anything on anyone; they either accept it or they don't.

BTW, I simply responded to an earlier comment someone posted in refrerence to the Catholic Church and it's authority. I wasn't the one who brough it up, so my intention was not to "indoctrinate" anyone with Catholicism. I was simply defending my faith.

Hey, you stole my secret weapons! Just kidding.

I'll also add that the Didache was used for centuries as a catechism for adults coming in to the Church. The writings of the Early Church do demonstrate that Christianity was steadfastly against the killing of unborn human life and against infanticide.

wayward: You were sickened by the fact that you thought your wife was pregnant...how sad for you and for her,IMO.

here's a little more to chew on:
"You shall not kill the child by obtaining an abortion. Nor, again, shall you destroy him after he is born." St. Barnabas ("Epistle of St. Barnabas," c. 70-100 A.D.)
"You shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill one who has been born." "The Didache [The Teaching Of The Twelve Apostles]" (c. 80-140 A.D.)
"A woman who deliberately destroys a fetus is answerable for murder. And any fine distinction as to its being completely formed or unformed is not admissible amongst us." St. Basil the Great ("Epistle 138," c. 375 A.D.)
"To destroy the fetus 'is something worse than murder.' The one who does this 'does not take away life that has already been born, but prevents it from being born.'" St. John Chrysostom ("Homilies on Romans," c. 391 A.D.)
ALL of these references go back centuries. Maybe this clarifies.

FOCA will have to pass congress, and you are right in saying it's been around for a while, but the Mexico City Policy was Reagan's executive order, which is the political football being bounced around between parties.

Mike, please read one of my last posts, I made a correction about the Mexico City Policy.

Also, I think spending 441 million bucks, part of it my dear husband's and mine, to support abortion overseas is waste. Why can some people not impose their beliefs on others here in America, but impose their beliefs and policies on others in other countries. You don't have to answer, as I'm not here to argue with you this late.

I know political rhetoric is often a carrot and a stick, but when human lives are involved, I have to take it seriously.

You have a good one too, or three. haha!

I don't think executive orders have to pass congress...A reason it is called an executive order....It gives the president discretionary powers.
I may be wrong and if I am someone will correct me.

The Mexico City policy has been a political football for years..Reagan enacted it, Clinton restored it, and Bush 43 banned it.

But the Mexico City Policy allows U.S. money to fund international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It allows organization to receive family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development such as offering abortions or abortion counseling.

As far as money wasted..We still have not accounted for $9 billon in Iraq…Waste yes but of what magnitude?

You said
Today Obama made good on one of his promises. He lifted by executive order the Mexico City Policy enacted by Ronald Reagan,
I have kept up with his executive orders but he has not addressed this.

In the two year campaign he made many promises as did Hillary and John McCain….Political rhetoric is not always reality.

BTW I don't read Sam's letters and if no one comments I wouldn't know about Mr. Tasin's letter...If you read any of their letters you have read them all.

Have a good one maryann

If you read the original letter, Mr. Valdivia references Obama speaking to Planned Parenthood about Foca.

I've also read this in many other places. Obama has made it clear that one of his first priorities was this FOCA- which eliminates ALL restrictions on abortion.

It has to pass Congress first, but Obama has supported it in the past when it did not make it through Congress.

Mike, you political junkie you, how come you don't know this?

Can you give me a reference because I cannot find it?

You know, Mike, it's about all the pro-abortion promises that Obama made. That's what the original letter here referenced with FOCA.
Correction on my part about the Mexico City Policy:  Obama was expected today to reinstate the Mexico City Policy, but he has delayed signing it for 24-hours, according to my sources. 

Suzy, it was the Apostle Paul that said Jesus was like us in all things except sin. If we're created in His image, then we're like each other, right? Even if he is God.

Curious notion, aborting God....

Anyway Suzy, can you please demonstrate from the beginning with Church writings, and not the writings of heretics, that the Catholic Church did "waffle" on this topic?

The opinions of modernday attackers of Christianity don't hold water.

I'd like to see the words of the original Catholic dudes, like Augustine, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, from before the 500s.

Without that information, it's just your opinion, which is great, but not when you are passing it off as fact.

Thanks maryann

Good answer but I was not singling out the Jews or Muslims but many do cite scripture (nothing wrong with that) not realizing it not recognized by many.

My point: faith is not a true certain by all.

This thread is about Barack Obama’s position and as of yet the 111th congress has not taken up the Freedom of Choice Act (it’s been out there since 2004) and with all on his plate does anyone seriously think this bill will come up? If he does ever sign the bill it will be because it was supported in the house and the senate.

One last question…Why all the hoopla? What single event brought this up? I know it is an ongoing concern but what triggered the recent outrage..Or is this at a boiling stage?

Catholicgirl...""Imperfect" children are a special gift from God and parents are truly blessed who are given such a child for a time."

I don't recall the parents of that little boy with the faulty heart and died around three or four felt they were "blessed" in any special way.

My point for this whole thing is that I believe -- note that I believe; not I think everyone should believe -- that people who have discovered the woman in the couple is pregnant and they (or she) decide that they do not want to bring the child into the world FOR WHATEVER REASON, that is a choice they alone are (and should be) empowered to make. The state should not tell a woman who desperately does not want a child -- whether for economic, emotional or health reasons -- that she must, under penalty of law deliver the baby.

My wife and I didn't want children when we got married, but we decided she would go on the pill in case we decided after being married for a time that we changed our minds about having them. Then after about three years, we had a scare that she might actually be pregnant. I have never felt such sickness in my life. We knew in an instant that we didn't want children. Luckily, she wasn't pregnant and I took a week of vacation, went to Planned Parenthood and spent the best $75.00 I EVER spent and we breathed a large sigh of relief. Children are not always a blessing, regardless of what a clergyman will say about it.

maryann, you cannot seriously think that Jesus was just another man. He was God's Son sent here for our sins. God had special plans for Him and He had special plans for John the Baptist. Plans that preceeded their conception.
catholicgirl...I "am" talking about the Catholic Church. It is the Church that has waffled over the centuries. That's what I don't understand. If the Church is what you say it is, there would have been no waffling by it's Popes on this important issue.

I am so sorry about the closet remark I posted below. Events like that happen, I really can’t sugar coat it for you. I just wonder if it would still be considered part of the abortion process or child abandonment. I also wonder if abortion Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath, especially the part about doing no harm. Leaving a baby in the dirty towel hamper might cross the line. Oh, I forget, it’s just a mass of tissue lying there gasping for air and crying. Bitter pill, but true.

LBB....
Are you man enough to stand up and say that you believe it is right for an abortionist to half deliver a baby that is viable, could live outside the womb, and then jab a sharp instrument into its brain to kill it before delivering the complete baby?

That is what your hero stands for.

Mike, you'd really have to ask a Jew or a Muslim about his or her position on abortion.

If I see a big lump of matter in the darkness of night in the middle of the road, I'm not going to run over it hoping that it's not you or someone else, Mike.

If I even suspect that it's a person, I will try to err on the side of humanity and its dignity.

I'm not arguing from religion in this point. Even some atheists realize that we shouldn't be killing human life because..... it's human and we are too.

I think when one combines FAITH with REASON, they have an airtight case for doing good on this earth, such as not killing unborn humans. We all started that way!

Suzy, Jesus was like man in all things except sin, so no.... you can't claim this is a special case.

If it would have been horrendous to condone the killing of baby Jesus in the womb, then it applies to God's children (you and me) too.

Don't Christians believe that we are made in the image and likeness of God?

If we can't kill the incarnate Jesus in the womb, then it wouldn't make sense to kill those made in his likeness.

YOU say abortion was accepted at that time. That is your opinion.

Jesus and John the Baptist were special cases.
Abortion was accepted at that time. Not until much later in history did the "life begins at conception" isue come up. Why wasn't it so in the biginning of the Catholic church?

Hello maryann
I enjoyed your letter this morning but tell me where I am wrong.
Religion is based on faith?
I understand the Christian position ,however, Judaism holds that it begins at birth, and abortion is not a murder. Islam claims that abortion within 40 days after conception is not a murder, because the fetus is not given soul yet.
Then we have the non-believers and other denominations.
Besides faith,do we have a truth certain?

Alton gets it.

Suzy, I take it you are a Christian.

The Bible says the Angel Gabriel announced to Mary that she would conceive in her womb by the Holy Spirit overshadowing her. Nine months later, Jesus was born.

Mary even went to visit her cousin Elizabeth, and it says that when the baby in Elizabeth's womb became aware of the presence of Mary, and Jesus in her womb, the 6-month gestation John the Baptists jumped for joy.

So you say that from the beginning Christianity has said it would have been okay to abort Baby Jesus and 6-month-old John as well?

Please demonstrate from the first decades of the beginnings of Christianity (and I'm not here to argue with you if it was Catholic or not) that the Church supported killing unborn babies such as these.

You cannot argue from silence.

I am prepared to show you from recognized early Christian writers that they DID NOT support killing unborn babies, as we would have also condoned the killing of the Christ child in the womb.

TheVoiceOfReason,lets be honest here,it is a long time before anyone is running for national office. The agenda of President Obama has the support of this party in the House and Senate. And more important they have the majority vote.
We are under a single party government, except for the Supreme Court. And the Supreme Court will be changed by President Obama's next two appointments. Contacting our elected officials at this point is no better than whistling in the dark.

you know that remark about the closet thing is just sick...until you have been in that set of shoes who are you to judge? i would much rather a woman do what she thought she had to do rather than put another child on welfare/government help. it is not an easy choice for anybody so stop judging

We can go back and forth on the abortion issue, but the sad fact remains that abortion is legal in this country. What we who value life must do RIGHT NOW is to oppose the Freedom Of Choice Act. I, for one, do not want my taxpayer dollars to fund abortion. I also don't want all faith-based hospitals throughout the US to close their doors, which is what they will do if forced to perform abortions. The thing to do is to write your Congressional and Senatorial representatives TODAY to oppose this bill. Focus on the task at hand and do something proactive!

suzy: As you stated, I am not the authority of the Bible,etc.& neither are you. However, let me give you a short lesson in Church history since you brought it up and it is valid in order to continue this discussion.

The Christian religion is no longer the same original Church that Jesus established. The apostles that Jesus appointed to lead and guide His Church "into all truth" were the given authority to teach and make clear God's plan for us and His Church. But many began to interpret for themselves what they wanted the scriptures to mean, thereby giving them freedom to act and choose as they wanted. So now we have hundreds and hundreds of Christian denominations each interpreting God's word as they desire. How true this is especially today. EXCEPT FOR ONE...the apostles continued to teach and hand down the truths of Christ through the original Church which is still doing that today. There is no room for personal interpretation because Jesus made sure to send the Holy Spirit as a guide to those He left as His visible representatives. These representatives, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are the ones who Jesus entrusted to explain scripture in all its truth to the people. The Catholic Church, which teaches with the authority of her founder, Jesus Christ, is the final and infallible interpreter of the natural moral law. Many will not agree with this, but facts are facts.

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil in every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.

You asked me to answer you ONE question; you asked FOUR.

Because I'm not the authority of theChurch, I point you directly to the Church for specifics. The Magisterium (official teaching office)of the Catholic Church has issued many excellent documents on abortion. They are: Declaration on Procured Abortion(DPA), Charter for Health Care Workers(CHCW), & the Gospel of Life(EV).

There is a passage - in Genesis I believe, though I don't have the resources to look it up at the moment - that states as Jewish law, something to the effect that if a man inflicts injury on a woman who is "with child" to the point that she loses the child, that man shall suffer the same punishment as if he had killed the woman.

Make of it what you will. Were the Jews to kill the offender because he'd taken a life? Or because of the amount of anguish he caused the woman over losing her child? {shrug}

The point is though, you all are confusing a moral/social issue with a religious one. There's no denying that most "religious" tenets are moral as well but there are laws that are for the benefit of providing an orderly society - not because they are based in any particular religion or all of them in general.

"Thou shalt not steal." Definitely a religious tenet.

Thou shalt not commit armed robbery, burglary, petty larceny and/or grand theft auto." TX Criminal Code...whatever chapter and verse. These statutes are the necessary guidelines of an orderly society.

They just coincidentally apply the same principle. The latter does not necessarily spring from the former.

So, as I've said before (a couple hundred times): the **only** viable anti-abortion stance must be predicated on the theory that the fetus is "human," not whether it is alive or not - of that there is no question. An amoeba is alive and it *has* no heart. So is an orchid or an earthworm, neither of which anyone would be sent to death row for killing.

The question then is whether the living fetus is "human," whether it has been bestowed with that attribute we call a "soul."
No
one
knows.

To maintain an orderly society, people simply cannot be allowed to run around killing one another willy-nilly or taking other peoples' stuff whenever the urge hits 'em. It has nothing to with God, St. Peter, Moses, Beelzebub or the Catholic church.

And in so much as my position above has not changed - nor seen any argument that would tend to change it - I will have to stay firmly rooted on the anti-abortion platform simply because I don't know when the fetus becomes human and I'd much rather err on the side I'm sure is NOT murder rather than take the chance that it might be.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm here all week. Try the scallopini, it's great.

Ernie

Woman comes into the abortion clinic. She is over 8 months pregnant with a baby. She has the procedure done and something goes wrong. The baby is now out of the mother’s womb. I would say at this point it is an American citizen with all the rights we all have, but wait, Obama says its ok to throw it in the linen closet and let it die. Sorry to put it that way, but that’s his mindset. Yes, most knew his position on the unborn, but not this extreme form.

Catholicgirl.
You believe what you want to believe, other's will believer what they want to believe. You are not the authority on what was believed in Bible times....when the Bible was written, and neither am I, and apparently, neither is the Catholic Church.
Answer me one question. "IF" abortion was so bad, then why didn't Peter, and the beginning of the Catholic Church, preach against it then? Why was it not mentioned "specifically" when the "punishable by death" sins were mentioned? Why did the Catholic Church often change it's stance, where the "beginning of life" is concerned?
I'm just curious. Can you explain it to me?

I do not understand what all the fuss is about, President Obama has been open and transparent in his position on abortion. If so many people objected, why did they vote for him.

So what is the next new law? Since people can now kill a baby before it takes its first breath, will the next law be, Ok, you just can't stand your kids, so kill them?

May God help the new president and the baby killers.

"It is dishonest to conclude from this verse that a fetus is a human being deserving of more protection than women."
Not "more" protection, just EQUAL protection. A fetus is a growing person. To kill it and all other humans who are living is murder.

Here's another way to look at it

"For Thou didst form my inward parts; thou didst weave me together in my mother's womb. I praise thee, for thou art fearful and wonderful. Wonderful are thy works! Thou knowest me right well; my frame was not hidden from thee, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth. Thy eyes beheld my unformed substance; in thy book were written, every one of them, the days that were formed for me, when as yet there was none of them."

All this passage states is that God is directly involved in the creation of a fetus and knows its future. This is useless for the anti-choice position, since God creates all living things, including trees and bugs. Plus, just because God is supposedly omniscient doesn't give fetuses any special status—it simply means God already knows whether they will live or die. It is dishonest to conclude from this verse that a fetus is a human being deserving of more protection than women. The passage is poetic prose that anti-choicers have twisted and trivialized by giving it a literal, objective meaning where there is none.

The second passage used by anti-choicers is similar:

"Now the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 'Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born, I consecrated you'..." (Jeremiah 1:4-5)

Unfortunately, anti-choicers usually stop right there, and forget the rest of Verse 5, which negates their preferred meaning:

"...'and I appointed you a prophet to the nations.'"

This passage is specific to one, very special person—Jeremiah the prophet, whom God has called to provide miraculous powers and authority to the world. Since we are not all destined to be divine prophets, this verse cannot be construed as applying to any fetus except the unborn Jeremiah. Again, anti-choicers are being dishonest by pulling this verse totally out of its context.

wayward:   Here's where coolgranny got her info.-
"You formed my inmost being; you knit me in my mother's womb. I praise you; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are your works! My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be." (Psalm 139:13-16)
My response to some of the questions you gave coolgranny:
"For I know well the plans I have in mind for you, says the Lord, plans for your welfare, not for woe! plans to give you a future full of hope. When you call Me, when you pray to Me, I will listen to you. When you look for Me, you will find Me. Yes, when you seek Me with all your heart, you will find Me with you, says the Lord, and I will change your lot." Jeremiah 29:11-14
**Notice:** He DID NOT say He will make things perfect for us in this world, that includes our children. They may not be "perfect" in body in the world's sense of the word, but rather perfect as in God's plan for us, IF we accept it. "Imperfect" children are a special gift from God and parents are truly blessed who are given such a child for a time.
The future full of hope may not be in this lifetime, but rather in the life yet to come. Our limited minds have difficulty grasping this at times.
He said He will LISTEN to us when we pray to Him. He said nothing about saying "YES" to our every request.
Changing our lot perhaps has something to do with our hearts. The hardness that some of us carry in our hearts could use a good dose of change.

Wayward,I'm not going to argue this with you again. Unbelievers will never get that life is more than a crap shoot. Each and every one of us was created for God's purpose. You can question God all you want. He will argue back, but I won't. Good luck arguing with God.

"God knew us from the foundations of the earth. He knew us before we formed in the womb."
Granny...IF God knows us before we are formed in the womb, obviously, he knows which of us will be aborted, which of us will be born with Downs Syndrome, which of us will be born addicted to crack, which of us will have birth defects that will be devasting to our parents, etc. Does God have a lottery that determines which of us will be "normal" and which will have problems? If so, isn't that kinda mean on his part? What did the parents of children born with any number of defects do to lose in God's lottery of perfect kids? Or, does he just not care?
When I was a kid, my family knew a couple whose son was born with a severe heart defect. Now, that happened about fifty years ago and the medical care wasn't what it is today. I don't know if the boy could have survived that defect today, but back then, there wasn't much that could be done for him and he died before he was old enough to go to school. I do remember my parents talking about how much the hospital and doctors cost back then. Of course, the family was crushed. They had their church praying for the boy and the family; praying for a miracle they didn't get. People said that God never gives us more than we can bear, but, if this was from a good, kind, generous, all powerful and all knowing God, why did they get a son who wasn't able to live regardless of the love they had for him and the faith they had in God? I mean, God knows us before we're formed in the womb, right? If he can create the universe and all that's in it, why did he give that family that son? He could have given them a perfect baby but didn't. Did they do something really bad that we don't know about? But, heck, the worst criminals sometimes have babies that don't have defects. Why would God give criminals perfect babies and defective ones to people who are good, religious people who just want a baby to love, care for and raise? It seems like a crap shoot to me. And if it is just a crap shoot then your religious argument flies out the window.

Ending all restriction on abortion is a bad idea. For instance letting teenagers go and get an abortion without parental consent???? Come on!
There needs to be some kind of restrictions. None at all is just craziness.

How many of you that agree with what Obama is endorsing really know what a partial birth abortion is. According to law a "Partial Birth Abortion" is:

"An abortion in which the person performing the abortion, deliberately and intentionally vaginally delivers a living fetus until, in the case of a head-first presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother, for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus; and performs the overt act, other than completion of delivery, that kills the partially delivered living fetus. (18 U.S. Code 1531)"

The overt act which kills the infant, which in many cases could survive if born, is usually jabbing an instrument into the brain from the base of the skull.

I support first trimester abortion....I myself do not believe in abortion, but have worked in healthcare and see what happens when no legal abortion is available....young girls and women dying from severe infection and uterine trauma from trying to do the job themselves. However, partial birth abortion is murder anyway you look at it.

This is the man we have elected as president....such a good family man....loves his little girls. However, he supports killing newborn babies that could live if born. Why not just make it easier on the abortionist and let the baby be born, throw it over on the table and chop the baby's head off. What is the difference?

Everyone already knows my position on abortion so we won't belabor that point any more except to say that, obviously, I don't agree with his policy.

What's buggin' me is that the man's been president nigh onto 48 hours already and I'm not swimming in milk and honey yet.

What kinda Messiah is this anyway?

Ernie

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR...

God knew us from the foundations of the earth. He knew us before we formed in the womb. God help us. While the rest of the world is populating to beat the band except for China, and I don't even want to go there, America the land of the truly free and home of the brave, wants to keep its populatin down through the rhetoric known as women's rights. Again, God help us and please Lord, make it quick.

This is exactly why I did not vote for him! All I can say is most of the American people wanted him for change...well...now you got change! Good Luck!

im not gonna say yay or nay on abortion. instead, im simply gonna say that it should be the woman's or couple's right to choose. now if it's a minor, i do agree that maybe they should have to get parental consent. but other then that, i say, get rid of the ban and let them choose. you dont like it, tough, but it's not your place to to tell them they cant do it. and it's wrong for the pro life fanantics to try and force beliefs on other people. you can get sick, you can get horrified, you can condemn the woman or couple to hell, but if it's not your womb, then that's all you can do. good night all.

Well then TRUE.. I guess I'm SELFISH for wanting to bring my child into this world. I'm currently pregnant and could NEVER see myself having an abortion... It's just sick. And it's pretty sad you can even HAVE the baby... see that it has a defect.. Like down syndrome or spinal bifidia... and SNAP THE NECK... now then is plan out SICK!

& N45BA is right on the statistics... only 1% is because of rape/incest... now go ahead and bring that into this subject... that 93% is because they don't want the baby messing with their social life[selfish], they can't afford the baby[selfish, get a job, save], they are afraid of becoming a single parent[i was on that road and sucked it up and figured I would rather be a single parent than kill my child, but of course the babydaddy came back into the picture], and things like they dont wanna be seen with a baby... I'm sorry... then use a condom[yes condoms don't always work! but atleast its PROTECTION!]

But on another note... MINORS can have an abortion without the parents knowing?! NOW THATS JUST SICK! So that means your telling me a 14 year old female can go into a DR's office and have an ABORTION without her parents knowing?! Thats sick! Omgg, thats all I have to say on that.. I just wanna throw up on that note!

True,
You are one sick puppy.

Suzy,
You are very wrong concerning what the Bible says about abortion and when life begins. God said I knew you when you were in the womb. That is a paraphrase not a direct quote. I would look it up and reference it for you, as well as furnish plenty of scripture on life and killing but since you don't believe the Bible anyway it would be a waste of time on my part. Life begins when the cell splits and begins forming a new and separate life. I'll not debate it further, it is again a waste of time. I close stating that you can rationalize it or justify it any way you wish, the fact is abortion stops a beating heart. At any rate it would seem even the coldest, hardest heart (true omniscience) would detest the practice of partial birth abortion.

In the Bible, life starts with drawing the first breath. That has references. Babies were not even counted as people in the head counts until around 2 years old, because the mortality rate was so high with infants and tottlers.
Sure a zygote is alive...because the mother is alive. It is not it's own life until it is born....when it draws it's first breath. (I'm referring to the baby as "it" because I'm a lazy typist, not out of disrespect.)
In any case, a woman's sin is between herself and God. No one has the right to interfer with that or speculate that they can assume what God want or meant. The Bible was written by mortals, with mortal mistakes and in many times, it was their own interpretation.
There were abortions going on in Bible times and the very absence of it being mentioned in the Bible, proves that it wasn't of great importance, nor was it a monumental issue.

That's better.

Don't get me wrong, I am not advocating abortion but I think you can catch more flies with honey, than you can with vinegar.

I don't know for a fact, but I think an abortion is an emotional, traumatizing, experience with which I will never understand because I will never have to go through it.

I know what my religion supports but I also know why Roe v Wade was enacted…. I cannot blame any politician for his vote because this issue has been a political football for many years.

N45BA, I realize that my examples are in the minority but a law taking them into account must be put in place. To simply overturn Roe v. Wade and outlaw abortion would be to punish these victimized women twice. I agree that abortion as a form of birth control is appalling and should not be allowed, however, it seems to me that some tighter restrictions on the current abortion laws could address all the issues.

As for stupid teenagers, perhaps if we taught them the consequences of unprotected sex and gave them the means and knowledge to insure that they didn't ever have to have unprotected sex then there wouldn't be as many teen pregnancies. Just telling them to abstain is never going to work. Not for sex, not for drinking, and not for smoking.

As for ignorant adults who willingly spin the wheel, they should have to live with their consequences BUT if we are going to enforce that rule then we must also vigorously enforce the obligation of the man to support the children he creates otherwise we are only punishing one half of the guilty couple.

Unless a source can be provided for lazy, stupid, and ignorant then it's just speculation and considered unsubstantiated facts based on a personal opinion.

Sort of like that flu and wart analogy....LOl

I believe it is safe to say, dead things don't grow.

So, if it is growing it is alive.

And humans are not dogs and cats.

Being alive, that is first in consideration. Life of the mother is also a life consideration as is rape and incest.

Other considerations go down from there. Adoption is not considered near enough.

Choice,...99% of the time choice was made BEFORE conception.

N45BA says "two people make a decision to create a life. . ." Really?

What about a situation of RAPE? Did that unwilling female make a decision to create a life?

How about forced incest? Should that unwilling female be forced to carry her brother/son to term?

As has been pointed out, most Pro-Life politicians come from the Republican party. This is the same party that opposes welfare programs, food stamps, school luch programs for the poor, etc. Why is it that they are so adamantly protective of the life of the fetus during gestation and then so opposed to helping the "forced" mother to provide for the child after birth?

When your "moment of conception" protection argument extends past the moment of birth I will listen to your "compassion" argument. Until then, it's just empty talk for the benefit of your pew mates.

Comparing warts and flu symptoms to a decision on abortion is a silly argument which I cannot take seriously.

I believe Suzy is right when she makes the separation of church and state argument because Mormon churches believe in personhood at conception. However, Judaism holds that it begins at birth, and abortion is not a murder. Islam claims that abortion within 40 days after conception is not a murder, because the fetus is not given soul yet.

The United States is a diverse nation and the Constitution and all its amendments were established for all the people.

If you accept the fact that life begins at conception, as you must if you accept biological premises, then you must grant that all life begins at a microscopic size. From there you must conclude that the right to life inheres in that microscopic entity. That being the case, any religion that takes justice seriously must stand firmly for the right of the unborn to survive unmolested by the rude hand of the abortionist.

If we ever let the government dictate to us what we must "morally" do, then other unsavory rules will follow.
It really isn't about abortion at all. It's about separation of church and state. Not all people are religious. Not all people believe the same thing, so a law against abortion on the moral issue, is a mute point to some.
I am one of those people that would never have an abortion, but do not believe that I have the right to tell others that they must believe as I do. Everyone has a right to choose, just as I have chosen.

If you are going to make it about politics;at least know what you are talking about.
All Democrat and Republican presidents are sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States, as well as the legislators.
..Rove v Wade is the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," protected a person's right to privacy......The 9th amendment.
So the question really is : Are you for overturning Roe v Wade?...Roe V Wade makes the decision of abortion between the mother and doctor without government intervention..It's funny how right- wingers want government  out of their lives except when it comes to the bedroom issues.
Want to overturn Roe v Wade? Get your legislator to submit a bill,pass it for the president's signature then let the Supreme Court revisit it...This will throw it back to the states ,until then it is the law of the land.

First, a comment to Beakus. The type of politician who would vote for abortion, even though he is "personally against it," is a politician who has sold his soul to the devil. He has placed power, prestige and money above human life and personal values. But then, you have to wonder if this politician truly has any redeeming values in the first place.
Abortion is a moneymaker for the doctors and clinics that perform this vicious procedure. Support for abortion is also a goldmine of votes for callous politicians. Abortion relieves the pregnant woman and the baby's father of any responsibility for the care and upbringing of this child. In most cases, neither parent wants to be held accountable and liable for the consequence of their sexual behavior. The obvious choice for them is to simply get rid of the problem by killing the unborn child. The tiny victim thus pays for the sins of the parents.
There are politicians in both parties who support abortion, but a majority of this support comes from Democrats. They argue for the woman's right to choose mostly because they fear loss of votes and status if they stand up for life. There is no such thing as pro-choice; you are either in favor of abortion or against it.  There is certainly no choice for the baby.   Pro-lifers will always be excoriated and vilified for taking up for the unborn; they will be called haters, judgmental and any other number of names. In the end, we will all be judged on the basis of our lives here on earth, both for our actions and our failures to act. Personally, I will stand on the side of the unborn and speak in their defense. They can say nothing for themselves.

romaoak - I stand corrected on the unborn child -- according to the Texas Penal Code, at every stage of gestation, an unborn fetus is protected by law. I looked it up.

If the DA is filing charges against these mothers who endanger their unborn children by using drugs, then I would say the action is without consequences. Recently, judge Koetter took a child away from a mother who used dope while she was pregnant, and the child was born addicted.... He also wanted to order her to be sterilized, but since he can't, he didn't.

mimi, again, you are incorrect. in texas if you assault or murder a pregnant woman and cause injury or death to the unborn child you CAN be charged addtionally for the injury or death to the fetus...HOWEVER, a woman CAN by our state laws, kill her own unborn child, without consequence. She can stab her stomache, eat poison and do drugs and give birth to a drug addicted child, ALL WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE in the state of texas.

Interesting huh? Don't beleive me? Contact the DA's Office and see how many drug addict mothers having drug addicted babies they have filed cases against.

Please don't jump down my throat on this, and call me a baby killer -- I, personally, do not believe in abortion... But I'm not going to protest Planned Parenthood, or bash the President-elect for their platforms.

I want to clarify a few things here: the first being that in the state of Texas, and several others, an unborn child is not considered a "person". If, for instance, a 6 month pregnant woman was shot and killed, and the fetus expired as well, the person who shot the woman would not be charged in the death of the fetus. I believe that in order to be considered a "person", the unborn child would have had to been able to be viable outside the womb.

This country does need comprehensive sex education for our children. Doing away with abstinence only programs?? Well I don't know if that will have any effect on the teen pregnancy problem. In my own personal opinion, I believe that abstinence is something that the parents should try to teach their children... in addition to "if you're gong to have sex anyway, protect yourself from STD's".

As far as "Forcing" faith-based hospitals and medical facilities to perform abortions, no, I don't see as any one has that much power in the world. If a physician, nurse practicioner or mid wife choose not to perform these services, I don't see how anyone could force them to do it. That'd be like forcing Christians to follow Judean doctorines.

Just my opinion. Mine. Okay? This issue is the biggest COP OUT that the Pro-abortion politicians stand on. They say something like "I personally don't like or believe in abortion, but I vote for a woman to be able to choose." Well isn't that wonderful. And 95% plus of one of the two sides of our political parties stand on this ground to be united. It's seems crazy to me. What type of person who thinks abortion is not right, would continue to vote to allow it to continue?

It's common practice in partial birth abortions, to actually manipulate the fetus so it is delivered feet first. By law, a fetus is not considered "born", unless the head breaches. So..., turn it around feet first, then snip the cerebral cord...harvest for cells. Disgusting isn't it?

romonak,
You are so very correct. Abortion kills. If a pregnant woman is murdered the murderer can face double murder charges if the child in the womb dies. Why then, can doctors kill a child in the womb, or partially out of the womb and not face charges? The answer is because the woman chose to have that child killed and our society has given her that choice legally. That does not make it right. We will have a tough battle ever over-turning the law that allows abortion and with the Obama administration is seems we will have a tough battle even limiting the horrible practices that he and his ilk stand for. The most important thing we can do is educate women on the lifetime side affects of abortion and provide a more viable alternative.

I have been on the fence about abortions up to a certain point. Like, once you are 1-2 months pregnant that to me should be it...IF even that! You are killing and ending an unborn life.

The LAW may consider a child in the womb "not alive"...but we know better...he or she, is a life. He thinks...she feels...they calm when their mother's sing. They ARE alive.

Partial birth abortion allow the child to be partially born and then killed prior to taking their first breath. Any woman who wants this done should be shot in the head and any doctor who would preform it should join her.