The solution is very simple: keep your nose out of other people's business.

You mean no one got pregnant or had abortions before RvW? Amazing! No wonder the right wing is so freaked out about it!

-

This issue is my passion. I would personally never be able to destroy a fetus. I am Pro-Choice but I am enormously Anti-Abortion. I want to make this decision for myself. I don't care what the Conservative Christians argue, this is "MY" decision, and I don't want anyone taking it away from me. I want to see Birth Control available everywhere. I want to see condons sold in every restroom, and given away free where ever possible. Don't "conceive"! Educate!!!! I am so passionate about this, I encourage you all to poll your friends and family. How many babies were planned, and how many were sureprises? How many were aborted? You will see that 99% of all babies are surprises that are welcomed and cherished. The women who abort are at the end of their ropes for various reasons. We need to ease their situations by making birth control available, so preganancy doesn't add to their personal tradgedies. I am a Catholic, and I am absolutely certain that God is behind me in this belief. The Vatican and the prehistoric Bishops in this country are just plain wrong. Falwell and Dobson and Robertson, etc. are just plain wrong.

Good piece, William.

I haven't read the Sun article yet and I agree with all you have written for the most part. I don't believe it's correct to tell some one what they can or cannot do with their body. If we look at this from doing harm to life then we would need to ban many addictive substances used today. This is a big picture that politicians and the people of the world choose to see only a small portion of.

I believe the same as WJC, and during his presidency abortions were reduced. Education is important and the programs of society that provide for children are just as important.

This is a difficult topic to discuss without becoming partisan or taking a stand without discussing religion. There must be negotiation and compromise, which equals choices. Democracy is being able to choose, plus much more. I haven't seen much tolerance here regarding this issue. Without a willingness to compromise for the good of all we remain stuck. To many social issues are manipulated by politicians for a "vote."

William, I think you are trying to liven up the site. I believe we can start right here. I think it would be very productive if all that post here at PME were to submit ideas and construct a draft that could be submitted to our political representatives. If we come to the conference we must be willing to compromise.

As our forefathers understood (the need for the United States to change and change laws to address the changes) when they wrote the constitution, we also need to do the same.

I believe our comments need to be positive, as in giving rights, not taking away.

Hey, I got an idea, if the right want to decrease the number of abortions, then why don't they ask for and fund research on more effective birth control?

Oh right, be cause this ISN'T about abortion, it's about controlling women.

"I believe our comments need to be positive, as in giving rights, not taking away."

...here comes a discussion of "unborn children's rights".

Thanks Maggie...

I would like some PME feedback on reducing abortion. How do we implement our ideas? Nothing is free so how is the program financed?

Russ ...if only someone could come up with a way to harness the energy of partisan bickering...

Mattk, Keep your nose out of other people's business? That's your solution? That's the lousiest goddamn solution to anything I've EVER heard. Should we keep our nose out of the business of women who don't want abortions but can't afford to support their children? Should we keep our nose out of the business of seniors who are retired and have no source of income whatsoever? When exactly did you go from being a bleeding heart, to being a laissez-faire libertarian? Do you have a compound now, and an NRA card? Who do you think you're kidding? You want your nose in everyone's business all the time. FURTHERMORE, IF a person beleives abortion is murder, the 'keep your nose out of my business' argument becomes even more ASININE. You don't keep your 'nose out of the business' of criminal or otherwise wrongful acts. Without taking ANY stance whatsoever on the issue of abortion, REGARDLESS of what your position is, that argument SUCKS.

JRI, did ANYONE say that abortions didn't exist before RvW? He said it wasn't a politcal issue. Do you lack in ability to read, or in ability to comprehend? You know, canibalism has been around for thousands of years, so I guess that's not really an issue for today either, right? We should just allow it.

NYMaggie, your position seems to me to be one derived from such half-assed comments as the one made by Mattk. This is simply not the black and white issue of a mother having control over her body. I don't care what ANY feminist would say, a child is half the father's DNA, and he has a role to play as well. I'll be goddamned if anyone is going to abort the fruit of my loins just because they can't be bothered to bare the responsibility of their actions for 9 months. That is a position you SHOULD be able to sympathise with, for all the 'maternalistic' instinct of mothers, too many women seem to fail to acknowledge or understand the same trait as it exists in fathers.

You also bring up the same demagoguery and stereo-types that are used way to often in this discussion. You immediately condemn 'christians' for trying to tell you what to do, but this is NOT a strictly religious issue. Do not paint the entire opposition to abortion as being something that it is not, it is misleading. As we can plainly see, here we have an atheist and a catholic, and which lean which way?

I would add that it is all fine and dandy to talk about prevention, but I should hope that you are at least willing to have an open conversation about it. Have you not considered the possibilty that tossing free condoms around like candy creates an atmosphere where is condusive of casual sex, and leaves people feeling as though everyone is participating in such acts? Has it not occured to you that by acting as if everyone was having casual sex and handing them all free condoms everywhere they go, you will not induce more people to have casual sex then allready are, by making them feel as if they should be? And by the increase in sexual activity, coupled with a very real rate of failure in contraceptives, you may not just INCREASE the number of unwanted pregnancies?

You've also done what Kilarjian has asked you not to do, something I would advise no one to do in ANY situation. "I am absolutely certain god is on my side".

Well, I'm not even convinced that god isn't a figment of your imagination, but assuming he's real, you have no more idea then I do of what side he's on.

William included atheists, why are you so tweeked?

Again, think positive thoughts! Condoms being tossed about like candy is much better than fetus' being tossed out with the bath water.

I don't think Matt was referring to living in a bubble. The seed you plant with your loins is yours to do as you wish and likewise for himself.

There will always be irresponsible people. How can we make the situation better. We need to start with thinking "better", the cure will come in time.

NYMaggie I agree. We can be spiritual/religious without losing sight of the need for change and we can lose the archaic thinking in the process. Education is the beginning of the answer and just "Saying NO" doesn't work.

MJohnson - The whole reason why the debate over abortion exists is because of moral judgements of other people's behavior. The gay rights movement has the exact same problem - why should a 3rd party cares what a couple of consenting adults do? And yet there are people that do care very deeply. Just because someone cites religion as a reason for their beliefs does not mean they should necessarily be given more weight.

Clearly, if someone seeks help then you can help them. But pregnant women shouldn't have to submit themselves to whomever takes an interest in their womb. (Of course, the only reason why the government has any interest in senior retirement is because of social security.)

Enlighten us: What is the athiest argument against abortion?

Matt, I'm asking that the energy be harnessed. It's as difficult to harness partisan bickering as it is for me to not call MJohnson a "#^(&*%^&(%(*^*(*&^)(&^&*%$#%((*_)&" but we must start sometime if we want things to improve.

Opinions are good but without action, need I say more.

I don't see that anybody can reasonably be required to share their body, at considerable discomfort and personal risk, whether you think of an embryo as a human being or not. I cannot be legally compelled to give another person a body organ, or even a transfusion of my blood--even if that person's need arises because of some negligence on my part.

The "half my DNA" argument is unimpressive. Biologically speaking, there is nothing cheaper than male DNA--by design, males throw copies of their DNA away pretty profligately, anyway.

Matt this isn't an atheistic argument and I think you know better. People of all faiths, beliefs and religions are left, center and right on this issue. A view from spiritual belief isn't going to enlighten the solution, with some acceptions.

I think I shared this before but I will again because it applies here.

I was in Seattle waiting on my flight and Larry King (prior to 2004 election)was on the tube. Religion and politics were the topics and abortion was the front runner. A Catholic priest was working very hard to not be pulled into the debate based on the policy of the church/Vatican. His comments hold true to what is being said by William regarding Mr Suozzi's speech. Our beliefs are ours but we must do what is in the best interest of all. All, as beginning with the US and then the world. If I'm against abortion then what do I do about making sure the rate of abortion is reduced. If I'm for abortion (as in choice), then what do I do to reduce the rate of abortion. To outlaw abortion does nothing to solve the problem. The priest did make a comparison between the Clinton and Bush administrations and he put emphasis on doing rather than talking. I believe he would/did agree with NYMaggie in many ways.

Well there you go, tgibbs. Prove my point. Apparently fathers have no emotional attachment whatsoever to their children. You can not be legally compelled to not kill my child. Good for you. If you aborted my son, I'd kill you for it, and go happily to Old Sparky. Thankfully, I wouldn't touch someone with your mentality with a 10 foot pole, so that won't ever be an issue.

Russ, if you have a point to make, you're going to have to make it more coherant. Again I don't understand half of what your saying. If I understand the other half correctly, your argument is that we all need to think happy thoughts and the problems will go away themselves? Russ, did you ever see that 'eagle and ostrich' add Kerry ran during the campaign? You certainly have your head stuck in a hole of some sort, perhaps we can discuss the hole's nature another time.

As far as William including atheists, what the hells your point? I was speaking to NYMaggie.

Mattk, a 3rd party should care about abortions because not all parties involved are consenting. You're 'none of your business' argument is pathetic and lame. Is it none of my business if my neighbor physically abuses his wife? Certainly she can walk out at any time, she's not chained to the wall, so what the hell business is it of mine if he beats her thrice daily? The idea that you are going to tell people to stop voicing there opinions on morality simply because 'it's not their business' would be the end of morality as we know it. "See no evil" isn't going to cut it.

Russ, that statement is just blatantly false. "To outlaw abortion would do nothing to solve the problem."

If the 'problem' is 'we have too many abortions', then yes, outlawing the procedure, while not eliminating them completely, would indeed reduce their number.

I'm not even saying they should be outlawed, I'm just saying that was a stupid statement (because it was.)

MJohnson, I repeat, Birth Control! You are so right, the baby does belong equally to you. You are one guy that is going to stick with that lady who falls into the 99%. If Birth Control is available to everyone, everyplace. I include Virginia and Kansas, there won't be so many unwanted pregnancies, and so many decisions to be made. I include every girl who is old enough to bear a child. Birth Control, Birth Control, Birth Control. I threw in the religion part, because that is always the first attack they come back with. I want it made clear, that I am perfectly at ease with my conscience on the issue.

tgibbs, by the time the woman is pregnant, she ALLREADY HAS shared her body, assuming it was willing.

And, assuming it was willing, the direct result of that willful act with full knowledge of the possible consequences becomes that a child, a child of BOTH parents, is produced. A child that the father has as much right to as the mother does, and a child that the mother has no right to take away and destroy simply because she doesn't want it.

Forgive me for being applying such cold-heartedly practical thinking to this emotional issue, but given the fact that the world population has exploded threefold in the last 50 years, and more than 5 million children under the age of 5 die of starvation every year... doesn't it seem a little idiotic to waste so much energy on abortion???

NYMaggie, my concern is that when you tell people 'birth control, birth control, birth control', you're telling them 'sex (with protection), sex (with protection), sex (with protection)'.

I do not beleive it is of good consequence to society on the whole to give the image that everyone is having sex. Human beings are pack animals, they go along with the herd. What you are suggesting creates a huge amount of peer pressure, that while (possibly, arguably) increases the amount that contraceptives are used among people who were allready have sex, it works directly against and discourages the MOST EFFECTIVE means of birth control, abstinance. I'm not a virgin, I don't beleive in waiting for marraige or anything like that. In fact, I'm a big fan of casual sex. But I don't beleive that the overall image potrayed is good for us. I don't beleive we should push the idea that sex comes without consequences so long as you use 'protection', because no protection is ever 100%, and I don't think you should belittle those with stronger moral fiber then I possess by making them feel like outsiders for not needing the condoms to begin with.

That method pressures people into thinking they're not normal if they're not having lots of casual sex. If you see giant piles of condoms anywhere you go, you're going to start thinking that there must be some use to all of them. They're not there just to be there. Putting a condom machine in a 7th grade school bathroom serves to remind every child that walks in that, yes, your classmates are having sex. Probably lots of sex. Probably all the 'cool' kids are the ones having it. And if they're all having sex, there must be nothing wrong with it, and if they want to be 'cool', or even be average/normal, they should too. (and theres the condoms. If there wasn't a NEED for condoms, there wouldn't be condoms. The presence proves the need, and the need arises because they are having sex in 7th grade).

We all know how children think. We all know what peer pressure is. You're putting more pressure on the kids to have sex in the first place, and in the long run that will probably result in MORE pregnancies, not less, because the condoms don't allways work.

OK, MJohnson, you have now gone 360 degrees. We are back where we started. The perfect world would be that kid's hormones don't kick in until after they turn 21. Dobson and Falwell believe that absinence works. It does. It works perfectly, only what about the ones who don't abstain? They must be educated about Birth Control. If the parents are afraid they are giving permission, they are doing more damage by burying their heads in the sand. I have 4 kids, and one got pregnant, and married the guy. It lasted less than a year, but we had our first beautiful granddaughter. After that happened, I lost my embarassment at discussing the issue with the other three. I wouldn't feel uncomfortable at all, if one of my other daughters had asked for the "pill". First of all, you have to be able to recognize that teens are human, and they have those hormones. How many of those abortions since the 70's do you think were teenage girls? Birth Control, Birth Control, Birth Control. It simply doesn't make any sense to gamble with how your kid's interpret your silence.

would indeed reduce their number.

Im not very convinced, it would just go underground again.

you're telling them 'sex (with protection), sex (with protection), sex (with protection)'.

And?

Good luck getting teenagers not to fuck, short of castration what is your plan dipshit.

Personal responsibility, something which you do not possess. Your mother has failed you, Um Yeah.

MJohnson - Just because you have an emotional connection to something inside someone else's body does not give you a right to it. Just because you have sex with a woman does not mean she is obligated to bear a child for you if she becomes pregnant.

I really don't see what parallel you're trying to draw with domestic abuse. I just don't think it fits.

Also, your argument against easily accessable birth control has been used against sex education and is quite dangerous in practice. Guess what: people don't need to be told about sex or given contraceptives in order to want to have sex.

What is wrong with people having casual sex? Why should you care? Adults can and will think for themselves. Calling people "pack animals" doesn't justify your concern with other people's personal actions.

Distributing birth control does _not_ give the illusion that sex has no consequences. Anyone that has had sex knows this - at least I haven't seen a condom that protects you from the social and emotional effects.

I really don't understand why you're bringing kids into this. Who was talking about putting condom machines in to the 7th grade? Also, you seem to think that people as a whole and 7th graders think a lot a like - I don't necessarily disagree with you, but adults are capable of making their own judgements. At any rate, you're wandering far off topic.

You're entire discussion of the topic is from the point of view of someone that cares what personal decisions people make, even when you're not affected. My "keep your nose out of it" comment rings true. Discussing morality and personal decisions is very different from making moral judgements about others.

I apologize for my moment of insanity in thinking that a rational thought might get through to you MJ.

If Aaron chooses to delete this (after all it is his property after I post) then let it be.

I place before you here my christian and moral values and any sense of self-control. As UY stated a few days ago.....MJ. you are an idiot! You are about the biggest F.....ing idiot on this site. This is about one of the best articles on the site to date (that I have read) and you try to screw it up. Again allow me be succinct, MJ you are a FUCKING idiot. Yes, and as UY stated, you are to big an idiot to even know. Isn't it about time for you to discuss pink squirrel tails and raining asteroids, or would that be pink asteroids and raining squirrel tails.

PS. Your bullshit is the same as that which takes place in congress and nothing is ccomplished on this issue.

PPS. ON TOPIC: Being positive means that sex education is appropriate at all ages. If you really know children that means that when they ask questions they are given truthful answers. That includes being truthful and saying; I think you are to young for that answer right now we will/can discuss it at a later date. Everyone is subjected to peer pressure, yet education allows for proper means of dealing with peer pressure.

What would a condom machine in the nurses station (along with proper instructions) "not the restroom", do for a seventh grader? It would provoke thought and again dispell the old saying/rumor that you can have sex for the first time "FREE" as in you can't get pregnant.

MJ, If you really want dialog then I ask that you recieve help with your posts, otherwise for the good of all mankind keep your opinions and seed to yourself.

I feel better now.... :-)

Will, great article.

NYMaggie: right on. Great points.

MJ: I hear your point about a father having rights to the unborn child, but there are factors that I believe make it more of the women's decision than the man's.

Aside from the initial act of intercourse, the male (from a physical perspective) is out of the picture. He doesn't have to carry the baby, undergo physical and mental changes (many permanent), nor experience the pain, discomfort, or joys that go along with it.

While it seems right that there are SOME rights of a biological father prior to birth, I say the preponderance of rights belong to the mother.

To NYMaggie's point, if he is that concerned over his rights, he should have had the discussions with the would-be-mother before hand, and if not satisfied with the results, should have insisted on and used birth control.

I wish we could have condom machines in elementary school restrooms, but I know that would be a real stretch. I believe every single public restroom should have condom machines. They shouldn't cost more that a quarter either. They should be in both male and female restrooms. Every single human being who needs one, needs access. I think if you check around with the mother's of teenage girls, you would also be floored at the number who are on the "pill" using menstral cramps as the reason. Whatever it takes is just fine. It is every single parent's duty to make sure their kids understand the gravity of being sexual, but it is so important that you do everything possible to prevent an "unwanted" pregnancy. Nothing should supersede that. The end result will be no more abortions. We aren't even mentioning all the STDs out there. You absolutely have to have these conversations with your kids.

NYMaggie, I haven't gone 360 degrees back to where I started, I've gone 0 degrees, I haven't left where I started. So far as yet, I don't see that you have sufficiently addressed my concern with over-promoting contraceptives.

We must acknowledge that many people allready know (and use, and don't need to be told) about contraceptives. We must also acknowledge that no matter what we do, there will always still be people who do not use them, or who do not use them 100% of the time. What's more, even if they DO use them 100%, preaching protection does nothing to help them when the protection fails to protect. When the condom breaks, or leaks, when the person on birth control is also on antibiotics, or anything else.

To this effect, any amount of contraceptive education will have a degree of redundancy, and also a degree of ineffectivity. It becomes an issue of cost/benefit. I am not convinced that the benefits outway the costs of openly promoting promiscuity in society. I have nothing against promiscuity, but at the same time it's not something I think should be publically endorsed. No one at all has yet to both admit to this 'side effect', nor address it rationally.

Androminos, from a physical perspective soley, yes, the father is out of the picture. But humans are not animals, and in case you haven't noticed, I don't wander around impregnating whole herds of women. As human beings, I do beleive we have progressed past the point where only the animalistic and physical matter, there is a sense of emotional attachment, and not a weak one, not a 'suck it up' one, but one that goes far above and beyond what any one person can dictate to other persons, one that defines us as something seperate from animals. I don't care what you say or think, and never will when it comes to this particular point, because if it is my child then I will fight to the ends of my wits for it, and nothing is sacrosanct compared to your own children. I am sorely disappointed that more fathers do not do the same.

Russ, feeling is mutual. Except in your case, I'm not QUITE sure of what it is your saying, so I'm not QUITE sure if you tick me off or not. It would help if you were smart enough to peice together complete sentances, but alas and alack.

Personal responsibility, something which you do not possess.

Excuse me?

You were the one excusing Hillybilly Heroin as "an overstrength tylenol".

And you support W and all the other idiots who blame all your problems on evil Libruls and the Clenis.

We must acknowledge that many people allready know

And many dont, utilize your fucking brain you mindless twit!

Right now in the news the Dems are screaming about the possibility of having Roe vs. Wade overturned by the Supremes. Instead of worrying about overturning that "right" given to women in the 70s. Instead of fighting abortion period, we need to prevent those unwanted pregnancies. You have 2 choices! Keep your heads up your own asses, or educate your kids. It's as simple as that. You can argue promiscuity, and morals and religion, but it just simply comes down to stupidity! It is far more important to make sure your kids know all the options, and then raise them right!

Clenis? Seek mental help, and I say that sincerely, not in mocking.

Maggie, Raising them right comes down to the acts of the parents, whom we cannot control and must gamble on. And in fact, it is many of the parents saying that this sort of 'sex ed' is screwing with their ability to raise their children right.

"preventing unwanted pregnancies" is a half assed solution. Yes, it should be done, but that only gets us half way. There must be more then that. And a half-assed solution is not worth worsening the problem by degrading whatever is left of the classic 'family values' that was our shield from these problems in the past. Surely you must realise that you will simply never prevent all unwanted pregnancies? And surely you realise that even if 100% of all people used birth control 100% of the time, there would STILL be unwanted pregnancies.

If you really want to get at the root of the problem, let us ponder this: Why are these pregnancies so unwanted in the first place?

MJohnson, you are hopeless. What you are suggesting is what we have today. You better get yourself some religion, because you'll be doing a bunch of praying. The subject is abortion, the destruction of human life. It's horrible! Instead of making abortion illegal, let's take care of the "cause" unwanted pregnancies. You are willing to go through life as a clone of Jerry Falwell. Your pregnant daughter will love and respect you for welcoming her many unplanned children into your home. This society is concentrating on Abortion. It is like #2 of a 3 part puzzle. First of all solve #1. educate your kids. Then #2 won't be necessary. #3 is having every single baby born in this world, loved and cherished, and welcomed.

If it gets you half-way...Duh!! That's HALF the battle!! I didn't know they manufactured a fridge bulb with less than five watts consumption.

Has anyone here been around long enough to remember Nancy's "Just Say NO" drug campaign? How many millions$$$ was that "NO it didn't work" progam worth.

Keep your heart Maggie, and the perspective! Well said.

You asked the question, but do you know the answer as to why so many unwanted pregnancies?

MJohnson, your 2:16 post was right on. NY Maggie, where to begin? I'll start with you are not a good Catholic if you advocate what you do. Just because you had a personal experience with an unwanted pregnancy does not give you the license to make your own rules about your faith. Androminos, what a disgusting lib vision of men you have. They just impregnate and then they don't ever matter? Many men care desperately about their unborn children, and yes, they shouldn't have had sex in a situation where they were margnal, but that doesn't change the fact that they ARE the fathers. Oh and NYMaggie, if you honestly believe that the Vatican and the bishops are wrong about this issue, then please stop calling yourself a Catholic, because you aren't really. By the way,how does one be for abortions AND against them at the same time?

MJohnson, you have presented a very logical and intelligent argument for your ideas. I don't always agree with you, but here, I do. What a bashing you have taken from these moronic, idiotic people. Of course, I know you CAN take it, but it stinks!

There are some sex-ed programs that are inefficient and inappropriate. Maybe because the educators are trying to do something that's needed without the funds or support of the state and fed. goverments. If there is one issue that creates the most problems for education, it's the lack of participation by parents.

Uniform education programs need to be developed. It's difficult to do this when there's so much disagreement...this takes us back to topic.

We can all agree that abortion rates need to be reduced?

Maggie, condoms don't prohibit STD'S. For you, nothing is more important than preventing a pregnancy. You say nothing should supercede that. Oh sure, tell your kids about the "gravity" of being sexual, but as long as they don't get pregnant, whew!, that's the main thing! Not morals, or the lifelong effects of having sex at an early age, just DON'T GET PREGNANT!!!!!!

MJ, Your fan club just showed, do you have crackers? Now you can converse with someone at the same level.

Lisa, I didn't say I was for abortion. I am for "Choice". I am for you having the right to choose and for me having the right to choose. I choose not to have an abortion, but I will defend your right all day long. My argument is to prevent abortions. If there were no unwanted pregnancies, there would be no abortions. It's a very simple concept, and this country needs to quite worrying about over turning Roe vs. Wade, and put all that energy into education. Birth Control! Earlier today, I mentioned that I was Catholic, because that is the first attack I always get in this discussion. Congratulations, we made it all day long, before the religious attack came. Abortion is the Solution for some. Let's fight abortion by correcting the cause.

CONDOMS help in the prevention of STDEEEEEEEEES!!

Geeze, even the sex workers in SF get this concept.

Prohibit?

Prohibit?

Prohibit?

Take a minute to relax and catch your breath when you have been running to catch the bus.

Lisa, NYMaggie knows it's OK to dis the Pope and if she's wrong, she's forgiven.

Maggie, If you are so hell bent on making abortion obsolete through birth control, why are you not equally for making abortion illegal? That in conjunction with birth control would certainly reduce the number of "unwanted pregnancies". You said that abortion is "horrible", so I would think you would be in support of repealing Roe V. Wade.

OY!

No Russ, She is not forgiven because as a Catholic, she must follow what the church says on these issues. She is only "forgiven" if she goes to confession and says she is sorry for what she said. Sounds simplistic, but that is the way it is. Sorry.

she must follow what the church says on these issues.

So are you pro welfare?

why are you not equally for making abortion illegal?

Becuase that will simply make it go underground and not go after the root of the problem.

What a good discussion.

Firstly good initial post - excellent.

Secondly this is such a strong discussion by so many people. Please try to take the passion out of it (and use your brains more).

Either you believe what you believe because it's right and true or you're wrong. I'd love to hear this discussion without the religious content and the initial post caught that. I don't want to denigrate religion but you must be able to show it's true or your just another voice and we don't experience your faith.

MJ - I'm interested, what ethical foundations does the atheist have for being against abortion?

NYMaggie - What a great breath of fresh air you are. I really like your post - I disagree with you but keep on keepin' on.

On abortion, I don't believe the moment two cells come together is the first moment of life. So the first cell is not a human to me. To me a human is a level of reasoning - so that means a reasonable high level of brain activity. And a nervous system. Without that I don't believe the embryo can be considered human life. If it's not life abortion is easy. Other's believe it is life before that. If it is life then I understand why you use words like murder - I would stand up and defend someone who was being murdered.

Again following the original post - I don't think getting rid of non feeling and non thinking cells is getting rid of a human. This is why I don't find abortion is a problem. Some believe that feotus is a human that is why they see it as murder.

Perhaps Suozzi is sincere but the problem is that most lefty politicans could care less about reducing the number of abortions. Hillary for example pays lip service to the the "safe, legal and rare" lie, as Bill did, because they know that's what they have to do to get elected. Doesn't really mater what issue it is, the only "common ground" lefties want to find is the "common ground" where judges think abortion is "a woman's right to choose" a tax cut is give away to people who don't pay taxes in the first place, Social Security is not in trouble and drilling in ANWR is the rape of the wilderness. Their wrong way or the highway. Trying to find "common ground" with the people who are in charge in the Deomcratic Party is a fool's errand that we do far to much of already.

WB, It's been a long day. I admit I was antagonistic, and I was purposefully being so. I wish for peace. I also find it difficult to believe that after all these years of fighting for human rights, there are still those who would deny someone a choice. In going a step further they become judgemental of the choice.

I was judgemental of the opinion, and this may be weighed as denying choice also. For the most part I don't think anyone (OK a few) here has actually allowed the thought of "tolerance of choice" to use up a brain cell.

If we choose to use science and religion in this matter I believe science wins and you are correct. When does the joining of sperm and egg become life? I think if we take a vote; "is it OK for all to have a choice in this matter?" there would be some who would deny this right.

It will be difficult to remove religion from this topic, and in reality I don't think we need to. I wonder what motivates someone who isn't religious. I believe religion is a factor, even in those who say they don't believe of have a non-theistic view. We cannot escape the influence of religion on our lives.

I believe that blind obedience to faith creates a great deal of of stress in someones life especially if the church doctrine is rigid and discourages critical thinking. How many years did it take science to prove the church wrong regarding the shape of the earth, or the position of the earth in our solar system? Even after these examples followers choose to be blind. For some it's difficult to admit that religious leaders are wrong.

I believe there comes a time when we need to place more attention on the problems and use our strengths to find solutions.

Lisa - One can be for preventing cavities and also for their removal once they've set in.

Steve - the abortion rate dropped considerably under Clinton - http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html

Steve, How is your opinion and position (post of 08:33) different than those you call the lefties?

I believe William was addressing "common ground" as the "middle ground" where people meet to discuss differences. Are you willing to discuss abortion without expressing your hatred for the Clintons? Am I being partisan to state that abortion rates have increased over the last four years? What has created this occurance when the leaders state that they are against abortion? If abortion is illegal then there will be no recorded numbers, yet it will still continue. Are you willing to meet me in the middle and discuss a solution to the problem?

If you choose to read, it has been the lefties that have spoken for choices. "Human Rights" How many choices that you take for granted would you be willing to give up? Are you willing to allow me to make the choice for you? If you believe you have choices, what motivates you in thinking you have a right to them? What motivates your thinking that what you expressed in your post is correct, and that the world should be according to Steve Bowers?

Are you willing to meet me in the middle? Common Ground-Common Sense.

Yes Lisa she is forgiven because she is a christian. Christian first, Catholic second. The horse doesn't push the wagon.

Brit, it's a simple matter of placing a value on human life. Silly me. In my opinion, being an atheist is all the more reason to revere life, because it is all we have. Quite frankly speaking, if I was a christian, my respect for life would be significantly less, because in the end everyone lives on, and in the end god makes sure we all get what we deserve, so it really doesn't matter as much. In the end, innocent souls would be preserved, and evil monsters would face a punishment worse then we can even imagine. But, I digress. Because this wasn't what we were arguing about. Brit you seemed to have missed the points of the discussion. I spoke quite passionately, yes, against the abortion OF MY CHILD, and I stand by that. This was brought up because I disagree with the concept that the women and her alone somehow owns this peice of property and may dispose of it. I wasn't speaking of all abortions. The majority of the argument however, has been about the status-quo method of trying to prevent them by preventing unplanned pregnancies by throwing condoms at people. You missed that as well. NYMaggie, so much for an open discussion. You, and everyone else have completely ignored my argument and just continue with the same old spiel. Would any of you not stop to consider what I'm saying? I am telling you that you may inadvertantly increase unwanted pregnancies with your method, but you can't be bothered to pay attention to that, or even reality, you're too busy planning your fantasy world where 0 unwanted pregnancies occur.

Ugh. Cut & paste took out all my indentations.

Maggie, I still don't understand your position, it seems very contradictory. On one hand you say you are for the "right to choose" but then say that abortion is "horrible", and the destruction of "human life". Then you tell me that you are NOT for abortion, but for the right to "Choose". Choose what? A house? A new outfit? Or perhaps a new car? You meant choose ABORTION. Just because YOU wouldn't do it, doesn't make it o.k. to support anyone else doing it. I say this to you because you said you were Catholic, as am I. As a Catholic, you are absolutely not allowed to be pro-choice. "Oy" is not a response to my query to you. I'll say it again, if you think that birth control will greatly reduce unwanted pregnancies, then why are you not equally for repealing Roe V. Wade, as that would also reduce abortions? MJohnson was correct, throwing condoms at people isn't going to make unplanned pregnancies disappear, to the contrary.

um yeah, I am for welfare if it is used as it was intended to be used. I used it myself at one time. What I said to her about abortion was that if she so believed birth control would lessen abortions, then why was she still for having that choice, meaning, not just ONE or the OTHER, but BOTH.

mattk, that is a pretty sick comparison, cavities and human life. yeah.

Russ, When the egg and sperm join, they begin to divide and multiply, and that is the beginning of ALL human life. Someone might choose to not believe that means it is worthy of rights and respect, but it IS how we all began.

sorry again Russ, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the Catholic faith. It isn't christian first, Catholic second. Just the reverse. Otherwise, she should just be some protestant religion, because the tenents of her faith wouldn't matter.

Lisa, I am "Pro-Choice" I do not want the government making my "reproductive decisions. I will use my "Pro-choice" right to do everything humanly possible to never put myself into the position of needing to consider an abortion. If my neighbor chooses an abortion, I will not judge her. I will respect her decision! I will feel bad about it, but she must be allowed to make that decision for herself. You can say that I am Anti-Abortion. Think about it! America is a country of "rights" I have the right to own a gun, and I don't own a gun. I support the right to own guns for all those who wish to.

There is a lot of talk of the Conservative right gearing up to overturn Roe vs. Wade. My argument is that the law should be left alone. Don't touch my "right". To prevent the necessity of an abortion, let's remedy the cause. The religious right is fighting us there too. They do not want sex education in schools. They are even attempting to make purchasing birth ocntrol very difficult in many states. The pharmacies are allowed to decide if they will fill a birth control prescription. It feels like no one out there wants to do anything but cause rampant unwanted childbirth.

This is a discussion of Abortion. It was made legal in the 70's and rightly or wrongly, it is a right given to the American women. In the last few years, we have had such an uproar over it's existence. Instead of throwing up our arms and demanding that this law be overturned, let's find a way to eliminate the need for abortions. I do realize that it will never be eliminated 100% but with good education, and available birth control, it can certainly be tremendously improved. If you choose to believe that throwing condoms at our kids will promote sex, etc. nothing will improve. You may find this hard to believe, but kids aren't half as dumb as you think they are. You really can have a very intelligent conversation with them. They do welcome the discussions, and even though their hormones may take command of their good sense, you can lay the foundation for your teenager to consider the consequence of their sexual actions. If that consideration is to go get a condom, I for one, would feel I succeeded!

Lisa, I live my life by the 10 commandments. As soon as Moses brings down another tablet with the 11th commandment, " Thou Shalt not use birth control", I will continue obeying the other ten. I do firmly believe that if there were to be an 11th commandment it should be " Thou shalt not JUDGE thy neighbor" Falwell, Dobson, Robinson would all burn in hell if this commandment were handed down, along with all the Evangelica Do=gooders that have surfaced since we took the White House back.

Lisa, Many people don't realize why they do the things they do or act the way they act.

Do you consider yourself a racist?

You are at an unconscious level. If you want life to be different you must learn to think differently.

Do you remember the racist comment you made a couple of days ago regarding rape and abortion?

It is habit for you to make comments and then ignore any effort to get an explanation. Your comment that NYmaggie isn't forgiven is wrong and you know this is true. You choose to not retract you incorrect statements.

I don't believe in abortion. I believe in choice also. When we look at the solutions to the problem, we must look at the complete picture.

If given the option of aborting a fetus that doesn't think or feel prevents a child being brought into this world where the chances are great that it will be neglected, then I would choose abortion. Abortion isn't what I want to see happen, but when choosing evils I will choose the lesser. How would you approach this problem? How would you change this picture?

I know that the parties involved here are so divided that there isn't agreement even on an education program. Education isn't the solution, it's only part of the solution.

I believe you are someone that has no middle ground, and isn't willing to see anothers viewpoint. Prove me wrong, please.

MJohnson, since I'm not gay, I don't think that you're my type, anyway. I wonder if it is significant that you only seem to be concerned about the possibility of somebody aborting your son...

tgibbs, if you find it interesting you read too much into it. The sex of the child does not matter. I merely state that if you are screwing with what would be MY child, I'll fight you tooth and nail no matter what the law or someone else says. I would expect any good father to do the same. We all should expect a good father to do the same, and in that regard, we cannot just toss him aside as if his opinion of what should happen to his child didn't matter.

NYMaggie, off subject. Just a side note. Technically speaking, if you beleive in the 10 commandments and that's it, you are a christian, but you aren't a catholic.

Catholicism isn't an ethnicity you are born with and can't change, it's a system of beleifs. What seperates Catholics from Anglicans from Pentecostals is the specifics of said beleifs, and regardless of which church you go to, it doesn't seem like the catholic church best epitomizes your beleif system, or even come close.

This isn't meant to be lecturing you. I really don't care, you can call your religion whatever you want to call it, but for purposes of specificity, you don't sound catholic.

As far as the issue of birth control, I still do not feel you've satisfactorily addressed it. I wonder if you've even bothered to contemplate upon it.

"If you choose to beleive that ... nothing will improve".

Duh? Nothing will improve no matter what I choose to beleive, and furthermore, are I "choose" to beleive what I beleive to be true. Are you insinuating otherwise? REgardless, my beleifs do not bend reality to their will, no matter what I beleive.

Don't tell you me, you agree with Russ? If we all think happy thoughts and click are heels, cover everything with a condom and assume it'll all work itself out, it will.

my dear russ, Look again at my post which you call racist. I said that when I was a young, idealistic lib, I asked my mon that question BECAUSE I thought that would get HER as SHE was a conservative! You aren't very perceptive , are you.

Any clicking you hear is the ticker tape through your droid brain.

MJ, Just once get real. Education is part of the solution, it's a beginning.

The point in Williams topic is that no one is willing to meet on common ground. Common sense says there's a problem. OK, lets start there. Next we can draft an education program, and part of the program is to address moral and ethical issues that everyone has. Then look at reasonable measures to address these issues.....etc.

No one is advocating the removal of your rights. If you and your wife/partner choose to have a child, I don't hear anyone here saying you can't. In the education program you have learned some parenting skills and the responsibilities of providing care for children, and you make a healthy decision to proceed, and if your partner concieves then we wish that the two of you are blessed with a heathy child.

For the Mom without a partner (the one that lied about his education) she is left with the decision of providing for the child by herself. If she thinks she can't afford to care for the child and someone states that they believe she should have the baby and put it up for adoption or that programs are available to help he care for the child.....therein lies a problem. Yes there are programs, many underfunded, many have closed because of funding. This is as big an issue as abortion.

Moms that are married, single, rich or poor, worry about the child in the womb. Will they be a good parent, will the child be healthy, and of course, who will provide for the child?

MJ, Your posts seem to come from someone who isn't married nor do you have children. What does that change in regard to your opinion, nothing. Does your lack of experience change reality, you bet.

The point of this topic is; are you willing to meet in the midddle?

Russ, first of all, you can criticize me for having a 'lack of experience', but your wrong. If you think I would change my tune, should I find myself the father of an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy, you're wrong. Period.

Now, what exactly is it you want?

Maggie states what she thinks the solution to the problem is. I bring up an issue that I have, a concern, about that solution. Rather then address the issue, you lambast me for being unwilling to meet upon common ground.....

Who are you trying to fool?

And I've had enough of this crap about how every mother who's ever had an abortion did it because she thought it was best for the child. Russ you are so full of crap, it's a wonder you don't explode.

Your question to Mom was (not verbatim); What if you were raped by a BLACK man? You came through loud and clear Lisa. The issue wasn't about being raped, it was the black child you/she would carry. Perceptive? What would you know about perception? Are you saying all conservatives are racist? I don't agree.

What about; "being raped period!" Rape, is Rape...IS RAPE!

Same question to you; "are you willing to meet in the middle to solve the problem of abortions?"

PS. Regarding your faith. Are you saying you put your churh before God? Maybe a better way to ask Mom the question would have been that the rapist was a drug addict or alcoholic. Studies show that the sperm is affected by addictive substances, therefore increasing the risk of birth defects. Of course you could have been the drug addict and the rapist was just full of hate.

Russ, you're a fool. Plain and simple. You obviously failed terribly to understand what Lisa just said, furthermore, I find your 'subconcious racist' theory to be utterly ridiculous and worthy of a South Park episode.

As far as your complete idiocy on the issue of denominations within a religion, catholicism is a TYPE of christianity. That is, a specificty. "christian" is a more broad term. Catholics are a certain type of christian. So yes, you are a catholic first (and most specific) and a christian second, as part of the larger picture, being less specific.

It's like saying an animal is an 'animal first, and a possum second'. No, it's not. It's a possum first. And possums are a type of animal.

You are 'russ' first, and an idiot only in broader terms.

MJ, you refuse to move to middle ground! I didn't say, EVERY! I was speaking in regard to the ones that have done so. I am looking at this from the standpoint of reducing the abortion rate. One at a time.

I was specifically addressing those that are poor or those that feel they are unable to care for a child. There are thousands, and if you choose to refute stats, then do so.

Clicking heals? Have you proposed one thing that would/could be classified as middle ground?

clicking HEELS....

Russ, do you even know what 'move to the middle ground' MEANS?!? You apparently think it means I agree with whatever the hell you say. Classic liberalism. Harry Reid must be your hero.

In regard to rights, yours and everyones civil RIGHTS!

You believe that you should have the right to have sex with your partner, she concieves and that your partner has the right to have the baby? In a moment of complete insanity, I agree with you. Given that you have discussed this with her I wouldn't suspect that she would want an abortion? Given the circumstances, I understand that she has moments of; My GOD what have I done?

No one is disputing your rights.

Do you believe everyone should do what you do? If you do that doesn't qualify as common sense and common ground.

There are people who want to overturn Roe v Wade? Both sides have their issues and neither are willing to come to middle ground.

Tell me what post had substance that could be called middle groung from you. I only saw you choice to disagree with everyone. That's a choice too, but it doesn't bring people closer together. I don't think you are interested. In every post you refute what I state.

I don't agree with abortion, but I'm not willing to take away the rights of others. Will I change my position, it's possible? Maybe a law is passed with conditions that are beneficial to all? I'm willing to take a look.....Middle Ground.

For me, the common ground is reducing abortions. Now, how do we do that.

PS. Being a christian is about faith. Given that you have expressed your atheist views, therefore you are not qualified to discuss christianity. Do you have an opinion? Yes, and it's still just an opinion. I accept you belief, I don't have to believe in what you accept. This doesn't keep us from having common ground on the topic of reducing abortions.

MJohnson, Thank you , thank you , thank you for your 4:34 post! I read Russ, and was so awed by his stupidity that I couldn't get up the energy to answer him. But you did, and brilliantly.

Russ, Are you schooled in the Catholic faith? I am. I was not wrong in my comment to NY Maggie. She is NOT forgiven for any sin unless she goes to confession and is truly repentant for it. Being pro- choice is a sin in the Catholic church.

Russ, where do you get off saying that MJ isn't qualified to discuss christianity because he isn't a christian? You discuss Catholicism and you aren't a Catholic. Middle ground, moderates, gag! Those are the people with no backbone, no guts. I prefer the most rabid lib to a wishy washy moderate. Take a damn stand, have a backbone!! Kumbaya my Lord, Kumbaya.

Russ, I was just reading your post of 11:59. It is truly amazing,for you speak of being able to predict whether a "fetus" will be neglected. According to you, killing said child would be "the lesser of two evils". That is just astounding, gee, I wish I had the capacity to KNOW what child would be "neglected" and which ones would be loved. Wow!

Russ, I hate to keep talking to you,but you said alot of silly things. You accused me of not having any middle ground, and not seeing another's viewpoint. Well, if by that you mean I know what I believe, and am not swayed by somebody else, you are correct.

Lisa, I have never discussed the Catholic Christian, yet I have discussed the Christian catholic. I suggest that you return to school. Much of what you decree as law, is ritual and symbolism. It doesn't guarantee your salvation. My reference to MJ was specifically in regard to faith. If MJ were to set out to prove Christianity wrong, then he would really study it and become a christian. Faith, isn't about telling someone else they are wrong, nor is it about taking away rights.

NYmaggie as I understand it believes in choice, she hasn't had an abortion (if she did she would be forgiven), at least not that she has expressed. It isn't a sin to believe that others have freedom of choice. It is sinful for you to call her a sinner. When and if she believes she has sinned, it is her choice to ask for forgiveness and it isn't your right to tell her when she is forgiven. You are beginning to sound like an Islamic-extremist. When do heads start to roll? You still haven't addressed your racist comment. No energy?

It only takes one person to undo a good topic. In this case it's two. Cheers to you and MJ. Yes I know I participated.

For someone always speaking backbone, you never support your position on topics.

PS. Liberals are not rabbid.

I never predicted anything, Lisa.

If you are willing to look at the statistics you will see that many fetus' have been carried to full term and neglected. Neglected, as in living, breathing, children. What part of this don't you understand?

I am against abortion!! I am against taking away a persons right to choose!! That's biblical by the way!! and to finish, your are correct, sometimes I'm silly and think what I say might make a difference. In regard to you and MJ, I'm very wrong.

Sorry, no crackers today.

Wind this around your simple peanut. My comment in choosing the lesser of two evils...was in support of a WOMANS choice, and had nothing to do with prediction. If she has fears of being unwilling to care for the child and doesn't see any help coming her way (such as the 13 yr. old in FL) and if she makes a decision to abort the fetus, I support her right to choose. It is in support of a law that states; YOU, don't get to CHOOSE for her.

I also support remaining in this century and not reverting to a neanderthal mentality. To you that might be neo-anderthal.

What is your suggestion to reduce abortion rates?

William, Your opening sentence still stand and holds true.

I wanna be a christian like Russ- do whatever you want and it's o.k.- you're forgiven 'cause you call yourself a Christian... Wow, it would be so much easier!

Those of you who keep talking about how the father has limited, or no say in things with a pregnant woman, just remember you said that when someone starts discussing deadbeat dads. Apparently, following your logic, they've done nothing wrong, and are wrongly persecuted.

Let's leave religion out for the moment- although I too am catholic (and Lisa is correct- Maggie should rethink calling herself Catholic. Nothing wrong with not being Catholic). We convict people of serious, even capital crimes everyday based on DNA. Why? Because the odds that your DNA matches anyone else in the history of the Earth are slim to none. DNA identifies you as a specific Homo Sapien. If so, why then does a mother have the right to terminate a living (Although dependant) group of cells with DNA that identifies it as a separate Homo Sapien? I find some of the comments made in this string rather frightening- Brit, I like you man, but your comment about humanity being defined by a 'reasonably high level of brain activity' sounds haunting. Once we become the arbiters of where life begins, that line can be moved down, or UP- I used to think the slippery slope argument was a weak one, but as I've gotten older (and hopefully wiser) I start to see it's legitimacy. How can you not, when there are "esteemed" Princeton professors who have put in writing that we should consider allowing parents to decide until a child is ONE if that child should live or die (as the Romans did). I urge all who post to rise above petty name calling and perhaps read twice-write once might help people give more reasoned, thoughtful replies.

I don't believe it's OK to do whatever I choose. When I do something that's wrong I can and do ask for forgiveness. Actually being a christian is easy Doug. Thanks for the compliment.

Many abortions are about dead-beat sperm donors. No one here is promoting taking away anyones right, unless you are refering to MJ and Lisa. You may also include me if you are promoting the rights of the rapist.

Are you talking about men who have unprotected sex, then choose to leave the relationship? Paternity suits?

Those of you who keep talking about how the father has limited, or no say in things with a pregnant woman, just remember you said that when someone starts discussing deadbeat dads. Apparently, following your logic, they've done nothing wrong, and are wrongly persecuted.

It's not a matter of being "persecuted" for doing something wrong, it is a matter of taking a share of the responsibility for the consequences of one's actions. If one accepts a woman's right to abort, one must also accept her right to carry a pregnancy to term. One cannot reasonably expect a woman who believes that abortion is murder to abort, even if one's own views are quite different. So some men are careless but "luck out" and are spared the financial consequences of their negligence because the woman doesn't become pregnant or, because of choice or happenstance the pregnancy does not go to term. This is the nature of negligence; occasionally one is lucky enough to get away with it, but there is always the risk of consequences.

Nice try Russ, but I obviously (I thought) didn't honestly believe that you felt any other way, but then YOU are inconsistant. Go back to your previous posts where you defend NYMaggie saying "NYMaggie knows it's ok to dis the Pope and if shes wrong, its ok she's forgiven." This leaves out the critical step of ASKING for forgivness. Also, it's tremendously inconsistant to say the choice is all up to the mother, and the father has only to accept her decision, but if SHE keeps it HE has to pay up. Try following your own logic- you'll get even more lost. And when you say "are you talking about the MEN who have unprotected sex..." I thought it was a joint operation, how come the woman gets out of any responsibility to use protection? Oh, and NYMaggie, I just LOVE your line about "I do firmly believe that if there were to be an 11th commandment it should be 'Thou shalt not judge thy neighbor'. Falwell, Dobson, Robinson would all BURN IN HELL if this commandment were handed down..." I guess so would you, eh?

it's tremendously inconsistant to say the choice is all up to the mother, and the father has only to accept her decision, but if SHE keeps it HE has to pay up.

Not really it is a consistent position, namely that all the power belongs to the mother.

Which is only logical since all the action so to speak is entirely inside her body.

Hmmm, tgibbs, I think you've got a problem- "This is the nature of negligence; occasionally one is lucky enough to get away with it, but there is always the risk of consequences." Unless you're a woman who wants an abortion- then you don't have to worry about the consequences of getting pregnant. Just a tad inconsistant. UY, if 'all the action... is inside her body'- then it IS her and he bears no responsibility (at least legally). Or else you're saying it IS more than just a part of her body? Can't have it both ways. Also, child support is paid on CHILDREN not fetuses. At that point, it ain't in her body anymore. With your logic, you have to conclude that she brings it into the world, it's her responsibility- he bears none. Thats just one reason why I don't agree with that line of reasoning.

mmm, tgibbs, I think you've got a problem- "This is the nature of negligence; occasionally one is lucky enough to get away with it, but there is always the risk of consequences." Unless you're a woman who wants an abortion- then you don't have to worry about the consequences of getting pregnant.

Hmmm...a choice between a pregnancy--uncomfortable at best, life threatening at worst--and a medical procedure, also uncomfortable, and, while safer than pregnancy, hardly without risk. Not to mention the moral dilemma (strange as it may seem to you, many women take abortion very seriously), the difficulty of raising a child, potential consequences of a child to career, finances, etc., etc. Nope, no consequences to worry about.

The woman has available to her an option--abortion--that will reduce the financial consequences to both her and the father of their mutual negligence. But she may for ethical or emotional reasons be unable to take that option. No such option is available to the male partner. This is unfair, just as it is unfair that the mother assumes the major risks and discomfort of pregnancy and child birth, but the unfairness resides in biology, not law. If it were possible for either parent to carry a fetus to term, then it would make sense for both to share equally in the decision of whether to do so.

While "all the action is inside her body," the prospective father is not legally obliged to assist financially (unless otherwise bound by marriage), although many men would consider themselves ethically bound. If there is a birth, both mother and father are expected to assume a share of the expense.

Also, child support is paid on CHILDREN not fetuses. At that point, it ain't in her body anymore. With your logic, you have to conclude that she brings it into the world, it's her responsibility- he bears none.

It takes two negligent people to create an unwanted pregnancy or an unexpected child. So it makes sense that both should share in the costs.

DNA identifies you as a specific Homo Sapien.

So then, you believe that identical twins, who have the same DNA, should not be regarded as specific homo sapiens?

If so, why then does a mother have the right to terminate a living (Although dependant) group of cells with DNA that identifies it as a separate Homo Sapien?

Egg cells and sperm cells have DNA different from the parent, yet we do not regard them (even considered collectively as a pair) as separate homo sapiens. In terms of DNA, nothing whatseover is added when the sperm and egg fuse.

A cancer cell also has separate DNA different from its host. And it is unquestionably human. Does this entitle it to survival? If not, why not?

then it IS her and he bears no responsibility (at least legally). Or else you're saying it IS more than just a part of her body? Can't have it both ways.

Sure you can once it's born then he is responsible as well.

then it IS her and he bears no responsibility (at least legally). Or else you're saying it IS more than just a part of her body? Can't have it both ways.

Respect for personal choice does not mean "having it both ways." I am suggesting that her views on the matter, whatever they may be, must be respected. Whether or not abortion is legally available, it is not ethically available to a woman who views abortion as murder. And while such a view might not make sense scientifically or biologically, it is a legitimate religious belief. So it is not reasonable to argue, "She doesn't deserve child support because she could have aborted."

Doug,

Anyone ever tell you that you could be "had" easy and cheap. You filling in for MJ?

My tongue in cheek dis the Pope comment was because people make him out to be more than human. He's a man. If NYmaggie really dissed the Pope, asking for forgiveness is on her terms. If Lisa believes she (Lisa) needs to go to confession to be forgiven, that's her problem.

For the last two days William has reinforced a point, and this issue has many specific circumstances that that any ten group of people can't agree on. It isn't just the left or right that disagrees it's the right and the right that disagrees.

At best I see your comments as making christianity complex. It isn't! When we dispose of the symbolism and rituals it's very simple. NYmaggies good and bad deeds are hers, as are yours and mine. Our forgivness is the same. Simply ask.

If you want to follow someone so you can get your brain twisted around religion, follow Lisa.

If you want to do something positive, post some comments on how two sides can work together to come to a solution. Common Ground.

I agree with the original post that there is middle ground to be met here. I used to believe that abortion was about a woman’s body and her right to do as she pleased with it. It was hard for me, as a teenager, to conceptualize that there was a living being inside a pregnant woman’s belly. I remember my mother used to play soft music with the radio resting against her belly while she was pregnant with my sister. I thought she was silly at the time. About eight years ago, while stationed in Virginia Beach, we admitted a pregnant woman to the E.R. who eventually miscarried. She was somewhere near the middle of her first trimester. While assisting the physician, I was handed a gauze pad containing the aborted fetus, which I transferred to a specimen cup and delivered to the pathology lab. The fetus was less than 2 inches long, yet it had arms and legs, hands and feet. It had two eyes, a nose and I could just make out a mouth. It looked, in every way, like a two-inch human being. My whole outlook on abortion changed at that point. I then understood why my mother played music for my unborn sister many years earlier. I understood why OB/GYN doctors and nurses encourage moms and dads-to-be to sing and read stories to the baby growing inside the womb. That is a living human being growing inside there. I personally believe life begins at conception. Once the egg and sperm are joined, the miracle of life is set in motion. The fertilized zygote begins to grow in a very structured and precise composition. It is life in every sense of the word. Having said that, it is important to note that it is life in the same sense as the grass growing on your lawn is life. It is not yet sentient. It is not yet capable for feeling or emotion. Those things are, in my opinion, what define a human being as a human being. This is where my stance against abortion was reinforced. About five years ago, I read an article in a local paper about partial birth abortion. I didn’t have any idea what partial birth abortion was, but it didn’t sound good, so… I did some research. What I discovered was that, right up until, and including, the day of delivery, a doctor could reach way up inside the womb, spin the baby around so it was delivered breach and just before the head delivered… he’d shove a big spike right into the baby’s brain. I was completely appalled that this was a legal practice and one that pro-choice advocate vehemently defended. Now, you cannot tell me that a fetus that has been developing for 9 months is incapable of feeling, emotion or sentient thought. How is shoving a spike in the back of a baby’s head, as it’s delivering, any different than shoving a spike in the back of it’s head a day after it’s delivered? Yet, one is considered perfectly ok and the other is considered murder. So, that begs the question, when is abortion no longer acceptable. Well, certainly, if that aborted fetus that I carried to the pathology lab had all the external features of a human being, it is only reasonable to assume it had many of the internal features as well. That means a nervous system and some measure of a brain. Actually, science has already determined that spinal cord development occurs as early as week 3 with a fully functioning spinal cord and cerebral spinal fluid by week 5. The brain begins development by week 4 with the five major components developed by week 5. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a complete nervous system five weeks into the pregnancy. That means that it is possible for feeling and emotion by as early as five weeks or less. Fact is, science cannot tell us whether or not Terri Schiavo had the capacity for conscious thought or emotion… so there’s no way we’re going to know if a 5 week old fetus has that capacity. The one thing I do know is that the main reason cited for Terri not having that capacity is that she had lost most of her cerebral cortex… and yet the cerebral cortex is one of the five components of the brain developed by week 5. In truth, a child’s brain continues to develop until somewhere around three years old however, for all intents and purposes, the structure is there by week 5. Generally most women don’t even know they’re pregnant for about three weeks into the pregnancy and even then, the actual conception is often a guessing game that contains some margin of error. I don’t believe that it is humane to essentially “chop up” a fetus that may have the capacity for feeling, emotion and possibly some degree of conscious thought. If you could imagine all the ways you’d want to die, how high up would being “chopped up” in a blender rank?

Now it seems to me like the government’s definition of life is highly contradictory. We have recently established a law where the homicide of a pregnant woman can result in a double murder conviction. One in which the mother was murdered and one in which the fetus was murdered. How can that be justified when we don’t consider abortion murder?

I agree with NYMaggie about condom… although maybe not to the same degree. Availability in my daughter’s elementary school bathroom, I think not. She’s seven years old for crying out loud. But yes, better access to prophylactics is a good thing. First off… prophylaxis doesn’t come cheap… and the “pull out” method does. Of course, as adults, we know the latter method is about as effective as no method at all. Yet teenagers think differently than we do. My 17 year old cousin said this to me the other day and I cuffed him upside the head… gently… then bought him a pack of condoms. When I was a teenager, I have to say, I was very embarrassed to even be in the isle where the condoms were… yet I was sexually active. Looking back, I realize that if I wasn’t responsible enough and too embarrassed to by a rubber, then I shouldn’t have been having sex. Yet I was. Luckily, my girlfriend was more responsible than I at the time. I think my point is that there really isn’t enough availability of legitimate prophylaxis that can be accessed discreetly. I don’t think access to prophylaxis will result in rampant casual sex. Those teenagers who are not sexually active are usually not because of good parenting. Whoever said that condoms don’t reduce the risk for STD’s is a complete moron. Truth be told, the biggest worry of all… HIV/AIDS… is very difficult for males to contract through heterosexual sex, yet women will almost always contract it from an infected partner… so teenage girls need to be especially vigilant.

As I said in the beginning of my long rambling, I agree that we need to find some middle ground here. I don’t like abortions, but I will concede my position in certain circumstances. I can understand the desire for victims of rape to seek and abortion. I can understand why victims of incest would also want to seek and abortion. I can understand why one would want to terminate a high-risk pregnancy. What I can’t understand are all the abortions that are conducted as a means of prophylaxis. What I can’t understand is how a woman I know got three abortions in a four-year time period. Two of them in the same year. Statistics show that the vast majority of abortions are conducted as a matter of prophylaxis. Not because of rape, or incest or a life-threatening pregnancy. They occurred because someone simply didn’t take the necessary precautions to prevent the pregnancy in the first place. I know one woman who had an abortion because she didn’t want stretch marks.

“(strange as it may seem to you, many women take abortion very seriously), the difficulty of raising a child, potential consequences of a child to career, finances, etc., etc. Nope, no consequences to worry about.” tgibbs- No it’s not at all strange, but they aren’t the ones I’m worried about, it’s the large number of ones for whom it is either an amoral issue or a casual matter (see JNE’s recent post). “While "all the action is inside her body," the prospective father is not legally obliged to assist financially (unless otherwise bound by marriage), although many men would consider themselves ethically bound. If there is a birth, both mother and father are expected to assume a share of the expense. “ tgibbs- I don’t know where you live, and I’m not a lawyer, but I wouldn’t bet the house on that- the way I understand it, in most states, if you impregnate, you pay. Of course I would love to see ALL biological fathers also be Fathers, but unfortunately, that’s just not reality. “It takes two negligent people to create an unwanted pregnancy or an unexpected child. So it makes sense that both should share in the costs.”tgibbs- How about ‘It takes two negligent people to create an unwanted pregnancy or an unexpected child. So it makes sense that both should share in the decision making’??? Same logic, isn’t it? DNA identifies you as a specific Homo Sapien. “So then, you believe that identical twins, who have the same DNA, should not be regarded as specific homo sapiens?” tgibbs- Well, you got me, sort of, well… not really- True, identical twins do have the same DNA as they arise from the same conception, but the point in my argument is that they have different DNA than their mother- so I ignored this case as irrelevant. Nice try, though. If so, why then does a mother have the right to terminate a living (Although dependant) group of cells with DNA that identifies it as a separate Homo Sapien? “Egg cells and sperm cells have DNA different from the parent, yet we do not regard them (even considered collectively as a pa