Woman to Woman

By Brian Curtis

October 15, 2004 04:51 PM | Link to this

I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen that “just look at photos of an abortion and you’ll see how wrong it is” argument.

News flash, people: An appendectomy is disgusting to watch, too. I guess that’s a crime against God too?

For all Shaunti’s protestations, a conservative platform of “outlaw abortion + cut all social programs” DOES amount to caring about babies only prior to birth. Why else would we be slashing welfare benefits, strangling education and healthcare, and draining off money so we can Leave Every Child Behind?

Finally, Shaunti has nothing to back up her claim that “life begins at conception” other than the standard conservative tactic: sheer repetition. But the truth is, the beginning of human life is her opinion, nothing more. It may be based on her particular religious beliefs—in which case she’s free to follow those beliefs and not have an abortion if she chooses.

But I have yet to see a single argument against abortion that’s not grounded in visceral emotion or the dogma of a specific faith. Which automatically invalidates it as a basis for establishing laws (cf. the First Amendment).

Abortion is LEGAL, people; it’s not a crime and it’s not going away… unless we make safe, reliable birth control and sex education more readily available. Ironically enough, religious conservatives are dead-set against that, too; what a coincidence!

By norman

October 18, 2004 07:15 AM | Link to this

I am pro-Life but I wonder whether a child raised in an evangelical environment would not in fact be better off dead.

By Heather

October 18, 2004 08:15 AM | Link to this

I don’t believe that women need to even consider abortion rights as a political issue for electing a president. There are far more important issues to consider. I am in disbelief that Diane and Shunti both believe that this is the issue that women should consider this November. What about the war on terror and the economy? Do you both believe that women are unable to think on this level?

By kt1066

October 18, 2004 08:25 AM | Link to this

The biggest issue in this election is what kind of country we will have in the future: one that follows our Constitution or one that is run by the religio-political rightwing neo-Puritans? Freedom may be hard to get, but it is even harder to keep, and the right-wingers, having distorted Christianity to justify their grab for political power, seek to end freedom and rule by the Constitution. Some of them want to replace the law of the Constitution with what they claim is the law of God, from the Old Testament. Will we continue to have a free country, in which people have the right to make choices that we personally do not agree with, or will we have an authoritarian church/corporate state in which we have little say in our own lives? Our Constitution is at stake in this election, and that trumps every social issue.

By Brian Curtis

October 18, 2004 08:25 AM | Link to this

Heather: Good point! Both Shaunti and Diane seem to be assuming that for women, “nothing matters but abortion.” There are many other issues to consider, no matter what your gender.

By Gayle Wright

October 18, 2004 08:28 AM | Link to this

Security is absolutely #1.

That is the main reason I support Senator Kerry.

In the final debate, when Senator Kerry accused Bush of losing focus in the War on Terror and saying that bin Laden wasn’t a big concern, Bush immediately hit back hard. Bush answered by saying “Gosh, I just don’t think I ever said I’m not worried about Osama bin Laden. That’s kind of one of those…exaggerations,” he said.

Only one problem. In one of Bush’s very rare press conferences, this one in March of 2002, Bush said this: “I don’t know where he is. You know, I just don’t spend that much time on him…I truly am not that concerned about him.” It was only six months after 9/11.

This came after Bush promised to “smoke him out of his cave” and “capture him dead or alive.”

When Bush didn’t have much success “smoking him out of his cave” he became unconcerned. Bush, conveniently, became unconcerned around the time he wanted to invade Iraq. While we can “walk and chew gum at the same time,” it was said, we really “aren’t that concerned about (bin Laden).”

Now on to some flip-floppping:

Let us never forget. Osama bin Laden attacked the United States of America on September 11, 2001. Osama bin Laden is responsible for the deaths of thousands of American citizens. Bin Laden and his network, al-Qaeda, have committed numerous acts of war across numerous years against the United States of America. They have bombed American embassies, American civilians, American warships and American servicemembers.

Somehow Bush thought that Saddam Hussein, a man who had not been engaged in hostilities against the United States in years, a man who was considered a “diminished threat”, a man who the Bush Administration itself had called “contained and “unable to project conventional power against his neighbors” was a larger and more imminent threat to the United States than Osama bin Laden, a man actively killing Americans.

Before September 11 Bush was truly unconcerned about bin Laden. He ignored briefings on the subject, he refused to meet with his counter-terror czar. His attorney general specifically asked for an end to counter-terror briefings.

In the immediate aftermath of September 11 Bush became the cowboy. “Wanted dead or alive” posters went up throughout New York City, inspired by Bush’s strong rhetoric. The inspiring leader, compared by some to Churchill, promised to kill or capture bin Laden and end the threat of Islamist terror. The invasion of Afghanistan was planned.

And then, suddenly, even as the Taliban and al-Qaeda was resurgent in Afghanistan, Bush changed course. Bush was “not that concerned about bin Laden”. Bush was now focused on Saddam Hussein.

Now, apparently, in this election year, Bush is once again concerned about bin Laden. Now that the heat is on, now that Bush is up for re-election, Bush must somehow convince Americans that he genuinely cares about combatting terrorism.

Bush is failing. Bush isn’t that concerned with Osama bin Laden. He’d much rather have American soldiers engage in house-to-house battles with radicalized Iraqi citizens than smoke the real terrorists out of their holes.

Yes, this security mom supports Senator Kerry. I know he is extremely concerned about Osama bin Laden and the security of the people of the United States of America.

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 08:30 AM | Link to this

Sorry Brian, an appendectomy does not end a life. It is medically proven that 18 DAYS after conception the new baby has a heart beat. Most abortions are performed no sooner than nine weeks after conception and the new RU 486 contraceptives cannot be done until after six weeks. Either way the abortion snuffs out the heart beat of a new life. If it is only religious beliefs then they are right on the money. I have not seen a worthy argument for abortion that does not have a reasonable solution. Norman, you’re an idiot!

By Mara

October 18, 2004 09:11 AM | Link to this

Conservatives like to say that life begins at conception. But what kind of life? A zygote or fetus cannot exist outside a host (mothers) body. It is sustained only by what the host (mother) ingests. It gets oxygen via respiration by said host. Is it really an independant life, or is it merely an extention of the mothers body? My personal belief is that it is a form of life but is not ensouled as human life until the first independant breath is taken. Once ensouled, said being is entitled to the entire range of human rights. Before that point, it’s my body and no one but me, my doctor, and my God have any right to say how I care for it. On Nov. 2nd I will vote against the fundamentalist takeover of our country as spearheaded by Mr. Bush and his oligarcic cronies.

By Lyrazel

October 18, 2004 09:30 AM | Link to this

Odd so many men who contribute think a women’s primary issue to elect a president should be abortion. Does that show men are more concerned with the abortion issue and why is that paradox never raised in national debate? My concerns tend to be toward issues of privacy, health and economics. It perplexes me that a nations pharmacutical companies can not find in their profits the the need for national vaccines. Why is our medicine coming from companies abroad? It takes all control away from the country. In the name of HOMELAND SECURITY how was this possible? Because nationally subsidized pharmacutical companies cant make a profit on vaccines. Since the health of American citizens comes second to profit at pharmacutical companies should they be allowed to control its own pricing of Medicare?

My second issue would be the imbalance of trade and labor. A huge percentage of consumer goods are brought in from abroad, leaving America berift of manufacturing jobs and full of service sector jobs that pay less, have fewer benefits. To me it seems everyone in America is blinded by cheap consumer goods until they loose their jobs. The support system of re-training for laid off workers is in decline and even pensions have been so borrowed on and overinflated that few people have recourse beyond banrupcy, forclosure and is that prosperity of the middle class?

I have already stressed the importance of social security and re-building a secure America IN America not a secure America abroad. I feel issues such as opening new military bases in Iraq and neighboring countries will continue to be done covertly at our expense thus funding a war policy not all Americans agree with. Yet where are the funds for more police and fire and emergency response? Where is funding for Civil Defense beyond we go get duct tape and plastic sheeting?

As for abortion and gay marriage what does government have to do with injecting a national morality on its citizens? If two members of the same sex want to make a civil union they probably wont be at an abortion clinic anytime soon—so maybe we all should support them.

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 09:59 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel-

I really enjoy the fact that you bring the discussion back to things more important. You are absolutely right!! It does seem that the only issue we’re extremely concerned about is abortion and women’s right to choose.

There is so much more to women than this issue, and I appreciate that you’ve brought this to my attention (hopefully as well as to others).

Thank you for your insight.

With that said, one of my main concerns is wanting to insure an America free of hate, greed, and war. I have a 2 year old son, and our economy and how it will affect him when he’s an adult is extremely important to me.

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 10:02 AM | Link to this

Mara, that is contradictory! Can a brand new baby fresh from the womb exist without aid? Of course that baby breaths independently but can it eat independently? Can it stay warm independently? The answer is clearly NO! It’s your body you say, but biology dictates otherwise. One cell from the woman and one from the man. Just because it was determined in nature that woman shall bear the burden of childbirth does not give woman the authority over the life inside. If you were to let that fetus alone the end result will undoubtedly result, in most cases, a healthy baby. The only reasonable perspective is that every human being’s life must be protected from the moment of fertilization until natural death. It cannot be subject to the arbitrary whims of others, or soon each of us will find ourselves or our loved ones being defined out of existence. Lyrazel, is that what the leaders of our country are doing? Forcing morality on everyone? Or is it rather they are leading this country on the path which is best for the entire country and not just the special interest groups.

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 10:07 AM | Link to this

First our right to vote, then our right to choose. Why is it any concern of men what we do? I would like to know the percentage of pro-lifers that actually adopt and what race percentage they adopt. I am in full support of abortion rights and feel that welfare mothers should have the right to have our tax dollars pay for one. Welfare breeds welfare. I know, I have 2 nieces with a total of 5 kids that try to tell they make more money staying at home, because it would cost them more to go to work.

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 10:14 AM | Link to this

Chanel-

Good point!

Also, I’d like to add to that by saying that as a woman I’m tired of seeing women have hoards of children-then run to the DFCS and Section 8 office to have someone else take care of the children.

Perhaps we need to look to our congresspersons and chief exec for solutions to the spirit of welfare…

By Shauna

October 18, 2004 10:19 AM | Link to this

First of all, no one has the right to murder anyone. Whether it be a baby or not. Abortion is wrong. It does not take a rocket scientist to understand that. People should stop and think ‘what if my parents had chosen to abort me’. It is not a good feeling. All babies have a right to be born. As a mother of two wonderful children, I never once thought about aborting my children. My GOD told me it is wrong, my Pastor reminds me it is wrong and my heart would never let me abort a child. At this time, because of health issues, I can no longer have children and to me that is a terrible shame. All you people who think that a woman should have the right to do what she pleases with her body, to a certain extent, you are right. But not when it comes to murdering another person. Once the heart starts beating, the baby is alive. Plus, what about the father’s rights in all of this? Why don’t the women have to take the father’s rights into consideration? He may want to have the child. Why do women get to decide how many babies will be born each year? That is what this boils down to. Only women get to choose. Let’s remember that it takes two people to make a baby and two people should be able to decide the fate of that baby.

People, babies are precious. Give them a chance at life. Someone gave you a chance.

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 10:22 AM | Link to this

We will never end poverty in our world simply by killing poor children. The poor mother who is encouraged to have an abortion today is just as poor tomorrow. Problems such as lack of job security, education, or abuse are not cured by ignoring their existence in a woman’s life and turning to abortion as a way to make it all “go away.” The problem is lack of development — not population. What women of the world desire are good basic health care for themselves and their families. In those countries where abortion is not legal, it is often because of strong cultural and religious beliefs that respect each new life. That respect needs to be backed up with wiser development plans not more dangerous and deadly abortion activity. In countries where there is not even the guarantee of clean running water, abortion will only become a death sentence for third world women and their babies.

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 10:28 AM | Link to this

Shauna-

If your parents had aborted you, you wouldn’t be able to think.

Also, since the concern seems to be that the heart is beating, why not just encourage women to keep MAP’s in their possession so that after each encounter she can just pop one and conception never takes place.

Voila!

There’s your solution to unwanted pregnancies AND abortion!

What a deal, huh?

rolling eyes

By Debora

October 18, 2004 10:38 AM | Link to this

Frightening! A woman I work with is very involved in the Lutheran church. She is a great person, I will not take that away from her. However, she believes, that we should have one national religion, Christianity, and that all other religions should be banned/outlawed/abolished. She spouts that our country was founded on Christianity and that by allowing all of these other religions to inter-mingle that we have watered down the Christian values of our country. I showed her the constitution, which you can find online. She does not believe that our country allows for other religions. She states that allowing all other religions is not what the constitution was meant to say, only that there should be religious freedom about which Christian denomination you want to go to. I myself am a Christian but I certainly do not agree with this nonsense. Frightening that there are others who do.

By E. Lewis

October 18, 2004 10:46 AM | Link to this

Abortion is a very important issue for women to consider, but it is far from the only one. What about the environment.? Asthma rates in children are at an all time high. What about the war on terrorism? Our children are being sent to fight and die in a war in Iraq that may have made the world a more dangerous place. More children are without health insurance even with working parents. As a former teacher, I know the education system is suffering.

No single issue should define a woman vote. They all should.

By Nicole

October 18, 2004 10:52 AM | Link to this

wake up and get with the new world we live in… this isn’t the early 1900’s… most women don’t die from giving birth.. in fact, very, very few do… we now have modern technology and healthcare, heard of it??… the facts are that most women who have abortions do so because they have not taken the necessary precautions to avoid getting pregnant, so the quickest way out is to have an abortion… what a sad world we live in when people cannot own up to responsibility for their actions… birth control is cheap if not free… you should be ashamed of twisting those facts… and to the idiot who commented that most conservatives are against birth control, maybe if you’re Catholic… but, i’ve been conservative all my life and used plenty of birth control, nor has my church ever spoken out against birth control… open your eyes.

By Lyrazel

October 18, 2004 10:58 AM | Link to this

I doubt there is a woman in America who is running around having gratuitous sex just so she can have an abortion. By stressing the fact these living entities deserve life completely ignores one basic truth: birth control is still not used by men who make 1/2 the child. Birth control is a ‘woman’s’ thing. Men get pushed erection-enhancement pills but zero for their own sperm fertility. Is it time you advocates-for-life really debated the quasi-religious issue why men assume zero responsibility for their reproductive fertility? If they did there would be fewer abortions, right?

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 11:05 AM | Link to this

Nicole,

Birth control is not cheap!! I work full time for one job, part time with another, and I actually PAY my student loans as for my rent, car note, car insurance, health insurance, food for myself and my son, clothes for when the seasons change, money saved for hard times, and many other bills that I have to pay.

I’ve researched the cost of ALL birth control and it’s not that cheap.

Now imagine if you are not working or your expenses exceed your income.

Please explain to me how is birth contol that cheap?

By Terry M. Adams

October 18, 2004 11:13 AM | Link to this

It’s hard to type trying to hold on to the arm rests - to keep from falling out of my chair laughing!

Forget everything else going on in the world - let’s focus on “Abortion”! We’ve got fanatical murderers out here who want to kill both you and your baby; inside the womb or out, but we’ve gotta keep a sharp-eye out for all these treacherous Christians out here who might want to stop someone from killing a baby! Yes sir, we’ve really got our priorities in order, the thought of outlawing baby killing - is more than some can bear!

And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but we’re rapidly approaching that time of the year when those oppressive Christians will start displaying those frightening nativity scenes again. Parents, get your children inside - you’ve been forewarned!

By Zack

October 18, 2004 11:18 AM | Link to this

THANK YOU, Shaunti, for again speaking the truth. Yes, the overturning of Roe v. Wade would be wonderful. It should have been done a long time ago. In fact, abortion never should’ve been legalized in the first place. Abortion is murder. Period. It’s wrong. Excuses are a dime a dozen. It’s wrong. In this sexually immoral society of ours, it infuriates me to see people want to run from the consequences of their actions—even to the point of murdering their child—and then say it’s the responsibility of a total stranger to come adopt their child (probably so they can repeat the entire process). My, how we need to change this sick way of thinking. BY THE WAY, according to Brian Curtis, something is perfectly moral if it’s legal. If this were actually true, the only absolute truth would be that our legal system were the authority. Abortion is 100% wrong, and it’s wrong no matter what any judge might say. Again, we have Norman Ravitch attacking Christians. I’m so sick of your bigotry, Norman. You have issues like no one else, quite possibly? What are you going to do now? E-mail me again and cuss me some more, like you’ve done in the past? Grow up and be a man, if you can.

By Zack

October 18, 2004 11:26 AM | Link to this

Terry Adams—So, Christians who defend innocent fetuses are being oppressive, huh? If that’s the case, all six billion people in this world should strive to be oppressive. I can see why you’re offended by Nativity Scenes. I guess your act of living in denial is offended by reminders of the Truth. Yes, abortion IS the main issue. If we continue to allow innocent children to be murdered left and right, how can we say we’re any better than Nazi Germany? After all, the Holocaust killed six million people; abortion kills more lives than that in less than three years.

By Scott R

October 18, 2004 11:26 AM | Link to this

Hey Folks, What part of “Do not murder” do you not understand? When our leaders begin to legislate preference rather than principle, we will ALL be in trouble. We can not continue down the road of preference without disasterous results. The question is all legislature is someone’s morality, whose do you want? Scott R

By Terry M. Adams

October 18, 2004 11:33 AM | Link to this

Zack, did anything you stated - have anything to do with what I stated…?

Goodness.

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 11:41 AM | Link to this

Now I’m laughing….

I think that Zack didn’t realize that Terry was being facetious…

Oh brother…

By Zack

October 18, 2004 11:44 AM | Link to this

Terry—

The best way we can protect ourselves from terrorists is to be in God’s protection. We cannot be there if we’re out killing innocent babies. (We have some nerve doing this and then expecting God to protect us.)

By Terry M. Adams

October 18, 2004 11:46 AM | Link to this

Zack, what part of Alabama are you from…?

By Zack

October 18, 2004 11:47 AM | Link to this

OOPS!!! Sorry, Terry, I only barely scanned over your post and just caught the ending. I don’t make a habit of doing that. It’s just that I had read so many posts of people who WOULD say the same thing and be serious, so I assumed you were doing that.

By Brian Curtis

October 18, 2004 11:55 AM | Link to this

“Thou shalt not murder” is indeed a cornerstone of the Christian faith. So I’d like to hear how self-professed Chrsitians can be so gung-ho about war and the death penalty.

Fortunately, I’m not a Christian, so I don’t labor under their rules. As for abortion… if I were to take the simpleminded, hardline stance so popular among pro-lifers, I’d be declaring, “Abortion is moral and ethical; deal with it. All the religious denial in the world won’t change that basic, undeniable fact.”

But again—I’m not a Christian. So I’m willing to back up my statements with reason and logic. Anyone on the pro-life side willing to do the same?

FACT: A fetus is not legally recognized as a “person,” which is why miscarriages don’t result in murder investigations and fetuses aren’t counted in the census.

FACT: A fetus is no more a human than an acorn is a tree. Given the right environment, nutrients, and time, it may BECOME a person… but it isn’t one yet.

FACT: Anyone who makes exceptions on their abortion stance in cases of rape or incest has already conceded the argument that a fetus is not the same as a person. Ditto for anyone who makes exceptions “for the health of the mother.” If you acknowledge that a fetus’s life is worth less than the mother’s health (or rights, in rape cases), then clearly a fetus is not equivalent to a person.

FACT: The Bible is not law, and it never will be. And even if it were, you can’t even point to anything in the Bible that forbids abortion anyway! The only marginally relevant passage refers to the fine for causing a woman to miscarry—and that fine is considerably less than the penalty for murder.

FACT: Religious freedom in the U.S. guarantees that you can live by your religious code (refusing to have abortions, not eating pork, whatever)… but you have no right to dictate that code to others. Ain’t America great?

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 12:45 PM | Link to this

Brian, I hate to toss water on your parade, but the fact is that in many states a violent act against an expectant mother (pregnant woman) which results in the death of her unborn child is a crime already. BUT most of these laws have a statement contained therein that exempts the act of abortion.The Church teaches that war is not intrinsically evil, and cannot be placed in the same moral category as abortion, which is intrinsically evil. While Catholics can differ among themselves whether this or that war is morally justifiable, the Church teaches that it is ultimately the responsibility and authority of the civil authorities to make that determination. Take this into consideration: the fact that the state’s right (either directly or indirectly through those of its citizens) are menaced by foreign aggression not otherwise to be prevented than by war; secondly, the fact of actual violation of right not otherwise reparable; thirdly, the need of punishing the threatening or infringing power for the security of the future. Fourth, from the request of another state in peril (or of a people who happen themselves to be in possession of the right); lastly, from the fact of the oppression of the innocent, whose unjust suffering is proportionate to the gravity of war and whom it is impossible to rescue in any other way; in this latter case the innocent have the right to resist, charity calls for assistance, and the intervening state may justly assume the communication of the right of the innocent to exercise extreme coercion in their behalf. The Church’s teaching has not changed, nor has the Pope said that it has. The Catechism and the Pope state that the state has the right to exact the death penalty. It is inherent in a just capital punishment law that there be proportion between the taking of the life of the criminal and the benefit expected to the common good. A law, for example, that takes no account of factors such as repentance, mental age and so on is unjust. States have executed the mentally retarded, who could be of no conceivable future threat to society, and in one case a woman whose evident conversion even the state admitted. Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states: 2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against an unjust aggressor. Your “facts” are neither reasonable nor logical.

By Grady

October 18, 2004 01:02 PM | Link to this

Isn’t it just barbaric to invade the womb of the female of the species just for the purpose of removing and destroying that which is the womb’s purpose. If you choose to ignore/disbelieve the moral leading of the Bible and if you are of the mind that as long as an objection can not be lodged by one who is injured by an abortion, then no one can change your mind. But I ask that all take a sincere look at what is actually happening in an abortion and consider that pain is being inflicted on the fetus once nerves have developed whether that fetus be life or not. Consider the protection that even animals have against those of us who would inflict undue suffering on them. Should not a fetus have at least as much protection as a dog or cat?

By Brian Curtis

October 18, 2004 01:07 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: Actually, you haven’t refuted a single point I made. You can explain Church doctrine all you like, but the fact that Church doctrine is not law is the one under examination here.

Likewise, you can point to some convoluted Church reasoning that attempts to justify the “pro-life” claim even in the face of willfully taking life (wars, etc.), but again: the Church’s position is not law. In fact, it cannot be law under our Constitution.

I’m aware that several states have recently passed laws to make fetal death a crime; and I agree, it IS a crime. It’s just not murder. And even you acknowledge that these laws specifically exempt abortion: so that argument vanishes too.

So what’s left? The Church has managed to duck around the war and execution issue even as it claims that abortion is wrong… and yet, the Church’s opinions remain just that: opinion. Not fact. I wasn’t trying to justify the claims of your church; you are. Yet in the larger sense, the Pope’s reasoning is moot. Catholic laws do not drive our legal system, so the Pope’s opinion (and remember, he opposes the Iraq war) are irrelevant to U.S. policy.

So which of my points were you trying to refute by dragging in religious dogma—which we already know cannot serve as a basis for law in our society?

By Brian Curtis

October 18, 2004 01:10 PM | Link to this

Grady: I’d be willing to agree with you… but what do you then think of killing cows and pigs for us to eat? Surely they feel pain—but just as surely, we decide to cause them pain when it suits our convenience.

Yes, I believe a fetus is a living creature deserving of respectful treatment—but its rights our subordinate to ours, just as the rights of a rabid dog are subordinate to the people he might harm. Where does a fetus rank on your scale, exactly: Below a cow? Above a dog? To the pro-life conservatives, a fetus ranks several notches higher than a full-fledged, individual human being (who is usually castigated for being “irresponsible” enough to get pregnant).

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 01:11 PM | Link to this

I still haven’t seen any responses from the pro-lifers about how many of them are actually adopting the children of the mothers who choose to give birth and give the child up? In regards to it being a father’s choice, maybe dad should hang around and support his children.

As for murder, our current government & president has committed over 1000 deaths. Funny how everyone that is for the war is here on the computers and not over there dying for what they believe in.

By Grady

October 18, 2004 01:13 PM | Link to this

Brian: Your argument that fetal death is a crime makes no sense if you consider that it is a crime as long as the mother is not the one who chooses to cause the fetal death. In fairness, should not a law that penalizes one for an action not also penalize all for the same action? We must not discriminate.

By Bob Morris

October 18, 2004 01:14 PM | Link to this

THE main campaign issue for men, as well as women, SHOULD be Prof.Peter Singer’s views. (bio-ethics @ Princeton U.) Singer distinguishes between humans and PERSONS. To qualify as persons, who alone have the right-to-life, humans must (1) Be fully conscious of self, AND, (2) Be valuable to society. My perky 100 year old mother has (1) but not (2). Toast! Our unborn and even newborn grandkids have neither! Toast times two! The Singer-Kerry pro- death philosophy has always lead, historically, to Nazi-type and Marxist-type genocide! It is very sKerry! We are voting for Bush who clearly has the compassionate time- tested Judeo- Christian worldview.

By Scott R

October 18, 2004 01:17 PM | Link to this

Brian, You are clearly confused and have no core values. This whole issue boils down to what you believe. You either believe or not believe there is a God and that He is the Ultimate Moral Authority! YOU have no moral authority to make claim to the unborn as though it were an acorn. Clearly you are confused! Many like you believe that we evolved from monkeys; now that takes faith! Your great, great, great granddaddy may have been a monkey, but I know where I come from. The Bible is not a set of rules and regulations, it is God’s ultimate love letter to those who choose to believe! If you need any help in understanding the truth Brian, I’m sure there are a lot of folks here who would be more than willing to share the truth with you! Scott R

By Brian Curtis

October 18, 2004 01:19 PM | Link to this

Grady: Actually, this position makes perfect sense, if you treat fetal injury/death as a crime against property. If someone else damages my car, they’ve committed a crime. If I destroy my own car, no crime has occurred.

Likewise, if someone stole my favorite magazine, it would be a crime. But I can throw it out if I choose. No inconsistency at all.

By Kool Kathy

October 18, 2004 01:19 PM | Link to this

I hardly feel the need to answer a compromising question aimed at women. Main issue? One track mind? Supposed to answer “abortion”? Well, I am neither doctor nor minister. If you want to discuss a private matter, find one of them.If you want to discuss politics, George Bush is the strongest man to lead our government. Anything else us poor little women can answer for you? Want to discuss Iraq and Darfur?

By Grady

October 18, 2004 01:21 PM | Link to this

Brian: I admit that it is sometimes difficult (or perhaps impossible) to logically defend one’s personal convictions. And so is the case with abortion. Yes, you indeed have a point with the animals but I believe that the fetus ranks far above the animals which are provided for our nutrition. What purpose does the death of the fetus serve us that prevention of pregnancy does not. My heart cries out in pain at the thought of the loss of what I consider a life…an innocent life undeserving of termination. But alas, I can not justify the creation of a law prohibiting such actions. As much as I detest the practice of abortion (and several other things that I consider morally reprehensible) I can not say in good faith that if I was in a position to establish a law preventing it that I would do so. My only hope is that through each individuals own conscience that this abhorrent practice will diminish. Unfortunately, I think it will not likely do so as long as the socially acceptable stance on abortion is that it is ok when the individual feels that it is ok.

By Angie

October 18, 2004 01:24 PM | Link to this

So, first you say religious people can not thrust our beliefs on other people when it comes to abortion. Then, you say there is no mention of abortion being wrong in the bible. Which is it? First you say people are against it for religious reasons and then you say religion doesn’t forbid it.

Yes, it’s a life no matter how he or she was conceived.

Yes, this is a HUGE issue when it comes to deciding your vote. Anyone who wants to stop the slaughter of millions of unborn children WILL vote for President Bush. Anyone who sees nothing wrong with killing innocent children WILL vote for Senator Kerry.

LIFE is a pretty BIG issue…the life or DEATH of millions depends on your votes.

Kerry has a definite stand on ONE ISSUE-ABORTION. It’s the ONE ISSUE he has not been wishy washy about. A vote for him is a vote for the continued killing of helpless children.

By Grady

October 18, 2004 01:25 PM | Link to this

Brian: Surely you consider a car or a magazine to be in a different category than a human fetus? But if not, then you are correct in your analysis.

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 01:26 PM | Link to this

Chanel-

If you look in the archives for the past 2 weeks at some of my posts, you’ll notice that I’ve beaten that horse beyond its death…

By tim

October 18, 2004 01:27 PM | Link to this

first, to boscoe roads, don’t call people idiots when you yourself don’t know the answers, there is NO heart, just a foundation for one called a Cardiogenic plate, before 20 days and cells start beating at day 22, but the heart as we know it (4 chambers) takes 5 weeks to form. I belive life starts at gastrulation (days 7-10), which is the point were the embryo attaches itself to the mother’s womb and can no longer be split up (twinning) and cells begin to form three different layers (but its still just a ball of cells). Morning after pills work well before this stage.

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 01:31 PM | Link to this

If you stopped conception before it happened, would it still be abortion?

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 01:41 PM | Link to this

The saddest thing about this blog is that so many of its contributors only see black and white, there is no gray area for them.

For instance, Angie wrote:

“Anyone who wants to stop the slaughter of millions of unborn children WILL vote for President Bush. Anyone who sees nothing wrong with killing innocent children WILL vote for Senator Kerry.”

This is completely ridiculous because it totally negates the fact there are so many others issues concerning this debate. Someone may be opposed to abortion, but also find concerns over medicaid and our economy more pressing issues and therefore, decide to vote for Kerry because they agree with him on these other issues.

No one is going to change anyone else’s mind.

After all of the mindless posts, I still do not think it is anyone else’s decision/business to decide on some of the intricacies of our personal lives.

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 01:44 PM | Link to this

Sorry Akeya, no use in raising the dead :)

IVF is the uniting of egg and sperm in vitro (in the lab). A large amount of eggs are fertilized only so many are used and the rest are discarded. If life begins at conception, them these parents are guilty of abortion.

But then again if they were adopting then it wouldn’t be necessary.

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 01:48 PM | Link to this

John Kerry DID NOT VOTE FOR ABORTION. He voted against the bill because it did not have any provision for the mother’s health. Go to issues2000.org and see how your favorite person voted and WHY?? they voted that way.

Don’t be sheep, follow up on information you receive before forming an opinion.

By Terry M. Adams

October 18, 2004 01:51 PM | Link to this

Do you have to be religious to be against abortion…? Or am I confusing this issue with the: “If you’re against same-sex marriage - you must “hate” Gays…? I get the brilliant reasoning behind these things - confused sometimes. But speaking of hate, I have a question for those of you who hate religious people and their views. Should we repeal the laws against murder and theft? The Bible teaches that these things are wrong, so it could be that these are religious views that are being “forced down your throat”. Looks like a clear-cut case of “Separation of Church and State” to me. Some of you staunch defenders of the Constitution need to get on this right away!

By Mara

October 18, 2004 01:54 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, no a brand new baby cannot survive without “aid”, but it certainly can survive without it’s mother. And yes it can and does eat independantly, it suckles a nipple (maternal or manufactured) by its own independant self. As for keeping itself warm, well it certainly doesn’t require my body for that anymore. Yes, after it is born it is most certainly as much a living human being in need of aid as any helpless or disabled person. But….until it can survive without my substance, the very breath of my lungs and the food from my belly,it is merely a life form. After birth, (and ensoulment) anyone can care for it. I fail to see the contradiction in that.

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 01:56 PM | Link to this

Why are we still talking about that stupid constitution?!?!

It was written hundreds of years ago.

Yet we are so upset when children use outdated schoolbooks..

Scrap the old constitution and re-write it already…

geesh…

By Angie

October 18, 2004 01:59 PM | Link to this

You can only have an abortion if there has been conception.

Let’s ask the question about fetal pain during an abortion. No matter what we all believe can we all agree on ONE THING-that no child that’s aborted should have to endure excruciating pain??? Let’s look at the abortions done past 14 weeks-in the most popular abortion method the baby is ripped apart limb from limb with a tool similar to a pair of pliers until the only part left is the head and it has to be crushed to be removed from the biological “mother”. How can anyone justify the PAIN these children must feel??? Religious or not, Republican or not, how can you justify putting the unborn through all of that pain? (This is not the only greusome procedure but one of the most widely used.) Even animals killed in shelters are given a painless lethal injection to die. Can you imagine if dogs were torn limb from limb how fast it would be stopped by PETA and every person who loves animals?

We all do not agree on whether abortion should be legal or not-so let’s just discuss this issue of pain. How humane is it to make these unborn children suffer like this?

Even mass murderers on death row are given a humane lethal injection. Why do the unborn deserve to die excruciating deaths like this?

In a saline abortion an injection is put into the womb which literally burns off the baby’s skin and insides. It doesn’t happen instantly but takes several hours of the child violently thrashing around in the womb before it finally dies.

Am I trying to gross you out? No. But you must face the reality of what abortion really is before you can decide where you stand.

By Jennifer

October 18, 2004 02:04 PM | Link to this

As a married woman with a young child, and more children in the plans, here are the issues I am concerned about, in order:

Our Constitutional Rights. I believe in America and what it stands for, defined by the Constitution.

The economy. I own a house, have retirement and insurance and have student loans I am paying back. I want to be sure my kids get to even have these things, burdens they might be.

The security of our nation. I believe we are only safe is no one hates us enough to attack us. We will never be in a place where no one hates us, but right now we are hated by more than not. To keep others from hating us we must make our decisions with a conscious eye on the rest of the world and the future.

The environment. We don’t take care of this and none of the above will even exist to worry about.

In order, my opinion of who is better to serve these concerns are:

John Kerry

John Kerry

Neither are ideal.

John Kerry

As an aside, and a nod to the discussion going on here, the issues that pre-occupy the dogmatic are contained in Number 1.

By Angie

October 18, 2004 02:05 PM | Link to this

Opps…that’s right, if we look at the PAIN an unborn child experiences during abortion then we are admitting that it has feelings and is human. And we certainly can’t do that now can we?

By tim

October 18, 2004 02:07 PM | Link to this

secondly, you churchies can’t have your cake and eat it too. to say its alright for rape and incest victims to have abortions and then label everyone else that is not in this group a murderer is WRONG. if abortion is banned then abortions for rape and incest victims is banned too. And we didn’t evovle from monkeys people!! they are cousins, which means they are on the same tree just a different branch. And if you don’t believe in evolution you better open your eyes, its the reason why your penicillin doesn’t work like it use to work. ok, back to abortion. I am pro-life when it comes to myself, but I can’t force my views on anyone else nor should your views be forced upon me. therefore, pro-choice (on any subject)should be enstilled by our govt. because its none of their business nor mine what other people do. This is a govt. for and by the people and laws restricting people from choices is against the people. I CHOOSE to have my wife have our baby and I also CHOOSE for the people to live their lives and not mine, and I in return will live my life and not someone else’s.

If I want to live in China I will move there, please don’t move it to me.

By Terry M. Adams

October 18, 2004 02:10 PM | Link to this

I don’t get upset that children use “outdated” school books. I am upset that they use school books - period.

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 02:11 PM | Link to this

Separation of Church and State is not in the constitution, it was deciphered by the ACLU.

The constitution states that the government cannot force anyone to participate in a particular religion.

Amendments to the Constitution Article [I.] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By Akeya W

October 18, 2004 02:11 PM | Link to this

So let me get this straight, Angie..

If Bush believed in killing adults for no reason, bombing random countries because they don’t believe in the same things we do, putting women in jail if they refused to have sex with men, ordered the closure of all federal programs, and systematically exterminated blacks and hispanics, but he DIDN’T believe in abortion you would still vote for him?

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 02:12 PM | Link to this

Brain first of all you wanted to know what that the Christian viewpoint was on the death penalty and war. I gave that to you. I gave you an example of the laws that penalize someone harming a pregnant woman to show that there are laws which take the fetus into account. This is in response to you saying a fetus is not a person, but will be if the right conditions are in place. Brian, the number of healthy babies being born vs. the number of unhealthy babies are well over 10:1. You, in response, said that the Church has ducked the issue of war and the death penalty. No it hasn’t. I’ve given you reasonable arguments why they exist the way they do. All you can say is the Church cannot be law under our Constitution. My reply to you is the phrase [separation of Church and State] does not appear in our Constitution or any of our country’s official documents.

By Angie

October 18, 2004 02:16 PM | Link to this

I agree with Tim about rape and incest. There should be no exceptions for which children can be killed and which can not! The child committed no crime and should not be held accountable for the sins of his/her parents!

It is very hypocritical to say it’s okay to kill a baby whose biological father committed rape but it’s not okay to kill the rest. Again, the children have NOT committed any crimes and are INNOCENT!

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 02:22 PM | Link to this

Tim, Churches can’t have our cake and eat it too? If I want to live in China I’ll move there? China persecutes the Church. It’s illegal to be Christian there. You don’t have to move it’s coming to you. Medical science has recorded a measurable heart beat in a fetus after 18 Days! You better research the THEORY of evolution before you quote it. FYI don’t worry about who I call an idiot just use the spell check.

By Terry M. Adams

October 18, 2004 02:24 PM | Link to this

Tim,

That was pretty funny. First, you preach us a sermon about believing in the drunken tale of evolution. Then, you U-turn into: not forcing your views on anyone? You can stay in that tree with your cousins all you want - I’ll pass, thanks.

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 02:25 PM | Link to this

As I stated before,

Why not just give out Morning After Pills so that conception will never take place. If there is no conception there is no abortion..

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 02:26 PM | Link to this

OK! Everyone needs to calm down, this is a discussion. Be nice or this BLOG will take away “freedom of speech,and the right of the people peaceably to assemble in a chat.”

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 02:31 PM | Link to this

Mara, if neither fetus or new born can care for itself what is the criteria for determining when the fetus becomes human? Just because the new born doesn’t receive sustenance from your body directly doesn’t make it anymore human than the fetus. Both require aid.

By Terry M. Adams

October 18, 2004 02:38 PM | Link to this

If an abortion was not the taking of a life - there would be no reason to have one.

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 02:40 PM | Link to this

OK, so who wants a baby of incest. 4 fingers on one hand and 6 toes on one foot, with a learning disability. You people don’t want the kids that are available now much less ones with disabilities. Of course after you get one, if you don’t like it, you can always take it back just like Wal-Mart.

By tim

October 18, 2004 02:41 PM | Link to this

Spell check for what boscoe, churchies? (thats you) forcing your ideas on people with differing views. The beat the doctors hear in the 22 days are cardiac CELLS not a heart. and like i said it takes 5 WEEKS for the heart to form in a FETUS, there is NO HEART in an EMBRYO, its just a ball of cells. The two endocardial tubes fuse to form one single tube derived from the roof of the nueral tube, which becomes S-shaped and makes the primitive heart asymmetric. As the S-shape forms, cardiac muscle contraction begins. I research evolution everyday my friend. and like i said before, your pencillin doesn’t work like it use to because the bacteria EVOVLE and become resistant to it, evolution is a THEORY because scientists don’t have all the answers yet, that doesn’t mean its not happening.

By Grady

October 18, 2004 02:45 PM | Link to this

So what is the substantive change when the umbilical cord is cut that transforms the fetus from an unprotected “life form” to a protected “human life.”? Consider what is happening if one woman goes into labor at 5 months gestation and spends all of her money and places her assets in jeopardy to provide medical care to save the baby’s life, while another woman walks into an abortion clinic at 5 months gestation and spends her money to make sure the baby does not survive. While I realize that most abortions are not performed this late in pregnancy, there are some that do and it is this difference in values that concerns me.

By tim

October 18, 2004 02:48 PM | Link to this

terry, i am not forcing you to believe in evolution. its just not wise to say its not happening when science is trying feverishly to come up with answers to ineffective AIDS drugs and the like due to pathogenic organisms evovling around the normally working prescriptions your doctor use to give you. but you right, it did sound like a sermon and i am sorry.

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 02:48 PM | Link to this

We don’t cure illness by killing the patient. Aborting a child with a disability or illness is the height of prejudice. When a family learns that the child they are expecting may have a special need, that family needs support and good solid medical information — not the death of their most fragile member. Society must flee this attitude that uses arbitrary yard sticks to measure peoples worth. When a woman has been raped or a victim of incest, she has been the victim of a terrifying act of violence of which she is a true victim. Tragically, we are some times faced with a second victim of this great crime committed by the rapist, a baby. While pregnancy is extremely rare from rape, it can happen. The cruelest thing that can happen to the women in question is to now be pitted against her child, who is the second victim. In several studies done across America, women who were encouraged to use abortion in such circumstances felt that they had been put through a second act of violence, the violence and pain of the mechanical rape of abortion. Worse than that, they stated feelings of being made into the victimizer of their own child. they felt that their baby had paid with his/her life for the crime of the rapist. Meanwhile, mothers who found support to carry their children to term, whether they opted for adoption or kept their babies, felt that they’d turned something horrible into something life-giving. The key here is support for both victims, mother and child.If you were to allow abortions in all cases of incest or rape the number of abortion would be less than 2% of the 1.3 million performed every year. This type of crime obviously accounts for relatively few abortions.

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 02:49 PM | Link to this

See what I mean. In my first post I ask “Why is it any concern of men what we do?” Who is dominating this conversation with arguments 2 MEN, of whom neither one can have an abortion, therefore they shouldn’t have an opinion.

By Angie

October 18, 2004 02:54 PM | Link to this

Why all this talk about a morning after pill? How about the notion of a morning before pill? Oh yeah, they do make birth control pills don’t they? Oh, they’re not 100% effective? Well, let’s see….how about also using a condom. Oh, they’re not 100% effective? Well, how about adding another form of protection.

A soldier doesn’t go into battle without protection (unless your President is John Kerry). So why have sex without protection? Seems pretty simple.

If people didn’t have the back-up plan of available abortion then maybe they’d start using multiple forms of birth control if they didn’t want to start a family yet.

Provide sex education-not the number for the nearest abortion clinic. Before the fact-not after the act.

Do pro abortion people look back on the 45 MILLION that have already been aborted and feel a sense of pride? Do they feel proud at how far women have come? Hooray! We finally have the right to kill our children before they are born! What progress we women have made, right? NOT!

By Grady

October 18, 2004 02:56 PM | Link to this

Yes, I am a man. And if a policy developed (oh let’s say the repression of women in the middle east) which I am totally unaffected by (in the sense that I would not be repressed), such I stand idly by and not do my part do right a wrong that is happening? Please, Chanel, if I chose to not have an opinion or be concerned about those things which do not affect me personally, or worse yet if the world did, what would become of those without a voice. I do not go hungry, but I do my part to help feed the hungry. I do not go without a place to sleep or clothes to wear, but I try to help those in need. I could ignore the plight of the illegal worker who is used and abused by his employer, or one of many other issues since I do not do these things, nor am I affected by them. But I choose to let my voice be heard about those things that I feel are wrong in the world.

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 02:56 PM | Link to this

Tim, the heart begins to beat at 18 to 21 days after fertilization; there are brain waves at six weeks; or that at eight weeks all body systems are present, including little fingers and toes! At this point it is important to remember that most abortions take place between the eighth and eleventh week of the pregnancy - - about six weeks after the baby’s heart has started to beat. You want to argue medical science go look at the New England Journal of Medicine. Tim what have we evolved from? FYI the proper spelling is Churches, I hardly think that’s forcing my idea’s on someone. The point is, you would be a lot more convincing if you could spell.

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 02:59 PM | Link to this

Chanel, do you get pregnant all by yourself? Then men do have an input and should defend the indefensible.

By Bob Norris

October 18, 2004 03:00 PM | Link to this

I had planned to post only a single comment. Then I scanned the 15 or so authors preceeding me. These submitted maybe twice as many contributions. I decided to look a bit closer at authors most often posting. Leaders in submissions seemed to be Brian Curtis, Terry M. Adams and, the leader in # of postings, Akeya W. (7). Was underwhelmed by the points made by all these wordy ones! Was mine too deep? I will quit with 2 posts. Some of us have work to do! Question: How can a thinking person be FOR killing innocent babies while crying a flood of tears for merciless convicted mass murderers like Jeffrey Dahmer?

By tim

October 18, 2004 03:01 PM | Link to this

churches is the plural form of church churchies are people who worry about what other people do based on THEIR faith and not the faith of others.

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 03:04 PM | Link to this

Angie, I want to come and live in your perfect world, where only married people have sex and quote bumper stickers. I agree with you go down to the clinic and get some free condoms and birth control pills, they come in brown paper bags. However, we know this is not going to happen. People, for whatever reason, are not going to be logical about most intelligent decisions. So why should my tax dollars support the children of ignorant parents. The fact is women are going to have abortions whether they are legal or not, it has been happening a long time and will continue. By the way Angie, how many adopted/foster children do you currently have?

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 03:06 PM | Link to this

Angie-if you were so concerned why would you not study birth control methods???

The Morning After Pill is a high dosage of hormones used up to 72 hours after intercourse to possibly stop conception. It is most often used in cases where the birth control was believed to have not been effective.

If used in conjunction with birth control, the rate of abortions should drop. The problem is that no one talks about MAP’s, so many women don’t knwo about…..

By Terry M. Adams

October 18, 2004 03:06 PM | Link to this

Chanel,

I agree with you - men shouldn’t have anything to do with whether or not you kill your baby. But you might want to tell your fellow women to quit dragging men into court for Child Support should they decide not to kill theirs!

Remember - men have nothing to do with it!

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 03:07 PM | Link to this

Tim, sorry I missed that. Merriam-webster doesn’t have that one.

By Grady

October 18, 2004 03:09 PM | Link to this

I thought the MAP stopped implantation of the fetus in the uterine wall. It was my understanding that conception still occurred but that the zygote/fetus never became implanted to begin development. Am I wrong?

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 03:10 PM | Link to this

Chanel, why should pro-life supporters have to adopt more children because anti-lifers won’t take responsibility?

By Terry M. Adams

October 18, 2004 03:11 PM | Link to this

Thanks Bob. The rest of us are incapable of understanding the posts count - thanks for breaking that down for us. You wonder why no one pays attention to your posts…?

By Angie

October 18, 2004 03:14 PM | Link to this

This is about the 5th time on these blogs that I’ve said it-I plan to adopt one or two children. I can not financially do that right this minute. But there are countless couples who CAN afford to do so right now.

Do you really think I wake up and read the latest headlines and see this as a “perfect world”??? Hardly!!! Just the opposite. But we can try to make it better and find solutions can’t we?

Would illegal abortions take place once abortion is outlawed? Probably. But not to the tune of 1,500,000 per year.

What about my tax money going to help elderly people in nursing homes whose children can not take full responsibility for them? Should I say, ‘if you can’t take care of your own parents why should I have to help pay?’

Killing the children off is NOT the answer. Can’t we all work together to find a BETTER solution than that???

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 03:14 PM | Link to this

Dear Boscoe; No I didn’t get pregnant by myself (duh!!) and I have 2 lovely children. They were both wanted and a surprise and I have never, ever relied on the state and tax dollars to provided for them. Their fathers, yes 2 husbands, helped support them and take care of them and I am happily married to my 2nd husband and I was married to the first also. However, it is still a woman’s right to choose. How many adopted/foster children do you have??

By Boscoe Roads

October 18, 2004 03:19 PM | Link to this

Chanel, I plan on adopting children because my wife can no longer have any. So what. The point is why should I have to adopt to keep people from having abortions?

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 03:21 PM | Link to this

Let’s not see it as taking responsibility away from the persons responsible for getting pregnant…

let’s see adopting the children as taking responsibility for the lives of the children, which you have already done by saying that the parents should not abort anyway. You make yourself responsible by even trying to impose on the lives of the woman and all parties involved.

How can you say you’re concerned about the children being aborted, yet don’t want to take any part in insuring that they live a healthy, happ life with parents who love them-not just forced to have them?

Give me a break…

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 03:29 PM | Link to this

It’s not about adopting to keep people from abortions… it is merely insuring that the children that aren’t aborted are well cared for….

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 03:29 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, anti-lifers don’t need responsibility as long as they have abortions and if you take away the abortion right they still will not have any responsibility. If they were responsible they would not have gotten pregnant in the first place. You want to make the decision that every single child should live, but yet that is as far as you are willing to go. You want to vote against abortion, but yet you get mad when you see welfare mothers in the grocery stores using food stamps and getting a check every month from the government. So mothers have the kids and give them away and then you don’t foster/adopt them. What kind of life will they have with a poor mother, who can’t feed, clothe (sp?) them and give them a proper home and environment. Those who want their children are keeping them, abortions are for people who don’t want their children and nobody else wants them.

By Grady

October 18, 2004 03:32 PM | Link to this

So tell me, for the sake of argument, what would happen if somehow abortions were made illegal? And I mean all abortions, regardless of rape or incest or health/life of the mother? What measurable harm is there? And please disregard “rights” as such unless there is a measurable effect. I am not trying to be argumentative, just looking for the downside which I don’t see.

By Surepip

October 18, 2004 03:34 PM | Link to this

A comment for Diane and a question [s] for Shaunti: I believe in a woman’s choice. This is something between her, her god, and her family.

But taking this a step further, Shaunti:

If the Republican Party is going to allow abortion to become an election topic, and we have to assume as you comment, pursue over turning Roe vs Wade if they win this election, then are they going to also outlaw and ban hormone based birth control pills ?

I hear over and over and over how life is precious and must be protected from the instant of conception,[may I quote you, ” that all life is precious, from conception onward”] yet we have something like 30% of the women [or more ?] in this country taking a birth control pill that does not prevent conception. They only prevent the live, viable embryo from remaining attached to the womb when the hormones in the bills have completed their monthly cycle and cause menstration to occur. It was a viable embryo.

If you are going to ban abortion, then it is only logical to ban the birth control pills also.

But I somehow have my doubts that the pharmaceutical lobby and the politicians with single daughters running around would ever allow this to happen.

So come on Shaunti, are you ready to really stand behind your convictions and call for a total ban on hormone based birth control pills in the USA, as well as a ban on abortion ?

By Grady

October 18, 2004 03:36 PM | Link to this

Chanel: Nobody wants them?!? Do you realize that length of the wait for a newborn child? There are thousands out there who would love to have a baby but are unable to have one of their own. So they wait in long lines for years hoping that eventually someone will have a child that is “unwanted” because they want it so desperately.

By Scott R

October 18, 2004 03:37 PM | Link to this

Hey Folks, Just a thought about all this abortion stuff! The fact of the matter is that there are consequences for all of our decisions in life! We don’t get drunk if we don’t drink, right! We don’t go to jail if we don’t steal, right! We don’t get pregnant if we don’t have sex, right! Let’s say it the way it is! If we all begin to take personal responsiblity for our decisions, we will not have to justify our behavior by bad decisions! Sounds like a good idea to me! Right, Right!!

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 03:41 PM | Link to this

Chantel- I agree with you on everything except one thing.

Sometimes people who are very responsible and/or careful will have an unwanted pregnancy.

By tim

October 18, 2004 03:42 PM | Link to this

Grady, i think the downside to illegalizing abortion is it will not stop abortions. It will in turn make anyone who wants to have an abortion seek out someone who will do it and that person will more than likely be undereducated as far as medicine goes, probably unlicensed, and unable to prescribe drugs the patient may need afterwards. And even the ugliness of this will not stop someone seeking an abortion, just think about prohibition, anyone who wanted to drink went underground. This will happen if abortion is banned and the outcome will be much worse when applied to abortion rather than alcohol.

By Angie

October 18, 2004 03:43 PM | Link to this

Disposable children. You don’t want this one? Just throw it away and get another one in a few years.

This is the pathetic society in which we live.

Why are there so many abortions, murders, and rapes? Because a large portion of our society does not value human life.

Thank God (yes, I said “God”) there are millions of pro-lifers who are not ashamed to take a stand for the most helpless of all-the unborn children. And YES, of course we also take a stand for the BORN children in poverty or abusive homes.

I don’t just want to plead the case of unborn children. My heart breaks for any child who is abused or waiting to be adopted. Who ever said we have to choose WHICH children to want to help? It’s not that black and white folks. Get real.

I do as much volunteer work as my schedule allows as a single working mom. But at least I am trying to make a difference. There are MANY MANY needs in our society with regards to children. But the first one should be to stop the killing of them.

No one has responded to my comments about the PAIN children feel during abortions. Is that too real an issue for pro-aborts?

By Angie

October 18, 2004 03:53 PM | Link to this

Do you realize that there are abortionists (I call them that because that’s all they do) who are incompetent but still doing them? the only difference between a back alley abortionist and a legal one is that the legal ones can run an ad in the yellow pages.

Making it legal does NOT make it SAFE. But trying to put ANY restrictions on abortionists means you’re taking away women’s rights. It became legal-not safe.

At a clinic downtown a former clinic worker told a friend of mine that on a typical Saturday they would have to send 3 out of 50 women to the ER due to a torn uterus. Safe? I think not!

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 03:54 PM | Link to this

By Akeya W.

October 4, 2004 04:05 PM | Link to this

Angie,

Do you know that these couples are most likely waiting for a newborn? Or worse yet, they are going to China, Russia, Bosnia, and other countries to adopt children while children in American foster homes and orphanages wait to be adopted but will never be because they don’t have that “new car smell�? Also, you cannot quote the Bible to someone who may not be of the same religion as yourself.

Before you preach on the evils of abortion, go to an adoption agency and adopt 203 children who are 7 years and older.

It is harder to place children of African descent.

Have you adopted any children today?

What about the children who are in abusive foster homes waiting to be adopted?

Did you think of them, or are you only thinking of round Cherub faces and pink dresses or blue baseball outfits.

This is one of my previous posts. This is for Grady.

Are only newborns worthy of being adopted?

Also, if abortion is made illegal, women will just find ways to have abortions, (under the table, on the table) Slaves had many waves of inducing miscarriage so that they did not have to bear children born into slavery or bear their master’s children. You cannot stop a woman from having an abortion, as much as you’d like to try…

By Terry M. Adams

October 18, 2004 03:55 PM | Link to this

See, see, see - prohibition didn’t work - see, see, see!

Unfortunately, we’re not talking about a bottle of beer here, Tim - but a human life!

If OBL is smart - he’ll let us destroy ourselves with our own insanity!

By moveon

October 18, 2004 03:58 PM | Link to this

Chanel,

If men have no say in an abortion discussion, then why should women get a say in the Selective Service issue, or draft? Women don’t sign up for it, so why should they have a say. I mean seriously, men are legally required to sign up for it, and anything related to war is voluntary for women, so why should women even get a vote on wars in Congress. After all, it’s only men’s lives that are required, right?

When you can get pregnant by yourself, then and only then can you keep men out of the discussion.

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 04:03 PM | Link to this

Lot’s to reply to. 1) Everyone who has responded to the question “plans” on adopting children. How long have you been “planning”? If everyone who wants the abortion option “planned” on having children then we wouldn’t need abortions.

2) So everyone wants a newborn any particular preference in color, sex, mental capacity? If people are in long lines waiting on newborns, where were these people when the children 1+ years and up were given up? Sorry, but that statement doesn’t count.

3) Akeya, you are corect I apologize, their are people who get pregnant even after every precaution has been taken, I had my man fixed, we don’t have to worry about that. It’s great to find someone in a crowd who actually agress with me.

4) As for measure of harm, give me a break. Let’s see the options available before Roe vs Wade were coathangers, coke bottles, homemade poisonous remedies, falling down stairs, tumbling from horses, pounding stomachs with objects, back alley nasty doctors, infection and so on and so forth. And when these didn’t work, deformed children were born because women tried and didn’t succeed, then the kids were outcast and belittled because of it.

Have to go now, I want to thank everyone for being nice on this discussion, something you rarely find these days and would like to keep the discussion going elsewhere because I am sure this page will be removed tomorrow. Bye, Akeya, my new friend

Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who could not hear the music. —Angela Monet

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 04:05 PM | Link to this

Wonder how many complications and deaths happen from childbirth, Angie?

How many babies are injured while being born?

How many husbands, boyfriends, partners are left to raise a newborn because the mother died in childbirth?

Birthing children is not 100% safe either, Angie. What’s your point?

By moveon

October 18, 2004 04:07 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

Do you support the prohibition of Crack, Coke, Speed, etc.? People are doing it anyway, they are going to the ‘back streets’ and getting it ‘under the table.’

If you’re against drug use, when is the last time you helped someone detox? Gave them a place to stay to get cleaned up?

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 04:11 PM | Link to this

Good One moveon, but I don’t believe in the draft or selective service either. Our military should be volunteer only for everyone but convicts. Which is another discussion for another day.

I have a son and I sure don’t want him to die overseas. By the way my niece got pregnant to get out of Iraq, not becuase she wanted a baby, but she now has a bouncing baby boy, lives with her mother and collecting freebies from the government.

What is the difference between abortion and dying on foreign soil, oh yeah! George says you have choice!

By Angie

October 18, 2004 04:15 PM | Link to this

Someone brought up back alley abortions and I was trying to point out that going to someone who has an ad in the yellow pages doesn’t make it safe. Legal but not safe.

All NARAL and NOW care about is the LEGAL aspect-not the SAFE. There are “doctors” who are involved in malpractice lawsuits who are given a shining referral by NARAL. If they were a women’s right’s organization they would want the women to be safe. All they care about is the $90 billion per year industry of abortion-not women.

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 04:15 PM | Link to this

Actually, Moveon, I don’t know anyone on drugs. I can’t really answer that.

Also, we are taught from jump street about the dangers of drugs. If someone chooses to become addicted of their own volition I have no control over that.

I’ve never done drugs or drank any alcoholic beverage, as a matter of fact, but I can’t outlaw someone else from doing it. That’s crazy…

By moveon

October 18, 2004 04:19 PM | Link to this

Chanel,

You nicely dodged the issue. Women in congress got to vote on the war, without ever having to worry about being drafted. How is that any different then men, who never have to worry about being pregnant, weighing in on abortion?

As to the having a choice to fight in Iraq, who got drafted to go over there? That’s right, no one. Anyone who signed up for any branch of the military should have taken into consideration the possibility of war. If they didn’t, they must not have understood the function of the military.

By Randy

October 18, 2004 04:19 PM | Link to this

Abortion is MURDER, it always has been and always will be. The difference now is the government of the USA won’t procecute you here on this earth. Anyone who thinks that aborting a baby as it is being born(partial-birth), isn’t murder, really needs to look at how cold their heart is. A reply to Brian Curtis’ comment on Christians. Being a Christian, doesn’t mean you have a bunch of rules you have to go by. Being a Christian is a life changing experience, that only someone who is a Christian would understand. The way you look at things changes, you think with your heart, not you self-centered, selfish nature. Also, being a Christian doesn’t mean you give in or give up to the enemy, in this case Saddam H. it means you protect your country and do your job and do what it takes maybe to save american lives. Have a great day!

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 04:19 PM | Link to this

Who wants to adopt a crack baby? That woman need’s an abortion. Everybody is speeding and it’s against the law but it doesn’t slow them down. This has nothing to do with the subject and we need to stay on topic.

By moveon

October 18, 2004 04:21 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

We are also taught the dangers of having sex. If someone chooses to get knocked up, I don’t have any control over that.

So if I read your response right, you think drugs should be legal? How about speeding, or anything else that people do en masse? Isn’t the basis of all law telling other poeple what they can and cannot do?

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 04:24 PM | Link to this

Thank you, Chanel!!

I have a son and I don’t want him to suffer the remnants of Bush’s disastrous administration.

I don’t want to worry about my son’s “number coming up” because Cowpoke Bush can’t keep the peace…

By Terry M. Adams

October 18, 2004 04:24 PM | Link to this

Maybe we should make all forms of murder - legal. Since some people are going to murder anyway, why not? Keeping murder illegal just causes those who want to murder to have to go out and get amateurs in back alleys to do the job, when, if murder were legal, they could get a trained professional to do the job right!

And better still, the life of the murderer would be protected from any possible harm - from trying to commit murder on his own!

By Angie

October 18, 2004 04:26 PM | Link to this

Good point Terry!!!

If they’re going to murder anyway, let’s make it safe for them? Come on people!

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 04:29 PM | Link to this

You people need to stop with these slippery slopes..they’re really pathetic.

Hey, let’s legalize drugs AND prostitution!!

By Angie

October 18, 2004 04:31 PM | Link to this

If they’re going to use drugs anyway let’s give them clean needles. If they’re going to have sex anyway let’s give them condoms at school. If they’re going to kill their children anyway let’s make it legal. Do you see a pattern here???

And we wonder what’s wrong with society?!?!

By chanel

October 18, 2004 04:31 PM | Link to this

I don’t believe in partial birth abortions. In my book you have about 6 weeks to make that decision.

If you tarry then you should marry. NOT!

Randy: I know the bible front to back. I have been raised in Christian schools and churches. I have taught my children about God and being good to everyone regardless of who they are or what they are. I have learned several things in the course of my 40 years: 1-That Christian are always the first ones to point their finger. 2-The bible says to love everyone as you love yourself 3-Christians are usually some of the biggest sinners while hiding behind the bible 4- Judge not least ye be judged. 5-You have to accept Jesus in your heart to go to heaven not just change your life. 6-The majority of religions believe in a higher being they just have different views on how to get there.

As I have stated previously the biggest supporters of war are the ones sitting at home, why aren’t they overseas instead of our children.

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 04:32 PM | Link to this

Ahhh… Terry and Angie with their slippery slopes..gotta love em’

By moveon

October 18, 2004 04:33 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

You have arbitrarily decided that since people are going to have abortions anyway, that they should be safe and legal. Please provide and argument for them other than one that can be just as easily applied to any of the ‘slippery slope’ topics.

By Angie

October 18, 2004 04:34 PM | Link to this

As to prostitution-do you think we should legalize it? I mean, it’s HER body right? Shouldn’t she be able to use it to make money? Any thoughts?

By moveon

October 18, 2004 04:36 PM | Link to this

Chanel,

Chapter and verse reference for, “Judge not let ye be judged.” please. Since you’re looking it up, what translation is that?

By Terry M. Adams

October 18, 2004 04:36 PM | Link to this

I’ve got another idea. Why can’t we kill children AFTER they’re born? I mean, if the abortion justification is that the children are not wanted; and therefore killing them is the best thing for them, then why doesn’t that apply to a 4 year old? A 16 year old…?

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 04:37 PM | Link to this

Moveon- when did I say that abortions should be safe and legal?

My point is that I don’t care if a woman has an abortion if that woman is not me. It’s not my pockets that will be affected (I have a child and I know what expensive little blessing they are, not my body that will be affected, not my mind that will be affected, it’s not my business…

It’s not my decision to make.

By moveon

October 18, 2004 04:42 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

My apologies. Are you still saying though that drug use should be legal, as long as it ‘doesn’t affect you?’ There are a whole host of things that are illegal that have no affect on you, are you ok with them becoming legal? If not, what makes them any different?

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 04:42 PM | Link to this

Why IS prostitution illegal?

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 04:46 PM | Link to this

Moveon- depends on what it is..

Example: Prostitution is illegal. How and when does it affect you?

By moveon

October 18, 2004 04:47 PM | Link to this

My guess is that it has been deemed ‘morally reprehensible’ and to change that would be political suicide.

But I like your thinking; it should be up to the woman if she wants to sell her body. Let’s legalize it!

By Randy

October 18, 2004 04:49 PM | Link to this

This is to Tim:

If you guys want to talk about Evolution, which is a theory which has never been proven in 145 years. You need to prove the theory. Actually evolution violates the 2 main principles in science. Those of course being “Causality and Uniformity”. These proved evolution is a limited theory, meaning micro-evolution does exist,( a bird changing colors due to predatorial concerns). However, macro-evolution doesn’t exist, (that’s what evolutionists what us to believe, that’s where one species changes to another). This has never been proven and really needs to be taken out of our schools, as it has confused people for years.

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 04:53 PM | Link to this

I hope this doesn’t post twice as my computer burped.

Angie I commend you on being a single, working, volunteer mom who plans on adopting. However, I don’t believe that single people can adopt unless they are a Hollywood superstar. Might be wrong but I doubt it. I feel that your fight is only in this chat.

I apologize for the mis-quote “Judge not lest ye be judged”, I am so glad that is all you found to disagree with in my comment, thanks.

Heck yeah! legalize prostitution and tax it. What is the difference between dinner, movie & sex, and cash up front??

By Akeya W.

October 18, 2004 04:54 PM | Link to this

(laughing)

You’re crazy, moveon!

By Engin

October 18, 2004 04:56 PM | Link to this

Curious as to your comments on this question.

If a proceedure/pill becomes available that makes abortion obsolete in ALL situations.

Does abortion still need to be a right?

If not, then I would suggest that the language regarding the abortion issue no longer considers it an endpoint, and only a means. Begin to use adult language like: Currently the only option in all cases is…(current practice)…but when more humane options arise…etc.

By chanel

October 18, 2004 04:57 PM | Link to this

Moveon: I believe it is Matthew 7:1-5 “Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgement (criticism) ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, (hand it out) it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam (log) out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote (sliver) out of thy brother’s eye.”

By Lyrazel

October 18, 2004 04:58 PM | Link to this

From my perspective you all sound young, fresh with ideas and willing to say what you feel and possibly willing to vote. Go for it. Change the world! But as you debate morality, why, ladies & gentlemen are you so silent about sexual reproductive responsibility? Do you know about a sad fact that there are fewer gyno/obgyn doctors practicing because of soaring insurance rates? Who are you actually allowing to dictate health policy in America? Do you care or are you oblivious because you are young, or do you all have stock in Pfizer? I see things different having lived in an era where womens health took a back seat to space exploration. I remember a time when women went to places that used coat hangers, blah blah blah, you have heard it, I know. From what you are telling me, your generation(s) will be so much more moral than mine and never need extreme procedures for reproductive solutions, that we dont need a law to protect a woman, but need a law protecting unborn. Ok, manditory pregnancy to term. Is more government a solution to this problem? I also noticed how few of you mentioned issues such as the environment/energy policy/war/taxes/education/health care/trade/deficit spending… I am one of the voters who still has not made up her mind which empty figurehead I will vote for. I dont feel represented by either candidate, I dont appreciate polarizing spin of one party vs another because we elect these people to cooperate with laws—not re-write what laws there are or invent new laws because we dont really need civil liberties. I wonder if as many people will vote as voted for American Idol…I wonder why we dont have a national holiday for election day…why so many special interest lobbyists have so much control of our elected officials…I will vote…I hope it is counted.

By Terry M. Adams

October 18, 2004 05:03 PM | Link to this

Legalizing prostituion - is right on target!

Since women are going to have sex anyway - why not get paid for it? And to make sure that they don’t get pregnant; since they’re going to have sex anyway, let’s provide them with free contraceptives. And since we know that they’re going to have sex and that there not going to use the contraceptives that are free since we know that they’re going to have sex, let’s provide abortion on-demand if they can’t afford to pay for one - so that they do not have an unwanted child from an unwanted pregnancy that they got from not using the free contraceptives that were provided because - they were going to have sex anyway!

This is all so simple to understand.

By Chanel

October 18, 2004 05:03 PM | Link to this

You go Lyrazel. I haven’t made up my mind either.

Beside’s our vote doesn’t count anyway it’s the electoral vote that does and if you representative chooses not to vote for the majority choice then then they don’t have to. Case & point: In 2000, one of the District of Columbia voters turned in a blank ballot. Barbara Lett-Simmons told The Washington Post “it is an opportunity for us to make blatantly clear our colonial status and the fact that we’ve been under an oligarchy.”

Lett-Simmons was required by D.C. law to vote for the candidate who received the most popular votes.

By moveon

October 18, 2004 05:06 PM | Link to this

Chanel,

Thanks for the text. Care to address my previous question about men and their opinions on abortion? Women can’t start the pregnancy without a man, but men have no say when it comes to ending them. I don’t understand the logic.

By Vincent

October 18, 2004 05:24 PM | Link to this

Abortion isn’t the issue - It’s the fact that men, in positions of power they gave to each other, argue both sides of the issue. That should make everyone scared enough to wake up and ask, “Tell me Mr. _ how was your last pregnancy?” The time has long gone by for everyone in this country to send a loud message to all politicians, “If you’re not a women, sit down and be quiet.” As for Shaunti, as I’ve said numerous times,to have your education credentials, and seem so dim-witted, I’d write the university and demand a refund. Contraception and abortion were both socially acceptable and legal in the USA before the 1800’s (Yes, the same country under God). The first regulatory attempts in 1821 and 1841 focused on making the procedure safe, and had nothing to do with restriction. During the second half of the 1800’s, the medical and drug industry was growing, and to capture control on abortions (as well as get more profits and power), doctors campaigned against mid-wives so they could have more of the business. When that failed, they attempted to restrict and criminalize them. Since they didn’t get the biggest piece of the cake, then they were gonna fire the bakers.

The American Medical Association began a massive campaign, directed to native born, white Protestants that Catholic immigrants would outbreed them. In order to acquire complete control, the AMA capitalized on the moralistic concerns of anti-obscenity activists. And, in 1873, Congress quickly passed “The Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use”. Then, the AMA played on the domestic fear factor, by suggesting the availability of abortion was the truest indicator of the advancement of women’s liberation. The AMA fooled male politicians into thinking that allowing abortion posed a threat to social order and men’s authority, since this would allow women visibility outside of the “home”. Fast forward to Roe v. Wade, and what it legally and really means, not what Shaunti wants you to think it means. Roe v. Wade notes in the case of abortion, three areas need attention: The constitutional right to privacy; the right of the state to protect maternal health; and the right of the state to PROTECT developing life.

The Anti-abortion/anti-choice people have tried to grant the fetus individual identity; make it a person. So, the best way to do this is slide away from “God’s” concerns (we must all keep up with God, for she continues to change her mind; no seafood, now seafood; no shellfish, now shellfish; abortion until 1873, none again until 1973, and in 2004- we don’t know), and focus, as Shaunti did, on the mediotechnical slant. These images produce living, moving people that they want you to think is distinguished from the mother. Shaunti wants you to think a fetus is separate from the womb they inhabit. Now, the fetus is seen as a living person deserving of legal rights and protection. So, the very people who are fighting for the rights of a fetus, are at the same time fighting against the rights of a living woman. To overturn Roe v. Wade would prohibit abortion and contribute to maintaining men’s dominance over women (which devalues every facet of women). The only positive to rolling back time and putting women back in the home is staring a blank white page where Shaunti once wrote. Do it sometime. Put a blank piece of paper next to her articles and decide which one displays the most intelligence.

By Boscoe Roads

October 19, 2004 07:51 AM | Link to this

Chanel, don’t put words in my mouth. I never said I get mad because I see mother’s on welfare. For you to imply that is presumptuous.

By Ms. PW

October 19, 2004 08:53 AM | Link to this

I think we are treading on dangerous ground when we as Americans start to think we can change laws according to our religious beliefs. There is a reason why the Constitution says there shall be a separation of church and state. America may be Christian by majority but we have rights here that should not be violated by any religious beliefs. Bible verses do not belong on the courthouse steps. If you don’t believe in abortion you shouldn’t have one. I’m not pushing one on you because it’s your business, not mine. I am born and raised American and don’t believe religion and morality are basis for running a country. I have my own set of morals and they are personal. I don’t take them to work. Do you? How would your boss react if you spouted off how people in the office should live according to your religious beliefs? Not well, I’m sure. I’d probably get fired if I didn’t stop. If we re-elect a President who uses his position as a platform from which to make manifest laws which reflect Christian Values we are fast in danger of losing many of our freedoms, rights, one of which is the right to NOT be Christian. I’m scared. If he’s re-elected I, like many others are moving out of this country. We fear what is happening to our country. American Freedom may be a thing of the past. PEOPLE, WAKE UP… YOU ARE SOON TO LOSE YOUR RIGHTS AND OUR COUNTRY.

By Lyrazel

October 19, 2004 09:04 AM | Link to this

Terry A. Adams/ moveon: Prostitution can not be made legal until health care is nationalized…because there would be no way to monitor if the men/women were safe. Duh.

By Angie

October 19, 2004 09:13 AM | Link to this

Vincent said, “So, the very people who are fighting for the rights of a fetus, are at the same time fighting against the rights of a living woman.”

To that I say-Why do we have to choose one over the other? Why can’t they both be protected under the law as individuals?

He also said, “To overturn Roe v. Wade would prohibit abortion and contribute to maintaining men’s dominance over women (which devalues every facet of women).”

As to men’s dominance over women-who dominates who when a guy gets a girl pregnant and tells her to go have an abortion and walks away? Don’t you think legal and easily available abortion has given men more dominance over women because instead of standing up like a real man and taking responsibility for his child he can push for an abortion to easily end his responsibility and let himself off the hook so to speak? It has freed up men even more to just walk away and say go terminate the pregnancy. Or to make sure it happens they will take them to the clinic and wait until the child is killed.

What devalues every facet of women is making women think it’s OK to kill their own children-(hey it’s legal right?) What devalues women is making them think it’s no big deal to lie on a table with your legs spread apart while a total stranger rips your unborn child apart. What devalues women is making them think abortion is no big deal and denying the repurcussions such as depression, suicidal thoughts, nightmares of dead babies, the risk of never being able to have more children, the risk of having your uterus lacerated, the risk of developing breast cancer if your 1st pregnancy is aborted, the fact that 80% of relationships break up after an abortion,etc… What degrades women is making them think that being able to kill your child is some sort of right they need to fight for and be proud of. What degrades women is taking a word like “choice” and applying it to something as disgusting as abortion. What degrades women is the fact that MEN came up with that marketing strategy (using the word CHOICE) and sat around and laughed at how they would actually be able to make women fight for legal abortion. (Bernard Nathanson former head of NARAL was one of them.) What degrades women is the LIES that were told in order to make Roe v.Wade possible. The LIES about the number of women dying from illegal abortions (Mr.Nathanson also helped put those numbers together. They said in court the number was around 10,000 women when in fact they only knew of 50.) Jane Roe never had an abortion-she gave her child up for adoption. She has since fought very hard to overturn Roe v.Wade. What degrades women is ABORTION and the after effects that last a lifetime.

By Mara

October 19, 2004 09:14 AM | Link to this

Bosco, needing help doesn’t define personhood. Being your own individual does. A lot of things need help to survive. Vegies need water and fertilizer to prosper. Does that make them people? Animals on the brink of losing their habitats need help to survive. Are they people? A fetus is not a baby until it takes its first breath, which is when I beleive it receives its soul from God and acheives individual personhood.

By Lyrazel

October 19, 2004 09:19 AM | Link to this

Dont leave Ms. PW stay and fight! Fight for belief not popular trends! If more people understood how many religious people there are in America who are not Christian maybe they would get the courage to run for political office. We need all the voices like yours to speak out and say enough is enough but by running away you loose the opportunity of making a great nation an even more terrific place to live and worship or not worship and scratch. Dont lay down stand up and scream!!! If he is re-elected think how empty our ranks would be without your voice!

By moveon

October 19, 2004 09:24 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

What does national healtcare and assurance of health have to do with prostitution? I don’t see why anyone has to guarantee anything about someone’s health in that profession. You are missing the point of the argument, so don’t tell anyone “duh” please.

Besides, you trust your dentist to stick his/her hands in your mouth and drill, correct? How did you guarantee their health?

By Ms. PW

October 19, 2004 09:29 AM | Link to this

Oh, and one more thing… what about the Drug War? Have we all forgotten about this exorbitant failure of expenditure? We are headed for a major depression. Why is this issue being ignored? I know we are at war overseas, but we are also having a civil war right here in American on our own citizens. Why don’t we move these funds into a budget which will actually HELP our citizens? Isn’t this America? Don’t we have freedoms to make choices or are we just children being led by the officials we elect? I am appalled by the amount of money that is wasted every year on enforcing ridiculous laws against people for smoking pot and jailing them for extended periods with violent criminals and forcing rehab they don’t want while Social Security is falling apart and there are sick people in our own country who can’t afford to see a doctor or buy the medicine they desperately need. My sister is poor and cannot afford the asthma meds her 10 year-old son needs to breathe. She runs through miles of red tape just to get him insured under Medicaid and it keeps her from working, which she needs to do a LOT of since she only makes $7 per hour! How can a woman survive on that raising two kids alone? Her food stamps were cancelled because of human error on the part of DEFACS. Her children went hungry because the department is understaffed because of budget cuts. Meanwhile the War on Drugs (Americans) is thriving and the budget increases exponentially every year. Still we have drugs on our streets; after over a decade it’s worse! Why are there sick people in a country who boasts being the leader in medical technology? Why are we wasting our money and time on elected officials who use the position to create laws to support their personal beliefs?

I find it amusing that it’s only Americans who will go into another country and say, “We’re Better Than You!” How arrogant and short-sighted. Why is it that Americans are so arrogant about this country? I think the principles of the Constitution are respectable; unfortunately, America has mutated them beyond recognition. I am ashamed that we are actually debating whether or not to illegalize abortion from our own citizens! I am ashamed that our President thinks we don’t need UN support in Iraq. I am ashamed that we spend billions on keeping our own people from making decisions that affect their own lives directly. It shouldn’t even be an issue. I am a true American, but humbled. We have so much to learn from other, older countries with older traditions and cultures. We are the arrogant little teen who thinks he knows everything and; therefore, cannot learn a thing! We are a young country. Remember folks: He who is not humble will eventually be humiliated. Humility is natural and necessary for development. We need the UN in this war in Iraq. It’s stupid and adolescent to assume that we do not. I fear our allies may get the wrong idea bout what Americans want because of the person representing us, Bush. And yes, I will continue to spout my opinion. It’s the only way to keep the second coming of McCarthyism from manifesting. Speak up - It’s your right, but only as long as you invoke it.

By Terry M. Adams

October 19, 2004 09:37 AM | Link to this

“There is a reason why the Constitution says there shall be a separation of church and state.”

Who’s Constitution are you referring to? Just because someone else’s Constitution might have a “separation of church and state” in it - doesn’t mean we have to abide by it!

By Terry M. Adams

October 19, 2004 09:41 AM | Link to this

PW,

Your last post was a classic! Can I get your approval to copy that - I want to show it to everyone I know!

That was a gem!

By Ms. PW

October 19, 2004 09:43 AM | Link to this

I was just reading some of the responses in the forum. There are an awful lot of non-thinking people here. The reason is that there are too many laws. People don’t think outside of the box anymore because they don’t have to when the rules are so nicely made ahead for them. It must be nice to be so blissfully stupid. Unfortunately, the rest of us have to pay the price with our own freedom. So much for democracy.

By Ms. PW

October 19, 2004 09:45 AM | Link to this

Terry,

Hey it’s a free country, isn’t it?

By Angie

October 19, 2004 09:54 AM | Link to this

To the people who question God’s view of the unborn and whether they “become” a person when they take their first breath or whether they are indeed a person to God while still in the womb:

Psalm 139:13-16: For you created me in my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was in that secret place.

Jeremiah 1:4-5a: The word of the LORD came to me saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart….”

Luke 1:44: “As soon as your [Mary’s] greetings reached my [Elizabeth’s] ears, the baby [John] in my womb leaped for joy.”

Exodus 21:22-23: The penalty under the law of Moses was to put to death a person who caused even the accidental death of an unborn baby (as by two men fighting).

Many Americans believe abortion is murder. We say a person “commits” murder, but “performs” abortion. “Perform” sanitizes the procedure as being little more than an appendectomy. Would it be more consistent to say “commit” abortion?

By Terry M. Adams

October 19, 2004 09:55 AM | Link to this

PW,

Yes it is a “free country”. It’s just that we differ on the meaning of - “free”.

By Terry M. Adams

October 19, 2004 10:03 AM | Link to this

PW,

I have a high-speed internet connection with numerous search engines available - and I am still unable to find who’s Constitution has a “Separation of Church and State” in it. Please don’t keep me in the dark on this - help a guy out would ya!

By Angie

October 19, 2004 10:06 AM | Link to this

My last post that quoted bible verses are for those that claim God views a baby as a person only once they take their first breath.

I realize not everyone reading believes the bible or in God. If you do not believe in either then disregard my post-that’s your right. Not looking to fight over the bible or religious views. Not trying to “judge” anyone or be “holier than thou”. Just expressing my views. That’s still allowed in this country, right?

By Ms. PW

October 19, 2004 10:09 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

Thanks for the support. I think we often underestimate the power of confirmation. It strengthens me to receive your support. I’m glad there is someone out there who understands that there is more to Americans than Christian morality. There is so much about us as humans that we fail to recognize and/or accept as such. There’s more to this world than meets the eye. Just because we can’t see it or quantify it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. There are endless possibilities.

Blessed Be, Lyrazel.

By Terry M. Adams

October 19, 2004 10:13 AM | Link to this

No Angie - actually it’s not. You don’t have a right to your view because it COMES from your religion. If your views were to be the result of meditation from atop a tree; while naked, we must accept and honor your opinion. But if your views COME from your religion - we must immediately discount them as “forcing relgion down someone’s throat”. You’ve got to learn to understand this new-age rationalization of things!

By John

October 19, 2004 10:15 AM | Link to this

Please stop trying to legislate with “your” morality. If you are pro-life and pro-war you are a hypocrite. If all life is sacred then “Thou shall not KILL.” When will you get it through your simplistic peanut brains that you use your beliefs only when convienient for you. If you are so pro-life why don’t you go stand in front of a cemetary and block the entrance. Nobody will die on your watch…

By Terry M. Adams

October 19, 2004 10:23 AM | Link to this

Hey John, you want to be let in on a little secret? Legislating “morality” is - the PURPOSE for laws! So, with that in mind (peanut brain) - without the concern for “morality” why would we have ANY laws…?

By Jennifer

October 19, 2004 10:30 AM | Link to this

In response to the statement: The phrase “separation of church and state” is not found in the Constitution

Absolutely true, and absolutely irrelevant. Separationists take this language from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists in which he argued that the Constitution created a “wall of separation between church and state.” But, as noted above, separationists have never taken the phrase as anything more than a handy (if historically significant) summary of the intent of the religion clauses of the First Amendment. Separationist scholar Leo Pfeffer, for example, notes:

"No magic attaches to a particular verbalization of an underlying concept. The concept at issue here is more accurately expressed in Madison's phrase 'separation between Religion and Government,' or in the popular maxim that 'religion is a private matter.'" (Church, State, and Freedom, pp. 118-119).

Second, accommodationists don’t apply this argument consistently. Pfeffer, for example, observes that:

(T)he phrase "Bill of Rights" has become a convenient term to designate the freedoms guaranteed in the first ten amendments; yet it would be the height of captiousness to argue that the phrase does not appear in the Constitution. Similarly, the right to a fair trial is generally accepted to be a constitutional principle; yet the term "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state," have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles (pp. 118).

By Angie

October 19, 2004 10:31 AM | Link to this

I wish the non-Christians would stop “judging” us! ;)

By the way, if we never went to war Hitler (or his sons)would still be in power probably killing Americans as we speak. There’s nothing wrong with a country defending it’s citizens from tyranny and the possibility of mass murder. Do you remember 9/11? We do not want ANYONE in ANY country to be able to do this again. We MUST defend ourselves-not just from Bin Laden-but from anyone else who would like to hit us like they did on 9/11. Countries have a right to defend themselves and their citizens. That does NOT contradict a pro-life point of view. I do not want any more Americans to die while taking a commercial airliner or while sitting in their office at work-or anywhere else. You go into the military with the possibility you will have to defend your country. You make the choice to serve your country. It’s the most admirable job there is-in my eyees anyway. We’re not picking up college kids from the local mall and shipping them off to Iraq. These brave men and women chose to serve their country.
I am pro-life and for defending our country from the possibility of another attack on US soil.

By Jennifer

October 19, 2004 10:39 AM | Link to this

There is the feeling circulating in this blog that people who support the separation of Church and State are ant-religion, specifically ant-Christian. However, as a very spiritual person who supports this American characteristic I can say this is not the case, though there might be some people who feel that way.

If separationism means anything, it is that people should have the freedom to act publicly on their religious beliefs without coercion from the state. This would include the right to vote and run for public office in accordance with one’s religious beliefs. More generally, separationists are aware that religion has profoundly influenced the culture and morality of this nation; it is natural and proper that people would identify with that influence, and use it to order their lives.

Nevertheless, the First Amendment had the effect of forbidding anyone from using the government to pass sectarian legislation (i.e., legislation designed to establish religious belief by law). One’s decision about how much we should spend on welfare, for example, might well be influenced by one’s religious beliefs, but it would surely be unconstitutional to require people to attend church as a condition of welfare. Granted, it is sometimes difficult to know just where to draw the lines between sectarian and non-sectarian legislation, but such lines do need to be drawn. Separationists believe that the religion clauses of the First Amendment serve as an adequate guideline for resolving most of these disputes.

By Terry M. Adams

October 19, 2004 10:41 AM | Link to this

Hey Angie, bet you never thought when you were growing up, that you would one day have to explain to some Americans that it’s OK - to defend your own country!

By Angie

October 19, 2004 10:55 AM | Link to this

Terry, strange isn’t it? The concept of defending your country. The concept of the military-the army, the navy, the marines, the air force. Both of my grandfathers, my father and both of my uncles served in the military. My grandfather was in World War II. I am proud of all of them! It’s because of brave soldiers like them that we live in a country with the freedoms we have. I wouldn’t want to live in a country that wouldn’t protect me and didn’t have a military.

It’s people like the Dixie Chickens that want to stick their headsin the sand and hope like heck that the terrorists don’t strike us again.

By Erin Blanton

October 19, 2004 11:01 AM | Link to this

I’m so glad, Ms. Glass, that you have the ability to see the future and know that President Bush WILL appoint conservatice Supreme Court Judges. I would say that it is safe to say that he may appoint judges that are slightly more conservative. I hope he does! I think that is what America is all about! EQUAL REPRESENTATION!!!! And— in reference to your comments concerning abortion, every single life is of value— physical and mental handicaps or not. Somebody wants those children. There are families that have been waiting for years to adopt. Your attacks on Conservative Christians are vindictive and completely luicrous. Killing one life to save another is simply selfish. Why is your life any better than another’s? Why should you, the President of the United States, or even I have the authority to say who lives and who does not? What if the child created was going to find the cure for cancer? What if he or she would have had a greater influence on the world than even the president? Who am I to decide whether a child lives or dies? I do not have that authority and neither do you! I resent your brash expression of opinion about the forethought of women. Please do throw up your hands— the women of America are more aware and forethinking than you, Ms. Glass, give us credit for.

By kt1066

October 19, 2004 11:09 AM | Link to this

Angie chose to reference Exodus 21: 22, 23 in her insistence that the law of Moses provides equal protection to a fetus. This is the only reference I know of in Biblical law; the others are poetry, and I have been told that ancient Hebrew poetry used exaggeration as a poetic device, as in the poetic expression, “if I take the wings of morning,” and go on, God will still be there. So okay, folks, where are the wings of morning? Done any flying lately? It’s not meant to be taken literally, of course, nor are the statements about knowing someone from before birth. It’s hyperbole, a poetic way of saying I’ve known you all your life. Now about Exodus, Angie, you’re just misquoting. If a miscarriage occurs, then only a fine is incurred. Further punishment is allowed only if the woman is injured or killed, and the further punishment is for harming the woman, not the fetus. If you are going to claim to be a Christian and use the Bible as your standard for how life should be lived, at least use it truthfully and accurately, and don’t twist the words to support your position. That’s what rightwing religio-political neo-Puritans do, twist the teachings of the Bible until not even God would recognize them.

By HeatherN

October 19, 2004 11:15 AM | Link to this

Any woman who says this issue is not important is a traitor to her sex. Old white men in congress should NOT have ANY right to tell a woman what to do with her body. I’m with you, Diane. Maybe when all women’s rights are taken away, these people will wake up!! Christian Conservatives need to mind their own business and worry about their own problems. Puritanism went out in the 18th century!!!!!!

By Terry M. Adams

October 19, 2004 11:15 AM | Link to this

So what have we learned so far from all the brilliant input out here:

The reason that women have abortions - is that the child is “unwanted”. I never knew that.

If a child is “unwanted” - you have a “right” to kill it.

A fetus is not a human being and therefore you can kill it. If it’s “unwanted” of course. If it’s “wanted” and someone is responsible for killing it - then it’s a human being and you can be charged with murder. Scott Peterson?

People are going to kill babies “anyway” - so why not make it legal! By making it legal - we make sure that the murderer is not harmed in the process, as could be the case if the murder is illegal and the murderer has to rely on a novice to CARRY-OUT the murder.

By law, we don’t have a choice as to whether or not we want to wear a seat-belt. But women should have a “choice” when it comes to killing babies.

If you are not willing to adopt babies - you have to agree to murdering them.

Men should have no say in baby-killing. Only women are able to decide whether it’s right or wrong. Men become responsible FOR the child should the woman decide to let it live however.

If you are against abortion - you HAVE to be religious. This is by default. It is similar to the same-sex marriage debate; if your against it - you “HATE” Gays!

All opinions are welcome in the arena of debate. Unless your opinion comes from your religious views - then it must be automatically discounted. Any opinion that originates from ANY religious point of view is said to be: “forcing your religion down the throats of others”.

If all else fails - claim there’s a “Separation of Church and State” in the United States Constituion. This makes your views; if they come from your religion - unwelcome in the political arena. And since 80% of the American people are religious; and therfore their opinion does not count - we all get to be ruled by the 20 or so percent who are not religious. We then call that - a Democracy!

By moveon

October 19, 2004 11:21 AM | Link to this

HeatherN,

Why shouldn’t men have a say?

When women can conceive without a man, then and only then, can they make this decision without men.

By HeatherN

October 19, 2004 11:26 AM | Link to this

moveon: The day men can get pregnant and give birth is the day that they can have an opinion.

By Angie

October 19, 2004 11:26 AM | Link to this

To “kt1066” (if that’s your real name): I took the quote from a biblical internet site because I do not have my bible with me. I assumed it was the correct bible verse. If it was misquoted it was not my doing or my intention. I did not “twist” any words to suit my agenda. I used a quote from a biblical website. (Won’t make that mistake again!)SHEESH!

Any other Christians have sore backs from the knives being thrown at them?

By moveon

October 19, 2004 11:31 AM | Link to this

HeatherN,

That argument holds no weight. Can a woman get pregnant without a man?

By moveon

October 19, 2004 11:34 AM | Link to this

HeatherN,

Do you agree with the idea that women should get equal pay only when they are reqired by law to sign up for the selective service? I would think not. There is a seperate and unequal burden that men have and that’s how they are compensated for it, through the paycheck.

Oh, but you don’t get a say in that because it doesn’t affect you.

By Terry M. Adams

October 19, 2004 11:38 AM | Link to this

“The day men can get pregnant and give birth is the day that they can have an opinion.”

And the day that an unborn child can defend itself against the brutal murderer - we’ll shut-up and let him fend for himself!

By Boscoe Roads

October 19, 2004 11:38 AM | Link to this

Chanel said “abortions are for people who don’t want their children and nobody else wants them.� Instead you just throw them away as if they’re disposable trash. This is exactly the mentality which promotes something as barbaric as abortion. And society excepts this as reasonable action. When we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit. Abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women

By Boscoe Roads

October 19, 2004 11:52 AM | Link to this

Akeya, children are adopted in the U.S. on a regular basis. People go to China or Russia to avoid the red tape that exists in American adoption procedures. Legalizing abortion simply gave the back-alley physician/butcher permission to put his shingle on the front door. Abortion remains very much the same today as it was in 1960, particularly regarding the first-trimester abortion techniques. The risk now comes from the huge increase in the sheer numbers of abortions done on a daily basis. In other words, what was once a horrible, but confined, tragedy has become a nationwide holocaust! Abortions are done in an assembly-line production in abortion facilities all over the country. Women will not goto back alley abortion clinics anymore than before abortion was legalized.

By WakeUp

October 19, 2004 11:53 AM | Link to this

Ms. PW You must be one of the none thinking - Bush may not be perfect, but do you know that the Democrates are all about BIG government? Do you really want government healthcare? It will be worse than an HMO - but it will be cheap! So you don’t like the war on terror? Do you realize that there really are lots of people in the world like the ones that bombed us on 9/11 on American soil, that want to kill Americans anywhere they can find them? This isn’t about Bush, at least he has been steadfast! Think about the first World Trade bombing, USS Cole, I could go on and on. Do you not want anyone to defend you and your family?

I do believe in God, He is everywhere - whether you like it not. I don’t think the government should determine a woman’s right to have an abortion, she will have to settle up with God eventually.

How in the world can Kerry blame Bush for the flu shot shortage? It is because of the real threat of huge law suits that companies are afraid to manufacture them here! There are fewer and fewer OBGYNs every year due to rising malpractice insurance cost because of huge law suits.

All the talk of sending jobs out of the country - ask Mr. Kerry how many of his wife’s plants are located outside the continental US.

No Bush isn’t perfect, but neither is Kerry. At lease President Bush has convictions. Do you drink purple cool aide?

By Terry M. Adams

October 19, 2004 11:54 AM | Link to this

Sifting through these posts - you can find some real wisdom out here.

A woman has an abortion because she doesn’t want her child an no one else does either. How does she know whether or not someone else wants it - she’s already killed it!

Children who are in Foster care and are unwanted - is proof that abortion is needed. Yet, these children were not aborted - so how can they be PROOF that abortion is needed?

By kt1066

October 19, 2004 12:15 PM | Link to this

Angie, you were the one who chose to have unsafe, unprotected, unverified quotations: you have to take the responsibility for and consequences of your own actions. Truth and accuracy should be important especially to Christians, who are admonished by St. Paul not to take even the preacher’s word for what the Bible says, but always to go straight to the source. You are to be the light of the world, not a dim bulb. You cannot be light without truth.

By Boscoe Roads

October 19, 2004 12:15 PM | Link to this

Chanel’s views -I know the bible front to back.. 1-That Christian are always the first ones to point their finger. 2-The bible says to love everyone as you love yourself 3-Christians are usually some of the biggest sinners while hiding behind the bible 4- Judge not least ye be judged. 5-You have to accept Jesus in your heart to go to heaven not just change your life. 6-The majority of religions believe in a higher being they just have different views on how to get there. These are typical responses to Christians who oppose the murder of children. 1. Yes Christians do point the finger because it’s the Christians who are usually against the wrong being committed. 2. Who says we don’t love you Chanel. 3. All men fail that does not remove the obligation for doing right. 4. The sentence ‘Judge not, that ye be not judged’ is usually quoted out of context. Christ did not enjoin us to refrain from ever judging. What he went on to say in the next four verses is that we should judge ourselves before we judge others—not that we shouldn’t judge at all. ‘Thou hypocrite,’ he said, ‘first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to case out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.’ (Mt. 7:5) Recognizing the potential for evil in moral judgments, he instructed us not to always avoid making them but to purify ourselves before doing so.â€? Withholding charitable correction when called to do so is plainly against Jesus’ teaching, and against the love of neighbor. St. Thomas writes, “The greatest kindness one can render to any man consists in leading him from error to truth.â€? Fraternal correction is a loving act, because it seeks to help our brothers and sisters attain their greatest good and happiness, God in Heaven. %. Is abortion accepting Jesus? 6. The Bible doesn’t say that. The Bible says Christ alone is King and you may gain Heaven only through him. If you insist on quoting the Bible you should really know it from front to back.

By Chanel

October 19, 2004 12:21 PM | Link to this

Terry says “Children who are in Foster care and are unwanted - is proof that abortion is needed. Yet, these children were not aborted - so how can they be PROOF that abortion is needed?”

1- If they are wanted why are they in foster care? 2- The women can’t afford the abortion fee. Separation of Church and State is not in the constitution, it was deciphered by the ACLU.

As for teh constitution:

The constitution states that the government cannot force anyone to participate in a particular religion.

Amendments to the Constitution Article [I.] Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

By Lyrazel

October 19, 2004 12:22 PM | Link to this

What are you going to do to women who REFUSE to remain pregnant? Gonna arrest her and not the man who provided sperm? So arrest him too? MAKE her go through term? Manditory birth equals manditory paternity, remember that buccos.

Frankly the abortion argument is a flapping of the gums issue and one of those subjects that gets more PR than it ought because everyone gets stuck debating morality—fine—but the law doesnt tell you to go get an abortion, it only says, its available. I noticed how few of you picked up on the actual lack of obgyn/gyno doctors in the USA…yet with so many of you frothing to have kids—yet the lack of doctors performing birth operations is declining because of soaring insurance rates…but none here seem to give a fig. Odd isnt it?

We arent a godly nation and none can convince me we are…our American history speaks volumes…look how we treat our own citizens…who just were born the ‘wrong color’ to the ‘wrong faith’ to the ‘wrong kind’ of parents. There wouldnt be so many overworked case workers, orphanages would not be sending children to detainment centers, senior citizens would not be removed from nursing homes…if more people stopped yapping and actually behaved like moral, decent people.

By Boscoe Roads

October 19, 2004 12:27 PM | Link to this

There is a reason why the Constitution says there shall be a separation of church and state. Ms PW. Sorry the U.S. Constitution does not have those words anywhere. The only Constitution to contain that phrase is that of the U.S.S.R.s.

By C

October 19, 2004 12:27 PM | Link to this

Frankly, the whole issue that women should have a separate set of issues for their candidate to address is completely offensive. All of the U.S. citizens have a decision to make this November, and hopefully the female voting public will act on their convictions of what is right for the United States, not what is right for their gender. And we wonder why there is still separate treatment in our society, the workplace and the world for females when we purposely segment ourselves from the rest of the world??

By Amy Wadsworth

October 19, 2004 12:27 PM | Link to this

The thing that all women and men need to understand is that the ultraconservative pro-life contingent will not stop at out-lawing abortion. Their “work” will not be done until most all forms of modern birth control are done away with. They contend that low dose pills and a new version of the IUD not only stop ovulation but also prevent implantation after fertilization and they believe that is an abortion. All of us need to sit up and take notice of the repurcussions of Roe vs. Wade being overturned. There are many women who use oral contraceptives to preserve future fertility (endometriosis and polycystic ovarian symdrome). If Roe vs. Wade is overturned what will be the next step-will these women always have access to the treatment that may allow them to have children 5 or 10 years down the road? I have always voted Republican in the past, but this issue has made me see that there is a lot at stake if Washington becomes blindly conservative in all 3 branches of the governement.

By moveon

October 19, 2004 12:39 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel,

“Manditory birth equals manditory paternity, remember that buccos.” I would hope so! People need to be responsible for their actions, even sex. Yes, sex sometimes has the consequence of pregnancy. That’s something that BOTH parties need to be prepared to deal with.

Amy,

That’s a big jump from being opposed to abortion and opposed to the pill. Let’s be realistic.

By Boscoe Roads

October 19, 2004 12:40 PM | Link to this

I see Mara, what this comes down to is your religious beliefs. Since you beleive a baby doesn’t get its soul from God until it takes its first breath, you can justify abortion. Yet here, those of us, whose religious beliefs say having an abortion is intrinsically evil are getting criticized top to bottom. This is a new twist.

By Jennifer

October 19, 2004 12:43 PM | Link to this

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, …”

This is the part of the Constitution that prohibits the government from basing sectarian legislature on religious dogma. This is protection FOR the government FROM religion.

“or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”

This is the part where government is forbidden from banning religion or forcing the practice of any. Religion is covered to some extent on the right to free speech. This is protection FOR religion FROM the government.

“or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,”

More protection FOR religion FROM government.

“and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This is the part that allows you take the government to task when they don’t follow the Constitution, such as implementing the Patriot Act.

Let’s assume that the impossible happens and this becomes a Christian run state? How would that be done? Which Christian religion would be the one to dominate? How would we interpret the various Christian religions’ (Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopal, Baptist, Church of Christ, Zionists, Korean Church of Christ, etc) into law? Would we have to form a whole new branch of government so we have the Supreme Court, Congress, Executive Office, and Moral Authority?

By HeatherN

October 19, 2004 12:45 PM | Link to this

moveon: Let me clarify myself, I’m afraid you’ve misunderstood. I DO believe the FATHER of the child has every right to have a say in the decision. The men I am referring to are the old farts in congress, who have NO idea what it is like to be a young woman who has been raped and conceived a child. I personally would not have an abortion, but the thought of the government making that decision for women is abhorrent. If abortion is outlawed, do you honestly think abortions will stop? Instead it will become the norm for back-alley coat hanger procedures. I do believe it is ridiculous to have an abortion because you screwed up and didn’t use birth control, but it is equally absurd to outlaw abortion in all cases, which is what some of these religious nuts want to do.

By moveon

October 19, 2004 12:47 PM | Link to this

A question I have yet to see discussed….

Why are people who are pro-choice against the death penalty?

By moveon

October 19, 2004 12:53 PM | Link to this

HeatherN,

Thanks for the clarification. However, the ‘old farts’ in congress didn’t get there without being young men with wives or girlfriends of child bearing age. Yes, men have no idea ‘what it’s like’ to be a raped young woman who conceived a child. Do you? If the standard for discussion is personal experience, then less than 1% of the population can speak to the issue.

Also, if the argument against prohibiting the act is the inability of law to stop it from occuring, why are drugs still illegal?

By Boscoe Roads

October 19, 2004 01:02 PM | Link to this

The Establishment Clause does not license government to treat religion, and those who teach or practice it, simply by virtue of their status as such, as subversive of American ideals and therefore subject to unique disabilities … In short, government may not as a goal promote “safe-thinkingâ€? with respect to religion and fence out from political participation those, such as ministers, whom it regards as over-involved in religion. Religionists no less than members of any other group enjoy the full measure of protection afforded speech, association, and political activity generally. The Establishment Clause, properly understood, is a shield against any attempt by government to inhibit religion … it may not be used as a sword to justify repression of religion or its adherents from any aspect of public life.â€? The controversial statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made by Thomas Jefferson in a letter on January 1, 1802 to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The context of this statement was that the Danbury Baptists had heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England. He wrote: “I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.â€? This wall was to keep the government out of religion, but would ensure that Christian principles would always remain in American government. Roe and the decisions reaffirming it are equal in their audacity and abuse of judicial office to Dred Scott v. Sanford. Just as Dred Scott forced a southern pro-slavery position on the nation, Roe is nothing more than the Supreme Court’s imposition on us of the morality of our cultural elites.â€?

By Terry M. Adams

October 19, 2004 01:13 PM | Link to this

Jennifer,

Slow down and ‘think’ for a moment - you’re letting the forest block your view of the trees. Don’t you think that if Christians wanted a “state run” government - they would have already done it by now? How would you stop them Jennifer, they have the numbers to get whatever they want - IF they wanted it! If Christians wanted, every President, member of Congress and Supreme Court Justice - would be a devout Christian. They have the power in numbers to make that happen - and there would be absolutely nothing you could do about it!

You are just another of a long line of folks who have bought into all the hysteria about a “Christian takeover”. Christians are NOT trying to take over anything - they just want to be able to have their views and their opinions expressed just like anyone else. But I tell you what, if you people don’t stop with all this foolishness and you keep trying to shut Christians completely out of the debate - they very well may ban together and “force down your throat” whatever they darn well please!

And as far as your breakdown of the Constitution - go back to the drawing board. You haven’t a clue!

By Bob Swygert

October 19, 2004 01:46 PM | Link to this

Did you know that President Bush has a secret plan to blot out the sun if he’s re-elected? How come your newspaper isn’t investigating that?

By Boscoe Roads

October 19, 2004 01:51 PM | Link to this

Al Gore invinted the Sun

By Angie

October 19, 2004 01:52 PM | Link to this

To kt1066: I do apologize if I misquoted the bible. I passed along info I thought was acurate. Will make sure to have my bible with me tomorrow so as to prevent any misinformation. Thank you for correcting me.

By Tracy

October 19, 2004 02:01 PM | Link to this

Akeya W.

Birth control is way cheaper then having to cloth your son, pay for day care, pay for school activites, etc. Having children is very, very expensive. Until the person is ready to take on the financial aspects of parenthood. Please for the sake of my tax dollars. Pay for the birth control. Or better yet stay off your back!

By Vincent

October 19, 2004 02:05 PM | Link to this

Angie took time to ask me a few questions. She asked me, “To that I say-Why do we have to choose one over the other?”

Right now the reproductive rights of women are limited. Women should have no limitations on governing their bodies. If you choose the rights of the fetus over the rights of the mother, then the limited rights are completely gone away.

And, “Why can’t they both be protected under the law as individuals?”

Currently, they are both protected under the law. Unless I’m assuming incorrectly, Angie is the name of a woman. If that is the case, this is shameful that I am a man and I’ve read Roe v. Wade. If you took a few minutes away from the male dominated propaganda machine (the news media) and read Roe v. Wade you’d discover that the rights of both are currently being protected.

Another fun one, “As to men’s dominance over women-who dominates who when a guy gets a girl pregnant and tells her to go have an abortion and walks away?”

What a nice, neat little question. Is this guy a rapist? The father of the girl? A traveling circus clown? A long time boyfriend? Or an alien?

That question has nothing to do with domination over women. You see Angie, if he tells her to get an abortion and walks away; A) He probably has no intention on being a care-giver for her, or paying for the procedure, and; B) She still has a choice.

If it was illegal, she’d have the baby, and could not walk away, and the raising of that baby is an entirely different discussion. Most of these sick-minded men are forced to send money to women, which most of them rarely do, so, I guess a man walking away from the responsibilities are controlled by the courts.

Here’s another great question, “Don’t you think legal and easily available abortion has given men more dominance over women because instead of standing up like a real man and taking responsibility for his child he can push for an abortion to easily end his responsibility and let himself off the hook so to speak? It has freed up men even more to just walk away and say go terminate the pregnancy. Or to make sure it happens they will take them to the clinic and wait until the child is killed.”

Such drama. Almost as intense as a Lifetime movie of the week. First of all, abortion is not easily available. You just don’t have one at a drive through window. No, I do not believe legal abortion has given men more dominance over women, not in the least. If legal abortion truly gave men more dominance over women, Bush and his Budget Busters, the church and Shaunti would not be opposed to it. And driving her to a clinic and making sure it happens is the most absurd notion I’ve ever heard. Do you think if a woman goes into a clinic, appears obviously confused and scared, present against her wishes that trained medical nurses and physicians are going to sit by and make it happen? Are you kidding?

Your tirade about what devalues women was as amusing as it was frightening. Nobody who is in favor of allowing women the civil rights to choose how to govern their own skin is teaching any of the ideologies you mentioned in your little précis. Again, Roe v. Wade is all about protecting the woman, and PROTECTING the fetus.

But, Angie, if we were living under your thinking processes, and correct me if I’m wrong (I have a feeling that was “rhetorical�): A)Regardless of the situation, you get pregnant, you deliver that baby. (Incest, rape, a mentally challenged woman, and if the woman starts showing signs that this delivery will kill her, that’s ok. Because Angie said it is not all right to kill your child, so, you’re gonna have to give birth, even if kills you. Because Angie and God both know, killing yourself isn’t as icky as killing a child.)

B)By making abortion illegal, women and men will once again become equals. A direct result of that will be the elimination of depression, suicide thoughts, nightmares, the ability to make as many babies as possible, a strong uterine lining that will never tear no matter how much anyone tries, no more breast cancer, and no more divorce.

C)Association of choice and abortion will no longer be valid. With that, let’s eliminate the word choice all together. Women are no longer allowed to choose anything. Their husbands and the church will dictate everything.

D)Since every time a woman gets pregnant, male dominated society will try to revive the old school thinking that women are not supposed to have jobs, or do anything outside of the home, but raise children. These men who want abortion illegal want us to believe the following: Pregnant women throw up alot, are emotional, and have to go to the doctor too much. Plus they get fat, and we can’t look at them until they get skinny again.

By Jennifer

October 19, 2004 02:08 PM | Link to this

Terry,

I personally don’t believe that Christians are trying to “take over”. I find it a ridiculous idea. Re my last paragraph which illustrated the absurdity of it since there would be no agreement among the ranks. Just look to Ireland.

I only posted where in the Constitution and broke it down, correctly albeit simply, where it protects citizens AND government in regards to religion. If you think I am incorrect you must show evidence of it. Your saying I’m incorrect doesn’t make it true.

Boscoe,

Separationism is not the belief that religion is bad, or that religion has nothing useful to say about current events. Rather, it’s the belief that government should have no power to favor, hinder, support, or control religion. If anything, separationism is a conservative position—it denies that government should have the sort of power that non-separationists want to give it.

In response, the surest way to achieve political and cultural irrelevancy is to criticize religion, or to announce that one is not religious. When, for example, was the last time you heard a politician proudly proclaim that he or she was an atheist? Or a “humanist?” Or even a “liberal Christian?”

So why do so many Christians feel they are being discriminated against? Many feel that itt has to do with recent Supreme Court decisions that eliminated various forms of favoritism for religion. As noted by historians, Protestantism has enjoyed a de facto establishment in America for most of our history. When prayers were said in schools, for example, these prayers had a Protestant tone to them, and when the Bible reading was required it was always the King James version that was read. Hence, when organized school prayer and Bible reading was struck down by the Supreme Court in the 1960s, religion in general, and Protestantism in particular, lost out on the favoritism it previously had enjoyed. Many people see these decisions as discriminatory, but this is wildly inaccurate. Rather, these decisions make the state religiously neutral; they allow students to make their own decisions about whether and how to pray or study the Bible. So you can reject, in other words, the popular Religious Right argument that these decisions were hostile to religion.

As for Jefferson’s letter, Jefferson saw his letter to the Danbury Baptists as an important opportunity to clarify his policies concerning church and state and, hence, crafted the letter carefully. Indeed, Jefferson was so concerned about the wording of his letter that he sent a working draft to at least two people, Gideon Granger, his Postmaster General, and Levi Lincoln, his Attorney General. According to historian Dumas Malone (Jefferson the President: First Term, 1801-1805, p. 109), Granger wanted nothing in the letter changed. Lincoln, on the other hand, thought it would be prudent to eliminate the part of the letter in which Jefferson emphasized his opposition to proclaiming days of fasting and thanksgiving, on the grounds that this might cost him political support in the eastern states, which had long-established traditions of government proclamations of thanksgiving. Accordingly, Jefferson omitted this portion of the letter.

Furthermore, the arguement that his letter is one-directional is false. This claim, frequently encountered on the internet and widely circulated by the religious right, serves as an excellent example of the lengths to which accomodationists will go to challenge the plain meaning of Jefferson’s words. No one knows where this claim originated, but it was popularized by religious right author and anti-separationist activist David Barton in the first version of his hour-long videotape “America’s Godly Heritage” (a second version omits this claim; see Rob Boston, “Sects, Lies, and Videotape,” Church and State, April 1993). Additionally, Barton uses the “one-directional” language, without directly attributing it to Jefferson, in his 1989 book, The Myth of Separation, p. 42. Indeed, the claim was so widely accepted in religious right circles that it was repeated by the head of the Colorado branch of the Christian Coalition before the 1992 Colorado state Republican Party convention (“Sects, Lies, and Videotape,” Church and State, April 1993).

Barton’s claim is that Jefferson makes the following statement about his “wall” metaphor in his letter to the Danbury Baptists:

That wall is a one directional wall. It keeps the government from running the church but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."

Needless to say, Barton’s claim is pure fantasy. Jefferson made no such statement, either in the Danbury Baptist letter or in any of his other writings. No professional accommodationist scholar gives Barton’s claim the slightest credence. Still, the story continues to circulate, and has now become so widely disseminated among religious right activists that it has all but assumed the status of a religious “urban legend.”

Barton’s “one directional” wall story is only one of the many ways that the religious right attempts to discredit Jefferson’s staunch separationism.

Barton was also the one who popularized the idea that Jefferson’s letter was merely to assure the Connecticut Baptists that the Constitution would prohibit Congress from establishing Congregationalism as the national religion. First, there is no evidence that the Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson because of a rumor that “a particular denomination was soon to be declared a national denomination.” Barton does not evidence this claim, and the argument is implausible on it’s face: the First Amendment had been in effect for about a decade, and it was universally understood that Congress had no ability to declare a national religion (see Thomas Curry, The First Freedoms, ch. eight; Leonard Levy, The Establishment Clause, chs. 4-5). It is difficult to believe, in other words, that any group of well informed citizens—let alone Baptists, who were generally knowledgeable on issues of religious freedom—would have taken such a preposterous rumor seriously.

This was no mere assurance that Congress could not establish a national religion. It was a response to the very thesis of the Baptists’ letter: that religious rights are by nature inalienable. The Baptists wanted that view to prevail in Connecticut. Jefferson’s metaphor assured them that this was already true on the national level, and that the federal government had no right to legislate on religious matters in any way.

You can, in fact, find the entire letter here: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

In all, again, not all of our rights are explicitly spelled out, like the right to a fair trial. But they are implied and easily understood. We must remember that the concept of separation of Church and State is designed to protect you from government.

By bob

October 19, 2004 02:15 PM | Link to this

Boscoe— you are obviously an well-read man who presents intelligent arguments. But you must realize that you are posting your comments to people who, for the most part, don’t have the sense to figure out butterfly ballots. Gotta go.. I’m hard at work so I can help support Chantel’s nieces. God forbid that they should have to go out and get a job.

By Boscoe Roads

October 19, 2004 02:21 PM | Link to this

read Roe v. Wade you’d discover that the rights of both are currently being protected. What part are you reading in which you actually interpreted that? If legal abortion truly gave men more dominance over women, Bush and his Budget Busters, the church and Shaunti would not be opposed to it. What is the color of the sky in your world? Regardless of the situation, you get pregnant, you deliver that baby. (Incest, rape, a mentally challenged woman, and if the woman starts showing signs that this delivery will kill her, that’s ok How many times does this actually happen? You obviously watch way to much TV.

By vincent

October 19, 2004 02:35 PM | Link to this

Hi Boscoe: The rights of the woman and the fetus are both protected under Roe v. Wade. You asked me what part am I reading? This part: The State has legitimate interests in protecting both the pregnant woman’s health and the potentiality of human life, each of which interests grows and reaches a “compelling” point at various stages of the woman’s approach to term. Pp. 147-164.

The last part of my last entry was all about the effects of taking away the choice completely. I think you may have misread. Thank you for your concern about television watching. I watch A&E biography and Larry King. Other than that, I don’t watch t.v.

By Zack

October 19, 2004 02:37 PM | Link to this

So, now the pro-choice advocates want Christians to misinterpret “Judge not…”, as many others unfortunately have. Are we supposed to stand idly by while abortions are done? No. Are we to be spectators to evil? No. Discerning right from wrong and taking action against what is wrong are different issues altogether. Don’t tell me that a fetus is not a life. That’s a lie, and anyone who makes that statement is either lying or very misinformed about the facts. If you have sex, you need to have the baby or give it up for adoption. It’s that simple. Murder should not be an option. By the way, isn’t it ironic how these war protesters usually are the biggest pro-choice advocates? Isn’t it ironic how they also are staunchly opposed to the death penalty? The Bible does give support for war and the death penalty, but it never does for abortion. Abortion is simply injustifiable homicide. It’s time for the Pro-Life Movement to stand up and loudly and clearly lead its charge against the killing of the unborn. If and when Roe v. Wade is overturned, we can expect sexual responsibility and abstinence to return and a far-better society. That’s the answer. Contraception (which doesn’t work, by the way, and which wouldn’t change the immoral nature of premarital sex even if it did), birth control, and abortion are certainly not.

By Lyrazel

October 19, 2004 02:41 PM | Link to this

Tracy, I think if you delve into Akea’s written history, you find she is probably THE ONLY ONE HERE who is actually working FOR social services, and she understands reproduction and its conceqences far better than the glib chatters here. To just insult someone because of difference of opinion is such a Bush-Kerry thing to do— She was commenting on COST of contraceptives. We all dig at each other to raise some fur, but blatent insults are counter-productive…because it is so foolish. Do join in the issue debate about if women should think about issues prior to electing a President, but cease with the personal attacks. Youre starting to sound very Vice Presidential…..

By Boscoe Roads

October 19, 2004 02:47 PM | Link to this

Justice Rehnquist’s Dissent in WALLACE V. JAFFREE (1985)

United States Supreme Court

WALLACE V. JAFFREE

472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479 (1985)

Nos. 83-812, 83-929.

Argued Dec. 4, 1984.

Decided June 4, 1985.

[All court opinions except for Justice Rehnquist’s dissent have been omitted.] Justice REHNQUIST, dissenting.

Thirty-eight years ago this Court, in Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 16, 67 S.Ct. 504, 512, 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947), summarized its exegesis of Establishment Clause doctrine thus:

“In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect ‘a wall of separation between church and State.’ Reynolds v. United States, [98 U.S. 145, 164, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1879)].”

This language from Reynolds, a case involving the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment rather than the Establishment Clause, quoted from Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptist Association the phrase “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.” 8 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 113 (H. Washington ed. 1861).(1)

It is impossible to build sound constitutional doctrine upon a mistaken understanding of constitutional history, but unfortunately the Establishment Clause has been expressly freighted with Jefferson's misleading metaphor for nearly 40 years. Thomas Jefferson was of course in France at the time the constitutional Amendments known as the Bill of Rights were passed by Congress and ratified by the States. His letter to the Danbury Baptist Association was a short note of courtesy, written 14 years after the Amendments were passed by Congress. He would seem to any detached observer as a less than ideal source of contemporary history as to the meaning of the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. Jefferson's fellow Virginian, James Madison, with whom he was joined in the battle for the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty of 1786, did play as large a part as anyone in the drafting of the Bill of Rights. He had two advantages over Jefferson in this regard: he was present in the United States, and he was a leading Member of the First Congress. But when we turn to the record of the proceedings in the First Congress leading up to the adoption of the Establishment Clause of the Constitution, including Madison's significant contributions thereto, we see a far different picture of its purpose than the highly simplified "wall of separation between church and State." During the debates in the Thirteen Colonies over ratification of the Constitution, one of the arguments frequently used by opponents of ratification was that without a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual liberty the new general Government carried with it a potential for tyranny. The typical response to this argument on the part of those who favored ratification was that the general Government established by the Constitution had only delegated powers, and that these delegated powers were so limited that the Government would have no occasion to violate individual liberties. This response satisfied some, but not others, and of the 11 Colonies which ratified the Constitution by early 1789, 5 proposed one or another amendments guaranteeing individual liberty. Three--New Hampshire, New York, and Virginia--included in one form or another a declaration of religious freedom. See 3 J. Elliot, Debates on the Federal Constitution 659 (1891); 1 id., at 328. Rhode Island and North Carolina flatly refused to ratify the Constitution in the absence of amendments in the nature of a Bill of Rights. 1 id., at 334; 4 id., at 244. Virginia and North Carolina proposed identical guarantees of religious freedom:

“[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience, and … no particular religious sect or society ought to be favored or established, by law, in preference to others.” 3 id., at 659; 4 id., at 244.(2)

On June 8, 1789, James Madison rose in the House of Representatives and "reminded the House that this was the day that he had heretofore named for bringing forward amendments to the Constitution." 1 Annals of Cong. 424. Madison's subsequent remarks in urging the House to adopt his drafts of the proposed amendments were less those of a dedicated advocate of the wisdom of such measures than those of a prudent statesman seeking the enactment of measures sought by a number of his fellow citizens which could surely do no harm and might do a great deal of good. He said, inter alia:

“It appears to me that this House is bound by every motive of prudence, not to let the first session pass over without proposing to the State Legislatures, some things to be incorporated into the Constitution, that will render it as acceptable to the whole people of the United States, as it has been found acceptable to a majority of them. I wish, among other reasons why something should be done, that those who had been friendly to the adoption of this Constitution may have the opportunity of proving to those who were opposed to it that they were as sincerely devoted to liberty and a Republican Government, as those who charged them with wishing the adoption of this Constitution in order to lay the foundation of an aristocracy or despotism. It will be a desirable thing to extinguish from the bosom of every member of the community, any apprehensions that there are those among his countrymen who wish to deprive them of the liberty for which they valiantly fought and honorably bled. And if there are amendments desired of such a nature as will not injure the Constitution, and they can be ingrafted so as to give satisfaction to the doubting part of our fellow-citizens, the friends of the Federal Government will evince that spirit of deference and concession for which they have hitherto been distinguished.” Id., at 431-432.

The language Madison proposed for what ultimately became the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment was this:

“The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext, infringed.” Id., at 434.

On the same day that Madison proposed them, the amendments which formed the basis for the Bill of Rights were referred by the House to a Committee of the Whole, and after several weeks' delay were then referred to a Select Committee consisting of Madison and 10 others. The Committee revised Madison's proposal regarding the establishment of religion to read:

“[N]o religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.” Id., at 729.

The Committee's proposed revisions were debated in the House on August 15, 1789. The entire debate on the Religion Clauses is contained in two full columns of the "Annals," and does not seem particularly illuminating. See id., at 729-731. Representative Peter Sylvester of New York expressed his dislike for the revised version, because it might have a tendency "to abolish religion altogether." Representative John Vining suggested that the two parts of the sentence be transposed; Representative Elbridge Gerry thought the language should be changed to read "that no religious doctrine shall be established by law." Id., at 729. Roger Sherman of Connecticut had the traditional reason for opposing provisions of a Bill of Rights--that Congress had no delegated authority to "make religious establishments"--and therefore he opposed the adoption of the amendment. Representative Daniel Carroll of Maryland thought it desirable to adopt the words proposed, saying "[h]e would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community." Madison then spoke, and said that "he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience." Id., at 730. He said that some of the state conventions had thought that Congress might rely on the Necessary and Proper Clause to infringe the rights of conscience or to establish a national religion, and "to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit." Ibid. Representative Benjamin Huntington then expressed the view that the Committee's language might "be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction upon it." Huntington, from Connecticut, was concerned that in the New England States, where state-established religions were the rule rather than the exception, the federal courts might not be able to entertain claims based upon an obligation under the bylaws of a religious organization to contribute to the support of a minister or the building of a place of worship. He hoped that "the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and a free exercise of the rights of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all." Id., at 730-731. Madison responded that the insertion of the word "national" before the word "religion" in the Committee version should satisfy the minds of those who had criticized the language. "He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform. He thought that if the word 'national' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent." Id., at 731. Representative Samuel Livermore expressed himself as dissatisfied with Madison's proposed amendment, and thought it would be better if the Committee language were altered to read that "Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience." Ibid. Representative Gerry spoke in opposition to the use of the word "national" because of strong feelings expressed during the ratification debates that a federal government, not a national government, was created by the Constitution. Madison thereby withdrew his proposal but insisted that his reference to a "national religion" only referred to a national establishment and did not mean that the Government was a national one. The question was taken on Representative Livermore's motion, which passed by a vote of 31 for and 20 against. Ibid. The following week, without any apparent debate, the House voted to alter the language of the Religion Clauses to read "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." Id., at 766. The floor debates in the Senate were secret, and therefore not reported in the Annals. The Senate on September 3, 1789, considered several different forms of the Religion Amendment, and reported this language back to the House:

“Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.” C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 130 (1964).

The House refused to accept the Senate's changes in the Bill of Rights and asked for a conference; the version which emerged from the conference was that which ultimately found its way into the Constitution as a part of the First Amendment.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The House and the Senate both accepted this language on successive days, and the Amendment was proposed in this form.

On the basis of the record of these proceedings in the House of Representatives, James Madison was undoubtedly the most important architect among the Members of the House of the Amendments which became the Bill of Rights, but it was James Madison speaking as an advocate of sensible legislative compromise, not as an advocate of incorporating the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty into the United States Constitution. During the ratification debate in the Virginia Convention, Madison had actually opposed the idea of any Bill of Rights. His sponsorship of the Amendments in the House was obviously not that of a zealous believer in the necessity of the Religion Clauses, but of one who felt it might do some good, could do no harm, and would satisfy those who had ratified the Constitution on the condition that Congress propose a Bill of Rights.(3) His original language "nor shall any national religion be established" obviously does not conform to the "wall of separation" between church and State idea which latter-day commentators have ascribed to him. His explanation on the floor of the meaning of his language--"that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law" is of the same ilk. When he replied to Huntington in the debate over the proposal which came from the Select Committee of the House, he urged that the language "no religion shall be established by law" should be amended by inserting the word "national" in front of the word "religion." It seems indisputable from these glimpses of Madison's thinking, as reflected by actions on the floor of the House in 1789, that he saw the Amendment as designed to prohibit the establishment of a national religion, and perhaps to prevent discrimination among sects. He did not see it as requiring neutrality on the part of government between religion and irreligion. Thus the Court's opinion in Everson--while correct in bracketing Madison and Jefferson together in their exertions in their home State leading to the enactment of the Virginia Statute of Religious Liberty--is totally incorrect in suggesting that Madison carried these views onto the floor of the United States House of Representatives when he proposed the language which would ultimately become the Bill of Rights. The repetition of this error in the Court's opinion in Illinois ex rel. McCollum v. Board of Education, 333 U.S. 203, 68 S.Ct. 461, 92 L.Ed. 649 (1948), and, inter alia, Engel v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 82 S.Ct. 1261, 8 L.Ed.2d 601 (1962), does not make it any sounder historically. Finally, in Abington School District v. Schempp, 374 U.S. 203, 214, 83 S.Ct. 1560, 1567, 10 L.Ed.2d 844 (1963), the Court made the truly remarkable statement that "the views of Madison and Jefferson, preceded by Roger Williams, came to be incorporated not only in the Federal Constitution but likewise in those of most of our States" (footnote omitted). On the basis of what evidence we have, this statement is demonstrably incorrect as a matter of history.(4) And its repetition in varying forms in succeeding opinions of the Court can give it no more authority than it possesses as a matter of fact; stare decisis may bind courts as to matters of law, but it cannot bind them as to matters of history. None of the other Members of Congress who spoke during the August 15th debate expressed the slightest indication that they thought the language before them from the Select Committee, or the evil to be aimed at, would require that the Government be absolutely neutral as between religion and irreligion. The evil to be aimed at, so far as those who spoke who concerned, appears to have been the establishment of a national church, and perhaps the preference of one religious sect over another; but it was definitely not concerned about whether the Government might aid all religions evenhandedly. If one were to follow the advice of Justice BRENNAN, concurring in Abington School District v. Schempp, supra, at 236, 83 S.Ct., at 1578, 10 L.Ed.2d 844, and construe the Amendment in the light of what particular "practices . . . challenged threaten those consequences which the Framers deeply feared; whether, in short, they tend to promote that type of interdependence between religion and state which the First Amendment was designed to prevent," one would have to say that the First Amendment Establishment Clause should be read no more broadly than to prevent the establishment of a national religion or the governmental preference of one religious sect over another. The actions of the First Congress, which reenacted the Northwest Ordinance for the governance of the Northwest Territory in 1789, confirm the view that Congress did not mean that the Government should be neutral between religion and irreligion. The House of Representatives took up the Northwest Ordinance on the same day as Madison introduced his proposed amendments which became the Bill of Rights; while at that time the Federal Government was of course not bound by draft amendments to the Constitution which had not yet been proposed by Congress, say nothing of ratified by the States, it seems highly unlikely that the House of Representatives would simultaneously consider proposed amendments to the Constitution and enact an important piece of territorial legislation which conflicted with the intent of those proposals. The Northwest Ordinance, 1 Stat. 50, reenacted the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and provided that "[r]eligion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." Id., at 52, n. (a). Land grants for schools in the Northwest Territory were not limited to public schools. It was not until 1845 that Congress limited land grants in the new States and Territories to nonsectarian schools. 5 Stat. 788; C. Antieau, A. Downey, & E. Roberts, Freedom From Federal Establishment 163 (1964). On the day after the House of Representatives voted to adopt the form of the First Amendment Religion Clauses which was ultimately proposed and ratified, Representative Elias Boudinot proposed a resolution asking President George Washington to issue a Thanksgiving Day Proclamation. Boudinot said he "could not think of letting the session pass over without offering an opportunity to all the citizens of the United States of joining with one voice, in returning to Almighty God their sincere thanks for the many blessings he had poured down upon them." 1 Annals of Cong. 914 (1789). Representative Aedanas Burke objected to the resolution because he did not like "this mimicking of European customs"; Representative Thomas Tucker objected that whether or not the people had reason to be satisfied with the Constitution was something that the States knew better than the Congress, and in any event "it is a religious matter, and, as such, is proscribed to us." Id., at 915. Representative Sherman supported the resolution "not only as a laudable one in itself, but as warranted by a number of precedents in Holy Writ: for instance, the solemn thanksgivings and rejoicings which took place in the time of Solomon, after the building of the temple, was a case in point. This example, he thought, worthy of Christian imitation on the present occasion. . . ." Ibid. Boudinot's resolution was carried in the affirmative on September 25, 1789. Boudinot and Sherman, who favored the Thanksgiving Proclamation, voted in favor of the adoption of the proposed amendments to the Constitution, including the Religion Clauses; Tucker, who opposed the Thanksgiving Proclamation, voted against the adoption of the amendments which became the Bill of Rights. Within two weeks of this action by the House, George Washington responded to the Joint Resolution which by now had been changed to include the language that the President "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness." 1 J. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789-1897, p. 64 (1897). The Presidential Proclamation was couched in these words: "Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquillity, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted; for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us. "And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best." Ibid. George Washington, John Adams, and James Madison all issued Thanksgiving Proclamations; Thomas Jefferson did not, saying:

“Fasting and prayer are religious exercises; the enjoining them an act of discipline. Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets; and this right can never be safer than in their own hands, where the Constitution has deposited it.” 11 Writings of Thomas Jefferson 429 (A. Lipscomb ed. 1904).

As the United States moved from the 18th into the 19th century, Congress appropriated time and again public moneys in support of sectarian Indian education carried on by religious organizations. Typical of these was Jefferson's treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, which provided annual cash support for the Tribe's Roman Catholic priest and church.(5) It was not until 1897, when aid to sectarian education for Indians had reached $500,000 annually, that Congress decided thereafter to cease appropriating money for education in sectarian schools. See Act of June 7, 1897, 30 Stat. 62, 79; cf. Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50, 77-79, 28 S.Ct. 690, 694-696, 52 L.Ed. 954 (1908); J. O'Neill, Religion and Education Under the Constitution 118-119 (1949). See generally R. Cord, Separation of Church and State 61-82 (1982). This history shows the fallacy of the notion found in Everson that "no tax in any amount" may be levied for religious activities in any form. 330 U.S., at 15-16, 67 S.Ct., at 511-512. Joseph Story, a Member of this Court from 1811 to 1845, and during much of that time a professor at the Harvard Law School, published by far the most comprehensive treatise on the United States Constitution that had then appeared. Volume 2 of Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 630-632 (5th ed. 1891) discussed the meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment this way: "Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendment to it now under consideration [First Amendment], the general if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.

… . .

"The real object of the [First] [A]mendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which should give to a hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government. It thus cut off the means of religious persecution (the vice and pest of former ages), and of the subversion of the rights of conscience in matters of religion, which had been trampled upon almost from the days of the Apostles to the present age. . . ." (Footnotes omitted.) Thomas Cooley's eminence as a legal authority rivaled that of Story. Cooley stated in his treatise entitled Constitutional Limitations that aid to a particular religious sect was prohibited by the United States Constitution, but he went on to say: "But while thus careful to establish, protect, and defend religious freedom and equality, the American constitutions contain no provisions which prohibit the authorities from such solemn recognition of a superintending Providence in public transactions and exercises as the general religious sentiment of mankind inspires, and as seems meet and proper in finite and dependent beings. Whatever may be the shades of religious belief, all must acknowledge the fitness of recognizing in important human affairs the superintending care and control of the Great Governor of the Universe, and of acknowledging with thanksgiving his boundless favors, or bowing in contrition when visited with the penalties of his broken laws. No principle of constitutional law is violated when thanksgiving or fast days are appointed; when chaplains are designated for the army and navy; when legislative sessions are opened with prayer or the reading of the Scriptures, or when religious teaching is encouraged by a general exemption of the houses of religious worship from taxation for the support of State government. Undoubtedly the spirit of the Constitution will require, in all these cases, that care be taken to avoid discrimination in favor of or against any one religious denomination or sect; but the power to do any of these things does not become unconstitutional simply because of its susceptibility to abuse. . . ." Id., at * 470--* 471.

Cooley added that

“[t]his public recognition of religious worship, however, is not based entirely, perhaps not even mainly, upon a sense of what is due to the Supreme Being himself as the author of all good and of all law; but the same reasons of state policy which induce the government to aid institutions of charity and seminaries of instruction will incline it also to foster religious worship and religious institutions, as conservators of the public morals and valuable, if not indispensable, assistants to the preservation of the public order.” Id., at *470.

It would seem from this evidence that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment had acquired a well-accepted meaning: it forbade establishment of a national religion, and forbade preference among religious sects or denominations. Indeed, the first American dictionary defined the word "establishment" as "the act of establishing, founding, ratifying or ordaining," such as in "[t]he episcopal form of religion, so called, in England." 1 N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1st ed. 1828). The Establishment Clause did not require government neutrality between religion and irreligion nor did it prohibit the Federal Government from providing nondiscriminatory aid to religion. There is simply no historical foundation for the proposition that the Framers intended to build the "wall of separation" that was constitutionalized in Everson. Notwithstanding the absence of a historical basis for this theory of rigid separation, the wall idea might well have served as a useful albeit misguided analytical concept, had it led this Court to unified and principled results in Establishment Clause cases. The opposite, unfortunately, has been true; in the 38 years since Everson our Establishment Clause cases have been neither principled nor unified. Our recent opinions, many of them hopelessly divided pluralities,(6) have with embarrassing candor conceded that the "wall of separation" is merely a "blurred, indistinct, and variable barrier," which "is not wholly accurate" and can only be "dimly perceived." Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614, 91 S.Ct. 2105, 2112, 29 L.Ed.2d 745 (1971); Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 677-678, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 2095-2096, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971); Wolman v. Walter, 433 U.S. 229, 236, 97 S.Ct. 2593, 2599, 53 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977); Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668, 673, 104 S.Ct. 1355, 1359, 79 L.Ed.2d 745 (1984). Whether due to its lack of historical support or its practical unworkability, the Everson "wall" has proved all but useless as a guide to sound constitutional adjudication. It illustrates only too well the wisdom of Benjamin Cardozo's observation that "[m]etaphors in law are to be narrowly watched, for starting as devices to liberate thought, they end often by enslaving it." Berkey v. Third Avenue R. Co., 244 N.Y. 84, 94, 155 N.E. 58, 61 (1926). But the greatest injury of the "wall" notion is its mischievous diversion of judges from the actual intentions of the drafters of the Bill of Rights. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, is well adapted to adjudicating factual disputes on the basis of testimony presented in court, but no amount of repetition of historical errors in judicial opinions can make the errors true. The "wall of separation between church and State" is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned. The Court has more recently attempted to add some mortar to Everson's wall through the three-part test of Lemon v. Kurtzman, supra, 403 U.S., at 614-615, 91 S.Ct., at 2112, which served at first to offer a more useful test for purposes of the Establishment Clause than did the "wall" metaphor. Generally stated, the Lemon test proscribes state action that has a sectarian purpose or effect, or causes an impermissible governmental entanglement with religion. Lemon cited Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236, 243, 88 S.Ct. 1923, 1926, 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968), as the source of the "purpose" and "effect" prongs of the three-part test. The Allen opinion explains, however, how it inherited the purpose and effect elements from Schempp and Everson, both of which contain the historical errors described above. See Allen, supra, at 243, 88 S.Ct., at 1926. Thus the purpose and effect prongs have the same historical deficiencies as the wall concept itself: they are in no way based on either the language or intent of the drafters. The secular purpose prong has proven mercurial in application because it has never been fully defined, and we have never fully stated how the test is to operate. If the purpose prong is intended to void those aids to sectarian institutions accompanied by a stated legislative purpose to aid religion, the prong will condemn nothing so long as the legislature utters a secular purpose and says nothing about aiding religion. Thus the constitutionality of a statute may depend upon what the legislators put into the legislative history and, more importantly, what they leave out. The purpose prong means little if it only requires the legislature to express any secular purpose and omit all sectarian references, because legislators might do just that. Faced with a valid legislative secular purpose, we could not properly ignore that purpose without a factual basis for doing so. Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 262-263, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 1692-1693, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982) (WHITE, J., dissenting). However, if the purpose prong is aimed to void all statutes enacted with the intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether stated or not, then most statutes providing any aid, such as textbooks or bus rides for sectarian school children, will fail because one of the purposes behind every statute, whether stated or not, is to aid the target of its largesse. In other words, if the purpose prong requires an absence of any intent to aid sectarian institutions, whether or not expressed, few state laws in this area could pass the test, and we would be required to void some state aids to religion which we have already upheld. E.g., Allen, supra. The entanglement prong of the Lemon test came from Walz v. Tax Comm'n, 397 U.S. 664, 674, 90 S.Ct. 1409, 1414, 25 L.Ed.2d 697 (1970). Walz involved a constitutional challenge to New York's time-honored practice of providing state property tax exemptions to church property used in worship. The Walz opinion refused to "undermine the ultimate constitutional objective [of the Establishment Clause] as illuminated by history," id., at 671, 90 S.Ct., at 1412, and upheld the tax exemption. The Court examined the historical relationship between the State and church when church property was in issue, and determined that the challenged tax exemption did not so entangle New York with the church as to cause an intrusion or interference with religion. Interferences with religion should arguably be dealt with under the Free Exercise Clause, but the entanglement inquiry in Walz was consistent with that case's broad survey of the relationship between state taxation and religious property. We have not always followed Walz's reflective inquiry into entanglement, however. E.g., Wolman, supra, 433 U.S., at 254, 97 S.Ct., at 2608. One of the difficulties with the entanglement prong is that, when divorced from the logic of Walz, it creates an "insoluable paradox" in school aid cases: we have required aid to parochial schools to be closely watched lest it be put to sectarian use, yet this close supervision itself will create an entanglement. Roemer v. Maryland Bd. of Public Works, 426 U.S. 736, 768-769, 96 S.Ct. 2337, 2355-2356, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1976) (WHITE, J., concurring in judgment). For example, in Wolman, supra, the Court in part struck the State's nondiscriminatory provision of buses for parochial school field trips, because the state supervision of sectarian officials in charge of field trips would be too onerous. This type of self-defeating result is certainly not required to ensure that States do not establish religions. The entanglement test as applied in cases like Wolman also ignores the myriad state administrative regulations properly placed upon sectarian institutions such as curriculum, attendance, and certification requirements for sectarian schools, or fire and safety regulations for churches. Avoiding entanglement between church and State may be an important consideration in a case like Walz, but if the entanglement prong were applied to all state and church relations in the automatic manner in which it has been applied to school aid cases, the State could hardly require anything of church-related institutions as a condition for receipt of financial assistance. These difficulties arise because the Lemon test has no more grounding in the history of the First Amendment than does the wall theory upon which it rests. The three-part test represents a determined effort to craft a workable rule from a historically faulty doctrine; but the rule can only be as sound as the doctrine it attempts to service. The three-part test has simply not provided adequate standards for deciding Establishment Clause cases, as this Court has slowly come to realize. Even worse, the Lemon test has caused this Court to fracture into unworkable plurality opinions, see n. 6, supra, depending upon how each of the three factors applies to a certain state action. The results from our school services cases show the difficulty we have encountered in making the Lemon test yield principled results. For example, a State may lend to parochial school children geography textbooks(7)that contain maps of the United States, but the State may not lend maps of the United States for use in geography class.(8) A State may lend textbooks on American colonial history, but it may not lend a film on George Washington, or a film projector to show it in history class. A State may lend classroom workbooks, but may not lend workbooks in which the parochial school children write, thus rendering them nonreusable.(9) A State may pay for bus transportation to religious schools(10)but may not pay for bus transportation from the parochial school to the public zoo or natural history museum for a field trip.(11) A State may pay for diagnostic services conducted in the parochial school but therapeutic services must be given in a different building; speech and hearing "services" conducted by the State inside the sectarian school are forbidden, Meek v. Pittenger, 421 U.S. 349, 367, 371, 95 S.Ct. 1753, 1764, 1766, 49 L.Ed.2d 179 (1975), but the State may conduct speech and hearing diagnostic testing inside the sectarian school. Wolman, 433 U.S., at 241, 97 S.Ct., at 2602. Exceptional parochial school students may receive counseling, but it must take place outside of the parochial school,(12)such as in a trailer parked down the street. Id., at 245, 97 S.Ct., at 2604. A State may give cash to a parochial school to pay for the administration of state-written tests and state-ordered reporting services,(13)but it may not provide funds for teacher-prepared tests on secular subjects.(14) Religious instruction may not be given in public school,(15)but the public school may release students during the day for religion classes elsewhere, and may enforce attendance at those classes with its truancy laws.(16) These results violate the historically sound principle "that the Establishment Clause does not forbid governments . . . to [provide] general welfare under which benefits are distributed to private individuals, even though many of those individuals may elect to use those benefits in ways that 'aid' religious instruction or worship." Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U.S. 756, 799, 93 S.Ct. 2955, 2989, 37 L.Ed.2d 948 (1973) (BURGER, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). It is not surprising in the light of this record that our most recent opinions have expressed doubt on the usefulness of the Lemon test. Although the test initially provided helpful assistance, e.g., Tilton v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 672, 91 S.Ct. 2091, 29 L.Ed.2d 790 (1971), we soon began describing the test as only a "guideline," Committee for Public Education & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, supra, and lately we have described it as "no more than [a] useful signpos[t]." Mueller v. Allen, 463 U.S. 388, 394, 103 S.Ct. 3062, 3066, 77 L.Ed.2d 721 (1983), citing Hunt v. McNair, 413 U.S. 734, 741, 93 S.Ct. 2868, 2873, 37 L.Ed.2d 923 (1973); Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc., 459 U.S. 116, 103 S.Ct. 505, 74 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982). We have noted that the Lemon test is "not easily applied," Meek, supra, 421 U.S., at 358, 95 S.Ct., at 1759, and as Justice WHITE noted in Committee for Public Education v. Regan, 444 U.S. 646, 100 S.Ct. 840, 63 L.Ed.2d 94 (1980), under the Lemon test we have "sacrifice[d] clarity and predictability for flexibility." 444 U.S., at 662, 100 S.Ct., at 851. In Lynch we reiterated that the Lemon test has never been binding on the Court, and we cited two cases where we had declined to apply it. 465 U.S., at 679, 104 S.Ct., at 1362, citing Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783, 103 S.Ct. 3330, 77 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1983); Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982). If a constitutional theory has no basis in the history of the amendment it seeks to interpret, is difficult to apply and yields unprincipled results, I see little use in it. The "crucible of litigation," ante, at 2487, has produced only consistent unpredictability, and today's effort is just a continuation of "the sisyphean task of trying to patch together the 'blurred, indistinct and variable barrier' described in Lemon v. Kurtzman." Regan, supra, 444 U.S., at 671, 100 S.Ct., at 855 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). We have done much straining since 1947, but still we admit that we can only "dimly perceive" the Everson wall. Tilton, supra. Our perception has been clouded not by the Constitution but by the mists of an unnecessary metaphor. The true meaning of the Establishment Clause can only be seen in its history. See Walz, 397 U.S., at 671-673, 90 S.Ct., at 1412-1413; see also Lynch, supra, at 673-678, 104 S.Ct., at 1359-1362. As drafters of our Bill of Rights, the Framers inscribed the principles that control today. Any deviation from their intentions frustrates the permanence of that Charter and will only lead to the type of unprincipled decision-making that has plagued our Establishment Clause cases since Everson. The Framers intended the Establishment Clause to prohibit the designation of any church as a "national" one. The Clause was also designed to stop the Federal Government from asserting a preference for one religious denomination or sect over others. Given the "incorporation" of the Establishment Clause as against the States via the Fourteenth Amendment in Everson, States are prohibited as well from establishing a religion or discriminating between sects. As its history abundantly shows, however, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires government to be strictly neutral between religion and irreligion, nor does that Clause prohibit Congress or the States from pursuing legitimate secular ends through nondiscriminatory sectarian means. The Court strikes down the Alabama statute because the State wished to "characterize prayer as a favored practice." Ante, at 2492. It would come as much of a shock to those who drafted the Bill of Rights as it will to a large number of thoughtful Americans today to learn that the Constitution, as construed by the majority, prohibits the Alabama Legislature from "endorsing" prayer. George Washington himself, at the request of the very Congress which passed the Bill of Rights, proclaimed a day of "public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God." History must judge whether it was the Father of his Country in 1789, or a majority of the Court today, which has strayed from the meaning of the Establishment Clause. The State surely has a secular interest in regulating the manner in which public schools are conducted. Nothing in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, properly understood, prohibits any such generalized "endorsement" of prayer. I would therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

By Terry M. Adams

October 19, 2004 02:54 PM | Link to this

Jennifer,

The Constitution was not written to protect “Government” from anything. The Constitution was created to clearly define the powers of the Federal Government so as to limit its power over the people.

As far as the religious clause of the First Amendment is concerned, it was created so as to: A. Prevent the Federal Government (Congress) from creating a law which establishes a national religion; whereby all citizens are required to practice THE established religion and B: To prevent the Federal Government (Congress) from creating a law which prohibits the free exercise of any religion that the people may choose.

This is not complicated - and very easy to understand. The problem is, is that there are and have been - people who want religion removed from our society altogether! The problem they have had with this from the outset, is that the First Amendment stands in their way. So, in order to circumvent the First Amendment, they have conveniently twisted its meaning to basically say: Government has to be protected from religious influence and in order to accomplish this - we have to keep religion out of the government! And being successful at this deliberate distortion of the First Amendment - they have set out to do the very thing that the First Amendment was intended to prevent!

Whatever you may think of the Founders - they were not brain-dead! They never thought it possible, nor did they try - to keep religion out of government. In fact - they used the Holy Bible as a template for the U.S. Constitution, held prayer in Congress, swore in the first President with the Bible and cited “God” and “The year of our Lord” too many times to count. They never intended for government to be protected from religion - but rather “religion” from government. There is a huge, huge difference!

By Boscoe Roads

October 19, 2004 03:16 PM | Link to this

If you read father you would have understood that meant viability of life as legitimate is in the latter stages of pregnancy when abortion is not viable. The state here is hardly protecting the life of the fetus until it has a “viableâ€? chance of surviving outside the womb. The court even buckles under constitutional attacks to say there is no reason to limit abortion to periods when a mother’s life is in jeopardy. Some pretty broad strokes for protecting the fetus Vincent! *With respect to the State’s important and legitimate interest in potential life, the “compelling” point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother’s womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. Measured against these standards, Art. 1196 of the Texas Penal Code, in restricting legal abortions to those “procured or attempted by medical advice for the purpose of saving the life of the mother,” sweeps too broadly. The statute makes no distinction between abortions performed early in pregnancy and those performed later, and it limits to a single reason, “saving” the mother’s life, the legal justification for the procedure. The statute, therefore, cannot survive the constitutional attack made upon it here. *

By vincent

October 19, 2004 03:30 PM | Link to this

Hi Boscoe, hi everybody:

My opinion, just as yours, has been stated. Intepretation happens.

All of this arguing, bickering, slants, will not change the fact that people, regardless of their genitalia, deserve the right to take care of themselves.

And here we are, soap boxing our beliefs from religion, society, medicine, politics, etc.

But, what about the basics? Again, I am not going to go on with this debate, as I firmly believe no man on this planet should be involved, until such time a man goes through it.

I wonder what would happen if men were forced to donate sperm, and then be informed later they were a father, and they had no choice in the matter, they had to take care of that baby. But, that is science fiction, as men seek complete domination of society and would never give up control of their sperm. But, if it did, and then laws were passed allowing men the choice to keep their sperm or not keep their sperm…. Hmmmm.

So, I do hope that the women will do what they feel is the best decision for themselves. Because, we are all expressions of God, and we all must trust Her to guide us through decisions.

By Chanel

October 19, 2004 03:42 PM | Link to this

Is anybody on this BLOG actually reading the page long paragraphs that are being copied & pasted into the replies????

NOT!!

OK! Everybody against abortion should protest by not having sex for 1 month.

By Lyrazel

October 19, 2004 03:52 PM | Link to this

…gasp…you must have been typing all day Boscoe! I cant wait until the Constitution, Bill of Rights and Articles of the Confederacy are posted assisting women in deciding which candidate to vote for in 2004.

By Donna

October 19, 2004 03:56 PM | Link to this

Instead of judging everyone else and their opinions why not everyone stop and take a look in the mirror! We will all meet our maker in the end and you should all save your debating for then. Good Luck!

“WHAT PART OF THOU SHALT NOT KILL DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?”

By Angie

October 19, 2004 03:57 PM | Link to this

Vincent, you made me laugh at your review of my comments! The bit about the circus clown or alien was my favorite! You are just too much.

I’m sure if you present your idea of a drive through window at the clinics they just may come up with something.

Guess what, former clinic workers have spoken about the fact that they are trained to “sell” abortions and even get a spiff for each one sold. (Carol Everett who ran several of the biggest clinics in Texas was one of them who spoke about this.)

You stated, “With that, let’s eliminate the word choice all together. Women are no longer allowed to choose anything. Their husbands and the church will dictate everything.”

Who said anything about women not being able to choose ANYTHING? Or about their HUSBANDS and CHURCH dictating to them? That’s ridiculous.

The bit about,”Pregnant women throw up alot, are emotional, and have to go to the doctor too much. Plus they get fat, and we can’t look at them until they get skinny again” was way over the top. Sounds like you have some serious ISSUES regarding pregnant women.

Very amusing comebacks though!;)

By BJ

October 19, 2004 04:04 PM | Link to this

I find Diane’s definition of a right to an abortion very interesting — “a woman’s reproductive rights.” A woman’s reproductive “rights” don’t BEGIN with an unwanted pregnancy. I’m going to be so bold as to suggest that if “most” of the women who have had abortions were as concerned about their reproductive rights (and responsibilities) before the conception of the unwanted child, perhaps there wouldn’t be as many abortions.

Now, I know that there are many unwanted pregnancies due to rape, incest, and circumstances beyond a women’s control, etc. But the vast majority of abortions include women who simply did not exercise their reproductive rights to begin with and manage to keep themselves from getting pregnant. (Socio-economic status and ignorance should be no excuse.) And before you rail on me, know that I’m speaking as such a woman!

The end does not justify the means. No one is trying to take away your rights. President Bush keeps saying that the idea is to foster a positive message of “life” in this country. Is that so bad? Personally, I would prefer abortion to be illegal — if it were, I’d have a teenager right now. But I’m willing to compromise and just ask that democrats and republicans work together to make our laws more humane in this area. Did you know that in the name of abortion an 8-month old baby can be born in a hospital and left alone in a trash bin or closet to die — all in the name of abortion? And it’s legal! (I didn’t make this up — heard that from a woman who used to be a nurse and assisted in abortions — this happened all the time in late-term abortions). A partial-birth abortion is where they pull the baby out by the feet until the base of the head is exposed, then they puncture the skull and suck out the brains until the baby his dead, then they finish the delivery (ah..excuse me…abortion). This is legal — all in the name of women’s reproductive rights. Why can’t even a “pro-choicer” make the distinction that this is a barbaric procedure? Why does it have to be all or nothing with you guys? Abortion is not kept in a nice little box where women are going in prior to their fourth month and having this little medical procedure done on a fetus that isn’t even big enough to see with the naked eye. The reality is much worse. Wake up, please, and vote your conscience and not your party lines. Roe v. Wade is not going to be overturned. Let’s just try to get some laws on the books that will take care of these barbaric acts that are being committed in the name of abortion and women’s rights.

By Chanel

October 19, 2004 04:22 PM | Link to this

Thanks for the support Bob, they sure don’t believe in abortion. Christy dropped out of high school in love with another girl’s boyfriend who had fathered 1 child. Married him and produced 3 mopre children, he had his first heart attack at 32, is trying to work, make payments and support everybody. She won’t go to work because after paying child care she would only make $100.00 a week, and if she stays home she gets alot more money from the state plus her food stamps. Melissa divorced her first husband, got pregnant by her convict boyfriend while he was out on probation, delivered the child while he was in jail, the child is severly retarded and has multiple health problems, he get’s out of jail, they have another kid, he won’t get a job, they get a SSI check for the disabled kid, a check because she’s unmarried and doesn’t have a job and food stamps. They live with his mother buy her groceries with their food stamps and both daughters give their daddy, (my brother in law)their cards to use so he can buy groceries and they can get their cards used up before the next one is issued.

Amanda was in Iraq, transferred out of delivering food to the troops on the line into entertainment, holed up in one of Saddam’s palaces for about a year and found out that if she didn’t transfer back in to “active” duty she wold have to do 2 more years. SHe came home at Christmas, got pregnant by a married man, went back, quit the Army and now lives with her mother and collecting benefits.

Of course these are all on my husband’s side of the family.

Yes, I believe in abortions and I think medicaid should pay for them.

By Jennifer

October 19, 2004 04:24 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, did you read your long post?

First let’s talke about Rehnquist, who supported segregation, voted against Brown v Board of Ed, wrote a memo to get support to disallow blacks in political primaries, fought passage of ordinance permitting blacks to enter stores and restaurants, owned property containing restrictive covenants barring the sale of his property to nonwhites and Jews, and who voted to grant Bob Jones University tax exempt status despite their not complying with Brown v Board.

He believes, according to public record, that the 10 Commandments should be displayed in every classroom of public schools, at least in Kentucky. Can we say preferance?

He has voted to uphold anti-sodomy laws, meaning he supports legislating the sexual rights of people (don’t forget, heterosexual couples sometimes participate in sodomy).

He has compared homosexuality to the measles (1978).

Looks like, at least, we have a Justice that violates that non-preferance part of of the Constitution, which, by the way, is all his dissenting view proves. That our government shall not show preference to one religion. By deduction, you cannot have something like the 10 Commandments in Law Houses without having something similar from other religions. Otherwise, it’s preference.

However, the dissenting opinion you posted did not effect the outcome of that suit, in which the Court deemed the Alabama law unconstitutional. So, while he dissented, he lost.

The constitution EXPLICITY states the government will not show preference. This means no discrimination, even Rehnquist says so. So, yes, Congress CAN open with a reading of the Scriptures. But it must also open with a reading from the Torah, the Q’uran, the Mormon Book (whatever it’s called), and some quoted by Confuscious.

Separation of Church and State is absolutely implied. So is your right to a fair trial.

By Chanel

October 19, 2004 04:24 PM | Link to this

I BELIEVE IN ABORTION AND THE DEATH PENALTY!

I AM PRO-CHOICE!

By moveon

October 19, 2004 04:36 PM | Link to this

Chanel,

That was the first resonable post in a long time. Good show..

By moveon

October 19, 2004 05:05 PM | Link to this

Chanel,

That’s a rough situation you neices are in. They seem to be lacking in the good decision making category. There is something gravely wrong with a system in which poeple are better off on welfare than off.

However, the idea that the girls would somehow be better off having aborted the children misplaces the solution. No where in any of that were the girls raped, molested, incested, or have you shown they were incapable of knowing what they were doing.

To punish the offspring (or potential offspring) is the wrong step. Why not sterilize the girls that keep making the dumb mistakes, rather than paying to terminate the unwanted pregnancies? That way, you do it once, never have to worry about it, and welfare no more begats welfare.

By surepip

October 19, 2004 05:10 PM | Link to this

If the Right wants to eliminate Abortion, are we not to assume tht Birth Control Pills will also be outlawed ?

Why won’t anyone pick up on this ? Where is the line in the sand drawn ? Hormone Birth Control pills cause a spontaneous abortion if an embryo has been conceived in the prior 2 weeks.

Are the Pro-Life people out there willing to ban birth control pills also ?

By Lyrazel

October 20, 2004 08:39 AM | Link to this

Since the debate pro-life became a tirade as expected, would like to hear from the rational ones if the right to death issue should be an issue that might influence a woman’s vote. With J.Bush’s Terry’s law in Florida overturned, does it set a president for the future president to set laws governing a person’s right to die. This issue affects voters like me much more than younger voters. I do not feel the government ought to be involved in making such decisions for me, but an ultra conservative judge’s appointment to the Supreme Court could change laws preventing this right. Does this issue concern any other voters at all?

By Randy

October 20, 2004 08:45 AM | Link to this

Abortion is murder of the innocent. I don’t know how you could live with yourself, if you abort a beautiful baby.

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 08:45 AM | Link to this

Jennifer, I realize what happened in that case. My point for cutting and pasting this was to reply to your cut and paste version of Separation of Church and State. Rehnquist, a Supreme Court Justice is certainly more versed in the Constitution than either you or myself. Clearly his views on the constitution and the Separation of Church and State are worth merit. Which is why I posted them in the first place. The fact that he supported segregation, or any of his other views for that matter, is not the argument here. As far as preference is concerned, that is unavoidable given your argument. If Congress were required to open with a reading from every religion where would the line be drawn for every claim for a “new” religion that came to Congress? How far do we take this debate then? Should we prevent elected officials from practicing their faith while they are in office under the guise of Separation? That has actually been suggested. One cannot separate oneself from ones faith though. Either you believe in it, which means you also live it and use it to make EVERY decision in your life or it’s there for gain such as John Kerry. John Kerry claims to be Catholic yet supports abortion and gay rights both of which are against the teaching of the Church. This is not new in the Church these teachings have been there for hundreds of years. The two roles then are incompatible. Jennifer your arguments are lucid and well thought and I enjoy your point of view, but at this point I suggest we same ourselves some work and agree to disagree on this topic. It seems as though the long posts are to much for some people to deal with.

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 08:57 AM | Link to this

Boscoe- My point exactly!!!

Why are Americans adopting children from overseas when there are thousands of children here that need a home? African-American children, Hispanic children, Caucasian children, Asian Children, all born here in the US and raised in the foster care system.

Everyone’s railing against abortions, but NO ONE said anything about re-vamping the system of adoption to help these children get adopted. The truth is that most people want a fresh, clean, newborns.

The older children are left to rot in the system until they turn 18, at which time they are given the very least to survive on their own.

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 09:12 AM | Link to this

Akeya, how does fixing the adoption policies in this country effect abortion? Do you mean to imply that if every child were adopted in this country woman would stop having abortions? That is highly doubtful. It’s funny, people who support abortion are convinced that the child would just end up on welfare. Ludicrous considering the numbers of upper and middle class woman getting abortions. At the heart of the ‘culture of death mentality’ is the notion that the unwanted child is an evil, Instead of being viewed as a blessing from God, the child is considered as a good only insofar as he conforms to the convenience of the parents. This is probably the first generation in the history of mankind which is being told that the child itself is the evil, and a menace to the human race.

By Tracy

October 20, 2004 09:17 AM | Link to this

Tracy- You’re absolutely correct. Birth control is less expensive.

However, if you re-read my post, you’ll see that my debate was NOT that birth control is not cheap compared to raising a child.

What’s your point?

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 09:30 AM | Link to this

sigh

My argument was not about abortion. It was about the fact that it’s extremely difficult to adopt children here. It’s a lot easier for newborns to be adopted than it is for older children.

And the fact of the matter is that no, not all children end up on welfare. Most of the children on welfare are living with their biological parents.

By Angie

October 20, 2004 09:43 AM | Link to this

Terri’s Law was mentioned and I would like to comment. Terri Schaivo is NOT in a coma with her eyes shut and showing no signs of life. She is fully awake and recognizes her parents and siblings. She smiles and breathes on her own. Her parents and brothers and sisters all want her to recover and to live. However, her estranged husband wants her to die. He has been living with another woman for over 10 years. He did not decide to have her feeding tube removed until after she was awarded over a million dollars from her doctors. Hmmm…funny the coincidence there! The only thing the judge that ordered her feeding tube removed had to go on was the WORD of this man. He said she had told him she wouldn’t want to be kept alive. What are his motives? The million dollars? He’s been living with another woman and has gotten on with his life. Why must he end hers? Greed? It certainly isn’t love. She is not a vegetable or in a coma. She is definitely impaired but does that mean she deserves to die? Her family wants her to live. The fact that Terri’s Law was overturned makes me sick to my stomach.

What if any one of you were in this situation. You are not 100% normal but alive and recognize your family and children. Your husband left you 10 years ago to go live with another woman. You have $1,000,000 in the bank that could legally go to your husband upon your death. Do you really want that man to be able to go to a judge a say ,”well, she TOLD me she wouldn’t want to live this way”?

Think about it. I saw video of Terri at the pro-life convention and heard her mother and brother speak about her condition. The fact that this estranged husband is going to be able to take her life away-and her money-makes me sick. It should scare the living daylights out of every person out there!

By Mara

October 20, 2004 09:47 AM | Link to this

Hey Boscoe. I was interested in you using the word “justify” in regard to my religious beliefs and abortion. My faith informs my views but I have no need to “justify” them. My faith ALLOWS abortion. As for why my views aren’t as vilified as others, well, I don’t think that I have any right to tell another how to care for themselves, unlike many others. I think that God will judge, and it’s not up to me to take away someones choice to do what I may find personally or morally repugnant. I believe that if all Christians spent as much effort doing the things God tells us to do as we do trying to make sure our neighbor isn’t doing anything God says not to do, well, things would be a lot better in the world.

By WendyG

October 20, 2004 10:07 AM | Link to this

Shaunti Feldhahn, you need to check your numbers. According to a poll done in MAY 2004 by ABC News/Washington Post, 23% of adults nationwide think that abortion should be legal in all cases and 31% in most cases. In addition, a MAY 2004 poll performed for CBS News found that 36% of of registered voters think that abortion should be generally available and another 37% think abortion should be available under stricter conditions. Finally, FOX News found that 44% of registered voters consider themselves pro-choice on the issue of abortion.

So you argue that these numbers don’t completely reflect her comment that “the majority of women have moved to a position that abortion should only be available for reasons of rape, incest or the life of the mother – if then.” Well, a November 2003 poll done for NBC News/Wall Street Journal found that 53% of adults nationwide think that The choice on abortion should be left up to the woman and her doctor while only 29% believe that Abortion should be legal only in cases in which pregnancy results from rape or incest or when the life of the woman is at risk. I don’t know about you, but 29% is a long way of the majority. From the manner in which these data are presented, there is no reason to believe that women differed significantly from men.

All of these polls can be found at PollingReport.com.

Shaunti Feldhahn, shame on you for using fuzzy math.

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 10:09 AM | Link to this

Mara does God tell you it’s OK to detroy a child? How do you know God hasn’t told Christains to defend against this crime? Your Faith allows abortions mine does not. We can’t both be right.

By Pam

October 20, 2004 10:20 AM | Link to this

Oh my gosh, I was going to go to bed early last night and ended up staying awake an hour and a half later to read all this. Well, I’m brand new but I’m going to put my two cents in. First, I’m pro-choice, for a variety of reasons I’m not going to go into just now, many people have already eloquently explained my position.

What I find interesting is the contradiction between the conservative belief in a small government (championed by our illustrious president), which would limit federal interference in our day-to-day lives, and the conservative belief in making abortion and gay marriage illegal. Seems to me like people are trying to have it both ways. I think it was Boscoe who correctly pointed out, in reference to the separation of church and state, that many of the framers of the Constitution were opposed to a Bill of Rights. This is because they believed that the Constitution clearly laid out all of the federal government’s power and anything not contained therein was automatically a right. They believed the Bill of Rights was counterproductive because it could suggest that anything not in it could be controlled by the government. Sometimes I think I see their point.

But at any rate, technically, by failing to mention abortion, the Constitution essentially guarantees it as a federal right, short of a constitutional amendment. Now, as we all agree I think, the Constitution itself was written expressly to lay out the powers of the government in order to protect Americans from tyranny, so any constitutional amendment banning something (gay marriage, for example), goes entirely against the purpose of it in the first place. I would think opponents of big government would champion the limitation of federal interference in their lives. Funny how that’s the case in everything but some of the most personal issues of all, such as marriage and abortion.

Of course, I happen to think relying too heavily on the Constitution is rather dangerous. This is the same document, after all, that at one point sanctioned slavery, albeit indirectly. A lot changes in 200 years, and we have to account for that. I’m also not entirely opposed to a bigger government, anyway. The government, in my opinion, is here to help people, and the idea of it as an evil seems somewhat outdated. Contrary to what President Bush said in the last debate, our health care system is NOT the envy of the rest of the world. Europeans look on in disbelief as the wealthiest country in the world (not counting that huge deficit) is unable to provide health care to its entire population. Government-run health care is working just fine throughout the Western world and none of those countries has turned communist (or at least, not yet…….). If the government wants to pay my health bills, fine by me. If it wants to raise my taxes a tiny bit to do that, fantastic. Without health insurance I pay $350 per month for a necessary medication so a slight tax increase would probably help me. But that’s besides the point.

I also want to ask one big question to the conservatives out there, because this really is something I honestly don’t understand. Moral issues aside (cause I don’t think our religious values should determine laws), what exactly IS the problem with gay marriage? Who is it hurting? How is marriage between a man and a woman endangered by it? Are you actually concerned men and women will stop getting married because MORE members of the population are joining them? Please explain why this is such a huge issue that for the first time in this nation’s history, other than Prohibition which completely failed, government should take away rights rather than grant them…

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 10:21 AM | Link to this

Akeya, I believe you said this in an earlier post.Before you preach on the evils of abortion, go to an adoption agency and adopt 203 children who are 7 years and older. It is harder to place children of African descent. Have you adopted any children today? This has been a constant defense against those who wish to see abortion stopped. Now your comments on adoption have nothing to do with abortion? You are a good dancer.

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 10:31 AM | Link to this

Boscoe-

NO, the comment of yours to which I responded did not have to do with abortion. I was not referring to abortion at that point.

I was wondering why it seems that no one is fighting to see that Americans are more readily abel to adopt children here in America.

The abortion argument was not my concern in that post.

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 10:35 AM | Link to this

Pam, how is being gay a right? There is no evidence proving people are born that way such as the color of one’s skin. The only reasonable explanation has to do with the environmental factors which leads one to make this choice. To answer your question then. More and more people are being born out-of-wedlock. Many first born children have unmarried parents. This trend increase as we get closer to allowing gay marriage. Same-sex marriage has locked in and reinforced an existing trend toward the separation of marriage and parenthood. More precisely, it has further undermined the institution. The separation of marriage from parenthood was increasing; gay marriage has widened the separation. Out-of-wedlock birthrates were rising; gay marriage has added to the factors pushing those rates higher. Instead of encouraging a society-wide return to marriage, gay marriage has driven home the message that marriage itself is outdated, and that virtually any family form, including out-of-wedlock parenthood, is acceptable. This is bad. The importance of the traditional family has been increasingly verified by research showing that children from married two-parent households do better academically, financially, emotionally, and behaviorally. They delay sex longer, have better health, and receive more parental support. This is good. I hope that helps you understand.

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 10:38 AM | Link to this

Now, back to the two subjects together.

I’ve heard the tired argument about women who want abortions shouldn’t have one because they can give the baby up for adoption.

I fail to understand if those who are anti-choice are just using this issue as an argument, or if they are really concerned about the welfare of the children which result from unwanted pregnancies.

I made the comment about those opposed to abortion adopting because I feel that if you are truly concerned about the children, then take the responsibility that the biological parents obviously didn’t want, couldn’t afford, or aren’t capable of handling.

I don’t think that the children are a concern at all. I think the entire argument is just about who’s right or worng according to what his/her god said (says).

By moveon

October 20, 2004 10:40 AM | Link to this

Pam,

You asked “What exactly IS the problem with gay marriage?”

States that have legalized gay marriage are fighting to include homosexual sexual relations as a part of ‘health’ class as early as elementary school. Rather than ‘sex-ed’ being about disease, pregnancy and how a body works, they are trying to push through curriculum to “normalize” (their words) the gay lifestyle. There are teachers Jr. High’s already asking their students the question, “Can a lesbian couple have intercourse?” The students say ‘no’ and the teacher corrects them, instructing them how two women use their hands, dildos, etc, to achieve penetration.

The question is, how and where do you draw the line?

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 10:40 AM | Link to this

Once again,

Out-of-wedlock births are the result of HETEROSEXUAL parents. What does that have to do with gay marriage.

Please explain a direct correlation?

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 10:45 AM | Link to this

Moveon-

I think that the line should be drawn for gay as well as straight couples.

I don’t want my son learning about HOW to have sex from school. I am very open minded, and when the time comes, as his parent, I will be responsible for telling him what I think is appropriate for his age and intelligence.

They shouldn’t be teaching HOW people have sex to elem and jr high students, anyway-gay or straight sex.

By moveon

October 20, 2004 10:48 AM | Link to this

Akeya,

Good question. Pam decided to bring up the question of gay marriage and it was being addressed. I don’t know why she decided to do that in a discussion of abortion, ask her.

By BJ

October 20, 2004 10:49 AM | Link to this

Hi Surepip,

I understand your frustration and you would have a great argument on your hands, but the birth control pill does not work that way. It keeps a woman from ovulating (producing an egg from the ovary)— so no egg, nothing to fertilize….no embryo!

The pill you are talking about is the RU486 or “morning after pill” which is very controversial for all the same reasons as abortion.

By moveon

October 20, 2004 10:51 AM | Link to this

Akeya,

I totally agree with you on that one. Health class should be about health, not how to do things. They’ve never taught technique or style on the heterosexual sex front, and I don’t think they should teach it for gay or straight either. Unfortunatly, there are people who argue that if gay marriage is legal, then they have the right to “educate” kids about gay sex.

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 10:53 AM | Link to this

Akeya, The push for gay rights and gay marriage added to the factors that pushed those rates higher by reinforcing the message that marriage is outdated and any family style will do. Homosexual activists have admitted their goal is to minimize the importance of the traditional family. In the early nineties, gay marriage came to the Nordic countries. Ten years later, out-of-wedlock birth rates have risen significantly. Not coincidentally, nearly every country in that group has recently either legalized some form of gay marriage, or is seriously considering doing so. Only in the group with low out-of-wedlock birthrates has the gay marriage movement achieved relatively little success. This suggests that gay marriage is both an effect and a cause of the increasing separation between marriage and parenthood. As rising out-of-wedlock birthrates disassociate heterosexual marriage from parenting, gay marriage becomes conceivable. If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, and is not intrinsically connected to parenthood, why shouldn’t same-sex couples be allowed to marry? It follows that once marriage is redefined to accommodate same-sex couples, that change cannot help but lock in and reinforce the very cultural separation between marriage and parenthood that makes gay marriage conceivable to begin with.

FYI - See The Uniform Adoption Act of 1994 to answer your other question.

By Angie

October 20, 2004 10:54 AM | Link to this

Great point moveon!

You start with legalized marraige and then move on to changing what is taught in schools to impressionable children. The gay community apparently wants children to be raised thinking gay is normal and they are not to question it.

Keep in mind I do not care what 2 people do behind closed doors. But I DO NOT want their “lifestyle” taught in school or anywhere else to MY children. Public schools should never be allowed to promote their agenda. I can’t afford private school for my child so we will rely on the public school system.

I do not want my child taught about lesbians in school! That may make me a hateful bigot in some of your eyes but I don’t care.

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 10:59 AM | Link to this

BJ, the RU486 pill and the “Morning After Pill” are two different things. Morning after pills, or “emergency contraception,” are essentially very high, multiple dosages of birth control pills taken within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse.While there have been some limited tests of RU486 as a morning after pill, with mixed results, the only purpose for which the U.S. sponsor has sought government approval is for use to abort a confirmed pregnancy weeks after the baby has already attached himself or herself to the uterine wall.

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 11:08 AM | Link to this

RU486 and MAP are not the same.

RU 486 is used when you are actually pregnant. You take the pills at home which causes you to miscarry.

MAP is used up to 72 hours after intercourse to prevent pregnancy.

The “sanctity” of marriage is threatened by fly-by-night divorces, and also by the fact that perhaps marriage is not as sun-shiney as it seemed in the past.

The goal is not to minimize the importance of the “traditional” family as it is to maximize the importance of ALL families. When you denigrate anything that is not a “traditional” family, you are calling families headed by grandparents, uncles, aunts, or other extended family members unimportant.

In addition, I want my child to be aware that families are unique and different. I want him to learn about different kinds of families, but not about how they have sex (gay or straight). That’s going a bit far.

By Pam

October 20, 2004 11:22 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, Thanks for the explanation. If you say that there are studies proving the correlation, I’d like to see them. I think there may be a lot of reasons why children are born of out of wedlock that have nothing to do with gay marriage. One thought that comes to mind is that people are having more and more trouble finding a partner they love, the high rate of divorce makes the idea of marriage seem significantly less stable, and as women become financially able to support themselves, they may choose to have the children they desperately want in an alternative way. I don’t think outlawing gay marriage would change any of that.

Sorry, moveon, I did drag gay marriage into a discussion about abortion (not that this blog has been limited to that entirely anyway), but the issues do seem connected in a lot of ways. For example, if gay couples were allowed to marry and have children in stable, two-parent households, just think of how many more of those unwanted children could be adopted, lessening the need for abortion! No, no just kidding. I apologize sincerely for making this blog even more contentious than it already was…

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 11:22 AM | Link to this

Akeya, I respectfully disagree. It is not the intention of homosexual activists simply to make it possible for homosexuals and lesbians to partake of conventional married life. By their own admission they aim to change the essential character of marriage, removing precisely the aspects of fidelity and chastity that promote stability in the relationship and the home: Paula Ettelbrick, former legal director of the Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, has stated, “Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so… . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family, and in the process transforming the very fabric of society.” According to homosexual writer and activist Michelangelo Signorile, the goal of homosexuals is: To fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution… . The most subversive action lesbian and gay men can undertake … is to transform the notion of “family” entirely.

By Pam

October 20, 2004 11:27 AM | Link to this

By the way, not all gay couples want to subvert society or alter an archaic institution. Some of them just want to partake of the joy and the rights that we straight couples enjoy and take for granted.

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 11:37 AM | Link to this

Boscoe-

I do not believe that the words of the FORMER legal director of Lambda Legal Defense accounts for how ALL homosexuals feel.

That’s ridiculous.

How many homosexual couples do you know personally who would like to get married? As a matter of fact, how many homosexual couples do you know?

And what’s wrong with marriage being defined as two people who genuinely love each other and want to continue their lives together as opposed to marriage being between someone with a p*** and the other with a v****, regardless of how they feel about each other.

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 11:38 AM | Link to this

Pam, you never answered my earlier question. How is being gay a Right?

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 11:43 AM | Link to this

I don’t think the question should be rather or not being gas is “right”. What’s “right” is relative.

I think the question should be “Is this person’s sexual preference directly my business?”

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 11:50 AM | Link to this

Well Akeya, since the Lambda Legal Defense organization is one of the staunchest gay rights advocates and has one of the largest support groups I think their opinion accounts for a large portion of their population. If you can’t substantiate the love of a male and female in a traditional relationship that ends in divorce how can you define it for gay couples who generally have a wider range of partners with shorter duration relationships. Even “committed” homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage.

By Pam

October 20, 2004 11:55 AM | Link to this

Boscoe, sorry about that. If I did say being gay is a “right” I misspoke; it isn’t a right, any more than being straight is a “right.” It’s simply a way of being. I don’t think it’s a choice, there are too many people who have struggled against their own homosexuality, and whose lives have been ruined by it (take NJ’s governor McGreevey, for example). By that argument, you could say that heterosexuality is also the result of environmental factors. I don’t think either is the case. And before anyone quotes Scripture to me to prove that heterosexuality is good and homosexuality is bad, please bear in mind that for hundreds of years people justified slavery by going straight to the Bible.

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 11:58 AM | Link to this

Boscoe-

How many committed homosexual couples do you know personally?

By Brian Curtis

October 20, 2004 12:05 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: A question about your concerns for “traditional marriage being tied to parenthood.”

Does that mean that childless couples should be outlawed as well as gay marriages? My fiancee and I have decided not to have children… so aren’t we as much of a threat to the “traditional marriage/parenting connection” as a gay couple?

If not, why not?

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 12:05 PM | Link to this

How many COMMITTED homosexual couples do I know? None, I think committed homosexual couples is a bit of an oxy moron. Why do you ask Akeya? Is there a quantifying criteria in which I must meet before I am allowed to speak about it?

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 12:10 PM | Link to this

Boscoe-

It’s not an oxy moron. I do understand that because you don’t agree with it you will find things to “prove” your point.

The reason why I asked if you knew any is because I feel that if you don’t know personally someone in the situation you are against, you may not get information from all sides.

You can speak all you want, but the fact of the matter is that you don’t agree with it, thus, your opinions and ideas about the situation are biased.

By Cat

October 20, 2004 12:23 PM | Link to this

Funny how it’s OK for men to kill born children, even their own, even children they’ve injured, by refusing them a pint of blood - something that demands ten minutes of time and a pinprick. Born children just aren’t precious enough to be able to co-opt other people’s body parts against their will. But if a woman wants to refuse a fetus nine months of labor as a life-support machine, at great cost to her in energy, time and pain, even at the potential risk of her life, she’s a monster. And this, according to Boscoe Roads, even if she was raped and therefore never even gave an implicit consent to pregnancy by having wilful sex (not that implicit consents are ever acceptable - or irrevocable - when it comes to co-opting anyone else’s body for the benefit of another. A man can explicitly agree to donate bone marrow - and then change his mind on a whim, after the potential recipient has been placed on immune suppressant drugs that will kill them unless they get an immediate donation.)

As for gay marriage, however irrelevant… With respect to the idea that gay marriage disassociates marriage from parenting, it does suggest that parenting is not necessary for marriage. If this weren’t already true, we’d bar post-menopausal women and the infertile from marriage, as well as people who are incompetent to raise children (say, people previously convicted of child abuse). Gay marriage, however, does NOTHING WHATSOEVER to say that MARRIAGE is not necessary for PARENTING. Indeed, by barring gay parents from marriage, you yourself suggest that. The trends in the Nordic countries towards unmarried cohabitation (though couples with children usually do eventually marry) began long before gay marriage was even thought of. Indeed, the trends have slowed or even in some countries reversed in the years since gay marriage (or domestic partnership, rather) was legalized. (No, really, check the FACTS, heterosexual marriage has increased, not decreased, in most Scandinavian countries in recent years.)

Yes, the “traditional” nuclear family has been changing, everywhere in the West, no doubt about that, and yes, this change includes more cohabitation and more gay rights, and many other changes. It’s ridiculous to argue that gay marriage causes cohabitation, though - the two are correlated along with a number of other changes to the family structure, some positive, some negative. Changes in marriage are related to changes in the larger society, towards democracy and individual freedom. Some of these changes include the (relatively novel and shocking) idea that marriage is a love match, chosen by the participants, rather than an economic or political deal arranged by their families. These changes also include the idea that women should marry in their twenties rather than their teens, and should legally remain individual people with the right to own property, rather than property themselves. They also include the idea that a husband does not have a right to beat his wife for her own good - this used to be considered not his right, but his DUTY. They also include the idea that marriages sponsored by churches other than the established church should be recognized as legal. The changes that have happened to family life (and to the larger society) over the past couple centuries are huge, and in some cases some of the changes have problematic social consequences (I would say that increased single parenting is one of these). No dramatic cultural changes are ever entirely positive. But in most cases, the changes are healthy, and good for marriage and family as a whole, and needed to happen (I LIKE having a husband I chose, at a mature and responsible age, who treats me as a full partner, companion and friend - it makes my marriage healthier, stronger and better). Gay marriage is one of the healthy, good parts of these changes, and can help to counter, not increase, some of the problems caused by the unhealthy parts (by providing secure families to the children of gays, or to adoptive children who would otherwise be trapped in foster care, for example, and by giving an example of a group of people who value marriage enough to fight for it).
Not all changes to tradition are bad.

And as for arguing that chosen lifestyles don’t deserve civil rights protection, I would remind you that Christianity is a chosen lifestyle. (So is the choice to belong to a sect of Christianity that chooses to focus on Levitical purity laws rather than Christ’s messages of grace and forgiveness and love-thy-neighbor. At least, focusing on Levitical purity laws that don’t tempt you - somehow the ones against shrimp or the ones requiring menstrual seclusion are “outdated”.) I find it immoral and perverted to believe that God sadistically tortures the majority of his “beloved” children, forever and ever, for crimes that we less-“all-merciful” mortals find petty and arbitrary (like falling in love with the wrong person, failing to believe a particular piece of dogma, being raised in the “wrong” faith and not converting, etc…)? And then to believe that this arbitrary and sadistic God should be fawned on and flattered, in hopes that you will be one of the precious few he decides to favor and bless while your neighbors and kin scream in agony forever and ever? Why should I be forced to tolerate your lifestyle by allowing you the right to practice your faith publicly and even have government sanction it with, for example, tax-exempt status or the right to perform legally-recognized marriages/

By Pam

October 20, 2004 12:26 PM | Link to this

Considering that I think about 80% of men commit adultery in marriage — I don’t know the numbers of women, although I believe they are also fairly high — I think you could say a committed heterosexual relationship is also a bit of an oxy moron.

By Cat

October 20, 2004 12:28 PM | Link to this

How is being gay a right? Because, in this country, we have the right to live as we choose as long as we don’t interfere with someone else’s right to do so. That’s fairly standard. The Supreme Court has decided, years ago in Loving vs. Virginia, that consenting adults had the right to marry the consenting adult of their choice without government interference. How would you like to be denied this right?

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 12:32 PM | Link to this

CAT-

I enjoyed reading your post.

I think that you articulated things that I couldn’t and it’s nice to have a fresh viewpoint.

BRIAN CURTIS and PAM- good points, also!

By Lyrazel

October 20, 2004 12:37 PM | Link to this

“In the early nineties, gay marriage came to the Nordic countries. Ten years later, out-of-wedlock birth rates have risen significantly.” What do those surly socialist scandinavians have to with my vote, Boscoe? Do you believe they are promoting a gay-lifestyle agenda and are influencing Americans with it?

Angie, thanks for a reply but I would hardly call a vegatative state as being alert or healthy. I dont feel any governor ought to have intruded on a family medical issue. The husband understood his wife’s feelings and probably is not in it for the money and from what I have read there is no million dollar policy. Personally I dont want the state to decide if I ought live or when I should die. I am more an advocate of less government. I guess its a non-issue for most folks.

By Pam

October 20, 2004 12:51 PM | Link to this

I feel this need to apologize, again, for bringing gay marriage into this discussion, although I am quite enjoying the debate. I was really just curious to hear the other side of the gay marriage question, because everyone had been talking about constitutional and separation of church and state issues. I didn’t mean to start a whole new topic. Oops! Next time I’ll watch my mouth (or fingers, whatever).

By moveon

October 20, 2004 01:12 PM | Link to this

Cat,

Your arguments about Christianity are pretty funny. Your idea of an “arbitrary and sadistic God” would have me laughing if it wasn’t so sad.

I’m going to assume that you don’t agree with my position, and making a case in a post-modern, relativistic society is pretty difficult because people dismiss the argument as ‘not their truth’ but my ‘truth’ and go right along with their point of view.

What is arbitrary or sadistic about the creator of the universe and Supreme Being laying out the way to salvation and saying that it’s the only way?

Do you accuse the Department of Transportation for being arbitrary and sadistic when they tell you the only freeway from Atlanta to Chattanooga is I-75? They paved the interstate and set the routes, it’s your choice to believe that I-85 will take you there, but guess what, it won’t.

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 01:20 PM | Link to this

Hmmm…

The Creator versus man-made highways..

Now that’s funny!

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 01:24 PM | Link to this

Akeya, then I could say you are biased in your pro-choice stance. Of course I’m biased I’m against it! CAT, I suppose you’re correct when you say a MAN can walk away from a life saving operation except 1500000 men are not walking away from these operations EVERY YEAR!. It’s true that in Denmark, as elsewhere in Scandinavia, divorce numbers looked better in the nineties. But that’s because the pool of married people has been shrinking for some time. You can’t divorce without first getting married. Moreover, a closer look at Danish divorce in the post-gay marriage decade reveals disturbing trends. Many Danes have stopped holding off divorce until their kids are grown. And Denmark in the nineties saw a 25 percent increase in cohabiting couples with children. With fewer parents marrying, what used to show up in statistical tables as early divorce is now the unrecorded breakup of a cohabiting couple with children.. Euro stat’s just-released marriage rates for 2003 show declines in Sweden and Denmark (Norway hasn’t reported).* Gay marriage is one of the healthy, good parts of these changes, and can help to counter, not increase, some of the problems caused by the unhealthy parts (by providing secure families to the children of gays, or to adoptive children who would otherwise be trapped in foster care, for example* CAT tell that to this kid. In 1990, Wayne Tardiff and his partner, Allan Yoder, were the first homosexuals permitted to become adoptive parents in the state of New Jersey. Tardiff died in 1992 at age forty-four; Yoder died a few months later, leaving an orphaned five-year-old. As far as your viewpoint on Christianity …nobody is saying you have to do any of that. But you should learn more about it before you make such moronic remarks. But then again what do you expect from someone who would say this They also include the idea that a husband does not have a right to beat his wife for her own good - this used to be considered not his right, but his DUTY Pam Lest anyone suffer the illusion that any equivalency between the sexual practices of homosexual relationships and traditional marriage exists, the statistics regarding sexual fidelity within marriage are revealing: In Sex in America, called by the New York Times “the most important study of American sexual behavior since the Kinsey reports,” Robert T. Michael et al. report that 90 percent of wives and 75 percent of husbands claim never to have had extramarital sex. A nationally representative survey of 884 men and 1,288 women published in Journal of Sex Research found that 77 percent of married men and 88 percent of married women had remained faithful to their marriage vows. While the rate of fidelity within marriage cited by these studies remains far from ideal, there is a magnum order of difference between the negligible lifetime fidelity rate cited for homosexuals and the 75 to 90 percent cited for married couples. This indicates that even “committed” homosexual relationships display a fundamental incapacity for the faithfulness and commitment that is axiomatic to the institution of marriage. CAT Loving vs. Virginia, concerns interracial marriage not gay marriage. Lyrazel SCANDINAVIA has long been a bellwether of family change. Scholars take the experience as a prototype for family developments that will, or could, spread throughout the world.

By moveon

October 20, 2004 01:26 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

Glad you liked it. I always try to break it down like that. People generally don’t argue with street directions, but always have a problem with the eternal ones.

By Angie

October 20, 2004 01:32 PM | Link to this

As to the Schiavo case: Lyrazel stated, “I dont feel any governor ought to have intruded on a family medical issue.”

The FAMILY wants Terri to LIVE. The estranged husband does not.

Lyrazel stated,”from what I have read there is no million dollar policy.”

I’m not talking about a life insurance policy. According to her own mother she was awarded the money from a malpractice suit.

Last quote,”I dont want the state to decide if I ought live or when I should die.”

So, if your entire family and children want you alive but the husband whom you haven’t seen in 10 years wants you dead that’s okay with you?

Understand, I’m not talking about people having a written living will. The judge is simply taking the WORD of a man who has various motives.

We’re going to end someone’s life because of the WORD of another person?

If I don’t want to be kept alive unless I am fully functional then I will have a living will stating this-so can you. But when there is no such documentation how can we take this man’s word?

I believe we should protect life-not take it.

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 01:38 PM | Link to this

Street directions can be more finite. Either you can get here this way or you can’t.

There are many different religions, all touting that getting to heaven (or some equivalent), can only be done by their way (which differs with the religion).

By Lyrazel

October 20, 2004 01:42 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, does a declining birth rate in Scandinavia have anything to do with your theories? As for it being a standard by which other countries decide public policy I would say: not in America. We tend to be snooty individualists who support capitalist profit over social services. Is being gay a right defended by the constitution?

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 01:43 PM | Link to this

How can you effectively argue a point if you cannot even see the other side?

Also, the argument about what has happened in other countries in regards to gay marriage is moot.

Once again, Americans believing that everyone thinks and acts like us…

When will Americans learn that other people from other countries have different cultures, values, toughts, ideas..

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 01:47 PM | Link to this

You can get many different directions as well, but they won’t all get you to where you are going.

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 01:51 PM | Link to this

Lyrazel Is being gay a right defended by the constitution? NO! Akeya,advocates of gay marriage want to test it in a few states. The implication is that, should the experiment go bad, we can call it off. Yet the effects, even in a few American states, will be neither containable nor revocable. It took about 15 years after the change hit Sweden and Denmark for Norway’s out-of-wedlock birthrate to begin to move from “European” to “Nordic” levels. It took another 15 years (and the advent of gay marriage) for Norway’s out-of-wedlock birthrate to shoot past even Denmark’s. By the time we see the effects of gay marriage in America, it will be too late to do anything about it. Yet we needn’t wait that long. In effect, Scandinavia has run our experiment for us. The results are in.

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 02:00 PM | Link to this

Once again….

We cannot compare ourselves to other countries who have different cultures and values..

sheesh…

By Pam

October 20, 2004 02:12 PM | Link to this

Boscoe,

Thanks for the info on the rate of infidelity in marriages. Apparently my source was completely wrong, and although I disagree with you about most everything else, since I’ve been considering my current boyfriend as a potential husband, your statistics give me great hope.

I do know plenty of successful gay partnerships, however. Perhaps the reason gay couples are less faithful in general has something to do with the fact that they have no legal impetus to be so. And divorce rates among married couples are, as I understand, still extremely high. My understanding is that 40% of women born in the 1970s, which includes me, will have a divorce (although my sources, obviously, maybe be completely wrong again!!). So should women born in the 1970s not be allowed to get married? Perhaps the way out for gay couples is infidelity and the way out for straight couples is divorce. Neither is laudable, but neither group should be forbidden to marry because of statistics.

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 02:12 PM | Link to this

Why can’t we? What is different about what took place over that wouldn’t happen here. I don’t have to be gay to recognize the dangers it brings. I do know gay people with myriads of drug abuse problems because this behavior has taken over their life. The one common factor shared between every gay person I know is that they all came from broken abusive homes. A key environmental factor that has affected their behavior.

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 02:18 PM | Link to this

Pam, I’m not trying to force my religion on you but look at the defenition given the family… In the 1981 Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio, Pope John Paul II summarized the importance of marriage-based families: The family has vital and organic links with society since it is its foundation and nourishes it continually through its role of service to life: It is from the family that citizens come to birth and it is within the family that they find the first school of the social virtues that are the animating principle of the existence and development of society itself. None of this is possible in homosexual or lesbian households, which are by definition incapable of creating progeny and contributing to the “procreation of the human race.” Any children found in such households are of necessity obtained either from married couples or otherwise through the sexual union of male and female, artificially or otherwise. Thus such households are ironically dependent upon the very womb of societyâ€â€?the union of male and femaleâ€â€?that they wish so fervently to deny. In It Takes a Village, Hillary Rodham Clinton refers, perhaps inadvertently, to indelible “laws of nature” when she observes that “every society requires a critical mass of families that fit the traditional ideal.” Similarly, an organism needs a critical mass of healthy cells to survive, andâ€â€?as every oncologist knowsâ€â€?the fewer abnormal cells the better.

By Mr. Sagacious

October 20, 2004 02:19 PM | Link to this

This debate does show how large the divides are in this country. The differences on abortion are not really the root of the divide. The real divide in this country is between the orientations of religious fundamentalism and more moderate, perhaps secular, approaches. Unfortunately, those approaches are not equally viable.

Fundamentalist religion is a belief system based on dogma and the suppression of open thought. It has been with us forever. Societies and government based on reasoning and open-mindedness are a far more recent phenomenon. In fact, the US was one of the first such societies. But it has proven to be a fragile construction. Of course, religion is not the only area where dogma is accepted.

The Bush presidency represents the rise of ignorance, propaganda, fear-mongering, etc - all of those traits that the vast majority of our founders would have found abhorent. The Bush team caters to and encourages the kind of expressions that have been revealed herein. It is several steps back from where we should be as a progressive, liberal thinking nation.

By moveon

October 20, 2004 02:23 PM | Link to this

Pam,

It’s not about fidelity, or divorce. Did you read my posts about the teaching of homosexual sex in Jr. High’s? The idea that allowing gay marriage will ‘normalize’ it and therefore precede the open teaching of the related sex acts is considered by advocates (likely the most extreme of them) as the logical next step.

I don’t know if you agree with teaching a 12 or 13 year old how two women can use a dildo to have intercourse, but that’s what we are talking about here.

To allow ‘civil unions’ would give the same legal protection and property rights, while acknowledging that the relationship between two men, or two women is in fact inherently different than between a man and a woman. It doesn’t bother me what someone does at their house; it bothers me what is being forced into the public school system.

For what its worth, I know a number of gay people and gay couples, and the rate of healthy vs. unhealthy relationships works out to be about the same from my truly random sample.

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 02:26 PM | Link to this

Mr. Sagacious, could you explain how religion suprreses thought. I don’t think I’ve heard that before and I would like to learn more. Doesn’t Kerry do that too?

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 02:26 PM | Link to this

Boscoe-

I know straight people wih myriads of drug abuse problems and also straight people from broken, abusive homes.

That’s not true for all straight people and it’s also not true for all gay people.

You’re still not proving anything…

By Pam

October 20, 2004 02:31 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, not one SINGLE gay person I know comes from an abusive household and I know a lot!! And there are thousands of children from abusive households who don’t end up being gay, and plenty of people who are not gay with massive drug problems. Even if you’re right and a person becomes gay because they were abused as a child, does that mean they should be punished for circumstances beyond their control and forbidden to find love in the one place that they can?

For that matter, if the increase of out-of-wedlock children is due to the increase of gay marriages, should gay people themselves be held accountable? Can unmarried straight people go around saying it’s not my fault for having children out of marriage, blame homosexuals, not me? This should be a society where everyone’s welfare is of equal importance, where no one’s right to happiness should be sacrificed for anyone else’s, and where people should take responsibility for their own lives rather than basing their happiness on the backs of others!

By Lyrazel

October 20, 2004 02:34 PM | Link to this

Thank you Angie. I will say your heart is in the right place. I have read Mr. Schiavo trained to be a radiologist so he could be closer to his wife during those 10 years of her hospitalization. There was no ‘move out of the house’ as she was in a coma and hospitalized. The couple was awarded 1mil in 1990 (I didnt know) but her further medical bills have probobly left nothing of it. Also from 1990-2003 she was hospitalized, he has never filed for divorse nor did she. Seems a lot of the problem is between husband and her parents now. Ok, I still dont want some government official telling me I have to be on life-support. Its my decision and that of my husband. Yet, you know what terrifies me more than state-enforced life? It is being elderly in a hospital and some insurance official comes in and says: Since you dont have insurance, you have no business being here. You go find someplace else to hang out until you die. I am very wishy-washy as to when and if the government should step in for indigent care…see?

Boscoe, you must think I am picking on you, pardon if I seem rude, but I dont get how Scandinavian policy is influencing Americans…(our teens cant even name all Scandinavian countries muchless speak Norwegian…but most Scandinavians teens can speak English…btw) I would have to say China factors in more America…and it leads me to another question: if China enforses manditory abortion policy after the first child is born, why do conservative groups not petition this conservative president to cease trade until this policy is ended? How can a person with high godly morals about abortion buy goods made in China but not feel guilty that they are actually supporting abortion overseas. (Support=buying goods) Curious…just curious…cheap shoes=cheap values.

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 02:36 PM | Link to this

Akeya, you’re correct and I did not mean to imply that all broken homes lead people to become gay. That doesn’t mean that the broken homes didn’t result in the drug abuse problems for your straight friends. Neither does that answer the question of why we can’t view what happened in Scandinavia and expect our country would fare any different from Scandinavia given the same gay marriage question. What’s so different?

By Mr. Sagacious

October 20, 2004 02:38 PM | Link to this

I feel certain that I said that religion is based on dogma. The high priests enforce it. That is not thinking. That is coercion. Of course, sheep love to be herded into their pens. Dogmatic thinking is not confined to strictly what is termed “religion.” Conventional economic thinking in this country could not be more ignorant. I could continue.

By Zack

October 20, 2004 02:40 PM | Link to this

I AM SICK AND TIRED of hearing the lies about a fetus not being a life and about him being the “property” of a woman, and how we are to “protect” a woman’s “right” to “choose”, and how our laws were designed to do just that. THIS IS TOTALLY WRONG. Abortion is murder. It is injustifiable. Did you hear that—“injustifiable”? Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned as soon as possible, and we need a president who will make that top priority. This supersedes homeland security, taxes, social security, etc.. This is indeed the main issue in this or any other presidential election as long as it might be legal. We need to return to the Christian principles that this country was founded upon, not the liberal dogma of relativism that we’ve been bombarded with in recent years by the secular world. People can make excuses and try to rationalize all they want. However, we all will stand individually before God one day, and we need to change now while we still can because then it will be too late. Covering up our sins and trying to rationalize them is the exact opposite of what we need to do.

By Randy

October 20, 2004 02:47 PM | Link to this

Mr. Sagacious, Religion doesn’t repress thought. In fact people who don’t have religion and don’t belive in God are the ones who have not thought it through. A creator exists 100%. My reasoning, this universe was created at some point(no matter how far back you go, a billion years or more, since things don’t appear out of thin air(physics) without help). The earth, sun etc didn’t create themselves and had to be created by a supernatural being at their starting point. This is an absolute. I agree with Boscoe. I have not seen any liberal points of view which make sense. Just a bunch of attacks on conservatives and unthought out responses!

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 02:47 PM | Link to this

Pam, as I said, this trend I see in the people I know is the common denominator between them. I didn’t mean to imply that all broken homes lead to gay people. I agree, people should take more responsibility in their actions. But I never said the unwed birth rate was caused by gay marriage. I said gay marriage increased that trend by breaking down the importance of the traditional family. Lyrazel Direct U.S. funding for coercive family planning practices is already prohibited in provisions of several U.S. laws, as is indirect U.S. support for coercive family planning, specifically in China. In addition, there have been efforts in Congress in recent years to expand these prohibitions to include U.S. funding for international and multilateral family planning programs that are involved in China.

By Pam

October 20, 2004 02:50 PM | Link to this

Ah! Every time I post something I find yet again something else to respond to! The fun never ends. Moveon, I don’t see the connection between allowing gay marriage and explaining how homosexual sex works in the classroom. I see no need to discuss the intimate details of how people have sex, straight or gay, beyond, I suppose, the absolute basics — many straight couples indulge in all sorts of practices that don’t qualify as traditional sex, including using dildos; kids will figure that out for themselves soon enough. What people do for pleasure behind closed doors is their own business, straight and gay.

Boscoe, I see your point about the necessity of families, etc, although as you say yourself it still comes from religious doctrine (I don’t think religious doctrine is automatically wrong, to be clear). But there is more to marriage (and sex) than procreation. Someone earlier mentioned that he and his spouse had decided against having children, there are many straight couples who, for whatever reason, cannot conceive and so choose to adopt, yet they can’t be excluded from marriage. Marriage is slso about companionship and love and physical intimacy. Why a family should be based solely on who we have sex with is beyond me. Couldn’t a brother and sister who couldn’t find partners raise a child successfully even though they’re (hopefully) not sleeping together?

By moveon

October 20, 2004 02:52 PM | Link to this

Mr. Sagacious,

Your set of beliefs is dogmatic as well. I don’t know what they are, but based on the idea that you dismiss religion and basic economic thinking, that makes you as closed minded as those you mock.

Do you have an absolute truth, or one that is just your own? You are entitled to your opinions, but this quasi high-brow argument isn’t going to stand up.

You define “Fundamentalist religion” and consider it in opposition to open thought. Quite the contrary. Free will and free thought are totally in line with religion. What you seem to have a problem with is the idea of an absolute truth, which is of course a modern idea. Based on you post-modern relativism, or ‘moderate secular’ thought, you have dismissed the idea that there can actually be something that is true or right, other than that which you support, making the only truth that which is true to you.

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 02:59 PM | Link to this

Boscoe-

It still sounds like you’re being quite negative toward couples who are unable to or do not wish to parent.

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 03:00 PM | Link to this

Mr. Sagacious, according to a long-standing usage a dogma is understood to be a truth appertaining to faith or morals, revealed by God, transmitted from the Apostles in the Scriptures or by tradition, and proposed by the Church for the acceptance of the faithful. It might be described briefly as a revealed truth defined by the Church. A dogma therefore implies a twofold relation: to Divine revelation and to the authoritative teaching of the Church. An example of current dogma of the Catholic Church is A) The body and Blood of Christ is present in the Eucharist B) Christ was born of the Virgin Mary who is the Mother of God. Now nobody is coerced to believe this. Should you want to be a member of the Catholic Church you would be required to except this but nobody is forcing you to join the Church now are they. So it’s still a simple matter of choice. Please continue I would like to here more especially your economic principals.

By moveon

October 20, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this

Pam,

I agree, it doesn’t need to be taught in school. However, it is being taught in school by ‘activist’ teachers pushing the envelope. Their argument is the normalization of a legal practice. I don’t see the connection either, but that’s what they are doing in Massachusetts. If the idea is casually dismissed, it will become accepted curriculum somewhere, and we all know how case law works. Soon enough it will be here, and you’re kids will learn it. That’s the root of the fight, really.

By Randy

October 20, 2004 03:05 PM | Link to this

If you want to know if Christianity is good or not, all you have to do is look at crime statistics before and after prayer was taken out of school in 1963. Before the worse thing was skipping class or smoking, after it was drugs, Columbine etc. But we wouldn’t want you liberals to have you self centered, selfish rights infrenged upon. The USA was a happy, great country before that time and it has gone downhill major since. Maybe we Christians can take a stand here at this point and keep the USA a good and decent place to live. We need to go back to the principals and believes that made us great. They(belief in GOD) will also make us as individuals happy if we let them

By Boscoe Roads

October 20, 2004 03:10 PM | Link to this

No so Akeya, couples you cannot have children can also adopt which, of course they would still fulfill the role of mother and father. Couple who chose not to still have the capability to do so. An “accident” would force them into those roles. Writing in the Journal of Homosexuality, J. J. Bigner and R. B. Jacobson describe the homosexual father as “socioculturally unique,” trying to take on “two apparently opposing roles: that of a father (with all its usual connotations) and that of a homosexual man.” They describe the homosexual father as “both structurally and psychologically at social odds with his interest in keeping one foot in both worlds: parenting and homosexuality.” In truth, the two roles are fundamentally incompatible. The instability, susceptibility to disease, and domestic violence that is disproportionate in homosexual and lesbian relationships would normally render such households unfit to be granted custody of children. However, in the current social imperative to rush headlong into granting legitimacy to the practice of homosexuality in every conceivable area of life, such considerations are often ignored.

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 03:17 PM | Link to this

The parenting instinct has nothing to do with one’s sexuality.

It seems as thought you are stating that marriage should only be an institution used for bearing children.

Many heterosexual couples do not wish to have a child. Are you saying that they should not be married?

And if that’s the case, then homosexual couples should be allowed to adopt and have children, since it SEEMS as though you’re saying people should marry only to have children.

By Lyrazel

October 20, 2004 03:19 PM | Link to this

But it hasnt happened yet, right? They are vacillating because the USA is in debt to China (see trade imbalance and bank deficits) so many American businesses need Chinese goods to stay in business. Well, when does an individuals moral responsibility come in? Why doesnt every pro life man, woman and child object and protest by not buying Chinese goods? To me, this lack of effort it almost saying: abortion is wrong only in theory only in the USA….(just try to use the argument the USA does not want to interfere in other government/country policy). Wrong is wrong, correct, so dont such purchases actually support abortion? Put your money where your morals are, right? Cheap shoes=cheap morals.

By Mr. Sagacious

October 20, 2004 03:19 PM | Link to this

I would love to see “basic,” intelligent economic thinking. Today’s neo-Darwinist, conventional economic thinking was dismissed as nonsense one-hundred years ago.

As I said, there is a divide in this country. Absolutist, dogmatic thought describes one kind of thinking. Open-minded, complex, and adaptable thinking is world’s apart from the former. Most religion falls into the former camp. Because of the moralistic nonsense that tries to pass as thought in this country, we do not lead the world in wisdom as some fervently believe.

Back to abortion. The issues of reproductive rights and human rights deserves more intelligent commentary than those that rely on books of fairy tales and assorted myths.

By Randy

October 20, 2004 03:19 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, The problem you are going to have is finding a good argument against Christianity or religion. The liberals don’t have a good argument, they will call it Dogma or whatever, but they have no valid argument. I doubt very seriously is Mr. Sagacious will even respond, he is way in over his head. Have a great day and keep up the good work!

By Pam

October 20, 2004 03:21 PM | Link to this

moveon, you’re going to completely disagree with me on this one but, I don’t have a huge problem with homosexuality becoming “normative”; I think a lot of problems in this country would be solved if all religious denominations were treated equally, if men and women were treated equally, if blacks and whites were treated equally, etc, etc, etc. Discrimination against women and African Americans for quite a long time was considered perfectly normal and acceptable; luckily we now know that this is wrong and although there is a LOT more work to be done, things have gotten better and I like to think there is a little bit less hatred in this country. Treating homosexuals as equals would also reduce hatred and misunderstanding and division, and we might as well accept them because they’re just not going to go away, even if we legislate and persecute for another hundred years. Perhaps these activists in MA are taking it too far — this is the first I’ve heard of it so I won’t argue — but I think their point is valid.

By Randy Hayes

October 20, 2004 03:24 PM | Link to this

See Boscoe I told you Mr. Sagacious would have no defense! Weak response Mr. S.

By moveon

October 20, 2004 03:29 PM | Link to this

Mr. Sagacious,

Way to not respond to anyone that counters your original thoughts. You are correct is saying that Absolutist and adaptable thought are opposed. One is based in the idea that there is absolute truth and one is based on the idea of relative truths. You’ve obviously had some (very little) exposure to apologetics, so your arguments are rudimentary and easily refuted.

The idea that conventional economic thinking was dismissed as nonsense means only one thing, you’re a communist. That’s right, isn’t it? Basic supply and demand, as well as free market equilibrium were dismissed by Marxist communists 100 years ago. Unfortunately, they were proved wrong, and free market capitalism has prevailed. You lose again.

By Pam

October 20, 2004 03:33 PM | Link to this

Boscoe, I am so incredibly impressed by the amount of reading and research you have done about these issues! It is awfully easy for crazy liberals like myself to dismiss conservative viewpoints as ignorant and uninformed. I still completely disagree with you, but I want to say how much I respect I have for you, just in case I say a million other things later that p** you off. I am fascinated by what you’ve quoted from that journal and I’m going to go talk to my good friend the queer-studies lesbian PhD whose “ovaries are popping,” as she likes to say, as soon as I have a chance, to find out what she has to say on the matter.

By AllaboutME

October 20, 2004 03:44 PM | Link to this

first, it was gay parents in MA who wanted their gay lifestyle promoted as normal. teachers did not want to teach such…. second, what about all the celibate people and childless couples? why do you feel tax breaks should be larger for people who breed than for people who dont and that deductions for children should be null because children burden public services? third, if sex of mate defines marriage If a gay man wed a lesbian and if they never consumate the marriage is it still a marriage?

By Akeya W.

October 20, 2004 03:45 PM | Link to this

shuddering at the thought of popping ovaries

By moveon

October 20, 2004 03:49 PM | Link to this

Pam,

You may not believe this, but I agree with you. There is too much animosity between groups and sub-groups in the country today. It seems to go beyond accepting differences though.

There is a difficult line to tow when you accept people as they are while believing a lifestyle is unhealthy or wrong. I don’t treat any of them any different, and I don’t go around “preaching” to them either. There are certain times and places for discussions of differences and watching the UGA game isn’t one of them, unless it’s about a call.

I think that’s the real problem. Most people want everyone to agree with them and share the same opinions. This trend is only getting worse. I’ll let you in on a little secret. I’m not from around here. I came from a VERY liberal place and my conservative views were shaped by different circumstances than most people who share the same ideals. That means not only do I have to accept the differences in people who disagree with me, but also those who agree. Talk about a lot of work….

By moveon

October 20, 2004 03:51 PM | Link to this

AllaboutME,

Really? I thought it was a lesbian teacher teaching that. Maybe we are thinking about two different school districts.

By AllaboutME

October 20, 2004 04:01 PM | Link to this

it was featured on NPR in depth…I am certain they have list of its broadcast….im far too lazy to look it up for you…

By moveon

October 20, 2004 04:06 PM | Link to this

AllaboutME,

It was an evening broadcast, correct? I remember hearing it, I’ll look for a transcript. I really thought it was a discussion with a teacher as well, because there were specific questions from the class relayed in the interview.

By Pam

October 20, 2004 04:10 PM | Link to this

moveon, yay! We agree on something!

I have a ton of things I’d still like to say about the many failures of our economic system that have nothing to do with communism, the place of fundamentalist religious views in the governing of this country, gay marriage, and let us not forget abortion, but, alas, I must be off for the day. Thanks for providing such an invigorating discussion. If I can I’ll come back another day with my gloves off again.

Best wishes to all from this far left-wing liberal and nominally religious Jew,

Pam

By AllaboutME

October 20, 2004 04:28 PM | Link to this

..it was both sided…teachers objected to material some did not care…some parents objected to it and some wanted it taught…

to solve abortion problem…make it illegal…but make birth control manditory…by law…and none can procreate until all babies/children in the usa are adopted…they too must pass a battery of tests that prove they would be good parents…with good educational values…and have genetic good genes…be rich…

if I take an illigal imigrants baby is it legal if they have no rights because they are illegally here

By moveon

October 21, 2004 08:57 AM | Link to this

AllaboutME,

Why punish responsible people for other irresponsibility? Not getting pregnant is the responsibilty of the two people involved. We should make birth control cheaper and more available, and take the stigma out of it. Why do people have unprotected sex? A big part of it is embarassment over buying contraceptives. People don’t want to admit they are having it, so they are too embarassed (ashamed maybe?) to go to the store and buy a condom. That’s a problem.

As for stating that illegals have no rights because they are here illegally, that’s a little Johnathan Swiftish, is it not? If you steal from someone who is here illegally, you, an American, have broken American law. If an illegal has a kid on American soil, the child is a natural born citizen, and the mother has the right to stay.

By Randy

October 21, 2004 09:02 AM | Link to this

WHAT A BEAUTIFUL DAY! I THANK THE CREATOR EACH DAY, FOR ACCEPTING ME AND FOR MAKING ME A CHRISTIAN. LIFE IS FANTASTIC. AM I GOING TO HAVE PROBLEMS, YES, BUT I KNOW JESUS IS THERE TO HELP ME, NO PROBLEMS ARE TO BIG FOR HIM. I HAVE A LOVELY FAMILY, GREAT CHURCH FRIENDS, GREAT HOUSE TO LIVE IN. OWN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF REAL ESTATE, BUT THAT’S NOT IMPORTANT. MY ONLY QUEST, IS TO TRY TO HELP OTHERS FIND WHAT I HAVE, PEACE OF MIND AND HAPPINESS. IF EVERYBODY IN AMERICA KNEW WHAT I KNOW, WE COULD ALL STOP DEBATING(ALTHOUGH IT IS FUN TO A POINT) AND HELP OUT LESS FORTUNATE COUNTRIES AND THE WORLD WOULD BE A BETTER PLACE. HAVE A BEAUTIFUL DAY!

By Brian Curtis

October 21, 2004 10:48 AM | Link to this

Umm… okay. Glad you’re feeling good, Randy.

Back to the earlier question for Boscoe: If the problem of gay marriage is that it breaks the “traditional connection between marriage and parenting,” do childldess heterosexual couples (such as my own relationship) do the same sort of damage? Should they be outlawed too?

If not, why not? My relationship will produce no children—that should make me “no better than gays” in the eyes of the marriage = parenting advocates. So why is mine legal, when gay marriages should be discouraged and outlawed?

By Boscoe Roads

October 21, 2004 11:09 AM | Link to this

Akeya, parenting instinct has everything to do with one’s sexuality. Homosexual or lesbian households are no substitute for a family. Children also need both a mother and a father because of the different roles that mothers and fathers play in children’s lives. Mothers are likely to devote special attention to their children’s present physical and emotional needs, fathers are likely to devote special attention to their character traits necessary for the future, especially qualities such as independence, self-reliance, and the willingness to test limits and take risks. The complementary aspects of parenting that mothers and fathers contribute to the rearing of children are rooted in the differences of the two sexes, and can no more be arbitrarily substituted than can the very nature of male and female. Attempts to deny the importance of both mothers and fathers in the rearing of children, denies the fact the oldest family structure of all turns out to be the best. Actually history tells us that marriage WAS intended mainly for child rearing. Perhaps you’ll understand if I say it in a different way. A male and female married couple always has the ability for reproduction even if the current time isn’t right for them. A gay couple can never meet the roles of mother and father required for raising children one or the other will be missing. Lyrazel, those policies ARE in place and there are groups which lobby OUR government on behalf of all those issues you say pro-lifers are hypocritical on. IT IS BEING DONE.

By Brian Curtis

October 21, 2004 11:22 AM | Link to this

That doesn’t quite answer the question.

I’m part of a heterosexual couple; we will never have children. Thus, there is no way we will ever be playing the role of parents. We will never raise children or act as mother and father. And yet, our marriage will be legal.

If the purpose of marriage MUST be parenting, why should society recognize our marriage as valid? Why DOES society legally condone my marriage, when it doesn’t condone the marriage of other non-parenting couples (i.e., gays)?

By Brian Curtis

October 21, 2004 11:25 AM | Link to this

Quote: “to solve abortion problem…make it illegal…but make birth control manditory…by law…and none can procreate until all babies/children in the usa are adopted”

AllAboutMe: I suspect you’re being sarcastic, but your proposal up to that point is actually a very good one! Who could argue with making birth control mandatory—or better yet, automatic? I envision Norplant implants for every baby at birth, removable only after age 21. Now THAT would be a sane and sensible approach to reproductive rights. Might be a bit costly, though. 8~)

By Boscoe Roads

October 21, 2004 11:29 AM | Link to this

Brian, you and your wife have the CAPABILITY regardless of how much you insist that you won’t. Gay couples never can without the help of someone like you.

By Zack

October 21, 2004 11:36 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis—Why did you get smart with Randy for his comments? There was no need for that. Of course, this doesn’t surprise me, as Christians receive bigotry from the likes of you and others on a daily basis. By the way, your “facts” about society earlier were wrong. I guess you’re another one who believes everything the secular world tells him, huh? It’s sadly ironic how the secular world imposes its views on the rest of us, even to the point of killing innocent lives, and then accuses Christians, who are out to promote what’s best for society, of being the imposers. This is typical of the hypocrisy of liberals. We need a president who will stand for the unborn, not someone who believes the lies about it being the woman’s body and her choice, as though she determines what’s right and what’s wrong. President Bush at least has gone against partial-birth abortion. Now, however, he needs to quit condoning other forms of abortion. He needs to take steps to get Roe v. Wade overturned, and it needs to be done now while Republicans have such a strong voice. He also needs to remember that separation of church and state is totally misinterpreted and that our laws originally were based on the Bible. We need to return to that. We cannot let the myth of relativism poison our society anymore because THAT is the real form of terrorism.

By AllaboutME

October 21, 2004 11:36 AM | Link to this

…have yet to see any news reports of gay mothers/fathers drowning their babies in tubs…driving them into lake…abandoning babies on roadsides…excessive cruelty…how many gay parents are arrested for not paying child support…explain that…

By Boscoe Roads

October 21, 2004 11:45 AM | Link to this

Those isolated cases do not encapsulate the entire population of traditional parents. How many gay parents (oxy-moron) pay child support to begin with? Wasn’t there a case recently that was thrown out because the court COULDN’T make the other “parentâ€? pay support?

By Brian Curtis

October 21, 2004 11:46 AM | Link to this

Speaking of personal attacks… thanks, Zack. I actually didn’t “get smart” with Randy, other than to wonder why he was SHOUTING about how WONDERFUL everything is, which isn’t very relevant to this thread.

Boscoe: We have the capability to be parents? No, we don’t; I’m sterilized. Besides, what does the “capability” matter if you’re worried about promoting the ACTUAL act of parenting as an inextricable componentn of marriage?

Zack: Actually, none of my earlier facts have been refuted. The only response was Boscoe explaining the Church’s position on these issues, which is presenting an opinion, not facts.

If it strengthens your resolve to claim you’re a persecuted minority, go right ahead; you’ll have plenty of company. But I admit I’m curious to hear how our country’s laws were “based on the Bible.” The founders had every opportunity to write Christianity into our government, and they carefully and consciously chose not to. What does that tell you?

You’re free to support Bush because he champions the “rights of the unborn,” of course—but if you’re looking for sad irony and hypocrisy, you don’t have to look much further than his willingness to assault the rights of the born and already living in the process. I’d be much more comfortable with a president who values the rights of living adults—such as, say, my brother in Iraq, or a rape victim—over the rights of fetuses.

By Zack

October 21, 2004 12:01 PM | Link to this

Brian—To say that this country wasn’t founded upon the Bible is simply not true. There’s no way abortion would even be considered back in those days, and look at how much better society was back then! Nowadays, we live in such an extremely shallow and irresponsible society, we’ve reached the level of stupidity in many ways. We’ve become arrogant. Many wonder why they should have to turn off their cellular phones in libraries. Everybody wants a quick fix for everything. When people have sex, oftentimes they want to abort the baby. This can be done, but then they want to abort the post-abortion guilt that comes along, and so they pay a lot of money to some counselor who sugarcoats them with rationalizing and tries to convince them that murder wasn’t performed. The levels of denial become greater and greater. It’s definitely a negative cycle. We need to get back to basics. Protecting the unborn is a wonderful step. Perhaps Jim Wooten should start a man/man blog and ask which issue men should consider in the upcoming election. I guess a man/man blog would be sexist, huh?

By Boscoe Roads

October 21, 2004 12:02 PM | Link to this

Brian, are you impaired in some way that I haven’t noticed? Yes you do have the capability, you merely have chosen to use a very reliable form of birth control which is neither 100% or permanent. If you bothered to read my posts you would have clearly seen that the innate differences of the sexes is required to raise healthy kids. You can’t get that with gay marriage, the roles of mother/father oppose that of the homosexual partner. With regards to your “Facts” they are no less opinion then my own. None of your facts has been proven scientifically. The Establishment law does not isolate the constitution from religion which has already been pointed out as well.

By Zack

October 21, 2004 12:08 PM | Link to this

Brian—By the way, I didn’t even make reference to Boscoe’s statements, but what makes you think anything you’ve said has been anything more than an opinion? Let’s deal with facts. Fact: This country was founded upon Biblical principles. Fact: One of these principles is the unalienable right to be born. Unfortunately, we’ve learned that “unalienable” only remains so when you have enough Christians standing up for God and fewer liberals pushing their manmade beliefs on the rest of us.

By Brian Curtis

October 21, 2004 12:16 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: So you’re saying that my marriage would be legally recognized because there’s a CHANCE we might become parents someday?

So could a gay couple—through adoption.

Now, let’s review the facts presented earlier.

FACT: A fetus is not legally recognized as a “person.â€? This is already true, and “scientific proof” has nothing to do with it.

FACT: A fetus is no more a human than an acorn is a tree. You can charge that this is opinion, but it’s based solidly on Fact #1.

FACT: Anyone who makes exceptions on their abortion stance in cases of rape or incest has already conceded the argument that a fetus is not the same as a person. This is direct logic.

FACT: The Bible is not law. This is also fact (notice that six of the 10 Commandments forbid actions specifically protected and permitted by law).

FACT: Religious freedom in the U.S. guarantees that you can live by your religious code (refusing to have abortions, not eating pork, whatever)… but you have no right to dictate that code to others. And this brings us back to the First Amendment.

So which facts have been proven wrong?

Zack: I would welcome a men’s forum, since it’s mostly men exchanging opinions here on a forum ostensibly devoted to what WOMEN should care about in the coming election. Unfortunately, Shaunti and Diane seem to be in agreement that the ONLY ‘women’s issue’ in this election must be abortion… which I think is deeply mistaken.

“How much better society was back then?” Surely you’re kidding! An average life expectancy in the low forties, blacks treated as property, women denied the vote (and many legal rights as well), no child labor laws or worker protections… colonial times had their virtues, but our society was nowhere NEAR the idyllic paradise you propose.

By Boscoe Roads

October 21, 2004 12:29 PM | Link to this

Brian, pay attention! Gay couples cannot get pregnent and have children. This is not rocket science. Scientific evidence is essential especially when there is medical proof that a heart beat exists long before an abortion can be performed. The only reason abortion is conceeded for rape and incest is to show that reletively few (

By Brian Curtis

October 21, 2004 12:29 PM | Link to this

Boscoe: I think I may be seeing what you mean about the parenting issues…

So if the first and foremost concern is for quality parenting, but childless couples are OK, I assume you’re in favor of the following: 1. Gay marriage being legal as long as the couple isn’t allowed to adopt and raise children. 2. Divorce being outlawed, since that would deprive children of the mother/father parenting they need.

Correct?

By AllaboutME

October 21, 2004 12:32 PM | Link to this

…and just who makes this society shallow, irresponsible and stupid where its citizens loiter libraries wanting a quick fix for everything…havent christians been our leaders into this mess of the world as it is now? maybe new american leadership is needed…you christians havent been in the shadows so that demons got in power since…? got any more malarky you want me to swallow today…. american IS the way things are giving a CLEAR example how a christian society operates…look what YOU did fools, aint like theres been anybody but white christian men presidents been elected since the nations founding…

By norman

October 21, 2004 12:58 PM | Link to this

Women should ask male candidates whether they have outgrown the two things from which most American men suffer, the things which keep them childish: religion and sports. Religion is childish wish fulfillment, fairy tales if you wish. Sports is the way men continue to be children, bonding around something of no importance as a way of avoiding talking about really important things. American males have been infantilized by religion and Sports, some women as well. Women: ask Bush and Kerry if they have finally grown up.

By norman

October 21, 2004 01:21 PM | Link to this

Women: ask your men which first lady appeals more: Laura the little Methodist librarian who, like the librarian in The Music Man, is looking for a good man and instead finds a crook. Or Teresa who is every man’s combination of a mother figure and a sex symbol. I think they’ll pick Teresa as a mature choice. Who wants the pettiness of Laura’s middle America and Methodist church when you can have the cultural and intellectual glow of a woman of the world.

By Zack

October 21, 2004 01:23 PM | Link to this

sagacious(or should I say Norman)—Your obsessed bigotry against Christianity is sad. It really is sad. You don’t like hearing about absolute truth and call it fairy tales, huh? Actually, you’re believing fairy tales when you make that kind of statement. You also reveal your belief in fairy tales when you endorse relativism. My friend, God decides what is right and wrong. We do not.

By norman

October 21, 2004 01:51 PM | Link to this

Why is Boscoe appealing to science? He is a religious nut whose beliefs are proven totally false by science. He’s on his knees looking into someone’s glutious maximus. Like Muslims praying into one another’s posteriors.

By Angie

October 21, 2004 01:53 PM | Link to this

Keep in mind that there was a time when black people were not recognized as “persons” either. (Just as the unborn are not recognized today.) Black people were treated as the property of white people. (Just as the unborn are treated as the property of their “mothers” today.) The legal system was WRONG then and it is WRONG today.

As to laws that permit someone to be charged with the murder of an unborn child (Laci’s Law)-WHY is there an exception in the case of abortion?

Let me get this straight here-if the child is “wanted” they are considered a person with rights and it’s wrong for someone to kill them and the murderer will be tried and put into jail…BUT if the child is “unwanted” then they are NOT considered a person nor do they have rights and it’s OKAY to kill them???

(((Still scratching my head over that one.)))

It seems to me that if liberals have their way our society will have an “anything goes” mentality and there will be no such thing as “normal” for no one will know what normal is. If they have their way there will be no such thing as morality or morals because they deem those are things that only concern the “Christian right”. The “I can do as I please and answer to no one” mentality.

By Lyrazel

October 21, 2004 01:54 PM | Link to this

Excuse me? Ask my men… HOW DARE YOU!

This whole blog thread is ludicrous and insulting!! Go back gentlemen and please read comments made by Diane Glass and Shaunti Feldhahn. Then, please comment about issues women ought to consider during this election or their opinions. Do not assume the women reading this blog NEED to ask men anything!

By Zack

October 21, 2004 01:54 PM | Link to this

Brian—You’re right about slavery being a problem and women being denied the right to vote being a problem. We moved past slavery but found a way to take a major step in the wrong direction with abortion. As tragic as slavery was, abortion actually is much worse. We also fixed the problem of women not being allowed to vote. However, some actually claim to think that overturning Roe v. Wade would be parallel to denying a woman the right to vote. This is absurd and nonsensical.

A fetus is a human being. What a judge may declare is irrelevant. It’s an act of murder to perform an abortion. If Roe v. Wade were to be overturned, it wouldn’t be a dark day in the rights of women. No, it would be a bright day in the rights of the unborn.

As I’ve said before, it’s sad how people will try to push abortion, gay marriage, and pornography on society and act like it’s perfectly fine, but then when Christians stand against these horrific things, they’re accused of imposing their will on society. No, we’re just trying to keep it from being destroyed.

By Savannah

October 21, 2004 01:57 PM | Link to this

Let’s face it ABORTION IS SOMETIMES NECESARY ok lets that a young girl was raped by a man that had aids and diseases. I believe that these women should be able to choose to have an abortion. Think about the babies life. Yes, I know that they could get adopted. But what if this girl was a young girl in high school or middle school? THIS COULD RUIN THEIR LIFE to have a baby during school. Everything will get in the way, and they might just ruin their life for something that was not even their fault. Abortion, I see it as dreadful, but it is sometimes necessary. The women, such as the women played in this role i made, should be able to have the right to choose, and if IT IS BANNED, THEY WILL NEVER HAVE ACCEPTIONS! It is their choice, and if they want to kill a baby, fine. Oh wait, another thing is also about if there is a scenario that if the women has the baby, the baby and she will die. Now, what would you do their? Yes, that is an acception. Would you die when you know that it doesnt have to be like that? ANy person in their right mind would not want both to die! Now, there is an acception. Once again, if it is banned, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCEPTIONS! THE MOTHER WOULD DIE WITH THE BABY!! So, I think that women should have the right to choose. I see where you are coming from if you think abortion is wrong, but you have to see where i am coming from. Think about it!

By Angie

October 21, 2004 02:14 PM | Link to this

Zack-I couldn’t agree with you more!!!

We are fighting to keep our society from being destroyed by a lack of morality and a lack of values. The country is losing it’s sense of right and wrong.

(Yes, believe it or not there are certain things that are WRONG. Not everything is right or good for a society. Such as gay marriage.)

If we lose our sense of right and wrong what will happen to our country?

If our forefathers could see what’s happened in this country over the last 50 years they would be appauled just as most of us are today.

It IS time that Christians came out of their safe little churches and took a stand for the unborn, for the American family, for decency and YES-for morality.

Would you rather live in a moral society or an immoral one??? I certainly choose the MORAL one.

By the way, I think there should be a real child welfare task force in our country. You abuse a child and you are steralized and lose your rights to be a parent. None of this 3 strikes and your out mentality that DFCS seems to have. Get the children out of the abusive home before it’s too late and make sure the abuser can’t reproduce again! Parents should be able to LOSE their rights to be a parent! PERIOD! I also believe there should be a national adoption campaign to raise the public’s awareness as to the children in need of good homes. Single people should be able to adopt just as married people (not sure what the restrictions are-if there are any). I am DEEPLY concerned about abused children. America needs to have this issue addressed and Americans need to be made aware of the older children in need of love and a family of their own.

By Angie

October 21, 2004 02:22 PM | Link to this

To Savannah-

What if I said,’lets make abortion illegal unless the pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother-as long as 3 NON-abortionist REAL non-affiliated doctors confirmed it’? I see nothing wrong with that scenario. However, 98% of the abortions done in this country are not done because the mother’s life was in jeopardy or because of rape or incest. I do not think a child conceived in rape or incest should have to die because of the crime the bio dad committed. Not the child’s fault-why should it have to die? A young girl will be traumatized by having an abortion. A much better scenario is adoption where something good can come from the bad experience. Either way, the girl will always know she was pregnant with a baby. She will either have to live with the child being dead or with the child being alive and in a good home.

By AllaboutME

October 21, 2004 02:30 PM | Link to this

I see a new war on bad parenting….costs billion$ and billion$…..parents infiltrated by terrorists who force children to watch 666 hours of sex and the city…….so angie……what happens if the case of child abuse is proven false…thirteen years or more after my enforced sterilization…?….so many plans for shipping off little persons…but…unless…unless…we raise taxes…gasp….and actually fund…social welfare organizations…gasp…these bambinos end up…where…?

By Boscoe Roads

October 21, 2004 02:44 PM | Link to this

Brian, no I will not accept gay marriage if they don’t allow adoption. Gay marriage has other adverse affects on society. If divorce were to be outlawed I think people would take child rearing and even their choice of spouse quite a bit more seriously don’t you? Allaboutme how did Christianity create this mess when for the last decades Christianity has been pushed out of school, pushed out of government, and is slowly being push out of society? We didn’t have nearly as many social problems in the past as we do these days. Your name fits though. Norman what beliefs of mine have been TOTALLY proven false by science. Do you even have a clear concept of what my beliefs even are? Savannah if we allow abortions for just rape the number of abortions performed will be reduced to

By Angie

October 21, 2004 02:52 PM | Link to this

Allaboutme asked,”…what happens if the case of child abuse is proven false…thirteen years or more after my enforced sterilization…?

I am not talking about sterilizing you over an accusation. I’m talking about cold hard proof of abuse-a kid with 11 broken ribs like the one the parents were locked up for killing today. Come on-think about it.

Allabout me also said,”…so many plans for shipping off little persons…but…unless…unless…we raise taxes…gasp….and actually fund…social welfare organizations…gasp…these bambinos end up…where…?”

Take some of the money out of space exploration (I don’t care or need to know how many moons or rings all the planets have). Take money from other needless places. Raise taxes. Let’s just get our priorities straight and defend those that can’t defend themselves…all children-born & unborn. (What a concept?!!!)

By Angie

October 21, 2004 02:55 PM | Link to this

What kind of thinking is,”if we can’t KILL the children what will we do with them?”!!!

That attitude says ALOT about our society.

By AllaboutME

October 21, 2004 03:12 PM | Link to this

….tell you what boscoe… you elect christians…you…do…yes?…so who is to blame except….the christians you elected…? who is governor…or senator…or president…who allows said aithiest supreme court justice to perform evil deed like removing lord prayer from public building….a christian…who was elected by a christian…remember they dont get elected president unless they are christian…(see chart to review % of muslim-jewish-buddist-pagan-agnostic-marxist presidents elected in american history also/senators/governors/city council)….so wheres the beef about my argument that christians ought to be blamed for all the troubles your world has because its been christians who have been in control of usa policy? silly boscoe…youve been in control all this time….and you didnt know it? funny how non-christian types make life so difficult….always hiding the truth

By AllaboutME

October 21, 2004 03:20 PM | Link to this

…remember recent release of man sentenced to prison for rape and released 15 years later innocent of charges…what ho! careful with those nippers…angie…

By Boscoe Roads

October 21, 2004 03:23 PM | Link to this

Actually it doesn’t work that way. I vote for my candidate of choice. If they win then they’re elected. Not every elected official is a Christian. Some are Socialists, Some are Imperialist, Some are even Atheist ect. ect. Not every Supreme Court Justice is a Christian either.

By AllaboutME

October 21, 2004 03:37 PM | Link to this

…o totally agree boscoe…but check your stats to see % of christians in public office in America…socialists can be christians…even teddy kennedy is christian…and whoa, imperialists like bill clinton and hillary are too…course I doubt either has parked in a pew recently…maybe its the laws these christians pass that you dont like…damn laws…

By Randy

October 21, 2004 03:45 PM | Link to this

I see Norman has come out of his hidding place, to be humiliated again, because of his bigoted point of view against Christians. I agree with Angie, it’s time we Christians came out of our churches and opposed abortion.

By AllaboutME

October 21, 2004 04:02 PM | Link to this

ARE YOU ACCUSING ME OF BEING NORMAN, RANDY? HOWS THE BIG CAR DOING? AND THE LAWN CHAIRS? AND HOWS THE OL RV PUMPING? GOOD GOOD! (ps norman got clobbered by Lyrazel I think)

By Angie

October 21, 2004 04:10 PM | Link to this

I read an article about a man who attended a small church that had a railroad nearby. This was during the Holocost (sp?). Each Sunday they would hear the train go by and heard some of the people on board calling for help. That really disturbed the people in the church. It was very disturbing-they knew where the people were going-but what could they do about it they thought. So each Sunday they knew pretty much about the time the train would be rolling by. And so they would just sing a little louder to try and drown out the sounds of the people. (It really disturbed them don’t you know!) Their answer was to “sing a little louder”. The man recalling the story of his youth related it to what is happening in America today with abortion. Christians go into their churches and shut the doors and leave the world outside. It is time for us to shop trying to “sing a little louder” to drown out the problems around us. It is time to STAND UP and DO SOMETHING about it.

My goodness, you can’t drive 3 miles in any direction without passing a church. The Christians need to get off their pews and get out in the world and take a stand.

By moveon

October 21, 2004 04:24 PM | Link to this

“Laura the little Methodist librarian who, like the librarian in The Music Man, is looking for a good man and instead finds a crook. Or Teresa who is every man’s combination of a mother figure and a sex symbol. I think they’ll pick Teresa as a mature choice. Who wants the pettiness of Laura’s middle America and Methodist church when you can have the cultural and intellectual glow of a woman of the world.”

Gee, wonder how norman feels about the women.

As a red blooded American man, I still have to say ‘eewww’ when I hear about Teresa Kerry as a sex symbol. That’s just nasty.

Norman, can you even ask a question without loading bias into it? I doubt you can. Laura is a fine looking woman and Teresa is a hag. Hey, maybe you dig that. Thanks for taking one for the team, let’s go cruise for chicks.

By norman

October 21, 2004 04:58 PM | Link to this

You rednecks don’t know a good woman when you see one.

By Adrienne

October 21, 2004 05:36 PM | Link to this

Let’s get real folks. The women having abortions are either really poor women who couldn’t afford to provide a stable nurturing home environment for children (which would potentially increase welfare, child abuse etc) or women in college who feel a child would prevent them of experiencing their educational/career goals. Although I personally do not think abortion should be an alternative form of birth control, I do see that it is a valid “necessary evil.” Outlawing abortion isn’t going to put an end to it…it’ll simply result in having millions of unwanted or unprovided for children. Yes, we as adults are extremely unresponsible. Making rules will not encourage us to follow them.

Furthermore I abhor the fact that law makers are generally well to do men who do have the “survival of the fittest (rich male)” mentality. If you haven’t walked in a woman’s shoes, don’t try to tie the laces too tightly!

By Akeya W.

October 22, 2004 08:35 AM | Link to this

Boscoe-

If you knew anything about the dynamics of homosexual parenting, you would know that many couples seek out families members to fill certain roles, also…something that not all heterosexual couples do.

For example: a lesbian couple has a child. The couple will most likely have an uncle, brother, or very good friend fulfill the role of the father figure. Vice versa for gay couples. The sad thruth is that mother and father should be contributing the same time to the same things. People love to use the excuse that “mothers provide this” and “fathers provide that.” They should BOTH be able to provide those things in the even there is a single parent situation.

Also, as for Brian- you don’t know what their capability in having children is. For instance, let’s say that Brian and his wife are unable to conceive, but there is a lesbian who donates eggs or becomes a surogate mother. The married, heterosexual couple then needs the help of someone you say doesn’t have the ability to parent.

Also, you never answered the question. Are you suggesting that Briand and his wife should not even be married?

Also, I know several gay couples that have gotten pregnant and have children, just like with a heterosexual couple who needs assistance to have children.

Angie- our forefathers wore wigs! And the constitution was written hundreds of years ago. Why are we still using this as a basis for our society. It needs to be relegated to history and a new constitution should be written.
Also, having children is a biological right. You cannot take that right away, nor can you legislate it. Think about how many low income people have multiple children, just because they can. Also, a young girl can be traumatized by being made to have a child that will rip a 12 year old’s body apart. Pregnancy wreaks havoc on the body of an adult woman. Can you imagine what it would do to a child’s body?
Oh, but then the person is not important, only the fetus.

If you people care so much about these children why is it okay that they ROT in adoption homes? Please explain that to me? Please explain why bond haired, blue eyed babies are almost guaranteed a home while darker -skinned children sit and wait? Or better yet, why is it that Svetlana Zokovsky from Russia has a better chance of being adopted than Wilfredo Lopez or Tyrone Jenkins?

Also, MOVEON, I agree with you…Teresa Kerry as a sex symbol is kind of gross!

By moveon

October 22, 2004 08:49 AM | Link to this

Norman,

It must break your heart to learn I grew up in Los Angeles (moved here less than a year ago) drive a BMW and don’t have the slightest bit of a drawl. Yuppie? Yes. Redneck? You are the first one to ever call me that.

Nice try, but your prejudice is rather unbecoming.

By Boscoe Roads

October 22, 2004 08:56 AM | Link to this

Akeya, if that’s what they do then obviously the fail to meet the criteria. If they need to seek outside assistance they clearly cannot provide what BOTH sexes provide in parenting. So you’re agreeing with me that the traditional family provides the best parenting atmosphere. Why would I approve of a relationship that only provides second best?

By Boscoe Roads

October 22, 2004 09:05 AM | Link to this

Allaboutme, 97% of the American population claims it is Christian. Why wouldn’t a politician make that same claim to attract the voters? You’re not naive enough to think they are entirely truthful do you? Kerry claims to be Catholic yet opposes the Church on abortion. Sorry, but whether you agree with him or not, Kerry is not allowed to be Catholic and oppose the Church teaching. He’s not a Catholic, but he sure makes the claim to attract the voters doesn’t he?

By Akeya. W

October 22, 2004 09:07 AM | Link to this

sigh No, I’m using your own argument against you.
Also, you are assuming that all heterosexual couples provide those things that you mentioned, which could be entirely untrue.

In my opinion, I believe that second best would be okay with you as long as one parent has a p*** and the other a v****, because that seems to only be the most important from what I understand of your viewpoint.

By Boscoe Roads

October 22, 2004 09:11 AM | Link to this

Adrienne, you’re wrong. Many of the abortions being performed are by upper and middle class woman who won’t take responsibility for what they’ve done.

By Boscoe Roads

October 22, 2004 09:19 AM | Link to this

Akeya, as I HAVE said before. Brian and his wife made the choice not to have children. It’s not that they started out incapable of producing children they just chose birth control to prevent it. Look at the actual percentage of married couples with valid medical reasons behind their inability to have kids. It’s small. Now look at the percentage of gay couples who cannot produce children naturally. 100%. This combined with the fact that gay couples provide inferior parent role models and it’s a no brainier. Heterosexual parents DO provide those things naturally! You cannot raise children with two mothers or two fathers…research has proven that.

By LMartin

October 22, 2004 09:25 AM | Link to this

Some may say they believe in freedom, but they would prefer to stifle what freedom I have over my own body. I wonder how many of the ‘life lovers’ out there support the US bombing of Iraqi children? Or does life only count when it has embraced ‘christianity’? If men got pregnant, abortions would be advertised on primetime television including the beloved Fox network.

And to those cheapskates who fear ‘big government’ and hate to pay taxes for our great societies benefits, you deserve a taste of anarchy. Then you would have much bigger problems than your neighbors dog crapping in your yard and begrudge paying (with tax dollars) the policeman you call to report it. Render unto Caesar what is owed to Caesar.

Grow up, live and let live, and pave your own way.

By moveon

October 22, 2004 09:32 AM | Link to this

“Grow up, live and let live, and pave your own way.”

That’s exactly what we are trying to do! LMartin, are you opposed to the death penalty? How can you be if you support abortion. One is killed for the acts they commited, one is killed for the acts their parents commited.

By Akeya W.

October 22, 2004 09:37 AM | Link to this

No research can prove the dynamics of any family.

I know many well-adjusted, intelligent, emotionally stable children raised by gas parents. By the same token, I know some VERY screwed up children raised by BOTH heterosexual parents in the home.

Good and bad parenting is based on the people involved, not their genitals.

I am the product of a single parent home, as well as my two best friends. We have all graduated from college and seeking more education, we are intelligent and well-adjusted. I 3 different friends who had mothers and fathers in the home. One never graduated from high school and hops jobs like rabbits, another just had her second child-barely made it through high school and is emotionally warped (she’s knows this as well as her other friends), and the last is a guy who treats women like notches on the bedpost.

These are just from the people that I know.

As I stated before, parenting depends on the persons involved.

By AllaboutME

October 22, 2004 10:37 AM | Link to this

…yawn…if anyone ever gets gumption enough to check FACTS….about % of women % race of women having abortions ….would discover its about equal high income vs low income vs white black latino indian and asian. its asians who have the highest rate…but its pretty equal…yawn…boscoe, my point was and only was that the majority of politicians elected are christian…thus claims to persecution of christian values are bogus since the majority of politicians elected are christians and not secular will o the wisps changlings…but your comment: Many of the abortions being performed are by upper and middle class woman who won’t take responsibility for what they’ve done…doesnt include middle class men taking any responsibility for their actions….which is odd by its omission since it takes two to tango…at least in my world…but when have middle class men been held accountable for their actions….

By Boscoe Roads

October 22, 2004 12:08 PM | Link to this

LMartin you had me interested until went on your tirade about Christians and the Fox network and the cheapskates. Need I remind you those things won’t be going away anytime soon. I’m not really sure if you have anything to add to these debates other than your hatred of those groups which won’t help me learn anything about your point of view. As far as the children are concerned, of course nobody wants to see them gat hurt, or worse killed. But who is responsible? Are we to blame simply because we went to war in Iraq? Should we have let them suffer like they were before? Lest anybody say they weren’t harmed should do some very serious research before commenting. Did you realize that the resistance to the U.S.hides in areas populated by children and as much as we would like not to hurt children some invariably are hurt because of the fighters that hide around them. That tactic is meant to put the U.S. in a harmful position whether by being attacked, or for propaganda purposes. Allaboutme I agree men should take responsibility no question about it, but to stop abortion I would take it to those who are actually having it performed first, which are woman. If abortion can be stopped then I would certainly make harsher penalties for the irresponsible men. Akeya unfortunately research can and does confirm the benefits or problems associated with family dynamics. As far as your “research group” I’m afraid we don’t have all the information about other factors in the groups child development. Such as, environmental factors, economic factors and so forth. The question I would ask to support any answers this “research group” provided would be: compared to how you turned out, how much better would you have been if you were raised with two loving, supportive parents versus one.(That is not meant to imply you have some sort of character flaw) y because you do bring an excellent point and that is some parents are not as loving and supportive as others.

By Zack

October 22, 2004 12:18 PM | Link to this

It looks like several on here still don’t get it. Abortion is wrong. There are so many pathetic attempts on here to justify it. Unfortunately, this forum could remain open all year, and there would still probably be the same people repeating the same whimsical attempts at arguments. Abortion is wrong. Period. What God says is final. We cannot overrule Him. He obviously is of love because in Him is no tolerance of evil whatsoever. Forgiveness to those willing to change? Absolutely! Tolerance to those wanting to continue in sin? No. Let’s also not accuse Christians of imposing their views on society. Again, the problem with our country has been the movement away from the Godly principles we were founded upon and the embracing of the myth of relativism.

By Akeya W.

October 22, 2004 12:24 PM | Link to this

Boscoe- My point exactly!!!!

Research is always lacking in some tacit information needed to “prove” what it’s supposed to receive. And how much better COULD I be? I’m well-educated, well-adjusted, and I possess many other characteristics that you think supposedly only a two-parent home can offer.

Research can and often does miss many aspects that will greatly affect results. I think, by human nature, we will choose to whatever information is in accordance with our beliefs/opinions…

By Zack

October 22, 2004 12:26 PM | Link to this

Also, someone earlier made a great refutation to those attacking the fact that there is only one Way to Heaven. Akeya, as usual, decided to attack it. What people don’t realize is that their perception of God is wrong. Instead of getting mad at God because there is only one Way to Heaven instead of 10,000 ways, they need to remember there was NO way until God made one.

By Boscoe Roads

October 22, 2004 12:39 PM | Link to this

Akeya I didn’t say the research was lacking, all I said was some parents aren’t as good as others. The research shows that two parent families generally do better than one parent faimilies and are much better than parents of the same gender. Notwithstanding, there are exceptions to the rule, but I wouldn’t make laws based on the exception.

By Akeya

October 22, 2004 12:47 PM | Link to this

ER…Zack, I don’t remember attacking that. You’re mistaken.

By Terry M. Adams

October 22, 2004 01:16 PM | Link to this

Angie,

That was outstanding! Crying for help as the train passed by the church! Headed to Auschwitz they were - and screaming their heads off!

“Bringing in the sheaves, we shall come rejoicing - bringing in the sheaves…”

“Louder now…”

“BRINGING IN THE SHEAVES…

I thought I had heard ALL the ridiculous stories of the Holocaust out there. That was a good one!

By moveon

October 22, 2004 01:23 PM | Link to this

*By Akeya W. October 20, 2004 01:38 PM | Link to this

Street directions can be more finite. Either you can get here this way or you can’t.

There are many different religions, all touting that getting to heaven (or some equivalent), can only be done by their way (which differs with the religion).*

That’s what Zack was talking about.

By Akeya W.

October 22, 2004 02:24 PM | Link to this

Yes, I said that. However we were talking about the comparison of getting to heaven versus using a a specific highway to get to somewhere in Tennessee (?)

It’s not the same thing and ZACK is still mistaken…

And as far as the “as usual”, I try to get into discussions regarding religion as little as possible. So, ZACK was incorrect in that respect, also…

By Angie

October 22, 2004 02:31 PM | Link to this

Terry-intersting that you liked the story. My “ridiculous (story)of the Holocaust”, as you put it, comes from a woman named Penny Lea. She runs the “I Believe In Life” ministry. She can be reached at (828) 265-2663 to verify the story and the German man who told it. but I’m sure she’s probably lying about the man or the man was just lying to her as tears ran down his face.

Lies…lies…lies…don’t ya’ know that’s all Republicans, Christians and Pro-Lifers know how to tell?!?!

It doesn’t matter whether YOU believe it or not. I won’t lose any sleep over it really.

My message was to wake up the Christians out there anyway.

By Akeya W.

October 22, 2004 02:34 PM | Link to this

You know, from working with some of my clients, I almost agree with Angie…. some people shouldn’t be allowed to have children.

It’s really frustrating to see so many women wasting their lives doing nothing and ruining their children’s lives with their lazy, shiftless attitudes…

By Zack

October 22, 2004 02:34 PM | Link to this

Akeya—wrong again, my friend. I won’t fuss with you, though.

I’ve said it before and will again: The overturning of Roe v. Wade is in no way a violation of the rights of women. On the contrary, it’s a violation of the rights of the unborn. It’s that simple. If you have sex, you’ve already made your “choice”.

By Akeya W.

October 22, 2004 02:42 PM | Link to this

rolling eyes and yawning

Anyway, ZACK…we’ll continue to disagree on that and I’m bored with it already…

What I want to talk to the candidates about is why people on Section 8 live in better houses and apartment than those of us who work like dogs each day…

By moveon

October 22, 2004 02:47 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

The comparision was that people don’t argue with one way to get to TN, but they get all fussy when you tell them the one way to get to Heaven.

The position you took on the subject implied that directions to Heaven cannot be finite. I was saying that when the Creator tells you how to get somewhere, that’s the way you need to go.

I agree it was most likely a passive argument, but that’s what he was talking about, and it does get frustrating when people just dismiss you as having a ‘different truth’ or a ‘different path’ and thinking that everyone is going to get to the same place.

By Akeya W.

October 22, 2004 02:55 PM | Link to this

IS there just one way to get to Tennessee? Directions can be very finite whereas religion, at times, is not.

Different people interpret things differently.

From your point of view (I assume) and Zack’s, there’s only one way.

Now, if someone of a different religion states that your “way” is incorrect, then the way to heaven is NOT finite because you have different beliefs about how to get there.

By Zack

October 22, 2004 03:07 PM | Link to this

The problem with people like Akeya is that they don’t want to seek the truth but instead would rather run from it. They like to buy into the myth that we as individuals determine what’s right and what’s wrong, and they like to live in that frame of mind.

By Akeya W.

October 22, 2004 03:10 PM | Link to this

Zack, The TRUTH is that you don’t know enough about me to pass judgement.

By moveon

October 22, 2004 03:10 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

Let’s think about this for a minute. There are 30 teams in Major League Baseball. At the beginning of the season, they all will tell you they are going to win the World Series. Does that mean that the winner of the World Series is not a “finite” team? Can there really be multiple winners of the championship? Or now, since the Cardinals and the Red Sox are going to play the best of Seven Series starting tomorrow, is there not going to be one team that comes out on top?

Stay with me now. Just because there are different opinions on who will win the World Series, doesn’t mean there will be more than one winner.

Back to subject. Just because there are different opinions on how to get to Heaven does not mean there is more than one way. Christian’s (and most other religions) ascribe to “Modernism” which says there are absolute truths. That means among other things, that we believe there is a right way and a wrong way.

Just because someone says there is another way does not make it so. That idea is “Post-modernism” which ascribes to ‘relative’ truths, meaning your truth doesn’t make my truth any less true, even if they are fundamentally opposed to each other.

By moveon

October 22, 2004 03:12 PM | Link to this

Zack,

That isn’t the “problem” with Akeya. It’s a result of moderism vs. post-moderism. Read my post above for a little more perspective.

By Akeya W.

October 22, 2004 03:19 PM | Link to this

Moveon-

Hmmm… I don’t think that we really understand what the other is trying to say…

By moveon

October 22, 2004 03:28 PM | Link to this

Akeya,

I think I get what you’re saying. The problem I’m having is that we’d both have to die to put an end to the ‘pathways to Heaven’ discussion. I’m pretty sure that’s a step we don’t want to take.

I was trying to illustrate that with the directions and basesball because until you are at the end of the journey, you cannot look back at the path (or paths).

Zack and I believe that while we are not at the destination, we received ‘directions’ from the one who built the roads, and He says that there is only one way. There is of course no way to prove that beyond all doubt, and that is what makes it faith. The fact that not everyone agrees it attributable to free will, which is the single greatest gift we have.

I’ll bet none of that helped me make any more sense though, eh?

By Terry M. Adams

October 22, 2004 03:36 PM | Link to this

Angie,

There are all kinds of “stories” told about the Holocaust - the vast majority of them untrue as that apparently is.

A train just happens to come by every Sunday at the same time - and right on que the the church-goers take to singing? Every Sunday? And this bothered them so TERRIBLY bad - they didn’t bother changing their meeting hours, but just kept enduring the pain and singing louder and louder?And cattle-cars of “victims” are crying out for help as they pass the church? They don’t bother demolishing the cattle-cars which were made of wood (rickety) and were easily escapable? They just preferred to “scream out” as they passed the church?

That tale is just that - a tale! Come on Angie - you should know better than that.

By Angie

October 22, 2004 03:46 PM | Link to this

There is but ONE GOD. And He has a son named JESUS. JESUS is the only way to salvation-through forgiveness of your sins. You have to be forgiven to be made right with God.

Yes, there are LOTS of different religions in the world…with different gods that they pray to (Allah, Buddah, Krishna, whatever). But there is only ONE GOD with a son named JESUS. And there is only ONE REAL GOD. And HE has provided us all a way to be saved…by believing in his son and asking forgiveness of your sins.

You could say your computer was a god named Microsoft and pray to it 3 times a day but that doesn’t make it a REAL god. The computer god would never answer your prayers, never heal your sick, never guide your life, never change your life, etc. Only a REAL GOD can do those things.

It’s been said that all religions are the same and just call God by a different name. But there is no way that can be true since the other religions do not believe Jesus was the son of God.

It comes down to belief. There are people on this forum with various beliefs and that’s fine. I would never deny anyone the right to believe ANYTHING they wish-even that the norman is made of green cheese.

But not all religions are not alike in worshipping the same god and not all religions provide their followers the correct way to heaven.

(Let the Christian insults begin…I’m sure.)

Understand this, my belief is not a blind hope in a fairy tale as others would have you believe. God and Jesus have made themsselves known to me in more ways than I count and more times than I can recall. Prayers answered, miracles, lives changed, the presence of the holy spirit, etc…things non-Christians can’t understand until they become a Christian and experience firsthand.

(Like I said earlier, time for the bashing…got my armour on…go for it.);)

By Angie

October 22, 2004 03:56 PM | Link to this

Terry-I wasn’t there and neither were you. Neither of us can prove or disprove the story.Period.

For arguments sake, even if the story was made up, the points were the same. As to the church sitting back and doing nothing to stop abortion. There are plenty that DO take a stand, but too many that do nothing and keep their belief inside the church walls instead of practicing what they preach and trying to make a difference.

There needs to be a real REVIVAL in this country!!!

By Angie

October 22, 2004 04:21 PM | Link to this

Have a nice weekend everyone. God Bless You.

By Terry M. Adams

October 22, 2004 04:23 PM | Link to this

Angie,

Right - we weren’t there. But if someone said there was a person in that church with three heads - I know that is not so. Whether I was there or not.

That story is just another in the long line of tales told about the Holocaust like the one about: 6 million Jews being sent to gas chambers!

By Angie

October 22, 2004 04:37 PM | Link to this

Terry,

Do you really NOT believe the Holocaust happened and that 6 million Jews died??? You’re not serious are you?

I guess photographs, video, eye witness accounts and survivors prove nothing to you???

If you’re joking with me-ha ha.

If you’re serious then you must be delusional.

By Terry M. Adams

October 22, 2004 04:44 PM | Link to this

Angie,

There were many photographs of dead and dying people - from starvation and disease. There were NO photographs, videos or anything else of Jews being sent to gas chambers.

Survivors only told stories of their lives at the Labor camps and as they were “survivors” (thousands) isn’t a little ironic? I mean, the whole hoax about mass murder (in the millions) is propped-up by “survivors”.

It was a hoax. And still is.

By Angie

October 26, 2004 11:05 AM | Link to this

Terry-you are a very delusional person if you don’t believe what happened to the Jews. So, you’re not debating whether they died-but HOW they died. My grandfather was there in WWII and told us about the smell of burning bodies from the ovens. Survivors know people were burned in the ovens and gassed. Your arhument is that Hitler and his cronies merely STARVED them to death instead of gassing or burning??? Get your head out of the sand and wake up to reality. Your comments disrespect all who were there and all who suffered.

By Chanel

October 27, 2004 02:15 PM | Link to this

Just where in the bible does it say “Thou shall not commit abortion?” I sure can’t find it. I want the exact word for wqord, not someones version of “Thou shall not kill”. Because if “Thou shall not kill” then all of our US soldiers are going to hell. Where in the bible does it state when life begins? When you are saved? When you are baptized?

A very good website to make some of you think http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-bibleforbids.htm

By Chanel

October 27, 2004 02:18 PM | Link to this

A Good Argument by Jim Blair

If you are a “Pro Life” believer, you know that human life begins at conception. A fertilized egg cell is a full complete human being.

In England, thousands of people are about to be massacred! To the medical establishment, they are just “frozen embryos”, created in medical experiments and fertility treatments, but not implanted in a uterus. Now, after 5 years, they will be murdered.

Unless you act to save them.

All “pro life” women have an obligation to “adopt” one of these children. Even the Pope is calling on women to do this: it is your duty to the unborn. To fail to volunteer, is to be a hypocrite: put your uterus where your mouth is. Only you (and other women) can save these children. But what if not enough women fulfil their obligation? Well society has not hesitated in the past to draft young men to fight and even die in a noble cause. Why should we fail to draft young women to save thousands of lives, and at almost no risk to themselves?

PS: This was written for one particular incident, but now it looks like this is an ongoing situation.

And this from Scott Cokely :

Don’t forget cloning. Ask a pro-lifer the Forbidden Questions:

a) If life begins at conception, when does a clone’s life begin? b) Why?

To this question, some have suggested “when the nucleus is inserted into to host egg”. But this just shows the arbitrariness of the various opinions as to when “life begins”. You are probably correct that most of the “at conception” crowd would opt for “when it LOOKS like a recently fertilized egg”. But since there was no conception, that would be based on appearance only.

To review briefly the various opinions that I have heard (and I stress opinions not theories, since there is no experiment that can resolve the issue: it is in the same class of question as “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”), and in chronological order:

• About 3 billion years ago, at least on earth. We are all descended from the first primitive live cells. Both the sperm and egg cells we were formed from were both human and alive (= human life) BEFORE conception, etc back to the first human, before that back to the original living cell.

• At conception. The sperm and egg that I came from were “human life” but they were not ME, until conception.

• At implantation. Most fertilized egg cells fail to implant. Are we to claim that most “babies” die before the mother even knows that they existed?

• When brain activity begins (at 20 some weeks after conception). It is the brain that relates to thought and makes us human. This was the view expressed by Carl Sagan.

• At birth. Both the Bible and every human society use this date. (see my web page file on abortion in the political section for a review of the what the Bible has to say on all this.)

• The “age of reason”, about 4 or 5 years, for most, but depends on the individual. (Some never get there). Many societies don’t consider infants to be “people”.

• At puberty. Many societies have a ritual to welcome people into the society at this age.

• At 18 years after birth. Then they can drink, vote and sign contracts.

• At 21. Same as above.

Now of all of the above opinions, none need be changed for a clone except “at conception”. That step does not happen, so the advocates of that opinion need to find another answer for the clone.