Obama commemorates Roe vs. Wade

The thick slurry of human beings macerated all costs continues...

It is the worst civil rights holocaust in the history of mankind - who is speaking for the unborn, innocent child? 60 Million babies murdered in the US since Roe, and the so-called compassionate liberals are the most culpable. Tragic.

Why on earth is this story under Religion News? This is a political issue. Last I check President Obama is not a religious leader.

"Interested in reduction"? News item: Obama issues executive order overturning the Mexico City Policy. How is reduction accomplished by unleashing Planned Parenthood with taxpayer money to spread abortion internationally? This is the kind of American secular pollution that enrages religious cultures around the world. The concept of America trying to convince women in these cultures that they would be better off if they killed their unborn children, and we will provide them the means to do so, is abhorrent and demonic. Will Obama accept Russian funding for the abortion mills of America?

It boggles my mind that, on the day Mr Obama bends over backwards to make sure terrorists are well protected and comfortable, he then turns around and champions the slaughter of innocent unborn children.

For all the people who are pro-life, how many children have you adopted? Our country is in shambles and you want to force more children into our world. Will you pay for them when there mother does not want them. No, but you will continue to preach about it.

Mr. Obama believes that Roe v. Wade "stands for a broader principle: that government should not intrude on our most private family matters."?

Last I knew, Mr. Obama was quite supportive of governmental intrusion into the very heart of the family itself through the issuance of licenses of marriage and certificates of divorce, as well as of intrusive governmental oversight of the welfare of children (even to the point of the government taking child custody if it deems it appropriate), and intrusive government oversight of the quality of domestic relations between husbands and wives in the form of applying laws relating to domestic abuse, and intrusive governmental oversight of family finances, in the forms of both establishing and enforcing alimony and child support arrangements, and in the a priori prioritization of massive family expenditures through taxation, and of course – last but hardly least – government control of the education of children.

But perhaps Mr. Obama is suggesting that these other things are private family matters of a lesser sort, as opposed to the killing of children, which qualifies as being a most private family matter – and that therefore he knows to draw the line of governmental intrusion at the killing, because - Ba’al knows - we can’t have governmental interference in the killing of children, except perhaps to pay for it with the money of those who find it morally outrageous.

Early stage fetuses are not "babies" or "children". Until a significant brain developes, the fetus is a much lower organism than the cows, pigs, & chickens we slaughter so freely. I know that certain religious people (not all) have a mystical notion that an "immortal soul" is created at conception, and they can believe that as much as they want, but they should keep it to themselves and not foist their superstitions on the rest of us.

James, would you think that slavery is only a political issue or has fairh and moral implications as well?

James Brogioli describe this as a political not a religious story. But this is a religious issue also, and one that Obama addressed in an interesting 2006 speech on the role of religion in politics. In that speech, he spoke about his reaction when someone sent him a letter accusing him of insensitivity when something put out by his staff had ultraliberal proabortion rhetoric that I think characterized those opposed to abortion as being religious zealots (if I remember the speech correctly -- it had been on his campaign web site). In the speech, he said that the letter made him think, and that while he didn't expect to change his views on abortion, he realized that the rhetoric his staff had used was inappropriate, and since then he has been more careful to treat opposing views with respect. I think that Obama is rare among liberals in being able to pay attention to the role of religion in shaping one's approach to the political world.

To KJR who says "the so-called compassionate liberals are the most culpable" in the death of unborn, innocent children. i've always wondered why those so-called compassionate right-to-lifers aren't demanding an end to all wars because it destroys life. What about young soldiers and innocent civilians? Your belief in right-to-life should mean all life.

No woman gets out of bed in the morning and thinks, Oh what the heck, I'm bored, I think I'll get an abortion today.

It's the most agonizing decision a woman ever makes.

The way to avoid the need for abortions is to make sure everyone (men included) is taught about contraception, and that contraception is freely available AND USED each time. Yes, the best method of contraception is abstinence, but let's also not deceive ourselves - people are not abstinent. If one is not going to be abstinent, one has the responsibility to oneself, and to the next generation, to use reliable contraception. (And yes, properly used contraceptive devices are so nearly 100% reliable as makes no difference.)

For the record, I am a Christian and do not support abortion. However, I do not believe God has given me the right to judge any other woman or man for their choices in life. And furthermore, for the record, I believe that the bulk of the anti-choice movement is based on restricting women in all aspects of their sexual lives, not just in the single issue of abortion.

this is probably the one issue i agree with Obama on. i've always wondered if the far right considers masturbation murder?

Oh give me a break. A ball of cells is no more a baby than an egg is a chicken. Let's get religion OUT of this discussion and look at it rationally for once.

its under religious news because idiots who are against pro choice always bring "religion" into the topic

Let it be proclaimed that today starts a new era: Freedom to kill the innocent and still pround of it.

Affordable contraception??????/ Puhleeeeeeeze

forced sterilization and applications for child bearing licences.
Remember, ✚ Religion Stops √\√\√\√\----------a Thinking Mind .

That is right - we, as woman, have the RIGHT to choose. It is no one's business - especially a religious organization that many ppl don't believe in- in what I choose to do medically. What I find funny is that the church is opposed to birth control (but not viagra!).. Opposed to proper sex-ed tthat would help young woman and men understand the seriousness of having sexual relations & what it entails. Opposed to giving them the knowledge so if they choose to engage in sex on how to protect themselves so they won't have to make this very hard choice. They are also opposed to the adoption of children by gays. And, as you all are aware, even if you don't want to admit it, abstinence only education doesn't work, nor do your "promise rings." EDUCATION is the way out.

Basically the church is saying that they aren't going help you in ANY way other than call the women murderers when making a very difficult choice. If a young woman decides to have a child where is the church then? Are they babysitting (though I wouldn't want to leave my kids w/ them.. we've seen what happens then)? Are they giving the young lady money for rent, food, clothing, continuing education?Notice how they don't "go off" on the boys/men that helped make these pregnencies happen as well. It takes 2 to tango but we all know how the church views women.

You can believe waht YOU want to believe but it is not your right to put that on anyone else. You practice your religion for yourself and no one else. IF you really want to make a difference then teach your children well and teach them to have respect for themselves, their bodies and other peoples choices.

This is a political issue and not a religious one. Religious leaders/people need to keep their noses out of others business. I have said it again and again.. religious ppl only take seperation of church and state to heart when it benefits the church. If religious leaders / people continue their ridiculous political campaigns of ignorance, intolerance and ego it's high time they start paying takes. They are like any other big business but they just get to hide behind robes, funny hats and hatred.

Imagine if every young woman who mistakenly got pregnant was forced to have that child? Most people having an abortion don't have a family structure (i..e no father), is young, poorly educated and in dire financial situations. If she was forced to have that kid it would just make that child dependent on government hand outs, and would never be a productive member of society. It would just create a swath and chain of more unwanted, naive, uneducated drains on our economy and society. I'm glad people are having abortions. You can think with your bibles up your arse, or you can think towards what society will be like in 100 years. Brave New World was right.

The Blessed Mother said I am the Immaculate Conception. So, life does begin at conception. This is only the beginning. Obama is going to destroy our country. ï´M PROUD that i didn¨t vote for him. Never will. I now want change. Change him and his crazy ideas. Doesn´t want torture, only killing babies is allowed.

What if you were one of the millions of children being aborted by your " mother" ? If you at least had a chance to say something, what would you tell your "mother" ? Kill me? I am not worthy of coming to the world and be somebody? This is not a matter of religion, but a matter of morality. Life is above anyones paygrade. It is a God given gift.

The expansion of abortion and "preventative services" with the use of tax payer money is unconsitutional. The use of money taken by the government to be use to expand such programs in violation of people's basic beliefs (religious or not) violates the basic principles of the Bill of Rights.
Even the Mass. Supreme Court agreed with this principle when the legislature tried to force the Mass Health and Medicade to pay for abortion.

"To KJR who says "the so-called compassionate liberals are the most culpable" in the death of unborn, innocent children. i've always wondered why those so-called compassionate right-to-lifers aren't demanding an end to all wars because it destroys life. What about young soldiers and innocent civilians? Your belief in right-to-life should mean all life."

Well said, "need to know."

As an aside, I find it ironic KJR mocks liberals for allegedly lacking compassion, and rhetorically claims to hold each human life sacred and deserving of honor, yet the man comes to these blogs on a daily basis to ridicule and condemn the lives of gays and lesbians.

["Don't abort that gay baby! Let it live so we can make its life miserable!"]

Obama's statement was well said and read and makes perfect sense, except to those religious intolerant fanatics...

Women have the right to choose ... what to do with their own bodies, but as soon as a child is conceived, that child has rights, too! A fetus is a technical name that is given to a human person at a certain stage of development, but it is still a human person. Or, is it going to become a giraffe or an elephant?
This is not a religious issue, but an issue of basic biology and basic human rights. Our mothers allowed us to be born, but then we have the arrogance to deny life to others. Please, someone convince me how this is not a human person!! If your mother or my mother had chosen abortion, we would not be having this conversation right now.

For Chas Simmons!! What if you are wrong and there is a souls at conception!!
Lord Have Mercy!!

A blastocyst--what forms after conception--has 100,000 *fewer* cells than the brain of a fly. Do you freak out as much over killing a fly? The cells that form in the first trimester do not constitute a fetus or a child.

It's time for science and rationality to replace blind, uniformed religion.

need to know and moveon -

Your comparison regarding "all life" vs intentional killing of human babies is patently absurd.

It suggests that pro life people like war - we don't. We hate it. Sometimes it is necessary. But to compare death in war with intentional murder of human life by every measure is frankly beyond stupid.

jake - you may have learned in biology class that sperm, without an egg, cannot grow up to be you or moveon. Dumb analogy.

Women do have a right to choose. They and their partner chose to have sex and get pregnant.

What about animals right to life? How many of you are vegetarians? And again, for the person that stated the blessed mother said "I am the immaculate conception" you again forget that not everyone BELIEVES WHAT YOU BELIEVE!

Where is the outrage at war, fur, animal brutality, rape, genocide, molesation (oh, that one is ok b/c Bernie went into a small wooden box and asked to be forgiven)?

Until religious folks start respecting others beliefs I can't take you seriously.

To poster Muzzy - thank you for seeing things a respectful light....

...and Obama means it when he says "everywhere". Abortions for women all over the world at the expense of US taxpayers.

Sickening.

If life is so sacred why do you nutjobs blow up abortion clinics and kill other humans by doing so? Someday your antiquated beliefs will be made irrelevant and we can progress as a society. Much like we laugh at the time when people believed in witches and bloodletting, someday we'll be laughing at your archaic views.

While I think it is good to have a place like this to be able to hear valid points on both sides, I really have to take issue with some of you who just spew out nonsense.

Let's clear up a few things:

I rule the world "For all the people who are pro-life, how many children have you adopted?... Will you pay for them when there mother does not want them. No, but you will continue to preach about it."

Speaking from a Catholic perspective, many of us have given of our time and resources to help those in need, including women who decide not to abort. In fact, the Catholic church is the single largest provider of social services after the government. So yes, we do put our money where our mouth is. Unfortunately the Catholic church is forced to do less in the area of adoption (read http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions/)

need to know "What about young soldiers and innocent civilians? Your belief in right-to-life should mean all life."

It does. But the fact is that if you add up all the deaths caused by war, you would have to multiply that by 40x to reach the number of abortions since Row V Wade. This particular board is about pro/anti abortion, not the war.

dan "...If she was forced to have that kid it would just make that child dependent on government hand outs, and would never be a productive member of society...I'm glad people are having abortions."

Do you have some kind of crystal ball to see into the future? Please tell us what tonight's lottery number will be. Maybe our government could spend less time and money on abortions and channel that towards efforts to help those in need (kind of like the Catholic church).

red "Are they giving the young lady money for rent, food, clothing, continuing education?Notice how they don't "go off" on the boys/men that helped make these pregnencies happen as well."

Yes, "they" are. Again, the Catholic church is the largest provider of social services. Look up this info before you just spout off things like "they aren't going help you in ANY way" when this is just blatently wrong.

"need to know and moveon -

"It suggests that pro life people like war - we don't. We hate it. "

I think the point is this...very often the so-called Pro Lifers are the same folks who have blindly, unflinchingly supported the immoral war in Iraq, during which countless lives have been lost...

and very often those same folks are FOR the death penalty, I should add.

(where do you stand on the death penalty, KJR?...Please do tell.)

KJR, please don't complain about the alleged suggestion that "pro life people" like war...your very own use of the term "pro life people" suggests that those who are not "pro life" are pro DEATH, which is, what was your term...oh, yes, "patently absurd" and simply unfair and inaccurate.

You apparently believe anyone who is pro-choice finds some sort of insidious pleasure in abortion. THAT'S what's absurd, sir.

Were I a woman, I don't think I could go through with an abortion (while I acknowledge that one often doesn't know how one will act until one is in a certain situation, living it), but I don't think I have the right to tell a woman she cannot.

"Pro-choice" is NOT synonymous with "lusting for baby murder."

As always, it's specious arguments from you.

I think it's ironic that from the pro-abortion point of view, Obama's conception itself would have been a "problem." An interracial couple, his father from a poor African village... How many of these "non-viable" pregnancies could have gone on to become great leaders, scientists, citizens who could have made serious contributions to the world. I have known people, myself included, who have been on adoption lists for years, awaiting a baby. But what I have heard from most mothers with an unwanted pregnancy is that they don't want to carry a child and then give it up for adoption. It's not about unwanted children, it's that it's too much bother.

Consider the following contradictions:
- Unborn bald eagles (and many other animals) are protected by law, but unborn human persons are not.
- An unborn child is called a "baby" by parents who want the child to be born (see how sad they are if they miscarriage), but if the child is not wanted, they call it a "fetus." So, apparently the unborn child is considered to be a person ONLY if he/she is wanted.
- Every woman should have the right to choose what to do with their bodies - unless a woman has not been born yet. Then, someone else gets to choose whether or not that unborn woman is allowed to live.

Does this sound like rational, scientific reasoning to you?

A nation that kills its own children is a nation without HOPE.

It is amazing, really. President Obama is so 'morally upright' when he says that the U.S. will not sanction 'torture' of terrorists and then on the other side of his mouth, he DOES sanction torture and murder of innocent life! Is torture worse than the 'snuffing out of life'? Either they are both wrong or neither is wrong! Sorry, he is acting like a politician and I expected more from him.

DBMDCA, it's a bit much to call abortion torture, don't you think?

I mean, come on.

You people all need to realize that the constitution does not include a right to an abortion. At the very least, its an issue that needs to be decided by elected state representatives.

You atheists and secularists try to minimalize pro-lifers by saying its our religion that drives our conviction. You'll never hear me make religious arguments. I make constiutional, humanitarian, justice arguments. A just society doesn't kill babies. But apparently, we have to give rights to people that would kill us.

I would rather have my money go to sex education & contraception than wars. Where is that outrage?

"Pro-Choicers Ignore the Facts," curious.

What are your thoughts on doctor assisted suicide?

I'm tired of hearing "not everyone believes what you believe". If a quarter of the country decides that the color black is now known as "mouse ears" because that is what they believe... are we just going to accept that? It's the same with the word "marriage". You can believe what you want, but it won't change what it really is... it's the unnatural ending of a life cycle.

In this day and age, ignorance is not a good enough excuse to get pregnant and inconvenience is not a good enough reason to abort a child.

It's your body to do with as you please, so please wrap your willy and take a pill and be responsible for yourself. If you choose not to (as is your right), there are consequenses.

Move-On

I'm not really sure. I think I'm inclined to say for that as well that I'm morally against it, but that the debate should take place in the state legislatures through our elected representatives. So no constitutional right, but that doesn't make it necessarily illegal on the state level.

It's dangerous when you make up constitutional rights that have no basis in the text, and then take the debate about the public sphere. A lot more people would be a lot less upset if they knew their Congressment were the ones controlling abortion , not 9 unelected judges.

if you believe in the bible than you will come to the conclusion that women do not have the right to choose. 1 cor. 15 on says your bodies are members of Christ. Do you not know that your body is the temple of the holy Spirit within you whom you have from God and that you are not your own".

our bodies belong to the creator and are only borrowed. we will have to answer for what we do with His body.

My last comment should say "out of the public sphere" not "about the public sphere".

Melli - the problem w/ your "wrap up your willy / take a pill" doesn't always work when education and/or birth control aren't readily available. I would love it if people / kids abstained until they were truly sure it's what they wanted and then went to their doctor (if they had one) and got birth control. Or go to a health clinic (if there was one available) to get free birth control. But in many poor or rural places this just isn't a choice. I forget where but someone wanted to pass a bill that would make birth control = to abortion...

And on another note what about abortion for rape, incest or the health of the mother? Palin was against that as well - are you?

"Pro-Choicers Ignore the Facts," this...

"I think I'm inclined to say for that as well that I'm morally against it, but that the debate should take place in the state legislatures through our elected representatives. So no constitutional right"

sounds contradictory to this:

"I make constiutional, humanitarian, justice arguments."

I find my struggle with so-called Pro Lifers because quite often there does indeed seem to be a humanitarian element that is missing when they debate...

For instance, you'll find someone condemning "devoid of compassion baby murder," but that same person turns around and support executions in the electric chair....or blindly support an unjust war in which scores of innocents are slaughtered, all in the name of patriotism and defending our way of life.

If life is to be cherished and valued above all else, isn't it often perhaps even wrong to cling on to that life when there is nothing but perpetual suffering and misery to it? Isn't that somehow dishonoring the good that preceded it?

We treat dogs and other pets with more humanity and compassion at the time of their deaths than we do our fellow man.

(NOTE: not addressing you directly, w/the following...)

I don't understand the mindset that lacks the compassion to help the elderly or terminally ill be euthanized when life becomes simply too unbearable to take, insisting they suffer on through it, and also lacks compassion and supports taking, for instance, the life of a convicted killer whose soul, presumably, has the capacity to redeem itself before death.

nufsaid, the Bible also says (Leviticus 11:7) we shouldn't consume pork.

(i.e."...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you.")

When was the last time you or someone close to you had a BLT?

Hey right wing religious freaks--get a life of your own. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. Your falsely interpreted religious views do not belong on the US poiltical docket-- stay out of my life!

hey nufsaid , what about the 3/4 of the world's population that isn't Christian. Do our bodies belong to Christ too? Why would I care what the bible says--it's just a book.

Good for Obama. A tough issue, but it needed to be dealt with.

moveon - I am against the death penalty, will you apologize for your foolish assumption now? You are very judgmental, and very conflicted. You were right on queue to bring in the gay debate to this board which has nothing to do with the gay debate. That's right, because its all about you..

The war "red herring" is laughable as a comparison to protected murder of the innocent. 14 Million legal murders will occur this year in the US. Where is the outrage? And Obama, just reversed a funding ban guranteeing MORE murder. The ultimate hypocracy.

Red... I guess what i'm getting at is that money should be thrown at PREVENTION of pregnancy in the first place - not the willy nilly acceptance of abortion as a form of birth control. In this day and age, birth control IS readily available. Parents and other adults need to take teach kids about their options. They also need to teach kids about the consequences for their actions. The issue is a little different regarding adults of legal age versus 11 year olds...

I do not believe in the practice of abortion as a means for birth control. Two consenting adults should practice birth control BEFORE conception. In the event of rape, there was no consent there, and no ability to practice birth control BEFORE conception. You're having an abortion because you had NO CHOICE in the matter before hand. Under those circumstances an abortion is acceptible (in my opinion).

In the event of the health of the mother, an abortion is acceptible (in my opinion). This is because the person(s) involved are not terminating a pregnancy just because "they don't want the baby". It is for medical reasons, and in the majority of those cases, those were babies that were sorely wanted.

"That's right, because its all about you."

Bringing up the gay thing is absolutely appropriate...folks like you, KJR, are all about conveying to others you value an altruistic ideal of respect for all life, but you routinely desecrate and demean the lives of gays and lesbians.

You turn a deaf ear to the gay community trying to get you to see that your religious, condemning rhetoric contributes to the high rate of gay youth suicide, clearly demonstrating that you do not care.

I find those like you who go on about "compassion" utterly hypocritical and self-congratulatory, when in reality, your capacity for true compassion is questionable.

As a gay person, I witness this hypocrisy on a regular basis, and I am routinely annoyed by it...so in a discussion with "Pro Lifers" about their seemingly compassionate stance regarding abortion, yes, indeed I think it's appropriate to point out that you're not in a position to chastise another where compassion is concerned.

And you go right on and continue believing my being here is merely an exercise in narcissism. In reality, I am here not only for myself, but for future gay youth whose lives you make more traumatic and difficult with your incessant judgment, disrespect, spread of disinformation, and condemnation.

Some of you folks certainly treat gay people as if you wish they had been aborted. I find that ironic.

And THAT is my relevant point.

"I am against the death penalty, will you apologize for your foolish assumption now? You are very judgmental, and very conflicted."

I suspected, I didn't assume, thus the inquiry.

I'm judgmental? Yes, I am...when it's warranted. You, however, judge gay people without warrant, as you perpetually strive to maintain stereotypes (i.e. demonize gay people) and continue the circulation of disinformation.

We are both judgmental but in very different ways.

I'm conflicted?

Not with myself, sir. My conflict is with you.

#6 raises a very valid point. I adopted a 10 year old boy who had been removed from his abusive home at age 5 then floated in the system for 5 years. I'm aware of the vast number of unwanted children, thousands in Massachusetts alone, who are in limbo, living miserable lives waiting to be chosen by a family who will simply love and care for them. If every qualified pro-life person adopted one baby or older waiting child, the rate of abortion would drop dramatically. I think these people really just want to thump and preach; they don't really want to solve the problem. If they actually put their "faith" into action, the fun of the argument would be gone.

I don't see it as a political issueI don’t see it as a political issue. But unfortunately, in this country where politics is so polarized, you are automatically labeled as being supportive of a political party depending on your stance on this issue.
But it’s not a religious issue too. The article does not belong under “Articles of Faith” at all!! Many non-religious people are against abortion based on ethical principals. But because a great number of people who oppose abortion happen to be religious people, many prefer to intentionally portray it as a “religious” issue to win their arguments in the legal system.
It’s more precise to recognize it as an ethical issue, which has been politicized in this country. Our common humanity and natural instinct is to save lives and not to destroy them, no matter if you have religious convictions or not. The presence of hospitals, firefighters and police in most modern societies is a sign of such instinct. And it is supposedly to be one of the roles of government as well: to protect life and not to sanction the destruction of it. It’s a shame (or a political scheme, rather) that the educated minds in the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court could not determine when life begins, therefore opening the floodgates to indiscriminate abortions on demand.

Not having government intruding in our private life? So, let’s go ahead and stop government from intruding in domestic violence, child abuse, child support, alimony, and other domestic issue cases. After all, those are private matters.
Not being able to financially afford a child? So let’s kill our children once we become unemployed and when to maintain them becomes too expensive.

Concerned with the welfare of animals?? We all should be. There have to be regulations to prevent the abuse and mistreat of animals. They were not born to be treated cruelly. But they are still animals and are source of food for us as any other LIVING plant out there, and to put them in the same plain field as human beings shows how much our values are upside down and how much innocent human life has been trivialized. A bumper sticker I’ve seen some time ago says it all: “We protect our whales, we brake for our moose, we care for our bears, but we murder our innocent unborn children.”

Mr. President Obama, I don’t doubt you want to give a chance of a better America for our future generation. But in order to do so, let them live first.

(By the way, excellent points from Mr. Athanasius – comment #7).

KJR, it's so much easier to take commenters who can properly spell 'hypocrisy' correctly seriously.

As for me, I would never, ever, get an abortion myself. But it is not my place to tell anybody else what they may or may not do. That is between themselves, those close to them, and their God, if they believe.

And I do support better sex education, including much more information about things like birth control.

anacarabean - that is like saying " I am totally against child molestation, but I am not going to impose my view on someone else." ABORTION IS INSTRINSICALLY EVIL.

You sound like Ponitius Pilate also, when he said: "I believe Jesus is innocent, but I am not going to assert my view on anyone else, so let him die."

Or the like the "Christian" Germans who watched the trains to the camps go by knowing what was going on, but cound not be bothered because it didn't concern them.

Pathetic.

It's much better to leave hundreds of thousands kids stuck in a broken system, instead.

And it's even more morally correct to rob women who have been victims of rape or familial abuse of further choice? Especially if they didn't have a choice to begin with?

Your comment on molestation is entirely off-topic and fallacious. That is a universal consensus. It is wrong. It has been viewd as such since early civilzation.

On abortion-there are too many views. There is no consensus. In the end, each person will be individually repsonsible and answerable for what they did. You can counsel against abortion, and you can feel strongly about it. But *you* do not have the right, nor the authority to tell *me* how to decide the course of my life. None of us do.

"Pathetic."

vs.

"You are very judgmental"

(...just found the irony/hypocrisy amusing.)

I guess Obama's mantra of HOPE is just lip service to the unborn baby that's about to be slaughtered.

I always find it funny and at the same time disturbing that whenever there are articles on abortion, the most responses are from MEN. First this article shouldn't be under the religion section. Second, stop putting God into anything and everything people do. If someone doesn't believe in God, guess what...they have the freedom to do so. Need I remind you that this country was founded on exactly that....believe in whatever you want to believe in. Why is it that there are always idiots and religious zealots, who are probably socially awkward to begin with writing on these boards!?!?!?!

For for the sake of argument -- what if someone owned an oyster that would produce the most unique black pearl in the future. Let's also pretend the black pearl would be valued at 10 million dollars once it was fully formed. What sort of value could be placed on the oyster with this knowledge? Would it be worthless (i.e. just a bunch of tiny cells as frequently mentioned in the abortion debate) or would it have significant worth and value? Could or would you easily discard with such an oyster if you knew in time it would be so valuable in the future? Just a thought.

KJR...The "war red herring"? Are we to assume that you have supported Bush over these past 8 years? If so, you are pro-death, not pro-life. Bush and his supporters are directly responsible for the murders of as many as 1.2 million Iraqi civilians. Including pregnant women, by the way. But if you've voted for Bush or McCain, you're OK with that. By definition. Because it's not life that you people care about - it's choice. The idea that a woman can choose her own destiny infuriates you, just as, in your case, the idea that gay men and women can choose their own destinies. From a scientific standpoint, human life most certainly does not begin at conception. Independent brain waves occur some six months later, along with viability. When Justice Blackmun crafted the decision in Roe, he indicated that, while not a scientist, it seemed that the state had no place in the first trimester, increasing say in the second, and a definite place in the third trimester. Who knows - perhaps Justice Blackmun was the recipient of divine inspiration.

Milli - I am all for prevention and education as well. Problem w/ the education part is a lot of parents whether religious or not don't teach their children the facts. They don't wnat to teach their children about sex in general never mind birth control, disease and what you can do to avoid it, etc,etc. And for it being taught in schools the religious right goes nuts. Remember sex is for procreation only...

I also do not beleive in the practice of abortion as birth control and I think the majority of ppl do not use if for that purpose but yes, some do. But you know what, mistakes happen. Is everyone posting on this mistake free in their lives? I certainly am not and I am also not going ot judge others b/c of their choice. Walk a mile people...I just wish I saw this type of fervor from the religious from during the molestation scandel. I have a problem w/ organized religion b/c you aren't supposed to have your own thoughts/ feelings (I know this is not true for all religious people). I feel like they are compassionate when it suits what they believe.

And to the poster Hala.. some catholic charities do good work others spout intolerance. Extremism in any form is bad.

And to Move on - I love the gays! I marched in gay pride, marched against prop 8 and support my many gay friends. THis is also why I have a probelm w/ organized religion.. they do not have compassion for all living beings only the ones that live their way and their way only.

We all need to realize that we will never agree but we do have to make an effort to get education,& sex -ed as a priority & birth control obtainable for anyone and everyone (and not have some pharamcist tell someone "no'). THis is the only way to get the abortion number down.

To ATR, Actually, only 20% of the posts here are men (13/65), so check your facts before you say "most." Secondly, there are many, many, many, people who aren't religious, or atheist for that matter, who are against abortion. In fact, have you ever considered that one can have both a scientific and a philosophical debate about whether abortion is right or wrong? I'm going to assume not. Lastly, our country wasn't founded on "believe in whatever you want to believe in." You need to pick up a book and read once in awhile.

Is an unborn child a person? That is not a religious question. Is a "fetus" a human person in an early stage of development? Each of us was a "fetus" at the beginning of our lives.
Why are unborn bald eagles protected by law, but not unborn human persons? Where is the logic in that? Don't human persons have much greater value than bald eagles?

ana - your justification is "quality/ecomomics" vs. the right to life. That's the same analysis the Germans used with the Jews.

With regard to the "rape/incest" defense. Would you support ending abortion in all cases EXCEPT rape and incest? There are millions of babies this year who would take that deal right now. If not, your argument is irrelevant.

The life of your unborn child trumps an unfettered decision to terminate it or not. Sorry. Who is protecting the unborn children ana? Not the mother, the father (because he cannot) and certainly not the government.

moveon - is that more noise from you? You continue to demonstrate the inability to distinguish the critisizm of the PERSON from the BEHAVIOR or THOUGHT. Surely, you deem humans to have the ability to behave or think with restraint - we are not animals, are we?

ATR - killing of innocent unborn children (half of whom are MEN) is not a issue that Men can vet? There are millions of women who are as passionate about the cause to protect innocent life as anyone, or have you not paid attention to that?

Idiots and religious zealots? (Are you really moveon under a different handle?)

KJR, you're accused me of namecalling when I've called you shallow, bigoted, superficial, simple, etc, because of your viewpoints....you called another's viewpoint "pathetic." Isn't that namecalling, in your book?

Yet again, you are the king of irony...

You tell me I "continue to demonstrate the inability to distinguish the critisizm of the PERSON from the BEHAVIOR or THOUGHT," when time and time again you have proved that you cannot see the PERSON in the homosexual; you only see "the behavior."

KJR-

The argument has nothing to do with economics. What I'm saying is that if you ban abortion entirely, we need to completely re-build the current foster care system that we have no. NO child deserves to wonder and worry if they'll ever have a family who'll love them. I apologize if I don't exactly see pro-lifers lining up to adopt so many of the older kids who'll forever be stuck in the system because a majority of the adopters want 'babies'. When my fiance and I are more settled, I plan on not only adopting at least one older child, but becoming a foster parent myself.

Provided that exceptions are made in any bill for cases like rape/incest and the life of the mother, I wouldn't be against a bill, on a personal level. There are, however, better solutions already. Supporting programs that teach proper sexual education and proper contraceptive use is the beginning. Also teaching our children to respect themselves enough to say 'no' until they find who they want to be with. I advocate for personal responsibility. And no decision regarding abortion is ever unfettered. It affects too many lives, and in hundreds of unforeseen ways. In many cases, the fathers aren't involved to begin with, so that argument is moot.

Again, the best way to solve the argument is to promote personal responsibility. Abortion should never be a birth control choice. Personal responsibility and proper education to prevent conception to begin with are the best route. People should be educated as to all their options, too, though.

Red... wait, so the majority of abortions in this country are because of rape or medical reasons? Not as a means of birth control? If so, then we should be really scared about the health of America and the safety of women...

And yes, I have made plenty of mistakes in my life, and with those mistakes, I paid the price. I'm not judging them on their "mistake" as you call it. I question the motive behind the so-called "solution".

the choice comes before hand... period.

" Surely, you deem humans to have the ability to behave or think with restraint - we are not animals, are we?"

And that's EXACTLY how you feel about gay people...that we are acting like animals, merely buying into animal lust, yes?

Your Bible says "Don't do this, it's bad," so that's it...a done deal. So, instead of listening to reason (i.e. "Who would choose to be a way that would bring to them public ridicule, threat of physical assault, ridicule, degradation?"), you listen to a book written by primitive men writing a book they knew would be used as a tool to maintain patriarchal society/structure...which is essentially what homophobia is: a reaction to a perceived threat of the patriarchal structure.

ontheleft - so because of war and its tragedies, women should have the right to kill their unborn children? That is an absurd argument and competely avoids the issue. War does not cause abortion. They are unrelated.

"ontheleft - so because of war and its tragedies, women should have the right to kill their unborn children? That is an absurd argument."

No, your interpretation of what "ontheleft" has said is what's absurd.

KJR...They are killing no one during the first trimester. Independent brain waves and viability happen at 6 months. And Roe, as I said, does not allow abortion on demand during the third trimester. Your response tells me that you did indeed vote for Bush and his venture into the mass murder of civilians, including pregnant women. And when you kill a pregnant woman in war, you abort her fetus as well. Hence, war does indeed cause abortion. Or would you care to dispute that notion? And it is you who avoids the issue, in this case that you are not pro-life. You are simply anti-choice. When you go to the mats to end Bush's war, when you stop voting for the political party that started that war, when you stop insisting that others should not have the same rights that you take for granted, then, and only then, can you truthfully call yourself pro-life.

"And it is you who avoids the issue, in this case that you are not pro-life. You are simply anti-choice. "

THANK YOU!!!

onthleft and the other person who will not take steps to protect the lives of 10million+ this year:

The issue is not how you want to label me, the issue is legalized killing of human life. The "viability" argument is also a non-sequiter. A baby in not viable, ie, cannot live on its own, without support and intervention from its mother or someone else for years after birth. (By the way, I was against the war, so what now? Does that now validate and legitimize the anti-abortion position? They are unrelated).

In most states, of your kill a pregnant woman it is charged as a double homicide. But, that same woman could have aborted, and been praised for her "choice".

left - you are correct about one thing; I am absolutely anti-choice about a woman killing her unborn child.

Where is the child's "choice"?

And once again, KJR, you present profound irony:

"The issue is not how you want to label me"

You routinely demonstrate a propensity to label and to marginalize.

moveon - you really have to get a life. Am I really that big a threat to your peace of mind? This board is about abortion, and you keep bringing the other topic in here. (the rest I deleted in the interest of being charitable ...)

Now, back to the topic....

ana - bless you for wanting to be a foster parent. That is wonderful. But if you look at the content of your post, while saying that it has nothing to do with economics, the rest of it refers exactly to that: ie, quality of life issues. That is economics. Economics is NEVER a reason to terminate one's life - ever.

✞RELIGION STOPS^^^^^-------A THINKING MIND

"moveon - you really have to get a life."

This coming from the man who was over at the gay blog trashing gays at 1:30 in the morning.

Right back atcha, daddy-o.

And again I say we're very much on target w/the topic. Th predictable, routine hypocrisy of self-proclaimed Pro Lifers such as you is indeed relevant to the discussion.

I applaud our new President for following through with this campaign pledge and his democratic platform. This is democracy in work. Over 53% of the American public supports the right of choice for an abortion. There is no common ground regarding the legality of abortion. The two sides have different religious views and different views of reality. People like my family and friends and most of my state believe a fertilized egg, or a mass of wiggley cells or an early embryo is not equivalent to a human person with political rights. Let's make abortion rare and safe by reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies through wide and cheap availability of contraceptives and effective family planning education. That is common ground.

moveon - when one works LATE and posts from a west coast time zone, it apparently causes one grasping for straws to react.

Would you support a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy if through science, that fetus (because of genetic testing, imagery, or whatever) determined that the child was to be gay or lesbian, and the woman chose to terminate because of that reason?

I certainly would do everything in my power to dissuade her. How about you?

lucy - when do those "wiggly cells" become a human. The "majority" supported slavery when it was legal, so I find it odd that your argument rests on that. There is objective truth and objective evil. Abortion is objective evil. If the woman is not carrying human, living life, why does she need an abortion?

Obama, whose presidency is hailed as the greatest victory for civil rights, is in reality the latest face of the genocide of African Americans and other minorities in this country. Roe v. Wade which he celebrates and supports has led to African Americans and other minorities having an incredibly high percentage of abortions. Black and Hispanic women each make up 12.5% of the total population for a total of 25%. Yet they account for 59% of all abortions. Black women alone account for over 35% of all abortions.

Combine this with the fact that Planned Parenthood and the whole abortion rights movement was begun by Margaret Sanger who was an avowed racist. She openly advocated using abortion and birth control to "lead to a cleaner race".

Sanger also said "We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don't want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population. and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members." It eerily sounds like she is talking about someone like Obama.

Obama can cheer Roe v. Wade all he wants but he is fooling himself if he doesn't see that it is leading to the destruction of his own people. Even though I didn't vote for him, I had hoped that he would not push through an aggressive pro-abortion agenda. Those hopes were dashed on only his third day in office when he signed an executive order reversing former Pres Bush's Mexico City Policy order.

And it goes around and around and around...this is one of the most annoying debates ever. Neither side is going to change the other's mind so what in the hell is the point? No one seems to be able to discuss this without resorting to name-calling and it's just sad.

For the record I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice. But since I'm one of those religious types who does not feel a need to legislate my own beliefs or otherwise force them on anyone else, I'll just keep my big mouth shut and won't ever get one myself.

Right on Rob - well stated.

"Would you support a woman's right to choose to terminate her pregnancy if through science, that fetus (because of genetic testing, imagery, or whatever) determined that the child was to be gay or lesbian, and the woman chose to terminate because of that reason?

I certainly would do everything in my power to dissuade her. How about you?"

Again, KJR, you pat yourself on the back for your compassion but, again, in reality, more often than not, you sound like you certainly WISH gay adults had been aborted babies.

THAT was my initial point, you absolute phony.

moveon - you didn't answer the question. Your accusation is more than silly and it really sheds light on the disingenuiness of your posts. You sound more and more desparate in your posts as time goes on...

Please answer the question without (again) shooting the questioner (messenger).

Would you support her right to abort her baby if she believed he/she were gay/lesbian?

Which is more important, LIFE, or her "right" to terminate LIFE - for any reason she wanted?

All you do moveon is whine about me on a personal basis instead of engaging in discourse. I am not complaining, just pointing out how shallow you are in your thought. Maybe you will realize that someday.