"Skizziks: Fascism was rejected by the Catholic Church. Just go to Papalencyclicalsonline and learn, beginner.
The Supremedorks also made the Dredd Scott decision. You agree with it? You claim the court decision means all discussion has ended? The supremedorks also made the famous "separate but equal" decision. You say that means all discussion ended then?
Gee, abortion is a "settled" argument. Just like slavery."

Well, this is sorta funny. To me, the Supreme Court decisions--well, those mentioned or implied--represent a continuum toward the abolition of slavery. Were there some I'm not remembering that dithered or wavered or started to lead us back toward slavery? See, "separate but equal" led to integration and to voting rights, after a looong time.

So I would say it would be bizarre and ahistorical (in this US context) for the Supreme Court to ever overturn Roe v. Wade, particularly because the decision is grounded in a penumbra (I believe that's the word) of privacy that has been found to exist in the Bill of Rights. That is, there's no explicit right to privacy (or to control of oneself), but it is held that it exists if you look at the concepts inherent to those first ten amendments.

I think it would take a serious evangelical moralistic shift to overturn Roe v. Wade. We're talkin' V for Vendetta-style reculturating here. And LOTS of other rights would disappear too. So you folks asking for abortion rights to go away should think long and hard on ramifications...

"Congressman Stupak has vowed that if he does not get a vote on his amendment barring federal funding of abortion, he and 40 pro-life Democrats will block a full House vote on the healthcare bill."

There are 40 pro-life Democrats? Wow, there goes that argument about the immoral abortion-seeking Dems.

"It's an elective procedure. It should be paid out of pocket by those who want them."

It's a medical procedure. I think deciding only on elective vs. not elective is a dangerous tack. I appreciate your attempt to work around the moral aspect and not get into the abortion right or wrong argument, but I'm sure there are tons of procedures generally deemed elective that could have long-term health consequences if not performed. Well, I'm not sure, but I can imagine.

I'd be a whole lot more concerned about overall economic cost than about whether abortions can be covered.

Chapel, are you trying to suggest that I'm greedy? Not my point at all. Overall economic cost--as in how much the bill costs the American taxpaper and impacts the deficit--is a much larger concern for me than whether or not it covers abortions (though in that context, I would be concerned about how it covers abortions, which procedures, what counseling, what parental involvement for minors, etc.).

Do we know the answer to what Jesus would do? Well, let's see, given that no medical science existed then, I'd say we can't. If you phrase it as would Jesus be in favor of killing babies, then of course we know the answer. But I submit that's a silly way to put it. I'm against killing babies myself. But I am generally in favor of abortion rights.

Again, investigate the penumbra of privacy issue.

And if more anti-abortion-rights activists also agitated for greater solutions to unwanted children, to children in poverty, to helping those with drug problems, then I might be more inclined to listen to their arguments about abortion. Oh, and throw birth control in there. I find it a logical inconsistency to argue for getting rid of abortion rights and to insist on abstinence-only sex ed, for instance. Guess what? People are _going_ to have sex out of wedlock. Teenagers are _going_ to have sex. (Not all of them, but large numbers.) As it was, is now, and ever shall be. That doesn't mean you can't encourage young people to think before they fuck, to keep it in their pants, to save themselves for marriage (which I personally think is silly--sexual compatibility is a large part of a successful marriage, but I digress), but it does mean that abstinence-ONLY is an incredibly unlikely solution. Incredibly as in not a chance in 150 million.

"Prag, I know that your overall gist was not in that vein but I believe it was at some level."

Believe what you must. I'm not going to defend myself on the greed issue--that sort of defense always sounds bad. But don't try to read what's in my heart, please. (If you want to say that my concerns for the country's economy seem to outweigh my concerns for the country's fetuses, you'd be right.)

"And WWJD? If you think he would be for us PLAYING God (Him in the 3 in 1), which is what we do in abortion then I think you are wrong."

I think the moral issue and the social issues are a hell of a lot more complicated than that. Is all medical action playing god? Saving a person's life? Keeping a person on life support? Fighting cancer?

"I have my belief and nothing will change it. One day I will see Jesus and get to ask the hard questions and see what He was doing. This however is not a question I will ask. As far as the evil in men's hearts, I also do not need to ask that one either since it is clear every day on earth that we have evil hearts that can only be changed by One."

Your belief is sincere, I have no doubt. I don't share it, and from what I've read here, you seem to extend to a level of judgment on others that belongs to God (if there is one). At the same time, "nothing will change it" can be a very sad (and even damning) statement.

"Abortion is borne of the evil in men's hearts. Out of selfish pride. I have found that more young women get them due to OUTSIDE pressure than anything else."

You've done studies? And even if that's true, where then are the efforts to help young women gain the ability to resist this outside pressure? (Btw, that's "born of," not "borne of." Borne with an e is the past tense of bear, as in she has borne many children. : ) )

I don't claim to know any truth about how many women or girls have had abortions for whatever reasons. If you have stats, I'd be happy to look at them. But if they come from some anti-abortion group, I'll be as suspect as you would be of stats coming from Planned Parenthood.

And btw, you didn't comment on any of the larger constitutional/rights issues I mentioned. Did you find them wrong or not worth exploring? Please take them into account. Rights and morals will probably ever be in conflict, but we base so much of what we do in this country on that important document....

"don't protest FERTILITY CLINICS AT ALL, and they throw away embryos every damn day."

Now that's a great point. Where's the fertility clinic outrage? And Chapel, isn't a fertility clinic playing God, too? Creating life where the creation of life was not a gift given to that person by God?

"And the facts to go with this are exactly located where? Religion covers a multitude of faiths. In fact humanism IS a religion where abortion would be widely accepted. So is atheism since you have to have faith to be an atheist too."

HUH? Atheism is a lack of faith in God. Are you implying a faith in science, therefore science is a religion. Wow. That's some fascinating line of thought.

Anyway. A beating heart makes a life? So that 18-year-old fetus (embryo?) could be helped to live outside the womb? You might as well count life as starting at conception. Oh, that's right, you (probably) do. Maybe you should consider quickening rather than fertilization. Maybe we should use brain activity (since that's often, these days, what marks death) as a marker instead of heartbeat. Hm.

"So that 18-year-old fetus (embryo?) could be helped to live outside the womb? You might as well count life as starting at conception. "

That should have been 18-day-old fetus. Oops.

+++++

"Mandatory vaccinations for children so our children are protected...but coverage is included for ending the development of a child."

I didn't follow this, Lisa. Please explain? (I haven't read the bill.

"Well Prag...there's this thing called ADOPTION."

A dear friend of mine once suggested that adopted kids, by and large, would be better off not having been born. (I can't get behind that concept, but I didn't have his life experience.)

"There are so many people who can not have children that would happily raise one, or two, or more."

Do you really think so? I don't know. I know an awful lot of people who never would do so, who aren't interested in that. (I'm not. And I love kids.)

"The sad reality is, the overwhelming number of abortions are from women who are too lazy to take responsibility in taking measures to prevent a pregnancy and they rely on abortion as their method of birth control."

You've said this before. And I've asked for evidence before. Got any?

People I know who've had abortions will tell you that no one but no one makes such a decision easily. Or lives their lives without struggling with it for the rest of their lives. Said struggle does not mean the decision wasn't the right one for them.

"They should have to pay for abortions if they want them, out of their own pocket!! "

And I've commented on that already, as have others.

But Lisa, none of this answers my question: What were you talking about with the vaccination comment? That seemed without context.

+++++

Sadly, Jackass is making the wrong argument. Or maybe you were joking (#88). This abortion-rights believer (me) doesn't believe that abortion should be used as birth control. (Well, it's always birth control, linguistically speaking, but it should never be "Oops. I forgot my condom. Guess I'll get an abortion." And I'm willing to bet it almost never is that simple. But I don't have the stats that I asked Lisa for.)

"A dear friend of mine once suggested that adopted kids, by and large, would be better off not having been born. (I can't get behind that concept, but I didn't have his life experience.)"
I can tell you first hand that your friend is far from correct!!

ME: Due respect to you and Tao, he wasn't talking about either of you. I can't go to his length, but he had his reasons for thinking so. Of course, if we were talking here, I would point out his broad brush.

"Do you really think so? I don't know. I know an awful lot of people who never would do so, who aren't interested in that. (I'm not. And I love kids.) "
There are thousands and thousands and thousands of people who look to adopt.

ME: And there are thousands of thousands who don't want to. And abortion is EXPENSIVE and not covered by insurance. But I digree.

LISA: Larry has already posted (twice) the link showing women's reasons for aborting. An overwhelmingly large number of women do it for convinience in their lifes. There were multiple catagories of reasons but when you add it all up, that's exactly what it boils down to. Now, if those women didn't want a child to disrupt their lives...why weren't they on birth control to prevent a pregnancy in the first place instead of relying on abortion????

ME: Great question. They should have been. I don't disagree with that. But sadly, it seems that many who want abortion rights taken away also want abstinence-only sex ed. But again, I need to see these stats. Larry, you out there?

"People I know who've had abortions will tell you that no one but no one makes such a decision easily."

Are these the same people who claim that an adoptive child is better off not being born?? How can someone say proof positive that abortion isn't easy for some women??? To suggest it is ridiculous.

ME: How can someone say proof positive that the majority of women who get abortions do so for reasons of making their lives easier (implying, btw, that they're irresponsible sluts)? And no, not the same people. Do you _really_ think that people have abortions easily and feel good about it? Jesus, I should introduce you to a few people (who btw are very religious).

LISA: The health plan seems to say strongly that ALL children must be vaccinated, and there will be funding for states to set up home interventions.

ME: And do you have a problem with that? (I kinda do. With some vaccination anyway.) So what again was your point with vaccinations and abortion? I missed it.

" but it should never be "Oops. I forgot my condom. Guess I'll get an abortion."
You don't think that happens???

ME: I never said that. I said it should never be that way. That it's wrong--something we agree on, dig?

TAO: Honestly the high pressure to get an abortion, something both of us felt pretty strongly against blew us away. I know it's anecdotal so irrelevant but like I said I have no stats and am not sure I agree wth Lisa on this one.

ME: It's not irrelevant, Tao--it's relevant to you. Very relevant. I certainly don't think anyone should pressure a person to have an abortion. It's a _very_ personal decision. If Planned Parenthood people are found to be pushing folks in one direction rather than the other, instead of providing counseling, they should be retrained or reassigned. But then, a minister would push a person to carry the pregnancy to term and keep the child, right, or to carry it to term and give the child up for adoption? I know, it's sorta their job. But think about it. We--adults anyway--tend to consult with people who are like-minded or close to like-minded, no? Maybe not. Seems most likely, though.

"We were talking about women having abortions out of convinience for their lives instead of taking birth control to prevent a pregnancy in the first place....now, you want to stretch that into anti abortion folks wanting abstinence only sex ed."

How is that moving the goalposts? Not at all. You're talking about birth control. Some of the same people who want abortion to be illegal also don't want people to use birth control. It's awfully damned close to hypocritical.

"So, you agree that most women do not take responsibility for their birth control and use abortion as their method?? Larry will see this and post those stats for me again. "

NO. I did not say that. I granted that it was SOME. You said most. I don't believe for a second that it's most. If I can be proved wrong, I will be proved wrong. But I don't believe it. Then again, most sexually active people I have known use some form of birth control. But that doesn't mean most sexually active people do so. Only that those I knew/know do.

"It's quite easy to say once you see the stats, Prag. But to suggest that your friends who do not personally know each and every woman who has an abortion and yet claims no one, NOT ONE felt the decision was easy....is ridiculous. "

Yes, it is. And so is what you are saying... right... here:

"Yes, I do believe there are a lot of women who think nothing of having an abortion....do it without blinking an eye. "

+++++

"But let me ask you this....why do you think women struggle with the decision?? If they wanted the baby, they wouldn't even consider abortion. So what do they struggle with?? Perhaps because they know in their hearts what they are considering is wrong?? IF not...tell me why! "

And why did Governor Palin say out loud that we "decided" to have the baby? Seems to me that if they decided, then they thought about doing something other than carrying the pregnancy through to term.

Specific to your question, there are degrees of wrong, aren't there?

"I have a problem with some vaccines.
My point was, the hypocrocy of the democrats to want make sure that each child is cared for...are the same people who don't care if a child ever sees the light of day!!!"

And there's your broad brush. First of all, we who believe in abortion rights--well, many of us, don't see a fetus as a child. Where that line is located is up for discussion, but an embryo is not a child; a fetus is not a child. And the pro-lifers get accused of the same hypocrisy, or a variation of it: caring about the fetus but not the baby (drug addicted children, children living in poverty, children with HIV, etc. etc. etc.). It seems to me that many pro-choicers talk about caring about the people who are already here, and many pro-lifers talk about caring about "unborn babies" (who to me are not babies).

"... My wife left with the results and we did not discuss it with any profesionals afterwards, we both knew how we felt about abortion and there was no need to discuss. The friend was not pregnant but did start on birth controll afterwards."

This reminds me of my lawyer friend who is staunchly pro-choice (legally) and staunchly anti-abortion (personally). He is entirely certain that he would not want an abortion to happen if he and any partner conceived a child. He is equally certain that Roe v. Wade should be let stand. He's open and honest about this, and sees no contradiction.

"As far as your anti-adoption friend goes everyone has different experiances and that is why I said my ancedotal story was irelevant just like your friends views are. Yes his experiance is relevant to him and mine is relevant to me but neither is relevant to the overall debate."

Well-put, sir.

+++++

"With all due respect to those people you know...were they religious at the time they made their decision to abort, or was it after?"

Sort of an interesting question. I don't know. If you are suggesting or thinking that they found God post-abortion, I don't believe so. My friends of faith have, nearly to a person, had some measure of faith from a very young age. Which takes me back to the question of women struggling because they knew it was wrong. Maybe not--maybe they struggled because external forces had indoctrinated them and/or they feared societal backlash.

+++++

"Playing God, plain and simple. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong."

So, Chapel, what about fertility clinics? Seems like playing God to me. If God wills me and/or my wife to be barren (as the word used to be), then it is God's will, and any medical efforts to the contrary is sin, no? What about treating cancer? Taking medicine for high blood pressure? Where does playing God begin and end in an age of advanced medical science?

+++++

"The death panels are back, by the way.
www.facebook.com"

Did you really just cite Facebook as a source? Holy shit, Chapel.

Btw, I am extremely happy--and probably lucky--that I never had to face the decision.

At the same time, I can imagine situations in which I and my wife would choose abortion over carrying a fetus to term (certain death-sentence defects, for instance, which would do nothing, in our eyes, but cause pain to the family; situations in which some people see opportunity for sacrifice, love, and testing of faith--different strokes).

"Still moving those goal posts, I see!! : )"

Not at all. Responding to your argument. If she said she "decided to keep the baby," does that or does that not mean there was a thought process that included some other possibility? No, I don't mean to bash Palin in here; I don't really care what choice she made; I'm talking about the logic.

"Specific to your question, there are degrees of wrong, aren't there?"
Answering a question with a question??? Come on my friend....you are too smart to play that game of avoidance.

ME: It wasn't meant as avoidance. It was a serious question. Thanks for going ahead and taking it seriously.

"If abortion was so "right" why would anyone need to "struggle" with their decision??? There would be no need for an inner conscience struggle...they would just do it without guilt, without a second thought...right?? "

I answered that question in a subsequent post. Indoctrination, fear of familial or societal rejection. We face many decisions in our lives in which we are confident in our own beliefs but are afraid of what the reactions or ramifications might be. Guilt arises from many sources, my friend. (I'm assuming we're still friends. My hand is still held out. : ) )

"Therefore, if as your friends stated that no one has an abortion without "struggling"....they all must feel it's wrong, but did it anyway. And that's where the struggle comes into play. Right?"

Maybe. See above. See previous note.

Btw, I expect we both know that neither of us is going to convince the other, right? : ) Neither of us is a spring chicken, and each, I expect has spent a great deal of time looking at this issue through our own particular lens(es).

"Yep Dave.

Facebook.

In your's punk.
LOL.
Now go drown some kittens you brute."

It was I, not Dave--or was it both of us?--who questioned the Facebook citation. And I went to your link. So... Who is this guy? Are the little descriptions after each item his or from the bill? Why not cite the bill from the WH, or have they not provided it?

I've never drowned a kitten in my life. How about you? I hope you're not really suggesting you hold animals in the same regard you hold humans.

"Funny how right wingers all claim they want less govt intrusion into their lives, yet WANT govt intrusion into their lives in the most intimate and personal way imaginable."

And given how often Woke is accused of being over the top (and how often, sir, I have seen you be over the top), he can nail it just like this, concise and clear. Of course, it's not only right wingers who are against abortion rights and not only left wingers who are for them, but still. The irony is strong. Though of course, none of those people would ever think of having an abortion so the gov't intrusion won't be in their lives. *sigh*

+++++

Lisa, I know we differ in many fundamental ways. I'd still have you over for dinner. We couldn't talk football, 'cause we don't watch it here in our home : ) (though I do know who Brett Favre is), but I'm sure we could find some fairly noncontroversial things to talk about. I have a dear friend with whom I have had some rip-roaring political arguments (Obama vs. McCain, Palin's failings, taxation and socialism), and just last month, she invited my entire family down for a weekend. (We haven't taken her up on it yet, but that's for schedule reasons.)

"And if their Faith was strong, they would know the Word and they would trust in God. "

Religion doesn't mean to everyone what it means to you.

And I"m not tap-dancing. I'm expressing my views as best I can. As are you.

Do you really think that people aren't affected by what they worry others might think of them, or that no one walks around thinking, "They know; oh god, they know"? Lisa, there are many factors that create guilt in a person over whatever action. Knowing the action was fundamentally wrong is not the be-all and end-all. Not for large numbers of people. It may be for you, in which case I'm glad your life is that simple.

But okay, friends--we can hold on to that.

"Scheduling would be difficult for us too...lol."

Well, that and geography. Thanks for the honest discussion, as ever.

What's the book about?

+++++

Larry, thanks. Interesting. No time to get into statistical analysis now. Maybe later. (Getting tired... And I have the youth of America to indoctrinate tomorrow.)

+++++

"You will have the states deciding thru votes what the policy should be where they live. Some states will limit it--less than 3 months--some will allow up to 6 months. But at least the state decides it and not 9 men in black robes and making laws that don't exist except under penumbras."

The penumbra isn't important? Gee, that could allow some interesting gov't intrusion into _your_ private life. And without the penumbra, the Bill of Rights could go up in smoke. At least that's how I understand the argument--overturning Roe v. Wade could have quite a ripple effect.

+++++

Interesting thing about the rape and incest exemption: It seems to me that those who are serious about their faith, in that idea that life begins at conception, wouldn't even consider such an exemption. If I take this point to its (logical?) extreme, it doesn't matter how the life came to be, it's life, and therefore sacred. So from that perspective, someone rejecting the rape/incest exemption would be standing on his or her principles to the nth degree. Lisa? (No, I'm not denigrating anyone's faith. I'm assuming that the faith is utterly, thoroughly genuine and deeper than I can truly imagine.)

+++++

Btw, Jackass is apparently living up to his (?) name. Why the hate, Jack? Have you never met a Christian worthy of the name? I have. (And yes, I'm an atheist. Or as close as I can get to being one. : ) )

"I don't think Lisa was the one who said rape/incest."

No, I didn't think she brought it up. I only called her name because she is the most fervently Christian person here with whom I have good relations. : ) (Hm. Check that phraseology.)

"Personaly my faith has nothing to do with being against abortion. My reason for the rape/incest exemption is because in the case of rape I beliive it would be cruel to force a woman to be physicaly reminded of her rape for 9mo. In incest it's much the same reason as I belive most incest abortions are rape just with a fancy name. In the cases where it was consentual then well lets call it a culling of the line."

Ouch. I see your point and agree with it--the cruelty part.

"I do call it murder once the baby has brainwaves and or heartbeat however it is only potential murder before that."

But what about that 18 days old having a heartbeat biz? *sigh* I sort of think it should be about (if we have to draw a line, and we probably do) viability on its own or with reasonable measures. First trimester--no argument (to follow that line of reasoning). Or so I understand it. After that, it gets murkier. Third trimester would be no argument the other way, as in no abortion. But I"m just talking, not espousing a personal view.

"Fact is I have never truly had to rationaly justify being against abortion in the first trimester because abortion has been legal my entire life and I do not consider it an issue I vote on."

Well, I don't vote on it alone. The people I gravitate toward, politically, tend to be pro-choice or hands off the issue.

"Being pro-life has no bearing on how I vote since all candidates simply pay lip service to it anyway. It is not a law that will go away so being against it on a fundamental emotional level I do not have to examine those emotions since I will never live in a world where they matter. "

Right on. That was a point I made earlier. Roe v. Wade just is not going to get overturned the country undergoes a fundamentalist coup. (And no, I'm not bashing fundamentalists, but I don't foresee a political reality where the SCOTUS would overturn this one, even if the court had a serious clear conservative majority.)

"Aka. I am the most pro-choice pro-life person you will ever find and try not to get rabid about it since it is a non-issue."

Great line, Tao.

"Woke -- cut the double speak. A one word answer is all I seek. Is god cool with abortion?"

I actually thought God gives and God takes was pretty good.

Does God not work through medical professionals? If not, why have would Christians consult them for everything.

Hey, Lisa, how do you feel about fertility clinics. Chapel won't answer me. (But then, you're reasonable and he/she is not. Ouch.) He/she kept saying abortion was playing God. I think that if ending a pregnancy by external means (for lack of better phrasing) is playing God, then initiating a pregnancy by external means would also be playing God. If God wills that my wife and I not be able to conceive, is it not interfering with God's plan to go to a fertility clinic. (Never mind the argument about destroying embryos...)

The most bizarre thing in this thread might be the assertion that Danforth has to "prove" that he believes in God. How does one prove such a thing?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

"How does one prove such a thing?"
...recite the Confiteor in Latin?

HA! Well, that would at least prove that you have good retention.

I don't think Lisa is duplicitous, Woke. She may be conflicted, but I don't believe she lies.